₦airaland Forum

@muhsin:

Hi there,

What is it said in the Bible regarding an apostate; and his punishment? Thanks

Apostate (n): A disloyal person who betrays or deserts his cause or religion or political party or friend etc.

Without further ado, I know that you are a Muslim, because this is one question that Deep Muslims LOVE to ask Apologetic Christians (Christians that defend their faith procedurally, like I am doing here), trying to see if they will get tongue-tied. However I am happy to tell you what I believe - and the whole truth about the matter.

There are two sides to this answer, when you ask what the Bible says about Apostasy: its for the Jews and for the Christians. For the instruction to the Jews consult the OT, and for the Christians, we have the NT (although there is no direct statement of punishment for apostasy, but there are a lot of verses that tell us how to deal with our fellow man, whether they are believers or unbelievers in the Gospel of Christ. More on that in a bit).

THE JEWS

These are the two verses that talk about what you want to know about punishments against/ill rewards of apostasy in the OT.

If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

I pre-empt your argument, and I guess you may be asking this question in order to criticize the Christian judgment when we say Muslims ought not to kill their apostates. However, there are many fine lines that you seem to be missing.

One such fine line: Once a Jew, always a Jew. So, technically, a Jewish apostate is still a Jew, howbeit a Jew in sin.

The Talmud-Megillah 13a states,

Whoever repudiates idolatry is accounted a Jew.

This means that anyone that OPPOSES the worship of any God except the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is a Jew. Anyone who cooperates with the Worship of the God of the Jews becomes a Jew. So, someone like Zipporah, Moses' wife, became a Jew although she wasn't a Jew to start with. And her son became a Jew too, by circumcision (more on that in a short while).

Encyclopedia Judaica 3:211 states:

In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains-as far as the Halakah is concerned-a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a)…For the born Jew, Judaism is not a matter of choice…in the technical halakhic sense, apostasy is impossible.

In the above footnote “Sanh. 44a” refers to the Talmud-Sanhedrin 44a which states,

Israel hath sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] “Israel”.(1) R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.

That is, "Israel is the name of honor for the people when faithful to God.” Thus, a sinning Jew is still a Jew.

The main point is that according to Jewish Law a person born Jewish is always Jewish.

Again we see an affirmation that a Jew remains a Jew and the interesting admission that it is not Jewish law that proclaims a converted Jew as no longer Jewish, but the Jewish consciousness or psychology. As I can personally attest to, some Jews do not even hesitate to state that Jewish-Christians are no longer Jewish. Now, note carefully that a convert (away from Judaism, in the case of my father's friend Ravi Zacharias, popular Christian apologist, a Jewish-Christian) is identified as “a converted Jew is regarded solely as a transgressor of the Jewish religious law.”

So that is a spade, calling a spade, a spade? Because the Jews that are saying that converts are no longer Jews, are also opposing their own scriptures by making such a claim!

What is the term for a Jew who, if in clear violation of Jewish law, claims that a convert is no longer Jewish? Is he not also an apostate, since he does not obey the law? Therefore, a Jew cannot (technically) be an apostate.

So what were the OT passages referring to? Definitely not apostates, because as we have proven above, Jews can never be apostates, since they are forever Jews. What it refers to is the SIN of trying to lead people away from God, and God ordered that whoever did such was to be killed.

Even God tried to kill Moses because he was a leader, and he didn't circumcise his son. Israelites would have observed that, and maybe some were even copying him already, so God was going to kill Moses. Does that mean Moses was an "apostate"? No! Rather it shows that Moses was not doing things as was instructed by the Jewish law. He was sort of telling people "See, this is another way to do this religion thing, you don't have to circumcise your children". And God wanted to kill him for it. NOT BECAUSE HE WAS AN APOSTATE, BUT BECAUSE HE WAS LEADING PEOPLE AWAY FROM GOD's LAWS. Why, isn't that being too tough on him, you may ask? The LAW WAS THAT HARD! That is why Christ had to come and put a new law into place.

AMPLIFIED BIBLE
Exo 4:24 Along the way at a [resting-] place, the Lord met [Moses] and sought to kill him [made him acutely and almost fatally ill].
Exo 4:25 [Now apparently he had failed to circumcise one of his sons, his wife being opposed to it; but seeing his life in such danger] Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it to touch [Moses'] feet, and said, Surely a husband of blood you are to me!
Exo 4:26 When He let [Moses] alone [to recover], Zipporah said, A husband of blood are you because of the circumcision.

In summary, these commands were for the Israelite nation alone, particularly within the confines of the Israelite theocracy. Put simply, this was a command limited to the Israelite nation, both temporally and geographically. Inherent within the Torah is a great number of governmental rules and regulations that would not be applicable outside of a governmental setting. In the case of killing such dissenters, God wished to establish a nation consisting of worshipers only of Him. Those who wanted to practice another religion could have simply left Israel. But not so for Muslim countries today, it has to be remembered that Islam is a religion with aspirations of global expansion and ideals of establishing Sharia universally. If this is achieved, then where could apostates go to be free? This is unlike ancient Israel who was given a piece of land, with no instructions to expand its governmental rule elsewhere. So an apostate could simply leave Israel, but will face punishment if he chooses to stay and cause dissension among God's people.

THE CHRISTIANS

On the other hand, the practice of the tenets of the New Covenant established by Jesus is the "law" under which Christians reside, not the laws established by God for governing the Israelite theocracy. There is of course much (though clearly not total) overlap with the Old Testament as the Old Testament contains many moral laws which are universally applicable (e.g. most of the Ten Commandments).

E.g. critics of the Bible often cite Old Testament instances of slavery, violence against homosexuals, wiping out nations, etc., as evidence of a morally inadequate set of rules. They will also often ask why present-day Christians don't follow these "barbaric" teachings today. They complain that Christians are inconsistent, and say that if we really follow the Bible then why don't we advocate such things as killing both homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21).

The reason we don't is because the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with. We are under a new covenant. Jesus said in Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

This new covenant was prophecied in the Old Testament in Jer. 31:31, “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." It is referenced in 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8, 9:15; and 12:24.

Of particular importance to our topic is Heb. 8:13 which says, "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." The Old Covenant with its harsh judicial judgments is no longer in effect because we are under a New Covenant.

Part of the reason the Old Testament covenantal system was so harsh is because first, the Old Testament law demonstrates the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 says that the law is what points us to Christ. It does this by showing us that we are not able to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus, who was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9).

Second, the Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel. Also, the devil and his demonic horde was constantly working to destroy Israel in order to invalidate the prophecies of the coming Messiah, to therefore prevent the Messiah from being born and delivering his people. Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

The New Testament covenantal system says that we are to "be at peace with one another," (Mark 9:48) and "with all men," (Rom. 12:18). Rom. 14:18 says, "pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another." After all, "God has called us to peace," (1 Cor. 7:15).

However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing. We are to not participate in the sins of the world. Instead, we are to avoid them. We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13). Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 5:14). But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands -- as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1:26-28.

So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone apostates (and homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers), is because we're no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13).

What a long story. The summary is that Jews cannot be apostates, they are forever Jews. As such, there are no Jew apostates, but there were Jew sinners who God instructed that they had to die, so that they would not spread false beliefs and contaminate the Israelites in their religious worship. And besides, the Jews had a fixed land to live in, so anyone who was not interested could easily flee to any other land. Whoever stayed and tried to make his friends and families worship false gods was to die. Christian apostates exist, but there are no laws anywhere concerning dealing with them. Jesus Christ himself will conduct judgment at the last day.

And again, I am back here for the day, time-scheduling. Muhsin's answer is next. So little time, so you may find typos (I almost never have typos!)

@Krayola: Thanks for sharing all the information. Interestingly enough, I have read countless times that the Old testament was written in esoteric historico-critical perspectives, with symbolism, psychology of religion, pharisaism and other such stuff; like a book of riddles, and not in an altogether spiritual method (which is not surprising, as they were not Spiritual men who wrote the OT. They were under the Law, and the Holy Spirit was not given). Matthew wrote to the Jews, and Matthew seems to have enclosed his message in an allegory of numbers which the Fathers of the Church recognized and expounded to some extent, but which still remains to be fully uncovered, partly due to the fact that exegetes for centuries have given little or no attention to the allegorical sense of the Scriptures.

St. Thomas Aquinas collects many of these statements in his Catena aurea and in his Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew. However, no comprehensive study of the allegory of numbers in the background of Sacred Scripture has (to my knowledge) been done since Petrus Bongus published his Numerorum mysteria at Bergamo in 1599. Hence the call for renewed study of the three spiritual senses, as called for also by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, always with the understanding that the results of our research are tentative and subject to correction by legitimate authority and by those who can improve upon them.

However, you make it look like God is a one-track being that is limited by the interpretation of the Old Testament in trying to tell us about Himself! What I am saying is that the Old Testament IS symbolic, largely symbolic, only Jews are "special" (Romans 3:2) in the regard of unravelling the mysteries; BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT ALL HOLDS UP TOGETHER IN TRUTH AND PROPHECY AS A FORE-SHADOW OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T BOTHER WITH IT'S SYMBOLISM, BEING A NON-JEW BY THE FLESH. Just like we can read Shakespeare's poetry and get understanding of the people of those times, but an ardent researcher in Shakespeare can tell you the real-to-life people that Shakespeare referred to in EACH of his works (there! Did you even know Shakespeare was writing about real society people?). I can bet my last dollar that all the information about the symbolism that you presented above, you read or heard it from a resource authored by a Jew.
Romans 3:2 tell me that the Oracles of God are ONLY in the hands of the Jews (Jews by circumcision, according to the flesh; not Jews by Grace, like myself). So, do you think we can really explain all of God's motives in the Old Testament here, something that took centuries and had to be highly coded? I will try, but I can't continue discussing here because Muhsin is the next person I ought to be responding to, but I will get back to this, please. And please don't be tired, leave that "exam" gist, let us know what you think about the other things (which makes me wonder: you have answers you believe are true, so why are you asking me? LOL. Just kidding. Show us more of what you've got).

@Pastor AIO: Of course many of the "contradictions" that people point to in the OT are just samples of complex symbolism, understood & explainable by the Jews, but I can't be bothered because they have no effect on my salvation, which is the most paramount. But have you read the entire book of Romans 3 thoroughly? As much as the Torah contains volumes of esoteric material that have been ACCURATELY predicting many things that have been happening in this era (I'm sure you know about this?) and is filled with a lot of symbolism, the entire book of Romans 3 tells us exactly what God says about the Torah and the Jews. The Jews by the flesh have been entrusted with the oracles; the intents, communications and hidden utterances of God THROUGH the Torah! We, as Jews by adoption into God's family, do not need the Torah to receive those hidden things that are in God because we have the Holy Spirit. Faith is a THIN line, my brother. Be careful of agreeing with statements like Krayola's in the above, it must be done delicately because some people will not reason out what you are saying properly and jump to conclusions, thinking the OT is not to be regarded any respect. Even Jesus did not say such of the OT. Maybe I will respond to this later, too. All in time!

@Muhsin: Your post is next. Thanks for all your patience!

Patience, people, please. And a little response at a time, because I have become even more busy this week than I ever imagined I would be!

@Muhsin:

Hi there,
What is it said in the Bible regarding an apostate; and his punishment? Thanks

Sorry I skipped your post. I will answer yours next before babs787. Your question came before his. Cheers.

@babs787: Right after Muhsin, I will respond to you too!

@alex0026: Yes I am still here, but you will need to be patient with me, please. My hands are full, and there are pending questions!

@manmustwac: Will be responding to you ASAP, after the previous sets of questions.

@chukwudi44: thanks

@kunleOshob:

This concept of belief in the bible is faulty and not necessarily "christian" i think what is more important is belief in the gospel of our lord Jesus christ and obeying his commandments. that is what makes us christians and not belief in the bible which contains so many things that is not in tune with the gospel of Christ [especially in the old testament]. The jewish religion and practises which forms most part of the old testament is quite different from the teachings of Christ. As christians i believe we should focus more on the gospel of christ than the bible as a whole which is just a collection of books cannonized by religious leaders in their opinion. I am not discounting the bible here but it would help if christians get the focus of their beliefs right. The bible is just a tool to help us develop our faith it is not meant to be what we believe in.

The only part where I agree with you is that in THIS dispensation, our major focus should be on Christ i.e. the anointed one and His anointing. Your statement seems to assume that everybody has a knowledge of God sufficient to develop their faith to maturity, but this cannot be so because everyone at a point in time needs to learn and get taught. How will people get on the road to knowing God if they do not believe the Bible that describes that God? As I always say, the Bible is a starting point.

Concerning discerning various sections of the Bible, I have this for you:
2Ti 2:15  Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.  AMPLIFIED BIBLE.
In the KJV, with Strong's concordance, I observed that the word "dividing" there is the Greek Word orthotomeo¯ which means to dissect, to distinguish. I will explain by means of an analogy:

If KunleOshob, Noetic15, Chukwudi and MavenBox all go to a Restaurant, and they give instructions to the waiter: KunleOshob wants Rice, Noetic15 prefers solid pounded yam, Chukwudi wants some Cake and Ice-cream, and MavenBox, as usual just takes an ounce of peanuts and a glass of chapman. When the waiter arrives, bearing all the meals on a meal-trolley, will MavenBox reach out for Pounded yam? No she won't, because, rightly dividing amongst the provided things, she knows that the peanuts and chapman is hers. THAT is what the dissection refers to, its not discarding, its dissection.

AMPLIFIED BIBLE
2Ti 3:16  Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),

All parts of scripture are useful but by dissection, you need to know what is useful for YOU at a point in time, what YOU have required from the scripture at that point in time. The Bible likens itself to a mirror

1Co 13:12  For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood [by God].

Jas 1:23  For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;

which means that when you look into it, as a serious person, you know what you expect to see, and you are ready to change by focusing on what you need to adjust. e.g. your hair, your lips, eyelashes, dimples, whatever it is.

I hope you get it now. That's my own perspective!

@toneyb:

Why do you believe and accept that the bible is true and not other religious books?

Can you please be a little more explicit? For a human being to profess faith in a Deity, he/she must definitely believe the Divine material that introduces that very same faith to him/her, since it defines their experience with the Deity. If it was not true to them, they would not be professing trust and reliance on the Deity.
I believe and accept that the Bible is true to me and other Christians, as well as the Koran is true to the devoted Muslims who believe in it, and the Ijinle-Ifa is true to Ifa Worshippers. So, for the sake of correctness, what is your question, can you rephrase it?

Regards.

JT lick

city, village, town, country, earth, sky: wherever you are, Amigoz, please forgive me because im sorry for the joke thread i made about falling in love with you

Iyawomi

aboki

love syrup

Cos i need some!

I'm sorry for the delay, I had to attend to some urgent things. Here's my first post.

I proceed by saying that it may be necessary for anyone following this conversation to consider my responses deeply, because Im trying to sound as logical as possible, and make the discussion LOGICAL as much as possible. Although I know that maybe not all spiritual things may be logically expressed, but I will make a good attempt.

@Tudor:

Q2. Which bible are you talking about, the catholic, protestant, mormon or any other one out there?

The Bible is any collection treated as a complete version of the scripture of either Christianity or Judaism.
The one that is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

This just begs the question.

Inasmuch as I was half-asleep at the time I responded, LOL, I was not begging the question. I answered Question 2 first. Note that from my boldened words, it is ANY collection TREATED AS a complete version of the Scripture of CHRISTIANITY or JUDAISM. You asked me WHICH bible I am talking about, so I responded by telling you that when I say the God who revealed the Bible, I refer to the one who revealed the Judaism and Christian scriptures, whatever the Jews and Christians consider those scriptures to be. Whether some books are considered apocryphal or not, whether some are accepted by Catholics or Protestants or not, is not the object of this discourse.

Do not forget, I said you should ask me Questions about my beliefs in the God, and not about the Bible I said He revealed. I only chose the title rather than saying "Ask me my beliefs about the Christian God (?)" or mentioning one of His names, or something.

What I was saying in essence is that if you are a Catholic, YOUR own Bible is the Catholic Bible. Talk to me about my beliefs about that God who revealed the Catholic Bible to Catholics. If you are a Jew, talk to me about my beliefs about the God who revealed the Bible-that-is-your-own-scripture-of-Judaism. And if you are neither, go ahead and do similarly. If you do not believe in anything that has to do with the Bible, ask me about the God who those that believe in it, believe revealed it to them.

So, in my opinion, you didn't consider the topic procedurally before continuing.

Who has the right and authority to declare what should be scripture and what is not?

Does it not come to mind, Tudor, that in every belief system, there are axioms, that are widely accepted on their own merits? Faith is the unit of measurement of a man's belief system. So that is exactly how matters of faith go. But as with all axioms, they are considered infallible until one of the theorems built upon the axiom shows that the axiom is false, lacking in tangible veracity. Then, like a pack of cards, the axiom falls and is reconstructed. Once again, the process begins.

For example, a scientist begins with an hypothesis, which he has to keep moulding based on relative AXIOMS of science, proven over time and considered infallible. If his hypothesis negates a fundamental axiom, it will not even be given a chance in the first case, he wouldn't bother researching it; but if the hypothesis is in line with the axiom, he uses it to build another foundation upon the axiom, which is the theory. There are many examples over time of great engineers, doctors and scientists who were considered as heretics and/or mad men because their declarations opposed fundamental axioms. Until later, when the axioms were re-adjusted because of empirical evidence. So even science works by a type of faith. All fields of human endeavour work with a kind of faith, a belief system of sorts, until an even more evident truth is found to displace it.

What is scripture, by the way? It is, by general definition, any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group. Such scripture is venerated because they are, in the group's belief system, the words or deeds of their deity, authorized to serve as a guide for their own practical experience. So they are axioms, so to speak, and are infallible.

In a nutshell, the one who has the "authority" to declare what is the scripture, is the very one who provided it in the first case. Absolutely speaking, a piece of evidence can only be as true as the one who makes it manifest, who in turn has the authority to declare what is to be believed as truth. That piece of evidence presented is considered the base axiom, upon which the religious group proceeds to build their further beliefs. If any of those beliefs are INCONTROVERTIBLY found to deny the base axiom provided by the original testator, then the so-called scripture ceases to be scripture for that religious group. In other words, what the Jews consider to be scripture may not correspond to what the Catholics or the Protestants (i don't like that word, let me say Non-Catholic Christians) consider to be true scripture. And that in turn will define their own individual experiences.

A simple analogy to explain the above is a ray of light, splendid in its magnificence, incident upon a prism and splitting into the variegated colours. What is the source that revealed the colour red? That very light. What about the one that revealed the colour orange, or yellow, or green, or the others? It's the self-same light. You agree with me on that because by fundamental axioms in optics, it is known to be so. If I claim that I have a prism that produces an extra five colors; ox-blood, pink, fuchsia, royal blue and turquoise, would you not tell that I lie indeed, otherwise my eyes are faulty?

So the question then is, how do we know what exactly came from that original source of light, or what was added by the observer of the light rays either in error or deliberately with ulterior motives? It's simple, the light rays would all speak of the source. What I mean is that if Catholics are CERTAIN that some books are a part of the Bible, and non-Catholic Christians believe those books are apocryphal, then it is easy to deduce that they are NOT serving the same God, or a party has deliberately or erroneously manipulated details. Also, if Jews and Christians have different perspectives about the accuracy or relevancy of some scriptures (e.g. the fulfillment of the Messiah), then it is obvious that it is either that they are serving two different Gods, or else one party or the other cannot "see the diffracted light clearly" as it emanates through the prism. Consider the Baptists with the Anglicans and Protestants, for instance. In their own case, their BASE AXIOMS which define their relationship with God, are all the same. Therefore, it is a thing of certainty that they have faith in the one same God. There may be differences in doctrine, but those doctrines are built on the base axiom.

Are you saying the bible as it is isn't open to new additions inspired by the so called "holy spirit" to incorporate modern day challenges that we face and gods position on them.

This is where you get it all wrong, sir Tudor. Why do I say so? You mention the Holy Spirit, and you refer to Him as possibly further incorporating other works of scripture into the Bible? You need to do some more research there, for the Bible is complete in itself. Rather than add a single letter to the Bible, the Holy Spirit will take the self-same scripture and explain it to you, applying it to the particular experience you need to address. It is like saying when you see a poem by Shakespeare and it appears not to be descriptive enough, you need to ask him to add some words to paint in the perspective that you do not understand. No! Rather, Shakespeare or someone who understands the heart of his work so much that we might refer to him as an authority, will take the same poem and explain to you between the lines. The Holy Spirit is the ONE and only resource person available to man who knows the intents of the Bible's heart inside out, and can refer it to you own experience. I put it to you that there is no present-day issue that the Holy Spirit cannot reveal His perspectives to me with respect to the Bible.

Coz frankly the archaic scriptures are pretty vague on some issues

And also, in additionn to the above, please note that unlike a number of religions, Christianity is different. I do not refer to Christianity as a religion except for secular purposes because in Christianity, we are a part of God and His life flows in us. I have no religion. What I have is the Life of God.

See it this way, man cannot communicate with a lizard. Why? They have different forms of life. A sparrow communicates perfectly with other sparrows, because they have the same life. God cannot relate to man, neither can man worship God without a significant attenuation of communication and identity. And that is why God had to come as a man, he came down to our level. Like a man becoming a lizard, after which the man makes it possible for all those other lizards to follow a new path to become men, even though the lizards-become men may need some guidance to find their way. So Jesus opened up a path that enabled us to exist in God as Spiritual men, and left the Holy Spirit as our guide in the God-life. God can relate directly to man now through His Holy Spirit because His Holy Spirit talks to Us in Our spirits, unlike the days of old when so many instructions were given and man would just keep falling short of them all, just like a circus-trained lizard will eventually misbehave or fall below expectations. The lizard just cannot understand that it is a circus, and it needs to behave appropriately.
Lest I lose myself in analogies, I reiterate, we receive instructions directly from the Holy Spirit, bypassing (but not contradicting) the Bible. This happens time and time again. So there needs be no addition or removal. Your argument there is not valid, Tudor.

and thats why we have over 30,000 sects of christianity each with its own beliefs.

I object to the use of the word sect, i would prefer denominations because a sect is a dissenting clique of a larger religious body. As I explained above, these so-called sects of yours have the same AXIOMS as the basis of their faith, even though they have different doctrines. Are there over 30,000 denominations of Christianity? I am just hearing that, but I won't mind if you produce proof.

In my honest opinion, why are there many denominations? It is because there are many types of human beings, and not ONE of them is to be excused for rejecting the message of Christ. THERE IS A CHURCH FOR EVERY KIND OF HUMAN BEING UNDER THE SUN, so no one has an excuse. If you consider yourself elite, or you do not, or whatever, there's a type of church (denomination) that will accurately suit your purpose. But the END POINT of it all is that when you truly get to know God and you live by His Word, you will understand why the other denominations exist as well, and you will stop discriminating, if you used to.

And pls kindly tell us how you seem to know for certain the bible was revealed by god

I assume you meant by God, and not god. As I wrote above, it is a fundamental axiom of faith. It has not been disproved by the self-same people who use it as a means of understanding the intial testator's (their God's) interactions with mankind over the ages, his interests, His plans & purposes and motives. But I assure you, immediately the Bible-believers find out that it was not revealed by God, or someone else has considerable empirical evidence, you will be the first to know.

Phew. I will continue with the next question later.

@Pharoh: Gee, thanks!

@krayola: LOL you are a comedian! Im still expecting your own perspectives on those I have answered by the way, before I proceed.
@Tudor: Im answering you next
@Babs: Your answers will come after Tudor's

@Pharoh:  

@Everyone else: thanks for joining the thread. Please if you are asking a question, denote it clearly to avoid confusion. If you are refuting or corroborating an earlier post, or introducing a new perspective, it may be good to quote the author so that we will not lose track on the thread.

Okay now let me type out my first response and paste it here, i prefer that to typing directly in this box. Please be patient with me, I dont really like typing and Im not very fast at it!

LOL your "new post" mail notification dings on my yahoo messenger woke me up ! Forgot to log out of it, but I will do that this time

@Krayola: Thanks, please post your opinions as well that we may learn. I will resume my answers probably later today.

@Tudor: Going by your argument, bible may as well refer to any book of sorts.

bible (n): A book regarded as authoritative in its field

For the sake of my intents, I refer to the only official version of the Bible. The Bible is any collection treated as a complete version of the scripture of either Christianity or Judaism.

The one that is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Let me go and modify my initial post to make such matters as this very clear.

@Krayola: LOL there's no going down the drain. All questions are welcome.

3) How do you reconcile the Jewishness of Jesus with modern Christian theology that has little to no connection with the Jewish faith that Jesus was a  part of.

This question is a little involving, so I will need to analyze some background information first of all.

I believe there are a number of phases in which mankind interacted with God (theologians often argue for 7), but I will highlight three phases of particular interest.

The Jewish era, The Era of Jesus' Ministry on Earth, and the New Creation / End-time era.

I will explain below.

Prelude: What happened in Eden was that Adam handed over his authority and role as god of the earth to Lucifer because of Lucifer's deception over the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Ever since then, Adam became a slave to Lucifer, and by the rule of slavery, anything born of Adam would have to be a slave of Lucifer too.

The Jewish era: This spans from the time that Abraham accepted the invitation to serve God, and he was given promises that he believed against all hope even when it all sounded mad, to the times through which the promises were declared and handed down through the ages (so that no one would forget), through David and the other kings, where David found favour with God because he paid attention to God, through the rest of time till Christ was given through Mary. This period had some characteristics: no one was ever sure about what to do, and what God liked and what God disliked. As such, they kept falling into errors. Time and time again, they kept sinning and since the wages of sin is death, they kept dying. The ten commandments were given as the backbone of right and wrong, and there were many other laws of society, justice, worship and interaction with other human beings outlined in Deuteronomy to curb wickedness and sin. But there was still a problem: the fact that the law exists means that it is possible to break it. Which means that even if, say, krayola lives a blameless and holy life entirely, mavenbox may not. Which means that all men will never be saved, which was the divine design. On the other hand, krayola cannot even live a blameless life and escape the hands of the law, because the very seed that produces a human being is corrupted and the sin gets transmitted from parent to child. It's like saying one is guilty before trial. All because of Adam's sin, no one was perfectly made right with God. God would have to send someone who didn't have a bloodline related to Adam, i.e. the seed would have to be divine, it could not have been a natural sperm fertilization because that would make the devil have dominion over him. The holy Jews of old who did their very best, were considered in that perspective by God, and judged by THAT measure while they looked forward to Christ's birth, which was the perfection of their salvation.
e.g. Joh 8:56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

The Era of Jesus' Ministry on Earth: This spans from Jesus birth due to Mary's acceptance of God's invitation to be the vessel to serve God, believing the promises that she was bearing the Messiah, and hoping against all hope that it could happen, although once again it all sounded mad, because she was a virgin; through to the birth of Christ, to the ministry of Christ and then his eventual crucifixion. This era was an overlap between the one above and the one below because a sneek-peek of the aftermath was already obvious in Christ's living, even though the Jewish era was still in position. In this era, Christ started teaching people how to live a life well-pleasing to God. However, note that many teachings at this period were PREPARING people for the time after Christ was fulfilled on the cross, which was the most important thing he came to do on earth, not the miracles or healing.

As Christ himself said, predicting the New Creation era:
Joh 4:21  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23  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.
Joh 4:24  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The New Creation era:
When Christ was crucified by the Jews, he defined redemption for us all because he substituted himself for us. He re-defined "the people of God" by widening it to include everyone else in the world, not just the Jews like before. This is because he was not given ONLY for the Jews, but for everyone

Joh 1:29  The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

This is what God had to say about this new era, with respect to how Jews and the "new creation" believers in God operate spiritual matters:

Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

So, contrary to what you said, the "new" kind of Jews are a fulfillment of what the "old Jews" could not accomplish in God.
Mat 5:17  Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
Mat 5:18  For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.
Mat 5:19  Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Being a JEW has little to do with physical things.
Rom 2:28  For he is not a [real] Jew who is only one outwardly and publicly, nor is [true] circumcision something external and physical.
Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and [true] circumcision is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal [matter]. His praise is not from men but from God.
Rom 3:1  THEN WHAT advantage remains to the Jew? [How is he favored?] Or what is the value or benefit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2  Much in every way. To begin with, to the Jews were entrusted the oracles (the brief communications, the intentions, the utterances) of God. [Ps. 147:19.]

There are too many things I would like to say to explain here, but Im sleepy-headed right now, I may need to stop now to get some sleep. Yawn. LOL. If something is not clear, please ask and I will clarify. Meanwhile, I will respond to the other questions later.

Cheers!

2) The Gospel writers- Historians or creative theologians?

What is a creative theologian, I may ask? By my dictionary, that is someone who speculates about the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.

On the other hand, a historian is a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it.

My overall answer will be, neither, although Luke was written by Luke functioning as a historian. By my understanding, the Gospel writers, except Luke, were present with Jesus, and each one writes an account of the GOOD NEWS i.e. Christ's birth, ministry and death, as seen from the perspective and roles that God allowed each of them to play. Each of the three of them presented their TESTIMONY on the matter.

Luke, as i explained in my last post, was collecting a series of accounts from those who actually experienced the testimonies, and being a doctor, his method was more procedural and thorough with details: inspecting all angles from an external perspective. He gives a bird's eye view of the gospel, so I may count him as a historian, and a teacher of sorts.

For the Gospels, as with all the other books of the Bible, they were inspired of God because they present the truth about God's plans, purposes and man's place in the mix of things. A man may receive inspiration from God to find a cure for cancer, another may receive the exact fraction that is the mathematical pi (even though it has been argued to be non-rational), another may have inspiration to speak a language that everyman will hear in his own native tongue, another may receive inspiration to bi-locate (physically be in more than one location at once), but as for these four, they respectively were inspired to present the details of Christ's ministry on earth, each man from his own perspective, some as a means of testimony and one as a historian.

I hope your question is answered. I really dislike a lot of typing.

I will answer them in parts for the sake of time

1) The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. . .  what does it mean to you?

This question is a little vague to me but I will attempt to answer. The genealogy of Christ in Matthew is in Matt 1:1-17.

Just like the book of Genesis sets out to establish origins (I believe everything of consequence to mankind has a shadow or outline in Genesis), the book of Matthew sets out origins of the New Creation, with Jesus as the last Adam, the second man.

It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him (Gen 12:3; Gen 22:18), and to David that he should descend from him (2Sa_7:12; Psa 89:3, etc.; Psa 132:11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah.

Matthew's genealogy acted only as a reminder to the Jews, setting out facts that were publicly available in Jewish tables and records. He was to take them as he found them. If there were any errors that he discovered, he was not to modify them. This initial part of the book of Matthew 1:1-17 is an excerpt of the Jewish tables of genealogies, with respect to Jesus Christ.

Luke's genealogy of Christ was with respect to his purpose for writing the book of Luke, while that of Matthew too was with respect to his purpose. Luke wrote unto Theophilus (Luke 1:3), the most excellent, a title given to Roman governors. Matthew on the other hand, wrote principally for the Jews. So Matthew had to start with the genealogy, because the Jews would want to know if he was really the Messiah before they listen to whatever Matthew had to saw about Jesus.

Theophilus, on the other hand, who (as the ancients inform us) was a Christian person of eminent quality (presumably a governor, as I said) at Alexandria and whose name means "friend of God", already accepted Christ as the Messiah but he needed to be CERTAIN about facts that had been presented to him (Luke 1:4). Thus Luke only introduced the human genealogy of Christ after his baptism, to show that even as God had identified him as His son, Jesus was also 100% man physically speaking (i.e. as was supposed, so to speak), which was why Luke said, when beginning his own genealogy.

Luk 3:22  And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luk 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The important fact about this genealogy and that provided by Luke: they unquestionably prove the grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised seed was to come.

Yoruba for oYaTo is "I am different" so, Mr oYaTo, I am unique and why should mavenbox baffle you?

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread  kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread  kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread  kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread  kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread  kissing it goodbye]

[exits thread  kissing it goodbye]