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

[Gavana]

Unafiki wa gavana the witch huuoni kweli [emoji47] [emoji12] kweli hata anavyo mdhalilisha mtume Wa waisilamu dhahir na kipunjo napo pia huoni??? Ili uwe Muislamu muumini LAZIMA utwiih na kuyaishi maagizo ya koloani na baba kasim [emoji106] koloani inawaagiza waumini [emoji117] View attachment 876113View attachment 876114 kwa akili zako masudi, gavana the y witness anayafuata maagizo ya Qur'an [emoji47] [emoji53] kama hayafuati tungemuita kama mnavyo niita Mimi kafir, lakini kwa gavana kumuita kafir tu haitoshi LAZIMA aitwe pia MNAFiki [emoji106] sababu huko uswazi anapo kuwa na waumini anajiita muumini na Akiwa humu na sisi Makafiri anadhihirisha ukafiri wake kwa dhahir na kipunjo [emoji53] View attachment 876239View attachment 876240 kazi yake kubwa ni kutia udhia na kuimarisha ukafiri [emoji106]

MBONA UNAMSHITAKIA MASOUD ???

NAKUONGEZA BAKORA UNYOOKE

Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection contradicts the Gospels:


The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Paul and to Paul’s readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)


What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.


If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there’s not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:



'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9



There are several problems with this passage.



(1). There was no “third day” prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]



(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]



(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).



(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).


(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

 

[Gavana]

Unafiki wa gavana the witch huuoni kweli [emoji47] [emoji12] kweli hata anavyo mdhalilisha mtume Wa waisilamu dhahir na kipunjo napo pia huoni??? Ili uwe Muislamu muumini LAZIMA utwiih na kuyaishi maagizo ya koloani na baba kasim [emoji106] koloani inawaagiza waumini [emoji117] View attachment 876113View attachment 876114 kwa akili zako masudi, gavana the y witness anayafuata maagizo ya Qur'an [emoji47] [emoji53] kama hayafuati tungemuita kama mnavyo niita Mimi kafir, lakini kwa gavana kumuita kafir tu haitoshi LAZIMA aitwe pia MNAFiki [emoji106] sababu huko uswazi anapo kuwa na waumini anajiita muumini na Akiwa humu na sisi Makafiri anadhihirisha ukafiri wake kwa dhahir na kipunjo [emoji53] View attachment 876239View attachment 876240 kazi yake kubwa ni kutia udhia na kuimarisha ukafiri [emoji106]

Mark does not have the resurrection:



All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus, a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark’s Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. [1]



The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:



Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]



The ‘Longer Ending’ of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4th century.


There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential. [1]



In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian. [2]



Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral’.


The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus’ resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.


Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)


It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)

 

[Gavana]

Unafiki wa gavana the witch huuoni kweli [emoji47] [emoji12] kweli hata anavyo mdhalilisha mtume Wa waisilamu dhahir na kipunjo napo pia huoni??? Ili uwe Muislamu muumini LAZIMA utwiih na kuyaishi maagizo ya koloani na baba kasim [emoji106] koloani inawaagiza waumini [emoji117] View attachment 876113View attachment 876114 kwa akili zako masudi, gavana the y witness anayafuata maagizo ya Qur'an [emoji47] [emoji53] kama hayafuati tungemuita kama mnavyo niita Mimi kafir, lakini kwa gavana kumuita kafir tu haitoshi LAZIMA aitwe pia MNAFiki [emoji106] sababu huko uswazi anapo kuwa na waumini anajiita muumini na Akiwa humu na sisi Makafiri anadhihirisha ukafiri wake kwa dhahir na kipunjo [emoji53] View attachment 876239View attachment 876240 kazi yake kubwa ni kutia udhia na kuimarisha ukafiri [emoji106]

The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus’ lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.

The following writers do not mention Jesus’ resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy

We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned Jesus’ resurrection.

 

[mgen]

Ahahahhahhahahahahhah kumbe unajijua wewe ni kafiri ,ahahahhahahahahaahahahhaha , hizo attachment zako azifunguki hayo madai yako kwa gavana ni malalamiko tu kwasababu anakuchapa kipigo cha mbwa mwizi, Ahahahhahhahaha Gavana leta nondo mpaka akili iwakae sawa

Nilikwisha Tangaza humu Mimi kwa baba fatuma na koloani ni kafir kweli kweli...[emoji117]

muhammad ka-c&p hapo [emoji12] ona ulivyo muongo eti attachment hazifunguki [emoji12] unafikiri hii hatuoni eeh [emoji53] kila unacho kifanya kinaonekana duniani [emoji38] [emoji38] umebakia qalalahu gavana, gavana...Hivi unamuona mtume wako aliyasahau anayo andika gavana hivyo huo ni wahyi mpya eeh [emoji47] [emoji47] [emoji15] pigaga takbir [emoji109] gavana mkubwa [emoji53]

 

[mgen]

Kama tukio la namna hiyo likitukia katika mahakama katika nchi ya Kikristo, jaji akiwa Mkristo, na baraza la Wakristo, msomaji
anafikiriaje kuhusu mtu huyo ya kwamba watamhukumuje ama wanapaswa kumhukumuje?

Kama hoja ya mtu anayechunguzwa inakataliwa na anahukumiwa kunyongwa tena, hiyo itakuwa sawa kwa msingi gani?

Ni dhahiri ya kwamba jaji yeyote mwenye akili, akiwa Mkristo au si Mkristo, na pia baraza la watu wenye akili timamu hawatakubali hata kidogo ya kwamba mshtakiwa huyu amehuika baada ya kwisha kufa.

Hukumu ya aina hiyo haina upendeleo wa kimtaa, dini, taifa, ama kabila. Bali inahusikana na watu wote wala hamna mtu mwenye akili yake timamu awezaye kuwaza hukumu nyingine yoyote iwayo.

Hivyo, shauri ya watu wote wenye akili na fahamu ni kukataa dai la kuhuika, bali kumhukumu kwamba alipona tu kifo. Ndivyo ilivyotendeka katika habari ya Yesu Kristo. Hakuhuika wala hakufufuka bali inavyoamua akili alipona mauti juu ya msalaba.

Kuhuika Yesu kimwili ni jambo la muhimu kabisa kabisa kwa Ukristo hata kwamba mtu anapaswa kuchunguza sababu zake.

Kwa dhahiri hamna mantiki katika jambo hilo zima.

Kwa nini anayehesabiwa kuwa Mwana wa Mungu akajichagulia kurejea tena katika kitundu cha mwili wa binadamu baada ya kwisha pata uhuru katika hicho?

Na habari hiyo inawezaje kuwa hoja pasipo shaka ya kwamba yeye alikufa hasa na kisha akahuika tena?

Hiyo habari imekwisha elezwa kiasi kadhaa nyuma wala sina nia ya kuikazania hapa tena, lakini ningependa kumwelekeza msomaji mwenye swali jingine la muhimu linalolingana na habari hiyo.

Kwa nini fikra hiyo ya kipuuzi ikaimarika katika dini ya Kikristo ambayo polepole katika muda wa karne chache baada ya Yesu
ikawa nguzo mojawapo ya imani ya Kikristo ambayo pasipo nguzo hiyo jengo zima la theolojia ya Kikristo linabomoka?

Sisi tutajaribu kujitia katika dhamira za Wakristo wa kale waliokabili tatizo lisiloweza kutatulika, na tutaanza kuleta hali zile ambamo Ukristo ulipewa sura kinyume cha uhakika halisi.

Kwa njia hiyo pengine itakuwa rahisi kufahamu hasa kuumbika na kuumbuka kwa Ukristo.

Ukweli halisi unaotakiwa kuzingatiwa sana ndio huu ya kwamba ikiwa Yesu, amani iwe kwake, kweli amekufa msalabani, hana budi ataonekana machoni mwa Wayahudi kuwa nabii mwongo, mdanganyifu.

Suala linalobakia kutatuliwa linazuka kutokana na Mtakatifu Paulo kutaja maelezo ya Wakristo wa kale kuhusu jinsi alivyoonekana Yesu akiwa hai katika mwili wake mara baada ya kusulibiwa.

Kama Mtakatifu Paulo alifahamu ya kwamba Yesu alifufuka, yeye anaweza kuwa sawa, na yeye kumwona Yesu au kuongea naye kwaweza kuelezwa kwa sura ya ufufuo jinsi roho ya mtu aliyekufa inavyokuja kutoka ulimwengu mwingine ikijichukulia mzuka anayefanana sana na sura aliyokuwa nayo kabla ya kufa.

Lakini hapa panaonekana habari hiyo imevurugika kwa sababu ya kuchanganya ushuhuda wa aina mbili.

Kwanza twatakiwa kufikiria ushuhuda wa mwanzoni wa wanafunzi wake na wale waliompenda na kumheshimu ingawaje hawakuingia katika Ukristo kama desturi.

Ushuhuda huo haikosi Mtakatifu Paulo akauelewa vibaya kwani huo unahakikisha kwamba Yesu alionekana katika sura ya binadamu ndani ya mwili wake wa kiwiliwili, jambo ambalo haliwezi kumaanisha ufufuo.

Ili kuthibitisha jambo hilo, mtu anapaswa kurejea habari ya Yesu kuwashangaza wanafunzi wake:

Wakashtuka, wakaogopa sana, wakidhani ya kwamba wanaona roho. Akawaambia, mbona mnafadhaika? na kwa nini mnaona shaka mioyoni mwenu? Tazameni mikono yangu na miguu yangu, ya kuwa ni mimi
mwenyewe. Nishikeni-shikeni, muone; kwa kuwa roho haina mwili na mifupa kama mnavyoniona mimi kuwa nayo. Na baada ya kusema hayo aliwaonyesha mikono yake na miguu yake. Basi walipokuwa hawajaamini kwa furaha, huku wakistaajabu, aliwaambia, mna chakula chochote hapa? Wakampa kipande cha samaki wa kuokwa. Akakitwaa, akala mbele yao. (Luka 24:37-43).

Tukio hilo linakanusha kabisa wazo la ufufuo na linaeleza ya kwamba Yesu alikusudia waziwazi kuwa yeye alikuwa mtu yule yule pamoja na mwili uleule wala hakuwa roho, wala siye mtu ambaye sasa hahitaji chakula ili kuishi. Hiyo inaonesha tena kuwa Wakristo wa kale walikuwa wakizungumzia mambo mawili tofauti.

Kila walipozungumzia Yesu kuhuika na walipokabiliwa na mashaka kuhusu wazo hilo la kipuuzi, wakakimbilia wazo la ufufuo ambalo wazo hilo linaweza kuelezwa kifalsafa na kimantiki. Waraka wa kwanza kwa Wakorintho hususan unatoa nafasi nzuri ya kutaali mashaka ya kukanyaga katika mashua mbili wakati mmoja.

Hatimaye, tukirejea kwa ushuhuda wa Wakristo wa kale kukutana na Yesu Kristo, hatubakiwi na njia yoyote isipokuwa kuamini ya
kwamba yule Yesu aliyeonekana kwa wanafunzi wake wengi na marafiki zake mara baada ya kusulibiwa, na akaongea nao na
akakaa nao na taratibu akaondoka kule alikosulibiwa zaidi katika giza la usiku, hakuwa kabisa mtu aliyefufuka bali alikuwa mtu
ambaye pengine alihuika tu kimwili ama hakufa asilani bali akaokolewa kimwuujiza katika hali iliyokurubia sana kifo.

Yeye alikuwa karibu kabisa na kifo hata kwamba hali yake inafanana na hali ya Yona katika tumbo la Nyangumi.

Hatuna shaka ya kwamba kinachoweza kukubalika hasa ndiyo hali hiyo iliyoelezwa mwishoni.

Ili kuwarahisishia Wakristo kuelewa nadharia yetu ningeonelea kuweka mbele yao mfano mmoja wa kukisia. Mathalan, mtu mmoja anawambwa msalabani kwa shabaha ya kumwua pale na anachukuliwa kuwa alikufa msalabani.

Baadaye mtu huyo huyo anaonekana akitembea pamoja na baadhi ya marafiki zake. Hao wanashuhudia ya kwamba mwili wake unayo makovu yaliyosababishwa na majeraha aliyoyapata kwa ajili ya kuwambwa msalabani.

Yeye anakamatwa tena na serikali na kuletwa mbele ya mahakama kwa mashtaka ya kwamba kwa kuwa yeye amepona katika mauti kwa sababu hii au ile hivyo asulubiwe tena ili kutimiza alivyohukumiwa. Lakini mtu huyo anajitetea akidai kwamba kwa kweli alikufa mara moja, kwahiyo shabaha ya sheria imekwisha timia tayari, na sasa kwa kuwa yeye amehuika kwa amri maalum ya Mungu kwahiyo hukumu ile ya zamani ya kumuua haiwezi kutekelezwa kwa mara ya pili, kwani sasa yeye amepata muda mpya tena wa kuishi ambamo katika muda huu yeye hajafanya uhalifu wa sheria.

Kama mahakama ikikubali hoja yake, ni dhahiri kwamba yeye hataadhibiwa mara nyingine kwa uhalifu ambao amekwisha adhibiwa.

INAENDELEA

Mtakatifu Paulo amezungumzia ufufuo wa Yesu Kristo kabisa katika maana hiyo. Yeye aliamini katika ufufuo wa si Yesu tu bali na ufufuo kwa ujumla wa wale wote wanaokufa nao wanastahili machoni mwa Mungu kujaliwa kuwapo kupya na namna mpya ya maisha.

Roho inakuwa hiyohiyo lakini makazi yake yanabadilika. Sawa na usemi wa Paulo Mtakatifu, hiyo ni kanuni ya kawaida ambayo haina budi ikubaliwe, la sivyo, Ukristo ama dini haitakuwa na maana.

Nyaraka za Paulo mtume kwa Wakarintho zinapaswa kusomwa kwa makini kwani hizo zina maana sana kuhusu suala hilo.

Hizo haziachi nafasi yoyote ya shaka, angalau kwangu mimi, ya kwamba wakati wowote yeye alipozungumzia Yesu kuonekana
hai baada ya kusulibiwa, alizungumza waziwazi pasipo shaka kuhusu kufufuka tu kwa Yesu, wala haikupitia moyo wake kwamba roho ya Yesu imerejea katika mwili wake ule ule wenye kufa na akahuika kimwili baada ya kufa katika maana ya kawaida.

Kama baadhi ya wataalamu wa Wakristo hawakubali nilivyoelewa kuhusu Paulo Mtakatifu, basi hapo hawatakuwa na budi kukubali ya kwamba Mtakatifu Paulo alijipinga kwa uchache katika baadhi ya maelezo kuhusu maisha mapya ya Yesu kuwa yeye alifufuka wala siyo kwamba mwili wake ulihuika ambamo roho yake inasemekana ilikuwa imefungwa.

Hapa chini kuna baadhi ya maneno yake yanayolingana na swala hilo yanayojieleza yenyewe:

Naye Mungu alimfufua Bwana, na tena atatufufua sisi kwa uweza wake. (1Wakorintho 6:14).

Kadhalika na kiyama ya wafu. Hupandwa katika uharibifu, kufufuliwa katika kutokuharibika; hupandwa katika aibu, kufufuliwa katika fahari; kupandwa katika udhaifu, kufufuliwa katika nguvu; kupandwa mwili wa asili, kufufuliwa mwili wa kiroho. Ikiwa uko mwili wa asili, na wa roho pia uko. (1Wakorintho 15:42-44).

Kwa dakika moja, kufumba na kufumbua, wakati wa parapanada ya mwisho; maana parapanda italia, na wafu watafufuliwa, wasiwe nauharibifu, nasi tutakubalika. Maana sharti huu uharibikao uvae kutokuharibika, nao huu wa kufa uvae kutokufa. Basi huu uharibikao utakapovaa kutokuharibika, na huu wa kufa utakapovaa kutokufa, hapo ndipo litakapokuwa lile neno lililoandikwa, mauti imemezwa kwa kushinda. (1 Wakorintho 15:52-54).

Lakini tunao moyo mkuu; nasi tunaona ni afadhali kutokuwamo katika mwili na kukaa pamoja na Bwana. (2 Wakorintho 5:8).

INAENDELEA

Baada ya kueleza hayo, tuliangalie jambo hilo kwa jiha nyingine.
Nikiisha taali Ukristo mpaka undani wake kadiri fulani, nimetambua kwamba baadhi ya istilahi na matumizi yake havikueleweka barabara wala hapakutambulikana matokeo ya istilahi hizo zisipotumika mahali panapofaa.

Nadharia ya Kikristo haieleweki vizuri akilini kwa sababu ya matatizo hayo na kutumia istilahi hizo pasipohusikana. 'Kuhuika upya' ni istilahi mojawapo na 'kufufuka' ni nyingine, ambazo zina muradi tofauti.

Mpaka sasa tumetumia kusudi istilahi ya 'kuhuika' upya wakati wa kuzungumzia Yesu kupata uhai mara ya pili.

Tulivyokwisha ona kutokana na maelezo ya hapo kabla, kuhuika upya kunamaanisha kurejea kwa hali ambamo mwili wa kibinadamu unaanza kufanya kazi zote tena baada ya kufa.

Lakini 'kufufuka' ni kitu kingine kabisa.

Kwa bahati mbaya Kanisa duniani kote linahusika na kuleta mpasuo katika mioyo ya Wakristo kwa kutumia vibaya istilahi hizo, kwa kuiweka mojawapo mahali pa ya pili, au kwa uchache kuinasibisha maana ya mojawapo kwa ile nyingine.

Wakristo wengi wanafahamu kufufuka Yesu ni kuhuika kwa mwili huo huo wa kiwiliwili aliouacha wakati alipokufa wanavyofikiri.

Naam, sisi hatuafikiani nao bali tunayo haki ya kuieleza hali hiyo kuwa kuzimia siyo kufa.

Kama maneno 'kufufuka kwa Yesu' yakifahamika sawasawa na kutumika vizuri, hayo hayawezi kumaanisha roho yake kurejea
ndani ya mwili huo wa kibinadamu aliouacha wakati wa kufa.

Kufufuka ndiyo istilahi ambayo inamaanisha tu kuumbika mwili mpya wa kiroho. Mwili huo asili yake ni ya kiroho na unafanya kazi kama chombo ambamo mna roho nyepesi zaidi. Huo unaumbwa ili kuendeleza maisha baada ya kufa. Baadhi ya watu wanauita mwili huo mwili wa nyota au athma.

Hata ukiupa jina gani maana yake ni hiyohiyo moja.

Ufufuo unatumika kwa uumbaji wa mwili mpya kimbinguni ama wa kiroho ambamo roho inakaa, siyo, twarudia, siyo kurejea ndani ya mwili uleule uliokwisha changanuka na kuoza ambao roho iliuondoka hapo kabla.

Mtakatifu Paulo amezungumzia ufufuo wa Yesu Kristo kabisa katika maana hiyo.

Yeye aliamini katika ufufuo wa si Yesu tu bali na ufufuo kwa ujumla wa wale wote wanaokufa nao wanastahili machoni mwa Mungu kujaliwa kuwapo kupya na namna mpya ya maisha.

Roho inakuwa hiyohiyo lakini makazi yake yanabadilika. Sawa na usemi wa Paulo Mtakatifu, hiyo ni kanuni ya kawaida ambayo haina budi ikubaliwe, la sivyo, Ukristo ama dini haitakuwa na maana.

Nyaraka za Paulo mtume kwa Wakarintho zinapaswa kusomwa kwa makini kwani hizo zina maana sana kuhusu suala hilo.

INAENDELEA

Wakati wowote Yesu anapoonekana amekosea na ameshindwa kudhihirisha nguvu zake kubwa akiwa Mwana wa Mungu,
Wakristo wanajikinga kwa kudai ya kwamba yeye alikosea akiwa mtu siyo akiwa mungu.

Kwahiyo tunayo kila haki ya kuuliza na kujua waziwazi sehemu gani ndani yake ilikuwa mtu na ipi mungu.

Kukaa kwa mtu ndani ya Yesu kunataka ubongo wa 'mtu' mbali na ubongo wa 'mungu' ndani yake.

Ubongo ulipohuika basi 'mtu' ndani ya Yesu alihuika, kwani Uungu wa Yesu hauhitaji ubongo wa kiwiliwili ili kumsaidia.

Ubongo huo wa kiwiliwili uliingiwa tu na mungu alipokuwa ardhini mara ya kwanza, jinsi inavyokuwa katika mambo ya roho kwamba kitu fulani kinakuwa chombo ama njia ya kudhihirisha onyesho la kiroho. Basi kuhuika Yesu kutamaanisha kuhuika mtu ndani ya Yesu, kwani pasipo kuwa hivyo haiwezekani roho yake kurejea ndani ya mwili huo.

Kama jambo hilo halikubaliwi, hapo tutalikabili tatizo jingine la kukubali kwamba Yesu alikuwa na bongo mbili mbalimbali za
kujitegemea pindi alipokuwa duniani humu: Ubongo mmoja wa 'mtu' na mwingine wa 'mungu', zote mbili zikikaa mahali pamoja, lakini hazikulingana bali kila mmoja unajitegemea.

Kama ni hivyo, basi suala la kuhuika lichunguzwe upya ili uhakika wake hasa utambulikane. Basi hamna haja tena ya kufikiria ubongo wa kibinadamu kufanyizwa upya ili kuipatia dhamiri mahali pa kukalia. Bali twahitaji kufikiria kwamba Yesu analitembelea tena fuvu la kichwa cha mtu aliyekuwa mwenyeji wake wa zamani, ambamo ndani ya fuvu hilo mna masazo ya ubongo yaliyooza.

Kadiri tunavyochunguza kwa uangalifu zaidi suala hilo, ndivyo yanavyojitokeza matatizo zaidi katika kila daraja la uchunguzi.

Mtu anahitaji ubongo kuwa chombo cha mfuatano wa fikira.

Kuhusu kazi zinazofanywa na mwili wa kiwiliwili ni kwamba kama tukiamini kuwa dhamiri inakuwapo peke yake na inaishi
kwa kujitegemea, basi hiyo itamaanisha kwamba dhamiri na roho ni kitu kilekile kimoja. Waweza kuita dhamiri ama roho lakini
inaishi peke yake hata kama uhusiano wake na ubongo wa mtu unakatika.

Lakini kama dhamiri au roho inahitajika ili kuutawala mwili wa mtu ama inaathirika na yanayotokea katika ufalme wake
wa kiwiliwili, hapo bila shaka unahitajika ufungamano madhubuti baina ya dhamiri na ubongo ama roho na ubongo. La sivyo, hivyo (roho na ubongo) haviwezi kabisa kuathiri, kuhimiza au kutawala mafuatano ya kimwili na ya kiakili ama ya ki-maono katika mtu.

Naona hilo halina haja ya kujadiliwa.

Hilo linatuongoza kwenye tatizo jingine kubwa zaidi: Je, anayefanywa kuwa Mwana wa Mungu anahitaji kuutawala ama
kusimamia mwili kwa njia ya ubongo?

Na je, yeye anautegemea ubongo wa kiwiliwili kwa mfuatano wa fikra zake?

Kama yeye anavuka mipaka yote ya kibinadamu, na kama yeye anao mfumo wa kujitegemea wa mfuatano wa fikira ambao ni wa pekee kwake usiyo na kifani katika ulimwengu mzima aliouumba, hapo kurejea roho ya Mungu katika mwili wa mtu pamoja na dhamiri ya mtu kunaleta natija isiyolingana na akili yaani kupatikana kwa dhati iliyo na mifuatano miwili ya fikra inayopingana, kwani haiwezekani kwa dhamiri na roho ya mtu kulingana kikamilifu na dhamiri na dhati ya Mungu.

Kutakuwa na upinzani wa kudumu baina ya mifuatano hiyo miwili utakaosababisha mapambano ya kusumbua baina ya mawimbi ya ubongo.

Mwenye shida hiyo anafaa kutibiwa na mtaalamu wa utibabu wa maradhi ya roho mwenye uwezo zaidi ya mtu.

Huo pengine ndiyo ugonjwa mpya wa roho uitwao schizophrenia kwa Kiingereza.

Unatusaidia sana g Wa y Mashahidi KUINJILISHA WENGINE NA KUIMARISHA IMANI YANGU KWA YESU [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106] Hata Prof Paulo Mtume wa Yesu alikuona unacho Hubiri [emoji117]

hivyo kwa kuokota kadi za kliniki kumwaga humu Andiko hilo LIMETIMIA [emoji123] [emoji106] ...NINACHO KUSHUKURU UNATUSAIDIA NA KUTUPA WEPESI NA JUKWAA! KUTHIBITISHA KWAMBA MTOTO WA abd allah si mtume na Ushahidi ni Unacho c&p gavana Kwamba hayo yoote Muhammad alikuwa HAYAJUI hadi kuwaagiza waislamu WAAMINI AL KITAB [emoji117]

hadi gavana ANAMPINGA [emoji15] [emoji15] USHAHIDI HAYO MAANDIKO JUU HAPO [emoji4] chukua [emoji117] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] gavana [emoji106]

 

[mgen]

The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus’ lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.

The following writers do not mention Jesus’ resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy

We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned Jesus’ resurrection.

Asante gavana y witness [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106]

 

[masoud mshahara]

Nilikwisha Tangaza humu Mimi kwa baba fatuma na koloani ni kafir kweli kweli...[emoji117] View attachment 876390 muhammad ka-c&p hapo [emoji12] ona ulivyo muongo eti attachment hazifunguki [emoji12] unafikiri hii hatuoni eeh [emoji53] kila unacho kifanya kinaonekana duniani [emoji38] [emoji38] umebakia qalalahu gavana, gavana...Hivi unamuona mtume wako aliyasahau anayo andika gavana hivyo huo ni wahyi mpya eeh [emoji47] [emoji47] [emoji15] pigaga takbir [emoji109] gavana mkubwa [emoji53]

Ungekuwa timamu Ungejua kuna mola alie pekee , halafu kuna bwana Yesu yaaani maandiko unatoa halafu uwezo wa kutafakari ndio mdogo ahahahaahhahhahah halafu waislamu tulishasema manabii wote tunawaamini (akiwemo Yesu), tatizo lako ww ni kulazimisha mtu kuwa Mungu ahahahahahhaha na huo ndio ukafiri maana unamsemea Yesu maneno yako ya vijiweni , ambayo katu ajawai kukufundisha hata siku moja

 

[masoud mshahara]

Unatusaidia sana g Wa y Mashahidi KUINJILISHA WENGINE NA KUIMARISHA IMANI YANGU KWA YESU [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106] Hata Prof Paulo Mtume wa Yesu alikuona unacho Hubiri [emoji117] View attachment 876726 hivyo kwa kuokota kadi za kliniki kumwaga humu Andiko hilo LIMETIMIA [emoji123] [emoji106] ...NINACHO KUSHUKURU UNATUSAIDIA NA KUTUPA WEPESI NA JUKWAA! KUTHIBITISHA KWAMBA MTOTO WA abd allah si mtume na Ushahidi ni Unacho c&p gavana Kwamba hayo yoote Muhammad alikuwa HAYAJUI hadi kuwaagiza waislamu WAAMINI AL KITAB [emoji117] View attachment 876719View attachment 876720 hadi gavana ANAMPINGA [emoji15] [emoji15] USHAHIDI HAYO MAANDIKO JUU HAPO [emoji4] chukua [emoji117] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji736] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] gavana [emoji106]

Ahahahhaahhhahhah ukistaajabu ya musa utaona ya firauni yaani Paulo analazimisha watu kukufuru na kumuita Mungu mpumbavu wewe unamuita profesa ? ahahahahahahhaha buree kabisaaaa

 

[masoud mshahara]

Asante gavana y witness [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106]

Soma nondo hizo wacha kurusha rusha mate kama nyoka ahahahahaahahahahahananaaj

 

[mgen]

Soma nondo hizo wacha kurusha rusha mate kama nyoka ahahahahaahahahahahananaaj

Mimi sisomi hayo matakataka maadam Vitabu Imani ninavyo na MWALIMU WANGU MKUU YESU YUPO HAI [emoji106] Soma wewe ambaye aliye takiwa kukusomea ni marehemu na gavana Wa y witness kawa mwalimu wako sasa anaendelea kukupa wepesi kuifikia jehannam [emoji4]

 

[mgen]

Qhahahhahahahaahahaha hiyo picha ndio ya nani? halafu unaleta maneno hata mwenyewe ukirudia kusoma uwezi kuelewa maana hayana faida wala ayafundishi chochote , kijana ukija hapa kuongea na watu kama sisi jipange kweli kweli maana tunafahamu tunachokufundisha

Hata mjinga anajisifia ujinga [emoji38] kama huoni Fundisho hapo ni Dalili ya mahaba ya kisukule [emoji12]

 

[mgen]

Hata yule mchungaji mmoja wa uganda aliwachoma moto kanisa na kuua watu wengi akidai ni mafundisho ya Yesu, hata nabii Tito mmekataa kweupe, sasa unakuja na habari za makadiani hapa ahahahahahhaahahahahahhajahajh watafute muonyeshane wewe na makadiani hayo makaburi ya yesu ahahahahaaaa eti kuna Yesu kazikwa India halafu kuna Yesu alizikwa Israeli ahahahahaahhahaha ndio maana nikakwambia ni mambo ya kuunga unga hakuna kitu kama hicho

Huyo Wa Uganda na Tito wana tofauti gani na baba fatûû [emoji47] sisi Yesu katufundisha namna ya KUTAMBUA Mitume na manabii Wa UONGO [emoji117]

masudi unatambuaje/VIGEZO gani unatumia ili kwamba kufahamu huyu ni nabii/mtume Wa kweli na huyu wa uongo [emoji47] [emoji4]

 

[mgen]

MBONA UNAMSHITAKIA MASOUD ???

NAKUONGEZA BAKORA UNYOOKE

Paul’s account of Jesus’ resurrection contradicts the Gospels:


The first thing we need to force into our minds is that when Paul wrote these words, there were no such things as written Gospels. This means that the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection so familiar to us, as told by these Gospel writers, were by and large unknown to Paul and to Paul’s readers (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?, p. 48)

For Paul there were no empty tombs, no disappearance from the grave of the physical body, no physical resurrection, no physical appearances of a Christ who would eat fish, offer his wounds for inspection, or rise physically into the sky after an appropriate length of time. None of these ideas can be found in reading Paul. For Paul the body of Jesus who died was perishable, weak, physical. The Jesus who was raised was clothed by the raising God with a body fit for God's kingdom. It was imperishable, glorified, and spiritual. (ibid, p. 241)


What does this mean? The resurrection accounts in the four Gospels contradict the testimony of Paul. Hence, Paul contradicts the Gospels on a simple event which is supposed to be the foundation of Christian religion.


If Paul is the first writer, then he must be relaying the earliest tradition, yet the Gospels, written many decades later, record an entirely different story. This certainly proves that the resurrection was fabricated in the oral tradition, because there’s not a single reference to the resurrection by historians like Philo Judaeus, and the testimony of Josephus is wholly agreed to be a forgery.

Paul contradicts the Gospels:



'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' 1 Corinthians 15:3-9



There are several problems with this passage.



(1). There was no “third day” prophecy in the Old Testament. [1]



(2). There is no evidence that five-hundred people saw Jesus [2]



(3). Paul says Jesus first appeared to Peter, yet the Gospels say Jesus first appeared to women! (Matt 28:1)

(4). Peter disbelieved that Jesus was alive (resurrected).



(5). Paul implies that Judas did not hang himself, he was still alive (contradicts Matt. 27:5).


(6). Paul describes the body of Jesus to be spiritual (1Cor 15:42). Yet the Gospels say Jesus was physical.

Endelea kumchapa bakora za makalio mtoto Wa abd allah baada ya kumvua kanzu [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106] eti unamshitakia masudi [emoji12] nakushangaa unavyo dhihirisha Uwepo wako kwa masudi [emoji12] mwanaume Mzima unalegeza SAUTI kwa mtoro wa mushahara [emoji15] [emoji12] nina shaka na weye hau [emoji15] [emoji4] masudi ni nani kwangu ni nani [emoji53] [emoji12] Mimi namuona ni msukule tu kama ulivyo wewe [emoji53] [emoji12]

 

[mgen]

Mark does not have the resurrection:



All things considered, then, Mark does not begin his story of Jesus very satisfactorily. Indeed, within two or three decades of Mark's completion, there were at least two, and perhaps three, different writers (or Christian groups) who felt the need to produce an expanded and corrected version. Viewed from their perspective, the Gospel of Mark has some major shortcomings: It contains no birth narrative; it implies that Jesus, a repentant sinner, became the Son of God only at his baptism; it recounts no resurrection appearances; and it ends with the very unsatisfactory notion that the women who found the Empty Tomb were too afraid to speak to anyone about it. (Randal Helms, Gospel Fictions, p. 34)

Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark’s Gospel, though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel, but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. [1]



The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:



Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]



The ‘Longer Ending’ of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine (KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4th century.


There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and unconsequential. [1]



In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically, and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text, later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it the text of Lucian. [2]



Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive, carefully corrected, and neutral’.


The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus’ resurrection. It was seen by NO ONE.


Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)


It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)

[emoji117]

[emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106]

 

[mgen]

The Greek and Roman historians

Very few Christians know that Gentile historians NEVER mentioned the resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish philosopher Philo (50 CE) absolutely makes no reference to Jesus’ crucifixion. The Christians are embarrassed that Philo lived during Jesus’ lifetime and never mentioned his resurrection.

After the departure of Jesus, his teachings spread to North Africa and Egypt, but he was not popular or widely known.

The following writers do not mention Jesus’ resurrection:

Philo-Judaeus

Martial

Arrian

Appian

Theon of Smyrna

Lucanus

Aulus Gellius

Seneca

Plutarch

Apollonius

Epictetus

Silius Italicus

Ptolemy

We challenge Christians to prove his resurrection. None of these writers mentioned Jesus’ resurrection.

[emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji122] [emoji106] [emoji38]

 

[mgen]

Ungekuwa timamu Ungejua kuna mola alie pekee , halafu kuna bwana Yesu yaaani maandiko unatoa halafu uwezo wa kutafakari ndio mdogo ahahahaahhahhahah halafu waislamu tulishasema manabii wote tunawaamini (akiwemo Yesu), tatizo lako ww ni kulazimisha mtu kuwa Mungu ahahahahahhaha na huo ndio ukafiri maana unamsemea Yesu maneno yako ya vijiweni , ambayo katu ajawai kukufundisha hata siku moja

Yesu alikwisha Tufundisha pale msemapo Manabii woooote tunawaami hiyo ni domoni tu [emoji117]

hivyo Andiko LIMETIMIA na KUIMARISHA IMANI YANGU [emoji117] HAKUNA MUNGU APASWAYE KUABUDIWA KWA HAQI ILAHA YESU NA PROF PAULO NI RASUL WA YESU [emoji123] [emoji106] Habari ndio hiyo anae kataa anywe sumu ya panya au ajidunge ndoba asepe [emoji53]

 

[mgen]

Ahahahhaahhhahhah ukistaajabu ya musa utaona ya firauni yaani Paulo analazimisha watu kukufuru na kumuita Mungu mpumbavu wewe unamuita profesa ? ahahahahahahhaha buree kabisaaaa

[emoji117]

na hata Muhammad karejea Kuhusu nyinyi msio na ilimu mnaopotosha Maandiko kwa uongo na dhana [emoji117]

nisomapo hayo Maandiko Napata Upako Rohoni [emoji123] [emoji106] kwa sababu Yametimia...makafir mtajiju na kusindikizana jehannam kama alivyo sema Muhammad [emoji117]

mnapata hata usingizi kwa kauli hizo [emoji15] [emoji53] kweli ashki majunun [emoji15] [emoji38] [emoji38]

 

[mgen]

Soma nondo hizo wacha kurusha rusha mate kama nyoka ahahahahaahahahahahananaaj

Haji ya MUNGU sina muda kushinda chooni kuchezea mavi kama gavana [emoji53] [emoji12]

 

[Gavana]

Haji ya MUNGU sina muda kushinda chooni kuchezea mavi kama gavana [emoji53] [emoji12]

Luke 24:27 says that Moses spoke about Jesus.

Where are those verses in Moses' books?

This verse is an obvious forgery!

 

[Gavana]

[emoji117] View attachment 877122 na hata Muhammad karejea Kuhusu nyinyi msio na ilimu mnaopotosha Maandiko kwa uongo na dhana [emoji117] View attachment 877130 nisomapo hayo Maandiko Napata Upako Rohoni [emoji123] [emoji106] kwa sababu Yametimia...makafir mtajiju na kusindikizana jehannam kama alivyo sema Muhammad [emoji117] View attachment 877134View attachment 877139 mnapata hata usingizi kwa kauli hizo [emoji15] [emoji53] kweli ashki majunun [emoji15] [emoji38] [emoji38]

What did the inscription on Jesus' cross say?


John 19:19

19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It reads: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.


Matthew 27:37

37 Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.


Luke 23:38

38 There was a written notice above him, which reads: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.


Mark 15:26

26 The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS.


You know, there was only one cross, and not ten, for Jesus! Yet, the gospels can't even get the inscription quoted correctly. Can you honestly tell me what the exact quote was? Because all four are way off from each others, especially the one in John 19:19.


Why is this relevant?

Because it serves to prove that the gospels were written by men who were not inspired by GOD Almighty. The historical errors and contradictions prove that the work is not that of GOD Almighty.