₦airaland Forum

Kobojunkiee:
I am not "hung up" on anything. Just wanting to make it clear who my brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. are, according to Jesus Christ. I am by birth related to everyone on this earth, so those words have lost meaning to me except when used in the context of my relationship to Jesus Christ. :=\
Well, I was relating fine with her in much the same way I relate to others, yet you still felt you you needed to butt in on her behalf, why, I don't know. So?
First of all, there is no gospel mention in her retort so stop pretending you had to butt in for the sake of God or something.

Second, making fun of a person? Cut the bull... She made a claim that was out of nowhere, my laughing is not the reason for her statement, so go pretend to save her in the name of God somewhere else and with someone else abeg!

Kobojunkiee:
As a follower of Jesus Christ, I only listen to and do what Jesus Christ commands...your opinion matters not.
We relate to each other? To each other?
Following the teachings of Jesus Christ, not just any or everyone is my brother, sister, mother, father etc.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, therefore, anyone who does (action) what my Father in heaven wants is my true brother and sister and mother. And given that there is no way to sufficiently judge the intentions or actions of another on here, I don't see how you can jump to the conclusion that there is a relationship of the sort you suggest.

Kobojunkiee:
The gospel of Christ?
Where?
What part of her post has to do with the gospel?
And how do you know she is definitely my sister?

Kobojunkiee:
Agents on Nairaland?
ROFLMAO!

Acehart:
You said “more brightly”; yes, but it doesn’t mean that words of wisdom or knowledge don’t shine. Gods power would shine if ones words are laced with godly wisdom and knowledge. Isn’t the power of life and death in the tongue? Does the tongue not speak what dwells in the mind? Is the mind not transformed through words anymore? If you say “nay”, Christian character would transform the wicked rather, then I ask you this: didn’t the scriptures say that when grace is shown to the wicked, they do not learn righteousness; even in a land of uprightness they go on doing evil and do not regard the majesty of the Lord? When you downplay righteous words in favor of righteous display, you are setting the stage for an unbalanced doctrine.

jamesid29:
Don't get me wrong sir, I do not think apologetics and biblical scholarship are not important; They have there place.

There is a limit to what man can do with respect to correcting. Please pardon what you see as my shortcoming; I am also work-in-progress.

Acehart:
Rationalize MuttleyLaff’s behavior? Must I use harsh words or derogatory words on him before I drive home my point? If you have observed my responses in this thread and some others, I would reply anyone in gentleness; and rebuke wisely or simply ignore.

Do you know the meaning of the word “Boanerges”? If you knew, you would know that I rebuked MuttleyLaff by giving him that name; MuttleyLaff knows that was a subtle rebuke, I am sure of that. I also made him and all those inclined to toxicity to know that when you acquiesce that someone is your brother in Christ, you do away with such behavior.

The way you have spoken about him and his unfriendly responses, show you have to learn conflict resolution; it also shows you have something against him. God has given you NL to learn how to be a better person; MuttleyLaff is just a tool of refinement in the hands of God.

With respect to the trajectory you have spoken of, who would you rather have on threads that show the power of God through writings: kobo!junkie or MuttleyLaff? I am sure you would pick the latter. The trajectory is the way it is because people like both of you don’t write. If you did, your temperament would get better, ask I!bhaga!di. By now, MuttleyLaff’s bite would be like that of a sandfly.

Acehart:
He is my brother; he is yours too. His real name is Boanerges.

You seem like one with a good head on his shoulders; it would be nice if you posted a lot of good things in this section. [b]It’s horrifying seeing what the mods post on front page as Christian topics. [/b]It would be nice if someday “WoundedLamb” flooded this section with topics of divine concern that there wouldn’t be any reason for those men employed as mods to post airheaded topics that have nothing to do with Christian living.

I hope you begin today and surely, if it is nice, I would comment without any air of aggression, sneering or opposition.

MuttleyLaff:
I am chuffed you shifted from smiles to lol. Let's see for how long though. lmso ...

Make what you may out of it and continue to zero only on the less important of my comments, OK?

I'll leave you with the below quote

"... and it's been my life's joy to dive into the history of biblical scholarship and learn.
Learn more about how the bible works and what ... what it's trying to say"
- Tim Mackie, The Bible Project

Smh, being that I could see how you made a dog's dinner of your reply, and you ended up with a post that's chaotic, badly organized, very untidy, has a fake dead link to where you mentioned my ID et cetera, all because of you're bent on picking bone(s) and carping spree, purely for your own twisted truculent entertainment, I would single out and repeat the easy, direct, simple, harmless, innocent, straightforward questions you out of convenience ducked, which is:

If you, knowing you are a black man, and a white person, direct to your face, point blankly decided, to call you, nigger. What comes to your mind about that person for unapologetically with intent to hurt, calling you a nigger, hmm? Knowing fully well you aren't a nigger. What would you say the person, is, for calling you a nigger? Would it be racist person or tolerant person? Answer nah jamesid29, so I can move on, to do justice to, putting it mildly, your truculent post

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]

The bible, in that Proverbs 25:2 above, states that:
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings" or "It is God’s privilege to conceal things and the king’s privilege to discover them," so roll up your sleeves, pull out your fingers, stop sitting on your hands and get to work doing a 2 Timothy 2:15.

"Ise logun ise" loosely translated means "Work and/or study, cancels out lack of depth and its the remedy to reverse knowledge poverty with"

jamesid29, time isn't the best ally right no, but trust me, I will, asap revisit this thread, to turn your post to "shreds" smiles ....

MuttleyLaff:
Aaron and Miriam already have been jealous that Zipporah had the Bridegroom of blood revelation of whom the person of Yahshua Ha Mashiach is. The other gripe they had is detailed in Exodus chapter 11 where there was a devolution of power upon the advice given to Moshe aka Moses, by his father-in-law, Jethro, of course, the father of Zipporah. What broke Aaron and Miriam's camel's back that fuelled more the flame, was the event in Numbers chapter 11 of the appointment of 70 elders where God took some of the Spirit that was on Moses and placed that Spirit on the seventy elders. This further devolution of power and the 70 elders prophesying tipped Aaron and Miriam over the edge, and really got them incensed, that the intro of Numbers chapter 12 started with them having a go at Moses, but getting back at him through bad-mouthing Zipporah, his wife and hence the racial slur.

I do remember advising that when my posts are posted, interlocutors shouldn't again, ever, jump on them and/or automatically mention me in them. Better still, dont even, ever consider reading them, talkless respond to any, because most interlocutors, just chomp my posts, biting off far more than they can chew, this apart from, trying to take in, that which is, too difficult for weak stomachs to handle and will only end up with having stomach severe pains.

I typed of someone deliberately calling someone an ethnic group she isn't, and you are going on about black and white. Who said anything about anyone looking at people of darker skin as less because of their skin colour? Are you trying to tell things, I already know or what?

MuttleyLaff
Miriam was trying to be nasty, spiteful and hurtful in a derogatory way, hence the reason why she deliberating called Zipporah, a Cushite. It is like, when racists, calls a black man, a nigger. The punishment to reset her brain to factory default settings was for her skin to go all white, lmso. Sebi, she doesnt like dark skinned people, maybe she'll like being white then.

Now if you want to play a double whammy semantic conflating Cushite with Cushan and the proof-texting using Habakkuk 3:7 cards, that's cool

If you disagree that from biblical and historical usage, the term "Cushite(s)" does not refer to the Nubian people group, area South of Egypt down to East African origin, then please give another instance apart from your star Habakkuk 3:7 isolated verse of the word "Cushan" ever used elsewhere to refer to “Cush/Cushites" in the Bible

Contextomy at play here, when what I actually typed was "Miriam ... she deliberating called Zipporah, a Cushite. It is like, when racists, calls a black man, a nigger." The difference is clear in what I exactly typed and mean to what you chose to misrepresent what I typed to.

If you, knowing you are a black man, a white person, direct to your face, point blankly decided, to call you, nigger. What comes to your mind about that person for unapologetically with intent to hurt, calling you a nigger, hmm? Knowing fully well you aren't a nigger. What would you say the person is or calling you a nigger? Would it be racist or tolerant person?

jamesid29
So yeah, Miriam and Aaron were being petty and trying to undermine Moses authority by using intermarriage to an outsider as an excuse, but being called a Cushite is not being racist in the same way of calling someone a Nigger. (That's more of a post biblical concept)

Of course Miriam just drafted her in because she has been seething from day one that Zipporah had the Bridegroom with blood revelation

So, in short, you rather, your account be taken as more plausible right, hmm, lmso?

You've merely just reinforced one of my earlier points, that Keturah, just like Zipporah, are sets out of the most ignored significant women in the Bible, and that the Bible doesnt at all dwell or bother to waste ink on, giving an air impression of lack of interest, stand-offishness and/or indifference. Maybe because after all we lived/live in a patriarchal/ man's world and/or even patristic exegesis.

Anyway, be busy there, as usual, as you proof-text with Num 12:4-10, OK? Wehdone Sir!

Have you reviewed Numbers chapter 11 right up to Numbers 12:1-2 at all, so to examine the build up and backdrop that led to Miriam's outburst, huh? Smh, go back nah to reading the whole Numbers chapter 11 and then after, return to paste here what Numbers 11:14-17 and Numbers 11:25-29 in black and white prints, so we do a peer review together with what you paste

MuttleyLaff
Moses did not blatantly disobey God by marrying outside his tribe. Mariam did not get punished for challenging Moses

You do not understand that Miriam was punished for being petty, jealous and a racist. Of course, Zipporah, was Midianite, but Miriam was trying to be nasty, spiteful and hurtful in a derogatory way, hence the reason why she deliberating called Zipporah, a Cushite. It is like, when racists, calls a black man, a nigger. The punishment to reset her brain to factory default settings was for her skin to go all white, lmso. Sebi, she doesnt like dark skinned people, maybe she'll like being white then

jamesid29
Aaron and Miriam were petty and jealous, yes... but racist, naa (at least not in the way you're thinking of racism)

MuttleyLaff:
Moses did not blatantly disobey God by marrying outside his tribe. Mariam did not get punished for challenging Moses

You do not understand that Miriam was punished for being petty, jealous and a racist. Of course, Zipporah, was Midianite, but Miriam was trying to be nasty, spiteful and hurtful in a derogatory way, hence the reason why she deliberating called Zipporah, a Cushite. It is like, when racists, calls a black man, a nigger. The punishment to reset her brain to factory default settings was for her skin to go all white, lmso. Sebi, she doesnt like dark skinned people, maybe she'll like being white then.

Blabbermouth:
So, can anyone proffer a simple test by which we can know who the real God is, amidst the 4000+ gods?

1. Do not use any religious books
2. Your test should be effective and at the same time, reasonable.
We have enough atheists and agnostics on board to scrutinize your tests, so take your time.
Who is Eligible? Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, traditionalist, Jews and anyone that believes in God/gods/Goddesses
Challenge Time: 9pm tonight.
WARNING: Don't rush, you might slip on a banana peel and end up using your own test to discredit your God.

budaatum:
Some Christians can be rather ignorant, it seems, or do not quite understand what the Temptation of Christ is about.

Someone starts a thread, sets himself up as judge and jury over you, asking you to provide a test of the God you worship and instead of realising you are being asked to create an image of God and respond with the appropriate verses you are here falling over yourselves to create images he can see like the mere foolish believers that you are who are lacking in understanding!

rottennaija:
Lol
It's publicity.

FOLYKAZE:
I have gone into compromise with you, way past argument. Etemenanki is the dwelling house of Marduk, going by Diodorus claim that Marduk has a room, occupied with beds where a virgin lady climb into to have sex with Marduk. But really, there is no evidence to all of these, nor there is evidence that Etemenanki serves as a shrine. The only known shrine is Esagila.

FOLYKAZE
I, rather stated that I tilted toward architecture revolution and space exploration, as pointed out by Diodorus Siculus in his work, Book II, 7-10

Sir, can you help your "source," by presenting evidences he proclaimed that there are additional two stories sanctuary/temple at top the already seven stories Ziggurat structure, making it nine stories building in total?

FOLYKAZE
https://www.schoyencollection.com/history-collection-introduction/babylonian-history-collection/tower-babel-stele-ms-2063

Temple though may contain shrine(s) or not, doesn't makes it equivalent to shrine. Esagila is the shrine of Marduk, not Etemenanki.

jamesid29
Aside: shrine v temple
Think of it this way.... A shrine is like an altar, where you have objects or relics associated with the figure being venerated. A shrine can be to an ancestor(s), hero, saint, deity or any venerated person or cause and it can be anywhere ,in a temple,at a cemetery, in a person's house etc. But a temple is basically the dwelling place of a god(think of it like a king's palace). Because of the vast variety of religions ranging from nontheistic to theistic, form and function vary. But for theistic religions especially in the ancient world,this is the basic idea.
This is the most basic way I can explain it without speaking too much english sir...

You should read and understand the statement before posting it here. It reads that Visiting temple does not necessarily mean one is there to worship God.

jamesid29
What is a Temple?
The word temple refers to a sacred place for the believers of any given form of religion. It is a place which the believers of a particular religion accept as the abode of God. They often visit temples with a view to have the sight of God. Each religion has got its own temple. Even for Buddhists, there are temples. They go to buddhist temple, not to worship Gods, but rather to do aamisa pooja that helps them in their path to nibbana(ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism and marks the soteriological release from rebirths in saṃsāra). These temples differ from each other in terms of the method of construction, materials used in construction, appearance, and the legend behind their construction and the like.

The drift wont work again. Court of law and marriage are both sacred institutions. The courthouse around the world are known as Temple of justice. These temples serves judicious and social responsibilities, with highly exception from religiosity.

In the absence of empirical evidences pointing to the spiritual function of Etemenanki asides that ancient folks celebrate new year festival around it, then the best word to use to capture other social functions is "maybe".

The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god. Only priests were permitted on the ziggurat or in the rooms at its base, and it was their responsibility to care for the gods and attend to their needs.

Needless to say, temples are not just sacred spaces, they are also secular spaces where political elites and kings draw political powers. It also serves as room of justices. And could be monumental edifice.

What you call regular tower is know by the Babylonians as Ziggurat. Ziggurat implies a massive structure with a successively receding stories or levels. It has no spiritual undertone

When you arguing from christian standpoint, you see and attribute everything to a deity and supernaturals.

Remember me again who was it who dismissed Diodorus writings because he lived many years after Etemenanki was left in ruins, and wanted me to accept the work of Herodotus because he lived during the period when Etemenanki was standing.

The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus.

Ctesias of Cnidus was an historian, who founded the Persian Royal Archives. This person have a lot of resources at hand.

I said in quite below


In the context of Esarhaddon, I was talking about Esagila, not Etemenanki.

It could be just a claim, but the fact is he made the claim and I stand by that claims. All ancient cities and structures were ascribed to Deity designs, Ile-Ife is a good example, as claim hold that Oduduwa established it. Legends could hold that Esagila was built by the Deities, but evidences from archaeological findings establish the Royal inscriptions by Esarhaddon, and letters from his scribe corroborating his claims.

Here is a fresh reference https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147232354.pdf

Denied what, when and how? Abi you be the one battling to dismiss his claim on Etemenanki serving as astronomical viewpoint for observing stars?

Discovered in the 19th centuries but the embedded knowledge in it went through millenniums into the past among the scribes and priests. Scribes and priests then were astronomers, engineers, politicians, physicists, architects, economists, and literature scholars. The knowledge was within elite circles only, and only passed down to initiated members and successors. The bible told us Tower of Babel was the first tower in the ancient days, and the design was imprinted on that tablet.

Honestly sir, when you agreed that shrine and temple are entirely different, I had played along to fully see if you understand that position.

MuttleyLaff:
You my dear friend, are not my match, not my class, not in our number, and this is saying it without being self conceited, like you are parading yourself upandan the thread, attention seeking for self person KMT

You can stuff your insincere, hollow, nonsense and ingredients "It is well with you"

MuttleyLaff:
Thank you for being a sport in answering all the 10 questions. You started very well, but you went on a downward trajectory from making dishonest replies from question #2 right up to question #10, considering the fact you know the projection was a "son" of you the "father" Dtruthspeaker, you dishonestly won't acknowledge the "son" projected, as being, real, living, have a body, had demonstrable power of healing, feeding, weeping, sleeping et cetera. You deceived yourself thinking you are deceiving me. You were being foolhardy, thinking you were being smartypants. You were being dumb, thinking you were being clever. Smh

MuttleyLaff:
Why didnt God in His infinite wisdom ALLOW THE WORD TRINITY, to be PRINTED out black and white kokoro IN THE BIBLE?

Liquid H₂0 is not solid H₂0, neither is it H₂0 gaseous. Both H₂0 gas and H₂0 water aren't H₂0 solid or vice versa, they are distinct to each other, though they are same one thing.

I keep using the H₂0 analogy, like on previous posts, no matter whether turned into water, ice or steam, H₂0 still retains its elements and/or molecular composition. Liquid is recognizably different in sight, from gas and solid, solid is recognizably different in sight from liquid and gas, also, gas is recognizably different in sight from liquid and solid, but the three, are all equal and the same in composition.

Now, it will interest you to know, that there actually are other forms of water apart from the well known H₂0. This will be talking of D₂0 and T₂0 aside the well known H₂0. The former two (i.e. D₂0 and T₂0) are out of the thread's scope to be discussed here, but the info about them are just presented here, to serve as a fyi and something to keep in a corner of the mind, in case future opportunities arises to discuss them.

Now, since you didnt address the question fully, I'll repeat it and ask, if this same God if infinite, why then are you limiting Him to just and only three persons, hmm? Especially when He reveals that He is I AM that I AM, hmm?

We aren't discussing differences here, but saying you cant put person limitations on God. No one is disputing with you that the Son and the Spirit are actually God, both pre-existent, co-eternal but distinct from the Father. Just as ice block is distinct from aqua, rain, drizzle, tears, mist, steam, vapour et cetera

At what point did God, the Spirit become God the Father, what point did the Word, (i.e. Logos) become the Son, and what point did the seven distinct expression of the God, the Spirit, become the Holy Spirit?

I am sure you'll certainly have an interesting angle to the Angel of the Lord

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings
(i.e. It is the glory of God to hide things but the glory of kings to investigate them.
God is praised for being mysterious; rulers are praised for explaining mysteries)"
- Proverbs 25:2

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,
He will teach you all things[/highlight] and will bring to your remembrance all things that I have said to you."
- John 14:26

"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth;
for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak;
and He will disclose to you what is to come"
- John 16:13

I dont care what cop out you want to use, but the truth of the matter is that, the brain, isn't an ornament to decorate the body with, and so, we are blessed with this powerfully built processing functional gift for a purpose, reason and such a time as this

You are stepping on a banana peel "foundational doctrine" here. Where exactly does the Bible teach this your so called "foundational doctrine" thats allegedly within the Bible? I would like to see the Bible verse(s) explicitly restricting God been revealed to us and expressing Himself to us as only three persons

MuttleyLaff:
You havent read me disputing that there are more than one God. There is only one H₂0, just as the Lord Our God is one.

Now this same God if infinite, why then are you limiting Him to just and only three persons, hmm? Especially when He reveals that He is I AM that I AM, hmm?

How do you reconcile and explain Him, revealing/showing Himself to Moshe aka Moses, as a bush on flames but not burning, hmm?. Or when He revealed Himself to the Israelites, as a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night, erhn? Or as the Angel of the Lord to Hagar or Abraham, hmm?

MuttleyLaff:
Have you ever wondered why a couple of the biblical characters ever wanted to know God's name, but on each occasion their requests were rebuffed in no uncertain times, with why do you want to know, you cant understand the essence of the name, it will be incomprehensible to you et cetera.

There is only one God. The Lord God is one. It so happen God reveals Himself to us in the Bible, in at least three persons/forms, starting with God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, the same God reveal Himself to Moshe aka Moses, as a bush on on flames but not burning. He revealed Himself to the Israelites, as a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. He reveals Himself as the Angel of the Lord. God is I AM that I AM. He will be whatsoever is necessary for Him to be and so God is infinite/infinity persons

OK, you want to discuss person(s), my dear beloved brother, Dtruthspeaker, hmm, abi?

Of course, every human is one person. The same way I keep using the H₂0 analogy on previous posts, no matter whether turned into water, ice or steam, H₂0 still retains its elements and/or molecular composition. Liquid is recognizably different in sight from gas and solid, solid is recognizably different in sight from liquid and gas, also, gas is recognizably different in sight from liquid and solid, but the three, are all equal and the same in composition.

Now, it will interest you to know, that there actually are other forms of water apart from the well known H₂0. This will be talking of D₂0 and T₂0 aside the well known H₂0. The former two (i.e. D₂0 and T₂0) are out of the thread's scope to be discussed here, but the info about them are just presented here, to serve as a fyi and something to keep in a corner of the mind, in case future opportunities arises to discuss them.

It is no secret that God creates/created by the "Let there be ..." spoken Word and through the power of the enabling seven spirits of God, He creates/created the universe, galaxies, world, creation and creatures

I am a spirit, with a soul housed in an earth mass of body. My word represents me, my name represents me. My good name and word, that's as good as gold, are very important to me and my family.

There is nothing complex in understanding that though God is infinite/infinity persons, He for the most part of the Bible chose present Himself in a particular three person format

God is "I AM, that I AM," that is meaning, God will be and become whatever is necessary for Him, His purpose(s), His objective(s), His aims, His plan(s) et cetera to be

The thing about Triune God, is that God is trinity and more, because God is unknown number of persons. God, in fact, is infinity. He is an Infinite God

biblical truth and biblical fact, that God is not a "not-known-number" of person. God, as a matter of fact then, is, x-person and so God, in effect is, ∞-persons, as in, meaning, God is infinite or infinity.

God is a Incorporeal. He is a Spirit, without any bound, without limit, without a beginning, without an end. God oxymoronically has no beginning and no end. He is the beginning/first and the end/last. God is someone bigger and larger than any specified number, even three, trinity, triune or trio persons . This means, dont put God in a box. It explains why God in His infinite wisdom DIDNT ALLOW THE WORD TRINITY, to be PRINTED out black and white kokoro IN THE BIBLE

Ezekiel36vs28:
well let me help you guys out here by revealing the truth here about this much disputed doctrine.Brother this is the mystery revealed:”That God is one person who exist in three different forms as the Father,The word and as the Holy Spirit”.Bless you

Dtruthspeaker:
In the Bible One is used in terms of Unity, Absence of Conflict and Controversy. Eg Man is One even though he is 2 (male and female), husband and wife are One even though they are two. The body is many members and parts and the hand is not the nyash, neither the head, a penis (excuse my language), nonetheless, all are still One.

So also The Law or The Commandments, even though they are many, they are still ONE To Wit - "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...."

God's Things are One and Christ Clearly said if you Honour me, you Honour He Who Has Sent Me. If you Honour me not, you Honour not He who Has Sent Me" John 5:23

And which one of you shall not honour the servant of Tinubu when he cometh to your house? Or which one you shall say to the P. A of your Local Government Chairman, stand outside my door, I will come and meet you there?

It is Written

"The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.” Proverbs 20:2

Dtruthspeaker:
Respectfully.sir,I have seen that when the Bible says a specific thing, it means that specific thing. Following that knowledge is why I am able to come to my own Conclusion for myself not what someone else says or suggests.

With that, there are many things that prove what is commonly Called Trinity, Starting from the end (Revelation) to the beginning (Genesis), There is He Who Sits on the Throne (a King and His Throne) there is the Lamb Who was Slain whom we have all Identified to be Jesus and Holy Spirit is known also.

In Revelation, was The King on The Throne not sitting on His Throne when the Lamb opened the Seals?

Can He be sitting on the Throne and opening the seals at the same time being One Person? No, I say, We see One Sitting on the Throne and Another opening the Seals and yet Others Round about the Throne, all gathered together in the place around the Throne!

Dtruthspeaker:
If you pay close attention to the various unknown Persons you have seen therein, you would see that there are Many Persons Who are Greater than man. Prophets (John is the greatest of Prophets), Angels, The Elders, The Persons on the Red Horse, Black Horse etc.

Then Revelation 5, There is He Who Sits on the Throne and you already know that The Lamb is Christ.

Therefore, there are many Great Persons Who have Authority and Power over man but the Difference is that The Lord, is Appointed by He Who Sits on the Throne to be God Over us, the man.

There is He Who Sits on the Throne and He is the One Who spoke in Genesis 1. After that look again, you would see that He Stopped Speaking altogether after the Lord Who is God Over us, hence Lord God.

Watch again when the Lord Introduced Himself He says "Lord" first but because man did not understand, He thereafter adds God.

But Later down, when Everyone knew and Understood Who He was, He reverted to His designation, which is "Lord" and He was Called The Lord until, He came to visit us on earth.

And Deuteronomy 6:4 proves what I say. See it He said Lord Twice in one sentence.

And verse 5 proves what I am saying "Love the Lord (Who is) thy God ( to thee)!

Angels and Elders though Greater than you and can exercise great power over you, they are however not our Governor!

FOLYKAZE:
I wish I can buy time to my side.... The bii tch is always making me chase her.

However, going by what you quoted, the spiritual significance of Etemenanki is that it serves as an abode for the Gods, even when there is no definite shrine dedicated to Marduk in there.

What exactly do you want me to read? Scholar guesses that have no basis in the texts of the people who lived during when the Esagila and Etemenanki was in use? Read again;

"""This was the high sanctuary of Marduk, more prominent as a landmark than his sanctuary at ground-level, the massive E-sangil.... There is some evidence that the ziqqurrat-temple was a two-storey building, though both storeys may well have been the same length and breadth """

Is Etemenanki two storey structure? You would expect me to take material filled with inconsistencies, lacking empirical evidences corroborating with ancient texts cannot be taken serious. As shown in the quote text above, Esagila is the real shrine or sanctuary, with overwhelming evidence to prove this. Nothing proves there is shrine in Etemenanki.

Hahaha
Everywhere can be temple or abode of the God's, but cannot necessarily be the shrine of a particular God.
Babylon is the gate of God, mean it is Marduk gateway from heaven into Earth, this doesn't mean the whole Babylon is shrine of Marduk or any particular Gods.

At the emboldened, stop fighting too hard. Visiting temple does not necessarily meann one is there to worship God.

jamesid29
What is a Temple?
The word temple refers to a sacred place for the believers of any given form of religion. It is a place which the believers of a particular religion accept as the abode of God. They often visit temples with a view to have the sight of God. Each religion has got its own temple. Even for Buddhists, there are temples. They go to buddhist temple, not to worship Gods, but rather to do aamisa pooja that helps them in their path to nibbana(ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism and marks the soteriological release from rebirths in saṃsāra). These temples differ from each other in terms of the method of construction, materials used in construction, appearance, and the legend behind their construction and the like.

Marriage and court of law are sacred institutions, having no resemblance with religiosity.

Maybe Etemenanki is mere a sacred social (rather than religious) temple, serving as a monument where Babylonians celebrate new year festival.

Smiles

Herodotus works are highly respected. However, a cogent review of his life and work suggested that there is no evidence, not a single one, that there is a shrine on the top of Etemenanki; and that he has never visited Babylon or the temple in his lifetime, hence is works though importance cannot be fully relied on. Same applies to Diodorus Siculus , who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, the scholar who founded on the Persian Royal Archives, base in works much on mythical and legendary viewpoint, rather than historicity. But the points from both writers can be used, with new archaeological findings, to design a caricature of what the city was like in the past.

who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, the scholar who founded on the Persian Royal Archives

More again, Esarhaddon claim was found on the wall of Etemenanki ruins, that he built/rebuild the tower basement. This corroborates with the letter of Mar-Issar, a scholar, whose first role was certainly that of a scribe, working for Esarhaddon in Babylonia.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4450998/file/4463357.pdf
None of those claims were mine, I attached references and paperwork from academic fields. I don't know what you are on about here.

jamesid29
I think you really believe I don't read this things... No such claim is made in it and I can guarantee you no one who knows the subject matter would even make such a claim. Why? Because Esarhad-don's father( Sennacherib) was the one who destroyed the Babylon and the temple in c.689 BC (Esarhad-don and his father were Assyrians). You can't be the first person to build what was in existence before you and was destroyed by your father. He and his successor did do a partial rebuild (political and religious reasons) but the rebuilding process only caught real steam after Babylon won its independence from Assyria and was finally completed by, Nebuchadnezzar II.
Again this are very elementary stuff that wouldn't take more than 10mins to checkout.... It is well

Wetin I won spin, chief?

That Etemenanki doesn't serve as astronomical spot for observing the stars. And that the design as shown by Esagila text depicts complex mathematics and engineering computation which aided architecture revolution today. Wetin I dey spin when I don offload all evidences to buttress my points? Sir?

FOLYKAZE:
This doesn't answer my question sir. Check the question again

What do you imply by SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE? I for one thought that mean act of worship, reverence, ritual and occultic practices. Please tell us what you meant by that phrase and how it relates with Etemenanki.

jamesid29
Turning to Tintir, we note that the compiler has given the title "Replica of Apsu" to E-sagil, but has reserved "Replica of E-sarra" for the ziqqurrat, E-temen-anki. .
.....
From a cosmological point of view E-sagil and E-temen-anki are both the abode of Marduk

Well there is no evidence of altar, shrine, idols, images of Marduk or centre of worship on the top of Etemenanki. Do you have contrary evidence?

jamesid29
[b]The tower’s top stage is a temple, the [color=#99000]Etemen-anki proper, known in Akkadian as b‹t ziqrati “the ziqqurrat temple.” This was the high sanctuary of Marduk, more prominent as a landmark than his sanctuary at ground-level[/color], the massive E-sangil, but necessarily smaller. There is some evidence that the ziqqurrat-temple was a two-storey building, though both storeys may well have been the same length and breadth.

Haaa

Were you not the one that said Shrine isn't same as Temple? That temples does not necessarily contain shrine.

FOLYKAZE:
cc: jamesid29

Ok. You've helped me read more than I really planned. Thanks for taking your time to share frok your vast thoughts on the subject.

There are something I really want you to clarify.

1. What do you imply by SPIRITUAL SIGNIFICANCE? I for one thought that mean act of worship, reverence, ritual and occultic practices. Please tell us what you meant by that phrase and how it relates with Etemenanki.

jamesid29
Turning to Tintir, we note that the compiler has given the title "Replica of Apsu" to E-sagil, but has reserved "Replica of E-sarra" for the ziqqurrat, E-temen-anki. .
.....
From a cosmological point of view E-sagil and E-temen-anki are both the abode of Marduk

jamesid29
The tower’s top stage is a temple, the Etemen-anki proper, known in Akkadian as b‹t ziqrati “the ziqqurrat temple.” This was the high sanctuary of Marduk, more prominent as a landmark than his sanctuary at ground-level, the massive E-sangil, but necessarily smaller.

2. Do you agree there is no shrine, idols, images and temple on Etemenanki?

3. Do you agree with Diodurus Siculus that Babylonian temple astronomers called tupšar Enûma Anu Enlil computed the Astronomical Diaries by using the temple as the rises where they see into the sky?

We can move unto the next phase of the thread after the answers to above have been addressed. Thanks

FOLYKAZE:
Thanks for the brilliant inputs sir. But sincerely, they really do not address my stance. If you may have forgotten sir, I stated that there is no evidence of spiritual significance of Etemenanki. And Esagali is the only shrine where occultic activities, worship of Marduk and his consort, and rituals take place. You've agreed that Esagali is the shrine, and that there is no shrine in Etemenanki. I said, "The absence of evidence, signifying that Marduk is worshipped in Etemenanki stamped down all spiritual attributions to the tower. If you are concluding there is a spiritual significance to that tower, tell us firstly what you meant by spiritual significance, also tell us with evidences if there are shrines on the tower.

jamesid29:
The basic idea is this: The ziggurat is the meeting point between heaven and earth (the center of spiritual cosmic geography), the temple is where the gods dwell. As I pointed out in my previous post

To understand how this works is to understand that a ziggurat was not built for men to go up to heaven but for God to come down to earth and to reside in their midst in the temple

All the three so called evidences you presented arr misleading

As a matter of fact, it doesn't prove Marduk is worshipped on the tower. The Tower does not hold Marduk's images, none is sacrifices done on it.

1. I have the pdf copy of the Enuma Elish, translated by Benjamin R Foster. I read a volume yesterday night before I slept off.

Tablet IV, volume III, line 40-65
(Marduk divides the gods of heaven and netherworld. The gods build Esagila, Marduk's temple in Babylon)

To Marduk their Lord they said,
"Now, Lord, you who have liberated us,
" What courtesy may we do you?
"We will make a shrine, whose name will be a byword,
"Your chamber that shall be our stopping place,
We shall find rest therein.
"We shall lay out the shrine, let us see up its emplacement,
" When we come (to visit you), we shall find rest therein"
When Marduk heard this,
His features glowed brightly, like the day.
"Then made Babylon the task that you requested,
" Let its brickwork be found, build high the shrine"
The Anunna-gods set to with hoes,
One (full) year they made the bricks.
When the second year come,
They raised the head of Esagila¹, the counterpart of Apsu
They built the upper Ziggurat of Apsu²

i. Wordplay on the name of Marduk's temple (House whose head is high)
ii. Esagila is therefore a counterpart or replica of the abode of Ea (Apsu) and the abode of Enhil. (https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/csar/files/2011/03/Seri-Enuma-elish.pdf)

a. In the translation you posted and another translation I posted above, Etemenanki was not mentioned.

jamesid
"The decipherment of the E-sangil Tablet confirmed most commentators in the view that the mythical Tower of Babel was a memory of a real building, a staged temple-tower that the Babylonians knew by the Sumerian ceremonial name of E-temen-anki ‘House of the Foundation Platform of Heaven and Underworld’. Apart from the E-sangil Tablet, the cuneiform evidence for E-temen-anki under this name comprises the inscriptions of royal builders, a mention in the poem of Erra, appearance in the litany of temple names of Babylon and other cities that regularly occurs in first-millennium copies of liturgical texts, and entries in scholarly lists of temples, temple gates and other sacred locations To these must be added (a) the reference to Marduk and Zarpan¬tu of é.te.me.en.an.ki (var. é.te.me.na.an.ki) in Late Babylonian copies of a cultic
calendar (BRM IV 25 // SBH VII, ed. Unger 1931: 260-1) and (b) an entry in the list of seven seats of Marduk collected in one of the scholarly compendia of heptads: ·u-batdb∂l(en) ·á é.te.me.[en.an.ki] ‘seat of B∂l in E-temen-[anki]’ "

b. The title tells us about the body of the poem, Marduk divides the gods, the gods built Esagila. It never mention Etemenanki

c. The first emboldened statement indicates the Shrine, Esagila was proposed to be high. Not too high as a tower, but higher than normal low level structures.

FOLYKAZE
i. Wordplay on the name of Marduk's temple (House whose head is high)

d. The second emboldened statement tells us that the head of Esagila was raised high, and as such was called Ziggurat . Ziggurat implies a massive structure with a successively receding stories or levels. Calling Esagila Ziggurat doesn't make it Etemenanki.

e. The footnote (²), tells that the Ziggurat mentioned in Enuma Elish is Esagila. If it was Etemenanki, it would have been mentioned in the footnote.

f. Enuma Elish didnt mention "a tower with its top to heaven", it simply says the gods raised the top of Esagila. Since it tops doesn't reach heaven, it is not Etemenanki.

2. TOWER OF BABEL STELE doesn't specifically mentioned the spiritual significance of Etemenanki. I have read the complete details of the text on Schoyen Collection website still nothing speaks about Etemenanki been the worship centre of or serving as a shrine for Marduk.

https://www.schoyencollection.com/history-collection-introduction/babylonian-history-collection/tower-babel-stele-ms-2063

3. Nothing in the Esagila tablet indicates the spiritual significance of the Etemenanki. The tablet can be divided into two. One part is about Esagila (the temple of the god Marduk in Babylon) recorded by the scribes are two courtyards built earlier than the temple. The rest of the tablet concerns the ziggurat, Etemenanki, and is extremely valuable for its reconstruction, presenting a complex mathematical analysis of how the tower should be.

https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/esagila-tablet

Please sir, You had wanted me to see spiritual significance of Etemenanki, when there is none. Even in your presented "evidences", there is no enough convincing evidence to prove that Etemenanki serves as shrine, or worship centre of Marduk. There is no evidence of spiritual significance of the tower. The absence of evidence, signifying that Marduk is worshipped in Etemenanki stamped down all spiritual attributions to the tower.

Firstly please let's have the picture of Etemenanki and Esagila here
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSAzF8cytHLEyCydU-dhY0_5wAXRwlEFcUFsQ&usqp=CAU.jpg[/img]

1&3. From the picture, Etemenanki is the huge structure, and Esaliga is that little high building adjacent of the tower by the south. There is a stair from the Tower leading to Esaliga. Another stair leads to the large procession pathway. However, they are both standalone structure. Though connected, [/b]the Shrine is not inside or on top of Etemenanki.

jamesid29
[b]Etemenanki was connected with Esagila by a triple gate. A larger gate in the east connected the Etemenanki with the sacred procession road(all this is confirmed by archeological works). I was very careful about my language in my previous post so you don't conflat my words. If you check my post, I was always specific that the ziggurat was part of the temple complex... Because it's usually a complex and not just one building.


To be clear though, like everything in the world, temple complexes are not born equal. Different cities,rulers etc different how it's done; but the idea is usually the same; There's a temple and there's a ziggurat.

For Babylon Even though asides from the ground temple structure (esagila in this case), we have multiple literatures and drawings that point to a temple top also(Herodotus is not our only source)

2. Esarhaddon also known as Asarhaddon claimed he built Esagila, and his claim was corroborated with the writings on the wall of the shrine, as found by Stefan Maul. http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/maul/ancientcapitals.html

This isn't about the person of Diodorus, but much about his writings about the astronomical values of the tower.

He wrote:
After this she built in the centre of the city a temple of Zeus whom, as we have said, the Babylonians call Belus. Now since with regard to this temple the historians are at variance, and since time has caused the structure to fall into ruins, it is impossible to give the exact facts concerning it. But all agree that it was exceedingly high, and that in it the Chaldaeans made their observations of the stars, whose risings and settings could be accurately observed by reason of the height of the structure

The emboldened justify my stand that the tower aided astronomy and space exploration.

jamesid29
Ok so as mentioned before, that quote comes from only Diodorus Siculus. But let me get something straight, the very same place that quote comes from also mention Herodotus who actually lived during the time when the the ziggurat was still standing and considered as the father of modern history as opposed to Diodorus who lived 100s of years after Alexander destroyed the whole thing. You were the very same person that said we can't trust Herodotus words by quoting a very minute part of an entire wiki paragraph and I didn't even argue with you on that we have other ancient mesopotamia sources that says that also, now wants us to trust the words of another greek writer (Diodorus) who lived 100s of years later and we have no other ancient source(not a single one) that attest to what he said and thousands of literatures that say otherwise? How does that work?

FOLYKAZE:
Chief, una go dey pay me for the video links una dey drop here. I mean, it has no correlation with Etemenanki. It only mention that temple is the link between heaven and earth. Astronomy, as Etemenanki is concerned has to do with planet, stars, galaxy, moon and cosmos.

jamesid29
Ha, I see where some of the misunderstandings comes from;Because of the statement of heaven and earth. The thing is your thinking of it through the lens of a 21st century person. Ancient people had a different understanding of what that means... Its a different rabbit hole though.
Hope some of this materials might help..

You didn't read it too well.

This is what he said below:

After this she built in the centre of the city a temple of Zeus whom, as we have said, the Babylonians call Belus. Now since with regard to this temple the historians are at variance, and since time has caused the structure to fall into ruins, it is impossible to give the exact facts concerning it. But all agree that it was exceedingly high, and that in it the Chaldaeans made their observations of the stars, whose risings and settings could be accurately observed by reason of the height of the structure

Haaaaaa

Deut 32:8
The unrevised text would have read thus:
בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם בְּהַפְרִידֹו בְּנֵי אָדָם
יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי שֹׁר־אֵל
וַיְהִי חֵלֶק יהוה עַמֹּו יַעֲקֹב חֶבֶל נַחֲלָתֹו
When Elyon gave the nations an inheritance,
when he divided humankind,
he set the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of El’s children,
and Yahweh’s portion was his people,
Jacob, the lot of his inheritance.

That verse shows clearly that when human were evolving, Gods too were not excluded. Jehovah is the son of El, the supreme God of canaanites. He inherited Israel, not an original owner from El. The Urgarit text exposes that large parts of the bible is copied from ancient civilizations like Canaan and others.

Read more abeg

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm




The Bible spearhead propaganda against Babylon, Canaan and other ancient civilizations. It did this through falsehood, exaggerations, and expansion of unfounded fallacy.