Open Challenge to Muslims.

Whats the Challenge???

format_quote Originally Posted by Jannah

Whats the Challenge???

The challenge is for Muslims to comfront me about the Christian Bible, about our doctrine and or science in the Bible. I just ask that you post your question and I will reply, according to the Grace and Faith God has given me in regard to this area.

Greetings,

I've asked Christians this question before - let's see what you make of it.

format_quote Originally Posted by John 3:22

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.

And over the page:

format_quote Originally Posted by John 4:1-2

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

So did Jesus baptise?

Peace

format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson

Greetings,

I've asked Christians this question before - let's see what you make of it.



And over the page:



So did Jesus baptise?

Peace

John 4:1-2 is an explanation of John 3:22. In 3:22, John reveals that Jesus and his disciples were in the land of Judea, and that they were baptizing. In 4:2, the apostle fills us in on the details; telling us that "...Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)..." If 3:22 contradicts 4:2, then 4:1 also contradicts 4:2! However, 4:2 is an explanation of the previous statements.

There is no contradiction.

I have come with a more expounded explanation.



There are two different explanations to arrive at in the case of Jesus’ baptisms. Either He baptized believers personally, in the beginning, and then delegated the responsibility to His disciples later; or, His disciples had done all of the baptizing “in His name”.

For the former possibility, notice that John 4:2 says “baptized not”, not “never did baptize”, so the matter is uncertain based on this verse.

If He did indeed never baptize anyone personally, then John 4:1 as well will give us more comprehension of that position:

“When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)” John 4:1-2

In this passage, first it says He baptized, then it says that He Himself didn’t. These statements together infer that to say “Jesus baptized” meant “the disciples of Jesus baptized”. It is somewhat like saying “The U.S. won the war” even though it was specifically won by the individual soldiers operating as part of the military unit.

Taking John 3 in its entirety into consideration, it is highly probable that Jesus Himself at least baptized some people in the beginning of His ministry.

Hey, welcome to the forum.

Hope you enjoy yourself and God-willing we'll all learn from each other. Let truth flow from our hearts and our mouths, and if you are on truth, then I beg God to let me follow you, but if I am on truth, I beg God to you follow me. Ameen.

I got a fun one.

7 Day creation theory in the Bible, how do you put that in alignment with modern scientific knowledge?

Peace.

I believe it to be seven literal days, I also believe that science is just catching up to the Bible. I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old nor that carbon 14 works. Here is why.

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

format_quote Originally Posted by azim

Hey, welcome to the forum.

Hope you enjoy yourself and God-willing we'll all learn from each other. Let truth flow from our hearts and our mouths, and if you are on truth, then I beg God to let me follow you, but if I am on truth, I beg God to you follow me. Ameen.

I got a fun one.

7 Day creation theory in the Bible, how do you put that in alignment with modern scientific knowledge?

Peace.

Thank You so so much, I believe I will enjoy myself, and I agree with you God-willing that we will learn from each other. That is my prayer as well. Yes, may we only speak the truth as it becometh sound doctrine, and learn from each other in a God glorying to God way.

Peace Be with you,

I have a question for you sevenxtrust.

If followers are to follow the Bible completely, why do women NOT cover their hair, breasts, legs, etc?

"Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." (1 Corin. 11:1-16)


Salaam,
Sister Khadija:sister:

format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

Peace sevenxtrust:


Ohhhh, I thought you were going to answer all the questions from the other thread listed HERE I was looking forward to your responses.

I guess when you're finished answering those questions, (and there were a lot of them), you can respond to these questions. But, it won't take long because you already know everything with having the spirit of The True God speaking to you. (Which God is claiming to be the untrue God? ) As you say, you won't have the need for study or research. You're fortunate to be blessed with such memory and knowledge.

Errrmmmm, that "scientific evidence" came from the Creation Science Evangelisim – Seminar Notebook by Dr. Kent Hovind, an Evangelist and one that claims: HOVIND STATEMENT 1. Hovind has discovered a cure for cancer. A vitamin B17 deficiency causes cancer just like vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy. Taking B17 plus C will cure your cancer. Can you provide any respected and qualified scientists to support your claim?

Peace,
Hana

I believe you miss understand me, sorry for the confusion. What I mean by saying I can answer them without study is this. The Spirit of God speaks to us through His Word. So from my past studies, and dealing with some of these questions myself the Lord has spoken to me. I also said it will take me time to answer your questions, I do not know all scripture off by heart. That I admit, so I want to make sure what I give is total truth. I am not sure what you mean by asking a respectful scientist, because those who are not open to Gods word will not ask these questions, because then they would have to believe in Divine Creation. I don't know if you know this or not, but I beg you not to take my word for it, but seek and ye shall find. When you study science you are not allowed to look at what you see but what you don't see. There is a lot of guess work that fills in the gaps. But I will post another scientist, and if you are still not believing, you are relying on your own understanding. I BEG YOU TO PRAY AND GOD WILL GUIDE YOU.

I am deeply sorry for the misunderstanding.

format_quote Originally Posted by sevenxtrust

I believe you miss understand me, sorry for the confusion. What I mean by saying I can answer them without study is this. The Spirit of God speaks to us through His Word. So from my past studies, and dealing with some of these questions myself the Lord has spoken to me. I also said it will take me time to answer your questions, I do not know all scripture off by heart. That I admit, so I want to make sure what I give is total truth. I am not sure what you mean by asking a respectful scientist, because those who are not open to Gods word will not ask these questions, because then they would have to believe in Divine Creation. I don't know if you know this or not, but I beg you not to take my word for it, but seek and ye shall find. When you study science you are not allowed to look at what you see but what you don't see. There is a lot of guess work that fills in the gaps. But I will post another scientist, and if you are still not believing, you are relying on your own understanding. I BEG YOU TO PRAY AND GOD WILL GUIDE YOU.

I am deeply sorry for the misunderstanding.

Please don't just copy and paste!

format_quote Originally Posted by sevenxtrust

I believe it to be seven literal days, I also believe that science is just catching up to the Bible. I do not believe that the earth is billions of years old nor that carbon 14 works. Here is why.

Whenever the worldview of evolution is questioned, this topic always comes up. Let me first explain how carbon dating works and then show you the assumptions it is based on. Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.
The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/carbon.html

Corrects some abuses.

Here begin particulars respecting the public assemblies, ch. 1Co 14. In the abundance of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, some abuses had crept in; but as Christ did the will, and sought the honour of God, so the Christian should avow his subjection to Christ, doing his will and seeking his glory. We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for

his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have to ?power, to ? that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of

providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

So basically, the women should have long hair, that is what the Bible teaches as a head covering, also they should dress modestly, yes. But there is nothing about covering their legs in the Bible, and yes they should not be openly sowing their breast(the fleshly part). But they should be covered,,otherwise it is SIN, and there should be repentance.

format_quote Originally Posted by Jannah

Please don't just copy and paste!

What do you mean by copy and paste, you want the truth and thats what I give. If you want me to give you bits and pieces of the truth, fine. But for copy-write purposes when necessary I will not do so.

Sorry..

Why doesn't the Bible mention the advent of a great religion like Islam?

format_quote Originally Posted by sevenxtrust

What do you mean by copy and paste, you want the truth and thats what I give. If you want me to give you bits and pieces of the truth, fine. But for copy-write purposes when necessary I will not do so.

Sorry..

Some of the non-Muslim that come here just copy and paste...I just hope you'll be able to discuss and debate not only copying and pasting

peace

format_quote Originally Posted by Jannah

Some of the non-Muslim that come here just copy and paste...I just hope you'll be able to discuss and debate not only copying and pasting

peace

Yes for sure, I am capable, when necessary I will. I feel great sorrow over your decision. But you have a free will to choose. So I am fine with you choosing.