₦airaland Forum

What is god's track record of dealing with sin like? Was he able to deal with it in his own heavenly kingdom?

When was he thinking when he wiped out all but Noah's family in the flood? Did he think this was going to do away with sin for good?

Should we still observe the OT laws in this day and age?

davidylan:
why shld i? don't just put up a verse you don't understand . . . endeavour to make sure you are 100% clear what it says before crying foul.
That is why i consistently ask you to read your own claims before you come here to make a fool of yourself.

Stumped, erhm. I knew you couldn't lest you tie yourself in all sorts of knots as is your wont.

davidylan:
goodnight LadyT . . . i admire your strength . . . may God help us to stand strong till the day we meet with Him. Amen.

and yet you bandy around the verse like you have any idea what you are talking about?  

Explain what it means then.

davidylan:
I asked you a question and you answer it by asking it again?   how decietful can a man be?

No no no Hux, you can't dodge this. The statement is in full agreement with the rest of the text BECAUSE you have to understand what the text is saying IN CONTEXT not just reading the text like your english text book.

If a law is not abolished what did Christ mean by coming to "fulfill it"? notice the precise use of language there . . .

Because you have to understand what "fulfilling the law" means in the first place. Only then can you understand the next verses. Beyond that you're merely groping in darkness.

Basically, I don't know the sense it is (fulfill) meant in the text.  I was hoping you would explain.

davidylan:
1. The fact that the ark was no longer in the holy of holies did not suddenly render the ark useless . . .

2. You said something about the philistines not being struck dead?   Did you EVEN READ why the philistines had to beg the Israelites to come take their ark away? Read the pitiable tale of the philistines, the men of Gath and the Ekronites . . .

Let me regale you with the tale (pay attention as you read):

1 Samuel 5
1[b]And the Philistines took the ark of God[/b], and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod.

2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.

3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again.

4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him.

5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.

6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.

7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god.

8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither.

9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.

10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people.

11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there.

[size=14pt]12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven.[/size]

Uzzah was killed for TOUCHING the ark NOT for approaching it . . .that is why David wasnt killed. Pay attention young man. Now Leveticus talks of APPROACHING the mercy seat placed above the ark in the tarbernacle.

Because an unclean hand CANNOT touch the ark . . . only the priest is allowed and AFTER he has cleansed himself . . . the law was already spelled out in Leveticus 16

The entire story is "fishy" because it has to . . . how else would you find an excuse to thrash the bible?  

What a petty, vindictive and monstrous god.  Killing people for simply touching a wooden box.  What kind of god is this.   Would he do the same today?  If not, why not?

Barbarism is in the blood of the gods

C'mon guys, take this one on.

LadyT:
Huxley so you believe Jesus is real?

Its a start hun

Are you kidding? Real in what sense? What do you mean by REAL?

Let me make it clear, if the character portrayed in the NT knocked on my door tonite, chances are I will turn him out. He was not a very nice man. Thankfully, I don't think he ever existed.

davidylan:
Hux Hux . . . you shld know me by now . . . i don't fall for all these merry go round you people do when you get caught up in the cycle of your own deciet. I asked a very important question that will form the crux of answering your earlier claim that Jesus "endorsed" the OT verbatim.

What did HE mean by [size=13pt]"I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"?[/size]

"Fulfill them" is the very basis for which we understand how Christ became the bridge between the old covenant and the new. Your new "question" is nothing but semantics aimed at avoiding the real issue. No sir, no more tricks.  

What does it mean to "fulfil" a law?  Whatever it means, it that statement in agreement with the rest of the text?  If a law has not been abolish, is it still in force?

Can you explain how fulfilling the law is in consonant with verses 18, 19 and 20 where Jesus is coming strongly on the side of the law?

Quote from: LadyT on Today at 02:49:38 AM
Huxley I thank God you are not a Christain.

Because the bible also tells us if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out.

I'm sure if you were a Christian you'd have no limbs left.

I have dealt with this stupid injunction from Jesus on this thread . Jesus was an ignoramus as is obvious from nearly all his pronouncements.

davidylan:
The explanation lies right before you but spiritually blind men fail to see it . . . i have enlarged it so you can't miss it.

What did Christ mean by "but to fulfill them"?

Did He come to enforce, within a 3 yr ministry, all that was recorded in the entire OT?

For except you righteousness surpasses that of the pharisee - - -

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the LAW, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

What LAW is Jesus referring to here?  What LAW do the Pharisees and the teachers of the LAW observer?

Take this one again. And why not?

davidylan:
Huxley says Christ came to "endorse" the OT . . . i'm more convinced he doesnt understand the ministry of Jesus at all!  

David,  Can you explain what Jesus meant by the narrative in Matt 5: 17-21, viz

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


In fact, Jesus was know to have made many similar statements, underlining the importance of the OT.  So, can you explain why Jesus said these things?

busybein:
you know d problem u atheists have?dwelling in and  arguing more wt d old testament,watever happend to d new testament?

u people don't have talks abeg

Is the OT not the word of God?  By the way, Jesus wholeheartedly endorsed the OT. So who are you to disregard it?  This is Jesus speaking in Matt 5:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


So can you advance an argument as to why Jesus seemed to endorse the OT and all the barbaric acts it advocates.

LadyT:
You are confusing Noah and Moses.

At least come with proper facts and statements.

No, I am not. I said the Flood, which is the event with Noah, NOT Moses. You guys are the ones who are confused .

ajadrage:
Do you know that the Earth is dated to be billions of years old. Taking that into consideration, mankind is just a newbie in the scheme of things as he is no older than 50,000 years. Now, documented history is only about 6,000 years old. So when you take this into consideration, hthe time of the coming might well be thousands of years from today, but at the same time, it might as well be tonight. . .

Chris, morality is defined by bible standards. They cannot and are not exclusive, they go hand in hand.

Let us examine the bible standard of morality:

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




Do you agree with the above injunction from the bible?  If not, why not?

LadyT:
God bless you!!!

Read that Huxley they were not INNOCENT as you claim.

Even in todays science mad world an earthquake or flood where people die is seen as population control.

Also deluded, are you.  You don't even know ya bible.  What a shame.  The flood story DOES NOT involve the pharoah armies.   That is the exodus narrative.

ajadrage:
Someone would start mentioning the wars of cleansing in the old testament as evidence of the barbarity of the creator, but you forget that the ancient Israel nation was a tool in the hand of the Father to cleanse his land from the abominations that were perpetrated by these nations. Blood for blood, as they were wont to sacrifice human lives, so were their lives required of them by the almighty Justce. Yeah, in his own standards too, Jesus' life became a ransom for sinful and fallen man, thus we do not see further bloodshed from the times of Jesus.

And mind you, millions were not killed in the flood, just the armies of Pharoah when they attempted to harm God's people.

You are either confused, deluded, ignorant or all three.   Go read ya bible b4 you come back here.

LadyT:
Who has he killed?

Stop making blind statements come out with facts.

Clearly, you have never read your bible.

For starters, who killed millions of people in the flood?

busybein:
maybe u should consider inviting d same God in a law court and ask him this questions?

This does not answer the attrubution of the quality of merciful to such a barbaric monster.  Only such as God would worship and praise this monster.

LadyT:
Dudu your post is flawed.

I can't see what you are trying to drive at.

He had someone killed and he was punished and the one thing he wanted most out of this world he was not given the grace to do the grace was pasted to his son.

God is a merciful God is it us humans (me included) who are blood thirsty wicked and unforgiving.

By all means question Christianity seek answers but please don't argue blindly.

How could you say God is merciful when he has killed millions of people, women and innocent children included, not sparing the poor animals too.  Is this the act of a merciful being, or don't you know the meaning of the word merciful?

ajadrage:
Mankind might not have to wait too long before the final culmination of this system of things occur, the tell tale signs of the days are obvious for all to see. When this event occurs, it's going to take all unawares. One just gots to keep holding on and endeavor to be strong against the currents of unbelief and apathy that has engulfed the entire inhabited earth.

The mercy that we desire for ourselves from the father, we pray that this same mercy would be shown to as many as acknowledge the creator of all existence and his son whom he purposed to carry out the ecclesiastic machinations that would make faithful humanity benefit from his promise of a better life in the system to come. This is one fact that faith has opened to the discerning and for them, no amount of Jesus battery would sway them from the path, even though it be narrow.

The day of separation comes, it is left for each individual to determine where he/she would stand. . .

What are these signs? I wonder!

LadyT:
Huxley I know you are a grown man please act like one.

An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence.

Why don't you cut out all this shilly shallying and answer the questions? Was (Is) Jesus the same as God? Am I correct to use these names interchangeably? If not, why not?

LadyT:
Everything you have posted shows you know nothing.

Jesus did not say any of this.

You have no points at ALL!

Doesn't Christianity uphold the doctrine that Jesus and God are one and the same entity? If this is correct, then the instance of God in the Old Testament can be equated to Jesus.

LadyT:
When did putting someone to death mean human sacrifice?

I feel sorry for you

My goodness!!!! Did you read the context of Lev 27. Let me inform you (hope no one is reading, as this might be a bit embarassing). It is talking about things that are offered to god (Jesus) as sacrificial objects. Have a look again:

huxley:
I take it that you have never read leviticus 27. Here we go:


26 " 'No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the LORD; whether an ox or a sheep, it is the LORD's. 27 If it is one of the unclean animals, he may buy it back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If he does not redeem it, it is to be sold at its set value.

28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

30 " 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD. 31 If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. 32 The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD. 33 He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.' "

Let me humour you. Why is Jesus asking that a person that has been devoted to him must be put to death? Why is Jesus calling for the killing of humans here? What is the context of this injunction in your opinion?

Christian the world over are preparing to celebrate the birth of their god, who apparently was sent down on earth by himself to be sacrifised for the plight of humankind.  That the blood of humans could paliate a god (Jesus) has a long tradition that goes back to the beginnings of the Jewish religion.

Jesus would routinely demand the firstborn of animals and humans as sacrifices to appease himself:


Leviticus 27:
26 " 'No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the LORD; whether an ox [k] or a sheep, it is the LORD's. 27 If it is one of the unclean animals, he may buy it back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If he does not redeem it, it is to be sold at its set value.

28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes  to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

30 " 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD. 31 If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. 32 The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD. 33 He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.' "


Exodus 34

19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.


And of course, the attempted sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham under instruction from Jesus.



What these reveal is that the god of the bible, Jesus, is particularly partial to the blood of humans, with a strong penchant for masculine rather than feminine blood.  It is therefore no surprise that when he chose to come down to earth, he ensured he met the following criteria;

1)  He made sure he was born male
2)  He made sure he was a firstborn
3)  That he would be sacrificed like the other humans and animals that were slain and offered to him.

Is god offended by the great things he created? Are there any special hygienic practices that must be observed before one is allowed in the presence of god or allah?

LadyT:
RUBBISH stop spreading trash!

Thank goodness you called it trash or RUBBISH. That is exactly what I think it is. It is from the bible as I did not make it up. Check it out. I am glad you agree with me that the bible is trash.

If you don't agree, I would be much oblige with your understanding of leviticus 27: 29.

Thankx

tpia:
have you ever read the bible up to the point where human sacrifice is expressly forbidden?

neither do I see any account in the bible where someone explicitly decorated his residence with human skulls in lieu of gateposts, with the full approval of the people and as a service to God.

I take it that you have never read leviticus 27. Here we go:

26 " 'No one, however, may dedicate the firstborn of an animal, since the firstborn already belongs to the LORD; whether an ox [k] or a sheep, it is the LORD's. 27 If it is one of the unclean animals, he may buy it back at its set value, adding a fifth of the value to it. If he does not redeem it, it is to be sold at its set value.

28 " 'But nothing that a man owns and devotes [l] to the LORD -whether man or animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD.

29 " 'No person devoted to destruction [m] may be ransomed; he must be put to death.
30 " 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD. 31 If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. 32 The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD. 33 He must not pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. If he does make a substitution, both the animal and its substitute become holy and cannot be redeemed.' "


I submit that verse 29 is a recipe for human sacrifice. Don't you agree?

bindex:
What is this Huxley? what are you driving at?

Hello bindex. Think about it for a minute. Which side do you think you might have taken. Then examine all the moral and philosophical implications of you decision in the light of Christian teachings and simple humanistic morality. Hope that helps