NewStats: 3,263,949 , 8,182,035 topics. Date: Sunday, 08 June 2025 at 11:38 PM 5n159

Sunely, See:
https://nairaland.sitesunblocked.org/2947455/allah-chapter-1-g.j.o-moshay#43120276

for chapter one of the book

Keenysbojan:
Last week I promised to post the book of 'who is this Allah' and today I have come to fulfill my promise, and you can also check 'who is this Allah' Preface and Forward link below..

Note: I am not here to argue with Muslims and other religions but rather I am here to share the truth. Be blessed as you read...

WHO IS THIS ALLAH
(Chapter 1)

TIME TO FACE THE FACTS

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD". (Psalm 33:12)
(And blessed is the religion whose God is the LORD)

THERE IS THIS STORY OF A MAN who, during an election campaign rally, had on his car bumper, a sticker with the inscription "My mind is already made up don't confuse me with the facts ". Many of us are no doubt guilty of adopting this attitude towards some serious beliefs we hold. Comforting as it may seem, this attitude can be dangerous. Some facts can, indeed, be disturbing; but such disturbances and 'confusion' may be necessary, especially, if such facts concern the destiny of one's soul.

For long it has been assumed that Christians and Muslims served the same God, and that it is only in the language of expression and mode of worship that they differed. When America was attacked on September 11, and about 3,063 people perished, the attackers believed they were serving Allah. Why would people decide to die in a plane crash with so strong a conviction they were fighting to satisfy their 'God' ? After fourteen centuries of history and in the light of our present day experiences, it has now become necessary for us to do a systematic study of the deity of Allah and search for the real identity of the Muslim God.

This issue of the identity of the Allah of Islam is more pertinent to us in the light of a present development in Malaysia where the Islamic government banned Christians from using the word ' Allah ' to refer to their God in the Bible. In 1981, the Bible in Malay language (called Al-kitab) was banned by the Islamic government in that country. The reason: because is has in it the word 'Allah ' as well as some other words that are claimed to have Islamic origin. By now it has become a law in that multiracial and multi religious country where Islam claims 53o/o that no religion other than Islam should use certain words including 'Allah ', 'faith', 'belief', in its literature. In 2007, Catholic paper Herald was banned from referring to the Christians God as Allah. The Catholic Church went to court to challenge the decision. A court ruled that Catholic were free to use 'Allah' to refer to God. Many Muslims were upset:

"Why are the Christians claiming Allah?", they protested, "Everybody in the world knows Allah is the Muslim God and belongs to Muslims. I cannot understand why the Christians want to claim Allah as their God."

Government lawyers claimed that allowing Christians to use the word 'Allah' to refer to God would confuse Muslims because, according to them, Christians recognize "a trinity of gods" while Islam is " totally monotheistic". They said the correct and proper Malay word for God is Tuhan. According to Time magazine, there were many non-violent protests in mosques because of this. However, some Muslims went on rampage and burned down three churches to that Allah is their exclusive 'God' and not the same as the Christians triune God.

The seriousness of this demands candor; but this book has been written not out of bitterness or resentment against Muslims, but out of the Christians love by which we are constrained to speak the truth.

Moreover, the event of September 11 gives us a great opportunity to make more research into Islam, the motivation force behind most religious terrorists in the world. It is a time we need to re-examine our response to Islam and our responsibility towards Muslims who come to stay in the western word.

WHO IS ALLAH?
A number of thoughtful people have often asked: Is Allah God? Is he "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " as stated in Colossians 1:3? Many opinions abound. Some have said Allah is simply God - the same God of the Bible, as He is known in the Arabic language. Some say he cannot possibly be; they say they do not know who he is, but they are sure he is different from the God of the Bible. Some say he is indeed a mighty God, but not the Almighty God. Yet some believe that there are two Allahs. They say the 'Allah' of the Arab,Malay,Indonesian, and Hausa Christians is different from the 'Allah' of the Muslims in these same areas. According to them, while the Allah of Arab Christians is God, the Allah of the Muslims is not. But if he is not, who is he?

This issue of the identity of Allah has oscillated now for a number of years, and it is time we dug up some bare bone fact to determine it somewhere. A lie engineered by the devil cannot be defeated by hazy and vague ideas. And in such a matter that concerns the salvation of man's soul at this, there can be no substitute for adequate knowledge. Bits of half truths can be dangerous. We must go deep into the Quran, Hadith, history, linguistic and back to the Bible to get adequate information on this topic.

We need to stress that there can be no other source of the history of Islam except from the Muslims historians themselves, especially, as contained in the Islamic Traditions called the Hadith. These Traditions are many and voluminous and a study of them can be tortuous. But since there is no alternative to adequate information, we must consult these works. It is not all Islamic traditions or Hadith that are accepted by all Muslims as authentic.
Therefore, we shall endeavor not to quote any tradition that contradicts the Quran in any place. Those quoted shall be only to explain further what has been said in the Quran. The major and generally accepted hadiths to both shi'tes and sunnis are the or Sahih Al Bukhari, Kitab al zakat by Muslims, Sahih Muslim, Mishkatu'l Masabih, Sirat'ur Rasul by Ibn Ishaq and those of Ibn Athir, Abu Daud, Abu c Abd ar- Rahmann-Al-nasa and Abu c Isa Muhammad, Jami at Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah and Sunna An-Nasa'i. A cosmetic treatment of the matter will only lead to a lazy conclusion which may be more confusing than convincing, and consequently, may be dangerous concerning the destiny of the many millions of souls of well-meaning adherents of Islam. Efforts shall be made to discuss all brain-boiling questions that may be raised within the ambit of this theme.

Normally, Muslims had been reluctant to use the English word or any other word for God. They preferred 'Allah'. Recently, however, we are noticing a change. Many have now been substituting 'God' for 'Allah' in modern Islamic literature. Western literary men are not helping either. For example, the translation of the terrorists' letter to those who carried out attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was wrong. I have already said in the preface that the word used in that letter that was translated as 'God' is 'Allah'. It is different from the real Arabic word for God. The Arabic word for the expression 'God' is 'Ilah'. We will examine this in more details towards the end this book. At the moment, we just want to point out that such a substitution only compounds the issue before us. If this letter had been accurately translated, some of the comments of the world leaders and Christians on the connection between Islam and the attackers may have been different. To believe there is no difference between Allah and God is simplistic. This is not a matter of personal opinions. What does the Quran itself say about this?

Speaking to the Christians and the Jews of his time who has some reservations on the object of worship in Islam, Muhammad said, "...Our God and your God is (the same) one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)" (Sura 29:46 Yusuf Ali's translation). That is, 'the Allah we prostrate and sacrifice to in Islam and the Jehovah of your Bible is the same being.'

It may be easy for many people to accept this claim; but a serious truth-seeking Christians or Muslims who refuses to accept things as they appear on the surface, and carefully studies the Quran and compares it with the Bible, soon discovers that the claim is not as cheap as said above. That great scholar of Islamic religion, Samuel Zwener, wrote:

It is so easy to be misled by a name or by etymologies. Nearly all writers take for granted that the God of the Koran is the same being and has like attributes as Jehovah or as the Godhead of the New Testament. Is this view correct?

petra1:
There is nothing like prosperity Gospel. There is one Gospel which is christ and eternal life and the prosperity of the saints is part of it. Ther term came from critics .

Prosperity of saints is not the same as worldliness or living opulence lifestyle. Prosperity is living above poverty having your need met having more than enough to do the work of God and being a blessing to others through the gospel .

If for any reason anyone abuse the gospel. It doesn't change the gospel. God principle still abide.

The Bible emphasises more on the believer's spiritual prosperity.

Poverty, illness or any other negative circumstance are not a sign of lack of spiritual maturity or lack of faith.

The sovereignty of God as well as the freewill of man play out in human history.

Many like Jim Baker who previously held on to the Word of Faith 'prosperity' claims later itted that they were wrong.

ittedly the phrase may have come from critics. Nevertheless, adherents agree that the gospel they believe and preach is actually a prosperity gospel. Teaching that wealth or prosperity is the right of every Christian disregards even the experience of the forerunners of the Christian faith.

Where these forerunners of little faith than modern day men of God? Did the Macedonian believers lack spiritual prosperity or the 'positive thinking' to make them materially prosperous?

When the Christian truly understands GRACE then he would realise that he has NO right based on his own workings to anything from God.

“Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Luke 12:15

“For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” Hebrews 13:14

Do we find onition in Scripture against love of money? Is there warning against the desire for riches? Is contentment encouraged?

Did James miss out anything here:
"Let the brother in humble circumstances glory in his high position [as a born-again believer, called to the true riches and to be an heir of God) and the rich man is to glory in being humbled [by trials revealing human frailty, knowing true riches are found in the grace of God], for like the flower of the grass he will away."
JAMES 1:9-10 AMP

It is the SOVEREIGNTY of God that bestows on the believer any physical blessing. A Christian may be the most spiritually matured in any setting and have the least of material things. GRACE, not man's workings, is the only system used by God to bless his own. And God's prosperity comes in varied forms and not necessarily restricted to material blessings alone.

Things to note:
1. Men began to multiply.
2. Daughters were born to them.
3. Sons of God came on the scene.
4. Daughters of men were beautiful.
5. Sons of God took daughters of men as wives.
6. God indicted 'man'.
7. There were Nephilim.
8. Daughters of men gave birth to children of Nephilim.
9. Great feats were attributed to these descendants of Nephilim.
10. God's judgement on man.
11. But Noah had a right standing with God.

Empiree:
we already trashed Trinity concept on this platform years ago. Ask true2god and plainbiblettruth and others. They couldn't defend it. Therefore, for you to believe in Trinity and claim to know what Ahad means, then your are facing serious dilemma. So now you can understand why I said Allah's word can not be translated. Because you guys messed up and confused 3 in 1 either in numerical sense or otherwise. However you guys explain the concept of Trinity will always choke you because of distortions in your book.

Therefore, you do not understand ku huwa Allah Ahad

We defended and explained the trinity very well.
Whether you accepted our clear explanations is another thing entirely.

Let me give you a simple illustration:
The sun has light, the sun has heat and the sun has actinic property.
Can we say the sun is 3 in 1? Yes. Is the sun one or three? One.

The trinity is neither an absurdity or impossibility. It's only those who refuse to accept the plain truth are those believing in absurdities.

Empiree:
oh you are in the house. Welcome aboard. I know you like this kind of nonsense topic

I don't see nonsense here.
I see good sense.
Have an open mind.
I hope you've learnt one or two things from it.

This looks an interesting thread to keep watch of.

What Is Progressive Revelation?

“Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it”
– Jeremiah 6: 16

Definition
‘Progressive Revelation’ refers to how God chose to reveal himself and his will to mankind in incremental ways until the compilation of Scripture was complete.
It is important therefore to note that the revelation of Scripture is no longer taking place. Having been given in stages we have today in complete form all that God will have man know about his will for mankind in human history.

Fascination With The ‘New’
Man is always fascinated with the ‘new’. There is much talk in Christianity about ‘fresh revelation’. Nevertheless, the Scripture tells us over and over again to hold on to the truths that have been revealed.
These truths are foundational to our Christian way of life. These truths remain the bedrock of the Christian’s walk with God. When the Christian or the Church then seeks that which appears to be more appealing or ‘spiritually satisfying’ rather than that which has already been revealed the end result is ending up drifting off-course from the spiritual path God has established.

New Approaches?
While there may new approaches to say evangelism for instance, the core truth of the gospel – faith alone in Christ alone – remains sacrosanct.
A ‘progressive revelation’ that comes up with a new ‘word’ from God that faith in Jesus Christ as saviour is no longer required as the basis for salvation of the sinner will not only contradict the established truth that there is no other name given to mankind by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) but also question the integrity of God.
There is therefore the need to distinguish between new approaches, contextualization and the like, and retention of the core truths of the faith.

Progressive Revelation Or Fresh Insight?
The Christian may get a progressive understanding of Scripture. There may be newer clarity seen into the already revealed Scripture. Fresh insight may be got into portions of Scripture that have been previously studied or looked at. But all these do not equate to ‘fresh revelation’ as in completely new doctrine or additional divine truths not previously given by God.
God is not revealing additional truths today that was not revealed with the completed Canon of Scripture.
What the Christian needs to do is to seek to ‘discover’ the truths that have been once for all revealed, rather than seek ‘fresh revelations’ or the next ‘new thing’ or ‘big move’ of God.
The Christian is to distance himself from ANYONE who does not continue in the truths revealed in Scripture. If he does not, such a Christian share in what the Bible describes as “his wicked work” – (2 John 9-11).

Conclusion: The Finality Of God’s Truth For Human History
The book of Revelation (Rev. 22:18) gives us a very clear statement of the finality of all the revelation that God wishes to give man on this side of eternity. This means that God has given us all that we need for living and for running our spiritual life.
A search for anything ‘new’ or ‘fresh’ is an excursion into error and a departure from the path God wants his children to walk in.
All that we need for our teaching, rebuking, correcting and instructing in righteousness in order to be well equipped for every good work has been given to us – 2 Timothy 3:16.
The Christian and the Church must never look for any new ‘revelation’ from God. He has given us all we need and what he has given is sufficient for us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHcmKrUqpgg

CAPSLOCKED:



YOU'RE WELCOME.

Simple a-b-c explanation for you here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJmd3KrGeYE

What Asia Bibi's Acquittal Says About Islam

Asia Bibi a Pakistani Christian was convicted in 2010 for allegedly insulting the Prophet Mohamed and has been in solitary confinement for the past eight years.

It was an argument over a cup of water with her co-workers that led to the women beating her and her daughters and pushed by the local imam and a group of men, they accused her of blasphemy. The allegation stemmed from a quarrel over the fact that she had taken a sip of water from a cup she had fetched for them, which in the eyes of her accs she wasn’t allowed to touch.

When they demanded she convert to Islam, she refused, threafter a mob later allege that she had insulted the Prophet Mohamed.

After a year and more of prison, she was sentenced to death.

The then governor of Punjiab, Salman Taseer, a Moslem, was killed in 2011 for campaigning for her release, and the Catholic Shahbaz Bhatti, then minister for minorities, was killed a few months later for the same reason.

Ordinarily blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God.

But in Islam Mohamed is as venerated as Allah if not much more.

Accusations of blasphemy have often led to mob violence against Christians by militant Islamists.

Protests also broke out in Islamabad and Lahore soon after the ruling was announced.

So, what do all these say about Islam?
1. Even though Islam is brandished as a "religion of peace" in reality it is the opposite. Islam is not at peace with itself or with others. More Moslems in Pakistan have even been killed for "blasphemy" than others.

2. Even though Islam claims to worship only Allah it actually worships both Allah and Mohamed. That is why a claim that something is done by a living person against the dead man Mohamed can be classified as blasphemy and be punishable by death in an Islamic society.

3. This case again brings out the CONTRADICTORY nature of Islam. Virtually everything has two sides in Islam. Islam can speak from both sides of the mouth. The adherents can therefore dig up any claim to justify ANY POSITION in Islam.

In Islam reason or logic is thrown out through the window. In Islam ANYTHING goes.

tartar9:

We(I) stated no inferences did we?
Don't argue with us but rather with the moronic Op.He's the one saying xtianity is terrorism.

Let’s compare few words of Mohamed, Allah and Koran with that of Jesus.
A:
“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”, (Luke: 23:34

“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you
out,” (Koran: 2.191)

B:
“If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew: 5.39)

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;” (Koran:8.12)
“For he who insults you (Muhammad) will be cut off” (Koran: 108.3).

C:
“Love your enemies and pray those who persecute you” (Matthew: 5.44)
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of
him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost’ (Koran: 3.85)
“And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, lo! a fifth thereof is for Allah, and for the
messenger and for the kinsman (who hath need)” (Koran: 8.41)
“How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our
terror came unto them” (Koran: 7.4)

It is clear from the above who stood for peace and who did not. It is clear who expressed MERCY through and through and who did not. Moslem apologists rather than face the issues usually will resort to DEFLECTION. Instead of taking the issues raised they will bring up other extraneous matters in order to muddle up things. However, to the discerning the TRUE PICTURE can be easily seen and the right decisions made.

Tartar9 and mujahid777: There are simple questions for you - 'Is there anywhere the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, advocated VIOLENCE against others because of their faith? On the other hand are there places where the Koran and the hadiths, called for violence against others simply because they believed in a different God?

Justifying Islam's negatives because you think others do the same should tell you that Islam has not risen above primitive tendencies.

So, if Islam is not better than other religions, and there are many things to show that it is terrorism in disguise, why should any sensible person choose it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZCgORglFM4

Muslims practice idolatry proven in less than two minutes.

OLUWABIG:


am sorry bro I have mistakenly deleted it bro

but you can just search through the YouTube with these key words

Muslims practice idolatry proven in less than two minutes


or you can use Google as well

Ok. I'll do so. I believe many will benefit from it.

ISLAM AND THE BLACK MAN
Majority of Moslems, particularly converts in the West, unfortunately DO NOT really know what Islam is all about.

If they do they will see that they are attempting to live an Islam that cannot be found either in the koran or the other books of Islam.

They've actually bought into a lie. They've been sold a dummy.

Islam WANTS all Moslems to CONFORM to Mohamed's Arabian culture.

See what Islam's books say:
Sahih Bukhari 9:89:256, See Also Sahih Bukhari 1:11:662, Sahih Bukhari 1:11:664

I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!' He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks…. Allah sent down concerning him: ‘To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom." [Q. 9:61] " Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's.

It is also written that Allah will BLACKEN the faces of the unbelievers.(Q, Chapter 39:60)

OLUWABIG:




it true I even have a 1:42min video on this topic itself

Can you share the video here?

Is Islam about Allah ALONE?
In Q. 39:45 it says idolators do not proclaim faith in Allah ALONE but must always INCLUDE the name of their idol in order to be satisfied.

But is Islam about Allah ALONE?

The Moslem testimony of faith does not mention Allah ALONE. This creed ADDS Mohamed to Allah. Moslems are not satisfied in proclaiming Allah ALONE. They ADD a further testimony for Mohamed before they can be satisfied.

Therefore, according to the koran, Moslems are idolizing Mohamed and thereby stand condemned!

Jesus and Mohamed: Major Differences (6)

On the Identity of Jesus Christ

JESUS: said He was the Son of God: John 5:18-27, 10:36, Matt 26:63, 64

[Jesus] asked, "Who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."
Matthew 16: 15-17

Jesus is the Word of God.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14

Jesus is God.

"Christ Jesus . . . who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men . . ." Philippians 2:5-7

MOHAMED: said Jesus was not the Son of God - the Koran makes no distinction among Prophets and Christ is no more than a Messenger:

Chapter 5:75 - "Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger: many were the messengers that ed away before him ..."

The[b] Koran denies Christ's divine origin[/b]:

Chapter 43:59: "He was no more than a servant: we granted our favor to him, and we made him an example to the children of Israel."

Chapter 3:59: "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is that of Adam: he created him from dust, then said to him, "Be": and he was."

REMARKS
Christ taught that He was the Son of God, the Word of God, the Messiah, and God incarnate. Mohamed denied this. Either Jesus was telling the truth, or he was a liar or lunatic. Both men could not be correct concerning Christ's identity. Jesus proved his claims by his life, his words and works. Mohamed, apart from his mere asertions, did not provide any proof for his claims.

Mohamed frequently contradicted the Bible even though he claimed that the same Bible is the Word of God.

A Major Contrast
Islam hangs on what man can do for God or do to gain God's approval - doing the Five pillars, etc.

Christianity hangs on what God has done for man - belief on the sinless, impeccable Son of God who bailed us out of the slave Market of sin by paying for our sin.

Which of these two do you think will be acceptable to God - what he did for man or man's attempt to prove that he (man) can do something to qualify before God apart from God's intervention?

Jesus and Mohamed: Major Differences (5)

How they treated Opposition

JESUS:
In Luke 9:54, 55 Jesus rebuked His disciples when they wanted to destroy a town that rejected Him. Also, in Luke 22:52, Jesus' disciples started to fight against those that came to arrest Jesus, He stopped them, and healed a man injured in the fight.

The Pharisees were a major opposition to Jesus. They challenged him at virtually every opportunity. Eventually, and known to Jesus, they started to plot how to kill him. Not once did Jesus incite his followers to go after the Pharisees. Not once!


MOHAMED:
Told his followers to aggressively make war on non-Moslems: Q9:5, 29. Chapter 9 was one of the last chapters given by Mohamed. Initially, when Mohamed's group was weak, he ordered his followers to try to get along with other people. After the Moslems became powerful, he ordered them to spread Islam by force. (This strategy is still employed by Moslems till date - lie low and be peaceful when weak or few in number and become aggressive when they have the ability to fight and perhaps overcome others) Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman continued his wars of aggression.

A few of Mohamed’s actions include:
The massacre of approximately 800 Jewish male captives: (noted in Chapter 33:26).

As previously noted he ordered the execution of 10 people when he took over Mecca. Three of these people were slave girls who had previously made fun of Mohamed. Refer to "The Life of Muhammad", pages 551 and 552.

He attacked the Jewish city of Khaybar where he took one of the Jewish leaders and tortured him to force him to tell where some buried money was. After the man refused to talk, and was near death, Mohamed ordered that his head be cut off. Refer to "The Life of Muhammad", page 515.


REMARKS:
No one would envision Jesus ordering the execution of slave girls for mocking him years earlier. He brought a better message and a better way of life. No one would imagine Jesus having a man tortured to reveal buried money. His life was free of greed.

Mohamed could be a very brutal man. Does killing a few slave girls for mocking him seem justified?. Is having them killed for reciting poems against him justified? Does it seem rational or sensible? Does torturing a man just to get money portray the type of man society should follow, obey, and emulate?

Jesus and Mohamed: Major Differences (4)

Prophethood
JESUS
According to the Koran Jesus KNEW that he was a prophet right from the cradle - Q. 19: 29 - 30.

Jesus had the conviction from day one as to who he was. Jesus had the REVELATION he needed to give the people right from the start. He did not have to receive it in piecemeal.
Jesus, according to the Koran, was THE WORD OF GOD - Q. 4: 171. He did NOT need to receive revelation through an angel. He had the revelation in himself.

MOHAMED
Mohamed became a prophet at the age of 40 after he was told that he was a prophet by others. It started by Mohamed hearing voices which he used to run away from. It was not until his first wife's older cousin Waraqa Ibn Nofal assured him to remain calm when next he heard the voice that Mohamed did.

It is noteworthy Mohamed had previously had encounters in a cave he used to go into for meditation. The encounters were so violent that Mohamed was always frightened. He thought he was going crazy.

REMARKS:
Jesus in the cradle knew, without doubt that he was a prophet. He had no strange encounters. He had no fear.

Mohamed as a 40-year old had strange encounters, had fears, thought he was going mad, and had to be told and reassured that he was a prophet by third parties. The "prophet" was the last one to know that he was a prophet.

Jesus was unique in so many ways including in his prophethood.

Jesus and Mohamed: Major Differences (3)

How they treated adulterous Women

JESUS
From John 8: 2-11

At dawn He (Jesus) appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap in order to have a basis to accuse Him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with His finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one sir", she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

MOHAMED
From the Hadith of Abu Dawud, #4428

"Buraidah said: "A woman of Ghamid came to the Prophet and said: "I have committed fornication", He said: "Go back". She returned and on the next day she came to him again, and said: "Perhaps you want to send me back as you did to Maiz b. Malik. I swear by Allah, I am pregnant." He said to her: "Go back". She then returned and came to him the next day. He said to her: "Go back until you give birth to the child." She then returned. When she gave birth to the child she brought the child to him, and said: "Here it is! I have given birth to it." He said: "Go back, and suckle him until you wean him." When she had weaned him, she brought him to him with something in his hand which he was eating. The boy was then given to a certain man of the Muslims and he (the prophet) commanded regarding her. So a pit was dug for her, and he gave orders about her and she was stoned to death. Khalid was one of those who were throwing stones at her. He threw a stone at her. When a drop of blood fell on his cheek, he abused her. The prophet said to him: "Gently, Khalid. By Him in Whose hand my soul is, she has repented to such an extent that if one who wrongfully takes an extra tax were to repent to a like extent, he would be forgiven". Then giving command regarding her, prayed over her and she was buried.""

REMARKS:
The contrast between the two men is VERY clear. Jesus did not condemn the adulterous woman. He commanded her to go and sin no more. He gave her a chance for redemption – the very model of mercy.

Mohamed ’s approach was much different. She confessed her sin to him, but he refused to hear her and deal with it. Instead, he told her to go back. This occurred three times. Three times Mohamed ran from dealing with the situation. Finally, after the women's consistent confession, Mohamed was forced to confront her sin. He allowed her to give birth, suckle and then wean the child, which could have taken 1 to 3 years. Then she returned and Mohamed had her killed.

This woman not only confessed, but she repented. She was a good mother to her child and she was a responsible member of her community. Couldn't Mohamed have forgiven her as he had so many other types of sinners? Mohamed did not deal comionately with the woman. This is in spite of the fact that she had turned her life around, properly raised her child, and was doing the right thing.

Mohamed simply made up his own rules as he went along.

Jesus and Mohamed: Major Differences (2)

A. Personal sin
One suffered from sin nature. The other was sinless.

Mohamed
Mohamed he receives this command about his sin:
Q. 40:55 Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours. (Pickthall)
47:19 So know (O Muhammad . . .) that . . . none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and ask forgiveness for your sin, and also for (the sin of) believing men and believing women. And Allah knows well your moving about, and your place of rest (in your homes). (Hilali and Khan)
Note that Mohamed is to ask for forgiveness from Allah not only for himself but for Moslems.
Another example of Mohamed’s sin:
48:2 That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future and complete His Favour on you, and guide you on the Straight Path . . . (Hilali and Khan)

To be forgiven of sin, one must have it first.
The implication of this sin nature in Mohamed means that he had the nature to commit any atrocity or violent act. Early Moslems readily accepted this and never saw Mohamed as sinless but accepted his wrong as okay since he claimed that Allah was giving him revelations. Only later and particularly modern Moslem apologists paint Mohamed differently.

Jesus
He was uniquely born: “For God so loved the world that he gave his uniquely born Son, that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life” John 3:16
He challenged his opponents and accs in John 8:45-46:
“Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can you prove me guilty of any sin?”
None of His opponents could take him up on this challenge.
Peter who lived and walked with Jesus for at least three years, and could have seen any sin in him, had this to say:
To this you [Christians] were called because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. (1 Peter 2:21-22)
Apostle John, the beloved, who also lived and walked with Jesus for three years, made this declaration:
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. (1 John 3:5)


B. Wealth
One took it by force. The other resisted this temptation.

Mohamed
Besides forcing religious conformity and the submission of non-Moslems, he went after their wealth.
Sura 48:20 says:
48:20 Allah has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path. (Hilali and Khan)
Mohamed’s takeover of the city of Khaybar, his eventual waterloo, comes to mind here. Of course, other spoils of any war that he embarked on also apply.
Mohamed relished in this to the maximum.

Jesus
Satan offers Jesus the whole world at the very beginning of his ministry. But he turned down this offer. Luke 4:1-2, 5-7 says:
4:1 Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert, 2 where for forty days he was tempted by the devil . . . 5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instance all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 So if you worship me, it will be yours." 8 Jesus answered, "It is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’" (cf. Deuteronomy 6:13)
Jesus, not only resisted the devil, but also the political pressure by Jews who wanted to install him as their king.

WAS MOHAMED BENEVOLENT AND MERCIFUL?
Many Moslem apologists do not tell the whole truth about their prophet and religion but omit several important historical records. In many instances, they practically invent, or re-writing Islamic history to make it palatable to an ignorant and naive audience. Moslem apologists try to tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and Mohamed was a forgiving, benevolent leader. The historical record show otherwise and current record show that Islam is at war with everything that is not subject to its rule.

Moslems have repeatedly attacked and killed in the past, present, and they will again in the future. Yet those same Moslem terrorists continue to claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and Mohamed was a benevolent, merciful leader. Their actions however, contradict their claims.

Mohamed was a man with mixed character. Nevertheless, once he attained power, he turned it upon those that opposed him. Opposition was as simple as mere verbal decline of his offer - whatever that offer was. He was not the benevolent, merciful leader that Moslems try to portray. Mohamed was one of the greatest contradictory character that ever existed. We shall continue to see this more clearly.

Here a thread I opened sometime ago:
Is Islam Responsible for Libyan Black Slave Trade?

The media has been awash with disturbing pictures and stories of black Africans in slave markets in Libya.

These stories are now surfacing because of information technology but it has gone on for centuries in Islam.

Islam has never really regarded the black man as equal to the Arabs. It can even be said that he is regarded as less than second class human being.

Action, they say, speak louder than words. Islam has a way with words; even quotes from earliest Islamic sources can be denied and trumpeted as "Not authentic" whilst the same source can be used to substantiate a stand as long as it suits their claim.

Islam has therefore succeeded, throughout history, in suppressing the TRUTH about its real nature by being able to, like they say, "speak from both sides of the mouth".

Islam can deny a source or deny that perpetrators of some evil, even when they claim to be pursuing the course of Islam or be acting in the name of Allah.

The effects of Mohamed’s racism, supremacy, and slavery on blacks continues today, as it is reported that up to 14 million blacks are currently owned by Muslims.

Black people are treated with scorn in the Islamic middle-east today with racism a common attitude with mistreatment. Saudi Arabia’s racism includes black people in slums and subjected to abuse as the Arab psyche would never accept black people as equal to themselves.

This mistreatment and slavery of black Africans has continued albeit underground because Muslims justify their actions with the life of their prophet Mohamed.

Mohamed owned many black slaves during his lifetime. He believed that black slaves were half the worth of Arab slaves, proving this by trading two of his own blacks for one Arab Muslim.

Muslim sources shed light on Islam and
What we are witnessing today:

Sahih Muslim 10: 3901
Jabir reported: There came a slave and pledged allegiance to Allah's Apostle on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a slave. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah's Apostle said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black slaves, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)

Bukhari 7263
I went to (the house of the Prophet) and behold, Allah’s Messenger was staying in a Mashruba (attic room) and a black slave of Allah’s Messenger was at the top of its stairs.

Mohamed was said to insultingly announced that if anyone wants to see the face of Satan, just look at Nabtal, his black slave, who has long-flowing hair, flaming eyes, and dark, ruddy cheeks.

Al-Tabari, Vol. 2, p. 11, p. 11
Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth.

Bukhari 6161:
Allah’s messenger was on a journey and he had a black slave called Anjasha, and he was driving the camels (very fast, and there were women riding on those camels).

So, since Muslims regard Mohamed as a PATTERN to be copied they will continue to emulate him and see NOTHING WRONG in enslaving black Africans. After all, their “perfect man” owned blacks of his own and continues to own them today through blind submission.

https://nairaland.sitesunblocked.org/4229976/islam-responsible-libyan-black-slave#63224130

Empiree:
see hypocrite twisting obvious verse. The verse clearly talks about killing those who dishonor their parents. Yet you accused me of picking what suits me while you did the same to Quran and hadith. The verse said without mincing words. KILL THOSE WHO DISHONOR PARENTS. I see again your insincerity. That's why this is my last reply. You are very dishonest and I unfollow this thread.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John scammed you guys.

Have a nice day

Empiree, why do you think that if you can't beat me to it when we talk about your Koran that you can now fault me with regards to the Bible? You must be joking!

Now, let me expose you here.

I stated that: Jesus' emphasis here was on HONOURING FATHER AND MOTHER. Not on killing.

You called me "hypocrite twisting obvious verse"
You went on to say that "The verse clearly talks about killing those who dishonor their parents"

Let's see how Jesus explained himself:
"But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Matthew 15: 5&6

Every one can see clearly here that Jesus's focus was on honouring father and mother. Nothing else. If this were an exam and you were asked what Jesus was bringing out here would you say "killing"? Would that be the lesson here, Empiree?

Copying and pasting does not necessarily amount intelligence. You have to be clear about what you copy and paste.

The gospels are "good news". What in Islam is good news; anything?

You are already running away from defending your prophet. You can see the FACTS about him contrary to the lies you had chosen to believe about him.

Try not to be emotional. Then you'll be able to see more clearly.

Mohamed devoured every set of people he got in touch with. It's there in your Koran and books. Anyone who subjects himself to Mohamed will have his life wasted both now and in the hereafter.

Unfortunately Mohamed succeeded in ensuring that all who come into Islam with the claim of worshipping only one god end up worshipping two - Allah and Mohamed. That is why NO DAY ES without the Moslem worshiping Mohamed alongside Allah.

Empiree:
Hopefully this is probably my last reply to you. You said he (saw) instigated his enemies?.

When he declared he's Prophet and messanger of God, the same way Prophets before him like Jesus and Moses declared theirs, Meccans rejected him just like they rejected Jesus and Moses. Can you tell us how the Jews treated Jesus and Moses. Did Jews not disobeyed Jesus and threatened his life. This are rhetorical questions. I don't need answer from you. We have answers.

Last rhetorical question is, is declaring oneself God's Prophet to guide the people an act of instigation and aggression. You don't need to answer this either.

when the prophet was chased out of Mecca and migrated to Medina, yes, he was welcomed with hospitality by the Ansar, NOT the Jews. The Jews became his number one enemies in Medina after it was clear they rejected him just like they rejected Jesus. So they now planned to kill the prophet. That's the beginning of their end.

Just like they decided to kill Jesus after it was clear they rejected him. And according to your bible, they nailed him on the cross and killed him. So God would not allow repeat of that - so God ordered prophet muhammad to defend himself. In the process, pagan Arabs allied with the Jews and collectively waged wars on muslims.

Hadith you quoted @underlined, was the same thing Jesus said in Luke 19:27

I don't need your reply after this cus, you aren't here to reason beyond your irrational hatred and islamophobism. You Have A Good Night

Empiree, the decision to reply or not is yours and yours alone. No one compels another to do so on this open forum.

I have presented FACTS. You have been unable to respond to the things I have presented. So, tell me who is being illogical here.

How and when did presenting a FACTUAL INFORMATION about a person or thing become dislike of or prejudice against that person or thing?

For example, the fact that Mohamed raided caravans is something that truly happened in history. How does mentioning or stating it turn into irrational hatred?

I thought your koran said that Jesus was not the one crucified but that he was taken away by Allah. Couldn't Allah also have looked for a means of securing his "last" prophet"?

Empiree:
I don't recall ever having conversation with you nor did i direct my response to you. But since you chose to stick your nose, here is how Jesus respond to his supposed enemies and criminals at the temple. Why did he not leave them alone peacefully. Why did he has to resort to aggression to his message across?

Now, let's review. We will take Jesus's response to money changers at the temple as a case study. We read how Jesus violently turned the table and beat the hell out of the Jews. In Gospel Of John, we read about "setting the stage" at the Temple. Verses 13–14 set the stage for Jesus’ action. “The over of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there.” So inside the temple court, a place meant for prayer and other acts of worship, there were pens of oxen and sheep, and cages of pigeons and sellers sitting around them waiting to make a transaction, and others who were prepared to exchange a pilgrim’s money into the right currency so that they could make a purchase.

The outward reason for this set up was probably that the law required sacrifices of oxen and sheep and pigeons, and many worshippers would have come a long way and would not have brought their sacrifice with them. So this made the animals readily available for purchase. You could say it was the loving thing to do. Make the purchase convenient.


Jesus’ Response

Now what is Jesus’ response when he saw this? Verses 15–16:

And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

Jesus obviously did not approve of what he saw. Why not? What was the problem?. You can see from the description from the Bible verses that if Jesus had a gun or sword, he would have done worst damage and kill relatively peace loving Jewish gathering changing money. How is changing money deserved been rough handled and whipped by Jesus?. This is act of violence Jesus espoused. As you can see from the portrait, see how Jesus messed up and turned peaceful temple to wrestlemania ring?

On Jesus's Action:
Jesus' action was WITHIN THE TEMPLE. He had rights there. They were not supposed to be doing what they were doing withing the temple area. There were SWORDS during the time of Jesus but he didn't resort to that. So, your claim that "if Jesus had a gun or sword, he would have done worst damage and kill relatively peace loving Jewish gathering changing money" is simply not true. So, the Jews to you here have suddenly become "peace loving". Interesting!

Empiree:
Let's spice it up in another dimension of speech. The incident at the Temple is better addressed as "Going on a Rampage". This is more factual

Perhaps the most famous of Jesus’ anger issues occurred when he came across a temple to his dad, and found it full of moneylenders and animal-sellers. Jesus was furious at this sacrilege, but he didn’t just get mad—he effectively Hulked out, flipping over tables and knocking over chairs. And then he stood guard at the door, to make sure no more jerks came in on non-worshipping business. As for as reasons for Jesus to be angry go, this is a solid one, but ittedly it doesn’t seem much in line with the “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies” guy. (Matthew 21:12-13).

If, like you said there, it was "SACRILEGE", what then is your point in trying to paint Jesus as having done a wrong thing? Ok, your'e trying to use this to justify Mohamed's actions. Right? So, how does responding to SACRILEGE within God's TEMPLE (to which Jesus has a right of control) equate to raiding caravans?

Empiree:
Another anger management of your Jesus according to your Bible, Jesus killed a tree.

You are reading this correctly: Jesus killed a tree. He was hungry, the fig tree had no fruit, and Jesus was so pissed off at this he cursed the tree, and it died.

You guys portrayed you Jesus as peaceful person. We read in your bible how he displayed his aggression. Why did he throw tantrum at fig tree. This is rhetorical question.

How does killing a tree equate to slaughtering UNARMED COMMUNITIES in order to take over their wealth?

Empiree:
Here we can see that Jesus in the Bible obeyed and followed Old Testament. Not only did he followed Old rules but he legislated this rule for the Christians to follow. This case study is about "Refusing to Wash His Hands"


This is apparently why Jesus was a carpenter and didn’t work in the service industry. From Matthew 15:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,

“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?



For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’

But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’

They are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

You hypocrites!

Plainbibletruth said Law of killings in the Bible is Old Testament. That Christians don't have to follow it. How about this capital punishment in New Testament to kill whoever curses parent?. You hypocrites.

Yes, the Pharisees threw a little shade at Jesus for not washing his hands before dinner, and Jesus immediately retorted with the fact that they weren’t killing their unruly children, like the Old Testament had explicitly ordered.

This is again how you refuse to look at things CAREFULLY but instead pick and choose which to accept. Jesus's emphasis here was on HONOURING FATHER AND MOTHER. Not on killing. Why is killing always in the mind of many of you?

Again, to school you: Christianity did not start UNTIL after Jesus paid for mankind's sin on the cross. So, the New Covenant was made possible because of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. The New Covenant superceeds the Old.

Empiree:
Did prophet Muhammad's enemies have armies or not?. Answer this.

Here you go again. You know I got you there and you're now diverting attention away from those issues about your prophet.

No one started out being an enemy of Mohamed. He instigated others to turn against him. He first became the enemy to those who welcomed him as friend.

What did it take to become Mohamed's enemy? Simply this: anyone who did not acknowledge him as ruler and prophet of Allah automatically becomes his enemy.

Mohamed determines who became his enemy. The person does not need to come against Mohamed. If Mohamed doesn't like the person or people or he wanted what they had then they become his enemies.

Mohamed betrayed the hospitality he received from the people of Yathrib (Medina). He formed an army there and began to raid those around him. No people first sent an army against Mohamed. He INITIATED ALL the raids and the wars he fought.

Can anything be clearer than this:
Narrated Jabir: The Prophet sent us as an army unit of three hundred warriors under the command of Abu 'Ubaida to ambush a caravan of the Quraish. ... (Bukhari: vol. 7, bk 67, no. 402, Khan)

Or this:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform all that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (s) will be done by Allah." (Bukhari: vol. 1, bk. 2, no. 24, Khan)

Empiree:
You are not making sense and I'm gonna ignore you soon. This is because you lack sincerity. Moses had army to curb pharaoh excesses. Other Prophets also had some sorts of bodyguards or defense technics. So tell me what's wrong having army while his oppositions had too?. Do you have sense at all or you are simply being hypocritical?.

Empiree, the Moses of the Bible did not have an army " to curb pharaoh excesses." Which pharaoh's excesses? When Israel left Egypt they didn't have to fight Pharaoh with an army.

The "seal of the prophets", "the mercy to all mankind", an exemplar of "The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful" was the one opposing every other person. It was not the other way round. Don't twist history.

Mohamed was the one that started fighting and looting other people's caravans and communities. He INITIATED all the fights in the Arabian peninsula in one way or the other. Any physical opposition to Mohamed was as a response to his initial attacks on others. That is what history clearly shows.

If you are ITTING that Mohamed fell short of who and what he claimed to be, and had just a man-of-the-street's morals then no wonder you are attracted to him.

If a judge turns out to be a thief, a con-man and even an extortionist, how much trust will you have on such a man? If a so-called prophet lacks basic morals what should make one accept his claims as true?

We have not even talked about Mohamed being bewitched. We have not talked about Satan speaking through him and those words are in the koran - a copy of the mother of books in heaven. We have not talked about disgusting sexual behaviours of a prophet (?)

So, the last prophet never exhibited anything that made him rise above the man on the street. In fact, in many instances, Allah REQUIRED stricter moral standards from the common Moslem than he did from Mohamed.

If all these make him an example to be followed it can only make sense to the people like you Empiree.

Empiree:

Nonsense!!! Irrational comment coming from "educated christian"..smh Can you tell us why every country of the world have army?. To answer your question, we all know what an army is for, don't we?.

Vatican has element of military base. You can tell us why they have military?. You are so ridiculous.

Empiree, we are talking about the prophet who was supposed to be the "seal of the prophets", "the mercy to all mankind", an exemplar of "The Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful"

Do you see that when you equate him with others, apparently to show that since others did what he did then it was alright for him to have done them, you are actually ITTING that he fell short of who and what he claimed to be.

A prophet with an army of marauders?

If the "seal" of the prophets demonstrated nothing above and beyond the characters of others; if the "seal" of the prophets showed no extraordinary display of mercy; if the one who is to be followed as an example never exhibited the nature of "Most benevolence" then that should throw up a red flag to show that something is wrong somewhere.

Empiree, do you know what "Most beneficent" and "Most Merciful" mean?

Empiree:

Anyways, muhammad (saw) was the messanger SENT BY GOD to restore monotheism brought by Abraham to Mecca. So therefore, monotheism MUST be enforced in Mecca.

I'm glad you're now itting that Mohamed used FORCE to entrench Islam in Mecca. Not only in Mecca but in all his other campaigns.

Empiree:

See as you dey talk as if you care about those people. You are simply jealous. Go to Medina and take it back. You will die trying

I'm stating FACTS you're spilling out emotions.

Empiree:


see this one trying to re-write history. You will be exhausted while trying this

seems like you have been reading too much of evangelical liar, David Wood lately. You think you can convince me or what exactly?. Listen, there is no Religion acceptable in the sight of God EXCEPT ISLAM. You are making up this stories in your head because this is your last grip. You are grasping on straws.

What have these got to do with the FACTS of history I presented?

Empiree:

As if you believe in that verse of Qur'an. I know you are desperate now. You don't want to give up in shame

This is to show yet again that your prophet flouted the koran he wanted the rest of you to hold unto hook line and sinker. That is an opener as to his character.

Empiree:

[I am sure you don't even agree with their former religion they went back to either. You are saying all these because of your irrational hatred for our Prophet. It is too late for that. But don't let it be too late for you before you accept muhammad as your messanger.

smh. Abu sufyan was still non muslim when Muhammad arrived in Mecca with full force. He embraced Islam after seeing brilliant character of the prophet for not destroying him and his family despite atrocities he had committed against Muhammad and Muslims.
good. Muhammad (p) snubbed him because Abu sufyan's homeboys violated treaty by killing Muslims. I don't think you would want to talk to someone who hurt your feelings either. Do you?.

You are again honest enough to it that the "exemplary" SNUBBED someone. You are coming close to getting it.

Empiree:

[ we never told you he didn't have army. This is true. And in fact, it fulfilled your bible because that showed that he was Prophet like Moses. Moses had army too

Thanks again for agreeing with me that Mohamed maintained an army; and we all know what an army is for, don't we?
Now, did you also catch yourself referring to the Bible you claim is corrupted?

Empiree:

[ you struggling to hold on to your last strongholds. You failed man.
ask your Christian leaders George Bush and Tony beLIAr
you are the one trying to change history. It will not work

All the information I stated are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Readers can check for themselves and see who between the two of us is trying to rewrite history.

On Luke 19:27

I still don't understand why you want to impose a literal position on Luke 19:27 when it is clear as daylight that it is a parable.
That verse is part (repeat "PART" ) of a narrative.
The narrative started in verse 11 which says: " ... he (Jesus) went on to tell them a PARABLE ..."
If you now want to insist that it is not a parable you're simply trying to force your own meaning on it.
You cannot just take that verse in isolation of all that went before it.

On chain of narrators
On page 9 you said: "And yes, chain of transmission doesn't always guarantee authenticity of a report." So, why are you hung up on that.

The writers of the GOSPELS were FIRST HAND WITNESSES and divinely INSPIRED to do what they did.