"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TLtVc.2486$%n4.898@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Mark:16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...
18: .. and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;

I wonder if that sign mentioned above was also a prophecy of how Muhammad
would die, indicating that he was a false prophet?

Another prophecy in the New Testament that could be directed at Islam is the
following :

Galations:1:8: But though we, *or an angel from heaven*, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed.

And Muhammad certianly teaches that the Koran was revealed to him by an
angel in heaven, the angel Gabriel. And their doctrine certainly is
different since they say Christ was never crucified and that God has no son.

Also :

1Timothy:4:1: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
*doctrines of devils*;
2: Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
iron;
3: Forbidding to marry, and *commanding to abstain from meats*, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know
the truth.
4: For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be
received with thanksgiving:
5: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

See, the whole idea of commanding to abstain from meats is again to cause
division among people, just as was the God of Israel's goal in commanding
circumcision of the flesh to be the sign of the everlasting covenant between
him and his people -- it causes division among people, just as was the case
here :

Acts:11:1: And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the
Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2: And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the
circumcision contended with him,
3: Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

So is it the case, then, that the differences that we find among religions
tend to actually lend more credibility to the accounts recorded in their
history, than not? Remember I'm not saying it lends credibility to whether
the religions themselves are true about what they claim is true. Just that
the differences in what each believes seem to confirm exactly that the
other(s) is/are false. And in the case of multiple false religions with only
some or one true religion, wouldn't that also be expected?

"Son of man" <thepuppetmaster@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:<TLtVc.2486$%n4.898@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...

Apart from the differences I cite at the link in my sig line, thanks to
an
atheist posting I was able to find yet another interesting difference of
opinions between the Old Testament and New Testament authors.

Now I've already pointed out previously that in the Old Testament, the
proof
of being a man of God that the prophet Elijah gave was that he was able
to
call fire down from heaven in the sight of men, in 1Kings:18:37-39 and
2Kings:1:10-15.

Now one should think that this is a very rare power. I mean, it's
certainly
considered as proof of being a man of God in the Old Testament, right?

Ok, here's the problem. And this is verse the atheist posted that got me
thinking about this difference also between Old and New Testaments :

Mark:16:17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name
shall
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover.

Now isn't it strange that since those are also pretty rare talents, why
then
did Jesus not also mention as one of the signs which follow those who
believe in him to be calling fire down from heaven, exactly the sign that
was used by the prophet Elijah in the Old Testament to prove he is a man
of
God?

Now before someone is quick to suggest that the New Testament authors
just
missed it or didn't have electronic access to the Old Testament
scriptures
as we do today, and so that sign was overlooked, that would be wrong for
two
reasons :

1. The New Testament authors did in fact mention what Elijah did and the
disciples asked Jesus permission to do the same, but Jesus rebuked them
saying, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of." (Luke:9:54-55)

2. The very same miraculous power of calling fire down from heaven is
warned
in the book of Revelation to actually be the very tool of deception used
by
the false prophet who causes those who witness that miracle to believe
that
he is a man of God. (Revelation:13:13-14)

So why would the authors of the New Testament condemn the very sign that
was
used by prophets of the Old Testament to convince people they were of
God,
when the New Testament even says in Revelation that it is certainly
possible, but rather is the power someone uses to decieve people? The
New
Testament also being fully aware of that sign of calling fire down from
heaven in the sight of men being used by the Old Testament prophet Elijah
to
prove being of God, yet is absent from the signs Jesus gives of those who
believe in him as per Mark:16:17-18? One would think, since it is all
contrived nonsense and since the New Testament authors were indeed very
aware of the sign of calling fire down from heaven as proof of being of
God
by Elijah, then why didn't they include it as one of the signs Jesus
mentions which follow those who believe in him? And furthermore, why
refer
to that sign as a tool of deception in Revelation, unlike being
considered
as real proof of a man of God in the Old Testament?

Maybe they got tired of the obvious flaw. Lightning hits a person, or
near a person, or their home, or their enemy and suddenly they believe
that the power of God is on their side. So the authors picked some
miracles which were not readily done by nature on it's own, things
that were less likely to happen by coincidence.