₦airaland Forum

Double post

Double post

^^^ Let us go back to the Chess days. I still have to prove to you that I am not as poor as that time o!

What's the website again?

InesQor: And as I said:

Wikipedia:
The word authority is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, meaning invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command.

Can you see all those boldened words? Authority is advice, opinion, influence or command (or even an INVENTION). It depends on who accepts and receives it, shikena

I don't care for these definitions because I know very well that there is a nuanced meaning of the word which properly applies to this discussion: just as we have a nuanced meaning of the word in law by which we draw on legal precedents as authourities, and just as every discipline has its concept of authority. As far as I am concerned, the definitions you have laid out above, while grammatically correct, do not represent the nuanced shade of the concept of authority in this discussion.

InesQor: Well since there is no empiricism in religion, but it is rather faith-based, every major difference of opinion is a fresh authority. This is why we have so many religions, plus their denominations, offshoots and syncretized versions. As long as there is an organized following, that following has an authority.

Objectivity or empiricism does not take away from my descriptions of authority and acceptance in the analogy, though. I was just showing you how it applies to my analogy that you re-used. For us to enter into the objectivity or empiricism of religion and prophecy, we will have to open a new thread. Howbeit we both know religion is mostly faith-based.

You see, the problem, for the umpteenth time, is simply that the OT is the Holy Scripture of a religion which predates either Christianity or Islam: Judaism. You cannot become the authority on their Holy Scripture, especially where you teach something contrary to it! Simple!

This is just the way the Islamists have hijacked the Comforter Spoken of in the NT and called him Mohammed! Is that authouritative NT understanding?

InesQor: @Deep Sight:

Thus saying that any followerses MUST revert to the initial authority is like saying there will never be any progression in research or interpretation. This makes no sense in the sciences and social sciences.

Note that as I said above, there can be objective and provable advancement in sciences such as medicine: not so in matters such as interpretation of prophecy.

Now that this comes up, there is a post up there by rhymz -

rhymz: these are mere issues underlying the difference. The main issue that differentiate the Christians from the Jews belief order is the messianic fullfilment by Jesus of the Tora. While authorities in the Jewish belief system flatly denies anyone like Jesus ever existed let alone be the messiah the Tora talked about, many hold the views that he may have existed but not as A god in human skin. Neither was he the expected Messiah as Jesus does not meat any of the requirements of the messiah.
-the messiah must be a jew by dafault of the father's side, the Jewish system does not recognize matriachal geneology.
-he had to be from the davidic order, a royalty, a king that will rule isreal and establish a great kingdom strong enough to conquer Rome. Jesus was not a king, just a jobless religious fanatic going about with a handful of largely illiterate men with no work to do.
- the prophetic messiah of the jewish tora is to be born by like any other child, no divine conception whatso ever.
-finally hom getting killed was not part of the prophesies the messiah was to fulfil.

Where he contends as you can see, that as a matter of fact, Jesus did not meet the prophetic indices required to consider him the prophesied Messiah. It is very very difficult for me to look at a situation whereby, the Jews, by scripture and their prophecies, had been expecting a messiah in their midst, and someone comes along from among them who does not meet their scriptural and prophetic indices, and then that person becomes an authourity on the self same Jewish Scriptures - effectively changing them by some of his commands and new teachings. This cannot square with my understanding of authority in the least.

InesQor: The main problem with this is that even medical science is proven wrong sometimes by related fields, or by medical science itself after a few years.

For example, for almost 2000 years bloodletting was the standard medical and surgical procedure to cure illnesses. Medicine knows different now.

So if medical science in antiquity is proven wrong by related fields that are BASED on that antique medical science, why can't it be that the initial Jewish stock was considered "wrong" - for their own purposes of understanding - by Christ and the first Christians? Thus establishing their own basis for future reference of authority?

That is a good example, but in that event, every difference of opinion is fresh authourity. Besides the medical example was your example: note that medicine is an empirical field of scientific study; prophecy and religion are not. Bad medicine can be objectively proven to be so; not so with prophecy, doctrine and religion.

This is my problem with your concept of authority as it relates to this discussion.

As I said - my biggest issue is that you are using the word "Authority" here, in a way that robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view. Your use of the word makes anybody and anything an authority, and that simply is not a nuanced understanding of what authourity refers to here.

InesQor: BUT those who began the Christian branch of this Judaic stock, were also Jews!

I don't know why this is relevant. I gave you my analogy of stating that I am the returned Christ. That I am Christian does not render me NT authority, just because some people then follow me. Has it not occurred to you that there are muslims who converted to Christianity? Such people can interprete teh Quoran as they please, and once followed, become authorities on it, no?

But my biggest issue is that you are using the word "Authority" here, in a way that robs it of any meaning whatsoever from a scholastic or historical point of view. Your use of the word makes anybody and anything an authority, and that simply is not a nuanced understanding of what authourity refers to here.

InesQor: Wow. For real?

Of course what is accepted in the Jewish world is authority for... JEWS who accept it!
Just as medical research is authoritative to those in the medical field who accept it!
And Christian scriptures (including the root Torah) are authoritative to Christians who accept it.
And Islamic scriptures (including Mohammed's interpretations of the Judeo-Christian content) is authoritative to Muslims who accept it.

This reasoning is ineluctable unless you're attempting to split hairs.

So back to your analogy, are you suggesting that a work accepted within the medical community as medical science will only be authoritative to doctors?

Is it not rather the case, that when laymen of all other walks of life are seeking authourity on medical matters, they will go to the doctors?

Therefore it stands to reason that when people of all other religious persuasions are seeking authourity on the OT, they must revert to that which is accepted in Judaism!

InesQor: @ Deep Sight:
First, find and replace authourity with authority. At first I thought it was a typo but that has been your consistent spelling on this thread

My dear forget it, i don't think I will ever consistently type that word correctly. I have tried for years. You will notice I keep shifting from one to the other. Its just a thing, i don't know. There are other words I have the same fixed but wrong spelling for.

Of course. Which is why I am saying the topic is a non-issue.


Nah men. Islam came after Christianity, so if Mohammed had an understanding of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, his personal authority to Muslims will be conferred on his followers. Any Christian like me can look into the preceding Islam and derive my own scriptures. I would then be an authority unto myself and whoever decides to follow me.


Ah now he gets it! The acceptance (by a following or the other) is what confers authority explicitly within the scope of those accepting it.

No, your position is still quite wrong and contradictory as your very own words disclose.

- You wondered how there can be a Christian autho[u!]rity on Islamic religious texts.

- You acceded that only acceptance within the world specific to a discipline, confers authority: and the OT is definitely a Judaic work and text and as such, authority can only be conferred by Judaic acceptance of its interpretation.

InesQor: I am an engineer. Say I randomly happen on some medical breakthrough, no matter the origin or procedure I used, if it is not accepted in the medical world then I cannot be considered a medical authority worth listening to.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot Inesqor. Look at the above. It is a perfect case.

Going by the above, only such as is accepted in the Jewish world, will constitute authority for Judaic Texts! - Just as you indicated that if your writing is not accepted in the medical world, it cannot constitute authority in medical matters!

InesQor: No. MOST (if not ALL) of the NT books were written by respected scholars. Point at one that wasn't. Unlearned men like Peter traditionally used ghostwriting services of learned Jewish scholars.

No? What are you saying here? That the disciples were not authourities in Christian Teaching? Because i did ask if they became authourities on OT teaching (which Christians accept them as) and I did not say a word about what they wrote or if they wrote it or how.

And as I explained to Mazaje, reference is INDEED had to the Jewish understanding. The differences, if any, are in Rabbinical personal interpretations. EVEN among the Rabbis, they do not agree on these interpretations and differences. Each one has their own school of thought, so in fact there may be more division among them THAN between Judaism and Christianity.

No two people agree on everything, so this is a non-issue, otherwise then we will say that each man is an authourity for himself as far as these teachings are concerned, and that sleight of hand will end the discussion for everyone.

The point is about what and who can be considered authouritative in matters of the scripture of a given people and faith. We are at a conscensus that it is the said people of that faith that will form that which is authourity and assert that which is authouritative. The problem remains that Christianity leans on the scripture of Judaism and Islam leans on the scripture of both.

You said yourself and I quote your very words: "How can there be an authoritative Christian understanding of a Muslim religious text?"

Those were your words, not mine, and they seal the discussion.

There is a difference. Muslims have accepted Mohammed's authority AND AS SUCH accepted the Quran's authority. Mohammed had a personal understanding of a Christian religious text; and this version ONLY becomes an authority to them BECAUSE Muslims have accepted HIS authority.
Can you not see the difference?

Going by this rule, anybody anywhere can become an authourity on any other person's teaching, so long as he has a following, no?

InesQor: And by the time you're done, and you have your followers cheering OOIism (assuming that's the name of the religion), then your texts will be authoritative to your OOI followers; while the Christian's Bible remains authoritative to them.

There is no big deal here.

Exactly. See the bold. My texts will be authouritative to my followers. And the bible will remain authouritative to Christians. As such, the texts of the Jews (OT) remain the Jews and they remain the authourity on such texts. The texts of the Christians (NT) remain the Christians and they remain the authourity on such texts. The texts of the muslims (Quoran/ Hadiths) remain the muslims and they remain the authourity on such texts.

Here is the problem: all of you are struggling for the root text - the OT - which is the scripture of the Jews.

You must accept that the Jews remain the authourity on what that text means.

InesQor: Mohammed's sources in the Quran were ancient Arabian beliefs and practices, Sabian and Jewish beliefs and fables, Zoroastian and Hanif elements, AND Christian and Christian Apocryphal books. We are here concerned with his Christian sources.

His main Christian source was his first wife Khadija's cousin Waraqa who was a Christian. He was also given a present: a Christian slave girl (Mary, an Egyptian copt who became his concubine and he married her after she gave birth to a son). His last main Christian source were Christians in the village of Najran, further south of Medina.

A distinguishing difference between this scenario and that of the early Judeo-Christians, however, is that Muhammad could not AT ALL read the books from which the Christians used. It was all hearsay, and he was not scholastic in his approach.

This is not relevant because not all Jews were scholars either. That you say Mohammed heard this and that from here and there is of no conseqience - just as many Jews heard and learnt of their scriptural traditions from others around them. In particular, the suggestion is strong within the NT that most of Jesus' disciples were simple unschooled men. And yet, these very men, based on what they had heard, became authourities on the interpretation of Judaic scripture and its prophetic fulfillment?

You have to be consistent, my brother.

However, as I already said earlier on in the thread,

Repeat: The account of the Muslims is authoritative to THEM and holds precedence FOR THEM.

And as far as authourity on the Jewish scripture is concerned, reference must be had to the Jewish understanding, period.

Now, you ask:


No, No and No again. How can there be an authoritative Christian understanding of a Muslim religious text?

And here you see that you are contradicting yourself! How can there be an authouritative Islamic understanding of a Christian Religious text? ? ? ?

This singular line surely ends the discussion!

Let me bring this to life with an analogy. Let us say that I am a Christian today. Christians, based on their scriptures, are expecting the 2nd coming of Christ, just as Jews were expecting the Messiah.

I say to Christians today that I am the Christ and I have come on my 2nd coming, just as Jesus and his men said to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.

Christians reject my claim because it does not conform to their scriptural expectations of the 2nd coming, just as Jews rejected Jesus' claim because it did not conform to their scriptural expectations of the Messiah's coming.

I go ahead and gather a following. My following becomes big and large and over hundreds of years becomes a major world religion. Will my "understanding" of the NT thereby be "authoritative?"

This is exactly what happened between Judaism and Christianity - nothing more and nothing less - Exactly the story.

truthislight: Jesus was a Jew, paul was a Jew, peter was a Jew, all NT writers were Jews.

What is your case sef? Na wao

InesQor: I see your point, though if you reckon, the early Christians had Jewish scholars like Paul and teachers like Jesus who interpreted things (for all intents and purposes, it's just as well as any other Rabbi would have interpreted to write a Midrash). This was not at all a case of an outsider interpreting a Jewish book.

1. There existed already standard Jewish understanding of the Jewish Scriptures. It is not sufficient therefore for one Jewish Rabbi to be an authority in changing that understanding which was already thousands of years old. At best he could have his personal opinion. . . that does not amount to authourity. This is just like saying that any individual Christian today who has an understanding of the NT different to that which is standard Christian fare, can be referred to as an authourity on the NT, or as authoritative understanding of the NT. . .

2. At all events, let us work with your reasoning. The Arabs are descendants of whom? Do they not trace their lineage too back to Ibrahim? As such, can they not authouritatively "understand" the OT as they please? Just as Jesus and his merry men did?

InesQor: I am certain you can give voice to your concern in clearer terms as is your regular wont.

BY your take, the Islamic understanding of the NT is also authoritative. . . for them. There is not, therefore, an original and more authoritative Christian understanding of the teaching of the NT.

The NT was written by Christians; is Christian Scripture, and has its Christian ideas therein.

Just as the OT was written by Jews; is Judaic scripture, and has its original Judaic ideas therein.

If you can take the scripture of the Jews and give it your own different authority, you must accept that its is also fine that the Islamists have taken both Judaic Scripture and Christian Scripture and given it their own authority.

InesQor: Thanks man


This is exactly what I was explaining to Mazaje. A lot of the original records seem to be forever lost when Israel was destroyed, so it is hard to know which is actually "right" or "authoritative" between the contemporary Jewish account and the Christian accounts.

I am certain this is meant as a hilarious joke.

PapaBrowne: I can see there's an improvement. Prayers answered!

But I didnt know english was that hard. The way you write makes it look like you attended the same school with our mummy, Dame Patience Jonathan!! Your english needs serious improvement man!

To be honest, the quality of English was so different from the generality of his posts that I had to think: has Eko Ile's account been hacked by a properly educated person?

Goshen360: No scripture is of 'private' interpretation. Yes, God is the same yesterday, today and forever in the essence of HIS PERSON, NOT IN THE ESSENCE OF HIS MODE OF OPERATIONS. I can be using phone as a person to talk to you and later change to using Internet. It will still be SAME ME but my means of communication have changed. Take a look to understand what I'm saying,

New International Version (©1984)
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. Hebrews 1:1-2

Questions:

Was it God that spoke to our forefathers THROUGH the prophets IN THE PAST? - Answer: YES

Was it the SAME GOD yesterday (PAST), today (PRESENT) and forever (CONTINUOUS) that NOW SPEAKS IN THESE LAST DAYS TO US BY HIS SON? Answer: YES

Has this SAME God changed? Answer: NO

What has CHANGED with the SAME GOD OF YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER? Answer: His Methods\program\mode of operations.

No you miss the point sir. The point is about shifting the goal posts - namely - changing the requirements for salavation. OT people were not required to believe in Jesus, were they? Why is it now the case that non-belief in Jesus leads to eternal damnation?

God being perfect and eternal surely cannot be involved in such petty games?

How is it that the standard for forgiveness of sins has changed between OT and NT? Does God change his rules and laws as he goes along? ? ? ? ?

Jarus: We have serious problem in this Nigeria, if supposedly educated people think an innocent article written by a well known oil and gas publisher (whose publication, Africa Oil & Gas report, is regarded as most authoritative in the industry), to correct a misinformation, is a paid agent playing a tribal card. We are in trouble in this country.

I for one am not interested in the tribal/ conspiracy card. What I need you to show me is what part of the article disproves Senator Enang's claim - despite its title? Simple.

Goshen360: Tell it loud and clear and carry the message of the Gospel to all nations saying,

GOD DOES NOT OPERATE THE NEW COVENANT\TESTAMENT WITH OLD COVENANT\TESTAMENT LAWS FOR WHICH THEY, THE JEWS PRACTICED JUDAISM.

Christ, in order to en-graft the Non-Jews, the Gentiles into the family of God had come and fulfill the laws of Moses and in doing that, he made of the Jews and Gentiles ONE NEW MAN FOR HIMSELF called Christians\Church\body of Christ.

New Living Translation (©2007)
For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups. Ephesians 2:14-15

The problem of the church today are not the Atheists but the practitioners of Judaism - trynna enforce the Jewish laws on Christianity. God took away the Old in order to establish the new. Quit religion\Judaism\churchianity and embrace Christ\Christianity.

Really? I thought your God is said to be the same yesterday, today and forever?

So he changes the goal posts during the game, eh?

I see.

oxford: This person, na ur village head or the chief priest? We are talking of the president of a sovereign state and the best ur brain can come up with is "without official security" How is ur boss coping with ur absolute idiocy! #smh

And you do not think it more than a coincidence that this visit is coming only after the opposition led the way there?

Demdem: Enang's claim wasnt balanced. it had a set aim which was to rubbish the north. This report is much more balanced.
Besides Enang to me just read names of oil blocs held by northerners and others and i doubt if he read out the complete list of bloc owners.

I do not say that Enang's claim was correct. I simply say to you that Akinnosho's "refutal" does not refute anything. In the same way as Enang merely reeled out names, teh authour here also merely reeled out names. The article does not prove or disprove a jot, and I would even say that it is actually widely off point for the most part.

All the authour needs to do is produce a complete list, and we work out the percentages. End of.

If he cannot do that, he has not disproven anything, just the same way Enang has not proven anything.

Demdem: Finally the truth is out and not that political talk in NASS.

Can you show me anything in the article that refutes or disproves Senator Enang's claim?

Interesting article, but I was rather dissapointed after reading it, because no where in the article does the writer address or prove the title - "The North does not control Nigeria's Oil Blocks." Unless such parts are missing in the excerpts above?

The article is a response to Senator Ita Enang's claim at the National Assembly that 83% of indigenously owned oil blocks in Nigeria are owned by Northerners. If Akinnosho wants to disprove that, all he needs to do is show us the figures, period. Nothing in that article up there disproves anything at all.

While the authour dwells on issues like which field is producing and which is not, he completely fails to address the core claim made by Senator Enang.

Please what is the necessity for this constant repetition of the phrase "peace and blessings be upon him) each time you mention a prophet in Islam? It makes write-ups like this one very tiresome to read and bores the reader with that constant repetition alone. Maybe you guys need to invent an omnibus blessing that covers everything you write, something like (PABWRTITA) - which you will put at the top of your article. By the way i just invented it and it means "Prophet always blessed when referred to in this article". That will save the constant tedium of PBUH.

Aside from this, why do you use PBUH only for prophets? Should you not use it for everybody, since you wish peace and blessings on all, no? In that case, we invent PABOAH (Peace and Blessings on all Humanity) which you will simply put at the top of your article.

Additionally, can you please explain the concept and notion of who or what the living Eck Master is, and other masters. I ask this because I am deeply suspicious of any religions that present me with any "masters" that are not God.

Okay, that's interesting to know. Can you please comment on this. Is the physical image of man not a mirror of his spiritual image. If that holds true, what is this about the spirit having one eye only in the centre of the head. Sorry to sound childish, but it sounds spooky and kinda somehow.

Logicboy03: Good for you. If God works for you, then that is your own belief.

There are millions of atheists who went through worse and didnt call on any higher power. From what I can tell, you are not a young man.

Again to this. Let me also say that it was not as if one in each instance "was calling on God" during these experiences or generally. By that, I refer to my belief in the ultimate deity which belief is resident in me - and hardly requires the attention of my conscious mind. Of course these experiences were too traumatic to even be praying at all, in most instances. And in fact I purpose to open a thread on prayer, in which I will say that people need not pray but only act. I realize this is confusing, but I will explain later. You be late nighgter like me o, obviously, unless u dey singapore.

davidylan: I read this on my lunch break but was too busy to respond. This is a fantastic, well articulated post. If no one understands the freewill issue after this then there is no more hope.

Yes o! Really brilliant articulation, and I have to say Anony wins more coin for this!

Editted: read better on your busy day