Mtume Muhammad: Jamii isipotoshwe; Jua huzama katika Chemchemu ya matope Meusi na Mazito

Mtume Muhammad: Jamii isipotoshwe; Jua huzama katika Chemchemu ya matope Meusi na Mazito

Status
Not open for further replies.
2013 said:
2 John 1:7
Kwa maana wadanganyifu wengi wametokea duniani, wasiokiri ya kuwa Yesu Kristo yuaja katika mwili. Huyo ndiye yule mdanganyifu na mpinga Kristo.



1 John 2:29
Kama mkijua ya kuwa yeye ni mwenye haki, jueni ya kuwa kila atendaye haki amezaliwa na yeye.

Huyu ni Mwanafunzi aliyependwa na Yesu.

Kwani Mungu ndio Nini basi?
Em. Msikilize Yesu anavyosema:-

Ikiwa aliwaita miungu wale waliojiliwa na neno la Mungu; (na maandiko hayawezi kutanguka);?
je! Yeye Sembuse Yesu ambaye Baba alimtakasa, akamtuma ulimwenguni?


Kumbe hata wakina Aroni na Moses waliitwa Miungu na Mungu mwenyewe.?. So Kwanini kwa Yesu ishindikane?


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...

Gospel of 1 John:

Here is what the Bible's theologians and historians said about this gospel:

"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1904)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1905)"

This is really ironic! with all respect due to Christians. If the Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint John who wrote it?

Please visit The lie of 1 John 5:7. This verse was later discovered to be a Satanic lie. The Roman Catholic Theologians don't believe in it, and it doesn't exist in their Bibles.

The same case where no author is really known exists in the Gospels of 2 and 3 John.
 
Gavana said:
Gospel of 1 John:

Here is what the Bible's theologians and historians said about this gospel:

"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1904)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1905)"

This is really ironic! with all respect due to Christians. If the Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint John who wrote it?

Please visit The lie of 1 John 5:7. This verse was later discovered to be a Satanic lie. The Roman Catholic Theologians don't believe in it, and it doesn't exist in their Bibles.

The same case where no author is really known exists in the Gospels of 2 and 3 John.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Theology of God'son is believed in the whole Roman Catholic even the Eastern Church. It is the theology that needs no discussion. Because
Even those quoted Verses are available in the "Missal believers". Which is read in every Sunday.

So your argument is bluff.


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
masoud mshahara said:
Ahahaha jamani mbona unajenga hoja nyepesi sana , maelezo yako ayaendani na aya ulitoa kabisa, yaani unaunga unga kweli kweli , hivi kwa upuuzi huo huko makanisani uwa mnafundishaje watu ? maelezo unatoa ya mvua halafu aya unatoa ya jua bure kabisa wewe
Click to expand...

Hujui koloani ziko nyingine siku hizi [emoji348] [emoji348] koloani nyingine aya inayo thibitisha allah ndiye baba yake fatuma hii [emoji117]
IMG_20181228_094042_684.jpg
nikuongeze nyingine [emoji348] [emoji348]

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
2013 said:
Acha utapeli wewe. Salat sio Blessing. Allah
anaongea Kiarabu. Unaleta tafsiri zako za kutunga kichwani mwana haramu we.
Kiarabu, Hujui wewe kaa pembeni.

Maprofesa na wanazuoni wa Uislamu wamekubali hii ni Sala(Pray).Wewe ni nani wa kuja kutudanganya hapa?.

Jinga sana wewe.
Hapo allah ana "pray on Mohammad."

Na hata ukisema "blessing" ndio unamfanya
Allah asiwe Mungu kabisa. Lakini kwakua haipo hivyo..sina muda wa kukuthibitishia unapochemsha!.

Aibuuuuu. Jinga sana wewe..
Click to expand...
Hivi kumswalia mtume ni kumuombea au kumbariki?
 
2013 said:
Unfortunately Theology of God'son is believed in the whole Roman Catholic even the Eastern Church. It is the theology that needs no discussion. Because
Even those quoted Verses are available in the "Missal believers". Which is read in every Sunday.

So your argument is bluff.


Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...



The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for.

However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages.

Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).

If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

To which Mr. Bentley responds:

"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."

Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir IsaacNewton from openly revealing these facts to all:

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156

According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.

For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominationsgot together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:

"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.
 
Nantahulila said:
Hivi kumswalia mtume ni kumuombea au kumbariki?
Click to expand...
Mtumishi hii ni allah anamswalia Mtume. Allah na malaika zake na majini yake wanamswalia mtume. Kwasababu ulimi wa allah umesema hivyo. Wao wanamrekebisha ulimi wake ili aseme anabariki na fafanuzi zao uchwara. Wakitumia lugha za kigeni. Wanajua allah hajui zaidi ya kiarabu. Lakini wakisoma Kiarabu wanasoma hivyohivyo kua ile ni Sala. Ndio maana nimejikuta nawaita makufar.

Laiti, kama ingekua ni baraka, ilitosha kua ya allah peke yake.lakini hapo hadi malaika anatoa baraka. Unahitaji baraka ya malaika ya kazi gani? Hii inamfanya allah aonekane sio akbar na sio Mungu.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Mpini Wa Chuma said:
Na Quran hio hio inasema malaika wote walimsujudia Adam je Adam alikua ni Mungu? Hutakaa uijue Quran na uislam wew mpaka mauti yako

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...
Yesu alipoambiwa amsujudie Shaytan, alikataa akamwambia kabisa. Anayepaswa kusujudiwa ni Mungu pekee.
Na Wala sio malaika walioko mbinguni.

Sasa hii ya Qur'an is the biggest blunder of all time.
Malaika sijui Ibilisi aliamrishwa na Allah wamsujudie Adam. Wakakataa.!. Walikua sahihi 100%.

Hii inaonyesha commonsense ya Allah inavyopoteana.
Yaani allah hataki asujudiwe yeye bali asujudiwe mwanadamu.?. And you believed this childish tale?!!!!





Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
Gavana said:
The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This is the type of clear, decisive, and to-the-point verse I have been asking for.

However, as I would later find out, this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages.

Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says:

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious."

Others, such as the late Dr. Herbert W. Armstrong argued that this verse was added to the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible during the heat of the controversy between Rome, Arius, and God's people. Whatever the reason, this verse is now universally recognized as an insertion and discarded. Since the Bible contains no verses validating a "Trinity" therefore, centuries after the departure of Jesus, God chose to inspire someone to insert this verse in order to clarify the true nature of God as being a "Trinity." Notice how mankind was being inspired as to how to "clarify" the Bible centuries after the departure of Jesus (pbuh). People continued to put words in the mouths of Jesus, his disciples, and even God himself with no reservations whatsoever. They were being "inspired" (see chapter two).

If these people were being "inspired" by God, I wondered, then why did they need to put these words into other people's mouths (in our example, in the mouth of John). Why did they not just openly say "God inspired me and I will add a chapter to the Bible in my name"? Also, why did God need to wait till after the departure of Jesus to "inspire" his "true" nature? Why not let Jesus (pbuh) say it himself?

The great luminary of Western literature, Mr. Edward Gibbon, explains the reason for the discardal of this verse from the pages of the Bible with the following words:

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza."

"Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.

Edward Gibbon was defended in his findings by his contemporary, the brilliant British scholar Richard Porson who also proceeded to publish devastatingly conclusive proof that the verse of 1 John 5:7 was only first inserted by the Church into the Bible in the year 400C.E.(Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, pp. 30-33).

Regarding Porson's most devastating proof, Mr. Gibbon later said

"His structures are founded in argument, enriched with learning, and enlivened with wit, and his adversary neither deserves nor finds any quarter at his hands. The evidence of the three heavenly witnesses would now be rejected in any court of justice; but prejudice is blind, authority is deaf, and our vulgar Bibles will ever be polluted by this spurious text."

To which Mr. Bentley responds:

"In fact, they are not. No modern Bible now contains the interpolation."

Mr. Bentley, however, is mistaken. Indeed, just as Mr. Gibbon had predicted, the simple fact that the most learned scholars of Christianity now unanimously recognize this verse to be a later interpolation of the Church has not prevented the preservation of this fabricated text in our modern Bibles. To this day, the Bible in the hands of the majority of Christians, the "King James" Bible, still unhesitantly includes this verse as the "inspired" word of God without so much as a footnote to inform the reader that all scholars of Christianity of note unanimously recognize it as a later fabrication.

Peake's Commentary on the Bible says

"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in RSVn, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the logos, and the Holy Spirit, but is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek MS contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th-cent. Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the NT of Erasmus."

It was only the horrors of the great inquisitions which held back Sir IsaacNewton from openly revealing these facts to all:

"In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, the text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books… Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is scripture and what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honor for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best"

Jesus, Prophet of Islam, Muhammad Ata' Ur-Rahim, p. 156

According to Newton, this verse first appeared for in the third edition of Erasmus's (1466-1536) New Testament.

For all of the above reasons, we find that when thirty two biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominationsgot together to compile the Revised Standard Version of the Bible based upon the most ancient Biblical manuscripts available to them today, they made some very extensive changes. Among these changes was the unceremonious discardal of the verse of 1 John 5:7 as the fabricated insertion that it is. For more on the compilation of the RSV Bible, please read the preface of any modern copy of that Bible.

Such comparatively unimportant matters as the description of Jesus (pbuh) riding an ass (or was it a "colt", or was it an "ass and a colt"? see point 42 in the table of section 2.2) into Jerusalem are spoken about in great details since they are the fulfillment of a prophesy. For instance, in Mark 11:2-10 we read:

"And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring [him]. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed [them] in the way And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed [be] the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest."

Also see Luke 19:30-38 which has a similar detailed description of this occurrence. On the other hand, the Bible is completely free of any description of the "Trinity" which is supposedly a description of the very nature of the one who rode this ass, who is claimed to be the only son of God, and who allegedly died for the sins of all of mankind. I found myself asking the question: If every aspect of Christian faith is described in such detail such that even the description of this ass is so vividly depicted for us, then why is the same not true for the description of the "Trinity"? Sadly, however, it is a question for which there is no logical answer.
Click to expand...
Naona hapa chini umeandika neno "Trinity."
Sijahangaika kusoma huko juu kwasababu, najua hii ni copycat ya kitabu. Hivyo nitakayemjibu alishaandika akakaa pembeni.

Nataka nigusie aibu nyingine ya Trinity katika Qur'an na allah. Maana msingi wako wa kukata holy Trinity haujatokana na bibilia Takatifu bali Refutation of the Qur'an

Qur'an inaeleza Holy trinity ni Father, Son and Mary. Na allah anakataa!!.

Allah angekua na smart brain angeweza kung'amua Kile Wakristo wanaamini. Pengine angekubaliana na wazo lao la msingi.

Lakini kwakua allah sio Mungu. Bali ni oppinions za wakina waraqah na Mohammad wameshindwa kuelewa mysterious of the so called Trinity. Wakaelewa kua Mary mother of Jesus is also part of the holy Trinity.

Madai yaliobakia yanabaki kua hayana maana tena.
Kwakua Qur'an ilishaandikwa. Na aliyeshushiwa hayupo. Wa kumjibu hiyo ayati alipaswa kua aliyekuandikia Huo Uongo.
Alijifanya anaujua ukristo kumbe hajui lolote.

Case closed.





Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
 
mgen said:
Hujui koloani ziko nyingine siku hizi [emoji348] [emoji348] koloani nyingine aya inayo thibitisha allah ndiye baba yake fatuma hii [emoji117] View attachment 979325 nikuongeze nyingine [emoji348] [emoji348]

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...
Hii inahusika nini na mazungumzo yangu? au yeyote tu unaleta hata kama hakuna uhusiano na hicho kinachozungumzwa ahahahahahhahahaha ahhhahaaaajajaaj
 
2013 said:
Naona hapa chini umeandika neno "Trinity."
Sijahangaika kusoma huko juu kwasababu, najua hii ni copycat ya kitabu. Hivyo nitakayemjibu alishaandika akakaa pembeni.

Nataka nigusie aibu nyingine ya Trinity katika Qur'an na allah. Maana msingi wako wa kukata holy Trinity haujatokana na bibilia Takatifu bali Refutation of the Qur'an

Qur'an inaeleza Holy trinity ni Father, Son and Mary. Na allah anakataa!!.

Allah angekua na smart brain angeweza kung'amua Kile Wakristo wanaamini. Pengine angekubaliana na wazo lao la msingi.

Lakini kwakua allah sio Mungu. Bali ni oppinions za wakina waraqah na Mohammad wameshindwa kuelewa mysterious of the so called Trinity. Wakaelewa kua Mary mother of Jesus is also part of the holy Trinity.

Madai yaliobakia yanabaki kua hayana maana tena.
Kwakua Qur'an ilishaandikwa. Na aliyeshushiwa hayupo. Wa kumjibu hiyo ayati alipaswa kua aliyekuandikia Huo Uongo.
Alijifanya anaujua ukristo kumbe hajui lolote.

Case closed.





Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...


Sikushangai Wewe unayeabudu kwa blind faith , kwani uzushi na uongo ndiyo silaha yenu
2013 said:
Naona hapa chini umeandika neno "Trinity."
Sijahangaika kusoma huko juu kwasababu, najua hii ni copycat ya kitabu. Hivyo nitakayemjibu alishaandika akakaa pembeni.

Nataka nigusie aibu nyingine ya Trinity katika Qur'an na allah. Maana msingi wako wa kukata holy Trinity haujatokana na bibilia Takatifu bali Refutation of the Qur'an

Qur'an inaeleza Holy trinity ni Father, Son and Mary. Na allah anakataa!!.

Allah angekua na smart brain angeweza kung'amua Kile Wakristo wanaamini. Pengine angekubaliana na wazo lao la msingi.

Lakini kwakua allah sio Mungu. Bali ni oppinions za wakina waraqah na Mohammad wameshindwa kuelewa mysterious of the so called Trinity. Wakaelewa kua Mary mother of Jesus is also part of the holy Trinity.

Madai yaliobakia yanabaki kua hayana maana tena.
Kwakua Qur'an ilishaandikwa. Na aliyeshushiwa hayupo. Wa kumjibu hiyo ayati alipaswa kua aliyekuandikia Huo Uongo.
Alijifanya anaujua ukristo kumbe hajui lolote.

Case closed.





Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...

Where, specifically, in the Gospel does Jesus (PBUH!) mention the Trinity?

(If you find no such reference from his lips to a god residing in three persons -- and you will not -- then perhaps you will be moved to consider the following questions🙂

2- How could Jesus (PBUH!) possibly have omitted to mention something of such extraordinary importance?

* How could the authors of the four Gospels have made the same extraordinary omission?

(For no direct reference to the Trinity appears in any chapter or verse of any of the four Gospels. It is a patching-on from a later era.)

3- Why does Jesus (PBUH!) in the Lord's prayer address the Lord as "Father" and then refer to the Father's children throughout as "Us" and "We," instead of separating himself from the rest of the children of God, as the Trinity would seem to demand?

4- (And here, brothers and sisters, is the big question, the question that takes no small degree of courage to address honestly🙂 If redemption through the blood of Christ, that one member of the Trinity, is all that is necessary for salvation, how are we to explain the many, many occasions in the Gospel that Jesus (PBUH!) details the necessity of submitting directly to the One God -- without ever mentioning the role of his (Jesus', PBUH!) redeeming blood?

Brothers and sisters: Are these not extraordinary teachings? Are they not central to the ministry of Jesus (PBUH!)? And must we not confront dozens of them in order to defend the Trinity and the notion of the sacrificial Christ?



I am thinking, specifically, of:

1. His instruction to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind." (Matthew 22:27.) -- Jesus [PBUH!] identifies this submission to the One God as the *supreme* commandment, and yet for some reason he makes no mention within it of the sacrificial Christ or to one god in three persons, which are supposedly central to his ministry! Quite an oversight! Or are we to assume that Jesus [PBUH!] never actually uttered these words about the supreme commandment?

2. His parable of the Prodigal Son. This contains no reference whatsoever to the sacrificial Christ, or to any intermediary whatsoever for salvation. And the parable certainly makes no reference to the repentant son returning from his sinful journey to a father who takes the form of three persons. He returns to ONE father, not three. Surely we must either conclude that this, the most celebrated of the parables, has nothing to do with the Trinity or with the notion of a sacrificial Christ -- or, if we wish to retain the Trinity and the notion of a sacrificial Christ, we must conclude that this is not an authentic teaching of Jesus [PBUH!]. Brothers and sisters, fellow Christians -- which is it to be?

3. His instruction to become as children (humble, trusting, submitting to the Lord) in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. (See Matthew 18:3.) There is no mention here of the sacrificial Christ as necessary to this entry to the Kingdom, and certainly no mention of one god in three persons! Again: Are we to believe that this is not an authentic teaching of Jesus [PBUH!]? We must assume such a position if we wish to support the Trinity and the notion of a sacrificial Christ.

4. His insistence on the importance of the individual's development of personal faith, without intermediaries, in the One God. This, my brothers and sisters, is Islam! If that word frightens us, or if we wish to make ourselves feel more comfortable with the actual content of this divine ministry, sidestepping for the moment its verbal labels, we may call it "Jesus' ministry" or "Jesus' teachings." (PBUH!) But his ministry is manifestly one of submission to the One God, and we must think long and hard about the consequences of rejecting it in its true form. There are dozens of examples of such Gospel teachings about the development of STRONG individual faith WITHOUT INTERMEDIARIES, among them Matthew 6:23, 7:7, 17:20, Mark 11:23, Luke 9: 61-62, Luke 15:8, etc. etc. -- and yet there is no mention in any of these or the many other such passages of the sacrificial Christ or of one god in three persons! Is not this a remarkable fact? How are we to account for it?
 
2013 said:
Yesu alipoambiwa amsujudie Shaytan, alikataa akamwambia kabisa. Anayepaswa kusujudiwa ni Mungu pekee.
Na Wala sio malaika walioko mbinguni.

Sasa hii ya Qur'an is the biggest blunder of all time.
Malaika sijui Ibilisi aliamrishwa na Allah wamsujudie Adam. Wakakataa.!. Walikua sahihi 100%.

Hii inaonyesha commonsense ya Allah inavyopoteana.
Yaani allah hataki asujudiwe yeye bali asujudiwe mwanadamu.?. And you believed this childish tale?!!!!





Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...
Ebu acha bange kuna sijda ya heshima na sijda ya ibada , hivi ata hili unataka tukufundishe ndugu ahhahhhahjajjajajajajaj kama unabisha sema nianze kukupa shule
 
2013 said:
Mtumishi hii ni allah anamswalia Mtume. Allah na malaika zake na majini yake wanamswalia mtume. Kwasababu ulimi wa allah umesema hivyo. Wao wanamrekebisha ulimi wake ili aseme anabariki na fafanuzi zao uchwara. Wakitumia lugha za kigeni. Wanajua allah hajui zaidi ya kiarabu. Lakini wakisoma Kiarabu wanasoma hivyohivyo kua ile ni Sala. Ndio maana nimejikuta nawaita makufar.

Laiti, kama ingekua ni baraka, ilitosha kua ya allah peke yake.lakini hapo hadi malaika anatoa baraka. Unahitaji baraka ya malaika ya kazi gani? Hii inamfanya allah aonekane sio akbar na sio Mungu.

Sent using Jamii Forums mobile app
Click to expand...
Kwahiyo kumbe unachoshangaa ni watu wengine kutoa baraka , ulitaka Allah peke yake atoe baraka ? kwa hiyo unabisha kwamba watu hawawezi kutoa baraka ? ebu tuanzie hapo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Our Community

Regional Communities

Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register