₦airaland Forum

nferyn,

First, as gentlemen, I owe you an apology if you felt aggrieved by my response. Everyone feels one way or the other about such a touchy topic.

In no way was I comparing you with David Irving. What in fact I wrote was that Irving's denial of historical facts is not the paramount issue for me, but it's amazing that people would believe him at all. The conclusion I drew was that books exists which try to "prove" Jewish history a myth, and my call was for the understanding that all sides should be examined legitimately instead of taking a convenient interpretation from only one side - a political one, for instance.

We are speaking about a people whose history is mainly religious, on a religio-political basis - why is it just convenient that we turn to history books and disfavour religious ones? The early Church Fathers you'd like to quote in your position made statements of a religious nature; why are you prone to see their statements as authentic enough to address your position, but not the religious books that undergird their ideologies?

The broad statement that the Old Testament is "either entirely mythical or events are blown way out of proportion" seems to indicate to me that history is not given a fair and balanced review; for no matter how you look at it, you cannot entirely throw the Old Testament overboard in order to reach a good understand of the history of the Jews.

Again, whatever you say only shows your own position; it would not actually be taken as reflecting the real history of the Jewish people. Whether or not people blame anti-semitism on Christianity, you cannot deny the fact that the general political feeling of most Europeans is anti-semitic without even having to fixate their reason for this in the NT.

Regards.

Prof_Chaos:
lol, k, anyway, I am saying that A lesson to muslims is never to change the religion of god to satisfy their hunger for control and money. Isnt that what the da vinvi code: lesson to muslims means ?

That is what you think this topic is about, showing clearly that you didn't read the views of others and just wanted to drive things beyond limits. Go back and read what the lesson is:

Piddo: Has anyone heard of Christian unrests in any part of the world resulting from Dan Brown's best seller, The Da Vinci Code? The silence does not make us any less Christians and naturally, we leave all such matters for God to judge. If thesame topic were directed towards Prophet Muhammad however, Dan Brown would by now be on death row and who knows how many Buildings would have been torched and innocent people killed so far.

Muslim brothers and sisters, take note!!!

Read inputs, think about them and follow their meaning as stated, rather than veering off at a tangent. That is why you read Song of Songs 8:2 with a totally different meaning than what the Bible says. If anyone should do the same to the Qur'an, would you sit down and smile? I think you owe Christians a humble apology for that, but it seems you're too proud to display good sense in the feelings of non-Muslims.

The criticising of Islam should not result in unrests, buildings torched, and innocent people killed - that is the lesson.

@zebudaya, you're correct that some translations use sour wine instead of vinegar, and that's what the text says in the Greek - both expressions are correct (Gk. oxos = vinegar/sour wine). However, what point are you trying to prove - that alchohol is encouraged to be taken by Christians? I hope not; but if that's your conviction, I'll respect it.

If you interpret sour wine as alchohol, I'll grant you that I was wrong, my brother, for supposing that Jesus did not take alchohol on the Cross. However, you're also wrong for failing to look at the text, and supposing that the vinegar was not offered in mockery to Jesus, because it was.

My views:

There's a reason why Jesus is not reported to have taken strong drink (alchohol) before the Cross; and His taking the vinegar/sour wine as He hung there is prophetically significant. At least, granting the fact that vinegar is not normally a drink one would take in social contexts as other drinks, Luke 7:34 only alludes that He drank, without specifically mentioning 'what' He drank. At best, we can simply say it's wine. So, what's the prophetic significance of the vinegar?

Vinegar was made from sour grapes, or at least, has some element of something sour in it. God takes issues seriously, and we should be able to see that the taking of something sour is not seen to be in keeping with God's will. When this happens, it is a sign of God's displeasure. Jer. 31:30 says: "But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

In my earlier post, I showed how that when Jesus was mocked with the offer of vinegar, He actually took it in fulfillment of a prophecy, and to also demonstrate that He was willing to receive the shame of mistreatment to its limit from man. Vinegar is a pungent drink with a biting taste to the tongue, throat and teeth; its acidic element is alluded to in the verse just quoted: eating the sour grape has the effect of setting one's teeth on edge. But please, notice: this eating of sour grapes is connected with iniquity. Since we cannot die for our own iniquity and obtain our salvation, Jesus took the vinegar (sour wine) on our behalf and died for our iniquities.

This is the reason why I said that Jesus' receiving the vinegar on the Cross in John 19:30 does not grant license or approval to Christians to take alchohol; rather, He received the vinegar (sour wine) to demonstrate His willingness to bear our own iniquity to the full. Jesus did not die for His sin - He was sinless. Every man was sentenced to "die for his own iniquity" and the symbolism connected thereto was the setting of teeth on edge from eating sour grapes. Jesus received the mockery of setting His teeth on edge, but patiently bore the shame of the ridicule and died for our iniquity.

If you take time to study why He refused the drink mingled with gall, then you'll see the prophetic significance of why He took the vinegar. The vinegar is not license for Christians to take alchohol; and that's why we find that of those NT passages that speak of it in the epistles, you'll not find any mention of anyone taking vinegar, but rather wine. All the references I could find in the NT about vinegar point to the events of the cross.

In the light of the foregoing, I'll not encourage anyone to use John 19:29-30 as a license for alchohol consumption - those verses have a prophetic significance entirely of its own and concerning the crucifixion of Jesus who died for our iniquities.

Again, I hope that would be of some help. Regards.

Did you read my post, or you simply want to keep dragging this issue about who did this and that between Islam and Christianity? If you're not going to be civil, let me know.

@silky,

How long have you been running Wife 1.0 in your system? I'm considering installing the latest version, but all the PC experts say there's no newer version of Wife 1.0 - any upgrades must necessary remain as Wife 1.0.

Last week, I was over at a gizmo fair and overheard this conversation:

TeCh.A - "So, how's your new software?"

TeCh.B - "Complete disaster! I made the mistake of trying to run it without reading the owner's manual!"

TeCh.A - "Meaning. . .?"

TeCh.B - "Hmmff! I can't explain. The worst part of it is this screensaver that comes on anytime I'm trying to get to work. One day I got so miffed that I just pressed Ctrl+Alt+Del. Now I'm without a PC."

Guys, what's your advice for getting a PC, preferably a laptop? I don't want something that occupies a lot of space at home, or is not easily accesible, and does not need a lot of software (if that's possible). It should have a larger GB (Good Behaviour) than most other laptops, and it does not necessarily have to be a Compaq product. TY

nferyn:
Contrary to the context of the New Testament, The Old Testament is either entirely mythical (Exodus) or events are blown way out of proportion (2nd captivity). The Old Testament can hardly be called a reliable history book.

No. Aside from the mythical aspects of Jewish history as depicted in the Torah, it was very different in nature. I will further establish that in the other thread.

@nferyn,

You've further confirmed my conjecture that ideas like you've expressed take a very convenient and slanted view of history. When taking up a subject, why is it so often easy for people to just style off the Old Testament as "entirely mythical" or "blown way out of proportion"? Do you really understand Jewish history, or that, too, is entirely mythical?

I understand that you're trying to clarify your position; but it seems to me that you're rather trying to justify your position with the weathered and worn excuse that Jewish history is fictional. Without rancour to your person, I consider such interpretations a disservice to the Jewish people and a classic display of anti-semitism in contemporary times.

This type of perspective on the Jews is still actively pursued today, and people have come up to lay the blame largely on Christianity and fixated its roots in the NT. For example, the British historian, David Irving is one of many active historians who tried to recast the history of the Jewish people by once insisting that "Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of six million Jews," claiming that there was "not one shred of evidence" that the Nazis carried out their Final Solution on such a scale. What is interesting is not Irving's denial of historical facts - rather, it's the wonder that people believe him! Oh, but of course, it should not be surprising; afterall, David Irving was regarded as a respected historian and author with nearly thirty books to his name, and people who are looking for a convenient denial of true Jewish history are bound to take his word and works as authoritative.

What I'm trying to say here is that books indeed exist that try to "prove" that the history of the Jews is a myth. What you don't realise is that those books and sources are recasting historical facts, denying real antecedents, and keeping the contemporary European anti-semitic campaign alive.

In all, that's your personal position, and I respect it - but it is conveniently ignoring reality.

Regards.

@Prof_Chaos,

I should have thought by now you'd be more rational - but no, you don't come across to me as such; and since you're more prone to keep up the slurring and mudslinging, rather than contact me by IM and talk sensibly, you leave me no choice than to conclude that you've displayed very poor judgement about being tolerant.

I would not want to take this issue and your disaffection too far for the sake of those who have implored me not to be vexed about the type of short-sightedness you keep exhibiting (and I do hope that belloti, Zahymaka, diyobdw, and others can watch your drama unfold).

First let me make something clear to you: several times I have sought to offer you an atmosphere of understanding, peace and tolerance in our discussions - you simply ignored my call. Don't try to push your luck, = and this will be my final warning to you = because I have more cans of worms to open about Islam than you'll ever bargain for, and that would anger people on this Forum: I'm trying to avoid that. For their sakes, therefore, I'll refrain at this time from posting anything against Islam or Muslims. If you consider that a concessionary withdrawal of weakness on my part, you'd have hugely miscalculated; and I hope you will heed my warning to you.

That said, let me correct your misinterpretation of Song of Songs 8:1-3. Having carefully looked at it, I take it that you quoted the NIV - N[/b]ew [b]I[/b]nternational [b]V[/b]ersion; and am particularly interested in verse 2 where you defined "spiced wine" as "her vigina's semen".  Without prejudice of any kind, that verse has nothing to do with a person's virginal semen - either in the original Hebrew language, or yet in any English translation. Of the 23 English translations of the Bible in my personal library, there's nothing to suggest or remotely support that kind of reasoning, but you have only inserted those words in parenthesis to read the way [b]you wanted it to. The word 'spiced' in that verse is reqach in Hebrew - and there's no possibility of it meaning 'semen' or 'virgina'. You'll do yourself a world of good to not force any prejudices into the text when reading the Bible.

Once again, I recommend that we be tolerant and civil. I don't mind being laughed at, called funny, a basket mouth or featherbrained, proven to be this or that, or insulted in any other way - and I can take that much just for the sake of fostering a tranquil, user-friendly atmosphere of this Forum. The choice is yours - do we talk as gentlemen, or you'd rather be made unhappy?

Regards. 

goodguy:

zebudaya link=topic=10902.msg304870#msg304870 date=1145587769:
Jesus even tasted alchohol on the cross, . . .

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

vin·e·gar (vĭn'ĭ-gər) pronunciation
n.

1. An impure dilute solution of acetic acid obtained by fermentation beyond the alcohol stage

First of all, you have to note the condition under which Jesus took alcohol. Remember he was to bear the sins of all humanity. It was not his will to do it, but he had no choice. Now, that is a totally different case entirely from what we are discussing right now. Please stop misinterpreting the Bible to suit your own purpose.

No, actually, Jesus did not take alchohol on the Cross. I've already explained this in my immediate past rejoinder that vinegar is not alchohol, and anyone who takes the time to study that text will see it's so.

Even going by the definition zebudaya gave us, "An impure dilute solution of acetic acid obtained by fermentation beyond the alcohol stage" - this clearly should indicate that vinegar is not alchohol. I've explained that vinegar is biting (or pungent) to the tongue, teeth and throat because it is a solution of "acetic acid beyond the alchohol stage."

Jesus did not take alchohol, for it is not the same thing as vinegar. I hope this helps

TayoD:
How can you claim that anti-semitism has a new testament root when we see clearly from the Old Testament that it existed as far back as the days of Esther the Queen and Modecai her uncle. You'll get the details in the Book of Esther.

@TayoD,

thank you for pointing that out - a much needed ingredient we've consistently asked the historians to examine. Unfortunately, they largely ignore that appeal and speak ever of "New Testament roots" of so many issues: whether anti-Judaism, anti-semitism, or Romanic political events. Anti-semitism dates far back than NT times, and this fact in the chronology of events has to be taken into account to get a balanced view of these terms.

Em, . . endure, make it sweet.

I've made mistakes like that in the past, but there's an idea going on now on Nairaland especially on the Religious Forum that we should seek to foster tolerance and peace among international divides. So, I guess the lingo of your replies was a bit . . .uhm. . . uninviting (or slyly caustic?). Maybe that's why he might have reacted at first.

Even if you suspect he's pagan, try to respect his own position as well.

Thank you and God bless.

Idekeson:
Miracles do not really occur. Rather, they are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with a theological flavor. Using miracles in a story allow characters and situations to become bigger than life, and to stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary.

Applause. Good story-tellers like you should be out on the streets healing people if that is how you describe miracles. But then, I have experienced real illness - I've also experienced real healing - that's a real miracle. The best you can do is make an armchair guess of what you really don't understand. I wasn't told - I was healed. You can deny that or gruff it off - it doesn't really take anything out of the experiences of those who know what happened to them. Idekeson, miracles actually happen.

@nferyn, I quite understand your concern; and like you hinted I'll refrain from making this thread a canvas board for painting claims and counter-claims. I guess we all have the right to our individual opinions and perspectives; but I offer that the juxtaposition of chronological events have been reshuffled like a pack of cards so that they don't follow.

Incidentally, I'm familiar with some of Dr. Hans Jansen's works, and your brief intro about him is correct (wow! you have both volumes of his Theologie). There are other ex-Catholics who now minister in other non-Catholic institutions - and it's remarkable that their interpretations of events (or chronology of events) are quite different from Dr Jansen's.

Augustinus and Chrysostomos are quite mild compared to Jerome, Eusebius and a few of their contemporaries. One would have to look at what they said and compare with the NT to get a full view of perspectives.

All the same, I respect and acknowledge your concern. Regards.

Hi again, TV01,

I suppose that as long as you're holding this Law-Grace dichotomy the way you do, it'll be difficult for you to see things in their contexts. I've been there - so nothing new. However, take a look at the texts and read them once more: there's nothing to suggest what you've infered - Jesus was not rebuking them for "holding tightly to the letter of the law and utterly missing it's intent"; it does not say so in Luke 11:42 or Matt. 23:23 - otherwise, He would have had to rebuke everyone in His day. Afterall, His own disciples did not understand the content of the Law until Jesus opened their eyes to understand the scriptures after His resurrection (see Luke 24:45).

The Lord Jesus was indeed showing that they were partial in their obedience to God's word on certain issues - this is what is explicitly stated in Luke 11:42. Notice the latter part of the text says: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." In effect, He said - "do these. . . and don't leave the other things undone - do both of them, not some of them!"

Your reference of Matt. 5:20 should have helped you see the misapplication you made here about Jesus rebuke about the Jews' "holding tightly to the letter of the law and utterly missing it's intent" - which is hardly the case. How? Well, you ought to have asked what kind of righteousness the scribes and the Pharisees displayed. The answer is found in that same chapter in Matthew 23 in my earlier post:

        "Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
        All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say,
        and do not." - Matt. 23:1-3.

There you have it, my dear: the mark of these set of scribes and Pharisees was that "they say, and do not" - that's why he called them hypocrites in verse 23. His rebuke was not because of the letter they held and missed its intent - it was because of the hypocrisy of partial obedience they displayed which was commonly referred to as "the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees". This type of righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is not to be misconstrued for the righteousness of the Law: they are not the same thing sam-sam.

TV01:
The term "call to obedience", kindly explain how one is too understand that?  You also seem to tie this call with a "commitment to the faith"?

Simple. How could anyone "purpose" in his/her heart where "committment" is lacking?

             "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity:
              for God loveth a cheerful giver." - II Cor. 9:7

              to purpose in your heart = "commitment to the faith"

If the commitment is lacking, the rest is empty ritual.


As to the issue of "What Pastor does with my money", since it is not a concern of yours at this time, I'll remain zipped on that and other issues not necessary to elaborate upon.


Many thanks again for taking the time to make some perceptive response. God bless. 

Hnd-holder:
4get_me , This is Purely Philosophical Jagons. You need to know the truth not merely the use of words. Kai!

I'll be interested in knowing "the truth" that you have to share. TY

@nferyn, good read. . .but not entirely balanced. I'm not going to take it that this is wholly your view, as you had informed earlier that you'd be drawing heavily from Dr. Hans Jansen.

Most secular mindsets of the academia tend to mixup issues in a fascinating manner and fail to understand that what they present are their personal slants. These are a few points for your consideration:

(a) the terms 'anti-judaism' and 'anti-semitism' are not properly contextualized in your piece. You're interpreting early Christianity as a siamese twin of Judaism, and therefore since the Jews instigated the crucifixion of Jesus (Himself a Jew) by the Romans, the theological tensions necessitated "a certain level of hostility against the Jews" - by whom - Christians? Hardly. I'd offer that the hostility was the other way round: Jesus' claim to be the Son of God was the primary 'crime' for which the Jews condemned Him to death. And right from the time Christianity emerged soon after, the Jews were antagonistic to its adherents. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that Paul, as a Jewish Pharisee was a champion persecutor of Christians prior to his conversion? Who from the Christian Church during that time was seen persecuting the Jews or the Romans?

(b) as highlighted by nightrider, and contrary to your supposition, Christianity did not separate from mainstream Judaism - they were never at anytime running the tracks together. You'd have to understand the essence of both before you log them together. For instance, Judaism was set on the the Mosaic prescriptions of ceremonial and sacred observances connected with animal sacrifices as prescribed in the Law. Christianity at no time ever offered these or observed the ceremonies of the Mosaic prescriptions. Confusing the two will blur the historical understanding of either faiths.

(c) There was no "virulent anti-judaistic reading of the New Testament" - either by the church fathers or the Roman leaders. What you probably might be referring to is the virulent disaffection of some of the early church fathers who were neither apostolic nor representing the true essence of the Christian message in the NT. And, No - there are no "explicitely anti-judaistic" passages in the New Testament, if your meaning of 'anti-judaism' takes into consideration what Judaism really is.

(d) I hesistate to offer a theological exegesis of the Torah prophetic texts, showing convincingly that the Jewish scriptures indeed show the Jews by their own hands would put their Messiah to death. Suffice to say that your position here is a political one; but hardly represents a balanced perspective as it ignores the NT texts. Christianity did not exonerate the Roman authorities as is evident in the NT itself - see Acts 2:23, where in fact, these Roman authorities are there called "wicked hands".

Your views are interesting and helps me understand why some people feel the way they do about Christianity. It's noteworthy that besides the political views or interpretations that people give to the historical antecedence of Judaism and Christianity, some other look at the issue from a different perspective altogether: sociological, secular, teleological, and even religio-cultural angles.

Amicably.

@belloti, forgive my impassioned response earlier.

You are right - the need to understand one another will make peaceful coexistence somewhat of a reality as we make concerted efforts to pay less attention to trivials and more to mutual respect.

God bless.

TV01:
If it's a "custom" in your tradition or church denomination, fine. Give it on that basis.
But no where, to no one and at no time does the Bible teach tithing as a Christian obligation.

Hi TV01,

Tithe or no tithe, even giving is NOT an obligation in the NT to Christians.

In the OT, tithing and other kinds of giving were obligatory; but in the NT they are rather set forth as a call to obedience. Rather than see it as a custom of "church denominations", try seeing it as a commitment in the Christian faith. Look at it this way:

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity:
for God loveth a cheerful giver." - II Cor. 9:7

Two things here are brought out:

(a) one's giving is not obligatory - God does not set giving as an obligation to the Christian.

(b) you give as you purpose in your heart - and that includes the best part, even if you call it a "tithe".

God loves a cheerful giver, and in the spirit of cheerfulness, I purpose in my heart to give both tithes and other kinds of giving. People sometimes feel uncomfortable about this, mostly because we are so occupied with questioning what "the pastor" does with "my money". I'm not called to be God's accountant-general; rather, it's up to me to participate in giving cheerfully - for that is what God loves.

God is able to deal with those who mess with the gifts of God's people; whether it's now or later at the Judgement. Trouble is, most people want instantenous judgement to fall on "those pastors" now; and if not, then they question if they should give at all. Great - no one is under obligation to tithe, give or obey God: on Judgement Day He knows how to shut our mouths and take care of our arguments. He has shut my mouth now - so I have no qualms giving and tithing, because I'm purposed in heart to both tithe and give, and to do so cheerfully. I tell you, I'm amazed how He answers in His goodness - I have never lacked, not ONE TIME EVER SINCE!

Second, when I was struggling about this "denominational" doctrine of 'no tithe', I used the Bible to justify my "non-denominational" stance. Could you believe that? But one day, God opened my eyes to see what Luke11:42 teaches:

"But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment
and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

The Lord Jesus did not condemn anyone for tithing; but His rebuke of the Pharisees was informed by their selective obedience, which is no obedience at all. He recognized that they tithed ("ye tithe", but also that they paid no attention to other matters of faith ("judgement and the love of God". Consequently, He admonished them to both tithe and pay attention to the other matters ("these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone". In fact, when you read the parallel passage in Matt. 23:23, you see that He called this selective obedience hypocrisy.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here; but please hear me: Luke 11:42 was what shut my mouth up from arguing against tithing - selectively obeying God in some matters and refuting others because of our interpretations of doctrine is called hypocrisy; and that was what I was up until God changed my heart. Please, I ask you to do something - cease from arguing for just a month; ask God to show you His word on tithing - follow Him in obedience, and my-o-my, come back and tell us your testimony!

As long as we keep arguing against or about tithing, believe me, God will not come from heaven to show who is right or wrong. My views are not the best about this, and I'm ready to thankfully withdraw them if God decides to shut me up again. All I can say is, ask God to prove His word to you - and see the tremendous impact it will have on your life.

Much blessings.

zebudaya:
like i said come back at me with facts and not sentiments chop chop. saving souls is a sentiment. Hard facts facts facts is all i ask for.

Facts should be interpreted, my dear zebudaya.

But let me first acknowledge kimba's making reference to my quote of I Pet. 4:3. He is absolutely correct in his assessment because wine per se is not condemned in the Bible; it is the excess of wine (which is my equivalent of the Gk. sekira - strong drink or liquor) that is discountenanced in God's Word. Leaders among God's people are not to be "given to wine" (that is, 'sold out to wine' - I Tim. 3:3 & Tit. 1:7). Another way of describing this excess would be that one should be "not given to much wine" (I Tim. 3:8 & Tit. 2:3). Spirit-filled believers don't take alchohol, even if they have to take some wine. Much wine can lead to excess ("be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess" - Eph. 5:18, KJV) and the Spirit-filled believer knows better than that.

zebudaya:
I don't think it was an attempt to mock him, cultures around the world often grant a dying man his last request .
Jesus could have done without the alcohol if he thought it was bad/evil.

Talk about using the bible to justify wrong doing and adlibbing, JESUS NEVER ASKED FOR WATER HE SAID I THIRST!!!

Now, as to Jesus' drinking vinegar. It is true that Jesus did not ask for water when crying out, "I thirst." But did He ask for vinegar either? Plainly, NO! So why did they offer Him vinegar to drink? Contrary to your supposition that this offer might have been made as the last wish of a dying man, the Word of God shows the direct opposite. Vinegar was offered Jesus as a sign of mockery!!

The Prophecy:

          "They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." - Psa 69:21  

The Mockery:

          "And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar" -  Luke 23:36  

The Intended Effect:

          "As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him." - Prov. 10:26  

          "As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to an
           heavy heart." - Prov. 25:20  

From these it shows that while Jesus did not ask for water (even as a last wish) on the Cross, those who offered Him vinegar were mocking Him, fulfilling the prophecy made hundreds of years earlier. Imagine the cruelty demonstrated here: how could anyone offer a dying Man such a drink as vinegar - after being gruesomely nailed to the Cross? The reference in its context is to show how brutal is the heart of man; and by accepting it, Jesus was demonstrating that He received the shame of mistreatment to its limit from man (the criminal arrest, the scorging, the nailing, the public exposure to ridicule. . . and then the mockery of a vinegar drink). This display of open shame and mocking rejection is clearly one of the things that Isa.53:3 hints at: "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

Vinegar is not simply alchoholic drink - its taste is biting to the tongue, teeth and throat, as the verse in Proverbs show.

Jesus might have taken wine as I earlier proffered in Luke 7:34; but I'm yet to come across anywhere in the Bible suggesting that He took sekira - strong drink/alcohol. John 19:30 does not indicate an approval of alcoholic consumption anymore than the Romans dividing Jesus' garments mean we should all go naked! ("These things therefore the soldiers did" - John 19:24).

              Wine (Gk. oinos)? - permissible.

              Alchohol (Gk. sekira - "ogogoro/sapela water" and such)? I absolutely don't!

God bless.



Em. . (hic) er. . my vision is fuzzy already. . and I've to step out for lunch break. No, seriously - not from wine, but dazed by the topic!    

@belloti, you don't need to be angered - I don't see the need for you to. It is always characteristic of the Muslim mindset to sit back and do nothing when a Muslim takes a swipe at the Christian faith to the extent of calling us names. If we sat back with sealed lips, people like Ajisafe would not have come back to cross out their uncouth and vitriolic lines against other people in public fora.

Prof_Chaos should have taken your advice to use the IM and talk to me about this or whatever issues he felt concerned about - not publicly posting such sly vituperations about Christianity in an open Forum. My calls were not set on purpose to castigate anyone's religious convictions, neither was I focusing on Muslims. If you read my earlier post as you claimed to have gone through the threads, you'd not have missed my position which was stated twice over:

4get_me:
My points have been that: (1) pointing accusing fingers at people for their convictions in order to slur their faiths is a beggarly and thouroughly evil social malady; and (2) those who perpetrate and support evil by any guise (including the use of acrid language) are equally evil, if not worse, and I don't care if they do so in the name of Islam, atheism, communism, politics, Christianity, agnosticism, or anything else.

You may not agree with someone's faith or worldview, and in the world today people interpret their social and cultural outlooks differently. At the end of the day, it makes sense to seek peaceful resolves and understanding across international divides, rather than keep up the idea of senseless religious bigotry and incitations.

I'd tried to be fair, but since the rejoinders did not heed my call in any amicable way as could have demonstrated their sincerity, my response was unwelcome to you perhaps, because you didn't quite catch what your Muslim friends were doing. I'll try to be as friendly as possible - in the guarantee that our Muslim friends are amicable towards other people and their convictions. Just so that you don't miss the point in my last line, carefully consider it once again -

4get_me:
If you would be more temperate, there'll be an enabling atmosphere in exchages that would not make you grimace. And I don't mean to be offensive to anyone - religious or non-religious. The promotion of free speech and the fostering of peace and good will do not have to mean that you take a swipe at the Christian faith.

In the case where you might have been inadvertently offended by my rejoinders, I tender my apologies unreservedly - and I mean it to my bones! I only hope that we can all now understand that peace and tolerance would be only a mirage, an illusion, where people insist on vilifying other people's faiths - including and especially Christianity.

Warm regards.

@Prof_Chaos, I'm not surprised that you would blow your cover as an anti-Christian apologist - it was only a matter of time before you proved my point. That said, allow me to show your friends (especially Zahymaka) how sweet and tolerant you must be towards other people.

Prof_Chaos:
4getme, those other prophets in history where not sent to our nation. The prophet for our nation, or our times, was Mohamed pbuh. Muslim Web sites, scholars and organizations have condemned the ill talk of prophets,, but that doesn't make for spicy news for most Western media outlets.

Precisely. This is the smoke screen you've just proven in your own words as to how most Muslims pretend that Islam shares the same prophets with Christianity. I knew one way or the other you'd come to prove my point; no wonder you chaps treat the vilifying of other prophets with a convenient shrug as long as it is not specifically Islam.

Prof_Chaos:
Muslims blow up other Muslims and destroy mosques; do these sound like the acts of real Muslims? Those few, who use Islam for their own political goals, don't represent the millions of normal, civil Muslims. Catholics and Protestants fighting in Ireland don't make their religions bad; it's the people who are fighting.

Typically Islamic-flavoured excuses. Muslims in the Arab world have always tried to give the impression that all was well and Islam was peaceful, and politicians the world over (except for stubborn China  ) swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker until Muslims started blowing up their own most sacred and historic mosuqes and killing fellow Muslims. You should have asked yourself if the castigations you attempted about Christianity actually represent our faith before you went mudslinging in the first place.

Prof_Chaos:
Muslims throughout history have lived in peace with Jews and Christians, as evident by the churches and synagogues still standing for centuries and the 15 million who live in Arab countries today.

If this is how you evidence Islamic tolerance towards Christians and Jews, then you should understand that the reverse is even more true: Christians and Jews have been very tolerant and peaceful towards Muslims as evident by the several thousand mosques in the west and the more than 350 million Muslims that live there.

Mark you, [url=http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/Saudi%20Arabia%20Will.htm]how many churches are allowed[/url] to freely and peacefully operate in Saudi Arabia; or what is the religious atmosphere towards people of other faiths there? I'm still wondering why the Saudi government would block, not only Christian websites, but also that of the Islamic Cultural Library. If Muslims have always lived in peace with everyone, why did the Christian convert from Islam merit the death sentence in Afghanistan recently, until he had to flee his own country?

Prof_Chaos:
4getme, your right bro/sis, we should learn from Christianity. We should build porn stores on every corner of the Middle East. We should build alcohol bars in every corner. Ooh not to forget, we should teach our Imams how to have sex with 10-year-old boys. They are so ripe at that young tender age.

There you go again, my dear Prof_Chaos. You really do not understand Christianity by this insinuation, as if that's what my faith teaches in reality, or as if that's what you learn from it. I certainly hope that you're not supposing that Christianity is synonymous with what you have catalogued here. Otherwise, how do you explain prophet Mohammed's marriage to A'isha when she was a tenderly 'ripe' 6 year old and brought to him at 9 y.o.? Think what would happen to me today if I were to marry a 10 y.o. in the west you're vigorously bastardizing. Sorry, go home and read the Bible - you'll find that Christianity is not synonymous with pornography, achoholism, or pedophilia.

[Psst: as Christians, since we are not looking forward to [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html]the reward of 70 virgins[/url], 72 wives and rivers of liquor on resurrection day, was that why you find it difficult to understand and, perhaps, believe in Jesus, even though He's one of the "prophets" you pretend is shared by Islam?)


I had earlier offered you a peaceful and more tolerant resolve about our discussion, but since you came to believe that the best way forward is to be so anti-western, anti-Christian, and anti-semitic, I'm not suprised that you're defending what does not make sense (although, you try to make it appear innocent so readers won't easily suspect your undertones). I wish you had taken your own advice earlier by concentrating on the good side of other people's religious sensibilities, rather than what you've been parading lately.

If you would be more temperate, there'll be an enabling atmosphere in exchages that would not make you grimace. And I don't mean to be offensive to anyone - religious or non-religious. The promotion of free speech and the fostering of peace and good will do not have to mean that you take a swipe at the Christian faith.

Regards.

Ajisafe:
@ OWO,
I was so sorry for being too harsh on you, but basket mouths like "4get_Me" always irritate me.

That's a mild Muslim mindset.

I think this is a well reasoned and balanced view, TV01.

Sometimes our traditional way of reasoning inflames our arguments that we quite often fail to take a balanced view of a subject. Question is: Is It Right For A Christian To Take Alcohol? For ease of understanding, let me delineate this question quite simply into two parts:

(1) Is it okay for Christians to drink wine?

(2) Is it alright for a Christian to take alchohol?

If we're dealing with wine per se, I'd say it is neither endorsed nor is total abstinence commanded in Scripture. Alchohol is another matter - and sanctified common sense should let any Christian filled with the Holy Spirit know that is a red light zone. Not all wine is alchoholic, so it's not really wise to lump everything in one cask.

A distinction is made between 'wine' (Gk. oinos) and 'strong drink' (Gk. sikera - liquor or intoxicant) in Luke 1:15 - and, perhaps, that's the only place where I find the distinction made in the NT. Some wine have intoxicating effect, and only in reading the texts where they appear would it be clear what is meant. So, the context of the topic should be clear to us now.

WINE

Wine per se is not evil. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Lord Jesus and Paul (both filled with the Holy Spirit) did not see it as evil. Jesus changed water into 'wine' that people drank at a wedding celebration (John 2), and spoke of the use of 'wine' for medicinal purposes (Luke 10:34).
Paul recommended wine to Timothy for just about the same purpose, but the sense would be to drink it (I Tim. 5:23). If anyone still thinks wine is a taboo, ask yourself if the Lord Jesus (filled with the Holy Spirit) would have recommended it to anyone, let alone guests at a party. From Luke 7:34, it is most probable that He drank wine as well.

ALCHOHOL

One needs hardly quote many texts to establish this point - nowhere in scripture is alchoholism encouraged by any standard. The lifestyle that tends to a license for this type of drinking is classed as characteristic of those who do not know God ("Gentile" -


               "For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles,
                when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings,
                and abominable idolatries" - I Pet. 4:3

Moderation or no moderation, alchohol/alchoholism is not encouraged among Christians who know God and walk by the Spirit. Sometimes opinions, interpretations and views may be different between believers. However, I'll close by recommending the Spirit-filled example of Paul:

                "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient:
                 all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."
                 I Cor. 10:23

Blessings.

@dearzi, God bless and increase you and your family in His goodness!!! Without trying to be too emotional (I can't hold myself back) - it reminds me of the day I was healed after a serious illness that defied medical explication! Oh, praise God!!

When someone has not experienced something for real, they would not understand what you're talking about. I'm a living testimony of what God has done as well - not only was I healed and saw my nephew healed instantly after prayer, my circumstances have ever since been supernaturally transformed from a very poor family background to one that I could never have dreamed possible under the circumstances!!

Oh, I'm overjoyed with praise to God for what He did for you and your family. Indeed, we cannot tell it all.

You make me laugh. Is this all your cannabis 'Jesus' has to offer you - petty protests?

Idekeson:
Remember Galileo? He was condemned of heresy because of his belief that the earth rotates round the sun. The miracles of the sun, moon, stars and the like are all facts that can be verified empirically. What we can't explain is not miracle, we just have not doscovered it yet.

How long is it taking science to discover itself? Science is not going to "discover" a way to figure out the intricacies of divine miracles - it will just only come up with a convenient name for what it can't explain.

True talk - I forgot to include that one. Yes, we go wash am until the colour vanish!!

My dear jagunlabi,

History does not prove your personal assertions, I'm sorry to say. What you have applied only serves to buttress my earlier conjecture:

4get_me:
If you're reading only from one set of sources (most likely those opposing the Christian faith) and you fail to read and study the Bible for yourself, it would not be surprising to find you polarized this way. Take time to see both sides and not take people's anti-Christian prejudices at surface value.

I am very familiar with early Christian history, and there's just something you have failed to tell me: who wrote the OT - Emperor Constantine and the offcials at the Nicean Council? Unless you can come up with another polarised misrepresentation of historical events to prove that Genesis, Deuteronomy and the other Books of the OT were altered by the Nicean Council, you will continue to get the picture all wrong. Why don't you calm down and look at issues objectively?

jagunlabi:
BTW,what is with this "paganophobia" of christians,anyway?Isn't the concept of a supreme creator pagan in origin?I personally don't see what the big deal is,especially if one checks out the definition of paganism.
Even the winged angels of the hebreic literature was lifted from the egyptians who already have "winged" gods and goddesses,and that is not my own personal assertions,either.That has been achaeologically proven to be true.

Now, Christians do not have 'paganophobic' reflections because we recognise that paganism is as much a recognised tradition and experience on its own merit. This talk of 'lifting' this and that from paganism to Christianity is a weathered and worn issue that has no merit whasoever other than the false assertions of authors trying to discredit Christianity. Why so? Think about it again, jagunlabi: has it occured to you that anything and everything about Christianity is being maligned and attacked by every Tom, Dick and Harry calling themselves 'scholars, researchers, authorities and historians'?

So, the days of worship (Saturday, Sunday. . and even Friday) were 'borrowed' and eventually 'stolen' from paganism; the Christian concept of God was also borrowed, lifted and stolen from paganism; the celebration of Christian festivals (Easter, Christmas, etc) were lifted as well from the pagans; and the doctrine of the death, resurrection, ascension and soon return of Christ (rapture) was borrowed as well. C'mon, jagunlabi - I've read them all, and if you really believe those things, you'll surprise me for your lack of objectivity.

The fact is that, pagans had their religious experiences and rites and Christianity in no way borrowed from or represents a continuum with minor adjustments of paganism. I'm surprised that these same scholars (those that I've read) have failed to tell us who the pagans borrowed or lifted their ideas from before passing it down to several other contemporary religions.

You see, when these questions are conveniently glossed over and people feel we have no right to ask, or they consider the questions irrelavant, there's every reason to suspect someone is re-writing the facts with a prejudice against Christianity. Again, I'll ask you to dig deeper than the face value soft-sell novels that might be informing the ideas that Christianity borrowed from anything.

Now wait a minute! When are the rules of polite language going to be applied on the Forum?

Nubian or whatever the hell you called yourself

started off as a biased, bigoted, and confused polytheist[/color]

[color=#550000]Fake christians, think of your ugly past

OWO, . . Because you are a buffoon!

I know your knuckle head will start yelling

You ignorant mf.

Is this a preview of The New Global Threat called Islam? Is this how Islam seeks to address other people and foster tolerance in society? Is the silence of other Muslims on such religious exhibitionism a convenient nod in the affirmative? Do Muslim apologists let such vituperations mold our understanding of the Muslim mindset?

If I've never read the Qur'an, maybe this display of hate speech would have been a neat package of what it's all about.

Thanks dear. I'll try to heed your advice and not get worked out or worked up at nothing when I respond to sensible posts.

Wow, nferyn! Congratulations!!

I'm one of those interested in your views on the topic of discussion - I'll wait patiently.

Rejoinder to @jagunlabi's response to mine

jagunlabi:
So sorry to have "disgraced" you,but kai,all that long epistle just to tell us that God is sexless?Well,that is the way you interprete things,but i do not agree with any of it.

Well then, I see your point of view and respect it. But a few things are wanting in your interpretations of the Hebraic revelations.

- How do you come about the paradigm of Yahweh being just an administrative deity and not the Supreme Creator?

- My understanding may not yield much to you, and sorry if it was a tedious epistle to read; however, how do you come about God being a he/she ("he or she"?

jagunlabi:
But in reality,we are just talking in conjectures and personal interpretations(as is always the case in all theological discussions) because nobody truly knows of what nature the supreme deity is,as none has ever set eyes on the physical self of the divinity.But i like the "double gender" concept,sha.It appeals to me much more than the "no gender" concept.
Just my own viewpoint and interpretation.

That's why at the end of the day, one cannot categorically claim he or she knows everything about God in order to say that God is always going to be this or that. I don't debate the fact that you'll read of God in the masculine or Male figures of speech (e.g., Father, Son, He, Him) in the Bible. But to be so strenuous about this view is to leave more questions unanswered. For instance, both the Father and Son are in the masculine gender (and God forbid that anyone would think me to be advocating for a sexless Son!); but what about the Spirit? Afterall, Jesus mentioned in John 4:24 that God is a Spirit; could you tell the 'sex' of a spirit? Since no one can tell, it's best we don't carry things too far because of our individual persuasions. Albeit, I recognise that in that same verse, the gender used is positively masculine; and I pray to the 'Father' and call upon 'Him'.

What it seems to me at best is that your view is mixing up various religious perceptions (a syncretism) which may be contradictory: and this is why I fail to understand how or when the Hebraic faith (or the Christian faith for that matter) has ever viewed God as being in "both genders". [That does not mean that this thread should be limited to discussions on the Christianity].

_________________________

jagunlabi:
First of all,that christian trinity concept was lifted from the medittarenean pagan religions.
Secondly,that concept is totally unbalanced,and the original concept was much more balanced.
It goes like this;
The original holy trinity(Pagan version)
1)God - The father
2)God - The mother
3)The child

Now you tell me if that is not more balanced than the "roman" version.

Now, you should understand that you're more likely to end up controverted when making assertions like this. People always want to express their vexations against Christianity by such pejorative and misconstrued ideas. Christianity did not derive its Trinitarian doctrine from pagan religions anymore than the Yorubas derived their religious views from Hercules. If you're reading only from one set of sources (most likely those opposing the Christian faith) and you fail to read and study the Bible for yourself, it would not be surprising to find you polarized this way. Take time to see both sides and not take people's anti-Christian prejudices at surface value.

I'm glad that Ajisafe is back from exile. Someone resumes after a looooooong break, gets surprised at what he's reading about 'tolerance' and 'peace' - and the best way he could contribute to these much needed social ingredients is to use uncouth language towards others. I see how tolerant Islam is, as especially mirrored by you.

Anyway, dear taiwoabzy, no one is happy with the current violence in the middle east or any part of the world for that matter; and by making reference to such anywhere on this Forum does not take away from your being a Muslim. My points have been that: (1) pointing accusing fingers at people for their convictions in order to slur their faiths is a beggarly and thouroughly evil social malady; and (2) those who perpetrate and support evil by any guise (including the use of acrid language) are equally evil, if not worse, and I don't care if they do so in the name of Islam, atheism, communism, politics, Christianity, agnosticism, or anything else.

You may not agree with someone's faith or worldview, and in the world today people interpret their social and cultural outlooks differently. At the end of the day, it makes sense to seek peaceful resolves and understanding across international divides, rather than keep up the idea of senseless religious bigotry and incitations.