We do not worship the same God

Dear Bro Rashid,

Thanks for your response although you got mixed up a bit.I responded to all your posting one by one. I never left any issue you raised unanswered. Please let me make myself clear here. Rashid when I read your posts, I read everything critically and with an open mind. First our bone of contention ( not a quarrel or a disagreement but a debate) was whether Christians and Muslims worship the same God and Whether the Jesus of Islam is the same Jesus of the Bible. My posit on these two issues was that Muslims worship the God of the Quran who does not appear anywhere in the Bible and the Jesus of Islam, is a Jesus who escaped death and instead an individual was crucified in his place. Rashid these issues must be looked at from these two points of view or else we shall circumlocute and our efforts will be futile. 

I never ignored any issue you raised if I did so please remind me. I also gave you a link to my blog so please any issue that I may have left out is in my blog. I do not like talking about my academic background. I do no know why you could not tell from writing that I am not just a joy rider. I am a Christian by conviction first, a theologian, and an educator. Surely Rashid you can not refer me to any scholar because what I talk about, I quote directly from the bible, you have not responded to a single of those quotes neither have you refuted their claim. In my responses to your postings I have never quoted from any Bible commentary.

Why do you tell me to check with an A level graduate? Sincerely, do you feel that I come out as one who is so ignorant of what I am talking about just because I do want agree with what you are saying? I have not doubted your understanding of the Quran and the Islamic religion, why do you doubt mine? For the sake of may be making you know me I will give you my educational background. I went to school in Eldoret, From standard one in 1971 -1978 when I did my C.P.E Joined High School and sat for A-levels in 1989 scored three principles. CRE was one of the Subjects I studied. I am a candidate of a PhD in Educational Leadership Curriculum and Instruction, a holder of an earned Master of Education degree (M.ED) Assumption University, a Master of Philosophy (MPhil.) Moi University, Post Graduate Diploma in Education (P.G.D.E) Maseno University, and Bachelor of Theology(Bth) from Scott Theological College. So when we debate please know that I am an a scholar in my own right.

 

Now matters concerning the Roman Catholic Church, it is me to tell you what the term catholic means and not you. You said in your posting that it is Paul who founded the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Church is based on the theology and teachings of Paul. I told that this was not so because the Origin of the Christian Church in Rome as the Capital of the Roman Empire, was not founded by any Apostle of the twelve. I have a whole paper on this topic. When you say that Pauline theology is the basis of the Catholic Church I told you that that was a fallacy because you speaking from what you were 'mistaught' by whoever. You never had any tangible evidence from the Bible to claim this assertion. You never gave any reference from any Catholic Author supporting your allegation.

Now I will delve in the issues you raised but pointing out at the onset that all you sadi here below is hearsay because it is not scholarly. No evidence and everything is cut and paste from Christian haters. 

Is there any connection between the Jesus and the Church today, if you remove St. Paul from the equation?

If you remove St. Paul and his teachings on the “risen Christ”, then the Christian Church will have no legs to stand on. Why?:

Rashid this is not a rhetorical Question as you called it, a rhetorical question is a question that is asked in order to make a statement and which does not expect an answer. Your question demands an answer. And the answer is, yes there is a great connection between Jesus Christ (the Messiah) and the Christian Church because Jesus Christ Himself said John 17

¹³ “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. ¹⁴ I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. ¹⁵My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. ¹⁶ They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. ¹⁷ Sanctify them by^[d] the truth; your word is truth. ¹⁸ As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. ¹⁹ For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

Jesus Prays for All Believers

    ²⁰ “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, ²¹ that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. ²² I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— ²³ I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

   ²⁴ “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

   ²⁵ “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. ²⁶ I have made you^[e] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

The above quote from the Gospel of John who was the youngest disciple of Jesus, is Jesus' prayer for the believers the world over. And in Mathew 28 Jesus Sends them to the entire world starting from Jerusalem to Judea and to the end of the world.This is a connection between Jesus Of the Bible and the Christians.

You said,

     Jesus himself claimed he was sent unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel (and not to the Gentiles);

When Jesus said this He was referring to his role as the Mesiah. His duty was to prepare Apostles to reach the lost sheep of Israel. After the Israelites, the next phase of His mission was to the Gentiles and this He did through Peter first who preached to Cornelius and later through Paul. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentile I gave a whole passage From Acts 13 detailing to you that the Gentile Church which is not required to follow the Jewish religion was launched. The person given this mandate was Paul. The reason you Muslims do not find peace with Paul's writings is because He is the only apostle who has written much of what we call the New Testament. I have never tried to detach myself from Paul because he says Romans 15

 ⁷ Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. ⁸For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews^[b] on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed ⁹ and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written:

   “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
   I will sing the praises of your name.”^[c]

 ¹⁰ Again, it says,

   “Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.”^[d]

 ¹¹ And again,

   “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles;
   let all the peoples extol him.”^[e]

 ¹² And again, Isaiah says,

   “The Root of Jesse will spring up,
   one who will arise to rule over the nations;
   in him the Gentiles will hope.”^[f]

 ¹³ May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Paul the Minister to the Gentiles

 ¹⁴ I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another. ¹⁵ Yet I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me ¹⁶ to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

All that Paul is saying here is as He quotes from the First Testament as he knew it. There is no single Christian who can deny that Paul. We believe in all he said and wrote. What he wrote he received from God and if you do not believe that Paul was an Apostle God then please just keep to your faith and let us Christian hold on to what we know and believe. In the first place, you claim that the Four gopels were written by eye witnesses and the bible being full of mistakes yet you stick to the verses that say Jesus came only for the Jews. Why can you let us interpret for you what we understand by what Paul says? 

Lastly on this issue of Connection between Jesus and The Church now, I would like to draw  your attention to the fact that the bible says what it says and it never contradicts itself. This I say because you do not know why Jesus chose 12 disciples, 72 apostles and send them to the lost sheep of Israel. There were 12 tribes and gentiles are not part of these 12 so the need of having Paul as an apostle to the Gentiles.

I will repond to the remaining part later.

Paul

State and Religion

Dear Random Notes whoever you are,

It is not fair for you to posit as though you are thinking for us and deciding what we should think about. When we talk about African world view we know what we are talking about. It is you who does not what that means. Every individual has a world view which is subjective and this is past on to those under his/her custody or patronage. With this I mean a world view may be passed on to one's family. However, an individual modifies or adds on what he she received from his her family. This trend takes a wider fulcrum when it comes to community, country,and continent.

We all know that Africa is diverse and that is why I deliberately used JS Mbiti's coined phrase African Religions and Philosophies, meaning there are as many religions in Africa and many philosophies as there are many cultures. Other writers like the late Adeyemo, and the late Tite Tienou, Dr. Richard Gehman and Mugambi have said before that the African is "notoriously religious". That is to say that there is nowhere in an African's life where religion is absent. Chidi Isizo  in http://afrikaworld.net/afrel/areopagus.htm Quotes Mbiti saying that Africans are notoriously religious be they exposed to western influences or not. Mbiti is quoted saying that wherever the African is, there is religion. It permiates every aspect of the African life. He carries it to the fields where he is sowing seeds, or harvesting a new crop; he takes it o a beer party or to attend a funeral ceremony. I will cut the entire part and paste it here so that you may understand that Africans had worldviews and religion is part of it.

"Africans are notoriously religious."(3) This assertion can be verified in the lives of most Africans, be they exposed to the Euro-American influences or not. Religion permeates every aspect of the African life.(4)  Mbiti expresses this religiosity forcefully: 
 Wherever the African is, there is his religion: he carries it to the fields where he is sowing seeds or harvesting a new crop; he takes it with him to the beer party or to attend a funeral ceremony; and if he is educated, he takes religion with him to the examination room at school or in the university; if he is a politician he takes it to the house of parliament. Although many African languages do not have a word for religion as such, it nevertheless accompanies the individual from long before his birth to long after his physical death.(5)
J. E. Holloway presents the same point thus:

• Religion was (and remains) a vital part of the lives of most Africans. For some it encompassed their entire existence. It substantiated and explained their place in the universe; their culture, and their relationship to nature at large. Religion among most African ethnic groups was not simply a faith or worship system; it was a way of life, a system of social control, a provider of medicine, and an organizing mechanism.(6)

Right from the womb, through birth, infancy, puberty, initiation, marriage, and funeral, many African societies have religious rituals for each phase of life.(7) Each day begins with prayer, offering of kolanut and pouring of libation. Each major step in the life of any given traditional community involves certain consultation of fortune-tellers and diviners to ascertain the will of God and the spirits. It is rare to find any act, human or otherwise, without some religious explanation for it.

This describes what we may call a worldview or worldviews.

I also think that you are failing to see what we are seeing when you say that

 When the religions take a fundamentalist approach to politics they can hurt a democratic system because fundamentalists are by definition unwilling to compromise.I hope you believe that Democracy is the ideal mode of governance and therefore we have it in Kenya. You presume to say that Electing whomever we may is democratic whether the one elected is corrupt, a drug dealer, or even a tribalist. Religion does not destroy democracy it only shows that although democracy is said to represent the wish of the majority, the majority have many times been wrong and this can be seen in the Kenyan issue. The majority elected the drug dealers in our government, the Majority elected the Post Election Violence perpetrators, the majority would want KENYA to pull out of ICC, the Majority would want Kibaki to continue in office etc.

I do not agree with you that Promoters of religious control of state use dubious arguments and attempt to conflate morality and religion, the two are very independent concepts. You can never separate morality from Religion because doing so would be the real wishful thinking. From Socrates, Pluto, Andante and even Aquinas, morality was thought of from a religious point of view  and all these philosophers had a form of religion they ascribed to. When we talk of religion we do not limit ourselves to Christianity,  Judaism, Islam and Hinduism or Zoarastrianism. Every community on the face of the earth had a belief system. I know you always argue from a humanism or atheist point view but let me inform you that you are living in your world of illusion because there is nothing like atheism. I mean atheism is not a reality, it represents a bunch of people who do not have a purpose of their existence, It is like the four blind men in a dark room looking for a dark cat that is not there. that unless it is a religion.

You also said that Separation of religion from state is a natural evolution of human societies after the missteps in history that religious governments made.This is an unfortunate statement coming from someone respectable like you. What do you mean Natural evolution? Do we have other evolution that are not natural?Which religious governments are you referring to? Separation of religion and state, is not as a result of the so called missteps in History. There is no single state in the world that has succeeded in separating the two. What happens is that when a society decides to abandon their belief system, there remains a space and since there can be no empty space, another form of a belief system occupies the once empty space.

 Iran under Ahmadinejad and Afghanistan under the Taliban are not examples of religious governments. Terming them so would mean that even Alkaeda, and Al shabaab are viable governments.  The reasom you see most countries failing like the Taliban Afganistan and Somalia, is that secularism in the form of humanism, democracy, capitalism and atheism were slowly introduced taking over the religious faculty in the society's thinking and belief system and when that happens, the members of a society become agitated with doubt,  mental conflict and filled with pain because they can not get answers to life's questions like: Why was I born? Why am Here? What am I living for? What does life mean? What is reality?. Where do the dead go to? I s there an end to suffering? Where did the world and Universe come from?

The distraught members of the society who grapple with these questions then in turn become a fertile ground for those who take advantage of the existing gap created by the questions above in the name of "Religious extremist" Like Al Shabaab who present (especially to the youth) a form of religion that molds them into suicide Bombers, and mercenaries who can kill their own people. Read about Elgiver Bwire- A kenyan who became a Muslim (pictured below)and almost killed his mother without Knowing-

news.yahoo.com/photos/grenade-blast-at-pub-in-kenya-s-capital-1319465541-

When we insist that true and correct religious Education must be taught in Schools, we would to arrest the situation otherwise  the world will never be a safe place whether we all become humanist or Atheists. We have governments whose leaders embraced religion and they succeeded. Malaysia, Thailand, Libya before the death Of Gadaffi, South Korea and Turkey.

You also said that in the past Christian societies promoted divine rights of Kings, serfdom, the inquisitions and the violent crusades all of which very clearly demonstrate that religions are not the best custodians of state power. This is yet another unfortunate statement from you. I do not think that all those kingdoms in the world including Swaziland, Japan, Thailand,Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nepal, Cambodia, Norway, and the United Kingdom were or are promoted by Christians or Christianity. Christianity has always stood for fair governance of all, justice, peace and freedom from oppression. Any King or Ruler who did not lead according to the above statutes was never honoured. Any King who led well was called King so and so The Great. Where justice prevailed, nations prospered. The crusaders were not Christians but people who called themselves Christians. Imagine if all of them lived like Jesus Christ, would they manufacture bullets and nuclear bombs? If Jesus were to live now, would he have agreed with the USA NATO and the UK to kill Gadaffi and his sons?

Religion should be taught in our public schools by qualified teachers.  In Primary schools, pupils should be taught Religious Education covering all the world Religions. At secondary level, students should choose one of these ATR/ IRE/CRE/HRE/ .Islamic sponsored schools  sound Islamic Education should be taught and if a Christian wants his/her children to go that Islamic school, he/she must follow the schools policy.i.e take Islamic studies as a compulsory subject. This should also apply to Christian sponsored schools. Schools like Makini, Rusinga and the like whose proprietors may be Christians, are private and therefore whatever policy in regards to the subjects to be studied should be left to the owner and if a parent wants his/her children to study there, then He should follow what the school requires. 

Paul

Dear Bro. Rashid,

Shukran for your salute of peace from the world of Islam. It was good reading from you although you either misread my posting or eisegeted (read meaning into) what I said. However, I agree with you that may be in our discussions some benefits may accrue. Actually I did not at any time say  the bible is an encyclopaedia of 66 books (+ the extra catholic ones) authored by fallible men. It is not "the word of God", it is "about the word of God" (commentary and interpretations). What I said expressly was that the bible is a library of 66 books written by multiple writers as they were led by the Holy Spirit of God. I base this on what Peter the Apostle of Jesus and an eye witness of the Lord Jesus Christ wrote. Emphasis is in bold. 2 Peter 1: 

¹⁶ For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”^[b] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

 ¹⁹ We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. ²⁰ Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. ²¹ For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

The above quote comes from one writer of the Bible who was among the first followers of Jesus. To say that the bible was written by fallible men does not make the bible fallible. The bible is never contaminated as you put it. The Bible is the word of God Jehovah or Yahweh the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac the creator of heaven and earth - and I say again, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. The God of the Bible is very different and it is high time Muslims understood this. The attributes of Allah are different from that God of the Bible who identifies Himself as Triune-one God in three persons- you need the Spirit of God to believe in this. Non-Christians and those who claim to be Christians but have not put their faith in Jesus Christ can not comprehend this teaching.

• Bro. Paul, please understand the zealous and passionate posting by my brother Muslims such bro. Twaha is in reaction to the uninformed Christians who tend to think that the Bible contains uncontaminated divine revelations.

Brother Rashid the Bible does not contain contaminated divine revelations. The is the divine revelation to the lost world and it is the only book that is God's full revelation to mankind written in a span of many years covering the Lives of Adam, Noah until the last Apostle of Jesus to die- John who wrote the Book of Revelation. Bro. Rashid please it is not right to say that the New Testament  was written by third hand witnesses. Mathew was a disciple of Jesus, Mark was a companion of the Disciples and he must have witnessed what he wrote because he wrote with much authority and what he wrote corroborated with what written in the other gospels of Mathew, Luke and John.

The bible does not contain inaccuracies as you said. I said the versions or the translations we have do have ditto graphical errors courtesy of human error. I have a whole bunch of Quranic textual criticism that show that there exists discrepancies in the compilation of the Quaran hence the origin of the Ahmadias, the Sunnis, and Shias. I do not like critisizing the Quran because it is a Holy book believed by many people and I benefit no one by doing so. My wonder is, most you muslim as so much concerned about the negatives written by scoffers( Emphasis in bold.) as in 2Peter 3

¹ Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. ² I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

 ³ Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. ⁴ They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” ⁵ But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. ⁶ By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. ⁷ By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Bro Rashid The Roman Catholic Church was not founded on the teachings of Paul whatsoever. Paul was a citizen of the Roan empire but a Jew and  a pharisee.  When he wrote his letter to the Romans, he had not visited Rome. What I want you to know today is that in The New Testament, there are two groups of believers or Churches. First there is the Jewish believers and second the Gentile or non-Jewish believers. The present true Christianity must recognize this divisions because that exactly what God intended to bring all people into one. At present I belong to the later group. Read Acts 9 (Emphasis in bold) The 12 were send to the Jewish group and Paul was send to both but with a strong commission to the non_Jews. No where in Church history is Paul accredited with founding the church in Rome. That is therefore a fallacy on your part.

⁵ But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. ¹⁶ I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

 ¹⁷ Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” ¹⁸ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, ¹⁹ and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Paul was never questioned by the 12 and was never rejected or refused this is what the Bible says Read Acts 9

 ²⁶ When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple. ²⁷ But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles. He told them how Saul on his journey had seen the Lord and that the Lord had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had preached fearlessly in the name of Jesus.²⁸ So Saul stayed with them and moved about freely in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. ²⁹ He talked and debated with the Hellenistic Jews,^[a] but they tried to kill him. ³⁰ When the believers learned of this, they took him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

 ³¹ Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.

What is reported in the above is that the disciple feared him because they did not really believe that he was one of them. He had been their adversary. They did not refuse him. This is a fallacy on your part. Where did you get this? What you would have said correctly is that without the Teaching of Paul there would not be a gentile church as we know it today, not the Roman Catholic Church.

In  my posting, I did not mention Sulman Rushdie, where did you get him? I just quoted a verse in the Quran and I asked explanation. It was not from the Hadith as you are trying to say. I gave even the Sura. I have a Quran and I can read the same verses. I do not read the Hadith. More so I never doubt the authenticity of the Quran. What I do is that I do care if it is authentic or not because it does not add any value to my life as a Christian BECAUSE I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS OF LIFE IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE. I will now respond to what you called "universally acknowledged historical Facts" I do not know acknowledged by who?

Let me hold your hand briefly as we stroll through the History of the Church (or the post-Christ era). To avoid controversy, I will confine myself to universally acknowledged historical facts (bare of opinions):

• When Paul (formerly Saul, the persecutor of Christ's followers) had "a change of heart" and subsequently went to the 12 Disciples of Jesus, they, after questioning, flatly refused him. TRUE/FALSE
• Only St. Barnabas, one of the senior and respected disciples agreed to work with him in the mission of "spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ". After a short time together, St. Barnabas disagreed with Paul's "teachings" which were contrary to the teachings of Jesus. They thus parted company. Where do you get this information? could you please give references of renowned Christian schorlars? Do not give me the crap of the Gospel of St. Baranabas written by Muslims. TRUE/FALSE 
• So from the onset there were 2 distinct groups preaching distinctly different messages of Christ. TRUE/FALSE;
• The original group (12 disciples) preached to the Jews (as did Jesus) whereas Paul decided to extend his mission to the gentiles (unlike Jesus). TRUE/FALSE; He did not decide to extend he was send by the risen Jesus Christ so this makes your statement false.
• Paul sought, and eventually got the support of the Romans (Gentiles). With backing from the "Rulers" (Romans), Paul's group and followers were able to 'evangelize' rapidly their version of 'christianity'. TRUE/FALSE;
• Meanwhile the genuine/original disciples of Jesus started facing [persecution at the hands of the Romans who supported St. Paul faction. Infact many of the original disciples faced brutal death (including St. Peter-the Rock on whom Jesus said he would build his Church). The disciples were not persecuted by the Romans but by their fellow Jews and Jesus had many disciples Including Stephen the first martyr. Even Paul was persecuted by both Jews and the Romans TRUE/FALSE;
• The 12 Disciples and followers were again on the run. Those that survived sought refuge in North Africa (these were what historians refer to as Unitarians i.e believers in One God as opposed to the Trinitarians of St. Paul's doctrine). This is a fallacy too because Peter went to Rome where he died, Thomas went to India, and some went to Europe.For your information Paul the Apostle never mentioned the word Tinity  he is not the author of the doctrine. God as triune is a doctrine taught in the entire bible from Genesis to Revelation . The information here is not supported by historical facts. therefore this is TRUE/FALSE;
• 400 years later, these were to join the new Unitarian religion as professed by the followers of Prophet Mohammed (S)....Others remained Christians but to this day reject the doctrine of the Triune God, salvation through death of Jesus, or the divinity of Christ.This is wishful thinking and it does not merit mention  TRUE/FALSE;
• In AD. 325 at the Conference at Nicea presided by Emperor Constantine, the Bible as we know it today was complied. The Doctrine of Trinity was made the official Church doctrine ( the Unitarians were finally defeated).The Bible WAS  never compiled at this conference. The Bible was there, it had preceded the Quran and even Prophet Muhamed though illiterate must have heard about it when he had an encounter with Christians. Could you please tell me who are these people called the people of the scripture? What is this scripture if not the Bible? Read the Holy Quran 3:64 Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah ." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]."
•   
• TRUE/FALSE;
• The followers of St.Paul ascended the church's hierarchy and Roman leaders took up the position of Pope. where do you get this? Supporting reference? TRUE/FALSE;
• So the Roman Catholic Church (and the breakaway Protestants) as we know it today owes its very existence on St. Paul....its theology has no basis save in the teachings of the Gospel according to St. Paul. What do you mean has no basis? it is true that the Gentile Church owes it to the Apostle Paul because he was the Apostle sent to them by Jesus. But basis of all True Christian Theology is based on the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ. TRUE/FALSE
• Does the name alone not say the whole story???? What name?

I will now deal with the following part giving you reason as to why I believe the God of the Bible is not the God of the Quran.

Do Muslims worship and believe in the God who created Adam? the answer to this question is No because the Quranic Adam was created differently,

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.

The Biblical Adam was created by God from the dust of the earth and God breathed in his nostrils and Adam became a living being. The difference between these two Adams is that whereas the Biblical Adam was created in God's Image male and female, the Quranic Adam was created from clay and Iblis was asked to breath into him and refused. The Quranic Adam was told to be and he was just like the other creatures. The Biblical Adam is different. Contrast the two accounts The Quran above and the Bible here below. They are not the same Adams. Genesis 1 (Note the plural pronoun)

²⁶

 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 ²⁷ And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 ²⁸ And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 ²⁹ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:

 ³⁰ and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.

Do Christians worship and believe in the God who created Adam? Yes the biblical Adam Not the one in the Quran.

Do Muslims worship and believe the God of Prophets Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ismail, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Harun, David, and Solomon, Elijah, Ayub, etc? No because the Bible designates all these to be the protypes of Jesus Christ who was preached by the Apostle Paul. 

Do Christians worship and believe the God of Prophets Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ismail, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Harun, David, and Solomon, Elijah, Ayub, etc? Yes;


Do Muslims worship and believe in the God who sent Prophets Jesus and Mohammed? Yes they worship that God who send Prophet Issa Bin Mariam who did not die on the cross but played tricks to evade death.

DoChristians worship and believe in the God who sent Prophets Jesus and Mohammed? No. They worship Yahweh the triune God the Father of Jesus Christ. The Jesus of the Bible is different because He came and died and rose again. According to the law of non-contradiction there exists no two different accounts that can be both true. One is true and the other is false. So the best way out of this, is that the God of Prophet Muhammad is not the  God of Jesus Christ. More so Jesus is the son of God, prophet, High Priest and King Of Kings. 
is 
Bro. Paul, do you believe the God you worship created the Muslims (such as Khuzeima)? I believe He is their creator but they do not want to acknowledge Him as their God? They say their God is called Allah

Indeed, this is the true narration. And there is no deity except Allah . And indeed, Allah is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

Bro. Khuzeima, did your God create Paul? Is Paul's Creator not his God? Is this not the God you Worship? Khuzeima's God did not create me.

You gentlemen worship the same God, only your understanding of Him and His attributes differ. Logic dictates that since your views of God are in opposition to the other....One of you is wrong, the other is right...but both of you cannot be Right. This is very true. One of us wrong and only the last day will reveal who.
t
Paul does your Bible talk about the Triune God? If not, then whence comes such thoughts....from your namesake perhaps? I have talked about this before but to say it again is appropriate. Yes my Bible talks about the triune God and it is the central doctrine of Christianity. 

Come brother lets reason together and dig deeper into this matter. There we go. Let me hear from you.

Paul

Our Problem in Africa is not Language but Leadership

Friends,

This has been a very educative topic and more topics of this type should be generated and discussed exhaustively. I would like to commend the person who initiated this discussion. I however would like to say that as much as we are looking at a language that can not only unify us but also help us internalize the intricacies of the philosophies or knowledge, we need to recognize then fact that we have no choice except to go with English and Kiswahili. I say this because of the following reasons:

1. English is an African language too. When a language is adapted by a people and they use it in all the avenues through which knowledge knowledge is passed from one generation to another, that language becomes their language. Given the characteristics of any language; i.e it grows and can die, English has become an African language it has very many words that are African and it has accommodated a lot of the African idiom. Hence English is not foreign any more. Look at the following words, some which were used even at the Hague without being translated to the Judges; pangas, and rungus,askaris, matatus and now even Mungiki. There are other words that have been included in the Oxford Dictionary and are accepted as East African English. Eg, sufuria, safari, jembe, shamba,etc.

2. Kiswaili also merits to be used in any area of education and its applicability and adaptability to scientific corpus should not be underrated. In Tanzania Kiswahili was developed and many science subjects are taught in Kiswahili. What I do not know is whether the students in Tanzania or Tanzanians in that case are more scientific minded than Kenyans because of Kiswahili. This is an area that requires a research. But my argument is Kiswahili is a lingua franca and a world language that can be used in all areas of study. What we need is just adequate research and leadership in this area.

3. It is not true that  education in Africa or Kenya is an import. Education in Kenya takes its shape from the Cultures in Africa. If  you study comparative education and the History of Education, you will see that in matters of Religion, Philosophy, Education, Politics, science and technology, perspectives are always universal because all these are governed by the laws of Nature, and are interlinked especially when it comes to the metaphysical. So many nations have learned from each other. China, Japan, Korea for example are countries that have their own languages and their own characters(alphabet) but what they now know in the realm of science and technology was borrowed heavily from the West and many of their students went to the USA, UK, Russia and etc to study. When they go back to their home countries, they only modified what they learned and made it usable in their context.

In Africa to the contrary, we never use the knowledge by developing and improving on what we learned from others, we destroy the final utility of goods.  We are consumers and not users of knowledge. With this I would like to strongly refute what some people say that the African is inferior. Our problem in Africa is not Language but leadership.

Monogamy is the ideal human sexual Union

Monogamy is the ideal human sexual relation created and sealed by God Himself. God did not create multiple partners for Adam. He only created one and that was Eve. I am not using Church Dogma here but the bible. I would like to show here that Monogamy is Biblical just as Polygyny (: the state or practice of having more than one wife or female mate at a time ) is. Monogamy is God's perfect Union based on God's perfect will while Polygyny was and is allowed based on God's permissive will.

First, there is nowhere in African History where one was married without a wedding-when I say this I want us to understand that weddings are not necessarily religious in the western world. They are cultural. In Africa, however, weddings happened to be religious because religion permiated the entire fabric of the african world view. You cannot divorce religion from any African activity including child birth, naming,initiation, marriage and death. I would like any interested reader to read John S Mbitis African Religions and Philosophies and Gehman's African Traditional Religion Abiblical perspective, to get a glimpse of some the aspects of the african worldview I am talking about.

Weddings, before the coming of even chritianity, were very present in Africa and marriage was only between one man and one wife. The other wives who came in as second or third, were but mere associations of the man with other people and no wedding was done for them. Nonetheless bridewealth was given to the newly married women's parents. The other wives were subordinate to the first wife and they claimed nothing over that which the first wive allowed them to have. However, children from all wives enjoyed equal rights.

The first instance of this type of marriage, which is also called bigamy, in the Bible was that of Lamech in Genesis 4:19:who married two wives. There is no where in the bible where this kind of marriage is condemned or considered to be sin. In the New Testament, there are inferences as to the existance of such unions in the church because if they were non-existant, Paul would not have talked about -a man of but one wife- when he was laying down the qualifications of a leader in the church..

Second, a vital question asked here by one Harry is ;But how come our forefathers succeeded in having several wives, and even raised stable families? Success is very relative and the criterion to measure success esopecially in family matters varies from culture to culture. The Maasai and other pastrolists for example would consider success to have thousands head of cattle, while among other communities, having many children who have good jobs and have big tracts of land would be seen as success. 
    When all is said and done there are however very many factors that allowed people who lived in those days to manage big families with multiple wives.

1. Availability of economical resources, land, food, livestock etc.

2. Political power, like your grandfather (Mumia Nabongo) who took other people's wives just because he was a Mwami, read King.

3. There were laid down marriage laws that governed this institution and these laws were passed on by word of mouth from one generation to another e.g. total respect for the first wife, the man must provide for all the women failure to which the society would deal with the culprit. For insatance, one could not just marry without having built a house for the second wife and shown that he has the capability and capacity to mange two houses.

Third, Second wives were not just taken without real reasons. Second wives were married because either the first wife could not have children, she was incapacitated is a way or another, the need to have boys or girls( since it was believed that having boys or girls was the woman's problem not the man's). The same reasons appear in the bible.
 
Lastly, the issue of making monogamy legal and polygyny or polygamy ilegal, is a matter of the law of the land which allows a man to marry only one wife and if one is found with two wives with two marriage certificates then, that is a matter that has to be taken to court. Only one marriage certificate is given to one couple. If an individual wants to marry a second wife, then  the first must be nullified through a legal process. The Muslims marry upto four wives I do not know if the Kenya Goverment issues four marriage certificates.