Kwa nini mnapenda ku-edit kauli ya allah? Ref hapo ulipochomekea eti allah kapuliza tumbo la mariam...!? allah mwenyewe kasema kapuliza kum#@ ya (farjaha)ibnata al imran ref q.66:12 wewe unasema kapuliza tumbo...karudia tena ktk q.21:91 anasema waallatee ahsanat 'f a r j a h a.....feeha min roohina...... wewe badala ya kusema kapuliz k%&@ma unasema tumbo...hiyo aya 4:171 inaeleza wazi kwamba Hakika Masihi ni Neno na Roho ya M'Mungu na sema labda sio ya allah hapo tutakubaliana...nasema hivi waAllah huna ubavu wa kumtetea allah wala muhammad kwa uzwazwa waliofanyia dunia...tukiwaelimisha na kunukuu kauli za allah na muhammad mnasema ni matusi na kashfa why? mf; fundisho hili unafundishaje family > sababu za kuoga no ukimuingilia maiti, mnyama, kuntha, mtoto tundu yeyote iwayo ya nyuma au mbele au ukiingiliwa wewe...
View attachment 412620View attachment 412620 Utafundishaje wanao na mameko au utaona ni matusi na kashfu..huu ni msiba dogo...
Kitabu hicho ulichonukuu nani alikiandika ??? Mnaandika vitabu baadaye mnavipenyeza kwa waislamu kuupotoa uislamu,
"
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law."
– Galatians 4.4.
In the verse that follows the writer explains that the son was born as a Jew in order that he might "redeem" others who were also Jews.
Nowhere in this, or any other epistle for that matter, is there any reference to a virgin, called Mary or by any other name, bringing forth a child.
In the one passage where Paul does discuss virgins (1
Corinthians 7) the writer says virgins serve the Lord better than wives because they are not distracted by the needs of their husbands!
The only other occasion where the Pauline writers are at all concerned with the birthing of Jesus is
Romans 1.1-3. and here the reference is to "human seed",
not the agency of divine spirit:
"
I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God ...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
The Pauline position is unequivocal. The authors know nothing of a supernatural conception and in fact say the very opposite – the birth was normal and Jewish, albeit of "kingly seed".
The author of
Mark is another who has no story of a holy virgin or divine impregnation.
Mark's Jesus makes his first appearance as an
adult, not a child, and there is no later referral to any supernatural, or even natural, birth.
Mark sketches in the barest detail regarding his hero's origin. His Jesus came "out of Galilee", emerging from the city of Nazareth for his baptism by John. But that is all
Mark has to say on the matter.
Perhaps more telling is the treatment of Jesus' origin in the gospel of
John. Here, the author, though he almost certainly knew the earlier fables dreamed up
Matthew and
Luke, like
Mark, has no interest in any human genesis of his "Word of God made flesh".
John states very clearly that Jesus was "
the son of Joseph" (John 1.45; 6.42.) – which could hardly have left Mary a virgin.
Again, like
Mark, he prefaces his story of Jesus with a preamble about John the Baptist and when the "Light" and the "lamb" first appears it is as an adult.
Later in his gospel,
John's Pharisees discuss the Christ and they are clearly under the impression that Jesus had no connection with Bethlehem (
John 7), a belief shared earlier in his tale by the
soon-to-be disciple Nathanael.
Not even the evangelist John is sold on the fantastical "virgin birth" yarn!
