₦airaland Forum

Aight, jokes apart, there are things you just brought about that seem
to trail off somewhere. What do you think about the following verses?

¹⁴And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles
which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell
on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the
wound by a sword, and did live.

¹⁵And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image
of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship
the image of the beast should be killed.

¹⁶And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to
receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

¹⁷And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of
the beast, or the number of his name.


How do you expalin the imageries of:
- those miracles (vs. 14)
- an image to the beast (vs. 14)
- the wound by a sword (vs. 14)
- the killing of those who do not worship the image of the beast (vs. 15)?

How do you explain verse 16 that says he causes all to receive the mark?
And to infer that COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE is what's in view in the passage
doesn't square at all, because everyone uses the computer in one way or
the other - is that what you mean by "receiving the mark"?

@syrup,

Thank you for your comments. Actually, I checked to make sure that
my statements had cogent backing and references; but at the time
of my response earlier to olabowale's, I didn't think it necessary to
have used them. I just answered through and thought to leave the
references out as much as possible for another time. I'd be glad to
share on those as soon as olabowale provides counter claims to my
reply, otherwise I'll try to share my comments with you by email, if
you make your e-addr available to me.

@Shagari,

How do you ”hold on tight" to God if you have no interest in what
He says? It may not suit you at all to know Him through His word,
but your comments have not helped address the topic. Yes, it’s very
important to God, otherwise it would not appear in His word.

@Rev.,

It’s okay for you to pick offence in issues that shouldn’t be such
a bother to you, because more often than not your reactions put
you on spot. Don’t you think your advice is best suited to you –
“live and let live”? Why should this topic be offensive/annoying
to you if you don’t believe in the Bible anyway?

Well, it all depends on what we mean by 'judging' other denominations. The Bible
discourages the practice of castigating or vilifying people for their beliefs; but also
asks us to be discerning about a lot of things happening in some quarters. In the
latter, I believe God wants us to "judge" between what's right and what's wrong.

Perhaps, the reason why some people feel uncomfy with the 'judging' exercise is
because they find themselves in systems that do not measure up to the standard
of God's Word - I've been in some of them before. Others will quickly cover up for
their own by quoting texts like Psa. 105:15 - "Touch not mine anointed and do my
prophet no harm." The wisest thing to do is to consider that God's anointing is not
given for excuses that fall short of His truth.

Jealousy is another reason why some people will castigate and vilify others even
when they know nothing about them. To judge on hearsays is counter-productive
and will not make one the wiser or the better.

On the whole, the Bible asks us to judge/examine ourselves and be slow to judge
others. The benefits of self-examination far outweigh those of misjudging others -
examples include the adminition to remove the log in our own eyes first in order to
see more clearly to remove those of others; and then also to prove our own selves
as to the genuineness of our commitment to Christ (2 Cor. 13:5).

I particularly find much help in Rom. 14:13 - "Let us not therefore judge one another
any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to
fall in his brother's way."

Actually it is important to God - otherwise the apostle would not have spent
several verses on the issue. God hears prayers of those whose hearts are
inclined towards Him; and when He speaks to us in His Word, He considers
both the outside and the inside as equally important.

@olabowale,

Thank you for your reply and questions. First, let me guarantee you that I don't pretend
to have all the answers to every single question about the Qur'an and the Bible - I'm
seeking answers that will bless and strengthen my understanding in the things of God.

Now to your enquiries.

I wonder if you believe that the Qur'an has always been as it appears today and that
nothing was ever missing that could not have been added to it. It's one thing to accuse
the Bible of altercations, corruption and untrustworthiness; but it's quite another thing to
ignore the fact that the Qur'an endorsed the Bible at one time until the tide turned for
Muhammad.

Further, both authentic and spurious translations and versions of the Bible abound in the
market; but this is true as well for the Qur'an, and Muslims have disagreed between
themselves as to which versions are faithful translations and which are regarded as spurious.
It goes both ways, and there's no need to think the Qur'an escapes such accusations of
untrustworthiness in translations and versions.

olabowale:
Was Jesus, son of Mary the writer or the one who dictated the present Bible. Is the present Bible the words
of God, word for word. If it is , then what were the old editions and presently, which present version and church
denomination has the word for word God's words. Prior to 1971, the Bible I used in High school BK was
different to what was used in the same BK at the same school starting from 1972.

You're really missing something here. Just because Jesus was not the writer or the
one who dictated the present or past Bible is no grounds to distrust what it says.
First, what Injil (or Injeel) was the Qur'an endorsing initially - the one written and
dictated by Jesus? And if Jesus did not dictate the Injil (Gospel) that the Qur'an endorsed,
what then is the grounds for your worry?

The Bible does not make pretenses about the fact that its writers were inspired to write
what they did; and it is only left to the reader to search its pages and ask pertinent
questions that reveal its true claims. You should have been asking the compiler and writer
of the Qur'an the same questions, most pertinent of which is: "What Injil and Torah did the
Qur'an endorse by Allah before turning against its own endorsements?"

olabowale:
Do you really think that any of God's creations has the right to change His words, and that often as it is with the Bible.

No, I don't think so - and certainly not 'often as it is with the Bible.' I've shared the
difference between a translation/version and an original document. And to even think
of it, hasn't the Qur'an suffered the same position by the spurious translations in many
languages in the market? Besides, some people argue about the fact that there are
reasons enough to believe that the Qur'an in its earliest compilation had a few verses
missing in it, and the consequences of revealing this has been dire indeed upon the
whistle blowers.

One cannot guarantee that just because a document has not been changed and has
remained word for word, therfore it "proves" ipso facto that it is the Word of God.
William Shakespear's works have not been changed from its original composition, even
though there are revised and abridged 'editions'. Similarly, the works of ancient philosophers
dating earlier than the Qur'an remain in their original composition - does that prove ipso facto
that they are necessarily the Word of God?

Personally, I think more involving questions should be asked as to what constitutes the
"inspired Word of God" - and Christianity has never claimed that God's Word cannot be
translated into languages. What it does assure us of is that its promises are true, and its
prophecies are sure and will come to pass. If by translating the Bible into other languages
the message has been changed thereby, then you would have a point. So far, there's no
essential deviation of the coherrent message that Jesus is the Son of God and the promised
Messiah; and the prophecies of both the OT and NT remain as true and essential as ever
- facts which the Qur'an ignores and Muslims refuse to consider.

olabowale:
There are many writers of the Bible, each section a different writer. In the New Testament for example, the Gospels were 'according to', then a first name . Would you accept a letter that is written to you carrying a first name only. Will you take it as an official document. Do you thick you can write your first name on a document and you ask the public notary to attest it. Can any third party issue a document and write your first name and ascrube it to you and you and or your loved ones will accept it as coming from you and therefore act upon it. If all of the above is tyrue in personal case, do you think that the Bible should be treated in the same carefree manner, especially when you believe it is word of God, all of it, word for word without any of His creation addition and subtraction.

If your responses were merely for the sake of arguments, we might never come to an
end on this topic. It is true that there are no less than 40 writers of the Bible - OT and NT;
and the crux of the matter is that we understand these writers were inspired by God's Spirit
to pen down what they did. Isaiah, Nehemiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, I Samuel & 2 Samuel are all
examples of books in the OT bearing names of individuals; and in the NT there are such as
Mark, Luke, John, James and Jude. Now, it is also true that a document even in social concourses
can be received as authentic and trustworthy when a third party (whatever you meant by that)
has issued that document - what about the writing and sealing of a will of inheritance?

The interesting thing about your concern here is that Allah in the Qur'an endorsed these "Gospels"
(the Injil) and the Old Testament (the Torah) when they bore the personal names of people who were
inspired to write them, so there's just no point in being disaffected about this issue. If you argue that
a document cannot be trusted on the mere basis of it bearing the personal names of people, then you
should apply the same rule to sections of the Qur'an that bear the personal names of some of the
prophets and stop believing whatever the Qur'an says about those sections. A few examples:

YUNUS (Jonas) - Sura 10; YUSUF (Joseph) - Sura 12 IBRAHIM (Abraham) - Sura 14

MARYAM (Mary) - Sura 19; . . . and even Sura 47 that bears MUHAMMAD's personal name.

The question for you is, why would you want to believe the 'correctness' of the Qur'an if it is affected
by the same complaints you raised about the Bible? And if you cannot apply this same rule to the
Qur'an, why lay the allegations against the Bible of sections bearing the personal names of writers?
I expected a reasoned discourse with you, not unbalanced allegations that ignore the same problems
that you're happy to conveniently ignore in the Qur'an. When the compiler of the Qur'an put the texts
together - was he not acting in the same capacity as a third party? Certainly, even when for convenience
sake (for the Muslim love of the Qur'an) you disagree that a compiler is a third party, he is as guilty
as the same "third party" writers of the Bible that the Qur'an endorsed unequivocally.

To guarantee you, the Bible is not "treated with the same carefree manner" as you alleged - not by
true Christians. And if you wonder about that, think more closely about those Muslims who have
treated the Qur'an with the same carelessness that informs your concern.

olabowale:
The other side is the Qur'an. It is memorized completely by young and old, male and female around the world, other s memoraize from a small portion to a verying larger portions to almost its totality, inshort it is a book of life, full of past miracles, present amd future miracles and predictions. I deals with human conditions and emotions, inshort, it gives you guidiance, hope and longing for the mercies of the True Merciful.

That's admirable about the Qur'an, and much more could be said about the Bible - the miracles,
the prophecies, issues about human conditions (emotions, suffering, love, interactions between
people, love for God and love for man, etc.), its sure promises for sustained hope, the practical
mercies, grace and divine love of God towards undeserving people, the reality of its convictions in
the human heart, and much, much more including the great Day of God Almighty to rout evil
and usher in everlasting righteousness. I'll urge you spend time reading the Bible with an unbiased
mindset, and then ask yourself pertinent questions about those protions which the Qur'an was
happy to endorse, and see if you've not been attacking what you've not read and also see what
blessings you have been missing.

Many thanks again for your concerns and challenges, and I hope that you'll find some benefit in
my reply.

Anyone is welcome to contribute - as if that makes Arabs of anyone.
The list of your accusations is growing, and I'm glad to see that you
now ask for impartiality - hoping that you'll not shout another one of
those hoo-ha when they don't agree with you.

Well, perhaps we shouldn't be looking at the issue from just one
perspective. God calls people in various ways to serve in varying
aspects and situations. It's true one has to hear the calling from
the Caller Himself, and that can take any of several forms.

With Paul it was first a clear but dramatic call to salvation, which
was later followed by a call to ministry, and then the call to do so
in a particular place - Macedonia.

   Salvation - Acts 9:1-18

   Ministry - Acts 13:1-5

   Macedonia - Acts 16:6-10.

With some others, however, it may not be so dramatic, as was in
Timothy's case. He was serving in close tutelage under the apostle
Paul, who subsequently recognized that the former was gifted but
needed encouragement to use his gifts (see 2 Tim. 1:6-7).

With yet some others, the gifts may be in the ministry of songs, of
caring for others, children ministry, etc. I know of someone who
clearly showed signs of the gift of teaching: the more he exercised
his teaching gift in helping people understand the Word, he was
soon recognized as a teacher - and he has been growing stronger
ever since, that now he has naturally become a pastor with an
admirable calling.

Do you feel led to participate in the ministry of songs? Or of some
other aspect of service? Take it to God, and then faithfully pursue
your persuasion until God will make it apparent before all that you
are particularly called to a service.

God help, bless and enlarge you.

Are you crying out that song for yourself - the escapist tactic?
That would be more suited to your case, you know.

Open your eyes - what crimes did I commit to have merited the
'prejudice' accusations and so-called 'false propaganda' you
attributed to me? If I had used those at you, would it have been
just quite normal and you wouldn't have cried hoo-ha as you're
now doing?

I asked a simple question: Who is Creator in "We created"?

What you continue to do is accuse me - why? Don't make me
laugh. I'm not an Arab, and must I be one in order to clearly
understand the Qur'an in English translation?

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, but God
doesn't make Hebrews or Jews of everyone in order to understand
the OT. So, what are you getting at?

Since you're unable to reach me with communication by persuasion,
there's no need for the escapist tactics you've been playing until
now.

Uhm. . . donnie, I have a few things in regards to your input. You seem to have
done the same thing you cautioned idollier not to do - preach tradition. I wouldn't
think that Paul was referring to Eastern women or Muslims in stating what he did
in 1 Cor. 11. People are not all agreed as to what the interpretations are in the
verses, and then the apotle discouraged contentions that may brew from such
(verse 16).

I believe that the apostle had the whole church in mind when penning those
verses, because he had said that he applied the same teaching in every place
and every church where he ministered (1 Cor. 4:17). The matter of head covering
should be no different and applicable to us as well.

Therefore, I'm seeking the understanding of believers about this issue and have
outlined it thus:

     (a) if the HAIR is the material for covering and not 'a piece of cloth',
          - - then men should have no hair on their head:
              "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head" (vs. 7).

    (b) if a HEADDRESS is in view and not the hair as the covering material
          - - then men should not have a headdress; while the women should:
              "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head
               because of the angels" (verse 10).

It then follows through with food for thought in verse 13: "Judge in yourselves:
is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

The big question then is: what is the covering? Some say it is the hair in
allusion to verse 15 - "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her
hair is given her for a covering." If we take only this verse as proof text for the
woman not to have a HEADDRESS on her head, then we are ignoring the other
verses. The apostle says unequivocally:

"For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for
a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered" (verse 6).

Now picture this: my fiancée has short hair and loves God. She wouldn't like to
be shorn or shaven, so what she should do? The text says, "let her be covered."
Does that mean she should immediately grow long hair, or it means she should
be covered with a HEADDRESS, reason being for the sake of the angels (v. 10)?
Remember also that, the man is to have no covering (v. 7).

What I think is that when you consider the religious culture of the Corinthians
you're most likely to find men wearing HEADDRESS (Jewish caps for the men),
and women less likely to do so. It's not too difficult today - look at the Jews in
Israel today - you see the men with their hats and caps. That is one reason
why I believe that the apostle Paul was laying the foundation that men ought
not to cover their heads, as many Jewish men among them did. Yes, there were
Jewish converts among the Corinthians, and Paul noted that quite well (see
Acts 18:1-5 & 8 ). Today, we have expressions of Christianity where male
ministers wear HEADDRESS - like the Catholics, as a prime example. That is
what I am persuaded to believe that the apostle was referring - men ought
not to wear hats and caps while praying to God. So, hair is not what Paul was
focusing on as the covering for either men or women.

I'm quizzed anytime I visit some churches who have no qualms with women
having no head covering in church, and then in prayer the minister would be
very concerned that "the men should please take off their hats and caps".
That's sheer inbalance - because them women should wear them when the
men take them off - that's what the Bible says. I've a few friends who are
rascally: they quite often go to church with hoods and face caps. One of them
has a reason for wearing his hats - he's fast becoming bald and has his eyes
on the babes. But you know that's not a good enough reason to do so.

In any case, in the spirit of 1 Cor. 11: 16, I've no right to force my views on any
believer, and hope that by sharing the above, some might be helped. I believe
idollier has very good reasons in her inputs for what she does; and GL as well.
But it wouldn't seem to me that Paul had the Eastern culture of women in any
connection to Muslim women who did not even exist in his day.

As I said before - you could accuse me of anything from prejudice to
whatever else, and I see you've added a few more to the list: tactics,
and false propaganda. Is that all you could have done in an open
enquiry? And how has that helped to present you as a gentleman
able to address issues without recourse to invectives?

If you have no answers, it would have been sufficicent to say so; not
come back with unnecessary vituperations in the attempt to force me
into your own views. All I asked is that you persuade me, not perplex
me with vitriol. It's quite a simple case as to who, what and why of
the Qur'anic texts in question. Didn't I have the freedom to ask more
questions where your analogies have not satisfactorily addressed the
issue?

I hope you can do better than confirm my suspicions that he who has
no answers will substitute reason with rascality. If you're unable to
provide simple answers, try not writing me off the way you do - it'll
only spoil your case the more. But, of course, you're entitled the right
to be even more abusive if that's all you can do.

Donnie, thank you for your observation. I'm very aware of all you've
stated, and that's why I've tried to follow the simple example of the
Lord Jesus: ask questions where people are trying to be pushy.

I haven't tried to knock out anyone's beliefs - it's either they tell us
what they think God said, or they're shown how their accusations
at others are untenable. The Word of God has the power to bring
conviction where necessary, and I don't have to worry about the
results.

mlks_baby didn't have to sweat it out - she had stated the same
things in a very fair manner, and there wasn't anything more to
add (IMO). To have tried to slice her statements out of context
was not helping the discussion any further - and I suppose she
made that clear enough in her last entry.

All the same, I respect whatever traditions anyone takes. What
settles it for me is the Word of God - not ideas in the fancy words
of men.

Well then, if you feel you're going round in circles, that's your lot.

First, it's a foreign language - you admit to that. Second, I didn't
enter into "endless disagreement" about a language not my own,
- you're only supposing so as if to say I should shut up because
you're running round in circles.

I only made observations to olabowale's input, and subsequently
enquiries when you proffered your thesis about what I didn't
understand. Your aggravations haven't helped the issues at all.
What is more, it seems to me you're trying to force me to accept
your own explanations ferreted from some Arabic scholars without
recognizing my free rights to think for myself and query any issue
that begs for answers.

That you have nothing more helpful to my enquiries should not be
translated into your levelling accusations of prejudice at me. I just
wanted a clarification of issues in the text, and I hold no ill feelings
towards you for not being able to rescue the questions offered.

Here's what I see as prejudicial - the weakness in your inability to clearly
convey the crux of the issue to my understanding, and then levelling a
charge at me as if that settles the issue.

I don't see why the sudden turn around in a simple matter to accusations
where there ought not be one. Unless you first want to make an Arab of
me before becoming acquainted with the Qur'an, just like is suggestive of
your adumbrations in the case of the Yoruba people and language.

I didn't reject anything outright - my question was simple: If the Qur'an
alludes to a plural pronoun in the case of what belongs to God alone, who
then is actually the Creator when it says "We created"? Unless you
are asking me to take for granted that Allah and his angels are jointly the
creators, how has your analogy of the Yoruba people helped a clearer
understanding of the issue? Is there no difference between what alone
belongs to God and what is limited to human experience?

I don't see the prejudice in my enquiry, and to accuse me of one is not
helping your case. My boss sent me out a few minutes ago to deliver a very
sensitive message to a high representative. At being ushered into the oval
office of the recipient (a minister of trade and investment), I was asked:
"And who is in charge of _____?" Should I have said: "We are in charge" or
"My boss is in charge"? Do I have to become an Arab or a Yoruba to explain
my pun of the former case of "We are in charge" in reference to I and my
boss? Even then, I already know I'd have been thrown out as a fraud.

It's simple: your explanations have not helped to clarify the allusions of the
"We" and "Us" in reference to Allah. In matters of creation, worship, prayer
and service, only He who is alone God is deserving of recognition as pertains
to those; and the texts otherwise stating the plural is what I am about. I could
be accused of any and all things from prejudicial to whatever; but at least I'm a
human being seeking answers - and not just any answers will do.

I understand the usage of such expressions in social, diplomatic and
political circles; and in almost every case that comes to mind, a sense
of collective action is in view.

My concern, however, is that in matters of divine glory and activity,
none else could share in the respect due only to God - and that's the
crux of the issue with the plural pronouns. "We created" - in reference
to Allah speaking, my question is: who created - Allah alone or some
other being/beings with him?

It's not in my place to provide "proof to the contrary", for that would
suppose that I'd be trying to defend what I cannot understand and
for which I'm seeking answers. It does not help me get closer to the
enquiry by merely explaining the use of those pronouns in Arabic or
any other language. The pivot on which this discussion turns is only
a matter of distinguishing between what is reserved for God alone,
and what could be understood without infringement in the concourse
of human experience.

"We created" is language that should be divested of any ambiguity,
and in which respect my enquiry is as stated earlier: "who created?"
- or, rephrasing that more closely, "who is the Creator?" It's easy to chorus
the solo - "God alone is Creator!" That being the case (as surely that's
my belief), what then is the meaning of the plural in the declaration in
several texts for whatever intent, that there should be a "We" in
the alone divine activity of creation? Surely, creation is not a collective
activity between God and the created - whatever other created being
there is (angels, spirits or whatever). For that understanding to ring
true, I suppose there would have to be a clear elucidation of the texts
alluding the "We" and "Us" to Allah.

Your responses so far have been much appreciated.

Good. I thought as much - you simply have no answers.

@ajia23,

I appreciate your efforts at trying to douse the seeming confusion/dilemma
that Muslims are faced with concerning the issue of monotheism claimed in
Islam. The problem is that nothing convincing has been provided in the
references you quoted to help the case.

Suppose you're trying to convert a non-Muslim by persuasion of the facts in
the Qur'an that what I misconstrue as suggestive of polytheism is quite to
the contrary, what criteria would one hope to present in moving the discourse
forward? I'll attempt just one: God cannot be equalled to any being - and
that is what Islam tells the world. Granted.

Now when speaking of His glory in terms of creation, prayer and worship, do
the same rules apply, or they are simply conveniently re-arranged for sake of
conviction or a lack thereof? This is what you stated:

"In a similar way the first person plural is often used when Allah speaks about
His power, majesty, glory, great deeds or when He speaks about His anger
and wrath for the sinners and criminals." [7th paragraph]. . . and “We created
not the heavens, the earth, and all between them, but for just ends. And the
Hour is surely coming” (al-Hijr 15:85).

My question then is: who created - Allah alone, or with those to whom he
connects the plural pronouns ("We" and "Us"? If Allah alone created, why was
it not simply stated in the first person singular? And if he alone speaks of His
power, majesty, and glory, why was it necessary for him to have used these
pronouns to make it sound like those included in the "We" and "Us" texts
are iin fact sharing in the same power, majesty and glory?

This is why I find it untenable for Muslims to complain and accuse Christianity
of polytheism if they cannot provide satisfactory answers to these verses in
the Qur'an as regards the same issue in Islam. What I have read so far in your
response hasn't addressed this concern in the most essential manner, because
when you speak of what is attributed to God alone, then by your own admittance,
Allah is speaking of himself and those with him - and that in reference to works
that should be attributive to God alone (creation).

On the whole, thank you for your efforts. And may I remark that it's true not all
Muslims like to compare prophets in Islam, regardless the texts in the Qur'an
to the contrary. In olabowale's post, I was concerned that he clearly did so,
and expressed my observation thereto.

Pathetic. . . embarrassing. . . shame. . . is that all you're able to do?

I told you earlier - I'll iggy the hilarity of your desperations and ask
until you deal with the issues: answer my questions.

Glad to know that you're a Catholic - that's why I'm very interested
in your Romish answers. By scurrying off you haven't demonstrated
any interest for 'genuine engagement'. So, dress warm and sit down
to your homework. I'm not 3 or 300 - it's just me, so don't sweat
under your chin - just please address my enquiries. Or do I take it
that your Catholic pride has no answers at all, and the best anyone
could expect is the dribbling so far?

In any dialect you can understand, please Nutter, I'm waiting for your
answers to my questions.

TV01,

Let me take you back to what I posted earlier:

Gwaine:
I don't think "precepts" are the same with the "Law" -  . . .

No, i wasn't referring to the "laws of the old testament" but
rather to the very same words in TV01's post - "the OT precepts".
And I don't believe they're REDUNDANT!

So, in response to your latest concern,

TV01:
Do I understand your point as being;
The law has not been made redundant, rather it has changed (Hebrews 7:12)?

"The Law" is not the very same thing as "precepts" - the latter is contained in
the former.

The Law has been both "set aside" ['redundant', if you will, but not me] and
'changed' - Hebrews 7:12; see also 8:13, and 10:9.

The 'precepts' (the essence of the Law) are not redundant, and that's why you
find the 'old' explained in the 'new' (see Rom. 15:4).

So, hope this clarifies what you probably are concerned about in my replies.

Enjoy.

TV01,

TV01:
The essence of the OT was Love of God and your neighbour. I don't see that as having changed in the NT. But we have moved from a works based/appeasement/ritual/lawkeeping way of doing so.

That was all I was after - to clarify from you how the OT precepts had
become redundant. And after all, we've come back to ground zero to
note that the "precepts" have not been redundant - as you proffered
with the examples of circumcision and Love of God. They may have
different forms of application in both covenants, but the precept as
such holds true.

TV01:
As a general rule I find that anything from the OT that is relevant in the NT is usually mentioned in the NT.

That sums it up then, and I agree - in hope that mrmayor shares that
with us (but, of course, he's entitled to a second opinion).

Your subscript: man, there's no need to amuse yourself on the issue -
whether a transportable temple/synagogue, I didn't suggest at all that
I'd be considering being a Jewish priest soon ("could possibly choose
to become" was just facetiously saying that it's remotely unlikely one of
my interests).

@Nutter,

Fascinating, and this is the best joke you've yet pulled - scurrying off
at your own games. Uhm, did you read me harsh? Where - on the same
Sesame Street you pandered? Sorry, I'm not going there with you, so
I'll beg again (yes, civilly 'beg') that you address my questions. It matters
very little whose views I find interesting - I want answers from you.

'Accusations at Catholics' - making you desperate and uncomfy already?
Please. I only asked questions - and that translates into accusations?

I see you're proud at being crafty, and I respect whatever else you might
want to add to the list - it's personally yours. Are you able to answer
my questions or not? Please, don't dribble this with fancy words: if you
missed them, scroll up and provide direct answers.

Shalom to you too.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
For if you want to know Islam, you need to first purify yourself, inside and outside. You need to empty your soul and your mind from all kind of religious garbbage and supplicate to the Almighty to show you and give you true guidiance.

Consider that applies to the Bible as well. Check this verse:

James 1:21 ~ Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness,
and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to
save your souls.

Perhaps, you'd like to give it a try and see what Christ has for you - He is able to
save to the uttermost, those who come to Him in faith.

olabowale:
Michael hart's 100, go to the Brooklyn Museum or is it the Library on Eastern Parkway. You will see his name as number one, the rest followed.

Well there - I thought Muslims usually say that there is no comparison of prophets
in Islam? So, what have you done by saying that Muhammad's name is "number
one, the rest followed?" Besides, that's Michael Hart's subjective evaluation and
does not reflect what the Qur'an says about the prophet, does it?

olabowale:
Islam is the truest monotheist religion. I know it and you see all the signs of it in the West this days.

That is yet to be proven, as some of us are not yet satisfied with the plural pronouns
in reference to Allah in the Quran. Oh, I know that so many Muslims have tried to explain
them away, but the facts are there and still need to be proven not by the sword, but
by clear reference that Allah was not actually speaking of himself when using "We" and
"Us".

Hi TV01,

TV01:
As concisely stated by mrmayor, the whole of the OT is summed up in the Royal law of Christ. Love, for God and one another.
Am I saying that the OT is irrelevant in it's entirety? No, I am not. But clearly somethings do not apply. Not to mention that some things are being blatantly missapplied to the detriment of the faith and the brethren in this dispensation.

Well, you seem to have lost me in stating two opposites: on the one hand,
"the whole of the OT is summed up in the Royal law of Christ"; but on the
other hand, "clearly somethings do not apply."

So, while the whole is 'summed up', 'somethings' in the whole do not apply?

I don't think it was necessary at this time to tell who is misapplying what -
whether blatantly or otherwise (there's lots of room for that discussion in
other threads). I don't want to lose track of the issue - that in your view,
the OT precepts are redundant. My question is: How is that so?

Loving God is part of the OT precepts; and loving my neighbour is part of it
as well. God's precepts are also found in the Psalms and Proverbs - are they
redundant as well? That's why I thought earlier on that there was a difference
between the 'precepts' and the 'Law' (in the sense of the latter being generally
understood as the Mosaic Law), and we might do well to note the distinction.

Last two points you added: ernestly contending for the faith, and the broadness
of your statements. I understand where you're coming from, and there's no
problem with them. Only need to add that while contending for the faith, I should
take care that it's done in the spirit of humility and love. Alas, I'm not perfect in
that, and that's why I usually ask questions first before assuming anything.

As for the subscript to turtle doves and a grain offering, whenever I could possibly
choose to become a Jewish priest and Rabbi, come to my synagogue and we'll deal
with your matter in the presence of the LORD (disclaimer: you certainly should hold
me indemnified from the possibility that you may not "get away with" your ideas).

@mrmayor,

mrmayor:
The problem of religion is people chose which precepts they are comfortable with.there are cruelty in the OT,are these acceptable today?

I wasn't asking about which to choose or not choose; my question was simply -
"how has the OT precepts become redundant?" That you probably fancy God
sending a message to the Israeli PM for genocide could be understood in light of
your personal persuasions, but that's neither me nor what I was asking about.

mrmayor:
I truly believe that its either everything in the OT is applicable today or not.

Okay, I see your point. In which case, according to you, Deut. 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18
which are in the OT are either applicable today, or they are not - yes?

Thank you, mrmayor; but I was waiting for TV01's answers.

I don't think "precepts" are the same with the "Law" - and
even if they were/are to you, why quote Matt. 22.36-40 as
if that was not part of the Mosaic Law that Jesus re-iterated
(Duet. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18)?

Besides, I think that the Lord Jesus gave more than just the
two commandments you referenced in Matt.22:36-40. I agree
with you, though, that Christianity is quite simple - as long as
we live it in the power of the Holy Spirit.

No, i wasn't referring to the "laws of the old testament" but
rather to the very same words in TV01's post - "the OT precepts".
And I don't believe they're REDUNDANT!

Nutter:
From Gwaine:
Since Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison in 1 Pet. 3:18-20, and mlks_baby's answers and explanations are "evasive" to you, what in your own view is the result of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient spirits described there?

I have neither made presumptions as to what the result was nor have I requested same from mlks_baby. My focus has always been on the purpose of Jesus preaching to the dead and nothing more. What was the purpose my dear Gwaine? What was the purpose? Was it a pointless exercise?

I asked you the question, my dear Nutter; and i'm asking it one more time:
"what in your own view is the result of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient
spirits described there?"

And if "result" is somewhat stressful for you, let me put it this way to
simplify the question for you: "Since your focus has always been on the
purpose to the dead and nothing more, please tell me: what then is the
purpose?"

I don't know if for you it has been a pointless exercise - but that sounds
like you're becoming desperate and can't calm down to discuss issues
with people on the forum. I'll just iggy your hilarity and ask simply that
you address my questions without dribbling round issues. Glad to know
that I'm not the only one concerned about your crafty art of dodging and
conveniently going round issues. Please answer my questions - I'm seeking
answers from you. . . answers, and nothing more or less.

And yes, I do hope that you do a better job than your weathered attempts
at gleefully accusing others. You can keep up with that if it makes the sun
shine brighter over you - just simply answer my questions.

Lol, KAG.

At least, I know another atheist on Nairaland who rarely uses
them - nferyn (please someone correct me if I'm wrong). I'm
still going through the various posts, but as yet haven't come
across the admin's use of them, even though he strongly sets
his disagreements about issues (again, I stand to be corrected).

In anycase, I don't use them; at least, not anymore. You can't
guess how many curse words were flung about yesterday in ma
office! Perhaps, if I was counting, might have been close to
666/6.

Hmmm. I really appreciate the latest replies. To cover, or not to cover?
And then how to cover - some parts, everything, and at all times, or
sometimes.

The way I see it: (a) the women are to cover ~ I Cor. 11:6
                          (b) the men are not to cover ~ I Cor. 11:7

Now if HAIR is the material for covering the HEAD, then the men who
have been standing in our pulpits with hair (especially jerrycurls) are
the ones disobeying that scripture  . I suggest they visit the
barbers kia-kia!

Okay, someone drew me by the collar and pointed out verse 14 ~
"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair,
it is a shame unto him?"

Em. . . fine then. American liberal pastors, take heed! 
(especially those who promote the "new wave" rock n' roll kini).

I digressed. Seriously, there is a reason why the apostle would have
devoted a page to that concern. If it were not such a big deal, I don't
think it would have merited the several verses it did.

TV01,

TV01:
Having re-introduced redundant OT precepts, they couldn't help but bring the promises along with them.

So, how has the OT precepts become redundant?

TV01:
No one want to so much as contemplate the sacrifice, suffering, privation, rejection and abasement that one may well have to go through to truly witnes for Him and lay hold of that.

Are you quarrelling with some people or what? 
"No one"? Your statements are so broad yet sadly narrow in the sense that
there are lots of Christians actually sacrificing, suffering, enduring privation,
rejection and abasement in witnessing for the Lord Jesus.

I'm waiting as well.

I've searched in vain for the doctrine of purgatory that Roman Catholics tell us is in the Bible.
It's simply not there. Those who are quoting verses for that notion are trying ever so hard
to put words in Jesus' mouth.

Questions for Nutter:

1. Since Jesus went to preach to the spirits in prison in 1 Pet. 3:18-20, and mlks_baby's
    answers and explanations are "evasive" to you, what in your own view is the result
    of Jesus' preaching to those disobedient spirits described there?

2. And I ask again, why is the result of the preaching not an issue?

3. What did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison, since they died in their disobedience?

4. If you suppose that 1 Pet. 3:18-20 is the key texts for 'purgatory', what kind of venial
    sins constitute disobedience to God? Is disobedience to God a venial sin?

5. Why is it that Jesus went and preached to only those people in Noah's day mentioned
as the 'spirits in prison' - were there no other "disobedient" spirits who died in their
    sins?

And. . .

6. What is purgatory in your own view?


Waiting as well.

I really appreciate your answers. It's just that I wonder
if the HAIR is the covering for the HEAD (or scalp) according to I Cor. 11.

If that's the case, then maybe the men have been disobeying for ages,
because it clearly says that the men should not cover their head:

1Co 11:7 ~~ "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch
as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."

Em, . . . should we then ask our men to obey by removing their 'covering' -
because if the HAIR is the covering, then they should not cover.
Translation: "gori-makpa"??

Could you imagine? I wonder what's all the fuss about Tuesday's date
that I got three calls alone today about 06/06/06! "What are you doing for
tomorrow?. . . so you're not anxious?. . . won't you go for tonight's vigil??"

I think some people pay too much attention to the wrong things for their
own good. Besides, 06/06/06 is just a date, it's not the beast!