₦airaland Forum

Watch here

kaydkay:
@Huxley,
Y shuld I dissipate my energy on a subject that is so vague and lacks any intellectual substance that wuldnt in any way contribute to my knowledge or anybody's for that matter!!

I tink u shuld have taken ur post to the Literature section where u wuld have been properly lectured as to the meaning of partnership!!

The saddest thing about people like you that try to run others down is that u usually dont amount to much in life.

BROS GET A LIFE!!!!!

You just proved my point. You obviously are incapable of dealing with the substance of the thread and have turn your attention now to attacking me, a ploy typical of people who have nothing substantial to add to the debate.

What do you mean by "don't amount to much in life"? What does that entail?

davidylan:
I actually did if you bothered to read my post. John is the only gospel writer to use the term "seventh hour" which does not exist in Jewish time (John 4:52) . . . but of course i dont expect such tiny details to get in the way of your desperate attempt to rubbish the bible.

Plenty of bogus nonsense that comes with plagiarising other people's work without bothering to take the pains to read the gospels urself. All other 3 gospel writers place Christ's crucifiction at between 9-12 noon (his sentencing coming around 6-9am) which would be about the same time Pilate presented Christ to the people according to John's account.

If indeed as you and your "scholars" claim that John's 6th hr meant 12 noon and Christ died at 4pm . . . that would mean that the time between Pilate presenting Christ to the people and his crucifiction + getting a crown of thorns + the slow march to golgotha + the insscription on his fore head ALL TOOK about 1 hr or less since everyone else records a 3hr period of darkness before his death.

The difference is - while i discuss the issue from the standpoint of the bible, you prefer to ferret on apologetic websites . . .

where has this fool ever provided evidence, data and references to support his assertions? Does "evidence, data and references" involve copying websites wholesale without having a single opinion?

All the insults apart, where is the evidence that Romans reckoned time as we do, which is you principal claim? Unlike you who is at liberty to make it up as you go along, I rely on evidence and data, however the evidence come, book, journal, website, etc, etc. It is the data/evidence and its relevance and integrity that matters, not the media.

Incidentally, I have a textbook by a Christian theologian (I think it is N T Wright or Ed Sanders) that discusses this, but I am unable to locate it now. That is why I used the web source for expediency.

It is not our business to make the gospel narrative consistent and plausible. That is for you guys to do. Whether certain events took 1 hour, 30 minutes, 30 hours, etc, is really not my business. So if harmonising the accounts leave little time for the rest of the events, that is for you to work out why it was thus written. Afterall, this is not the first time that the bible redactor have got their knickers is a srcibal twist, is it?

davidylan:
lost interest in your first thread?

This is a new daily devotional study as per Open Heaven 2009.

davidylan:
as usual huxley goes ferreting for apologetic websites . . . no opinion of his own . . . what a shame. I'm not interested in reading your links . . . i'm interested in hard cold facts presented in simple detail. I dont have time to read through a meaningless epistle you yourself have not even read.

Ok, that was the preamble to help refute your claim that John used the Roman systems of counting time. You made that claim without providing any evidence whatsoever, that the Roman system was based on counting from 12am. This is what you said;

No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

Where is the evidence for this system of counting time by the Romans. Further, analysis of some of John's other narrative indicates that daylight hours were counted from sunrise 6AM and nighttime from sunset 6PM. There are strong scholarly support for arguing that the Jews, Romans, Greek had the same system of time-reckoning:

Additional support for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon. Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)


Now, deal with that by provide evidence, data, references, etc, supporting your assertion that the Romans reckoned time like we did.

Some Christians claim that the ancient Romans counted hours relative to midnight, but nothing could be further from the truth. There exists in the historical records of ancient Romans an abundance of evidence that they counted daylight hours relative to sunrise and nighttime hours relative to sunset, but there is no document from that time which shows that the Roman's hour was referenced to midnight.

Few things about ancient Roman history are clearer than that the Romans reckoned daylight hours relative to sunrise and nighttime hours relative to sunset.

A search of the internet will confirm this. One may find hundreds of references to the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh hour of the day, or of the night, but nowhere is to be found a single reference to an hour beyond thirteen, and that's because at sunset (the twelfth hour) the counting started over for the nighttime hours.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Not in this case. Events of historical importance surely took place after 12:00 noon, so if counting hours relative to midnight actually was ever a Roman practice, as some Christians claim, then surely one would find, for example, a 1:00 PM event--"the thirteenth hour" in the literature, or a 5:00 PM event—"the seventeenth hour." But, no, there are no such hours, and that is clearly because the method of counting hours relative to midnight was never practiced. The total absence of the hours thirteen through twenty-four, and the huge number of examples in ancient writings of hours one through thirteen is almost conclusive proof that the Romans reckoned daylight hours relative to sunrise, and nighttime hours relative to sunset, and never reckoned any hours relative to midnight.

In the remainder of this article I will first provide an overview of the method of reckoning time in ancient Rome, and then provide several unequivocal examples of reckoning daylight time relative to sunrise, and nighttime hours relative to sunset.

Measuring Daylight Hours in Ancient Rome

The ancient Romans measured time relative to sunrise and sunset because these were unambiguous events and quite easily marked. Thus, if sunrise occurred at 6:00 AM, then the "first hour" of the day would be from 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM, and the twelfth hour of the day would be from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM, assuming that at this time of the year there were exactly twelve hours of daylight.2 Here is how Richard Welland, PhD, Latin editor of the Transparent Language series language translation computer software, explains it:

Beginning in the 3rd century B.C., Roman days were divided into two parts, the daytime and the nighttime, each with twelve hours. But since those two parts were defined by sunrise and sunset, which vary according to the season of the year, the individual hours of daylight were shorter than the hours of darkness in the winter, and longer in the summer. The hours were counted from sunrise: e.g., the "second hour" referred to the period between one and two hours after sunrise. http://www.transparent.com/newsletter/latin/2000/jul_00.htm



Confirmation that daylight hours were measured relative to sunrise is found on a number of different web pages. Here is what the Latin literature instructors on the KET distant learning site have to say about the Roman method of counting daylight hours:


The sundial enabled the Romans to divide the day into 12 equal parts, or hours. The hours became a way to mark time and meetings. Courts opened at about the third hour, for example, and lunch was at midday, the sixth hour. People would go home to eat a leisurely lunch and take a siesta, returning to work in a few hours. People in Rome today still leave work at 1:00 and return to work from 4:00 to 7:00. http://www.dl.ket.org/latin3/mores/techno/time/tellingtime.htm


Measuring Nighttime Hours

Hours of the night were measured relative to sunset, so if the sun set at 5:00 PM our time, then the Roman "first hour of the night" would begin at 5:00 PM. In summer, the sun might not set until 8:00 PM our time, so the first hour of that night in Roman time would have begun at 8:00 PM. The following Commentary on the Pro Roscio Amerino 15-38 confirms this:

Day and night each had 12 hours, which were longer or shorter according to the season. "After the first hour of the night" would correspond, in our terms, to after 9:00 PM or later in June, after 5:00 PM or earlier in December. http://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/latin/roscius15-38.html


Source: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm

davidylan:
There was no "diatribe", all these is simply a ruse to wriggle away . . . i would long have ignored you and the thread but i was determined this time to hold your feet to the coals.


what a shallow coward. Finally realised you didnt know as much as you were earlier bellowing about? Ran out of pages to google?


The problem is you are too desperate to find something, anything wrong with the accounts of the crucifiction to the detriment of going over all the details with a fine toothed comb. It is no longer enough to read up someone's rambling on the web and then come here to dress them up as your own.


Note the typical style of these fools (they that say there is no God) . . . they first bluster and bleat that their position is right, expose them to be nothing but noisy blowhards and they quickly shift to another argument.


No contradiction there at all if you bothered to study further instead of running around like a headless chicken . . . the clear difference is that while Mark wrote in Jewish time, John wrote in Roman time. Now according to the Jews . . . the 3rd hour was a 3 hr time frame between 6-9am (our time) . . . however Romans counted time like we did so when John says "about the 6th hour) he literarily means . . . the 6th hour from 12 am . . . i.e about 6 am. About the exact same time period Mark also says Christ was crucified.

To make things clearer . . . look at something brother John writes here - John 4:52 Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him. But there is NO 7th hour in Jewish time! There IS a 7th hour in Roman time! A clear indication John was counting his own time quite different from Mark's.


1. Actually it is also recorded in Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

and Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 while the sun’s light failed. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two.

Lying or shoddy claims are not a good attribute.

2. Why did you expect the claims to be recorded everywhere else on earth? Do we have claims of eclipses recorded in China also reported by ancient Ghanaians? What a silly question.

Why don't you check out your John's use of ROman timeframes againts the following analysis, taken from http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Crucifixion_Hour.htm:

---

John's account of the time of Jesus' crucifixion apparently contradicts Mark's account.  John thinks that Jesus wasn't crucified until after about 12:00 PM noon, while Mark thinks that Jesus was already crucified three hours earlier, at about 9:00 AM. Here is the evidence:

About the sixth hour (hektos hora)…they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!" (John 19:14-15 NIV)

And it was the third hour when they crucified Him. (Mark 15:25)

The translators of at least seven different Bible version all agree that John's hektos hora above means six hours past sunrise, or about noontime.  Here is how they translate hektos hora:

         1.  The hour was noon. (The Message)

         2.  About twelve o'clock noon.  (Amplified Bible)

         3.  It was now about noon of the day (New Living Translation)

         4.  It was about noon (Contemporary English Version)

         5.  It was about the middle of the day (Worldwide English)
         6.  It was about noon.  (New English Translation)



I won't display the translations from eleven other versions on Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible) which translate hektos hora literally as "the sixth hour."

None of these translations dispute the "noon" translation offered by the seven translators above.1



The Sixth Hour Following Midnight?

Some apologists argue that the seven translators above who said that John's hektos hora meant "noon" are all mistaken.  They claim that John actually counted hours relative to midnight, which means that John's Jesus was sentenced at about 6:00 AM, or sunrise, which would have allowed Jesus to be on the cross at the 9:00 AM crucifixion time claimed by Mark.

But, does there exist any evidence that John reckoned time relative to midnight? I believe the answer to that question is no, and there is significant textual evidence that John measured time relative to sunrise according to the Jewish and Roman practice, just as the other gospel writers did.  There is evidence in at least two other passages that John counted hours relative to sunrise.

Jacob's Well

The evidence that John measured time relative to sunrise according to the Jewish system is found in the story in John 4:5-7 of a travel-weary Jesus arriving at "the sixth hour" at Jacob's well:

So he came to…Jacob's well, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well.  It was about the sixth hour (hektos hora).  (John 4:5-7 NIV)

What did John mean by "the sixth hour (hektos hora)"?  Did he mean the sixth hour after midnight, or 6:00 AM,  as some apologists believe, or did he mean the sixth hour following sunrise, or "noon"?  Well, if Jesus had arrived tired at the well following a long journey, he would have had to have been traveling at night. But, does not common sense point instead to a daylight journey ending at the well at noon? It would seem so, because the translators of at least six Bible versions report that John's hektos hora means "noon":

1.  It was then about the sixth hour (about noon). (Amplified Bible)
2.  Jesus, tired from the long walk, sat wearily beside the well about noontime. (New Living Testament)
3.  It was noon (Contemporary English Version)
4.  It was about midday.  (Worldwide English New Testament)
5.  It was about noon.  (New English Translation)
6.  It was about noon.  (New American Bible)

Not one translator of any of twelve other Bible versions translates hektos hora as "sunrise" in the Jacob's well passage.

The Jacob's well passage is not the only one which shows that John counted hours from sunrise.



        The Lamb of God


In the following passage, the disciples meet Jesus, and because it is already late in the afternoon they spent the rest of their day with him.



The next day, John was there again, and two of his followers were with him. When he saw Jesus walking by, he said, "Here is the Lamb of God!" John's two followers heard him, and they went with Jesus. When Jesus turned and saw them, he asked, "What do you want?"
They answered, "Rabbi, where do you live?" The Hebrew word "Rabbi" means "Teacher."
Jesus replied, "Come and see!" It was already about four o'clock in the afternoon when they went with him and saw where he lived. So they stayed on for the rest of the day.  
(John 1:35-39 Contemporary English Version)



Six other translators of six different Bible versions listed below support the view of the translator above, and translate dekatos hora as "four o'clock in the afternoon."  



1.  It was late afternoon when this happened. (The Message)
2.  It was then about the tenth hour (about four o'clock in the afternoon).  (Amplified Bible)
3.  It was about four o'clock in the afternoon (New Living Translation)
4.  It was four o'clock in the afternoon  (New American Bible)
5.  The time was about four o'clock in the afternoon.   (Worldwide English)
6.  Now it was about four o’clock in the afternoon.  (New English Translation)





None of the other eleven Bible versions available on the web contradict this translation.

Some apologists argue that "the tenth hour" in the Lamb of God passage is really 10:00 AM.  However, if the hour in the Lamb of God passage really were 10:00 AM, why would John bother to tell us that?  What is the value of this information?

On the other hand, if the tenth hour was 4:00 PM, and the hour is late, the reader can understand why the remainder of the disciples' day would be spent with Jesus:  It was too late to do anything else before darkness. Thus, mentioning the time makes no sense if it's 10:00 AM, but a great deal of sense if it's 4:00 PM.  The translators of seven different Bible versions agree that the tenth hour was 4:00 PM, and not one of eleven other translations dispute this.

Thus, we see substantial support from seven translators and common sense that John used the sunrise reference system of reckoning time in not only the Jacob's well passage, but also the Lamb of God passage.

Scholarly Support for A Noon Sentencing

Additional support2 for a noon sentencing comes also from New Testament Abstracts, 34 [1990] 88:

All the data from ancient Greek and Latin texts substantiate a single unified system of counting the hours of the day from sunrise to sunset.

And even more support from the conservative Christian scholar, F.F. Bruce, who wrote

As for the time of day, it was getting on toward noon.  Despite Westcott’s arguments, no evidence is forthcoming that at this time, whether among Romans, Greeks, or Jews, hours were ever reckoned otherwise than from sunrise” (p.364)…Romans divided the period of daylight (from sunrise to sunset) into twelve hours, and the period of darkness (from sunset to sunrise) into four watches (The Gospel of John, p.66)


Conclusive proof that the sunrise reference system was used not only by the Jews, but by Greeks and Romans alike is found in dozens of examples of time-reckoning found in the ancient writings.  Interested readers will find these examples in the article, Time Reckoning in Ancient Rome.

Conclusion

If John used the Jewish system of reckoning in these two other passages of his gospel, should we not agree with all those translators that John also used that system in the sentencing passage?  If the answer is yes, then we see that John said that Jesus had not even been sentenced until about noon, while Mark said that Jesus had already been crucified at nine in the morning.  At the very least, one of the two authors was off by about three hours in the time of the crucifixion, and this means the Bible is in error.3

toneyb:
Why all the diatribe?  What is it? I said I will not reply to the topic again what part of I will not reply do you not understand? Why should I keep on arguing with you the as to the day that Jesus died when it is very clear that the writers of the gospels do not know when Jesus was crucified, what time he was crucified, how he was arrested, what happened on the way to his crucifixion, how many women went to the sculpture and what time, what happened when Jesus was resurrected, where he first appeared to his disciples, where he ascended into heaven, how many days he spent on earth before he ascended into heaven etc. The gospel writers do not agree with each other on all the things I listed and you want me to engage you on the day that Jesus was crucified? Ok let me for the sake of this topic agree with you that Jesus was crucified on the 14th day of Nissan, I now what you to tell me what time was he crucified? was it by the 3rd hour as Mark wrote in his gospel of after the 6th hour according to John? Was there a mid day darkness for 3 hours after Jesus was crucified or not if there was why is that only found in the gospel of Matthew and no where else on earth? Even the other gospel authors did not make any mention of mid day darkness for 3 hours. 

Great questions.   Let us see if they answer them.  We want nothing short of faultless and seamless reconciliation of the gospel accounts. Or are they questions best avoided?

[size=16pt] Wednesday, 15th April 2009

                                                                           EXTENT OF SUBMISSION[/size]



Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in all things (Eph 5:22-24).  Some wives find it difficult to submit to their husband just because they are taller, richer, more better placed, or more educated. Even if you were the president of a nation, God still expects that wife to submit to her husband in all things. Submission is an act of faith. That means that if you can submit to your husband in spite of contrary opinions and situations, it will be counted to you as righteousness.Similarly, the woman is expected to submit to her husband as if she was submitting to Christ (Eph 5: 22). This means that it is not the man that the wife is submitting to, but the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. It also means that the extent to which a wife can submit to her husband is the extent to which she  can submit to Jesus Christ. A woman who cannot submit to her husband will not also submit to Jesus.  Show me a woman who is wholly submitted to her husband and I will show you a woman who is wholly following the Lord. Based on this scripture, many wives who claim to love Christ and obey Him have been found to be liars. There is a chain of obedience in every home. Children should submit to their parents, the wife to her husband; the husband to submit to Jesus even as Jesus submits to God the Father. At any point this order is not followed, the obedience chain is broken.

"Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (Eph 5:24). The question is, how is the church submissive to Christ? The church is the body while Christ is the head. All decisions are taken by the Lord and communicated to the church through the leaders. The church is dependent on the Lord. To what extent is your submission to your husband?  The only extreme is where your husband tells you to do something that will displease God or break your fellowship with Him - that is sin. As long as you are not asked to sin, the wife must totally comply with the decisions of her husband. After making suggestions, you will pray for divine guidance for your husband so thatt he does not make wrong decisions. You cannot be one with the husband you fail to totally submit to.

ACTION POINT - Whenever you submit to your head in the chain of obedience, responsibility and accountability is transferred to the one above you.



Now consider the following study questions;

1) What does it mean to submit to someone else?

2) If you are a married woman, do you agree with total submission to your husband?  How does this work in practice?

3) If you are a married man, do you like being the subject of your wife's submission?

4) Do wives also have to submit to their husband whilst at church?  Does this mean women are barred from speaking in church?

5) Supposing a husband and wife were engaged in making plans for their financial future - pensions, investments, education for kids, etc, etc. And supposing by virtue of the wife's education and profession, she has got expertise in this area whilst the husband experience is limited to casual conversation with his friends. And supposing that the wife thinks that her husband decision would lead to the ruination of the family financially. Should she submit to her husband's decisions.


Other Adeboye's teachings:

1)  Be Separate, Tuesday, 14th April, 2009.

davidylan:
That is precisely because christian living is about one thing - SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD! now your understanding of the word "separation" is what is at stake here . . . the same Christ that said "come out of her my people" is the very same one who says - "pursue peace with ALL MEN" (not just christian people but ALL men including atheists).

Pastor Adeboye is not advocating that we build christian-only restaurants, rent houses only to believers, speak only to believers e.t.c. Christianity is a calling out from the world into a life of righteousness in Christ . . . it is a separation from sin unto life, distancing oneself from anything or those that can make us compromise our calling. Does that mean we cannot be friends with sinners? NO! After all Judas Iscariot was a disciple for 3 solid yrs, no one kicked him out for being a greedy thief.

That is why the bible uses the term "yoke" and Adeboye talks of "partnering" . . . a deep relationship with an unbeliever with the potential to make you lose your faith is to be avoided! A casual friendship with an unbeliever based on proximity, family relationship, shared activities, hobbies . . . is more than ok and is not a problem!

By the way, i'm wondering why those who proclaim to be enemies of the cross are so worked-up about Adeboye asking christians to separate themselves from atheists . . . why does separation bother them since they do not care for God?

When did Judas become a greedy thief?  Was it at the start or towards the end of Jesus's ministry?   Why would anyone have wanted to kick him out any time earlier?

Okemoni:
@ Huxley, at the time the tax collector was eating with Jesus, he had already accepted to follow him, it was the pple tht still saw him and others as a sinner, he had already decided to follow Jesus, as you can see it says they followed him, they wont follow him if they didnt believe in him. I think partnering with someone is very different form this.

If that were true, why then does Jesus describe them as sinners?

17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

With this verse, Jesus is admitting that there are some who are righteous and some who are sinners and that he has come for the sinners. Why would he call people who have already decided to follower him sinners?

biina:
Like debosky said, seems some have a poor grasp of the English language.

From the merriam-webster dictionary

Partner
1(archaic) : one that shares : partaker
2: a: one associated with another especially in an action : associate, colleague
   b: either of two persons who dance together
   c: one of two or more persons who play together in a game against an opposing side
   d: a person with whom one shares an intimate relationship : one member of a couple
3: a member of a partnership especially in a business  ; also : such membership
4: one of the heavy timbers that strengthen a ship's deck to support a mast —usually used in plural

Next step is for them to select (with prejudice) the meaning that best suits their purpose.

Let us see how you have hoisted yourself on your own pertard, shall we?

On definition 1 - 1(archaic) : one that shares : partaker. Is this the sense in which the pastor meant it? On this definition a believer could not share or partake of anything with a believer.

On definition 2a - one associated with another especially in an action : associate, colleague . On this definition, you would not work with a nonbeliever. Is this what the pastor meant?

On definition 2b - either of two persons who dance together . A believer would not dance with a nonbeliever. Is this the sense in which the pastor meant it?

On definition 2c - one of two or more persons who play together in a game against an opposing side . A believer would not play in the same team as unbelievers. Is this what the pastor meant?

On definition 2d - a person with whom one shares an intimate relationship : one member of a couple. A believer is not allowed to form intimate relationship (usually marital) with non-believers. Is this what he meant?

On definition 3 - a member of a partnership especially in a business ; also : such membership Basically, no business partnership with nonbelievers. This is clear enough.

On defintion 4 - not relevant.


So which of these defintion describe the sense in which the pastor meant the word and how have his detractors misunderstood it?

debosky:
Attending institutions is not the same as being in partnership. It seems comprehension of English Language is your prime failing.  

Taking an overly general interpretation of the word 'partnership' is your prime failing.

He is talking about getting involved in something with an unbeliever when it has the potential to drag you away from God or make you compromise on your principles. That is the basic import of the message, not simply avoiding any 'relationship' with unbelievers. Even having a conversation is some form of relationship, so obviously you need to put things in context.

I admit that you can charge the pastor on many issues, one of which is equivocation. If the pastor had meant to convey this message, then why did it come out in such clumsy a manner?  I submit that the words be chose and the verses that he quotes suggest a total self-sequestration of believers from unbelievers.

First to partner with god, you must not partner with unbelievers in business, marriage or in any other area

What does partnering mean in this context?

I cannot see how a true child of God will be comfortably seated at a party organised by an unbeliever.


Does sitting at a party necessitate partnering?

Now, as to the question of being distracted from one's devotion to God, what sort of atmosphere or environments constitute or poses the most distraction?  Is a regular mainstream work a threat to one's faith.  Would you accept employment for a company owned by a nonbeliever and populated mainly by nonbelievers.


One thing you guys are failing to address is why Jesus appear to give the opposite message.  If it is true that Christian should avoid unbelievers, why does Jesus advocate the opposite in Mark 2: 13-17?

kaydkay:
@Huxley,

I am not really into the religious forum but once in a while I just pop in and out.

It seems to me that almost every of your posts on nairaland is laced with hatred and licentious/libellious  statements

about Servants of God which to me luks like the rantings of a very frustrated young/old man. If you are frustrated with

the Christian faith then keep it to your self, you are not the only one that can read or educated so I believe am speaking

on behalf of a lot of nairalanders - kip ur hatred and frustration to your self or better still turn to God for solutions to

your many problems (if dr r any?).

Am expecting you as u've always done to others who have challenged or opposed your ideas to reply in ur usual manner to this my rejoinder to U - that is run ur mouth with no sense or sensibility at all.

Well I have said mine and I only hope my Stream of wisdom will be able to fill your Ocean of Foolishness though pitfully I

doubt it cos the Bible says "the way of the cross is like foolishness to some people" and am very sure the bible had your

type in mind when that verse was wriiten.

Stay Blessed.

Why don't you engage the subject at hand? I think you are incapable of, which does not surprise me in the least.

The advocates for the Pastor are now saying that his detractors have taken the injunction out of context and that they have misunderstood the word "partner" as used in the injunction. If this is the case, can his followers explain to us what "partner" means?

And it what sense does attending a party make one a partner of the party or of the host of the party?

jagunlabi:
Look,epiphany,this is not about fighting anyone.Afterall,i know him not personally.But what he is doing is killing our society at large.We need people who will further or champion harmonious living amongst nigerians despite the huge diversity.We don't want people to create the kind of mindsets that will always generate seething loathe in the minds of the nigerian populace,which is what this guy is doing under the disguise of religion.Aren't you tired of enemies being created for you daily?Don't you want to live in peace with your fellow human being anywhere on earth?

Very very well said.

How are we suppose to understand the following injunction:

[size=16pt]First to partner with god, you must not partner with unbelievers in business, marriage or in any other area[/size]

. . . in any other areas".    How would you not have fallen foul of this if you attended a school, business, hospital, etc, etc, where the majority or owners are not believers.  Does this make any sense to you?

When the Pastor used to fly international airlines owned by secular commercial organisation, he was falling foul of his own advice.  Can anyone make a justification why this conclusion is misplaced?

Was it Huxley who said the following, or was it the Pastor?

The best friends of some Christians are unbelievers. This is unfortunate. If you are always in the company of unbelievers or you prefer their company to being with fellow believers, something is wrong somewhere.

Look guys, I have copied this verbatim from the Open Heaven devotional, a copy of which I recieved today. What is the context of the advice from the Pastor? Can you guys tell us what the context is?

Epiphany:
Dont know - will leave that to the 'pastors' on nairaland to enlighten us. I just thought that what the man has written is no reason for us to vex for him. His followers are happy with what they are reading, since i assume that they are the ones that read his daily devotional!

Well, you know the adage - "People tend to have the sort of leaders they deserve" ? In other words, dumb people tend to have dumb leaders, and wise people wise leaders. If the pastor knew his delusional followers would call him up on such garbage, do you think he would produce them? I bet, he would raise his game. But because he does not think much of his audience, who would never call him to task, he has the liberty to produce such rubbish.

Let's see what his followers here on NL say about his inane teachings.

Epiphany:
Dude, calm down and take it easy. Relax. Why you dey vex for the man? There must be some DEEPER lessons to be learned from this and not what you read at face value!

OK, enlighten us, naah. Wetin be dey deeper message, naah?

The Christian community is replete with charlatans who prey on the weak and gullible to create a life of luxury for themselves and their close kin. The teachings of these charlatans are rarely examined outside of the gaurded Christian community in which they and their followers move.  To better address the stench that comes out of the likes of Adeboye, I ordered and  received today a copy of Adeboye's Open Heaven 2009.   So let's start with today's devotional word from the Pastor.

                                                                                                                   Tuesday 14th April

                                                                                                                        BE SEPARATE


It is great to partner with the Most High God. However, there are certain conditions you must satisfy if you truly want to be God's partner. First to partner with god, you must not partner with unbelievers in business, marriage or in any other area.  Why? You are made righteous by the blood of the lamb but they are not. You are light but they are darkness and both cannot combine: one must dispplace the other. When you are looking up to God for help, they will be looking down for help from satanic forces. When you are praying for Jesus to guide and direct your meetings, they will be making enchantments. While you are pulling to the right, they will be going the reverse direction.  You belong to Christ but they belong to Belial and each must serve his master.  You are God's temple while they are for idols.  They are full of boasting. Whenever you find two idols talking, you will find one trying to impress the other that he is greater.

The second devine partnership requirement is that you must comeout from amongs unbelievers.  Proverbs 21:16 says it is a backslider that abides in the midst of the dead. John 3:18 says unbelievers are already condemned. It is not until the final judgment day before they will be damned: they are already damned! It is only when they received Jesus that their condemnation is lifted (Romans 8:1). Luke 24:5 asks why you should seek the living amongst the dead.  I cannot see how a true child of God will be comfortably seated at a party organised by an unbeliever.  Ecclesiastes 9: 34 says there is hope for the one who is joined to the living.  MAtthew 22: 32 says God is the god of the living.  The best friends of some Christians are unbelievers.  This is unfortunate.  If you are always in the company of unbelievers or you prefer their company to being with fellow believers, something is wrong somewhere.  If Matthew 8: 21-22 is anything to go by, ensure your parents are born again before their death and burial.  Why must you be separated from unbelievers?  Although Matthew 5:45 talks of general blessings, certain rainshowers of blessings will only come on believers.  Amos 4: 7 talks of God's ability to release rain on one part of the city and leave out the other.  Be wise, do not let your partnership with unbelievers rob you of your blessings.

ACTION POINT - Watch the company you keep.  Ask God to carefully select your friends for you.



The above words are the words of the Pastor for Christians to meditate on today.  Is any of this calculated to forment a good and strong harmonious society of different colours.  The pastor is advising Christians to stay away from non-Christians and not to partner and associate with unbelievers, lest they miss out on their blessings.  There are some many problems with this piece if advice, I just did not know where to start.

For a start, if you went out to work or school/college in an institution that is not owned by believers, then you have fallen foul of the pastor's advice.  Do you have colleagues who are unbelievers?  Do you avoid them?   Have you ever been to a party orgainsed by an unbeliever?

As for the hypocracy and contradiction embodied in this message, consider the following:  When Jesus was asked why he fratenised with sinners (ie tax collectors, etc), he was supposed to have said he came to save the sinners and NOT those already saved.  Is Adeboye's advice in keeping with the spirit of Jesus mission?

Mark 2:13-17 (King James Version)

13  And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.

14  And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

15  And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

16  And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?

17  When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Adeboye is a bone-skulled, empty-headed charlatan, out to drain the gullible of the few pennies they possess.  So if you are wise, ignore the ramblings of this delusional maniac.

Bobbyaf:
@ huxley

Thank you.

Now scientists say that proteins are built by the genes from the DNA double helix. They call it the central dogma of biology of which you're aware no doubt.

Can you tell me if the first cell had a DNA double helix the way we know it today? 

NO I can't, cuz I don't know. But where are you heading?

Bobbyaf:
@ Huxley or Kag

Let me ask Huxley, or Kag this question. What comprised the first unicellular organism, and how did it happen to put itself together in such an orderly fashion to have become the launching pad for life?

I do not know. In a similar vein, what blood group type was Jesus?

Let's examine these claims with some figures;

HIV/AIDS in Nigeria

135,031,164: population of Nigeria (2007 est.)

2,400,000: Estimated number of people living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2007

3.1%: Estimated percentage of adults (ages 15-49) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2007

58%: Estimated percentage of HIV cases that occured among women (ages 15-49) by the end of 2007

220,000: Estimated number of children (ages 0-15) living with HIV/AIDS by the end of 2007

170,000: Estimated number of deaths due to AIDS during 2007

Source: UNAIDS


Basically, nearly two and a half million Nigerian living with HIV/AIDS in 2007.  If we assume conservatively that 50% of these sufferers of HIV/AIDS are Christian, we have about 1,200,000 million people with the disease.

It is natural to expect that these suffferers of HIV/AIDS would turn to their faith/God/ and Jesus for help and relieve from the disease. If their God did indeed answer the prayers of these sufferers, you would expect a massive surge of reports of people being "cured" from HIV/AIDS in Nigeria.  But is that what we hear? (Admittedly, these calculations are rough-and-ready)

Pastor AIO:
I want to take a scientific approach to look at the relationship between religion and human misery. Now according to the scientific method when we want study such a relationship we must follow a set pattern.

1. First the relationship is hypothesized. So we make an Hypothesis: Religion is related to Human misery thus: It is the cause of Human misery.

2. Then we take a look at the facts and we find indeed that there is plenty of religion about and plenty of misery about too. In many cases we also find that where there is a great amount of Religion there is also a great amount of Misery and where there is little misery there is also little Religion. This all seems to support our hypothesis nicely. There is a positive correlation between the two phenomena.

3. But we must make a control too. Let's us take a look at such societies that are not based on religion, where religion is minimal or non existent. Will we find that Misery is eradicated too? History gives us a perfect example in Communist USSR. That was an irreligious society based on nonreligious principles that actually made a point of suppressing and eradicating religion. Were the issues that brought about human misery eradicated in such societies? Hmmm.

4. As a scientist where does that leave me? What do I conclude about this hypothetical correlation between 'infantile beliefs of religion' and human misery?

. . . let me go away and think about that one.

Hello Pastor AIO, I think this would be a most interesting study and let's see how far we can take it along here. Firstly, a definition of some terminology or concepts would be in order. What do we understand by the following:

1) Religion
2) Irreligion, non-belief or atheism
3) Rationalism or scientific rationalism
4) Superstition
5) Human misery
6) What does it mean to be a religious nation or country/state?
7) What does it mean to be a non-religious or secular nation or country/state?

There may be more but these are the few that have come to mind and that are think are foundational to the proper treatment of this question. If you were researching this subject in an academic context, say for a degree, you would have to define these concept very early on, to give your audience some clear picture as to the terrain you wish to traverse.

I think I can say with some degree of confidence that most people on NL would have a fairly reasonable understanding of what items 1) through 5) are, so I will not dwell on them, as important as there are. I would rather like to tackle items 6) and 7) in the rest of this post.

You will be aware from the history of my post on NL that I classify religion as but one of the irrationalism (supersitious) that plague humans, amongst others such as astrology, cults and cults of personalities, racism, xenophobia, corruption, etc, etc. as we are here dealing with religion, I shall ignore the others and only address religion. If religion or lack of religion is that cause of human misery, then it must affect humans insofar as it regulate, influences or governs human life. But can religions or lack of religion exist without much influencing human life? I think the latter question brings us right against items 6 & 7 above.

What does it mean to be a religious nation or country/state?

In my opinion, a religious nation/state would be a country whose governing tenets, public institutions, laws and constitutions are founded on the prevailing local religions and have leaders of these nations/states, public institutions and other public officials are chosen based on their allegiance to the local religion. Such officials are ultimately answerable of an overall state religious authority. The overwhelming majority of the citizens of such countries would be devotees of the state religion.

Other characteristics of such state-sponsored religious environment are:

a) Hostility towards other (rival) religions and points of views.
b) Heavy-handed application of religious law.
c) Intolerance towards minority positions.

I submit that there are many countries, that at one time or the other, would satisfy these attributes of religious nation/state, namely;

i) present-day Iran (Muslim)
ii) present-day Saudi (Muslim)
iii) Most of medieval Europe (Christian)
iv) The Vatican (Christian)

Essentially, in religious states, the clerics wield the reins of political, cultural and economic power and citizens are ultimately answerable to the clerics who are seem as the representative of their deity here on earth. Now, what are or were the conditions of people who are governed by the clerics? Well, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that these are not the paragon of virtue and tolerance an rationalism.

I cannot leave this section without address the issue of whether countries like America, France, Sweden, Germany, England, Japan, Holland etc, etc, are religious countries. If my definition of what constitute a religious country is correct, then these countries cannot be defined as religious countries. Time was when some of these would have met that definition, but they have all but outgrown the embrace of religion. In these countries, there is clear separation of the state from religious spheres, as opposed to the quintessential religious states of yore.

Further, by the definition I gave above, the fact that the citizens of a country might predominantly belong to one religious flavours and privately observe its tenets does not necessarily make that country a religious nation/state. Thus American or Nigeria whose citizens are predominantly religious would not classify as religious countries.

What does it mean to be a non-religious, or secular nation or country/state?


If the governing institutions, laws and constitution of the state are predominantly non-religious, then such countries could defined as secular countries. Institutionally, these countries pay little or no homage to the religious and there is usually clear separation of church and state jurisdiction. State or national secularism is a relatively new phenomenon and is also usually accompanied by liberal democratic electoral processes.

There are and have been all manner of secular states on the planet, with contemporary Western Europe epitomising the high watermark of state secularism, with countries such as France, Germany, the UK, America, Sweden, Norway, etc, etc. Other liberal secular countries are Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc, etc. Others with some degree of liberalism are Taiwan, Turkey, Nigeria, Cameroon, India, Russia, etc, etc.


Now, an important question to address is the following - To what extend are the governing authorities of a country, secular or religious, interested in promoting an agenda that reflects their metaphysical worldview? And at what cost? With that background set out as I have above, I think it is these latter questions that strick at the heart of your question.

I am not surprised Christian are unable to answer such simple questions.

noetic:
I have heard this before from huxley, all i got eventually was "i dont know"

Was it not you who agreed to take part in a 20-20 questions debate-athon? We have that on record, remember. Was it not you again who duck out, shamefacedly out of the agreed debate-athon? How dishonest yuou christians are!

Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Why do SDA observe the dietary laws in the old testament and yet do not observe many of the other arcane OT laws, like the law about stoning your child if such children were disobedient?

No2Atheism:
welldone davidylan, You just hit the nail on the head,


1. Atheists can choose to ignore Biblie believers, since they claim to be completely sure that there is no creator.

2. Yet for some unknown reason, Atheists get confrontational and try to either prove to Bible believers the non-existence of a Creator or make Bible believers prove the existence of a Creator, despite that they still can't answer the simple question of the "origin of everything" i.e how everything (life and non-life) came into existence.

3. Yet logic tells us that Atheists should not be bothered about Bible believers, since they already claim to know the answer, yet they still give evidence of being bothered.

I think the simple explanation is that:

Secretly, Atheists need to prove [/b]to themselves the [b]existence or non-existence of a creator, however since its basically impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of a creator with 100% certainty, then it becomes simple to understand why the conscience of Atheists might be a big problem for them.

The atheist is interested in religion in the same way that a surgeon is interested in a tumour or a teacher interested in ignorance. Tumours and ignorance are the bane of human existence, so to eliminate them, which is the concern of the surgeon and the teacher respectively, is to advance human condition. In the same way, to eliminate irrationalism, which is the concerned of the atheist, is to advance the human condition.

davidylan:
1. What then happened to homosexuality within African societies? Did it suddenly disappear if it had once been embraced before?

2. would you also agree that pedofilia is a natural sexual inclination?

3. I dont get your point about homosexuality being ethical . . . what is that based on?

Natural means constituting part of reality.  on this definition, anything that is part of reality is natural, from eating yughort, human flesh, having sex with an elephant, or goat, etc, etc are all natural acts.  Just as a star exploding, or an electron spinning around the nucleus are natural event.

The question, as far as humans are concerned, is whether certain acts are desirable or consentual. Sex between a human and an animal is underisable because human society defines the sexual acts as consisting of activity between consenting adults under conditions of no duress.

sleek_p:
Sorry I meant to say "Ride's the best women" my bad.

Well, women, chicks or whatever - that is not my point. My point is "what does is mean to be the best woman"?   Is it about brains, beauty, skin-colour, clothes/jewellery, cars, jobs, character, attitude,  etc, etc?  What is it?

Do the pastors REALLY ride the best women?   If so, you have to help me out with what makes these women the BEST women.