If I Could Say Otherwise

[Barde]

Lionger,


One Fundamental fact is that all what sharia is saying can be found in the Bible, infact jesus is been quoted given such admonitions but you guys (Christians) decided to abondoned all the teachings of Jesus for st Paul's teachings who systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, Chapter 7:6, he stated,

"BUT NOW WE ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE LAW, DEAD TO THAT WHICH HELD US CAPTIVE, SO THAT WE SERVE NOT UNDER THE OLD WRITTEN CODE BUT IN THE NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT". Emphasis mine. What laws are christians discharged from?

For clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.

"THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine.

Again this is what Allah (SWT) is telling us in Qur 5:46.

"AND IN THEIR FOOTSTEPS, I SENT JESUS, SON OF MARY, CONFIRMING THE TORAH THAT HAD COME BEFORE HIM, AND I GAVE HIM THE GOSPEL, IN WHICH WAS GUIDANCE AND LIGHT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE TORAH THAT HAD COME BEFORE IT". emphasis mine.

How come Jesus is talking about Fulfilling the law while Paul is talking about abolishing the law yet you want us to believe that Christians do not leave under any law and are christ-like? Who is talking about abolishing the law, Paul or Jesus? It will be more appropriate if i put it to you that christians are Paul-like, not Jesus-like, since the former does not believed in any law. Micheal H. Hart (a christian) stated in his book "The 100".
"Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of christianity, st paul was the main developer of christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the new testament". This clearly indicates that what you are practicing is not the true teachings of Jesus Christ but Paul, hence you are Paul-like not Jesus-like. We would have been more peaceful if christians will start implementing the true teachings of Jesus Christ.

I might be misinterpreting the verses cose of my little knowledge of English grammer, i will be pleased if any one can clarify what Jesus is saying and that of st Paul (from the above verses) or are the words similar? (Fufilment and Abolishment).

[mallamt]

Lionger/mallamt,


Am so sorry, what i considered a decent dress code might not be same as what you considered a decent dress code. But all what i know is that during the life time of Jesus christ, women were always covering themselves in respective of where they are. But am so suprised that christians who are supposed to be christ-like are now referring to such a dress code as a 'masquerate'. No wonder we see them dancing half naked in churches.

I want you to please tell us the way a born-again christian supposed to dress. How would you see any northern university introducing a dress code when they been threatened with a court case? and Thanx for the name you gave me.

Barde
I don't know if your poblem is language or mere ignorance.  When you talk of women dressing during the time of either Christ or Mohammed please be more specific about which women because it was not all women as in some other parts of the world people (women inclusive) wore leaves or even walked around naked!  In christianity you do not have to dress like an arab or jew to be considered as having dressed decently please take note.  So all you name calling and insult of christainity holds no water.

[mallamt]

Lionger,


One good thing is that all what sharia is clamouring for is there in the Bible, infact jesus is been quoted given such admonitions but you guys (Christians) decided to abondoned all the teachings of Jesus for st Paul's teachings who systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, Chapter 7:6, he stated,

"BUT NOW WE ARE DISCHARGED FROM THE LAW, DEAD TO THAT WHICH HELD US CAPTIVE, SO THAT WE SERVE NOT UNDER THE OLD WRITTEN CODE BUT IN THE NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT". Emphasis mine. Which of the laws are christians discharged from?

For clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.

THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine..........

.....I might be misinterpreting the verses cose of my little knowledge of English language, i will be pleased if any one can clarify what Jesus is saying and the one of st Paul? (from the above verses).

Barde
It is precisely because of people like you that christians get scared when the matter of dress code is brought up, here you are trying to interprete to christains what you yourself doesn't know! and you are presenting it as the correct interpretation.
I have once before told you to always search for context please.  Read and cross reference Roman 7:6 with the following if you really want to understand it (or else stop your blasphemy) Rom 6:1&15, Rom 8:4, Rom3:31.

[mallamt]

Barde
I just thought I should explain properly Rom 7:6 and Mat 5:18 to the best of my ability

Rom 7:6
..DELIVERED (DISCHARED) FROM LAW...not freedom to do what God's law forbids(see Rom 6:1&15; Rom8:4; and Rom3:31), but freedom from spiritual liabilities and penalties of God's law (In response to faith in Christ, God makes the believing sinner forever dead to the condemnation and penalty of the law)  Because believers died in Christ when He died the law with its condemnation and penalties no longer has jurisdiction over believers.
...SERVE... this a verb from the word "bondservant", but here it is parallel to being slaves of rightouesness (see Rom 6:22) emphasizing this service is not voluntary.  Not only is the believer able to do what is right, he will do what is right.
.....THE NEWNESS OF THE SPIRIT (NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT)...A new state of mind which the spirit produces, characterised by a new desire and ability to keep the law of God (see Rom 8:4)
....OLDNESS OF THE LETTER (WRITTEN CODE)...the external, written law code that produced hostility and condemnation

MAT 5:18 (I noticed you have erred and qouted verse 17 as verse 18)
....TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY...TILL ALL IS FULFILLED...here Christ was emphasizing both the inspiration and the enduring authority of all scripture.  He was specifically affirming the utter inerrancy and absolute authority of the old testament as the word of God-down to the least jot and tittle. (see verse 17), this tells us that the new testament is not supplanting and abrogating the old testament but fulfilling and explicating it.

[Barde]

Mallamt,

Does Fulfilment and abolishment means the same? Just help me with the literal meaning of these words after that you tell us the laws that Jesus came to Fulfilled.

[_Waziri_]

Haba lionger,

I expect you to say the truth whenever you put forward a claim that what I say is not true in some way. But I did not see you trying to do that the way I know you before. Anyway that is not the issue.

Actually Shari a in this sees our Christians neighbours as people who can help in coming up with a dress code. And this however does not say the Christians must dress exactly the way Muslims dress. In fact in the social laws of Islam, in Islamic states, non Muslims are required to dress differently from Muslims that they may be recognized.

Therefore what we want is for our Christian friends to understand that when we say dress code we don't mean Islamizing them. We mean they should come together with us and look at an appropriate  yardstick as expressed in their scriptures too that we can have something minimum for them and minimum for us.

Another thing is how do we come about doing the right thing in a wrong way here? Remember nobody is restricting any woman from commenting around here. The point is if she commented and made sense she is considered. If she comment not, it will not stop us from reaching a conclusion.

Finally when you say something like this:

Like I've always said, Northern Nigeria's Sharia simpy exists for division and for the continued survival of those corrupt politicians.

I will only dismiss that as only your opinion with some parochial tendencies. It is a conclusion without premise. A sweeping statement. For instances must be cited first before such a statement can assume credibility even in a court of law.

[lionger]

Barde,

E bi like say u no remember my name anymore..have u forgotten the long argument we had on this sharia issue?? This is not the place to restart this discussion o!

Waziri,

Actually I have no beef with most of what you've said in ur latest post, not even with ur statement thatmy opinions on Northern Nigeria's sharia are biased, lol. I believe i've said plenty to support my statement much earlier on this forum. I don't think the discussion on this thread should go in that direction.

[mallamt]

Mallamt,

Does Fulfilment and abolishment means the same? Just help me with the literal meaning of these words after that you tell us the laws that Jesus came to Fulfilled.

Barde
Firstly, what is your point about the sameness in meaning between fulfilment and abolishment? Secondly this is not the right thread to bring the discussion you are trying to, if you want to discuss/debate this matter or similar please start a new thread on it, take this as an advice if not take it as a challenge.  Let this response of mine on this subject be the last one in this thread and you start a new thread on the subject.

FULFILMENT:1   to carry out (something promised, desired, expected, predicted, etc.); cause to be or happen
2   to do (something required); obey
3   to fill the requirements of; satisfy (a condition) or answer (a purpose)
4   to bring to an end; complete:
ABOLISHMENT:to do away with completely; put an end to; esp., to make (a law, etc.) null and void

As I have told you on several occassions since you have a bible please read it carefuly.  In what context and on what occassion was Jesus speaking when He uttered the phrase I have come to fulfil them?  This is a qoute from you (you actually indicated you were qouting the bible)

For clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.

THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine..........

So you tell me even from your own qoute what laws Jesus was talking about.  Now also do you know the laws that are refered to as the laws of Moses?  I am sure you can now see the answer to your question from your own posting (please read your postings or you will embarasse yourself)

I also noted you have not actually said what verse you are qouting or if you erred in you qouting the bible.  You qouted Mat 5:17 and refered to it as Mat 5:18 can you please give an indication of what verse you are actually refering to.

[Barde]

Barde
I just thought I should explain properly Rom 7:6 and Mat 5:18 to the best of my ability

Rom 7:6
..DELIVERED (DISCHARED) FROM LAW...not freedom to do what God's law forbids(see Rom 6:1&15; Rom8:4; and Rom3:31), but freedom from spiritual liabilities and penalties of God's law (In response to faith in Christ, God makes the believing sinner forever dead to the condemnation and penalty of the law)  Because believers died in Christ when He died the law with its condemnation and penalties no longer has jurisdiction over believers.
...SERVE... this a verb from the word "bondservant", but here it is parallel to being slaves of rightouesness (see Rom 6:22) emphasizing this service is not voluntary.  Not only is the believer able to do what is right, he will do what is right.
.....THE NEWNESS OF THE SPIRIT (NEW LIFE OF SPIRIT)...A new state of mind which the spirit produces, characterised by a new desire and ability to keep the law of God (see Rom 8:4)
....OLDNESS OF THE LETTER (WRITTEN CODE)...the external, written law code that produced hostility and condemnation

Mallamt,

I have not got to read what you wrote untill now. So the law existed during his life time, until after his dead. No wonder some christians will tell you that "the law is nailed to the cross" meaning the law is done away with."We are now living under grace".

[Barde]

Mallamt,

Does Fulfilment and abolishment means the same? Just help me with the literal meaning of these words after that you tell us the laws that Jesus came to Fulfilled.

Barde
Firstly, what is your point about the sameness in meaning between fulfilment and abolishment? Secondly this is not the right thread to bring the discussion you are trying to, if you want to discuss/debate this matter or similar please start a new thread on it, take this as an advice if not take it as a challenge.  Let this response of mine on this subject be the last one in this thread and you start a new thread on the subject.

FULFILMENT:1   to carry out (something promised, desired, expected, predicted, etc.); cause to be or happen
2   to do (something required); obey
3   to fill the requirements of; satisfy (a condition) or answer (a purpose)
4   to bring to an end; complete:
ABOLISHMENT:to do away with completely; put an end to; esp., to make (a law, etc.) null and void

As I have told you on several occassions since you have a bible please read it carefuly.  In what context and on what occassion was Jesus speaking when He uttered the phrase I have come to fulfil them?  This is a qoute from you (you actually indicated you were qouting the bible)

For clearity i have to state where Jesus is quoted in Mathew 5:18.

THINK NOT THAT I HAVE COME TO ABOLISH THE LAW OF MOSES OR THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS. NO I CAME TO FULFILL THEM".Emphasis mine..........

So you tell me even from your own qoute what laws Jesus was talking about.  Now also do you know the laws that are refered to as the laws of Moses?  I am sure you can now see the answer to your question from your own posting (please read your postings or you will embarasse yourself)

I also noted you have not actually said what verse you are qouting or if you erred in you qouting the bible.  You qouted Mat 5:17 and refered to it as Mat 5:18 can you please give an indication of what verse you are actually refering to.

Mallamt,

I Mistakenly quoted verse 18 instead of 17 as you rightly said. Bear with me, am still  learning.

Thank you for giving us the definations but you have not given us the laws, all the same, one thing has been established, that  the two words are not the same. Am i right to say Jesus and st Paul are not saying the same thing? since Jesus is talking about Fulfilling the law while Paul is talking about Abolishing Law. So christians decided to stick to what St paul is saying and still want us to believe they Christ-like?


Lionger,

Am sorry for answering you within Mallamt's quote.
Who do you think you are? what did you think you achieved in that our debate? you only succeded in disputing what your "holy book" is saying. See you in my next thread: The true message of Jesus christ.  Which is coming as soon as possible inshaAllah.

[_Waziri_]

Waziri,

Actually I have no beef with most of what you've said in ur latest post, not even with ur statement thatmy opinions on Northern Nigeria's sharia are biased, lol. I believe i've said plenty to support my statement much earlier on this forum. I don't think the discussion on this thread should go in that direction.

Yes lionger you have said much to support your statements then, which the good people of this forum who found your arguments worth responding to, responded with fine counter arguments. But much water has passed under the bridge since it first saw the light of the day. Your arguments are now years old. They are over taken by events. I suppose you will try supporting your arguments now with new realities according to the present circumstance.

Barde,

The title of that your new thread is a captivating one. I believe we will all find reason to learn from it. I hope we will go about it with some measure of caution. We check our wordings. We seek not to offend or humiliate our opponents and we appeal more to the reason of our readers.

I remain most grateful.

[lionger]

Barde,

So you weren't really listening to me, were you? No wonder you speak as though I never heard of "Sharia in the Bible" theory b4. Some of the questions you asked mallamt, you asked me, adn subsequently some of the things mallamt is saying, I've said to you before. Are you so hard of hearing? Since you obviously did not remember then, why would you remember now or in any other subsequent debate? Or are you simply interested in the joy of revealing your 'vast learning' lol. Well then clap for yourself, however, a little word of warning. Though I 'study to show myself approved unto God' (II Tim. 2:15), but I'm not necessarily interested in 'proving' myself. My duty is to testify to the Truth, and if the good Lord does not open our eyes, we will never see it. May He continue to show us His mercy! See you on that thread.

Waziri,
Honestly speaking, what are the new realities under which my position on Sharia should be revised? Honest question, don't take this for mockery  :)

[mallamt]

Mallamt,
I Mistakenly quoted verse 18 instead of 17 as you rightly said. Bear with me, am still  learning.
Thank you for giving us the definations but you have not given us the laws, all the same, one thing has been established, that  the two words are not the same. Am i right to say Jesus and st Paul are not saying the same thing? since Jesus is talking about Fulfilling the law while Paul is talking about Abolishing Law. So christians decided to stick to what St paul is saying and still want us to believe they Christ-like?

Once again you start with a long irrelevant qoute is this a strategy? What do you mean I did not give you the laws? Did you expect me to write it?  Well you have a bible please use it go to Exodus 20:2-17. These are the laws commonly refered to the laws of Moses.

Yes you are right, Jesus and Paul were not saying the same thing and I am suprised it took you this long to see that, the context both of them were speaking in were completely different. You should read the whole of Romans and try to get the context Paul was righting in then also try and read the whole of Mathew to get the context Christ was talking in. Your statements are obviously out of ignorance and a half baked knowledge.  I hope you also note that you are qouting from two different books (Roman and Mathew) is their any reason why you are not giving us the context these two books were written? (when we talk about books we are refering to Genesis, Exudos etc) Who was writing or speaking, who were they writting or talking to? what was the occassion, why were they writting or speaking, where were they, what was happening where they were? etc

I look forward to your thread and hope this is the last time we (you and I) hijack threads for our own discussions irrelevant to the thread.

[Barde]

Waziri,

Thank you very much for the advice. What am
going to write is nothing but the truth. Jazakumullahu khayran.



Lionger,

I want to you to understand some few things about me, am not learned that is why you see alot of mistakes in my write-ups, secondly am not doing anything for show-off, is just that i have a responsibility of telling you the truth. It is upto you to either take it or refuse it.




Mallamt,

Had it been you gave us the laws the way you defined Fulfillment and Abolishment, we wouldn't have been prolonging this issue, i want you to say everything yourself, (i mean the laws that kept the Romans captive). Don't give the impression that Jesus and Paul were speaking on different context, Mathew quoted Jesus on why he came to this earth and Paul in his letter to the Romans contradicted Jesus on the same issue. They were all talking about the law...besides, Paul as Jesus disciple is not supposed to contradict the sayings of Jesus in whatever context.

[mallamt]

Mallamt,

Had it been you gave us the laws the way you defined Fulfillment and Abolishment, we wouldn't have been prolonging this issue, i want you to say everything yourself, (i mean the laws that kept the Romans captive). Don't give the impression that Jesus and Paul were speaking on different context, Mathew quoted Jesus on why he came to this earth and Paul in his letter to the Romans contradicted Jesus on the same issue. They were all talking about the law...besides, Paul as Jesus disciple is not supposed to contradict the sayings of Jesus in whatever context.

Barde
Welcome back, I must say it is truly nice to have you back.  I will NOT respond to what you are saying until you start a new thread on the subject matter then I will respond.  You must take care and please I shall be waiting for that thread.  By the way what do you mean you are not learned?