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

[Gavana]

You don't understand your own book and now you are trying to teach us our book!
Pambana nayo hii.

Zawadi yako hii

Factionalism in the ranks: Corinthians – or Cerinthians?

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." – 2 Thessalonians 3.6.


Paul had nothing to say about the Pharisees (a faction to which he claimed once to have belonged), nor any of the other well-attested Jewish sectarians of the 1st century – Sadducees, Essenes, Nazirites and Zealots. If he were truly a polemicist of the mid-1st century the omission would be curious indeed.

On the other hand the shadowy presence of 2nd century factions is to be discerned within the Pauline corpus – Cerenthians, Docetists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elchasai. Was an original Pauline "Corinthian" letter actually directed towards a group of heretics, the followers of Cerinthus?

It is often said that Paul had within his sights "Judaizers", though he never uses the word himself – adversaries are referred to only obliquely ("Are they Hebrews? So am I.") and never as specific sectarians. The same passages could be directed at the so-called "re-Judaizers" of the 2nd century, those who took issue with the Marcionites and kindred Gnostics for their rejection of the entirety of Jewish scripture.

It appears that some, at least, of Paul's opponents denied the resurrection of the dead:

"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

– 1 Corinthians 15.12.


These dissenters, or perhaps others, practiced a proxy baptism for the dead yet the ritual has no provenance earlier than the 2nd century among the Marcionites (Harnack, Marcion, 176).

"If the dead are not going to be raised to life, what will people do who are being baptized for them? Why are they being baptized for those dead people?"

– 1 Corinthians 15:29.


Little is known of Cerinthus, a religious innovator with his own band of followers, active in Roman Asia perhaps in the late 1st and early 2nd century. It appears that, like many early Christians, he was an adoptionist, teaching that the Spirit entered the man Jesus at baptism and left before the crucifixion.*

"After him brake out the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel."

– Tertullian, Against All Heresies, 9.3.


In the Catholicization of the faith the towering figure of Paul was granted a grand missionary itinerary (perhaps inspired by the journeys of Apollonius or even Marcion himself). The original Cerinthian discourse was transferred to an appropriate venue, "1st century Corinth", and the Corinthian epistles grew with each twist and turn in the struggle for orthodoxy.

 

[mgen]

Ahahahahaahahaahaha wasabato hawaamini , mashahidi wa Yehova hawaamini , mbona unalialia na mimi ahahahahhaahhahha hiyo ni imani ya kipuuzi kabisa wewe ungekuwa na akili ya kutafakari katu usingekaa na kusema Mungu wako kavuliwa nguo akabaki na kibukta kama anataka kukatwa govi eti wewe uokolewe dhambi ahaahhhhhahaha huu ni utovu wa nidhamu kwa Mungu yaani kabisa Mungu apigwe makofi kwa kweli bangi ipigwe marufuku Ahahahhahahahaahjhhahaja

HEKIMA ya MUNGU mashudu unaona Upumbavu [emoji15] [emoji12] Prof Paulo kawashika pabaya [emoji106]

 

[mgen]

Ahahahahaahahaahaha sasa wewe ulitaka tusinye ? wewe itakuwa umeweka bendeji kunako Ahahahhahahahaahjhhahaja kama kuoa amtaki matokeo yake mnaolewa nyinyi hata kunya wewe itakuwa imeziba ahahahaah

Njoo uswazi uone wanavyo fumuana mikunjo [emoji15] hadi unaitwa mchezo wa kisilamu hamuachi kitu hadi nguruwe na maiti kifisifisi [emoji38] miratul rasul kigezo chenu chema [emoji117]

 

[Kisoda2]

Naona unampenda mwali Princess kisoda mwenzako😛😛😛

kamata hiyo

 

[Kisoda2]

Zawadi yako hii

Factionalism in the ranks: Corinthians – or Cerinthians?

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." – 2 Thessalonians 3.6.


Paul had nothing to say about the Pharisees (a faction to which he claimed once to have belonged), nor any of the other well-attested Jewish sectarians of the 1st century – Sadducees, Essenes, Nazirites and Zealots. If he were truly a polemicist of the mid-1st century the omission would be curious indeed.

On the other hand the shadowy presence of 2nd century factions is to be discerned within the Pauline corpus – Cerenthians, Docetists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elchasai. Was an original Pauline "Corinthian" letter actually directed towards a group of heretics, the followers of Cerinthus?

It is often said that Paul had within his sights "Judaizers", though he never uses the word himself – adversaries are referred to only obliquely ("Are they Hebrews? So am I.") and never as specific sectarians. The same passages could be directed at the so-called "re-Judaizers" of the 2nd century, those who took issue with the Marcionites and kindred Gnostics for their rejection of the entirety of Jewish scripture.

It appears that some, at least, of Paul's opponents denied the resurrection of the dead:

"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

– 1 Corinthians 15.12.


These dissenters, or perhaps others, practiced a proxy baptism for the dead yet the ritual has no provenance earlier than the 2nd century among the Marcionites (Harnack, Marcion, 176).

"If the dead are not going to be raised to life, what will people do who are being baptized for them? Why are they being baptized for those dead people?"

– 1 Corinthians 15:29.


Little is known of Cerinthus, a religious innovator with his own band of followers, active in Roman Asia perhaps in the late 1st and early 2nd century. It appears that, like many early Christians, he was an adoptionist, teaching that the Spirit entered the man Jesus at baptism and left before the crucifixion.*

"After him brake out the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel."

– Tertullian, Against All Heresies, 9.3.


In the Catholicization of the faith the towering figure of Paul was granted a grand missionary itinerary (perhaps inspired by the journeys of Apollonius or even Marcion himself). The original Cerinthian discourse was transferred to an appropriate venue, "1st century Corinth", and the Corinthian epistles grew with each twist and turn in the struggle for orthodoxy.

Karibu tujadiliane tupo live and you can challenge us via Skype account is DEBATETV you can call and shoot your poo poo here!
otherwise, sikiliza Abduls wenzio wanavyojikanyaga!!

Islam is dying you Idiot!! wahi nafasi ya ubatizo fasta! ukiogopa ya baridi yako tutachemsha!!

 

[Kisoda2]

Zawadi yako hii

Factionalism in the ranks: Corinthians – or Cerinthians?

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." – 2 Thessalonians 3.6.


Paul had nothing to say about the Pharisees (a faction to which he claimed once to have belonged), nor any of the other well-attested Jewish sectarians of the 1st century – Sadducees, Essenes, Nazirites and Zealots. If he were truly a polemicist of the mid-1st century the omission would be curious indeed.

On the other hand the shadowy presence of 2nd century factions is to be discerned within the Pauline corpus – Cerenthians, Docetists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Nazarenes, Elchasai. Was an original Pauline "Corinthian" letter actually directed towards a group of heretics, the followers of Cerinthus?

It is often said that Paul had within his sights "Judaizers", though he never uses the word himself – adversaries are referred to only obliquely ("Are they Hebrews? So am I.") and never as specific sectarians. The same passages could be directed at the so-called "re-Judaizers" of the 2nd century, those who took issue with the Marcionites and kindred Gnostics for their rejection of the entirety of Jewish scripture.

It appears that some, at least, of Paul's opponents denied the resurrection of the dead:

"Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

– 1 Corinthians 15.12.


These dissenters, or perhaps others, practiced a proxy baptism for the dead yet the ritual has no provenance earlier than the 2nd century among the Marcionites (Harnack, Marcion, 176).

"If the dead are not going to be raised to life, what will people do who are being baptized for them? Why are they being baptized for those dead people?"

– 1 Corinthians 15:29.


Little is known of Cerinthus, a religious innovator with his own band of followers, active in Roman Asia perhaps in the late 1st and early 2nd century. It appears that, like many early Christians, he was an adoptionist, teaching that the Spirit entered the man Jesus at baptism and left before the crucifixion.*

"After him brake out the heretic Cerinthus, teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that He was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel."

– Tertullian, Against All Heresies, 9.3.


In the Catholicization of the faith the towering figure of Paul was granted a grand missionary itinerary (perhaps inspired by the journeys of Apollonius or even Marcion himself). The original Cerinthian discourse was transferred to an appropriate venue, "1st century Corinth", and the Corinthian epistles grew with each twist and turn in the struggle for orthodoxy.

njoo umsaidie Abdul mwenzio hajielewi huku!!

 

[Gavana]

Karibu tujadiliane tupo live and you can challenge us via Skype account is DEBATETV you can call and shoot your poo poo here!
otherwise, sikiliza Abduls wenzio wanavyojikanyaga!!

Islam is dying you Idiot!! wahi nafasi ya ubatizo fasta! ukiogopa ya baridi yako tutachemsha!!

Debate TV isiyo link , Mnajikaanga kama mungu wenu aliyebebwa na Shetani aliyevaa chupi 😛😛😛😛

 

[Gavana]

HEKIMA ya MUNGU mashudu unaona Upumbavu [emoji15] [emoji12] Prof Paulo kawashika pabaya [emoji106] View attachment 949424

See Rome and Die?

Old yarn but new door (2008, St Paul Outside the Walls, Rome)




In the Epistle to the Romans "Paul" tells us of an earnest desire to visit the Christians of Rome.


He claims that he has "no more any place in these regions" to evangelise (15.23) – a quite ludicrous claim. Literally hundreds of cities of the eastern Mediterranean never saw a trace of Paul.





Acts of the Apostles tells us that Paul resolved to go to Rome during his time in Ephesus:


"Paul resolved in the Spirit to pass through Macedonia and Achaia and go to Jerusalem, saying, 'After I have been there, I must also see Rome.' " – Acts 19.21


This was soon after he had expelled evil spirits from the sick. This he did remotely by passing out handkerchiefs that had touched his skin (Acts 19.12) – a trick not even performed by Jesus!


But Rome he "must" see!

 

[Gavana]

njoo umsaidie Abdul mwenzio hajielewi huku!!

Lift off. Paul leaves Judea for Rome in 59 AD ?

Acts would have us believe that Paul was the top priority of the procurator Porcius Festus, when the Roman official arrived in Caesarea (Acts 25.1,27)


Numismatic evidence of Festus in Judea show coins stamped "Caesar Nero Year 5", in other words, the year 59 AD.


In that case, Paul's supposed voyage to Rome was in the Autumn of 59, followed by the 3-month castaway on Melite during the winter months of 59/60.


Therefore the "two whole years" of house arrest in Rome would be the years 60/61 and 61/62 – far too early for Paul to be caught up in the fire that devastated the city in the summer of 64 AD !

 

[Gavana]

njoo umsaidie Abdul mwenzio hajielewi huku!!

Arrival in Italy

Paul's itinerary: two days by sea from the toe of Italy at Rhegium to reach Puteoli – and then a week's stay with local Christians?




The port at Puteoli

Puteoli was a major entry point into Italy. The young Josephus landed here on his way to Rome (Life, 3.16). He reports that there was a considerable Jewish element in the population of the port (Antiquities 17.12).


Puteoli declined in importance after the new port of Portus at Ostia was built. This enlarged harbour was started by Claudius and completed by Nero.


The 4th century Acts of Peter and Paul identifies the brethren who greeted Paul at Puteoli as "some of Peter's disciples".

 

[Gavana]

kamata hiyo

Paul in Rome? No kidding!

Paul's sojourn in Rome is a fabricated deceit​

​

Paul, the valiant soldier for Christ and tireless missionary, finally arrived in Rome, a prisoner in chains delivered to his fate. Surely there would be a big finish to such an illustrious career? But no, the final chapter of Acts of the Apostles fizzles out, with its hero living in his own rented house, a Roman guard for company, and receiving all that came to him. Two whole years passed and the apostle preached the kingdom of God and the Lord Jesus without hindrance. End of.


Such an ending, whilst sufficient for the first edition of the story, clearly left later Christians frustrated. When and how had Paul died? Surely it was as a martyr? Had he not indicated in his letter to the Romans a desire to visit Spain? From that it was reasoned – by "tradition" of course – that Paul had been released from his house arrest and made another missionary journey, not just to Spain but also to Crete and elsewhere. The apostle was then re-arrested, returned to Rome, imprisoned a second time and then executed by Nero after the great fire!


This ridiculous itinerary made it possible for Paul to be associated with the "first persecution" of the Church and newly written "pastoral" epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus.) could be presented as "authentic". Pious romances, scribbled between the 2nd and 4th centuries, such as Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Martyrdom of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thecla – provided additional fabulous nonsense, including Paul's beheading on the very same day as Peter!


Nothing in secular history confirms the fate of St Paul – but then nothing in secular history confirms even his existence. Even without the accretions of legend and Christian imagination, Paul's sojourn in Rome is a fabricated deceit.

 

[Kisoda2]

Debate TV isiyo link , Mnajikaanga kama mungu wenu aliyebebwa na Shetani aliyevaa chupi 😛😛😛😛

huna bando!! siungekopa kwa Allah, maana akitamka tu ina kuwa! Kun fa ya kun! Be there it it is!!

 

[Kisoda2]

Arrival in Italy

Paul's itinerary: two days by sea from the toe of Italy at Rhegium to reach Puteoli – and then a week's stay with local Christians?




The port at Puteoli

Puteoli was a major entry point into Italy. The young Josephus landed here on his way to Rome (Life, 3.16). He reports that there was a considerable Jewish element in the population of the port (Antiquities 17.12).


Puteoli declined in importance after the new port of Portus at Ostia was built. This enlarged harbour was started by Claudius and completed by Nero.


The 4th century Acts of Peter and Paul identifies the brethren who greeted Paul at Puteoli as "some of Peter's disciples".

Oyaa wahi nafasi yako usije batizwa kwa maji baridi ukashikwa na ngiri!!

 

[Gavana]

huna bando!! siungekopa kwa Allah, maana akitamka tu ina kuwa! Kun fa ya kun! Be there it it is!!

Kama ulivyosema huamini biblia , unaamini kitu gani?? Au ile kitu ya punda wa Ezekiel 23; 20 ??😛😛

 

[Gavana]

Oyaa wahi nafasi yako usije batizwa kwa maji baridi ukashikwa na ngiri!!

Voyage to Rome – or flight of fancy?

Why did Paul get sent to Rome? Acts itself provides the answer – Jesus told him he had to go there!

" And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." – Acts 23.11.​

What this verse betrays is the "plot twist" intended all along by the story teller who wrote Acts. It explains the odd series of "warnings" and "hearings" that fill Acts chapters 21 to 27. From the moment the writer has his intrepid traveller come ashore at Tyre at the end of his third journey, it is Rome that beckons, even though the story fizzles out when Paul finally gets there. (Could it be that merely his presence in the city is sufficient for the purposes of Roman Catholicism?)

Quite simply, the entire yarn is a theological construct: the journey to Rome is bogus.

 

[Kisoda2]

​

Paul in Rome? No kidding!​

​

Paul's sojourn in Rome is a fabricated deceit​

​

Paul, the valiant soldier for Christ and tireless missionary, finally arrived in Rome, a prisoner in chains delivered to his fate. Surely there would be a big finish to such an illustrious career? But no, the final chapter of Acts of the Apostles fizzles out, with its hero living in his own rented house, a Roman guard for company, and receiving all that came to him. Two whole years passed and the apostle preached the kingdom of God and the Lord Jesus without hindrance. End of.


Such an ending, whilst sufficient for the first edition of the story, clearly left later Christians frustrated. When and how had Paul died? Surely it was as a martyr? Had he not indicated in his letter to the Romans a desire to visit Spain? From that it was reasoned – by "tradition" of course – that Paul had been released from his house arrest and made another missionary journey, not just to Spain but also to Crete and elsewhere. The apostle was then re-arrested, returned to Rome, imprisoned a second time and then executed by Nero after the great fire!


This ridiculous itinerary made it possible for Paul to be associated with the "first persecution" of the Church and newly written "pastoral" epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus.) could be presented as "authentic". Pious romances, scribbled between the 2nd and 4th centuries, such as Acts of Paul, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Martyrdom of Paul and the Acts of Paul and Thecla – provided additional fabulous nonsense, including Paul's beheading on the very same day as Peter!


Nothing in secular history confirms the fate of St Paul – but then nothing in secular history confirms even his existence. Even without the accretions of legend and Christian imagination, Paul's sojourn in Rome is a fabricated deceit.

Huko huwezi elewa kitu. maana kama AYA hii hukuielewa ALLAH anaongea nini kuhusu Jesus Christ. Hayo machapisho ya vilaza venzako yatakukosesha UZIMA wa MILELE.
Mnajitahidi sana kufanya figisu kwenye tafsiri lakini kwa sisi learned Brothers before you tunawa checki tu!
Bishana na Binamu yake Bwanako(Kumbuka huyu aliahidiwa direct eternal life bila kupepesa kama wewe unayehangaika na vijarida uchwara) na bado naye katia figisu kidogo humo.

Al Imran (The family of Imran) - آل عمران
3.55

Arabic - إِذْ قَالَ ٱللَّهُ يَٰعِيسَىٰٓ إِنِّى مُتَوَفِّيكَ وَرَافِعُكَ إِلَىَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ وَجَاعِلُ ٱلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوكَ فَوْقَ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوٓا۟ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ ۖ ثُمَّ إِلَىَّ مَرْجِعُكُمْ فَأَحْكُمُ بَيْنَكُمْ فِيمَا كُنتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ
Pickthall - (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.
Sahih Intl - [Mention] when Allah said, "O Jesus, indeed I will take you and raise you to Myself and purify you from those who disbelieve and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return, and I will judge between you concerning that in which you used to differ.
Yusuf Ali - Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
===============
Commentary by.
Quran 3.55 Abbas - Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs
((and remember) when allah said: o jesus! lo! i am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto me, and am cleansing) saving (thee of those who disbelieve) in you (and am setting those who follow you) follow your religion (above those who disbelieve) with strong argument and triumph (until the day of resurrection) then i shall make you to die after descent; it is also said this means: i shall make your heart die to the love of the life of this world. (then unto me ye will (all) return) after death, (and i shall judge between you as to that wherein) in religion (ye used to differ) to argue.

Swali.
Wewe na Abdul wenu (mkubwa na wanawe) mnamfata YESU, kwa namna ipi?
Based on this verse,was Allah dreaming, drunk or what?

Jibambe!

 

[Gavana]

huna bando!! siungekopa kwa Allah, maana akitamka tu ina kuwa! Kun fa ya kun! Be there it it is!!

Walking orderly"

Twice the Holy Spirit "forbids" Paul to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21.4, 21.11) but the apostle, bumptious egotist that he is, will have none of it. Paul is "ready to die" for Jesus. In Jerusalem, Paul is received "gladly" by the brethren, even though they have heard that he has forsaken Moses (Acts 21.21). To prove his kosher credentials they require him to perform a purification ceremony of four selected men in the temple, thus proving to the wary Jews that he still "walks orderly and keeps the law" (Acts 21.24).

The gesture goes badly wrong. Paul's presence in the temple "stirs up all the people".

For some reason, the hostile Jews believe that Paul has profaned the temple by taking in his Greek helpmate Trophimus. (Nasty!)

The temple doors are shut, the "whole city is in uproar" (the Christian heroes do love to be the centre of attention). At this point, the Romans "run down" and rescue Paul from a beating (Acts 21.32), the commander thinking Paul might be "the Egyptian" rabble rouser (a character otherwise found in the pages of Josephus! – Wars, 13).

Bizarrely (surely this is theatre?), the Romans allow the apostle to address "the people", giving Paul an opportunity to rehearse his "rabbinic policeman turned apostle in Damascus" routine. He finishes by telling his audience that, anyway, in a trance the Lord had warned him that the Jews would not listen and that he should get himself off to the Gentiles.

The Jews – en masse, it seems – demand his execution. The nonplussed Romans think it a good idea to scourge Paul, the better to get at the truth. But this does not happen. At this point, the apostle brings a rabbit out of a hat: having previously stressed his Jewish credentials, he now declares himself a Roman, "free born" (Acts 22.28).

The uncertain Romans decide to place Paul before the Jewish chief priests and council, with the result that Paul is struck on the mouth but manages to cause "great dissension" between the Sadducees and Pharisees on the council by claiming to be a Pharisee and declaring his belief in resurrection.

MThat is all it takes for the scribes to "find no evil in this man". Even so, in the supposed melee, Paul has to be taken into protective custody by the Romans, "lest he be pulled in pieces" by incensed Jews.

 

[Kisoda2]

Voyage to Rome – or flight of fancy?

Why did Paul get sent to Rome? Acts itself provides the answer – Jesus told him he had to go there!

​

" And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome." – Acts 23.11.​

What this verse betrays is the "plot twist" intended all along by the story teller who wrote Acts. It explains the odd series of "warnings" and "hearings" that fill Acts chapters 21 to 27. From the moment the writer has his intrepid traveller come ashore at Tyre at the end of his third journey, it is Rome that beckons, even though the story fizzles out when Paul finally gets there. (Could it be that merely his presence in the city is sufficient for the purposes of Roman Catholicism?)

Quite simply, the entire yarn is a theological construct: the journey to Rome is bogus.

Paul is a BIG Time night mare of you! Hamlali bila kumuota Paul.
Allah mwenyewe anamtambua who is PAUL and he confirmed in your stupid book that, PAUL is a messenger of the living God(Jesus Christ)

Kamata hii.

36.14

Arabic - إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَآ إِلَيْهِمُ ٱثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ فَقَالُوٓا۟ إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُم مُّرْسَلُونَ
Pickthall - When We sent unto them twain, and they denied them both, so We reinforced them with a third, and they said: Lo! we have been sent unto you.
Sahih Intl - When We sent to them two but they denied them, so We strengthened them with a third, and they said, "Indeed, we are messengers to you."
Yusuf AliWhen - We (first) sent to them two messengers, they rejected them: But We strengthened them with a third: they said, "Truly, we have been sent on a mission to you."
=====================
Commenatries By:
36.13-17 Kathir - Ibn Al Kathir - The story of the dwellers of the town and their messengers, a lesson that those who belied their messengers were destroyed Allah says, `o Muhammad, tell your people who disbelieve in you,
'مَّثَلاً أَصْحَـبَ القَرْيَةِ إِذْ جَآءَهَا الْمُرْسَلُونَ
(a similitude; the dwellers of the town, when there came messengers to them.) in the reports that he transmitted from ibn `abbas, ka`b al-ahbar and wahb bin munabbih - ibn ishaq reported that it was the city of antioch, in which there was a king called antiochus the son of antiochus the son of antiochus, who used to worship idols. allah sent to him three messengers, whose names were sadiq, saduq and shalum, and he disbelieved in them. it was also narrated from buraydah bin al-husayb, `ikrimah, qatadah and az-zuhri that it was antioch. some of the imams were not sure that it was antioch, as we shall see below after telling the rest of the story, if allah wills.
إِذْ أَرْسَلْنَآ إِلَيْهِمُ اثْنَيْنِ فَكَذَّبُوهُمَا
(when we sent to them two messengers, they denied them both😉 means, they hastened to disbelieve in them.
فَعَزَّزْنَا بِثَالِثٍ
(so we reinforced them with a third,) means, `we supported and strengthened them with a third messenger. ' ibn jurayj narrated from wahb bin sulayman, from shu`ayb al-jaba'i, "the names of the first two messengers were Sham`un and Yuhanna, and the name of the third was Bulus, and the city was antioch (antakiyah)

.فَقَالُواْ
(and they said) means, to the people of that city
,إِنَّآ إِلَيْكُمْ مُّرْسَلُونَ
(verily, we have been sent to you as messengers.) meaning, `from your lord who created you and who commands you to worship him alone with no partners or associates.' this was the view of abu al-`aliyah. qatadah bin di`amah claimed that they were messengers of the messiah, peace be upon him, sent to the people of antioch.

Deal with your books First. How about that?
Any Abdul can explain why Allah is confirming that, Paul is a Messenger of God?
and if this is not true, why Muhammad kept it in the Quran??

 

[Kisoda2]

Walking orderly"

Twice the Holy Spirit "forbids" Paul to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21.4, 21.11) but the apostle, bumptious egotist that he is, will have none of it. Paul is "ready to die" for Jesus. In Jerusalem, Paul is received "gladly" by the brethren, even though they have heard that he has forsaken Moses (Acts 21.21). To prove his kosher credentials they require him to perform a purification ceremony of four selected men in the temple, thus proving to the wary Jews that he still "walks orderly and keeps the law" (Acts 21.24).

The gesture goes badly wrong. Paul's presence in the temple "stirs up all the people".

For some reason, the hostile Jews believe that Paul has profaned the temple by taking in his Greek helpmate Trophimus. (Nasty!)

The temple doors are shut, the "whole city is in uproar" (the Christian heroes do love to be the centre of attention). At this point, the Romans "run down" and rescue Paul from a beating (Acts 21.32), the commander thinking Paul might be "the Egyptian" rabble rouser (a character otherwise found in the pages of Josephus! – Wars, 13).

Bizarrely (surely this is theatre?), the Romans allow the apostle to address "the people", giving Paul an opportunity to rehearse his "rabbinic policeman turned apostle in Damascus" routine. He finishes by telling his audience that, anyway, in a trance the Lord had warned him that the Jews would not listen and that he should get himself off to the Gentiles.

The Jews – en masse, it seems – demand his execution. The nonplussed Romans think it a good idea to scourge Paul, the better to get at the truth. But this does not happen. At this point, the apostle brings a rabbit out of a hat: having previously stressed his Jewish credentials, he now declares himself a Roman, "free born" (Acts 22.28).

The uncertain Romans decide to place Paul before the Jewish chief priests and council, with the result that Paul is struck on the mouth but manages to cause "great dissension" between the Sadducees and Pharisees on the council by claiming to be a Pharisee and declaring his belief in resurrection.

MThat is all it takes for the scribes to "find no evil in this man". Even so, in the supposed melee, Paul has to be taken into protective custody by the Romans, "lest he be pulled in pieces" by incensed Jews.

Do you believe Holy Spirit exist?

 

[Kisoda2]

Walking orderly"

Twice the Holy Spirit "forbids" Paul to go to Jerusalem (Acts 21.4, 21.11) but the apostle, bumptious egotist that he is, will have none of it. Paul is "ready to die" for Jesus. In Jerusalem, Paul is received "gladly" by the brethren, even though they have heard that he has forsaken Moses (Acts 21.21). To prove his kosher credentials they require him to perform a purification ceremony of four selected men in the temple, thus proving to the wary Jews that he still "walks orderly and keeps the law" (Acts 21.24).

The gesture goes badly wrong. Paul's presence in the temple "stirs up all the people".

For some reason, the hostile Jews believe that Paul has profaned the temple by taking in his Greek helpmate Trophimus. (Nasty!)

The temple doors are shut, the "whole city is in uproar" (the Christian heroes do love to be the centre of attention). At this point, the Romans "run down" and rescue Paul from a beating (Acts 21.32), the commander thinking Paul might be "the Egyptian" rabble rouser (a character otherwise found in the pages of Josephus! – Wars, 13).

Bizarrely (surely this is theatre?), the Romans allow the apostle to address "the people", giving Paul an opportunity to rehearse his "rabbinic policeman turned apostle in Damascus" routine. He finishes by telling his audience that, anyway, in a trance the Lord had warned him that the Jews would not listen and that he should get himself off to the Gentiles.

The Jews – en masse, it seems – demand his execution. The nonplussed Romans think it a good idea to scourge Paul, the better to get at the truth. But this does not happen. At this point, the apostle brings a rabbit out of a hat: having previously stressed his Jewish credentials, he now declares himself a Roman, "free born" (Acts 22.28).

The uncertain Romans decide to place Paul before the Jewish chief priests and council, with the result that Paul is struck on the mouth but manages to cause "great dissension" between the Sadducees and Pharisees on the council by claiming to be a Pharisee and declaring his belief in resurrection.

MThat is all it takes for the scribes to "find no evil in this man". Even so, in the supposed melee, Paul has to be taken into protective custody by the Romans, "lest he be pulled in pieces" by incensed Jews.

Stocks never end!!