₦airaland Forum

Acehart: Thank you for your kind words.

You are welcome boss.

Thanks for your exposition. One thing is clear: All charitoō is given by God. The use of it to mean “grace” or “unmerited favor” is the perspective you have taken. My use of the word is taken from its etymology “charis“, a word that shows that the favored one is more like a child, friend or faithful steward. With charitoō, the favored one is more or less one who didn’t do anything special to be favored e.g a pardoned sinner.

Not all charitoō is given by God( humans give favor to other humans) and not all charitoō is unmerited ( eg Joseph found favour in the eyes of Potiphar). The choice of “grace” is not just a perspective i have taken, it's part of the consistent theme of the Bible, atleast when it comes to God and His dealings with humanity.( Personally, I don't really use the word "unmerited favour" as It's one of those words that have been over Christianised over the years and can give modern readers a different mental picture. A better way of understanding the motif is to think of it as "God is always way more generous than people deserve". Simply "favor" or "grace" is more of a better translation).
As I mentioned in my earlier post the word charitoō though used only twice in the NT, it's Hebrew equivalent ḥên is used quite alot in the old testament and also the exact statement "to find favour in the eyes of someone" is a standard Hebrew saying, so it's a word and concept that is well accounted for and we'll understood.
The root word "charis" itself is also usually translated as grace, kindness, loving-kindness etc. It also says nothing about the character of the person it's being bestowed upon if no other information is given but only the attitude of the person doing the bestowing.

Just a quick aside: Even though in this case the root word and it's derivative are pretty similar in meaning, we have to be careful in using the etymology of a word to determine its current definition. A definition tells us what a word means and how it's used in our own time or the time period we are looking at. An etymology tells us where a word came from (often, but not always, from another language) and what it used to mean.
It's not always a one to one correspondence. Eg the word slogan comes from scotish slogorne meaning "battle cry" or gorilla which comes from the Greek Górillai which apparently used to describe "females of a hairy tribe in Africa".
Just wanted to point that out as it's something we all have to be careful about when doing word studies.

With Abraham, we see God say: for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. The favor (Charis) towards Abraham was because he acted to God’s delight -he obeyed God’s voice.

The promise of God to Abraham was given and repeated a few times long before there was even a child Issac to sacrifice,sir. And as I mentioned in my previous post
"Mary is part of a long line of humans who God partners with and who, when they got things right(that is, placing their trust in the one who is trustworthy) ,were instrumental in bringing about God's plan."
Abraham also got some things right but also got some things very wrong along the way and even almost jeopardized the promise (the story of Hagar).

The point I was trying to make is this:
Were the people God specifically partnered with sinless or better than the rest of humanity and that's why he chose them? No. As the scriptures say
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
-Romans 3:23‭-‬24 NASB
Did these people also get some things right and record great acts of faith in the one who is faithful? Yes they did and the book Hebrews even has a hall of fame for them.
Today, we are all equally called to be part of this long list of God's partners as we put our trust in God just as those who have gone ahead of us did. It's not because we are inherently better than anyone else, but out of God's immense love for humanity, He has chosen to be faithful to humans that are usually not faithful to him in return "in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". And by His grace we have made a response of faith in return by putting our trust in the promise of the cross.

“There are many virtuous and capable women in the world, but you surpass them all!” (Prov.31:29)

This verse is talking about a husband's praise to his wife sir(Prov 31:28).

My good sir, I'm not trying to tear down your write-up as I largely agree with a number of things you said. Just wanted to point out a thing or two in your methodology and conclusions.

For some weird reason I keep getting banned on nairaland, so I might not be able to reply back

Good write up boss and Merry Christmas to you and yours also.

I'll just like to make a quick note on a thing or two

Acehart:
We were told that Mary, the virgin mother, was favored. The word “favor“, charitoō (in Greek), means: specially honor due to one’s character, manner or act as a result of divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in one’s life. It is a mouthful; in simple terms, Mary was not a sinner; her manner of life was pleasing to God. The angel said to her: “Blessed are you among women”; Mary was the most righteous among all women that walked on the face of the earth.

The word recorded in Luke 1:28 charitoō meaning Favour as you stated(also is translated as grace depending on context like in Ephesians 1:6), is a description of a person's attitude and actions toward the one so labeled(in this case, God's attitude towards the recipient of the message). On its own, it says nothing about the character or attitude of the person being favoured.
Favour can be earned but more often than not, the concept of favour is that the person being favoured has a soft spot with the person bestowing it and usually has done nothing inherently to gain it(eg a man showing favour to a fellow kinsman).
The act of showing favour speaks purely of the character and attitude of the one who is bestowing it. This is often the case atleast in the Bible when it pertains to God and humans (God constantly showing favour/grace to undeserving humans). You can do a word study of ḥên(old testament) and God.
This is more evident in the only other place the word charitoō is used in the entire NT.
"to the praise of the glory of His grace(charitos), which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." - Ephesians 1:6 NASB...
Most English translations also have freely bestowed or given except for KJV and ESV that render it a bit differently. But regardless of which translation chosen, the idea is the same. The charitoō is bestowed purely based on God's will.

This tracks with God's character and his attitude towards humans throughout the entire Bible. All humans are on a path that ultimately leads to death and the weird part is, that's the path we want to be on. But God out of his gracious love, partners with certain people throughout history to bring about His ultimate will; which is "saving humanity from the path it's one". It's not that these partners are inherently good or more deserving than the rest of humanity; matter of fact, the biblical stories consistently make it clear that all the people God partners with all have deep moral failings like all humans do. It's purely based on God's own graciousness to continue working with flawed humans to bring about His ultimate will.."the Cross".
Mary is part of a long line of humans who God partners with and who when they got things right, were instrumental in bringing about God's plan.

Mary (and actually Joseph too) no doubt were pious Jews like many Jews in the 1st century(the 1st and the a couple of centuries before it, was a hot bedrock of piousness and heightened awareness for the coming the Messiah and God coming back to the temple to become king).
Why God chose Mary is not given but we can always trust that God knows what He is doing .What we do know is that, regardless of any human failings Mary had(all Humans have moral failings), when giving the opportunity to trust God, she got it right and did trust Him.
Even Moses and Gideon who took a bit of convincing eventually stepped up.

There's nothing in the NT that says or alludes to the statement that "Mary was the most righteous among all women that walked on the face of the earth".
The idea that there was something inherently different about Mary started out around the early middle ages and became part church tradition(or today, Catholic tradition). We do not even find this in the earliest Christian writings outside of the NT. The shift to Mary being pure, immaculate conception etc began from writings sometime around the 4th AD.


Merry Christmas once again

Janosky:
* Galatians 4:8-11 (Genesis 40:20 & Matthew 14:6)

8
Before you Gentiles knew God, you were slaves to so-called gods that do not even exist.
9
So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world?
10
You are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years.
11
I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with you was for nothing."

* Kumuyi & Olukoya no tell una say Christmas na idolatry ?

The thing wey JWs done already know tay tayy !!!!

I think you misunderstand what the passage is about sir. The book of Galatians in general was a polemic against the Judaizers (Those who tried to make it mandatory for gentile converts to Christianity to observe the mosaic laws). The passage here is referring to observance of Jewish Sabbath and other feast days...(basically trying to be justified by the law).
It has nothing to do with Christmas or birthdays celebrations in general sir.

There's no law for or against celebrating Christmas or any other birthday. If someone chooses to celebrate it, that's fine. If another person chooses not to, that's also equally ok.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. - Romans 14: 5-6
(The entire chapter is talking about mutual forbearance in things like this)

Janosky:
Fraud na Fraud.
No Hebrew or Jew accepts the jargon the Original Poster typed there.

Na wash !

Actually sir, Jews did believe that God is more complex than we would like to think and they did believe in atleast two powers in heaven but still one God up untill sometime around the second century AD thereabout.
We know this by looking at writings that were floating around during the intertestament period and even the Jewish Targums(Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible).These writings have given us a glimpse into the Jewish mindset during this period and what they believed. The idea of a plurality within the Personhood of God (Yahweh but at the same time also distinct from Yahweh) is not a Christian invention.
Ofcourse none of this writings have a fully developed theology on the complexity of the Personhood of God like the New testament authors but we can begin to see the ground work from which the New testament springboards from.

A good book to read that traces early rabbinic literature reflecting on the Hebrew Bible on the complexity of the Divine in ancient Judaism and it's widespread believe in the first century is "Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal(Jewish scholar and professor of Religion and Jewish studies)".
Another book that might interest you on the topic is
"The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel by Benjamin D. Sommer(Jewish scholar and professor of Ancient Semitic Languages)". This one mainly traces the concept from the ancient Near Eastern perception of divinity and it's intersection with ancient Israelite understanding. I would like to add that if you don't have a bit of background in Ancient Near Eastern religions, higher criticism(& its flaws) and the nature of inspiration, this book might shake you a bit(maybe not, I don't know) but as long as you hold on to Christ, I believe you would be fine.

There are many other works by Christian and Jewish scholars that have traced this history but I would recommend this two for a start because they are written from a purely ancient Jewish perspective, are a bit accessible to read for both Christians & Jews and are not in anyway biased towards the Christian faith as they are both written by adherents of Judaism(Sommer even argues a bit against it) .

The question in the first century wouldn't have been, " how can this man be God, when there's only one God in heaven?" ; It would more have been "Can this man , the son of a carpenter that we all know from his childhood truly be the God of Israel? Could he really be the physical embodiment of Yahweh?".
That would have been the question (atleast by some Jews, because contrary to popular belief, just like Christianity with its different sects and denominations there wasn't just one strand of Judaism. A few we know; eg the Pharisees, Sadducee, the Essene, the zealots etc, each with a couple of doctrinal differences and beliefs but held together by faith in Yahweh and the authority of the scriptures; not everyone believed the same thing on every issue).

whitelotus:
Read about optimistic nihilism and cure your ignorance.

Actually sir, optimistic nihilism is not a philosophical term and it's not a position within nihilism. It's a term that is very new(post 2017 I believe) and it's something that was coined by and only used by laymen internet bloggers(a very unreliable source of information I might add). It's not a term you would find used in any academic paper, used by any real philosopher or taught as a position in nihilism by any reputable body within philosophy (if you have any peer reviewed paper to the contrary, I would be more than happy to take a look at it).

The reason why you do not see any real paper or real philosopher talking about optimistic nihilism is because even the term alone is an oxymoron.
Nihilism though a bit of a complex concept can essentially be boiled down to the:
"Philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."
In its most basic form "everything is meaningless"

There are many schools of thought within nihilism like moral, mereological Nihilism, passive/active nihilism but optimistic nihilism is not one of them. It's just something some people on the internet made-up as an outlet to make nihilism more palatable to themselves and others who do not understand nihilism at all just latched unto it without realising what they are latching unto.

FatherOFJesus2:
First stop trying to make a point from the “evolution can happen with just mutation” no one is disputing that.

You just keep repeating yourself.

, It is well sir...�(this was meant to be an handshake emoji... Nairaland and it's 1980's programming)
Oh and I never said “evolution can happen with just mutation” . That would be erroneous. And when I say evolution, I mean micro-evolution. As for macro evolution, that's aw whole different conversation.

Maybe some other time though... Peace

FatherOFJesus2:
correct.
But that’s in some microorganisms and other organisms that reproduce asexually. For as long as those organisms store genetic materials in form of chromosomes and it’s by sexual reproduction, recombination will happen.

I think you are conflating two concepts sir.
Genetic recombination is by default an intrinsic part of sexual reproduction for biological organism on earth but it in itself is not an intrinsic necessity for evolution as long as mutation is a possibility. If you remove genetic recombination from the equation (let's say there's an alien population that each descent carries the exact same gene copies from the parents), as long as mutation is possible, evolution can still occur. The difference is that the rate and by extension adaptation would be alot slower than in a population in which recombination occurs. But as long as mutation at the genetic level is a possibility, evolution is a possibility.

FatherOFJesus2:
well, I apologize. That must have been a mistake.

But I know recombination is the reason why we don’t look like our sibling.
My mistake

It's all good sir. Enjoy the rest of your day

FatherOFJesus2:
As a matter of fact, recombinations and heritable mutations are the key facto for variation.

Without those two, evolution wouldn’t be possible. Without them, we won’t be here debating today.

Hope you now get what I was driving at? Just that they other guy was too slow to figure it

Actually sir evolution can still occur in a population without genetic recombination, as long as mutation is possible.

FatherOFJesus2:
I never interswitched them. You are the person who wasn’t getting the point.

Mutations is not the reason why you don’t look exactly like your sibling, it’s because of gene recombination during moietic division.
The point I was trying to make that genetic recombination leads to variation which then contribute to evolution alongside heritable mutations.

If we all look like our sibling, we cannot adapt hence evolution will not happen. That was my point

This was your exact statement sir

FatherOfJesus:
Mutation is always happening, it always results in a new genetic orientation. Mutation is one reason why you will never look exactly like you sibling or have exactly same genetic makeup even as you have same parents.

I'm not trying to do a "got you moment" so we don't really need to keep going back and forth on the matter.
We all make mistakes; I just didn't think it's one a biologist would make and that's what stuck out. If you hadn't said you were a biologist, I wouldn't have even commented at all.

FatherOFJesus2:
i beg to disagree.
Crossing over is the exchange of genetic material between non-sister chromatids of homologous chromosomes during meiosis, which results in new allelic combinations in the daughter cells.
Which is the only recombination that lead to different genetic features in sibling.
Unless you are talking about recombination of the two donated pair of 23 chromosomes from each parents.
If you have any other concept, I will be glad to learn something new. I can’t know it all

I was talking about mutation and genetic recombination. They two completely different concepts.
You can't interswitch them and say you were trying to make a case for variation that leads to evolution. They are two completely different concepts that play two completely different roles sir and it struck me as odd that you would make such call since you said you were a biologist.
That was my point sir.

FatherOFJesus2:
yes, crossing of chromosomes during meiosis.

But the argument was to establish variation that prompts evolution

Still two completely different concepts sir;
but it's all good sir.

FatherOfJesus:
Mutation is always happening, it always results in a new genetic orientation. Mutation is one reason why you will never look exactly like you sibling or have exactly same genetic makeup even as you have same parents.

With respect sir, it's not mutation that accounts for differences amongst siblings; it's gene combination. This is not a mistake a biologist should make.

HellVictorinho:
According to that dude,the absence of faith in God is also a god.
How else can we define nonsense??

Which dude are you referring to?

Bacteriologist:
Lol yeah I can't deny that. There are many great threads lying buried in this section it doesn't hurt to bring them to the forefront once in a while.

I read the conversation before quoting you. You didn't seem to provide the beliefs in the discussion though.

Hmm, that's weird.
Okay so some of the beliefs held by adherents of the new atheism are Scientism, Naturalism(specifically Metaphysical Naturalism or Scientific Materialism), Relativism (moral, ethical or social... Still a tricky subject even amongst adherents of the movement but there's a definite upward trends towards it, especially amongst the younger population) and so on.

But sure, by all means, ask me the questions.

Do you believe it's irrational to believe in a transcendent deity?

Bacteriologist:
Such as.....

, You seem to be on an evangelical spree , this one that you are even going back to revive old threads these days lol.
But it's all good sir... It's always good to share ideologies and have conversations.
You can read my further conversation with IMAliyu to better understand the train of thought...

Do you mind if I ask you a few questions of my own?

debaj10:
lol.
it's understandable dt many lack this knowledge.
how did Gabriel greet her?

Actually sir, the greeting to her was not "Full of grace" but rather "Favoured one". The word recorded in Luke 1:28 is "κεχαριτωμένη (kecharitōmenē)" which is a description of a person's attitude and actions toward the one so labeled(in this case, God's attitude towards the recipient of the message).

The actual Greek phrase for "Full of grace" is "πλήρης χάριτος(pliris charitos)" and it describes a person's own character and capacity to bestow favor or grace(depending on context).
This exact phrase is used in only two places in the new testament
1) John 1:14: ....we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth,". A description of Jesus and an allusion to Yahweh's own description of himself in Exodus 34:6(in greek of the time)
2) Acts 6:8: And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. In earlier verses of the same chapter, Stephen is said to be filled with the HolySpirit and with wisdom.
These are the only two places where the actual phrase "full of grace" occurs in the new testament.

The misunderstanding or mistranslation of Luke 1:28 comes from the Latin Vulgate which translated κεχαριτωμένη as "gratia plena"(which does mean full of grace in Latin). This is how the phrase Hail Mary, full of grace enters into church tradition.
Though today it's well known that the phrase is a mistranslation of the Greek , too much Catholic doctrine has been attached to this phrase for centuries that it would probably take a monumental shift before it can be removed from Catholic tradition.
Outside of Catholic traditions though no major translation renders the passage as full of grace but rather renders it more accurately as favoured one or highly favoured.

Hope that helps.

Bacteriologist:
Everything that we know as part of reality exists between the "limits" of space and time. Anything outside the space time concept; is something man cannot comprehend, interact with or use for anything, in anyway whatsoever.

A god outside of space and time is the same as a god that does not exist.

Ok, I see where you are coming from and I do agree that your statement holds true, but it holds true only to an extent.

Firstly, It is true as you stated, that anything outside of our observable universe is undetectable to us using the scientific method and that we can never get any new information about it (as long as it it stays outside our universe and has no causal relationship with it), but it does not follow that we cannot comprehend to an extent and also make coherent postulations about the nature or existence of such an entity by looking within our universe; most especially if such a being or entity at some ultimate point in the past(at the very least) had a causal relationship with our universe.
This is possible because,our understanding of reality isn't attained only through knowledge gained from the hard sciences but actually from knowledge gained through a complex matrix of interconnected disciplines in like Phylosophy,logic reasoning,history, theology etc in conjunction with the hard sciences.

Secondly, I believe you are working of the assumption that whoever or whatever(depending on your worldview) was in existence prior to the beginning of our space-time, didn't enter into our universe after its creation and operates within it. This assumption doesn't necessarily hold true, regardless of whether you believe this entity is a who or a what.

Finally sir, my question has very little to do with the nature of the being (God) that exist prior to the beginning of our space-time, but more to do with whether you believe there is a concrete reality outside of our universe that created the universe we inhabit or do you believe this universe is self existing.

So let me try and ask the question again in a more generic way.

Do you believe that there is a concrete reality that exist before and outside our universe that caused it(our universe) into existence or do you believe our universe is self existing?

Bacteriologist:
A god that is outside of space and time is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

That's an interesting view point.
What makes you think that, if I may ask?
Care to expatiate on your point...

Bacteriologist:
Damn it Christians are y'all really that dumb? Re read my last reply to you.

I do not have any obligation to provide evidence for your nonsensical claims. The onus is on you. Read this as many times as you need to.

Well sir, do you believe there is a God or not?
By God here, I mean a pre-existing being outside of space-time and matter who created everything we know & understand in our world.

haykayneyo:
Am in cross river and I have only size 10/75 - 15.3

Okay.... Do you have the rims for it?

haykayneyo:
Your location?

Lagos

Acehart:
You cannot go to Jesus Christ without leaving where you have been, or repent in response to the gospel. What does it mean to repent in response to the gospel? Well, he's talking about that coming to Jesus Christ in faith, but from the perspective of, "Therefore leaving behind the old lifestyle in which you once lived," or "Repent and believe the gospel." Exactly the same thing.

This is a good summary of the tension between true repentance and faith/believe in Christ ,in my opinion.

Great write up boss.

thisaminat:
No we don't.
I'm so sorry but I don't have the information you need.

Ok. Thanks alot for your time.

Still in urgent need of the tires and rims!!!

Cmoni1:
Where are you located and how do i contact u

I'm in Abuja. You can contact me via mayokun042@gmail.com

Vaughanlanrewaj:
Drop your number or email address.

mayokun042@gmail.com

You can reach me also directly be email at
mayokun042@gmail.com

Hello, I'm urgently looking to get tractor tires of size 10/75 - 15.3 and size 6.0/80-12.
I would also be needing the rims for the tires.

Any contact or info of where or whom I can get them from would be highly appreciated. Thanks

Hello, I'm urgently looking to get tractor tires of size 10/75 - 15.3 and size 6.0/80-12.
I would also be needing the rims for the tires.

Any contact or info of where or whom I can buy them from would be highly appreciated. Thanks