₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: lol...............can't stop laughing, man. Wetin de vex you? Na wa o...you sef believe say Jesus come, make e remain say him die?! Epic!!! Why do you argue otherwise na? A few comments later, you're complaining that Jesus didn't die for you? How did Mr Anony's "us" include you, ehn? Why did you make the assumption?

Man, you guys are too much. The vehemence you display tells me that you know the Gospel to be true but just don't know what to do with it (hopefully, because if it's something else, y'all just bought BIG trouble, I tell you).

Dude, just let Jesus help you. Things are much easier and a lot more fun that way

One reason why Christianity is the subject of hatred and vehemence is of course that it centres around The Truth Himself.

You don't see similar vehemence against most religions e.g. The Grail Message, Eckankar, even the so-called animism; and, even the case of Islam which gets some attention is not the same as Christianity as you get all the excuses like "we don't want to get killed" etc.

As The Truth Himself said in John 15:18

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

frosbel: Depends on what you mean by the bible.

The bible is simply scripture.

Scripture in both the old and new testament formats always existed. The catholic church only got involved in the collection of these already existing scripture into one compact version.

The catholic church did not write the bible , they did not inspire it, they were only involved at certain stages in the recommendation on which scripture to add or remove from the final version.

It is obvious that they removed quite a few key biblical statements and added a long list of heretical gnostic books called the apocrypha .

Anyway , it is the Holy Spirit who controls the hearts of Kings, he turns their hearts in any direction that pleases him.

A lot also depends on how one interpretes "catholic Church" . The Roman Catholic Church (now sometimes misleadingly called the Catholic Church) is not the same as the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (note the small C). Beyond that there are other Christians who call themselves too "Catholic" but who are different from the Roman Catholic Church (though some in communion with the RCC) and who date back at least as far and if not even beyond the Roman Catholic Church.

chukwudi44: @enigma

I never said apostles practised baptism of the dead,Paul did and I was merely quoting him.

There is nothing in that passage that suggests paul was referring to a pagan practise.It has no precedent in the bible for an apostle to resort to pagan practises to justify christian beleifs

@Chukwudi44

I think you need to correct/modify an earlier post of yours because on reading back I see that you actually did say that the apostles practised baptism for the dead.

Some people are still peddling this nonsense?

Read from here to the end of the thread https://www.nairaland.com/775131/king-leopolds-letter-christian-missionaries.an/1#9285470

Incredibly and shockingly, some were even comparing the genuineness of this "letter" to the genuineness of The Gospels.

@ Chukwudi44

Nna bros

I actually understand and respect the concern you are expressing here.

The viewpoint that the reference is to a practise of non-Christians is, like I said earlier, one of many viewpoints and is not undisputed. OK then, the reasoning behind it is based on the overall context of the circumstances both leading to and in which the letter was written ---- you had a very small Christian community; a very young Christian community; of very new Christians; who despite being Jews were surrounded heavily by and might themselves have submitted to pagan practices.

They had many questions on which they needed clarification and Paul was trying to explain so many different things to them using a range of arguments and techniques. The logic then goes that in those circumstances it is not far fetched for Paul to point to something with which they were familiar in order to make a point to them.

There are a number of challenge points to these logic and, to save time, I will point out a couple of them.

1. The opponents would say the apostle should have been clearer that he did not himself condone the practise or regard it as Christian.

2. The logic can only be sustained if it can be proved that there were indeed pagans around the Corinthians who did practise some form of washing or perhaps even "baptising" for the dead.

Ah, I see ---- was Paul a heretic then?

Or perhaps the interpretation/meaning of that passage is not as straightforward as you are assuming?

davidylan: unfortunately i cannot post the link. I can only send it by email only under the understanding that my own privacy will be respected and protected.

I said it before and I say again ---- be very careful! You've got to assume that your anonymity is likely to be breached even if only eventually.

By the way isn't it interesting that our friends are obsessed with people here who have PhDs and who by the way they claim to be "brainwashed" and who they call all sorts of names?

Ah thanks, I will correct it now.

Meanwhile a few points about the line below.

There, the creation epic is more detailed,with Adama or adapa being fashioned in the EDIN.

This is either an example of the result of ignorant half-baked learning or of deliberate deception once again to exaggerate parallels.


1. In the myth concerned the relevant character is widely recorded as Adapa and not the Adama that was bolded in order to give the impression of a closer association to the biblical Adam.

2. The biblical Adam (either mankind when generic or the particular man Adam when specific) is actually the one often associated with the word "Adama" which is believed to mean either earth (from whence he 'came') or red.

3. The use and bolding of "Edin" is another such attempt to mislead. The Adapa of the concerned myth was actually from Eridu where he lived. "Edin" is seen as an old Sumerian/Akkadian word meaning either desert or plain.

4. The Adapa was not the first or only man in the concerned myth ---- unlike the biblical Adam.

5. The myth in the Adapa case is polytheistic and concerned various gods and a sort of 'tussle' (for want of a better term) among them.

6. In what should have been the most significant parallel, there is a notable divergence. Adapa was born mortal but had a chance to attain immortality by eating some food (bread and water) - a chance he missed by not eating the food. The biblical Adam was apparently immortal but lost his immortality by eating forbidden fruit.




Edited.

chukwudi44: @enigma

As u rightly stated the RCC do not condone baptism of the dead.but that does not explain 1. Cor 15:29 there paul explicitly alludes to baptism of the dead to prove the ressurection of the dead.

It would be quite preposterous for an apostle of Paul's standing to resort to pagan practices to justify christian beleifs.it is so obvious from that verse that baptism of the dead was carried out by christians of the first century.

Catholics are enjoined to pray for the dead so as to free those who happensto be in purgatory.

Oga Chukwudi

Do you see the problem now, nna?

If you say that the RCC does not "condone" baptism for the dead ----- yet at the same time you claim that the apostles taught and practised it --- that means you are saying that the RCC has departed from apostolic doctrine and practice. Is it not?

Of course I knew that the RCC does not "condone" baptism for the dead ---- something that was pronounced heresy from the earliest times, even from the time of the Church Fathers.

@ Chukwudi

One more question: do you distinguish between purgatory and baptism for the dead and, if so, how?

Focusing on 1 Corinthians 15 . . .

1. Firstly, my question to Chukwudi remains: please point to just one example of an apostle baptising people for the dead or teaching such a thing.

2. A second (compound) question: does the (Roman) Catholic Church practise baptism for the dead? Has the Church ever believed in baptism for the dead? Was or wasn't baptism for the dead declared a heresy?

3. Now to the passage: first thing to note is that this is a passage that has proved difficult for both scholars and theologians of the highest repute to decipher.

4. There are several lines suggested of possible interpretation.

5. Even the word rendered "baptism" continues to be disputed with one line of argument that it possibly simply means ritual washing and not even baptism in the proper sense.

6. One line of argument/interpretation that has some support (though not conclusive) is that the reference is to a practise done by others but not Christians; cf e.g. "they/those who are baptised for the dead" and "As for us" in the next verse.

Edit/Addendum

7. An alternative approach that also has some support is that the passage refers to the baptism of the Corinthian Christians themselves in their own hope of their own resurrection; as with other interpretations, many balk at this.

chukwudi44: Frosbel!!frosbel!! Frosbel!!how many times did I call you.You have aquired new skills in twisting of the scriptures.let's examine 1 cor 15:29

"If the dead do not rise again then why are people being baptised on behalf of those who have died and why do we stand in joerpardy every hour"

Here baptism of the dead is used as proof that dead christians will rise again to life.it is obvious from the foregoing baptism of the dead was practised by the apostles

NO, sorry it is not obvious at all; it is indeed far from obvious.

Please point us to just ONE example of any apostle practising baptism for the dead!

As Frosbel's piece indicated, the Corinthian Christians could see what was going on around them; that was the point.

^^^ Correct! Paul was not suggesting or teaching baptism for the dead; rather he was emphasising the resurrection and using the example to draw an analogy ----- e.g. "if there is no resurrection why are those people you see so doing baptism for the dead"?

Nothing I can do about that then.

^^^ You sure you got the right person after this? https://www.nairaland.com/770438/idea-god/2#11347151

Am just me: Another way of asking ur question is, Can I rob GOD and go to heaven? Or can I be a thief and go to heaven? If u don't pay ur tithe d bible says u r robbing GOD and ur a thief. Just pay ur tithe to ur own church and let d Pastors do wot they would wit it, at least btw u n GOD, u don clear ur way.

This is very wrong and very very terrible. The Bible does not say a Christian is robbing God by not tithing. The Bible does not even require a Christian to tithe in the first place!

Take this little test from an old thread "Who is robbing God? https://www.nairaland.com/747403/another-poll-robbing-god

Enigma: Here are examples of three Christian givers. (I am using just three examples but people can figure out that there are myriad permutations)


1. Mr A earns 1000 a month; unfailingly he gives 100 a month as "tithe" in/to "church"; he gives 50 a month as offering; he then gives up to 20 to other needy causes outside "church".


2. Mr B earns 1000 a month; he gives anything up to 90 in/to church every month, he then gives 110 to other needy causes outside the "church".


3. Mrs C is a seller of "provisions"; any time that she is going to buy stock, she buys 10% extra (e.g. instead of buying 100 cans of milk, she buys 110); she regularly takes the extra 10% to her local orphanage; she then gives about 5% of her net profits in/to "church".

. . . .

So, which of these three persons is robbing God?

^^^ It's all bluff. Now it is the Atra-Hasis. Meanwhile one of the leading scholars (indeed, arguably the leading scholar) on the Atra-Hasis and in fact who is chiefly responsible for translating it to English is a Christian i.e. the same Millard one of whose articles I cited in relation to the Enuma Elis earlier.



PS Remember I said there are a few of these things that these people like to shout about; so now with the Atra-Hasis, we can tick the Epic of Gilgamesh that I mentioned. So next, Adam Kadmon?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Interesting. . .please what do atheists believe in?[/quote]Well, they recently held a "Reason Rally" at which they outlined some of their "beliefs" and so on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/atheist-rally_n_1377443.html

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Hey guys, just wanted to share a message I came across
. . . .
The video features Michael Ramsden responding to the definition of humanism as the new religion of a post-modern Europe, Michael quotes Prof John Gray to say that a truly secular worldview does not permit the hope of humanism; humanism, says Gray, is simply the Christian faith delivered in secular terms.

Give it a look and tell me what you think.[/quote]This is similar to something I said on this forum fairly recently and is a position I had held for some time independently of Gray's work; much of the so-called "values" or "morality" that "secular" humanism seeks to espouse is borrowed (and/or adapted) from the very same much vilified Christianity specifically and religion in general.

As John Gray said (and see my current signature): "To insist that religion is peculiarly malignant is fanaticism, or mere stupidity."

davidylan: For starters, i didnt think cyrexx was right. sometimes its much easier to point out the glaring hypocrisy in a lot of the nonsense atheists spew than to bother dissecting the posts.

This!
+1
QFT!

I have been saying (and even doing) this for some time; sometimes you wonder why it is worthwhile to school them properly on some things rather leave them in their ignorance or self-delusion; in fact sometimes the reason for responding to them is for the sake of others (rather than themselves) or for some other worthwhile transcending reason.

Ah, going back to Job for a minute reminds me of a Yoruba play years ago about a chap who suffered great injustice though in his case because of the actions of men and women rather than of "gods" before also being vindicated eventually.

Possibly, someone (Joagbaje maybe?) would reognise it from this song.

Agiriaṣaṣa ma binu, otitọ inu ti gbe ọ ga, otitọ inu ti gbe'ja rẹ; ma mikan iwọ l'a gb'ade fun (or iwọ la gb'ojule)

'I've started so I'll finish'

4 contd
Even Wikipedia which is not exactly a friend of Christianity says (inter alia - I had to shorten quote considerably because of posts getting hidden and all that):

The similarities are scant, however, and the strongest resemblance can be found in the etymology of "in the beginning" and "when on high." . . .

5. Even the section of Wikipedia from which the line above is quoted gives sufficient indication of the difference between the revelation recorded in Genesis and whatever "similar" motifs or even stories may have existed elsewhere.

6. For examples of proper and more rigorous scholarship on the topic, look for e.g. Millard, "New Babylonian 'Genesis' Story" and/or also Waltke, "The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3 Part IV: The Theology of Genesis 1", Weeks, " The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1-11"

A more simplistic and less rigorous piece but still helpful on the contrast is one by Wellman on the CARM website.

7. There are a number of these things that some people like to point to e.g. expect at some point to hear (further) about The Epic of Gilgamesh, Adam Kadmon etc etc

8. The one thing to always bear in mind is whether one is being presented with a jaundiced view or a view that is truly knowledgeable on the scholarship.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]lol, I see you looked up De la Torre too.
The spambot also banned me for those links[/quote]If some of these people say 'good morning', it is advisable to check your watch/clock and to look outside.

(edited and adapted and broken into parts to avoid post being hidden again)

1. This is what the vaunted Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre says about himself

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

My "teachers" are the authors of the books which I cite in my various articles and "Reccomended Books" page in the Bibliography Menu.

Of course there are proper experts as well as proper scholarship in these matters.

2. The debate on the dating of the Enuma Elis vis a vis Genesis is not really settled.

3. It does not matter anyway as it is not a big deal that similar motifs (NB in this case not accounts, not stories; and note point 4 below) are found in different and sometimes even far flung places. In this particular case, the geography is of a relatively small area anyway.

4. Those who harp on about similarities between things like the Enuma Elis and e.g. Genesis of course fail to point out the dissimilarities and that in most cases the dissimilarities far outweigh the similarities.

Mee234: One of the problems of anti-bible people(muslems inclusive) is that is that they pick one verse start treating that verse in isolation. Or they will goute some absure historical work to support their clame. Thanks mr Anony for your post on those two books for all to read. The way that guy was sounding about the similarity between both books you will think they were copy from each other. He is just a fraud like the rest of them

It was mere copy and paste; in fact it was plagiarism since there was no acknowledgment or indication given that it was copy and paste.*

And this is what the guy being relied upon said about himself:*

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

My "teachers" are the authors of the books which I cite in my various articles and "Reccomended Books" page in the Bibliography Menu.

* Links removed because of spam bot but can be easily found by googling.

Mee234: One of the problems of anti-bible people(muslems inclusive) is that is that they pick one verse start treating that verse in isolation. Or they will goute some absure historical work to support their clame. Thanks mr Anony for your post on those two books for all to read. The way that guy was sounding about the similarity between both books you will think they were copy from each other. He is just a fraud like the rest of them

It was mere copy and paste; in fact plagiarism since there was no acknowledgment or indication given that it was copy and paste. This is where it was copied from _http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

And this is what the guy being relied upon said about himself: _http://www.bibleorigins.net/websiteauthorbackground.html

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

My "teachers" are the authors of the books which I cite in my various articles and "Reccomended Books" page in the Bibliography Menu.

Try breaking them up or you might get banned again like I was three times!

It's almost like the stuff of conspiracy theories.

Three times I posted on that thread and three times I was banned (for one hour?) with post hidden even after disabling most links.

I will try again with all links disabled and the post broken into two parts.

If this does not work, then manmustwack must really do something about it --- untagging?

(edited and adapted to avoid spam bot)

1. This is what the vaunted Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre says about himself http://www.bibleorigins.net/websiteauthorbackground.html

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

My "teachers" are the authors of the books which I cite in my various articles and "Reccomended Books" page in the Bibliography Menu.

Of course there are proper experts as well as proper scholarship in these matters.

2. The debate on the dating of the Enuma Elis vis a vis Genesis is not really settled.

3. It does not matter anyway as it is not a big deal that similar motifs (NB not accounts, not stories; and note point 4 below) are found in different and sometimes even far flung places. In this particular case, the geography is of a relatively small area anyway.

4. Those who point out similarities between things like the Enuma Elis and e.g. Genesis of course fail to point out the dissimilarities and that in most cases the dissimilarities far outweigh the similarities.

Even Wikipedia which is not exactly a friend of Christianity says:

The Enûma Eliš was recognized as bearing close relation to the Jewish creation in Genesis from its first publication (Smith 1876), and it was an important step in the recognition of the roots of the account found in the Bible, and in earlier Ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite and Mesopotamian) myth. The similarities are scant, however, and the strongest resemblance can be found in the etymology of "in the beginning" and "when on high." . . .

The two works have different aims. To address these similarities within a Christian framework, Conrad Hyers of the Princeton Theological Seminary maintains that the Genesis texts polemically address the Babylonian (and other Pagan world views). Specifically, Hyers views the aim of the Genesis myth as being to "repudiate the divinization of nature and the attendant myths of divine origins, divine conflict, and divine ascent," and rejects the idea that it borrowed from or appropriated the form of the Enûma Eliš. The Enuma Elish was comfortable using connections between the divine and inert matter while the Genesis account's aim was to trumpet the superiority of the Israelite God over all creation (and subsequent deities).

5. Even the last line in the quoted Wikipedia entry above is indicaion of the difference of the revelation recorded in Genesis and whatever "similar" motifs or even stories may have existed elsewhere.

6. Here is an example of a proper scholarly piece on the topic _http://98.131.162.170/tynbul/library/TynBull_1967_18_01_Millard_BabylonianGenesis.pdf or even this one _http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/waltke_creationiv_bsac.pdf

And here a more simplistic and far less rigorous piece but helpful on the contrast _http://carm.org/genesis-creation-enuma-elish

7. There are a number of these things that some people like to point to e.g. expect at some point to hear (further) about The Epic of Gilgamesh etc etc

8. The one thing to always bear in mind is whether one is being presented with a jaundiced view or a view that is truly knowledgeable on the scholarship.



PS Oh, by the way, this is the source of the unacknowledged copy and Paste job quoting de la Torre http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

PPS I have disabled some of the links because of the spam bot.