Jump to content
Islamic Forum
faithfulserv

Matthew 16:21 Says Jesus Says He Would Be Killed

Recommended Posts

Matthew 16:21 - From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

 

If Jesus is predicting His death then why not believe it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Christian tradition says that Matthew's Gospel was the first written one. Tradition says Matthew wrote it in Hebrew and people translated it. Who translated the Gospel of Matthew into Greek? Where is the original Hebrew one? 

 

This question is directed at Redeemed in particular: Where is this the Divine mandate to write down the Gospels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 16:21 - From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

 

'If Jesus is predicting His death then why not believe it?'

 

Because, they'll say the Bible was corrupted. It is just not believable that someone would lie about Jesus death and resurrection and risk their lives and even be put to death to preach a tale. What is more believable is to say the Bible is corrupted to promote a different religion and take you away from God's previous message of salvation, IMHO

 

To say "the Bible is corrupted" would imply legends theory, but there are several reasons given in The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary R. Habermas and Mike Licona why this legend of corruption or fraud theory is untenable.

 

1. Original disciples claimed resurrection from the beginning.

2. Paul claimed to have seen Jesus.

3. James claimed to have seen Jesus.

4. Critics need evidence for their assertions.

5. Tomb was empty.

6. Conversion of the persecutor Paul.

7. Conversion of the family skeptic James.

8. Resurrection is a historical genre and most applicable.

9. Ancient critics attempted to refute the historical resurrection not the death of Jesus (since his death was as sure as anything in antiquity).

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian tradition says that Matthew's Gospel was the first written one. Tradition says Matthew wrote it in Hebrew and people translated it. Who translated the Gospel of Matthew into Greek? Where is the original Hebrew one? 

 

This question is directed at Redeemed in particular: Where is this the Divine mandate to write down the Gospels?

If you apply these standards to the Bible then nothing in antiquity about anything is true because we only have the copy of copies for everything. But the Bible is best because it has the most copy of copies to compare them all and it has earliest still surviving papyri closest to its events.

 

The divine mandate to write down the gospels is God's full guidance for mankind starting from the book of Genesis. If there is no Revelation there is no capstone and Revelation marks the 66th book of God's word. Each of the 4 books emphasize something different: Matthew Jesus is king, John Jesus is God and His love, Luke Jesus is fully man, and Mark Jesus is a servant of the Father.

 

Missing one of these 4 aspects is missing the fullness of God.

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam is a blind faith without evidence and requires you to shut your mind down to the evidence for Christ on the cross.

 

Would a loving God ever ask you to believe in Him blindly?

 

Therefore, you know Muhammad is asking you to believe in Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Where is this the Divine mandate to write down the Gospels?

There was no mandate, the four gospels written was a gift from the Church. Jesus did not “say write down the gospel” he said “preach the gospel”. That why we place heavy emphasis on the oral tradition of the church. The oral tradition Precedes the written tradition (scripture).

Edited by Gods Servant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mandate is given for 4 gospel narratives from Matthew, Luke, John and Mark as you can see they fit precisely to the need to show Jesus is king, servant, God, and man. Without one of these 4 you miss who Jesus is His character and nature, purpose and desire.

 

God uses members of the Church body of Christ to impart His word, not some guy in a cave all by himself.

 

Just as the 37 books of the OT were formed which Jesus referred to often, the NT is just as important the 27 books to show who the Messiah is, ushering in the kingdom of heaven which began with John the baptist, how the Church works and end-times.

 

Oral tradition has no authority if it contradicts the word of God. The Bible says test the spirits and prove all things.

 

Anything that is first spoken obviously occurs before it is written down. Jesus said to write these things down.

 

Jesus said in Rev. 1.19, "Write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after this."

 

Your problem is reject God the Son's words, His Church, His crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, deity and His elect. You are going to Hell. You don't care. You will make up any lie that feeds your flesh. But the faith is evidenced, and the Apostles truly believed they say Jesus alive from the dead: people don't die for what they know is a lie a group hallucinations are impossible.

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tradition has no authority if it contradicts the word of God. The Bible says test the spirits and prove all things.

 

The written tradition (scripture) is not greater than the oral tradition and vice versa. How was the oral tradition tested up until the 4th century before the bible canon had finally been approved? There were disputes up until this time as to which books were inspired. Edited by Gods Servant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The written is greater for it is God's intended word when oral tradition can be confused. The word of God which was written is multiply corroborated testimony not just some guy in a cave which is your blind faith.

 

Since the NT was completed in the 1st century whatever oral traditions that came along that contradicted the word could be shown to be false by the word of God.

 

The canon did not need to wait 4 centuries. It was completed in the 1st century.

 

Men may dispute but the books of the 1st century remain solid. Who cares about 2nd century and later books? These are called the "other books" which none were included.

 

For example, if Jesus were to return in 3 billion years we would always have the 66 books of the Bible in perfect harmony, and all you would have is some pedophile in a cave all by himself who hated God's only begotten Son and who had with 6 year olds and 9 year olds.

 

To hate His Son is to Hate Him. Jesus said I and my Father are One.

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m a Christian, I love Jesus who is my Lord and God – blessed be his name forever :)

 

No offence but I think your knowledge in history is somewhat shaky. You said “Men may dispute but the books of the 1st century remain solid. Who cares about 2nd century and later books”. There were many people who believed the apocrypha of Peter was inspired as well as many other books and thus erred about what to believe. That’s why they needed the magisterium to guide them and form the bible canon or else the canon itself wouldn't have had to be necessary. The certainty of the early church depended on communion and consensus with the apostolic churches not “because the bible says so” only. Here’s a quote from Tertullian from the 3rd century.

 

 

"It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth."

 

http://www./fathers/0311.htm

 

 

I would love to see your evidence from the early church that agree with the point you are making...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what other people think. The 27 books of the NT were completed in the 1st century. Your Apocalypse (not apocrypha) of Peter was centuries later. How absurd to add a book after the book of Revelation which caps it off.

 

I can tell you if I was living in the first century and the 27 books were already formed, there would be no issue about other books.

 

Formally acknowledging the 27 books was just a formality.

 

Churches do not have the authority to decide the books of the Bible. Only the Apostles have that authority and their authority was established in the 1st century by writing those books. Churches can only agree with the Apostles.

 

Who wrote the books of the NT were none other than the Apostles.

 

Cause and effect from God who directly chose the Apostles to their writings of the 27 books. It was done!

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I called it apocrypha of Peter because that’s what it is.

 

I’m waiting for evidence to back up your claim. You’re still stating your case “as a matter of factly” without references...

 

“Who wrote the books of the NT were none other than the Apostles” Mark and Luke were not apostles. It is not certain whether Paul did in fact write the letter to the Hebrews that’s why this is placed as the last letter of St Paul in the bible. Some scholars even date the letter after Paul’s death.

 

“Churches do not have the authority to decide the books of the Bible” Really? Then who decided the bible canon? You wouldn’t even be holding 27 books on the NT binded together in your hand if it wasn’t for the councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to any page such as wiki. It says Apocalypse of Peter. The Apocrypha are those books excluded from the Bible which the Apocalypse of Peter is one of them.

 

Any book written as late as the Apocalypse of Peter 2 centuries later is hardly the word of God. The 66 books of the Bible were completed no later than 95 AD when the book of Revelation was completed by John. Your flesh likes to add to God's word because you are not a Christian.

 

There are many early church fathers and historians who called Luke an Apostle as was Mark which simply means they were directly chosen by God to work in a region of churches to set up the churches by appointing elders of each church locality.

 

Paul definitely wrote Hebrews. I have no reason to doubt that. There are quite a few proofs of this. No other candidate fits. It belongs exactly where it is. I notice lots of people have troubles understanding it so it is best to put it where it is after people read the books that precede it.

 

Since Paul died in the Neronian persecutions it was written before then.

 

The Bible cannon was decided by the Apostles we already talked about. Any formal act is just subsequent to that.

 

The 27 books were written in the first century. I didn't need to hold them on some other authority 3 or 4 centuries later. Funny.

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My prayer is one day you accept the word of God in 66 books and don't add to it or take it away (Rev. 22.18,19) then you will be born-again to accept the Triune God who once-saves-always-saves and the 2nd Person will return to reign on earth in person for 1000 years in the 3rd Temple (that will begin construction in 2015) with His overcomers before the New City and New Earth commence.

Edited by faithfulserv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for evidence, you provided none. Until you do your argument is fallacious.

 

May the Holy Spirit guide us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evidence was given no books after 95 AD. The Holy Spirit does not reside in your spirit, because you add to God's word. My prayer is one day you give your life to Christ. You have no evidence to the contrary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not evidence and neither can you tell whether the Holy Spirit resides in me or not, what you said is merely your subjective opinion because I don’t agree with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should ask why 66 books then? Because 6 is the number of Satan and the number of man because man loves Satan's ways.

 

The 66 books, therefore, are the redemptive design to separate that union you are lost in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, it’s getting late in my area I have to go now. Thanks for the chat, it’s been quite stimulating :)

 

Peace in Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is evidence for what was written by the Apostles was before they died not after. You're not a Christian that's why you think the Bible was written after.

 

You add to God's word. That's all I need to know you are not a Christian according to Rev. 22.18,19.

 

"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book...God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city" (Rev. 22.18,19).

 

The Bible says you are going to Hell for what you are doing. Deep down you're a bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized that's why you are on a Muslim forum because like Muslims you like to add to God's word from books centuries later.


Crazy stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, this source of yours is not Christian tradition; it is secular views that state "On the surface this implies that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Aramai)..." This is a secular inference based on hypothesis

 

Either you didn't read the link or you have reading comprehension issues:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis#Basis_of_the_Hebrew_gospel_hypothesis:_Papias_and_the_early_church_fathers

 

It says that Papias said that Matthew wrote the Gospel in Hebrew.

 

More information:

 

"It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius inHist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." 

 

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

    • By Absolute truth
      The Story of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) is mentioned several times in the Qur’an. He and his mother, Mary, are presented as great role models to be loved, honored and imitated. Muslims believe that Jesus is a great Prophet who preached worshipping Allah alone.


      presents 7 miracles of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) mentioned in the Qur’an.
    • By Absolute truth
      The Messiahship of Jesus in the Qur’an, New Testament, Old Testament, and Other Sources (by Louay Fatoohi)
      By Eric bin Kisam

      To my knowledge there is no academic studies of what the messiahship of Jesus means in the Qur’an in comparison with the messiahship in Judaism and Christianity. This book: The Mystery of the Messiah: The Messiahship of Jesus in the Qur’an, New Testament, Old Testament, and Other Sources, by Louay Fatoohi (Luna Plena Publishing, 2009 ), is the only one of its kind.

      I consider Dr. Louay Fatoohi a unique muslim scholar of comparative religion. He came from Arab Christian background and has been passionate in studying the Qur’an, Islam and comparative religion since his youth . He is one of a few muslim author I know who is equally conversant with scholarly works on religion on both Christian and Islamic tradition, modern and classical as well as other historical sources, or on combinations of these writings.

      This book, I must say, is concise yet dense with information with meticulous crafted analysis on why and how the Messiah was developed in Judaism and Christianity. Fatoohi seeks to show that the Qur’anic Messiah is actually the historical one. Fatoohi drew upon his extensive study on the historical Jesus as he went through the concept of the “Messiah” in the Qur’an, the Bible (canonical and non canonical sources) and Dead Sea Scrolls and scholars from this field.

      In one chapter Fatoohi examines the concept of “Messiah” in the Hebrew Bible and other Jewish sources, including the Dead Sea Scrolls,. He make a very important observation that this title “Messiah” in the Hebrew Bible is applied only to historical never prophetic / future saviour figures, only later Jewish theology and literature started to invent this title as prophetic King, the salvational eschatological Messiah serving to free an oppressed jews abandoned by God. Fatoohi also explains different messiahs in other Jewish writings, the most prominent is the one described as the “son of David” the Royal military saviour and other is the priestly Messiah of Aaronic decendant, albeit the jews were not unanimous in their depiction of the awaited Messiah.

      In another chapter Fatoohi go through the concept of the term Messiah in the greek New Testament, Christos (Χριστός) from which “Christ” is derived. All New testament writers recognise Jesus as the Christ but in the New Testament the concept of “the Messiah”reflect the substantially bigger role as opposed to the Hebrew Bible. However Fatoohi explains Jesus of the Gospels was not properly anointed according to jewish tradition so that Jewish authorities and most jews did not recognise his messiahship. The same chapter Fatoohi highlight that the term “Christ”makes most of its appearance in Paul’s letters. Paul incorrectly use the term “Christ” as a proper name not title. This show his flawed understanding of what the term mean. Paul’s Christ is a spiritual figure who came to redeem people, by being crucified and raised from the dead. This version of Christ, Fatoohi argues, blur the historical Jesus because it is lack of Jesus historical details. Over centuries, most christians took Paul version of historical Jesus and focus only on the alleged crucifixion and the resurrection of him.

      Fatoohi dedicated a chapter discussing Al-Masih in the Qur’an. Essentially Fatoohi shows that the title is never presented as the reason for a special prophethood that make Jesus one of the most favoured prophets (yes , Jesus is one of those prophets) however Qur’an 3:45 give indication that the Messiah was a concept that God had previously revealed: a prophecy, although this prophecy is not specifically cited anywhere in the Qur’an as mentioning it centuries after it was fulfilled would not serve any purpose. Also Fatoohi explains that the use of definite article Al Masih does not necessarily mean that the Qur’an implies that there was only one Messiah although Jesus was the one special Messiah.

      The rest of the chapters Fatoohi discuss the different identities and attribute that the Gospel writers presented the Christ and examine each one of them from the Qur’an perspective, here are some salient points from this book, which I find it interesting:

      King of the Jews — in addition to anointed priests and prophets , the awaited Messiah is seen by the Jews as King, however the general context in NT, Fatoohi argues that Jesus never sought nor was he ever given the Kingship title. Jesus confirmed that he was the Christ in a way that a prophet and rabbi who remind people to go back to the religion of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all Hebrew prophets. The Christian image of the Messiah as a Spiritual King is the result of blending the Jewish concept of the messiah as an earthly King with the fact that Jesus historical role who was a spiritual leader to the Jews. The Qur’an corrected this distortion and put Jesus as a prophet who teach his people to go back to the teaching of what earlier prophets had brought. Jesus of the Qur’an is not a political leader who was expected to re-establish an earthly kingdom i.e. israel nor a quasi God who posses the throne of Heaven.
      Second Coming — Fatoohi persuasively argues that the concept of Jesus second coming was developed by Jesus early followers to explain his failure to deliver what they thought the Christ was going to do. The Qur’an does not support this concept of returning Messiah. The Qur’an messiah fulfilled his mission on earth. Although there are a number of hadiths attributed to Prophet Muhammad that seems to confirm Jesus second coming, it must have been influenced by Christian understanding. I am surprised that Fatoohi arrive at this conclusion there is Qur’anic verses which indirectly seems to suggest Jesus return e.g.[sûrah al-Nisâ’: 159, Sûrah al-Zukhruf: 61] as well as those hadiths predicting the returning of Jesus which are considered authentic, nevertheless I still find Fatoohi position plausible albeit minority position among Islamic scholars. I will look into this matter.
      Son of David — Many christians are eager to link Jesus as being descendant to David, the second King of israel (later just Judah) who had descendants also upon the throne. Here Fatoohi shows how contradictory position in the four gospels in relation to Jesus as being the son of David, and how those position were not reconcilable. On the other hand the Qur’anic position is consistent in maintaining that Jesus is “the son of Mary”, this mean the Qur’an reject any idea that Jesus is a warrior Messiah like David who was going to restore israel thus the fulfilment of the prophecy to David in 2 Samuel 7:16. In my opinion Fatoohi also spot on when bringing the point that Jesus link to Aaron because the fact that the Qur’an call Jesus’ Mother as “sister of Aaron. While as Fatoohi pointed out it is common mistakes among Biblical scholar to understand the expression “sister of Aaron” as meaning that Mary had brother called “Aaron” not as title of tribal connection , I have personally fascinated by this Qur’an term. To me there is a good reason why the Quran refer Mary to Aaron kinship. It emphatically gives a particular significance that Mary’s son ie. Jesus has the birth right as “the Messiah” or anointed one as we can read in Exodus 30:30-31 when God ordered prophet Moses to anoint his brother Aaron with a special type of anointment with a particular oil for kings …..from this anointing it give him and his heirs the right to the priesthood title down to prophet Jesus, hence the title Jesus “the Messiah”.
      Saviour — Fatoohi explains that the Qur’anic Messiah of Jesus is neither a saviour to bring the jews to restore its own kingdom nor the one who save people from sin by playing role as atoning agent, he is no unique saviour, a messenger and prophet albeit one of special messenger who was conceived miraculously and performed impressive miracles.
      Suffering Messiah — Fatoohi rightly mention that Judaism actually never knew of a suffering or resurrected messiah and the Qur’an reject the idea that the Messiah ever suffered the Passion. The concept of suffering messiah was a novelty that Christian writers introduced.

      As a final point, Fatoohi concluded from his study that the messiahship of Jesus in the Qur’an represent the original concept of the messiah or one messiah which was revealed by God which predate any shift in the meaning by Jews and Christian. At first the Jews did not expect a redeemer Messiah as this title is just for any past figures who were anointed as a gesture to sanctify themselves. Later the Jews started to invent a eschatological warrior messiah and associate him with King David to restore the Kingdom of israel. Christians inherited this type of Messiah and projected it even more on their Christ: a King from throne of Heaven who already came to atone people sin. Jesus saw his messiahship as a mandate to conform divine messages that had been revealed to previous prophets that is calling people back to the way of God of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Aaron and all Hebrew prophets. That is the historical Messiah the Qur’an is telling us about.

      I can say Fatoohi’s study is helpful in considering critically how the significance of Messiahship evolved from just anointed past figures to eschatological warrior King of Judaism to Pauline god-men Jesus and later how the Qur’an corrected Jesus messiahship back into rightful role : to led jewish people to salvation by showing them the right way to God.

      As no other Muslim writer/scholar I know have ever attempted to author a book focusing on the concept of “Messiah” like this book, I praise the author for his initiative.


      Also Dr. Fatoohi has also authored books on similar genre in my collection which I also recommend

      The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur’an, the New Testament, and Historical Sources. (2008)
      The Mystery of the Historical Jesus: The Messiah in the Qur’an, the Bible, and Historical Sources. (2007)
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/02/09/the-mystery-of-the-messiah-the-messiahship-of-jesus-in-the-quran-new-testament-old-testament-and-other-sources-by-louay-fatoohi/
    • By Absolute truth
      John 8:58 is perhaps one of the best verses to disprove the deity of Christ, most Christians simply fail to see the problems with utilizing such a verse and in this article I’d like to demonstrate just how useful the “I AM” statement attributed to Christ is. Let’s first take a look at the verses in question:

      God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’” – Exodus 3:14.

      “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” – John 8:58.

      There is something very important to note, we must ask, who is God in Exodus 3:14? The Hebrew from the Westminster Leningrad Codex references God as Elohiym, see here. According to Christian belief, Elohiym can either refer to the Father (God) or the Godhead (all three persons of the Trinity). If Christ is claiming to be the Elohiym of Exodus 3:14 then there exists a major problem.

      Problem 1:

      Elohiym consists of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit of one substance, united by the Godhead. If Christ is claiming to be this Elohiym (the united Three Persons), then he is claiming to be the Father as well as the Holy Spirit. According to Trinitarian dogma, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit. In other words, if Christ is claiming to be the Elohiym (of Three Persons) then he is effectively breaking the rules of the Trinitarian dogma as the Son is claiming to be other persons in the Godhead.

      Problem 2:

      If the Elohiym of Exodus 3:14 is the Father alone, then Christ who is the Son is claiming to be the Father and according to Christian Trinitarian belief, the Son is not the Father. Therefore if the Christian is claiming Christ to be Elohiym – the Father, then the Christian is admitting that the Trinity in this case is a false teaching or that Christ did not believe in the Trinity that they appeal to.

      Problem 3:

      The Fallacy of False Equivocation.

      Jack is a boy.
      James is a boy.
      Jack is James.

      Obviously Jack is not James.

      Orange is a fruit.
      Apple is a fruit.
      Oranges are Apples.

      Obviously Oranges are not Apples.

      God says I am.
      Jesus says I am.
      God is Jesus.

      Clearly we can see that this is the fallacy of false equivocation.

      Problem 4:

      The Christian claims that while the Son cannot claim to be the Father or the Spirit, the Son can claim to be God. For explanation purposes, let’s use a common learning aid which Christians use to explain this reasoning:

      cc-2014-trinity-diagram

      However, this makes it worse for the Christian. Consider the following examples:

      You cannot say that John is an employee in the company, but you can say that John works for the company.
      You cannot say that Shem and Ham are brothers, but you can say that they have the same mother and father.
      You cannot say that a banana is a fruit, but you can say that the banana belongs in the fruit basket.

      Similarly:

      You cannot say that the Son is the Father or the Spirit, but you can say that the Son is the Father, Son and Spirit.

      It’s a contradictory claim. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit, yet they believe the Son is the Father and the Spirit unified. Allow the Christian to ponder on this logic and see where it leads them, aid their thinking process by using the other examples provided above.

      Conclusion:

      The Christian cannot appeal to John 8:58 without disproving the doctrine of the Trinity by means of demonstrating that Christ himself did not know he could not claim to be the other persons of the Godhead. We can also demonstrate that they are applying faulty reasoning in their argumentation and thus can quickly disarm their frivolous claims.

      and God knows best.
       
      http://callingchristians.com/2014/02/27/the-problem-of-john-858-for-christianity/
    • By sunnymaboy
      Dear brothers and sisters, i want to tell you that a close uncle of mine passed away due to a sudden cardiac arrest today. He was very young (about 32) and he smoked and did not offer prayers alot. But he loved his family very much. He was a spendthrift person but he spent alot for his family. He had been having a financial crisis and was struggling for alot of time. He dearly loved our Prophet (pbuh) and Imam Ali, his namesake. Please, brothers, please pray for him and add your pleas to mine own.
    • By idefender
      Just for today only (January 1st, 2014), New Stories of the Prophets: The Complete Volume is available for free of cost on Amazon Kindle (valued at $9.99)
       

       
       
      With stories and references of over thirty Prophets of God in Islam,
      "New Stories of the Prophets" is a modern attempt to gather an in-depth
      chronological story of the life and times of Prophets Adam to Jesus
      using the Holy Qur'an, Hadith, Exegeses, Bible, scholarly opinion and
      historical analysis. The book includes all four volumes and is based on
      the 'Biography of a Mighty Prophet' series. These volumes are:


      Volume 1: Adam to Salih

      Volume 2: Abraham to Shuaib

      Volume 3: Moses to David

      Volume 4: Solomon to Daniel

      Volume 5: Zechariah to Jesus
×