₦airaland Forum

I understand your persuasions about Acts 17:2. But read it in its context, and you'll understand that Paul wasn't discoursing with or engaging Christians on the Sabbath or in the synagogues. Rather, his audience were the Jews, as the context bears out in verse 1 - "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews". It was with these Jews at Thessalonica that Paul engaged in such a persuasive manner to convince them that Jesus was the Christ. He would hardly need to do this to people who were already Christians and were convinced that Jesus was actually the Christ. You will find the result in verse 4 where it says: "And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few."

So, it was with the Jews that the apostle reasoned with in order to convince them that Jesus is the Christ; which would clearly mean that the meeting was an evangelistic engagement and not a Christian gathering.

Reading the connecting verses in Isaiah 56:6-7 ~

"Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people."

It would be clear that the passage was not revealing or detailing New Testament spirituality, but rather what obtained under the dispensation of the Law. This is clear by mention of "their burnt offerings and their sacrifices" to be accepted upon the LORD's "altar". When you turn over to the NT, you'll find that the burnt offerings and sacrifices were confirmed to be under the economy of the OT, and were not a continuum for the NT -

(a) (Heb. 10:1, 5).
"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. . . Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."

(b) (Heb. 10:6-9)
"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second."

Infact, the last verse is one of the reasons why I'm persuaded that the Mosaic Law does not hold for the NT Christian - God has taken it away in order to establish the new covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ - "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 2:14). So, the covenant, burnt offerings and sacrifices we read of in Isaiah 56:6 are well suited to the Old Testament economy; and Isaiah could not have been detailing the new covenant. This again confirms that Isaiah's mention of the Sabbath was not to be applied to NT Christians, otherwise we would have had to apply the burnt offerings and sacrifices he spoke about in those verses.

As a rule, OT prophets were not given to understand NT details -

Eph. 3:3-5 --
"How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

----------------------------------------

Now in Matt. 5:17 when Christ said: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil", He was not thereby asking that Christians should live by the Law. Rather, He testified that He came to 'fulfil' them, in the sense that He would bring about the actual content of the Law, especially in reference to the prophetic nature of the Law in reference to Himself. This is why after His resurrection, He explained the import of what He meant in the fulifilling of the Law and the prophets -

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44).

His death and resurrection effectively fulfilled the Law, the prophets and the psalms - that is why the inspired writer of Hebrews argued from the same OT that God would take away the Law of the Old Covenant in order to establish the New Covenant in His Son - the One who came to do the Father's will and pleasure -

Heb 10:8-10
"Above when he said (that is, Jesus Christ prophetically declared this statement) Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

Notice that this declaration we find in Hebrews 10 is actually a quote from Psalm 40:6-8, which clearly point to the fact that Christ was prophetically speaking there, and had foreseen that God had not eternal satisfaction in the sacrifices and burnt offerings of the OT, such as Isaiah mentioned.

So, the Lord Jesus Christ actually fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, but not in a way as to ask Christians to revert to the OT to keep the Mosaic Law and the Sabbath. The reality of what pleases God is to be found in Jesus Christ, as the inspired apostle argued with great clarity in Col. 2:16-17.

Blessings.

@Shinor,

While appreciating your reasoning, I don't think the Gospel of Jesus Christ leaves room for the notion of "different brands" - because that is the very idea that the Lord and the apostles ever fought against. So, I hope you were not submitting that it's just about okay to live with any kind of brand of a gospel. Paul refuted and rejected anything that would sully, subvert or pervert the glorious Gospel of the Lord -

"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" (Gal. 1:8 ).

Jude took the same stance -

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3).

The apsotles John (2 John 10) and Peter (2 Pet. 2:1) also kept these serious warnings of "brands" of the faith before the saints. And all these would seem to stem from the fact that the Lord Jesus gave several warnings about various efforts of men to undermine the Gospel -

"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. (Mat 24:11-12).
----------------------------------------------------------

There may be a few things that are unarguably acceptable in the WOF movement - as many of them attest to the clear message of the Gospel - salvation comes by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone (Acts 4:12). However, it is in the application in teaching that a whole lot of concerns begin to arise. Not only should we be careful about what is being preached; but we are exhorted to be careful how we apply what is being preached to us - whichis the principle the Lord actually put before us:

     "And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear. . . What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
     (Matt. 4:24; Luke 10:26).

However, there are whole issues that the WOF movement propagate that are hardly taught in God's word; such as the teaching that men are little god's (the same as God Himself, but just that man is a small "g"; and that Jesus died spiritually (that is, he took upon himself the very nature of Satan and died spiritually in order to be born again before offering salvation to us). I have tried look these up in the Bible, and there just is no place where such things are taught.

lordimpaq,

Okay, I'm sorry - I shouldn't have been too forward with the 'lollypop' interjection. It's true that up until the resurrection, the disciples clearly observed the sabbath, as infact we read in Luke 23:55-56 -

"And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment."

Following that, after the church had been established, we read in Acts that Paul and his companions were accustomed to preaching and engaging the Jews on the sabbath in order to point them to Christ:

"But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down. . . And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. . . And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." (Act 13:14, 42, 44).

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." (Act 16:13).

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Act 17:2).

"And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." (Act 18:4-5).

The last reference shows that all the meetings and engagements Paul and his companions had on the sabbaths were not Christian gatherings for NT worship - they were more like evangelistic opportunities for him as occasion to persuade both Jews and Greeks that Jesus was the Christ. So, it would not be correct to draw the conclusion that Christians were still observing the Sabbath as stipulated in the OT for the Jews. That is why under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he cautioned that the Sabbath was only a shadow of things which find their reality and subtance in Christ, and we should not be judged on the basis of keeping the sabbath and a few other things in just the manner stipulated for the Jews (Col. 2:16-17).

To further strengthen this persuasion, please note that only the Jews were answerable to the Law - the Gentiles were not held accountable to the stipulations of the Law: "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God" (Rom 2:17). When you carefully follow the sequence of this very interesting discussion in Romans, you can't miss the fact that Christians are not Jews, and therefore you cannot apply a Jewish Law to non-Jews in the Body of Christ. Here's the sequence -

First Sequence:

"Now we know that ^awhat things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law (that is, the Jews): that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. ^bTherefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now ^cthe righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference . . . Therefore we conclude that ^da man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Rom 3:19-22, 28)

Follow the sequence of the argument of the inspired apostle: the Law was never given to Gentiles (that is, non-Jews) to observe; and to hold Gentiles accountable to the Law is to subvert the grace provided in Christ. The Law was given only to the Jews: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rom 9:4).
--------------------------------------------------------

For Christians who are in the Body of Christ, the scripture says:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Rom 6:14). . . and that is because, "now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." (Rom 7:6). You should realise that in the Body of Christ, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). And that being so, we are not held accountable under the Law - For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom 10:4). This is the reason why the Bible exhorts that we can't be judged "in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:16-17).

So, as you say, no one has the power to change God's authority. The question is, can anyone as such change God's authority of the New Testament? What we both need is a careful, time-spent, prayerful study of God's Word - and then the understanding becomes clear in the economy of His covenants, and we find there are no ambiguities there.

Blessings.

Hello all,

Continuing from where I left off, after having looked at women and men as being Equal in Creation, let me spend a few moments on the next:

The Indespensable Roles of Women in the Family.

There are few men who can live without a woman in their lives; but every man would have to acknowledge that a woman played a key role in their existence. Thus, the first man, Adam, honoured his wife by calling/naming her on two occasions with appellations of endearment. "She shall be called Woman," he said, "because she was taken out of Man." (Gen. 2:23). Fascinating! This should set a precedence for men - honour the woman you're connected to; because there's no other like her! Then, "Adam called his wife's name Eve." Why so? "Because she was the mother of all living." (Gen. 3:20). I could say that the first was about her equality in creation; and the second was about her indespensable role in the family. This has deeply affected my relations in my family with the two most indespensable women in my life - my mother and my wife! Of course, I'm not equal to or above my mother; and my wife has been ever so precious to me since the day I saw the place God gave her according to His Word!

There are a lot of things we ought to be thankful for when trying to understand the value of a woman in God's Word. Which one of us would have been born without a woman? Not only is she called 'mother', but she's the one we all run to when dad's not there! Often, even in contemporary times, the state of affairs in a home is attributed to the inputs of women: if it turns out good or bad, people want to either thank or blame a woman for it. In a society where men do their thing and see themselves as 'bread-winners' who are too 'busy' chasing the bucks, she has to be home, look after his interests, provide the welcome that greets him on arrival, and ensure a good meal after the day's work.

But are these menial, mundane tasks? No. How many times do people take time to see her pains? Or, her struggles with the kids that the men just won't be bothered with? Beyond merely seeing her as 'the necessary player in the bedroom', I think women should be given their rightful esteem, value and honour in the family everyday of their lives, and not just on a special day we call Mother's Day!

A few examples are given of wise women who preserved their families in the Bible. Ruth was one such woman, who having endured the pain of widowhood, not only struggled to find another husband in due course; but also found such an honourable husband that was the kinsman-redeemer, Boaz! As such, her mother-in-law (Naomi) by her previous husband was not left destiture and hapless, but through Ruth she was so blessed that the community honoured and showered praises on her. Guess what? Ruth happens to be mentioned in the geneology of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

In a desperate moment, another woman (Abigail) wisely prevented the untimely death of her husband (Nabal) by seeking to calm the infuriation of David whose men had been maltreated by Abigail's husband. Read the account in 1 Samuel 25, and that's one narative I often applaud and that helps me to be more thankful for the graciousness and wisdom my wife has patiently displayed to preserve her family (even though I'm not related to Nabal!).

Several other examples are available that would swell this page. Suffice to say, that a woman is more valued and honoured by God's word than some of us have taken the time to discover. When the men think that women could be dispensed with and treated just about anyhow, they should realise that God has set a woman in the family with tremendous power to hinder a man's prayer! No, I'm not making this up, for that is just what God's Word shows us:

1 Pet. 3:7 - 'Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.'

I'm happy to discover the honour God places on women in His Word, and as we take time to look into the matter there'll be so much more blessings to follow.

Seun, many thanks for helping out. I didn't have the time last night before leaving my office; and I'll try and follow through with a few others. Thanks also for re-arranging the layout of the thread - good job.

lordimpaq:
and where is it stated in the bible that the first day of the week(sunday) was the sabbath day

Again, another 'doctored' question. You seem to have confused a lot of issues in your reply, and I don't see how you've addressed my concerns. First, I never stated that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the sabbath day! Second, "Love thy neighbour as thyself" is a separate stipulation from "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy." Both are contained in the Law, but are not synonymous. Love was not absent in the OT, and when the Lord Jesus mentioned it as a 'new commandment' in John 13:34, it is clear He was pointing to Love as should be understood in the new covenant.

Now, as to the days you ferreted from one website or another about Sunday, that was a clever story someone weaved that you have been holding unto for eons. Could you just take a few moments and look into the Scriptures and observe that long before the Roman Emperor, Christians have been gathering on the first day of the week - Sunday? Constantine who came on the scene over two centuries later could not have been the one who asked Christians to be gathering for worship on the first day of the week - Sunday! The first day of the week, which is what we now call 'Sunday', was long in existence before Constantine emerged; and Christians were known to have been gathering on that day, especially because it was on that day that Christ rose from the dead:

Matt. 28:1 - 'In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.'

Mark 16:2 - 'And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.'

Mark 16:9 - 'Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.'

Luke 24:1 - 'Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.'

John 20:1 - 'The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.'

John 20:19 - 'Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.'

Acts 20:7 - 'And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.'

1 Cor. 16:2 - 'Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.'

Whoever posted that story about Constantine changing the day when Christians gathered for worship on Sunday, the first day of the week - that person sold you guys some lollypops for cheap. If you believe his/her tales, you certainly have not looked at what the Bible says; and you certainly have not reasoned out the chronology of events properly. That's why I was staggered.

Notice also, that Christians were not keeping the seventh day Sabbath as is eveident in the New Testament. They did not 'switch over' ceremonies linked with the Sabbath of the old covenant. Before Christianity proper, Jesus was questioned often by the religious authorities of His day why He always broke/did not keep the Sabbath (see Matt. 12:1-4). I proffer that the NT position on the Sabbath is as given in Col 2:16-17:

'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.'

It is clear, therefore, that NT Christians are not to live their lives under the OT stipulations of the Sabbath. We live in the reality of these things in Christ, not in the shadow of the old covenant.

Thanks ajia23.

I actually have tried reading through some of the relevant threads to see what Muslims have had to say on some of the concerns raised. But since I couldn't get much, I'll greatly appreciate some direct links to them, or better still, just cut and paste them.

Much appreciated.

There are loads of differences between the two religions where does one start from?

At the basic level, a careful consideration of the beliefs of both religion shows that while Christianity confesses Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Islam categorically denies this, even though it purports to have acknowledged the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Then again, Islam does not know or confess God as "Father" - as that, to them, is like blasphemy that supposes God has a wife.

Islam is made to look like Christianity at its earlier history but they have never even been close. I'm surprised today that while some Muslims are taking the effort to examine the claims of Christianity, picking and choosing whatever they please, a few of them would want to say that they ae more "Christian" than Christians themselves!

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ confessed as the Son of God, is the fundamental feature that sets Christianity apart from Islam.

What's Actually The Problem With The 'WOF' Movement And 'Prosperity Gospel'?

Everyone is suspicious these days about what 'brand' of Christianity people follow. There's an uneasy feeling about what group one belongs to, and the appellations are diverse and numerous. Especially in the last days, there's been so many warnings in Scripture about people bringning in new and perverted 'gospels' and believers ought to beware and steer clear.

This thread raises a concern as to the Word of Faith movement within the Christian confession - is its mesage legitimate as a sound confession of Christianity, especially with its central theme and emphasis on "Prosperity Gospel"? What do readers really think about the Prosperity Gospel?

I'm staggered. The law still stands? (4get_me <<== shakes his head with a fever!!)

Please help clarify these issues ASAP, abeg:

# How does the law still stand for Christian believers?

# where do you read in the Bible that early Christians were observing Saturday as the Sabbath before it was changed?

# when was it changed and by who precisely - (any Bible references)?

# so, what happens to Sunday - has it always been unbiblical for Christians to meet on such days for worship?

Thank ya.

Zahymaka:
There might be re-rentry problems.

Okay, "re-entry" - you mean the 'toll-gate'? That's certainly one of the comma's to the whole episode.

Rottweiler:
God created women with unique characteristics. For those that believe in the teachings of the bible, why support arguments like this one raised by cult members/non-believers/idol worshippers/etc? Head of churches are supposed to be spiritual leaders. Women were created with characteristics that disqualify them from such exalted positions. God has created everything uniquely as it suits him. Birds are created for the sky and snakes for the ground.

I don't understand Are you saying that mlks_baby is a cult member/non-believers/idol worshippers/etc for raising the topic? I may be mistaken.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to read some of those qualities you offered as disqualifying women from such exalted positions.

gem87:
so how does d soul travel thing work?

See me see wahala. So this babe is really serious about this thing. The thing about it is that there's no go-slows or traffic-jams in the 'travel'; no one will charge you for 'overload' or drunken/reckless driving - so breakneck speed is guaranteed! The only hitch to it all is that. . . em. .er, you CAN'T and SHOULD NOT take this piece as guaranteed advice!!

Oh well, I was begining to get a bit worried that he was lumping them up - as so many of us often do; and perhaps that's why the difficulty in moving the discussion forward.

belloti:
The Point, my friends, is you don't seem to agree with our answers or rather you are only looking for grey areas that you alledgedly assumes to be loopholes. What we are talking about is an issue in islamic faith and i don't see how you guys will ever willingly accept an islamic opinion.

No; rather, the point is that answers have not been forthcoming and most often than not, we are asked to just let the matter rest under the idea that it is a "complex" aspect of an exclusive religion. Babyosisi, in my opinion, has asked some relevant questions; but put together, these questions are not just a matter of interpretation, but one of morality. I respect the right of any religion to interpret their tenets in their own exclusive way; but it doesn't seem to make any sense when questions are asked and answers are not forthcoming, and we are rather asked to just look away from them.

Moving on from the child bride issue, I'm seriously concerned that a 'holy prophet' had some rather behind-the-scenes connection with women in such a way that contradicts the tone of his 'holy calling'. I've been a bit reserved up until now about mentioning them explicitly; but if there are answers about this as well, I wait to see them provided. I'd appreciate them when they are given.

olabowale:
Please bear in mind that a true Muslim community does not presently exist, but you do have pockets of true muslim individuals and family and small community, but no large community or nation.

First, let me commend you for your efforts, and I hope that more Muslims would contribute and enlighten the Forum about this issue and the place of women in Islam as in the sister thread to this one. But I must ask: what does it take for a true Muslim community to exist? When you say that no large community or nation exists, what then do you consider in the case of Pkistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia?

olabowale:
For the sake of this topic, if a woman is to be a leader of the community, what happens to the affaairs of the community when she is in her monthly period and she is one of those individuals who experiences a great amount of pain and discomfort even sickness at this time.

Well, in the evaluation of this point from an Islamic perspective, I believe that leadership cannot hindered by the pains or emotional stress a man or woman faces; and therefore should not be used as a yardstick for measuring their capabilities and inputs. Rather, it is how well they can handle such that counts.

olabowale:
First, God Almighty did not raise any of His Prophets and Messengers (SAW) from the female gender. All of them are men, Adam, Idris, Noah, Ibrahiim, Moses, Jesus, etc and Muhammad the last of them (SAW) are all men. God knows the whole truth why He had done this and we can only know just a very tiny reason, some I have listed above.

Well, I may suppose that is carried as far as Islamic tradition goes. However, we recognise a few women raised as prophetesses among God's people in the Bible - Deborah, the wife of Lappidoth (Judg. 4:4), and Anna, the daughter of Phanuel (Luke 2:36).

Interesting input all same, well done.

zarah:
Zahymaka and Lordimpaq, at least i know my first point of call when i start soul travelling.

Chei! See how this babe 4get me like say I no exist! After all my labour, na only Zahy and Lordimpaq fill your vision. Wetin happen to my turf??

belloti:
Why is there so much emphasis about the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Salallahu Alayhi Wasallam)'s marriage To Aisha(AS)? Thats just one aspect of his glorious life.

Simply for one thing: it is a question of morality and thus a valid one to be asked about a 'prophet' who claims to have brought a moral message to the world.


Enquiries from Christians pondering over Islamic tenets are valid for some reasons:

  # the founder of Islam (Muhammad) purports to have been sent by the same 'God' who gave the Law to Moses and the Gospel
     to Jesus; thereby he wants us to believe that Islam derives its credence from the Judaic and Christian heritages;

  # the founder of Islam claims to be the last of a long line of Biblical prophets; thus, he wants us to believe that he was sent by
     that same 'God' who sent those prophets, although his message fundamentally deviates from theirs;

  # the founder of Islam pursued his career in a different fashion as well as lived quite contrary to the calling of the holy prophets
     we read of in the Bible; hence, it's pertinent to ask why this was so - especially in regards to the present enquiry of child brides
     (if there's any truth in it) and some issues considered questionable in his links with women;

  # the founder of Islam denies the fundamental messages of both Judaism and Christianity, and goes so far as to make people
     believe that while the Jews and Christians have apostatized from their faiths, he had come with his religion to supercede them
     and claiming that to be the "true" religion.

For anyone to consider the claims of the Prophet of Islam as valid, questions must be asked - or where we keep quiet, then there's a feeling attachment to dogma that raises more questions than answers. Pardon me, but if any prophet has lived somewhat contradictory to what points to a holy calling, then we want to know why that kind of living should pass unnoticed and unquestioned, especially when he purports to have been sent by the same God who discountenanced such questionable links with women. It may be one more aspect of 'his glorious life'; but what makes it "glorious" if it fails the standard that he himself preached by 'revelation'?

It may be vague to non-Muslims, but for the Prophets claim to stand at all, they have to be examined. This is not putting the Prophet to the rigours of 'scientific proof', but questions like these are rather a matter of morality. I have not "chosen not to understand or appreciate the historical relevance" of any aspect of Muhammad - and that's why I keep asking questions, no less of which is: "what is actually the historical relevance of the marriage, and the relevance in his connection with the many women we read of in Islamic history?"

You may not owe non-Muslims any explanations for the "Islamic thing exclusively for Muslims" nor solicit for the acceptance for any concept among the hundreds of others in Islam. If you apply that to other faiths and beliefs, then in just the same manner, Christianity does not owe any explanations to Muslim apologists who continue to misrepresent the Christian faith on many of their websites and teachings in other media. It's either this exclusivity is valid only on the basis that it has nothing to do with other faiths (in which case, Muhammad's claim to have been sent by the same 'God' who sent the Biblical prophets is untenable and without substance); or, the exclusivity does not in fact stand to reason as long as the Qur'an purports to have been linked with the Biblical 'God' and prophets', which in fact it does not.

As long as the Prophet indulged in some very "complex" issues with women - especially in regards to being portrayed as 'holy' by his followers and therefore makes it a moral enquiry - it is relevant to both address this and any other that may come up, even the more explicit issues.

Lol, damygurl. . . you're asking doctored questions that won't provide the exact answers you pray for. It is like asking "aight, where exactly in the scripture did Jesus Christ say He is not God?" and several other questions formulated that way. I know this is not about the deity of Jesus, but just to point out that your question really ignores what the Scriptures in fact say:

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." - 1 Tim. 2:12.

"The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission,
as the Law also says." - 1 Cor. 14:34.

Most people who advocate the ordination of women as HEAD of churches rarely address these texts, and some who do just treat them in a liberal manner like whatever God says that don't square with what they want to do, just doesn't matter anymore. This is not about you, damygurl; but I often hear that quip a lot: "it really doesn't matter anymore." We might as well ask doctored questions about other issues: "where exactly in scripture does it say we should not smoke cigars? where exactly in scripture does it say we should not wear miniskirts? where exactly in scripture does it say we should not do this or that or the other?" Some of these questions are legitimate in their contexts, but the point is that most people who just want to do their thing are not paying close attention to what exactly in fact the Scripture says about a subject; and that's why they come to the conclusion that this, and that, and the other doesn't matter anymore. Again, it's not about you: it's more about the general feelings expressed by most people these days about what God says.

Scared about what? My dear, no need to be - if you really mean business to try 'the soul travel thing', you've got to have real guts! I clicked on the links and I was really disappointed - it wasn't scary enough! First, my PC froze for about half an hour; then turned completely dark and blank. The next thing, there was this sinister laughter softly oozing from under the wires, the table got hot, my chair started rising and shaking. . . and as if that was not enough, as I smiled, a face appeared on the screen and said: "Booo!! You passed the test!" Then I saw my score - 0%! Can you beat that??

Okay, by now you know that's a ridiculous story. Don't laugh. This is the real one - the links are harmless and will take you to a Google video page for a 5 minutes documentary exposé on the Eckankar cult. Summary: Eckankar has some questionable claims.

Thank goodness that someone brought it up at last. In light of contemporary happenings, people have used various machinery to deprive women of their true significance in society. Such machinery have included religion, economic and social policies, as well as the unspoken superiority of some women over other women.

Religiously speaking, I'm persuaded that Christianity gives women the ultimate value by recognising their worth in creation, their indespensable roles in the family, an appraisal of their honoured place in society, and their immense contributions in furthering the interests of God's Kingdom.

Equal in Creation.

In both the OT and NT, men are admonished to respect and love women by first recognizing their esteemed place in creation. I'm persuaded more and more that the woman was created equal to the man (although not bestowed with equal roles and functions). When God presented the woman He had created from man's ribs, Adam cried: "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man!" The equality in creation shared between the man and the woman is strengthened in Adam's recognition of the woman being bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh; and this equality is reiterated by God seeing them as one: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Gen. 2:18-24). I believe that the equality between the man and the woman is further established in Gen. 5:2 when God called them by the same name after He created them: "Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."

In the NT, the apostles recognised this equality in creation even when trying to distinguish their roles and functions in the home, church and society. Thus, in laying down God's mind on the question of authority, the apostle Paul also made reference to the equality in creation shared between them: "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (1 Cor. 11:8-9). Perhaps some would disagree, but that sounds more like expressing equality in creation - as if to say that neither the man nor the woman stands alone in creation, but that both need and complement each other, as in fact verse 11 shows: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

All the apostles seem to have taught this equality shared between both as far as creation is concerned. That's why I reason that in James, our being cautioned about the use of our tongues takes into consideration that: ". . . no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who are made in God's likeness." (Jam. 3:8-9). 'Men made in God's likeness' is a generic term that includes both men and women; and thus, as far as both were created in His likeness, one is not inferior to the other in creation.

What this all point to is that when we start recognizing the value of a woman as created in the likeness of God in just the same way that man has been created, then most of us will be better able to appreciate the woman in very practical terms, and not see them less than their worth.

More later.

Let me ask: Do one have to be deliberately derisive and intentionally disrespectful to views that differ from one's own? Bigotry towards others who hold different views from one's own persuasions cover a lot of things - religion, politics, culture, and even the arts. So, the idea that anyone must of necessity be disrespectful to people's views that differ from theirs is quite unethical - even beggarly to say the least.

Good advice, and he sure is going to get stuck along the way if he continues to quote texts out of context and muddle things up as he did in the case with Ireneaus and Paul. Not only do we read of Ireneaus defending the Trinity and the humanity of Jesus Christ, but quite a number of other early Christians defended the doctrine of the Trinity in their apologetical writings. Second, he doesn't need to appeal to some Gnostic Gospels (as the gospel of Barnabas) that he knows only too well do not form part of the Christian Scriptures - that would be like quoting Ibn Warraq in defense of or to support Islam.

Often, I see people lumping things together without carefully reading posts and making distinctions.

allonym:
Thirdly, you point out that Melchizedek gave tithes and offerings unto God. So, the immediate implication of your words, whether this is what your meant or not, is that the High Priesthood is in the business of presenting BOTH tithes and offerings unto the Lord.

But I observe:

TayoD:
@alloynm

Your response to the tithing issue suggests you have not read my arguments about tithing before now.  I have stated according to the Book of hebrews that a Priest has two functions: 1. To offer Gifts, and 2. to ofer sacrifices.  We see Melchizedek offer Gifts in the form of the tithe, and we see the Levitical priests offer gifts and sacrifices as well.  Jesus, being a Priest must necessarily offer gifts and sacrifices as well.  If the sacrifice He offered is His blood, which He did once and for all, what is the gift that He now offers?

. . . and further:

TayoD:
allonym,
Honestly, I think you have muddled things up quite a bit. I only hope someone else can explain my position to you better than I do. However, let me try to explain once again.

. . . According to at least 3 verses in the Book of Hebrews, a Priest must necessarily perform 2 functions: offer gifts and offer sacrifices. Jesus, it is witnessed is our High Priest today and the Bible says He already offered the sacrifice of His blood once and for all. My question is why would He offer a different gift (i.e. the tithe) which we see the Priesthood of Melchizedek and Levi offer?

Gifts and sacrifices are not the same. It helps to keep this distinction in view when replying to posts.

Question:

mlks_baby:
Should it matter at all what the Scriptures (Qur'an and Bible) say about this issue, or the agenda should be carried
regardless of what the holy writs stipulate?

Opinion:

damygurl:
we got lots of female ordained ministers infact they even got there own church and they are doing a very wonderful job so it doesn't really matter anymore.

I hear this a lot - and it seems to me a lot of believers are saying it doesn't matter what the Scriptures say.

@ajia23,

What in my post don't you understand? The sentence following the word 'historicity' explains it, so probably you didn't quite understand it or you had no answers.

@babyosisi,

I appreciate your response and am one who discountenances pedophilia in whatever form - even though some are convinced that the Jews practised it at one time as an injunction from Moses (I don't see how that squares with the verses they quote to support that notion). However, the thrust of my recent post was not so much about the ages at which Aisha and Fatima were married; but I'm more concerned about the polygamous tendencies that seems to present itself in my reading of hadith and other Islamic literature. Thus my questions. Some Muslims are persuaded that in Islam a man could marry up to 4 wives; very few feel that they could take more provided that they could afford to maintain them; but more and more Muslims I meet in Europe and the USA are persuaded that a Muslim man should take just one wife. Pedophilia is one thing; polygamy is another. The second of these concerns is what my questions were aiming at.

There's something that's often a marvel to me in the historicity of Islam. Most authorities within the Islamic tradition are not agreed concerning the dates of certain crucial events in the lives and religious careers of the founders of the religion. Take, for instance, Aisha's age when she was married to the Prophet Muhammad: most Islamic authorities believe she was 6 or 7 years old at bethrotal and just 9 y.o. at the consumation of the marriage. Others argue that she must have been anywhere between 18 and 22 when she was married to Muhammad. At best, one is left to wonder about the discrepancies especially when these figures were given by Islamic historians themselves.

Again, in the case of the Prophet's daughter, Fatima, most Muslim authorities would argue that she was far older than the tender age popularly given. But really, how old was Fatima when she got married to Ali (Muhammad's cousin/nephew)? From a few sampled answers, we get the following:

(a) Fatima was believed to have been around 9 years old when she got married to Ali and died at just over 18 years of age.

(b) A few base their argument on 'famous tradition' and peg the age at 15 years old;

(b) Others argue that she was somewhere between 18 and 22 years old.

The point is, why is it difficult even among Muslims to have a consensus on the historicity of events in Islam? Plus, in reading through the hadith and other Islamic literature, one wonders at the various inconsistent practices observed among Muhammad and his adherents/companions in matters having to do with women ('inconsistent', at least, to me). I don't mean to cause anyone's blood boiling again, but could Muslims help enlighten us about the following from the Qur'an and hadith:

# what is considered the acceptable age of marriage for women in Islam?

# how many wives (maximum number) is a Muslim man supposed to marry according to Islamic tenets?

# would Muslims consider the Prophet Muhammad to have followed what he preached to others on this subject?

# if he did not follow the tenets of his preaching on this matter, what possible explanations could there be for that?

Answers would be appreciated from Muslims and anyone else who could help shed light on the above concerns.

You may not be wrong. However, I knew that my Grandpa was a Rosicrucian - not simply because he admitted it, but he was one of the few who was rather taciturn about it until asked. I don't know how far this is true, but before I had to go off to school, he told me sort of playfully that not many rosicrucians 'dabbled' into other 'mysteries' or other cultic practices. For him, his was deeply 'Rosicrucian' with a peripheral interest in shamanism. Apart from those two incidents (the candle flame and the dumbing of the irate neighbour), I didn't witness first-hand any other stuff he performed. On the whole, some Rosicrucians and cultists are taciturn about their fraternity until asked. But I was greatly relieved to know that he was a Christian before he passed into glory.

Em. . . let me ask it this way:

What is an acceptable approach with which one may convince me about their perspective on a matter?

I don't know if there's a 'best approach' in trying to convince me about how true one's religion is, or if is THE true one; but perhaps, I'd be more willing to listen as long as the following helpful features are not lacking:

# Don't Misquote or Misrepresent Issues
As long as my fellow discussant does not misquote a verse, text, historical antecedent; or twist whatever they are quoting out of context
to make their point (which would really be pointless)

# Don't Perplex, Rather Persuade Me
As long as my fellow discussant is not trying to complicate matters by wearing me out with long-winding arguments that lead nowhere and
they are willing to stick to the main points under discussion

# Don't Pretend, Rather Be Principled
It does not matter to me if my fellow discussant must win a point, as long as he's not pretentious and is willing to be principled in whatever
he's stating; even if I'd have to admit that my scholarship is limited on certain matters

# Choose Insight Rather Than Insult
If I can't persuade you to see my point, as long as we don't leave the Forum or a discussion with insults and ill-feelings, there's a chance to
come back for more seasoned, informed and insightful discourses

# Be Creative Rather Than Capricious
I've learnt to sympathise with the difficulties people experience in seeing things my way with the understanding that I ofetn experience the
same difficulties in seeing things their way

# Maintain A Winsome, Rather Than a Whimsical Attitude
In all things, I'll keep trying to foster understanding and tolerance across board, even where I make bold to state why and how I disagree
with my discussants.

Okay, I'm not laying down any rules for anyone; but these traits help me greatly when I engaged in sensitive and publicly affecting issues with people on this and other fora. At the end of the day, I aim to make friends and not fiends!

Haba!! How can a woman HEAD a Church? It doesn't matter that there are a few female pastors in Church history, especially in contemporary times. But wait - that would be like re-writing and re-arranging the explicit tenet of the Christian faith. I believe the Bible is clear on the matter: the Lord Jesus Christ did not commit the leadership of the Church to a woman, but rather to the Holy Spirit; and by the Spirit the Lord chose men to be responsible for that position, so that it was to Peter that He gave the keys of the Kingdom. The apostles followed that trend, so that without denegrading the beauty and role of women, Paul re-iterates this matter twice: first in 1 Cor. 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12.

As for women ordained to the positions of Imam to HEAD services in Mosques, I don't know what the Qur'an (and even the hadith) says on that matter. It's true that there are contemporary moves towards this trend by many women in various quarters, but our Muslim friends need to help us clarify this matter from their holy books. Methinks, however, that even though she was a professor of Islamic studies at Virginia Commonwealth University in USA, Amina Wadud's leading prayers in the Mosque would be unheard of in Saudi Arabia!

On the whole, women are to be respected for their honourable roles in life and society - afterall, most men contributing to this thread are sandwiched between two women in their lives: their mothers and their wifes (or girlfriends, sweeties, heartthrobs, 'BMWs', 'kill-me-softlies'). 

@BTigress,

It all depends on what is a 'cult' - and with the evolution of language and culture, the word has become generally accepted to mean a secret society with shady dealings; and just about anybody who does not fit into our own ideologies could be termed a 'cultist' - in some circles even within Christianity, denominations use it on others (thus, the idea of 'Christian/pseudo-Christian cult'), so that it becomes more a matter of us against them (did you notice the first four letters of 'culture' spell our word 'C.U.L.T'? So, next time you send an sms or mobile/cell phone text, be careful not to abbreviate 'culture' to mean 'cult u're!' Aight, just kidding).

The one thing you notice about most cults and cultists is that they are bold and don't even try to hide their commitment to their ideology. As far as I know, of all the eckists I've met, not one of them has pretended anything about their beliefs.

Well, most other cultists would rather not be so open about their fraternity (like the ROSICRUCIANS). Believe it or not, my late grandfather was a rosicrucian and he teased me once in my youth by having me watch him lift a flame off a candle without touching it in any way. I'd heard of magic, so I thought, yeah. . . he's just an apprentice Prof. Pela with his abracadabra! Not until a few months later when a neighbour got miffed at him (heaven knows what about) and was spoiling for a big fight. Grandpa just looked at him, smiled and turned away from him. The man froze like a mallet hit him; he was dumb for two days without being able to say a word! Of course, we had to move because grandpa was arrested; but he was later released as the neighbours who witnessed the incident testified that GP didn't touch the man. For a few years, I didn't get to spend time with GP; but when I later found myself drawn to him towards the end of my undergraduate days, I was delighted to know that he'd been born again.

BTW, I'm not in Nigeria presently; but up until when I left, Eckankar was not the "Official Religion" of my beloeved country. I'm happy for you that you took the initiative to leave when you could.

Lol, TayoD. You're very observant - she did see it, and that several times (she wouldn't be persuaded as yet to join Nairaland, though). She's relieved, but believe me - she's keeping an eye on me (just in case some. . .), and I'm thankful she holds me so close.

@IBB,

You still correct - but you go wait tire! Because me and my darling don't intend to part ways lai-lai till Jesus comes! Don't wait until the gray hairs begin to appear before you make your moves on the babes available where you are at.

@TayoD,

On a more serious note, I enjoyed your input about the understanding of that verse. I'll take a closer look and see what I could post later.

Cheers guys.