₦airaland Forum

Is hell a physical entity or a metaphoric one? Just a thought.

When Jesus said "Today, you shall be with me in paradise", I suppose he meant it. What would the bandit have understood by that statement?

Is the bandit now in paradise waiting for the judgment day?

Is he in the company of Moses, Abraham, Joshua, Alijah, Paul, James, etc, etc?

Is there a difference between paradise and heaven?

DavidDylan:
It is an ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT . . . its not something that is up for debate. I havent "erected" any philosophy but simply told you what is easily obtainable in any genetics textbook out there.

It is not an "opinion" but a fact. Go buy a genetics textbook please.

Bro, they've been testing this for the last 30yrs in virtually any school with a genetics department.

Thanks for your response. Very enlightening. You may be right, or you may be wrong, but as far as my questions were concerned, I was not interested in the rightness/wrongness of the propositions you made.

I hope you recognised the reasons I asked these question. It was not so much that I knew (or didn't know) these FACTS. Is was more a question of whether the epistemic methodology (ie scientific rationalism) that unveiled these FACTS can be trusted. If you did not, then shame on you.

For my part, if the general well-qualified scientific consensus agrees over these FACTS, then I would tend to treat them as reliable. I am glad to see you display great confidence in scientific rationalism, as evident from your comments above.

Now supposing I was to extrapolate this into the various areas of investigation. At what point would your confidence in scientific rationalism begin to be shaken:

1) Using DNA fingerprinting and molecular clock technology, it is possible to show that humans originate from Africa about 150000 years ago.

2) Using DNA analysis, it is possible to demonstrate that all living things have a common descent.

To what extend to you agree or disagree with these propositions?

DavidDylan:
That is the basis for DNA fingerprinting so cut the crap about "how reliable are these figures".

Your question cannot "remain" because it is invalid. Its just like asking "why shld i trust that oxygen is actually 21% of air"? That only <1% of DNA is actually unique to all individuals is an incontrovertible fact that has stood for the last 30yrs.

Genes alone are not responsible for phenotypic traits in humans, variable regulation of genes are. The KC gene is present only in mice but not humans . . . when you stimulate mice with an inflammatory agent the lungs of the mouse triggers the over-expression of the gene. You cannot extrapolate that response to human lungs even using the very same agent since we don't have the gene. The closest man has is a possible ortholog.

Variable implications.
A gene present in man that is also present in another animal may be differentially regulated.

What has this to do with the issue?

Primates and humans also share 99% of their DNA. That is an established fact.

Thanks again. Pardon me, but you are not getting my point. The point I am making are these:

1- What ever the numerical proportions are, should we trust them? Supposing someone came to you and annouce that percentage similarity was 75% instead of 99%, what would be your reaction?

Would that shatter the "philosophy" that you have erected on that fact that there is 99% similarity?

2- The fact that DNA fingerprinting uses this technology may suggest "on the surface" that it have gained trust and widespread acceptability amongst the public and scientific/intellectual classess. But should we base our views on the majority opinion (albeit the well-qualified majority)?

3- Is there any objectivity in these results? BAsically, if two or more well-qualified labs were to test the sample sample, are they likely to come out with the same results?

DavidDylan:
My dear, you just proved how illiterate you are. It is an established fact that human DNA is 99% identical. You can google it up if you want. The 1% difference is the basis for the invention of DNA fingerprinting that was invented in the 1980s.

I may be many things, but illiterate I am not. So cut the hyperbole.  The best you can say is that I was/am unaware of these figure.

The point I was making is that - how reliable are these figures.  To what extend should anyone trust them?  Has science got a good track record of revealing  the true nature of reality?

DavidDylan:
Here, educate yourself with this BioEd slide on the "structure and function of genomes" - Humans are more than 99% identical to each other at the DNA level. Only identical twins possess identical genomic DNA. It is the <1% variability in our DNA that makes each of us unique.

Olodo ni boy yi sha!

Thanks for the pointer.  I shall definitely peruse the link.    But my question still remains.  Why should I trust it?  Should I treat it as a document or prediction from an Astrologer?

DavidDylan:
don't be silly my boy . . . here is just one example - Mice have 300 unique genes that they do not share with humans.

What are the implications of having no common genes with humans?

What are the implications of having genes in common with humans?

DavidDylan:
You have just casually come across as being clearly uninformed about the very science that allegedly forms the basis of your athiest beliefs. you don't know anything, go and read.

There are two popular strains of mice (129/Sv and C57BL/6) which do not develop any auto-immune disease. they are presently being used to study the human SLE phenotype that are not seen in mice.

Go study before telling me there is no truth or grounding to stuff.

I never said I knew everything.   Of course, I shall go study the stuff you mentioned.  In the meantime I would also like you to study the following;


1)  Endogeneous RetroVirus

2)  The difference/similarities between Chromosome 2 in humans and primates

DavidDylan:
My dear, it is perfectly correct. Did you know that every man on earth shares a 99% identity in DNA? Did you know that it is the 1% difference that accounts for the remarkably variant phenotypes we see?

Rubbish, absolue rubbish. Why did you get these figures from? And why should we think they are reliable?

DavidDylan:
Did you know that animals do not share certain genes with man?

Again, rubbish. Absolute rubbish. Why should we be convinced by this?

DavidDylan:
My dear, certain genes, phenotypes and social behaviour among animals CANNOT be extrapolated to man. Here is just ONE example - did you know that mice and certain other animals CAN NEVER get asthma no matter how much you try to sensitize them?

You have just casually come across this and are making use of this to your advantage. There is absolutely no truth or grounding to this.

Sarah Palin's War on Science
The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning
By Christopher Hitchens taken from Slate

In an election that has been fought on an astoundingly low cultural and intellectual level, with both candidates pretending that tax cuts can go like peaches and cream with the staggering new levels of federal deficit, and paltry charges being traded in petty ways, and with Joe the Plumber becoming the emblematic stupidity of the campaign, it didn't seem possible that things could go any lower or get any dumber. But they did last Friday, when, at a speech in Pittsburgh, Gov. Sarah Palin denounced wasteful expenditure on fruit-fly research, adding for good xenophobic and anti-elitist measure that some of this research took place "in Paris, France" and winding up with a folksy "I kid you not."


It was in 1933 that Thomas Hunt Morgan won a Nobel Prize for showing that genes are passed on by way of chromosomes. The experimental creature that he employed in the making of this great discovery was the Drosophila melanogaster, or fruit fly. Scientists of various sorts continue to find it a very useful resource, since it can be easily and plentifully "cultured" in a laboratory, has a very short generation time, and displays a great variety of mutation. This makes it useful in studying disease, and since Gov. Palin was in Pittsburgh to talk about her signature "issue" of disability and special needs, she might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina. The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent. It's especially ridiculous and unfortunate that the governor chose to make such a fool of herself in Pittsburgh, a great city that remade itself after the decline of coal and steel into a center of high-tech medical research.


In this case, it could be argued, Palin was not just being a fool in her own right but was following a demagogic lead set by the man who appointed her as his running mate. Sen. John McCain has made repeated use of an anti-waste and anti-pork ad (several times repeated and elaborated in his increasingly witless speeches) in which the expenditure of $3 million to study the DNA of grizzly bears in Montana was derided as "unbelievable." As an excellent article in the Feb. 8, 2008, Scientific American pointed out, there is no way to enforce the Endangered Species Act without getting some sort of estimate of numbers, and the best way of tracking and tracing the elusive grizzly is by setting up barbed-wire hair-snagging stations that painlessly take samples from the bears as they lumber by and then running the DNA samples through a laboratory. The cost is almost trivial compared with the importance of understanding this species, and I dare say the project will yield results in the measurement of other animal populations as well, but all McCain could do was be flippant and say that he wondered whether it was a "paternity" or "criminal" issue that the Fish and Wildlife Service was investigating. (Perhaps those really are the only things that he associates in his mind with DNA.)


With Palin, however, the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister than the bluff, empty-headed plain-man's philistinism of McCain. We never get a chance to ask her in detail about these things, but she is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools (smuggling this crazy idea through customs in the innocent disguise of "teaching the argument," as if there was an argument), and so it is at least probable that she believes all creatures from humans to fruit flies were created just as they are now. This would make DNA or any other kind of research pointless, whether conducted in Paris or not. Projects such as sequencing the DNA of the flu virus, the better to inoculate against it, would not need to be funded. We could all expire happily in the name of God. Gov. Palin also says that she doesn't think humans are responsible for global warming; again, one would like to ask her whether, like some of her co-religionists, she is a "premillenial dispensationalist"—in other words, someone who believes that there is no point in protecting and preserving the natural world, since the end of days will soon be upon us.

Videos taken in the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska, which she used to attend, show her nodding as a preacher says that Alaska will be "one of the refuge states in the Last Days." For the uninitiated, this is a reference to a crackpot belief, widely held among those who brood on the "End Times," that some parts of the world will end at different times from others, and Alaska will be a big draw as the heavens darken on account of its wide open spaces. An article by Laurie Goodstein in the New York Times gives further gruesome details of the extreme Pentecostalism with which Palin has been associated in the past (perhaps moderating herself, at least in public, as a political career became more attractive). High points, also available on YouTube, show her being "anointed" by an African bishop who claims to cast out witches. The term used in the trade for this hysterical superstitious nonsense is "spiritual warfare," in which true Christian soldiers are trained to fight demons. Palin has spoken at "spiritual warfare" events as recently as June. And only last week the chiller from Wasilla spoke of "prayer warriors" in a radio interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said that he and his lovely wife, Shirley, had convened a prayer meeting to beseech that "God's perfect will be done on Nov. 4."

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just "people of faith" but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

Anyone knows who changed the bible and why?

DavidDylan:
No scientific proof exists at all of this so-called genetic link to homosexuality.

How would it matter to you if it did? Are you amenable to scientific proofs/evidence?

DavidDylan:
Judaism is as much a religion as it is a unique national heritage of the jews. Simply because a Jew becomes a christian does not mean he has to stop partaking in usual jewish customs which are mostly based on old covenant tradition.

the key is in understanding that faith in the redemptive blood of Jesus is the only way to salvation.

So, you hold that it would have been OK for a first, second, third century Jewis Christian to partake in the following as part of the national feast of their nation;

1) Sacrifice animals
2) Release a scapegoat
3) Sprinkle of blood
4) Reading the Torah
etc, etc

Bastage:
Although I'd agree with you that there's a lot that can't be defended or shouldn't be defended, I don't think that one can say everything is bunk.
Take the basic precept of Christianity which is Love itself. And what is Love? Is it not the only Truth? That, in my book is worth defending.

Now you may say that there is no such love and that it's only a few synaptic responses produced in response to our day to day surroundings. But I prefer to think that there is much more to it than that. And that's why I say "All is not lost". Yet.

Agree again largely. But Christianity has a way of making things so simple as to render it useless. Look for instance at Jesus injunction about turning the other cheek. The idea here is that we should be meek and soft towards our enemies. But can any society live on that basis. If an intruder came into your premises and took your shirt, do you also give him your coat?

All the good side of Christian are more or less in other philosophical systems, some predating Christianity. In fact, in some of these systems, they are better articulated in Christianity.

I sympathise a great deal with the thoughts of Epicurus and in their time, they were miles ahead with respect to their positions of communitarian way of life, etc, etc. If it was not for the Christians, there would most likely be a strong school of Epicureanism today.

DavidDylan:
Go read up on Yom Kippur.

Thanks for the heads-up about Yom Kippur. Have had a quite look at Yom Kippur here (Wikipedia) .

Are Jewish Christians today encourage to partake of the full ritualism of Yom Kippur today, just as an orthodox observant Jew would? These are the rituals:

Prohibitions:

Eating and drinking
Wearing leather shoes
Bathing/washing
Anointing oneself with perfumes or lotions
Sexual relations


Is the New Covenant a two-tier systems? One for Jewish Christians and one for Gentile Christians?

Bastage:
I'm interested simply because I believe that it's such a big issue. But neither can I just blindly follow the herd, so I question the "established" order and recognise the holes where I see them. I've also dabbled in Quantum Mechanics when that's become relevant!!!

In one sense, my approach is no different that yours. I hit the textbooks on most subjects that have anything to do with religion - philosophy, history, science, sociology, etc. In the other sense, I also try to look for spiritual answers and see how they apply to me.
I don't see religion as a closed book as many do and recognise that if it doesn't adapt and we don't adapt, there's a good chance it will cause even more misery to humanity than it already has. That's not to say that it's all bad - I do recognise that religion can be very beneficial and am often on the receiving end of that side myself!! But dogma should be classified as a crime against humanity. It goes against everything it is to be human and that's why I debate against it when it rears it's ugly head.

Thanks. Most helpful. You approach very much mirrors mine. This is how I see the domain currently occupied by religion today:

1) Spirituality and man's need thereof.
2) The organisations and institutions of religions, such as charities, schools, hospitals, etc
3) The beliefs, doctrines, claims, precepts and tenets of religions.

All known religions have (and attempt to address) all three elements. On the whole I have no problems with 1) and 2) except in the sense where 2) interfere with public life on the strength of 3)

My biggest problems are with 3). Can any of the claims of religions be rationally defended? I think the answer to this is overwhelmingly NO.

Thus with respect to 1) and 2) they are no different from any other people or institutions concerned about the betterment of the human condition.

DavidDylan:
another wild unsubstantiated allegation. All your points were DULY addressed. However you only cry foul when you suddenly realise you can't force your false interpretations into the bible. I will ONCE AGAIN attempt to put you straight . . .

This is a "question" that only a dumb 2 yr old or a fraudulent individual would be asking for the answer is quite clear in Acts 21 . . .

- Acts 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.
18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.

Verse 18 mentions one of the elders of the church at Jerusalem . . . James. We all know James was one of the 12 disciples and a JEW. It would make sense that the other "elders" mentioned there but not named would be contemporaries of James. Go back and read Acts 1, the pentecost that started the christian revival began at the upper room in Jerusalem . . . virtually all those involved where Jewish.

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Here the elders make things even clearer, they indicate they are refering to Jewish believers.

did you really miss all that? I notice you deliberately stopped your "backtracking" at verse 17, how convenient.

And yet you were asking if those Paul went to meet in Jerusalem were Jews or Gentiles?

Most jews are zealous for the law even till tomorrow.

Why were they worried about Paul's fate? - Did you skip this - Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus. 11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

It was not deception at all dear, i know that is the struggle you want to force into the scriptures. Paul, as a jew, was obliged anyway to partake in the purification which was a Jewish custom while he was in Jerusalem. The only difference is that unlike under the Old covenant, this physical rite was no longer an absolute requirement for acceptance before God.

Conclusion 1 is correct, conclusion 2 is your own delusion. Jewish christians were not forced to continue obeying the rites such like the yearly sacrifice of animals in the temple that had been supplanted by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

But as Jewish citizens, they had every right to join their families and friends to celebrate events such as the day of purification, the feast of the passover e.t.c.

All this is legalese rubbish. More evidence you don't understand of fig of that which you criticise. Paul never told the jews to stop participating in Jewish rites, the disciples simply strove to expound to the jews that the old covenant was simply a shadow of the new:

1. Circumcision - girl 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

- Here Paul tells the galatians that unlike under the old covenant, the circumcision of the flesh was no longer a requirement for every Jew to be accepted before God. Colossians 2:10-11 further goes on to explain the new circumcision - water baptism.

2. Dietary laws - Read Peter's vision in the book of acts.

3. Hygiene laws - Salvation is no longer of works. That does not imply christians shld be dirty.

4. Religious laws - aptly dealt with here - Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

1. Paul was a jew and like other Jews was obliged (not forced) to partake in the purification rites when in Jerusalem.

2. Under the old covenant, a gentile could not approach God without partaking in certain Jewish rites such as circumcision and cleansing. Under the new covenant, they no longer needed such rigid rules. Faith in Christ Jesus cleanses from ALL sin.

The above is a reflection of your confusion. I can't see much sense here . . .

As a christian there are certain cultural events particular to where i was born that i am obliged to follow that don't detract from my being a born again child of God. Ditto for the jew. the common ground for the gentile and the jew is faith in the redemptive blood of Jesus.

By the way, what was this cleansing or purification ritual about? It looked liked it involved shaving of the head, observing some ritual practices for some days, and going to the Temple.

What were they cleansing themselves of?

Would it be right for Jewish Christians today to engage in this rituals today (assuming that they are still practiced)?

Bastage:
Good luck with this one, Huxley.

Rest assured, there will be plenty of long posts making false accusations against you, but if you ask a simple question, it will be answered very, very vaguely or ignored altogether. All the while she will bleat the same thing over and over again, even when you've made your point in rebuttal as plain as can be. But then bleating is the habit of a sheep isn't it?

She's basically like any other brain-washed drone - if it doesn't fit her agenda, she'll either lie about it, create a cloud of bullshit to hide the reality or just flat out ignore it.

LOL. I have got some experience of her and your characteristion of her is exactly spot-on.


Interestingly, I notice you said earlier that you are non-atheist. How did you come to be so interested in these matters? How do you generally approach such matters - philosophically, scientific rationalism, etc, etc?

I have been on this forum since the start of the year 2008 and my other accounts have been therationa, tpaine, in case you were wondering the author of the original "Diabolical Mimicry" post.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

I have requested that this matter be taken to the appropriate thread. I am already aware of Celcus, and the very same thing has happened with the misquotes. I know when I raise issues like this, the slur begin until I show them. Since I did for Tertullian, you guys have not come back to show me any independent sources to show that Timothy and gandy were not misquoting Tertullian. I don't see why I should be trailing these matters on and on where you guys have not been able to oblige my single request. This is why I keep repeating myself ad hominem that perhaps I would have to ignore all other distractions henceforth UNTIL you guys provide me with the direct sources for those misquotes from those authors.

Did you mean ad infinitum or ad hominen?



The fact is, we want to look at the substance of the charge. How does Freke&Gandy misquoting Tertullian refute the charge of plagiarism?

Is ther evidence in the correct version of Tertullian's quote that he was concerned about the similarities between Christianity and the pagan cults?

pilgrim.1:
Excuse me, huxley? What sort of talk and excuse is that? Were YOU not the one who quoted those authors and left them standing for weeks about the same diabolical mimicry? Did Freke and Gandy change their minds on that recently? How come you are given to making such excuses? This is disappointing, really - and I suppose that I may not have to keep this party up any further. My apologies.

But these two more things:

The charges were made: they were not justified: your authors misquoted Tertullian and others: have you found me any independent sources confirming that your authors were not misquoting them?

You quoted them, based your thinking on their postulations and misquotes, left them on for weeks, used them as distractions in your critique against Christianity; . . . and now you are telling me they are a "distraction"?

Okay-okay, gentlemen. I should have heeded the warning given by others - I was too heady to take their advice that after I showed the facts against those authors, those who proposed them would have no answers to the simple request I offered.

My warm thanks again - and thanks in advance for any slobbers. I can now leave this matter to rest open for others to see what such authors have done, and your comments about the same authors you once applauded.

Regards.

I have said, let us grant that the quote from Freke and Gandy is wrong. Can we look at the version you presented (is that is the genuine one) to glean any charges of plagiarism. I submit that we can.

Now that is the issue. We are NOT debating whether Freke&Gandy got the quote wrong, much as you would like to to derail the thread. If you have difficulties understand this concept, let me put it in another context.

Supposing, while browsing through some text in the library, I had stumbled upon the genuine text from Tertullian. Can I infer from that text that Tertullian was concerned about similarities between Christianity and pagan cults of the day?

If you want me to start another thread to debate the Intellectual honesty of Freke and Gandy, I can do that.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

I have requested that this matter be taken to the appropriate thread. I am already aware of Celcus, and the very same thing has happened with the misquotes. I know when I raise issues like this, the slur begin until I show them. Since I did for Tertullian, you guys have not come back to show me any independent sources to show that Timothy and gandy were not misquoting Tertullian. I don't see why I should be trailing these matters on and on where you guys have not been able to oblige my single request. This is why I keep repeating myself ad hominem that perhaps I would have to ignore all other distractions henceforth UNTIL you guys provide me with the direct sources for those misquotes from those authors.

Excuse me, huxley? What sort of talk and excuse is that? Were YOU not the one who quoted those authors and left them standing for weeks about the same diabolical mimicry? Did Freke and Gandy change their minds on that recently? How come you are given to making such excuses? This is disappointing, really - and I suppose that I may not have to keep this party up any further. My apologies.

But these two more things:

The charges were made: they were not justified: your authors misquoted Tertullian and others: have you found me any independent sources confirming that your authors were not misquoting them?

You quoted them, based your thinking on their postulations and misquotes, left them on for weeks, used them as distractions in your critique against Christianity; . . . and now you are telling me they are a "distraction"?

Okay-okay, gentlemen. I should have heeded the warning given by others - I was too heady to take their advice that after I showed the facts against those authors, those who proposed them would have no answers to the simple request I offered.

My warm thanks again - and thanks in advance for any slobbers. I can now leave this matter to rest open for others to see what such authors have done, and your comments about the same authors you once applauded.

Regards.

Thanks. I shall respond on the relevant thread.

My argument was that there is documented evidence from the past about the charges of plagiarism levelled at early Christians by their critics (such as Celsus) at the 1st and 2nd century.

Was this a source of concern to Christians? You bet it was, to the extend that Christian apologist like Justyn Martyr, Tertullian, etc were compelled to try to counter these claims.

Forgetting about the presentation of Freke&GAndy and using the version of Tertullian your presented, can it be established that there were charges of plagiarism made against the Christian doctrine?

Freke&Gandy, by themselves are NOT the issue we are discussing with respect to diabolical mimicry. The issue are:


1) Was such a charge made?

2) Are the charges justified in the light of the pagan cult practices at the time?



Dwelling on the Freke&Gandy source is a distraction to the core of the debate.

Hello Pilgrim,  How are you?

A propos, the quotations from Tertullian regarding "Diabolical Mimicry",  let us accept, arguendo, that the version from Freke and Gandy are incorrect and go with the version you have presented.

I will make no further reference to the Freke & Gandy version and stick with "yours".  Does your version that  refute the charge of mimicry or plagiarism?

DavidDylan:
This is a very deceptive statement.
1. First and foremost Paul WAS A JEW. Christ WAS ALSO BORN A JEW.

2. Judaism is was as much a national religion as it was a unique form of Jewish identity.

Salvation did not automatically repudiate their jewish citizenship, Christ still observed the passover and the several jewish feasts, just the same way the disciples and other apostles including Paul did each time they were at Jerusalem. The BIG DIFFERENCE is that under the old covenant, gentiles (non Jews) were obligated to perform jewish rites of cleansing before they could be accepted under the law. But when Christ died on the cross, those jewish customs were no longer required as a means to God. Which is THE POINT the elders made clear in Acts 21:25 as concerning the gentiles.

But as JEWS, it was a part of the culture they had grown up with and they were well permitted to partake of.

Exactly why he still travelled to Jerusalem even when it was clear the Jews would kill him.

Another disingenous piece of slander. If he TRULY was not ready to die for Christ he wouldnt have come to Jerusalem AT ALL.

NO! You have to read the entire chapter to understand the whole story, this hypocritical and deceitful habit of just cherry picking 2-4 verses and building a temple of confusion is reprehensible. That was why i took my time to backtrack when i carefully explained the issue to you. It however seems u're more interested in throwing mud than actually understanding the story.

This is another false allegation. The people who wanted to kill Paul were not Christians at all!! Verse 20 talks about the converts to the Jewish church in jerusalem, it doesnt IN ANY FORM link them to those trying to lynch Paul. Verse 27 EXPLICITLY describes those who wanted to lynch Paul.

More rubbish. As a jew Paul was within his rights to partake in the days of purification. Even Christ did.

1. Paul wasnt there making announcements. If you were not being a deceitful demagogue you shld know that only the levitical priests have jurisdiction over the temple.

2. The temple was and still remains the center of Jewish nationalism, christianity never came to take that away from them.

Neither did Christ have anything to fear from the Roman authorities, infact Pontius Pilate famously said - i find no fault in this man.
But the Romans still crucified Him no?

Well the jews of those days being a colony of Rome had no authority to carry out capital punishment but had the power to recommend "heretics" be killed by the Roman authorities. Just the very same way they rallied to get Christ crucified.

He doesnt "back down" . . . that is false language deliberately forced into a verse you don't understand. Paul was a jew, christianity did not repudiate his culture even though it was now clear that salvation could only be obtained in the blood of Christ.

Read through the entire epistles . . . the only time this came up as an issue was when some jews felt that the gentiles must needs partake in Jewish customs such as circumcision to be saved. Jews still circumcise themselves till tomorrow, it doesnt make them any less christians.
Jews still perform the feast of purim, the passover and the day of purification till tomorrow, it remains a part of their national identity that has no effect on the individual being a born again child of God.

You seem to have a way of using sleight of hand to avoid my points. OK, let us backtrack to where you want to start, viz Acts 21: 10.

Verse 10 - 11: A prophets foresees Pauls arrest and warns Paul about going to Jerusalem.
Verse 12 - 13: They (Christians) beg Paul not to go to Jerusalem, but Paul says he was prepared to go and possible die for Jesus

"Am I not ready to be tied up in Jerusalem, I am ready to die for the Lord Jesus."

Verse 14: Having failed to persuade him to avoid Jerusalem, they give up and pray for his safety.

Verse 17: "In Jerusalem, the believers were glad to see us"

Now, who are these believers, gentile Christians or Jewish Christians?

Verser 18: Paul goes to visit James and the elders and Pauls explains to them is work with the gentiles.

Now, Paul and his entourage are now in Jerusalem and narrative proceeds as follows;

20 When [b]they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. [/b]


Thousands of Jewish Christians are zealous for the law, correct? Is this correct? Am I misrepresenting anything here?

22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you.

"So do what we tell you" Why are they worried about Paul's fate here? Were they anticipating trouble as a result of Paul's presence in the city? If so, why would Paul's presence have caused trouble in the city?

They now urge Paul to make a gesture to show that he was still obedient to the Laws of Moses, ie, the Old Covenant. And unashamedly, Paul accepts to partake of the OC ritualism, as in the following verses:

24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law.

Now, why did Paul, accept to partake in this rites? Was it because he knew it would save his skin? Was this not deception? Did he not say earlier that he was prepared to die for Jesus?

How were the non-Jewish Christians to behave? Well, this is addressed in verser 25:

25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

What can one draw from the above with respect to Jew, gentile and their allegiance to the law?

1) That non-Jewish Christians did not have to abide by the Law as long as the abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, strangled animals and sexual immorality.

2) That Jewish Christians had to continue in their tradition of obeying the laws of Moses.

Are any of the above two comments misrepresenting the preceeding events and narrative of Acts?

Now, what were the Jewish traditional rites and Laws of Moses that these Jewish Christians had to perpetuate?

a) Circumsicion
b) Dietary laws
c) Hygiene Laws
d) Other religious laws about such as Sabbath, sacrifices, purification, etc, etc.

Now, we have seen above how Paul partakes of the purifications rituals and festivities. Did he advise his followers to also partake of circumcision, avoid unclean animal, give animal sacrifices etc, etc.

Which other OC practice did he encourage?

Dear David, You have not shown us why Paul took part in purification ritualism but did not encourage similar OC practice amongst the followers of Jesus.


Under the New Covenant, I was given to understand the the distinction between Gentile and Jews hand been washed away by the blood of Jesus. Or would it be acceptable for Jewish Christians today to follow the Laws of Moses as well as other Christian ritualism such as baptism, communion, etc, while Gentiles abandon the Laws and only observe the modern rituals?

pilgrim.1:
[size=14pt](3)[/size]

Tertullian’s actual quote:

[list]The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted  the sense of the passages which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some'that is, his own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away  of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown.  What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest  to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints 'his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.[/list]

               Source: Tertullian, Prescriptions Against Heretics, Chapter XL.

If these are Tertulians real words, how does it detract from the charge of "diabolical mimicry"?   Is Tertullian not say here that the devil has copied?

DavidDylan:
Huxley, you shoot ur credibility to pieces when you make this false allegations on the back of some shoddy scholarship. Lets hope you don't abandon the thread as is your custom when you are exposed for dishonesty.

I'm not expecting Huxley to appear here again. such a shame.

Hello, I am not going anywhere soon. I have posted some riposte of your points above. Take a look and answer the, please.

DavidDylan:
Now back to Huxley's false allegations:

Really?

Now that we have established the REASON why the jews at jerusalem particularly wanted to kill Paul, it would be mindful to note that the elders of the church at jerusalem also knew this and wanted to find a way around it . . . hear them . . .

Acts 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
22 What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
[size=16pt]23 Do therefore this that we say to thee:[/size]

Verses 20 - 22 are very important for here the elders of the church lay down the premise for the jewish angst against Paul. The jews were zealous of the law and were ready to kill anyone preaching anything contrary to the laws of Moses.

Verse 23 i decided to put in bold because it is the very foundation on which Huxley's false, pedantic allegations crumble . . . it is clear that the elders were trying to fashion out a way to difuse the tension among the jews by making Paul perform (to a certain extent) some of the jewish customs in the presence of the angry jews so they could relax their anger.

Now Huxley makes this other false allegation:

The answer is NO. Paul was not confronted by the church elders in Jerusalem, they were only trying to help Paul avoid a potential lynching by the zealous but angry Jewish crowd at Jerusalem. The evidence that the church elders supported Paul's preaching is given in verse 25 of Acts 21:

25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

So Paul and the elders of the Church resorted to deception to avoid a lynching of Paul. Although Paul had said he was prepared to die for his Jesus, he conspired to deceive to avoid dying for Jesus?


If he know he had been involved in such deception and was guilty in his heart, why did he not present a retractions and a confessions of this shameful behaviour?

While all the real apostle were busy dying for Jesus, this upstart from Tarsus would back down on the real first opportunity to be a martyr. What a wimp?

David, many thanks for your detailed response. Much appreciated and I also am pleased with way you have chosen to represent your premise this time by making detailed supporting references. May you keep this standard up.

OK, let us look at the substance of your response:

DavidDylan:
Really?
To determine whether this allegation is true, we have to do a lot more than just cherry pick a couple of verses and build a sermon on them. Lets backtrack a little to understand what was really going on here.

Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Essentially, you are saying that Paul relented and participated in the OC ritualism to save his physical skin. Otherwise he would have been killed by a lynchmob, a "Christian?" Jewish mob, I might add.

For a start, was it not paul would say he was prepared to die in the names of JEsus? Act 21 : 13-14.;

13 Then Paul answered, "Why are you weeping and breaking my heart? I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus ." 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we gave up and said, "The Lord's will be done."

Why would Paul, say this and then in the hit of the moment accept a compromise that result in him backing down? Why was he not ready to die for his Jesus when given the opportunity?


This is the main body of the narrative:

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

From Verse 20, we learn that these were Jewish Christians, who also hung onto the OC of Moses. Now, why would Christians want to lynch one of their own?

Essentially, the elders (whomever they may be) advised Paul on how to avoid the expected lynching, by performing OC ritualism. Paul takes it up with gusto and even goes as far as anouncing the day of the end of the festivals at the Temple.

Why would Christians have associated with the Temple? Was it not the centre of OC, Judaism? What was Paul doing there making anouncements about a OC Jewish festival?

DavidDylan:
Things to note here:
1. There came a prophet (a christian believer) called Agabus from Judea (Jerusalem). _{(It is important to note where he came from as that gives us a window into WHY he came to Paul at all).}

2. There was already a plan by the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem (where Agabus was coming from) to capture Paul and deliver him up to be killed by the gentiles (in this case the Roman government in Judea).

Paul had nothing to fear from the Roman government. He claims to have dual citizenship, Roman and Jewish. In fact, in another incident, he appeals to his Roman citizenship and Romans soldiers are sent to rescue him from a tight situations - see Acts 21: 30 - Acts 22: 6.

So essentially, Paul had nothing to fear from the Roman authorities.

DavidDylan:
Acts 21:12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
14 And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.
15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem.

Despite being privy to the plot to ambush and kill him in Jerusalem, Paul was still willing to go up to Jerusalem to meet with the elders of the church there.

- At this point we must note that Jerusalem was the seat of the JEWISH CHRISTIAN CHURCH. So those that Paul would be meeting there would be primarily Jews to whom the old covenant had pertained before the crucifixtion of Christ.

Now lets backtrack a bit . . . why were the Jews planning to kill Paul?

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

Paul's offence is clear from this verse:

1. teaching the people not to observe the Mosaic laws under the old covenant (which wasnt entirely true)

2. Bringing gentiles into the temple - under the old mosaic laws this was an offence for indeed the bible had spoken of it in Ez 44:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel.

- But under the new covenant, the temple ceased to become the center of God's presence (now Christ in the form of the Holy Spirit dwells in each individual)

- John 4:21 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
21 - 23 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews.
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

In essence, Christ was foretelling of the hour when the temple of Jerusalem would cease to become the center of worship as salvation moved from being a national birthright to an individual choice to accept salvation under the new covenant of grace.

You have not explained why he backs down. Why did Paul back down and:

1) Took part in the festival of shaven heads with the other men?

2) Go to the Temple, the centre of OC Judaism to announce the end of the festival. ?

3) Was NC Christianity ever associated with the Temple?

Nimshi:
David: hey, take a stab at this, eh.

.

Nimshi,

you know when David resorts to such off-hand comments, he has run out of options and has no legs to stand on.

I glad you were able to see just how this was gonna tie him ( and his ilk) in knots.

DavidDylan:
Nothing as irksome as irrational, unsubstantiated allegations as well.

Let me spell it out simply for you. This is my allegation:

Paul was only paying lip service to the concept of a New Covenant.

Now, you may ask - "where is the evidence for this comment?" And would say, - "Look at Acts 21 where Paul participates in Old Testament ritualism"

Did Paul not participate in this OC ritualism? I would argue categorically that he did.

DavidDylan:
This is simply an example of dishonesty, deliberate misrepresentation of the bible and a clear lack of understanding of it the issues being discussed on Acts 21.

Hello David, Welcome back and nice to see you making a well-represented and supported contributions.

Notwithstanding, I would like to know why it is:

1) Dishonest
2) A deliberate misrepresentation

Nothing is as irksome as ad hoc comments. So do yourself a favour and provide us some reasons why you accuse me of these.

Waiting with bated breath.

pilgrim.1:
Dear huxley,

Actually, that was mild - and my apologies for my initial stance, although I still maintain that your "scholars" have done the most shameful thing and even misled their publishers (Oxford Publishers of late has been in the habit of playing to such deliberate fallacies). However, regardless what anyone may allege against, or names they call me, my approach is to carefully investigate matters for myself before making any public assertions - and it does not matter how many people in the majority may applaud those who dress themselves as "scholars".

Okay. .

okay. .

Granted. One more thing: when I do so, perhaps you would then understand that just because I choose to ignore certain over-reactions from atheists and skeptics does not mean that I have no answers to their hubris. I will find time to take all those 3 outlines and deal accordingly.

Cheers.

Hello Pilgrim,

Am thankful that you have graciously taken up the challenge and I look forward to learning some new stuff from a different angle. 

However, must pull you on your incessant accusations of hubris on the side of the critics of religions. I think this is unfair.  I can only say that

1)  You do not know and understand the meaning of the word, or

2) You know and understand the meaning but are deliberate in unfairly attributing it to your critics.

Now these are the various meaning of hubris;

a) excessive pride, or
b) self-confidence, or
c) arrogance.

In what ways have your critics (or the critics of religions) displayed these behaviour?

Any supporters of the New Covenant online today? C'mon have your say

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

You would have noticed that I have tried to help you by steering clear of your recent over-reactions to some issues that you really do not understand. When you kept noising the same thing over and over again, I deliberately left just one-liners as terse answers because I knew you were advancing the ignorance and deliberate duplicity of those whom you have quoted. How? Have you noticed that outside of those sources you referred to as "scholars", you could not ascertain what exactly Justin Martyr or Tertullian stated - and that was why even though I had seen the other thread before you noised it here, my answer was:
________________________________________________________________

"I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't draw my lessons from sources as such"
________________________________________________________________

My advice to you is please go back and edit your posts - you have only regurgitated the same deliberate fallacy from those fellows who have been too busy lying to one another. I'm sorry, but this is a serious matter; and as I did not want to initially make it hard for you, that was why I refrained and didn't mind people calling me all sorts of names. Do you care to go back and educate yourself a bit more - or you would like to remain on such fallacies?

Cordially yours.

You challenge my source. That is fine and acceptable. But on what grounds do you challenge them? You are in the habit of making ad hoc comments without so much as a reference to support your premise.

Ok, let's make a deal. I will go back and edit and remove them on the following conditions:

1) You prove that these sources are unreliable and untrustworth

2) Prove that these sources got these citations wrong

3) Demonstrate that Justyn Martyr and Tertullian have been misquote and wrongly misattributed. I will accepts any historical material generally accepted by the scholarly community as reliable

pilgrim.1:
@huxley, Great backslap. But could you please do me the fav of not burying your head in sand and point out something for me? Here:

Could you point me to the particular document where you got that quote ascribed to Justin Martyr?

Thanks.

Much obliged.  The pagan philosopher Celsus was a vociferous critic of Christianity and he wrote a whole series of critical works about Christianity, The True Doctrine c. 170 CE.  The book does not survive stand-alone, but survives as quotations in the work of Origen, who took it upon himself to respond to Celsus criticism.

These saga are address in the following books:

1) Hoffman, R. J., Celsus on the True Doctrine, Oxford University Press, 1987

2) King, C, W., Gnostics and their Remains, David Nutt, 1887

3) The Jesus Mysteries, Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy

4) Kingslan, W 1937, 99.

The Church father Tertulian also writes of the Devils "diabolical mimicry in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

'The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstance of the Devine Sacraments. He baptises his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore achknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Devine'

What is the difference between mental illness and demon possession (or demon attack, demon oppression, demon depression)?

Can demon possession be cured or treated with chemical (pharmaceutical) therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, etc?

There many many cases where Christian ministers, particularly Africans, have pronounced many children as being possessed of the devil. Such children have been subject to some pretty bad treatment at the hands of their Christian families and communities. What are the diagnostic test for determining demon possession? Could it be mis-diagnosed ?

Bastage:
You're a joke.

Even when the evidence is in front of your eyes, you refuse to accept it. Are you seriously telling me that the text I've posted from Wikipedia doesn't show that the Catholic Church destroyed Catharism?

I think anyone who reads the passages I posted regarding the Cathars will be able to see that they weren't just persecuted but stamped out. What happened was way beyond persecution and any independent can see that.

I'm done with you. I simply can't be bothered to converse with somebody who defies reason and treats facts with such contempt.

I'll leave the last word to you. You can post a sarcastic comment about how I "ran away" or how you win, but we both know that your reasoning and logic are totally and utterly flawed.

Ciao!!!

Bastage, looks like you have been give the head-in-sand treatment, haven't you. You will not have been the first. Great stuff though and I admire your persistence.