The governor's office has issued a rebuttal to the story on the planned IPP. The story is false. Lagos state is NOT building any IPP in partnership with Singapore. Here is a quote from the governor's website:

Press Releases

IPP: Singapore Power Company Only On Exploratory Visit – LASG

Mar 11, 2009 - The Lagos State Government has debunked a media report that it has entered into partnership with the Singapore Power Company to build a power plant in the State.

In a press release Wednesday, the State Government explained that the team from SP Global Solutions, the consultancy arm of Singapore Power Company, was in Lagos last week on an exploratory visit to understand the current power situation in the State.

The Government further said that the team was expected to return to Singapore to consider the possibility of assisting the Lagos State Government to draw up a blue print on improving the transmission and distribution of power in Lagos.

While regretting any inconvenience caused by the incorrect reporting of the issue involved in the visit of the team from Singapore, the State Government enjoined the media to ascertain their facts before going to press.

Source

Hey Nimshi,

Your choice of bible stories i found quite interesting. I give it to you though that you said the thread is not about bible (or is it christian) bashing.
Most often I think our perspective or worldview does shapen our perception of what we hear or read. In this particular case, it seems that fact is making you miss the most important point. Although christians believe the bible is the word of God, the stories therein are mostly human stories. In fact, the very first story in the bible is one of disobedience. When the subjects of a book are mostly men (i mean that in a generic sense) - all kinds of men - it doesn't always look pretty. The beauty that shows up in the mess of its subjects is how evil can ultimately be worked out by a loving God for good, how forgiveness can be meted to seemingly undeserving persons, how those people that did the grossest evils can ultimately recognise their need to rise above it, how some unfortunately end up failing while others rise and stand. These and many others are the lessons that can be learnt. Ultimately, we know that they are stories about people just like us, and that God does get involved in the lives of ordinary people, messy people. We see an Abram transformed to an Abraham, we see a Jacob mature and become someone entirely different, we see a Samson accomplish more in death than in life, more without his eyesight than with it, and sometimes we do see a Saul become so desperate that he destroys himself. These are real people. The stories may seem absurd to a casual skeptic, but likewise do the lives of the average person if all the memorable events of thier lives are recorded. These stories have inspired and changed, yes changed lives - my life inclusive- because I've chosen to learn the important lessons and model my life after the heroes whose lives - their failings and their victories - have been laid bare, sometimes even to embarassing detail for those of us who come after them to learn from. Here's a couple of verses that sum it up for me:

1Cor 10: 11-12
first in NIV:
"These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! "

and then so eloquently paraphrased in The Message:
"These are all warning markers—danger!—in our history books, written down so that we don't repeat their mistakes. Our positions in the story are parallel—they at the beginning, we at the end—and we are just as capable of messing it up as they were. Don't be so naive and self-confident. You're not exempt. You could fall flat on your face as easily as anyone else. Forget about self-confidence; it's useless. Cultivate God-confidence."

Cheers

@Huxley and co,

Do you believe that apples are the same as oranges?

Let me take a wild guess. I think the key is the "still a lover never a fighter" caption. I'd guess its osisi rather than drusilla.
_{Hope I'm not exposing what is being hidden}

Hi @ justcool,

Interesting post. I think it would be fair to allege that, as has been severally mentioned, the reason you're not willing to accept the consensus of mainstream (evangelical) christianity as regards biblical doctrines (especially justification by faith alone) is because you have certain preconceptions which you read into the text. Naturally, those would have an effect on the interpretation you get from it. Thus, if you request to treat the bible squarely, without any references to the grail message, then you should be willing to make interpretations from the bible on its own merit regardless of what your religious book teaches.

So, to reiterate, if you wish to focus on the bible, no qualms. Just make sure you're not intepreting the bible based on your preconceptions.
That said;

justcool:

3) The Grail message is not based on the bible. The writer draw HIS message from out of the TRUTH Itself, and not out of any book. So it will be irrational using It to prove the point of this thread which is (does the scriptures actually support the doctrine of "By Faith Alone", since It does not deal with bible.

I will be more than willing to examine the Grail Message(which i have found to be foolproof) with any body, provided that the person has read it. I encourgage anybody who has done so to open a thread and voice his disagreement. Infact I if there are such people(people who have read and found it lacking), let me know and I will start the thread myself.

I do not agree that the Grail Message is the truth. I believe a valid discussion can be had about that. Since you want to limit this thread to a discussion on the bible, I wont bring it up here. I was involved in a discussion about the inspiration and validity of the Grail Message with m_nwankwo a while back. I did not continue that discussion when it appeared that we weren't making any headway, perhaps I'd revisit that thread.
Beyond that, I do not believe that one cannot have a discussion about the Grail Message unless one has read it. Certainly it would help but I don't think its a prerequisite. I would really love to read the book but I've tried to obtain it from libraries and have been unsucessful.

All that said:

I have read the bible very well and I know that even scripturally(biblically) the concept of the "crucification of Jesus" or the "physical blood of Jesus" as salvation does not completely agree with the scripture. with this thread I challenge bible readers to prove me wrong. There are other Christian sects that don't believe that the forgiveness of sins is only brought about by faith and the physical blood of Jesus. The catholics believe that forgiveness of sins comes by the sacrament of penance(confession)--I personally don't agree with this.

Now to discussing the bible which is what you want; ignoring at the moment the other christian sects, you have not shown how the crucifixion of Jesus or the blood of Jesus as bringing about redemption is at odds with scripture. The scriptures you quoted in your original post have been addressed. Syrup has addressed the biblical doctrines as regards the blood of Jesus. So,

Can you show us how you arrived at your conclusion?
In so doing can you avoid reading into the scriptures what they do not teach?
Can you accept the totality of scripture for what it teaches?

Best wishes in your exams. Cheers.

Hi @ seeklove,
thanks for your very polite rejoinder and thanks to justcool for mediating that.
i do not wish to continue to address fallouts from the advice i gave to feelgood. I made my reference to the grail message with no ill intent and i certainly did not expect anyone to take offense. Sincerely I was suprised at the tone of response I got. Consequently, I've apologized for making a reference to the grail message in my advice to him.

Likewise i do not want to engage in semantics as regards what does or does not constitute a critique. The word criticize in my usage merely refers to 'finding fault with'. I sincerely do not have a problem with anyone finding fault with the contents of the bible. Even I, who profess to be a christian, have found fault with some renditions in certain translations of the bible. Thus I wasn't accusing justcool of something that I deem a very grave offense, I was only asking him to extend the same degree of scrutiny that he employs when addressing the bible with his own religious text. That does not constitute 'retaliation', rather IMO that's being fair.

Furthermore, I do not take biblical criticism personal (that does not mean I take what I believe to be the Word of God lightly). If it appeared so from my post, it was unintended. Although I know you're only giving an example, I do not agree that Jehovah's witnesses do not find fault with (in order words, criticize) other bible translations other than their own New World translation. I've had discussions with JW's in the past, and they definitely do find fault with the NIV which I use most of the time.

I hope that addresses your concerns. I hope we can have a calmer discussion henceforth. Cheers.

justcool:

@ricadelide
Forgiven.
My dear brother, my Lord Jesus taught us to forgive in-order to be forgiven. Rest assured I have completely forgiven you and I never held malice for you in the first place. I didn't intend to put you in the offensive in my earlier post, but only wished to let you know:
1) If am wrong or if you don't agree with me don't bring The Grail Message into it.
2) Before you criticize the Book, read it and base your criticism on what you read not what others say. Maybe my opinion is not even in accord with the Grail Message.

Sorry, I had clicked on the earlier post before I saw this.
I had been trying to understand my offense up till this post and the heated responses didn't help matters. Thanks a bunch for clarifying.

From your post, in other words, my merely referencing The Grail Message is wrong? That really concerns me, because I do not know how one can have a valid discussion if we cannot examine the underlying flaws in each of our references. You guys most certainly mention lot of perceived flaws in the bible.
Another issue of concern is: If I pick up The Grail Message and then read it in its entirety, can I then validly criticize what I've read? Or is there no basis at all for criticsm?
Cheers and thanks again for the clarification.

Hi @ seeklove,
In order not to be rude I wont ignore your post. However I wont humor you either. Pardon my sarcasm; they seem to work when all else fails.

How can you tell what feelgood saw and what he did not. Are you God? Are you a mind reader?

The first question: NO. The second question: I can't tell you; perhaps

This is very uncivilised of you and the fact that you defend your bad actions speaks volume of you.

Now I'm curious, what bad actions exactly?

We all know what you implied by your advice,

Finally. I'm not the only mind-reader.

If you havent read the book how can you disagree with it's contents?

Frankly i was expecting this question. I could have
- read the cover
- read the table of contents
- read a few pages and not the whole book
- read an abridged version

if not that you are biased

guilty as charged. I never thought being biased was an offense. Certainly you cannot claim to be guiltless in this regard.

Believe me you are terible liar.

Now you take the discussion to a whole new level. Kudos.

Where in this post did justcool diagree with the containts of the bible

Interesting. Did you read my post at all?

Just because he has a different interpretation doent make him disagree. How do you know your own view is correct.

Finally, you make an argument.
Not necessarily but a different interpretation sometimes results from a disagreement with that which was stated. Let me give you an example. The bible says Jesus turned water into wine. Justcool does not accept that it is possible for water to be turned into wine. Thus he disagrees with that statement as recorded in the bible. Of necessity, that would lead to a different interpretation of the miracle Jesus did at Cana.
That he inteprets it differently does not negate the fact that he disagrees with the recorded accounts of the bible.

Please show me in this thread where just cool criticized the bible

Perhaps our definitions of criticsms differ. If I pick up a book and allege that there are contradictions and inconsistencies I of necessity become a critic. Critique does not necessarily connote something negative although often times it does. By alleging that the teachings of Paul (justification by faith alone) disagree with the teachings of Christ, he has made himself a biblical critic. And sincerely, I have no problems with that.

Why do you bear false witness against your neighbor?

Now read that statement again and see if you're not doing the exact same thing you accuse me of.

You are trying to make Christians against him.

Excellent mind-reading skills. You're obviously better at this than I am.

Wel, I am a Christain too and it is people like you who give us a bad name.

Interesting. I assume you are a christian, a muslim, a buddhist and everything. Everything but a crossbearer. It did not take me long to go through all your posts to discover the vericitiy of your claims.
Anyways, that said, the term "christian" is used very arbitrarily these days. However, I do not consider it possible to be a "christian" and a "crossbearer" all at once.

Just because he is a folower of GM does not make him the devil.

Here you reach a climax. By disagreeing with him I've made him out to be the devil. Interesting indeed.


Anyways, you guys REALLY need to chill out a little bit. I know I've pulled your legs very hard but its so that you can mellow down. There's really no need for unnecessary agitation and taking offense. Cheers.

@justcool
Please just cool down
Perhaps I was too forward. I know feelgood (at least we've had interactions on this motherboard in the past) and i know that if he had read the last paragraph of your post, there's no way he'd agree with you, except i'm strongly mistaken. Syrup corroborated that notion in her post, so there's no harm there. My mention of your being a "follower of the GM" was peripheral, what I was mainly interested in was the essential nullification of Christs's work in your post. I did not advice feelgood based on the fact that you are a "follower of the grail message" I did so based on what you said about what Christ did. You can read your last paragraph if you so please. If you were a christian, there is no way you would have written that last paragraph, that's why i mentioned the grail message. However, If my offence was shortening the grail message to GM, i apologize.

However that said,

1) What is the GM?
2) Have you read The Grail Message? (If by the "GM" you mean The Grail Message)
3) Why do you fight against the "GM"?
4) Why judge the "GM" based on my opinion?

1. Grail message
2. No
3. I don't fight against the grail message; i disagree with its contents, just in the same way you disagree with the contents of the bible. No harm done.
4. I'm sorry if you think I did that - i judged it based on the bible, NOT on what you said.

In my post I did not mention the "GM" but I raised an issue to be discussed, Why can't we let facts speak against facts? Why must we make up our minds based on our bias for the source. Gold is Gold irrespective where it's gotten.

You did not bring up the grail message but you did bring up the bible. Why can't you hold yourself to the same standard you demand? If one cannot criticize or find fault with the grail message then what makes you think you can criticize the bible? I had no problem with what you said about the teachings of Christ, that's why i took the time to respond to the issues you raised. I see no reason why you refuse to do likewise. Except of course you assume that I have no grounds for disagreeing with the grail message.

Also to clarify somethings for you: There is nothing like a follower of the Grail Message. The Grail Message speaks the TRUTH, and whoever follows IT follows the TRUTH. The Grail massage is not a religion neither did it bring any religion. Research me on me and you will find out that I don't belong to any organization.

Ok I hear. I wont drag that too much. However, I disagree that the grail message speaks the TRUTH and i think there is every reason to debate that notion. Thus it would be absurd of me to say "him being a follower of the truth" when i disagree that the grail message IS the Truth. Sincerely I wouldn't have taken offence if you called me a 'follower of the bible'.
Cheers .

m_nwankwo:

Very confident

Interestingly, just over a century ago peer-reviewed consensus in geology (although the field was still relatively young at that time) was that the earth was millions of years old. Within less than two hundred years, that consensus has grown by a thousand-fold.
If the principle of uniformitarianism and others which form the basis for geology are not true (and which unfortunately cannot be proven either way, being in the past) that figure could be drastically different from what the present consensus is. 'Confidence' IMHO is not a term one should readily recurse to if one's underlying principles and assumptions aren't known for certain.
Cheers.

syrup:

However, it would be a graver mistake to assume that the fundamental doctrines the NT are flawed - for the one who says he or she knows by experience that the Bllod of Christ cleanses from sin is not stating a personal experience as doctrine; rather, they are stating the reality of the doctrine as the outworking they have come to experience.

I think this sums up the problems adherents of the grail message have with the bible. They believe that the teachings of Abd-rushin constitute truth, we believe that the teachings of Christ and indeed Christ Himself is Truth. With us it is what he began to DO and to TEACH. And while they may make a provision for some of the teachings of Christ, they fail to acknowledge the work of reconciliation that Christ Himself brought about as embodied in his death, burial, ressurection and ascension. However, the people who have experienced the outworking of Christ's work in their lives can attest to the power of the gospel to save.
Cheers.

It is my opinion that the only thing that can save us is by living according to the words of Jesus (laws of God) irrespective of our religious orientation. We should work on ourselves in-order to overcome all our faults and become righteous, only this will make us justified. Faith alone will not justify us and we will never be freed or above the laws of God which Jesus Himself was subjected to. The law is unchangeable and we must all live in it, i.e. the law of reciprocal action, (what a man sows, so shall he reap). This is the law of God and we can never be above it. Faith alone does not justify us because we must reap what we have sown in the past. But genuine repentance can bring us forgiveness which does not mean that we have been placed above the laws. The crucification of Jesus did not bring us salvation; only by living according to His words shall we be saved. Jesus brought us salvation in His words, which is the grace that God gave us.

This is how I see it. Please shear your own opinion.

Where the grail message falls short and ultimately fails is in its inability to understand the nature of man and the requirement of God. If you understood the nature of man, you would understand that the “the heart is deceitful above all things” and “all our righteousness is like filthy rags”. You would also understand that there is no remedy for man that can come from the man himself – it has to be from God for no man is sinless. Furthermore, the righteous judgment of God requires that “the soul that sins must die”. What all these add up to is the basis for what Christ did on the cross.

Your statement; “living according to the words of Jesus irrespective of religious orientation” is faulty. Yes, Jesus spoke words. However, you miss the whole purpose of Christ. If the reason Jesus came was merely to bring words for us men to live by, then his coming was irrelevant as there was already a number of words and admonitions given to the people by Moses. Jesus did not come merely to give us commandments, he came to give us HIMSELF because He is the only One that can and has met God’s requirement. The Words Jesus spoke are the basis of our faith and the means of our inclusion in Him via his ultimate sacrifice on the cross. However, without believing in Him and receiving Him, the words would be useless to us because we would be powerless to live by them. That’s why John explains: “to as many as received HIM he gave power to become SONS of God” Jesus showed by His words the inadequacy of legalism, that is why the Pharisees who were outwardly ‘righteous’ had a problem with Him.

Furthermore, your statement: “we should work on ourselves” is totally baseless in Christianity and in Truth; there is no amount of working on oneself that a man can do in order to gain the approval of God. Even if the man was successful in obeying all of God’s laws, it would still be inadequate because the nature of the man remains unchanged. Furthermore, such a man would have a basis for boasting before God, which ultimately negates the essence of our dependence of God for salvation. That in essence was the inadequacy of the Old Testament.

The purpose of the Law and laws is to make us conscious of our sinful nature so that we can trust God for deliverance. Obeying the law can never make one righteous because the nature of man remains unchanged. It is only via the Cross that we can partake of the new nature of Christ and by the Spirit meet the righteous requirements of the law. The distinctions are very clear:
Do you depend on yourself or do you depend on God?
Do you work in order to attain your own righteousness or do you accept the free gift of righteousness from God by faith and then work on that basis?
Cheers .

“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20)
Here according to the gospel, Jesus made it clear unless we are very righteous, we will not enter the kingdom of God. Thus, in my own interpretation-- unless we are without sin, we cannot make it to paradise.

Again, no sir, that's not what Jesus referred to in this verse although your latter interpretation is not opposed to scripture. Here He describes two kinds of righteousness; the righteousness of the Pharisees, which is a 'righteousness' that comes by obeying the law and another kind of righteousness. Paul differentiates them well in his writings;
Romans 3:21
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify
And again Rom. 10:3
Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness

Effectively, Jesus describes that kind of righteousness which Paul refers to in Philippians as legalistic righteousness (Phil 3;6 NIV) as being insufficient and inadequate for entering into the kingdom of God. Elsewhere the bible calls it ‘filthy rags’. That is why when the Pharisee Nicodemus came to see Jesus to inquire about the way of salvation, Jesus told him:
John 3:14-15
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life

"But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." (James 1:22)
Here we are told to be doers(workers) of the word and not only hearers. Thus we need to work on ourselves; we need to adjust all our thoughts, words and action to the word of the Lord, and not by faith alone.

Here again you keep misunderstanding God’s word. What do you think is the basis of/for faith? Is it not the word of God?
Rom 10.14
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
Eph1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit
Faith simply involves reckoning what God has spoken to be true and then ACTING on it. True faith is not isolated from practice; the only way you can show you have faith is by obeying what you have believed in faith. That is why the same James later in that chapter distinguished between true faith and mere mental assent. (see James 2:14-28 earlier mentioned by feelgood). However, the difference between Christianity and all other religions is that WE are not the source of our righteousness; CHRIST is our righteousness. We have received this as a free GIFT and as a result we have no reason to boast but to rejoice in the Lord’s mercy.

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (11) For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. (12) So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. (13) For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment." (James 2:10-13)

Here we are told that we need to keep all the laws, thus we are not freed from the law by faith alone.

Your conclusion is yet again wrong because you’ve dabbled into things you probably don’t understand. I won’t go into too much detail here. The righteous requirements of the law stand, but like I said earlier, the real question is “how do we meet that requirement?” James here talked about the “law of liberty”. That is different from the Mosaic Law which leads to death. The law of the Spirit gives us freedom and it is on that basis that we would be judged.

Hi @ justcool,
I decided to take the time to reply to your post in detail. I had already typed this out before further posts after mine were made. In your OP, you have grossly misunderstood and mischaracterized a lot of doctrines taught in the bible; whilst raising a number of issues all at once. Thus it’s not a surprise that you’ve not gotten a lot of detailed responses.

justcool:

So many Christians today teach that the way to salvation is by Faith alone. That by having faith in Jesus and accepting Jesus as one’s Lord and personal savior one is saved. They go further to say that sin must continue, that man can never be sinless, and that by being born again, they are justified before God.

Sincerely I don’t know which Christian ever taught that "sin must continue". If there are, that is very unfortunate as that must be one of the greatest distortions of biblical truth. The scriptures are very clear:
IJn 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.

They say that the laws are no longer applicable to them because they now live in the grace of God. They teach that Jesus, by his crucification had paid for all their sins and that one only need to believe and have faith in-order to be saved.
But is this doctrine of justification by faith alone in accord with Jesus’s teachings? Even in the bible there are verses that are contrary to this doctrine of justification by faith alone.

Jesus words did not disagree with the doctrine of justification by faith. If you understand what true faith is, you would know that true faith is not isolated from practice. True faith is made manifest in practice; however, at the root of that work lies faith.

Let us look at a few verses:
"You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is Perfect." (Matt 5:48)
Here according to the gospel writer, Jesus urges us to strive to be righteous (perfect) because our Father is perfect.

You really don't need to try to change the word of God because it is correct as it is. The bible (and certainly Jesus) NEVER said we should "strive to be righteous". They are two different words. The Greek word for perfect there refers to completeness or maturity NOT righteousness.
That said, the question is not IF we should be perfect, or since you're interested in talking about righteousness, IF we should be righteous. That's a given; the real issue is HOW do we attain righteousness. On what basis are we made righteous? The answer to that question is what makes being a Christian different from any other religious profession. I’d get into that later.

feelgood:

Couldnt agree more with your post dear justcool. See James 2:17-20; Romans 6
I do enjoy your posts.

Hi @ feelgood,
I think you missed the main thrust of justcool's post, otherwise you wouldn't have agreed with him (at least IMO), him being a follower of the GM.
Perhaps you should look at his last paragraph; that is definitely another gospel (see Galatians).
Cheers.

And how exactly does a donkey speaking a human language contradict the nature of God (and not the nature of the donkey)?

Is it beyond the reach of the nature and/or power of God to change the nature of his creations if only momentarily?

NB - I'm saying this assuming that you acknowledge a difference between the nature of God and the nature of his creation(s). Otherwise there's a whole new discussion entirely.

doyin13:

It would be ironic if in this most torrid of years for him, he should finally get a title at Roland Garros

my thoughts exactly. He's hired Higueras, seems really intent on breaking the clay jinx and has really improved with time, esp after his match with Nalbandian.
However, king Nadal doesn't seem to be losing any steam. We'll keep our eyes open, fingers crossed.

4 Him:

Interesting, the world's top 4 seeds will make it through to the semi final. Anyone have an idea when this has happened before?

Cincinatti masters, 1999. Sampras, Rafter, Agassi, Kafelnikov.

bawomol:

Any being that can fit into your finite intelligence is not the Infinite God. Mark my words.

i'm sorry, then how are u able to worship and comprehend the existence of a God that is infinite. how do u understand the commands of the unknown and unseen?? on one hand, theists have every explanation for God, omnipotent, omnipresence blah blah blah but they somehow claim infinity when they have no answers for simple questions.

Let me just chip in something here.
I hope you understand that omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibelevolence etcetera are in themselves infinite descriptors of God. Omnibenevolence as a term would entail infinite descriptors to describe what it fully connotes. Thus having a term or a description for an aspect of God that he has chosen to reveal about himself does not in itself confine God to the realm of finite knowledge.
The little theists claim to know about God confounds them; and that little they comprehend is sufficient for worship - because the little is beyond their finite understanding. Theists do not have nor have they claimed to have "every explanation for" God. Paul said "I know in part". Elsewhere he said "no one knows the thoughts of God except the spirit of God".
The fact that God transcends finite knowledge explains in part why no independent search of God by man is fruitful. That which is known by man is only a product of that which God chooses to reveal of Himself. Thus, theists are not to blame for the fact that science cannot "find" God. Those who have not sought God via the independent route have indeed found Him.
Cheers .

Good job Pilgrim and Dafidixone. Good job with the quizzes as well. Remain the blessings that you are

@Alphazee,
let me just give a brief summary to your questions before I go off to school. Perhaps pilgrim would give an explanation of the chronology of the ressurection events later on.

Alphazee:

A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

Pilgrim has already put forth a detailed explanation for the seeming contradiction. The explanation I had in mind was simply this: are we talking about when they left or when they arrived? In my NIV version the verb for departure in John 20:1 is rendered as 'went'. Likewise in Matthew and Luke (which can both be easily reconciled) NIV records the event as "went". However, Mark  which talked about when "they were on their way" is the one which mentions "after sunrise". So it is very plausible that they women left at dawn, when it was still dark and the sun rose while they were on their way.

B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

Careful there!   John NEVER said Mary Magdalene was alone. True, John, focussed on Mary (simply because she was the first to see the ressurected Lord) the verse actually gives clues as to the fact that she was probably not alone. In verse 2 she says to Peter "they have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and WE do not know where they have laid him" Note that she said WE there, not I (contrary to verse 18 where she says I), implying that she went with others but did not enter the tomb and left the others there.
So, while some of the accounts mention Mary or mention Mary and a few others, the simple answer is that the women came and that included at least Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Jesus, Salome, Joanna and probably with a few others.

C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

Again, careful! Matthew never said that the tomb was closed when the women arrived. Rather, it was closed when the angels arrived. Matthew alone recorded an event that happened while the women were on their way and by the time the women got there, Matthew 28: 2-4 had already taken place. This can easily be gleaned from the other accounts.

D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)

I'm happy you didn't use the word "only" here. They saw two angels. All through the bible we do see angels appear to people sometimes as men. There is no confusion there. Likewise, Mark and Matthew focussed on one of the angels, they never said there was ONLY ONE angel. The fact that there were two was clarified by Luke and John.

E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

This is really inconsequential. They could be outside one minute and go inside the next. However, like I explained earlier, Matt. 28:2-4 talks about a different thing than the rest, it talks about the arrival of the angels and the encounter the guards had with them, after this, they went inside as is obvious from the other accounts.

F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

Again, no offence but this is really of no consequence. There are two easy explanations that come to mind. First, Luke didn't say 'standing', it says 'stood'. There's a difference. Stood as a verb could imply that they were sitting and then stood.
However, the explanation I'm more in agreement with simply has to do with the Greek word "epihistemi" that was translated as "stood before". It can also easily be translated as "to appear before". It is the same word used in Acts 12:7, NASB rendered it there as "suddenly appeared", NIV as "appeared". So you see, quite easily, that account can be rendered as "appeared to" them. This is more obvious when you consider that the angels DID NOT appear to Peter and John in John 20 when they looked into the tomb, even though the "appeared to" Mary when she looked moments later.

G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).

Again, careful. Was Mary Magdalene with the other women when the other women left the tomb? A lot of things had happened between Matt. 28:1 and Matt. 28:9. Verse 9 did not specifically mention Mary, it only mentions "the women". Are Matthew and John referring to the very same events?
From John 20: 1-2, we can infer that she left the others at the tomb and went to inform the disciples.
Furthermore, John 20:18 where Mary said I rather than WE let's us know that she was not with other women when the Lord appeared to her.
Beyond that, shortly before Mary saw Jesus, she was crying (see John 20:11 and 15) - on the other hand, shortly before the women saw Jesus (see Matt. 28:8 ) they were "filled with joy". In fact, one can assume that it was because she was weeping that she did not initially recognize Jesus.
Yet again, the women "hurried away from" (Matt. 28:8 ) the tomb after they saw the angels whearas Mary "stood (or remained) outside the tomb" (John 20:11) - the contrast could not be clearer.
Thus, obviously, Matthew and John aren't referring to the exact same events. Mary was most likely NOT with the women when the women saw the Lord in Matthew 28. And the event in John happened before the event in Matt. 28, as can be inferred from Mk. 16:9.

Hope that helped. Please try not to find out about the bible from skeptic and atheist websites and do try to engage in careful study yourself. Like Pilgrim said, see those 'seeming discrepancies' as challenges that you can take to the Lord in study and prayer. Cheers

Obviously, goodguy is speaking from personal experience (I saw another statement you made elsewhere). What extenuating circumstances (or is it notions), if I may ask, brought about this sudden change (or was it gradual) in your case?

Methinks, your clarification though is more to the line of what David and Pilgrim have argued: things seemed genuine, in other words, you touched an appearance of reality rather than the very real thing itself.

If there is any place where one can be in the midst of reality and still not be influenced by it, that place is christianity - and that is because the individual has to make a personal effort, but many of us just assume that it is sufficient to get carried along or sustained by the group, whearas when circumstances (and thoughts) get really difficult, such group sustainance, fails to prove sufficient. It is what is IN you which matters at those times, not necessarily what is AROUND you.

Cheers

minto:

workers' strike, fuel gas scarcity or something?

Lol . . . no be naija I dey .  Just a day I decided not to plan any experiments (work) for that's all.

@pilgrim,

I'm persuaded that Genesis 1 v 1 declares the creation; while verse 2 highlights another epoch.

Sis I'm curious. By 'another epoch' do you mean with a time gap between, and/or a re-creation, or something like what Dake (I assume you are aware of the man) advocat[b]ed[/b]? (he's late) For you to say you're persuaded I guess you must have looked at both sides and chose one over the other.

I'm presently of a contrary opinion and would love to learn from you. Cheers .

@pilgrim,

pilgrim.1:

I wan shout "oga" jus now when I see sintin wey make me hold on:

Good that I said something to place a hold on the 'titulation'

Shéy na our people you wan take make yeye?

No vex. It [b]h[/b]is not [b]h[/b]our fault. I [b]a[/b]ve [b]e[/b]ard [b]h[/b]our people speak like that [b]h[/b]everytime .

Okay. . . forgiven! Now I can smile!

Obviously, you will have to forgive again. Still no dissing.

Hope you're enjoying your weekend sha? No work today at my end. Cheers .

_{sorry guys, about to re-run from thread}

pilgrim.1:

Infact sef, when I saw the ID and the special effect. . I submit fast!

Lol , na real "special effect"

Lol this your new name wey be like Islamic transliteration of your name so, they don convert you?

_{runs from thread}

skyone:

We are already too many going to Heaven to meet GOD, JESUS AND THE ANGELS so you are absolutely free to believe in stone, plants or Fish. Goodluck

Lol . . . bros, the second part of your statement is allowed; but that first part isn't biblically justified. There aren't too many people going to heaven,
Matt. 7:14
But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it

Beyond that, even if the whole world were to be saved, God would gladly welcome anyone and everyone provided they have 'washed their robes in the blood of the lamb'. The caveat is that Baba won't lower his standards.
2Pet. 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

You don see am bros? God wants EVERYONE to be saved. Cheers

Tayo-D:

The sick are getting ill? I absolutely want none of that!!!!

LOL . . . . I guess he meant "healed". As diametrically opposite as they are, they kind of sound alike, ill and heal, especially if you're from Yoruba land where the leading 'H' can be dispensed at will (no dissing, but still smiling sha)

I'm guessing by this quote skyone:

skyone:

Also through the ministry he head, he has imparted and redeemed the life of billions in an acceptable way of the Lord

you meant millions; there are barely (if not less than) two billion christians in the whole world and more than half of them aren't even aware of a Pastor Adeboye, except you're alluding to his influence (on them) in the place of prayer.

Cheers

@KAG,

KAG:

Hey, how are you doing?

Very good actually. Hope you're good as well.

We are all searching. Some are just more frank about it than others.

Lol . . . is it about their searching or about what they've found? Heck, what's the purpose of an endless search? There has to be some joy not just in the searching but in the finding as well. And if I may say, some of us are quite frank about what we have found (not that we aint searching for more finds though). However, there's no compulsion (for others) to take our word for it, and sometimes, we can't prove our finds sufficiently over the net.

Re-reading meself: why do i get this feeling that i seemed to place some mumbo up there
Anyways, back to the topic (or side-topic),

Now for a needed DISCLAIMER: @ OP, THIS IS NOT A DIVERSION, at least that's not the intent, its just a point of correction, and my emphasis is particularly on the bible and the God of the bible NOT on evolution

When you (KAG) said this:

Many theistic evolutionists, particularly the Christian ones, do believe that evolution was chosen as the method of creation by some deity or the other.

I let it pass, 'because it seemed to be a deviation of the topic, and since you mentioned "some diety or the other" I took it that you didn't really intend to have previously said "particularly the Christian ones"; obviously there's some contradiction in there. Except you just meant their being "Christian" only in the nominal sense.

However, this statement:

In any case, like I mentioned, many theistic evolutionists, including thos of the Christian variety, believe that evolution was the chosen method for their deity's creation of species.

AND:

To keep with the theme of the thread though, Christians that believe God is/was responsible for it all, believe, he started the process and is letting it run its course.

Now this got me going, because since you decried someone else of ignorance, I think you have not been fair in that regard. While Cgift might have better qualified his statement by restricting it to the Judeo-Christian God, the fact still remains and I seriously wish you'd consider.

Looking at it, which is really ignorant, 'Christians' who read the bible and realize (albeit with some concern for some; who knows) that a cursory reading does not support nor allow for the main themes that characterize yet again a cursory reading of the TOE, or those who with some high degree of intellectual dishonesty, try to reconcile two ends that can never meet? In a very odd way, this kind of assertion reminds me of that weird "atheist Christian" thread and notion.

I'm sure at this point you'd be bracing up to argue that they are not "biblical literalists" but rather take the bible figuratively. That might account for why they'd dismiss the literal biblical account where the flying creatures (birds et al) came BEFORE (at least one day before) reptiles as opposed to the reverse by the TOE. It would account for a dismissal of the earth's creation BEFORE the sun, moon, stars et al, again in CLEAR contradiction to the TOE, the water bodies being created before the land, yet again, as opposed to the reverse propounded by the TOE - I could go on and on. I guess those clear contradictions aren't obvious enough for one to make a categorical statement of an impossibility to reconcile both.

To such assertions (of non-literalness), my question then would be do such people actually accept anything at all as being literal in the bible? Is the WHOLE of the bible merely figurative? Where my concern grows is where it relates to the theme that runs throughout christianity and ties the whole (from Genesis to Revelations) together. I'm talking about death. I'm talking about man. And I'm talking about sin. In other words, in all that dismissal of "literalness" I wonder how such a one would not have dismissed Christianity as a whole and the message of Christ's death on the cross. The whole point of Christianity is that man sinned and death came as a RESULT OF man's sin. This event was so serious that God Himself had to send His Son to DIE as a sort of payment for that sin. How, if I may ask, would one reconcile that with the TOE, where man's coming unto the scene is as a consequence of long-existing death(s), rather than a harbinger thereof? How do TE's profess a Judeo-Christian God who, on the one hand, causes (or is it allows) the animals to die and perish, yet on the other hand, let's man know that the consequence of his own action is the death (that was to have existed before he came)? Isn't it a tad redundant, if not plain foolish, for Jesus to come down from heaven to remedy man's sin and the allegedly consequent death when the very said mechanism of death and survival was his means of creating the said man?

Furthermore, what sort of a God uses a merciless means such as struggle, death, survival of the fittest, and 99.9% non-beneficial mutations as his means of creation and at the end of the day have the audacity to call it "very good"? Is there anything "godly" about the TOE, I'm talking about the process that has been advocated as the mechanism, NOT the beautiful claimed result that we see on the "PLANET EARTH" series I saw last year on Discovery Channel. My arguement isn't that there are no bad things (evil, death etc) in the world, it is AGAINST the notion that such could ever have constituted a mechanism of creation by THE Judeo-Christian God whom we know in (our) experience, furthermore clarified by a written documentation. Political correctness may be desirable for some. However, intellectual honesty is better. Some other 'gods' and some other religions might allow for such inclusions, however, count the Judeo-Christian God out. The mere existence of any such book called 'the bible' precludes any claimed adherent from sneaking in another account of creation, not to talk of one as diametrically opposed to the whole theme of christianity as evolution.

Anybody has the right to believe whatever they want. Theistic evolutionists can believe whatever they like. I can believe that 2 + 2 is equal to 3; perhaps a three year old would take me seriously. In the case of so-called 'christian' TE's, neither true christians nor evolutionists ought to take them seriously. Like cgift said, it is a fraud and, might I add, a high degree of intellectual dishonesty to claim that the Judeo-Christian God CAN or DID make use of the TOE as his "mechanism of creation". I'm aware that many Christians who haven't really considered the issue in-depth could be shaky, I believe to a certain level Rom. 3:4 is apt and sufficient, a more detailed study of both claims and an examination of the evidence (if one is so priviledged) would however IMO be better.

Cheers .

DISCLAIMER #2: again, I'm sorry if some might see this as a diversion - I kind of think it is related in a way. And If you think otherwise, I'm sorry. I won't drag the issue beyond this. Cheers all.

Hi Kag,

KAG:

Neither.

Lol . . . how're you doing? Been a while _{even nferyn seems to be MIA}

I can see your search still continues. Hmmn, hopefully one day, one very day . . . .

Cheers

_{Had to greet an e-friend, back to topic}

Now this tournament wasn't so bad after all. Tsonga does it in two, three and two. It definitely was worth waking up in the mid-morning.

Nadal can work on getting his game up on hardcourts with the other guys.

Now, is Djoko gonna be able to do that against FedEx?

finally, its over. Hewitt wins.