@ishmael,

No offences.

Tara!

@Bobbyaf,

Appreciate yous again, and here are my concerns:

Bobbyaf:

The length of the period will be determined by the length of the punishment that each individual will experience. As Jesus alluded to that some will be beaten by many stripes, while others by a few stripes. That is why I am concluding that the phrase "forever and ever" was never meant to be seen as an eternal torment for the wicked.

Right. When you carefully read that text in Luke 12:47-48, would you apply that to the judgement that takes place "for ever and ever" in Rev. 20:10? Are Satan and his rebels to be 'beaten' with few or many stripes in contrast to what the Lord meant by the judgement where people shall be cast into the place 'prepared for the devil and his angels' (Matt. 25:41)?

Bobbyaf:

Let me give you an example as to how mis-translations, and mis-punctuations can pose serious problems with regards to how one understands what is being communicated, and especially if we confine ourselves to the KJV, or others.

In Luke 23:43 we read: 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

From the above it seems to suggest that the very same day the thief went to paradise, doesn't it? The problem lies with how the translators punctuated the sentences.

As you might be aware the original writings of the NT had no punctuation marks. Most phrases, expressions be they idiomatic, or literal, and words ran alongside each other without any separation. Punctuation and versing techniques entered the original texts or manuscripts very much later on.

Now lets take a look at the above verse re-stated without punctuation marks. 43 And Jesus said unto him Verily I say unto thee Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It is believed that those persons who later punctuated the NT texts in some instances, displayed their biases towards their particular beliefs, leading to the now erroneous belief that as soon as a christian dies he goes to heaven, and that the wicked goes to hell upn death. One only needs to attend the funeral sessions of most preachers in certain denoms and you'll see the point being made.

The phrase should be like this in keeping with what is known to take place after death. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

And how does your own biased punctuated translation reflect the actual sense of what the Lord meant? Let us assume that the contruct stands as you offered: does it sound intelligent enough to polish your own idea? Absolutely not.

Any honest treatment of that verse has to be that the Lord meant it as 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise'; rather than the other way round, "Today, verily I say unto thee. ." He meant that the event would take place that very day; rather than that He was speaking on that day. He was emphasizing the event rather than His speech. Three reasons strengthen this clearly:

#1. the thief knew that he was being spoken to that very day, and not on another day; so the emphatic word 'Today' applies to the last clause of the sentence, and not to the preceding clause.

#2. when you read the same word 'Today' (or, 'to day') in the Gospel of Luke, you'll see how the Lord used it in reference to His activity, rather than merely to His speaking.

Luke 13:32 - "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Luke 19:5 - "And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house."

#3. whenever the Lord wanted to emphasis anything in His speech by the clause "Verily I say unto thee," He most often did not add the word "Today". Why would Luke 23:43 be give a different and far-feteched rule of Greek grammar as in your supposed interpretation? If the Lord made reference to a distant date with regards to issues of the future, He stated it clearly in unmistakable terms:

Luke 10:12 - "But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city."

Matt. 19:28 - "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Matt. 26:34 - "Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

The underlined clauses indicate that the connection of the time/period was to the events in the Lord's speech.

Bobbyaf:

In other words Jesus was simply saying that " I am telling you this day, today, that you will be with me in paradise.

Hardly the sense at all, as shown above. Remove the punctuations and see your own bias - the very same bias you decried in the translations of the Bible.

Just to amuse us a little, let me reference several of them here from those who have a deeper grasp of the Greek construct than you and I could claim here on the internet (please notice the punctuations):

(A[/b]nalytical [b]L[/b]iteral [b]T[/b]ranslation) - And Jesus said to him, "Positively, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

(Amplified) - "And He answered him, Truly I tell you[b], today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

(C[/b]ontemporary [b]E[/b]nglish [b]V[/b]ersion) - Jesus replied, "I promise that today you will be with me in paradise."

(Darby) - And Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee[b], To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

(D[/b]ouay [b]R[/b]heims) - And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee: This day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

(Holman Christian Standard Bible, [b]HCSB) - 'And He said to him, "I assure you: Today you will be with Me in paradise"'

(Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, LITV) - And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you[b],[/b] Today you will be with Me in Paradise.

(NET) - "And Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

(YLT) - "and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.' "

Bobbyaf:

We all know that Jesus didn't go to heaven until after He was resurrected, which was on the third day of His death.

That does not take away from the fact of the statement Jesus made to the penitent man on the Cross in Luke 23:34. Besides, the paradise spoken of in that verse does not exactly represent the very same place where Jesus later ascended and was glorified. He ascended into heaven, no doubt; but where exactly do you suppose that pointed to?

Bobbyaf:

This is just one of the reasons why we need to bear in mind these sorts of nuances that present themselves from time to time. We cannot take for granted that because its a famous version of the bible that all is good and dandy.

It does not appear that you have carefully examined the 'nuances' and applied them. But I agree with you that Biblical truth is not conveyed on the premise that a particular version is acclaimed to be famous or popular.

Bobbyaf:

The same mistake was made with the translation "forever and ever" It was made out to be something it was never meant to be.

And my question hasn't been answered until now. Here again:

If we have to pander to your persuasion otherwise of the phrase meaning "from ages unto the ages", then this is how Revelation 20:10 will read ~~ they "shall be tormented day and night from ages unto the ages" Now, how long is the time period "from ages unto the ages" that the torment would last?

@nferyn,

As earlier, I'm actually not given to recycled and protracted arguments for the sake of it; but for the present would oblige you this once.

nferyn:

Your reply actually strengthens the point I intended to make.

Not one bit.

nferyn:

When you talk about your personal [/u]experience of healing as a manifestation and evidence of the holy spirit, you actually use anecdote and assertion (e.g. that experience is a manifestation of the holy spirit) to make your point. It does absolutely nothing to substantiate the validity of your worldview. Only normalised data, either coming from controlled experiments or from rigorous statistical analysis can do such a thing.

This gentleman does not even know the rubrics of a good argument. Why should experience be ruled out of the question of this debate? Whether controlled or otherwise, I have offered you the same challenge to go out and apply the same rule you devise and obtain the same results. Then, and only then, can you have a genuine basis for a good argument; in which case, it no longer becomes my personal experience - but yours as well.

Your attempt to contrain issues of this sort to only normalised data is naive. How many experiences in life have you applied such data to predict 'rigorous statistical analysis' with the same results every single time??

nferyn:

In other words, I first need to accept the validity of your holy spirit before we can discuss it's validity or what it actually means? Isn't that a wee bit circular?

No; if at all it may be, then it weighs heavily against your arguments. You are trying to subject terms associated with spirituality to the constrained vocabulary of naturalism. If you cannot accept the definitions used in issues outside naturalism, then you have no justification for rejecting outright what you neither have experienced nor can explicate.

nferyn:

They map the spiritual experiences they have to the interpretative framework they know: a Christian may call it holy spirit, a Buddhist will call it something else. To validate your interpretation over others, the very validity of your conceptual framework needs to be established first. If not the whole discussion is only semantics

Your semantics is rather circular. Do naturalists not do the very same thing that you fail to appreciate in other worldviews - 'map their experiences to the very interpretative framework they know'? Buddists do not speak of the Holy Spirit by another nomenclature, because it is not in their theology in the frst place. To interject this allusion is not providing an open, honest basis for discussion.

nferyn:

I do find a lot of doctrinary differences between these religions. I don't see any fundamental difference in the spiritual experiences of their practitioners, though.

There are indeed differences in spiritual experiences, as well as doctrinal, philosophical and cultural leanings in all religions. One cannot equate them with a broad stroke of the brush the way many people often do.

nferyn:

I do not make those kind of claims, so why would I have to show you that I have any healing powers when I explicitely claim not to have these powers

That is why you cannot interpret these expriences with any degree of certainty as merely "anecdotes and assertions". In this regard, I offered you to take the same "anecotes and assertions" to the field, test them out and report back to the Forum that people got healed in exactly the same way that I calimed in my experience. What you do not have cannot be interpreted merely to interjections.

nferyn:

Me, naive? You clearly ascribe positive events to something that cannot, in principle, be investigated and then you call me naive. The irony

Right, I guess that 'naive' was rather too strong a word - and in good sense I take it back. However, how are you sure that religious experiences cannot, in principle, be investigated? Is it rather not ironic that you can draw this inference already without having first taken the challenges offered to go out and face the reality of the claims?

nferyn:

Actual knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. Either explicitely or implicitely. There is no other knowledge that can stand any test of intersubjectivity. Claims that cannot be tested are hollow.

You therefore make the rascally claim that science answers every single question of reality in the universe, not so? I'll humbly request your answers to this: how has science implicitly or explicitly provided knowledge on paranormal phenomena, the bizaar, and the philosophical?

nferyn:

To do such a thing I would first need to accept the premisse that demons actually exist, something I don't.

You may not believe that they do exist; but your own disavowal does not negate their existence.

nferyn:

Yes and your experience isn't influenced by your perceptive an interpretative neurological framework? I know mine is, that's why controlled tests and/or statistical analysis are necessary to interprete these kind of experiences.

How many have you actually tested out in the same construct being discussed?

nferyn:

No I don't, but you use those reformed criminals as evidence for the power of Christ. I use the equally irrelevant fact that there are proportionally far less atheists in prison to show that [u]your test of that power isn't a test at all

Then you would have to explain the phenomenon of people whose lives have been transformed by coming to a living faith in Jesus Christ. If you are pitting atheism against Christianity on the same pedestal, then you assume that everyone who is not a Christian must be atheist, no? You're making broad references that you cannot sustain in its logical ends.

nferyn:

Now that wouyld really be a sad thing. I still hold on to the belief that most Christians are actually moral people, but contrary to what they think, their morality does not originate in their belief. If that were the case, all those non-christians should be on a constant rampage.

Let me assure you, a true Christian derives his morality from the Bible. As for non-christians constantly being on the rampage, it would not take away from the affirmation that Christians values, as far as morality goes, are established in belief. Nonetheless, that is not to suggest that non-Christians do not have values and morals; but it is wrong to suppose that the morality of Christians do not originate in their belief.

nferyn:

Atheism is actually very simple: it's only and merely a lack of belief in (a) god(s). Only when theists try to frame the debate are they turning it into something else.

Please, let's just be real here. You're recycling this weathered excuse that you left as an unfinished business in your debate to 4get_me's well articulated discourse in this thread: Refuting Monotheism: God Does Not Exist. Atheism proper is NOT a lack of belief in (a) god(s) - it is the active claim that there is NO god(s), usually configured by atheists themselves in the terse quip: "God does NOT exist." Even in that thread, you nferyn, had admitted the same atheistic definition; and your inference here is untennable.

nferyn:

For Christians on the other hand, the matter is not that simple, as the bitter doctrinal disputes among the various nominations and sects only amplify. Some here would even go as far as saying that Catholics aren't really Christians, hence the "self-professed" adjective.

Doctrinal or philosophical disputes do not negate any particular worldview - rather, that is what accentuates them; though one never has to celebrate or applauds disputes. Many people who see themselves as atheists have not always shared the same views on atheistic issues or positions, and you only have to read again how this was pointed out in the link above to 4get_me's discourse.

nferyn:

The plural of anecdote does not equal data and definitely does not equal evidence. Your point of view cannot objectively be shown to be more valid than that of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, etc.

When you test experience against your supposed "data", then you find that your proposal of a naturalistic perspective is not any more valid than the objectivity you decry in others.

nferyn:

Only a methodologically naturalistic point of view can cross that divide

I knew you could not resist the urge to preach your own worldview - naturalism. The only problem is that your worldview is still limp in the face of the many questions it has yet to answer.

babyosisi:

There was an ardent Muslim that became a Christian here in the USA and he says the 2 greatest regrets he had were

1.Not knowing about Christ sooner.

2.Not having any child pictures of his beautiful children because true Islam forbade it.

Honestly, I've heard some Muslim (still Muslim and not yet converted) friends who have expressed the same regret. Even when I was a Muslim, I could not quite explicate the basis for that; and only later did I come to the surprising fact that not all Muslims are agreed to the Islamic persuasion about pictures.

Well, there.

@KAG,

KAG:

I still don't see what it has to do with Jephtah.

It had everything to do with Jephtah as long as he was under the Law - a precedence well established in Exo. 20:7 unto Israel. God had clearly stated that the one who takes His Name in vain would not be guiltless. One was not obligated to make such pronouncements as Jephtah's; and whatever one did pronounce under oath was binding upon him --

"If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth" (Num. 30:2). It was irrevocable.

My reference to this precedence is in allusion to the Law of oaths in Lev. 5:4 -- "Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an aoth, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these."

Jephtah was not compelled to make such a pronouncement as he did; for the Law also stipulated what type of sacrifice an Israelite could offer - "Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the LORD for a burnt offering; Ye shall offer at your own will a male without blemish, of the beeves, of the sheep, or of the goats." - Lev. 22:18-19.

That Jephtah was rash to pronounce otherwise than recommended, does not make the Law less serious in its implimentation; and Num. 30:2 was well established long before Jephtah's mishap.

KAG:

But he did pronounce it, and he did burn his daughter as an offering to his God.

Sad as it was, Num. 30:2 could not be revoked solely on Jephtah's rash pronouncement. If it could, then would the whole Sinaitic Law be rendered ineffective.

We have political laws and constitutions today in many countries, such laws which would invite dire consequences where people violated them. Indeed, they are altogether different in structure from divine laws; yet, people have been judged severely by them according to the stipulations of such political laws.

However, in Jephtah's case, we are not looking at a political law; but rather one that was well-established and binding upon all who came under its operation. One was free to offer whatever was prescribed in the Law; anything outside of that prescription came under the treatment of Num. 30:2.

KAG:

I don't know, but we can deduce that because the story has him seeing the oath to the end he must have felt he had to fulfill the sacrifice.

I'd have to agree with you on that; and precisely to what I've discussed above with the repeated mention of Num. 30:2 - "If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."

KAG:

Although that's another problematic aspect of Christianity(anyone heard the bit about a God sacrificing himself to himself?), exactly. That also brings us back to an earlier point: the Bible God is just as bloodthirsty and immoral as many of the Gods that we condemn today.

You may be strongly opinionated about this; but even before I became a Christian, such strong views did not help the deeper felt need and question of my own heart, nor has the vexed opinions of Richard Dawkins. For us who believe, we can better appreciate the vicarious sacrifice offered by Jesus Christ on the Cross - and the love and mercy therefrom can only misrepresented by people who have a difficulty grasping the subject of Holiness.

KAG:

Based on your response, yes.

Wrong. Not after having carefully and honestly read the precedence spelt out in Exo. 20:7; Lev. 5:4; 22:18-19; and Num. 30:2.  One may be bitter and acrid in issues like this; but my question is: have such people actually, honestly examined their complaints in light of the precedence spelt out?

babyosisi:

Enjoy this picture.

I'm still trying to understand something about the use of pictures in Islam. I know that Muslims in general take different views on this subject; but even so, I wonder how Muslims who take pictures today would interpret the idea that pictures are discouraged in Islam?

@ishmael,

ishmael:

@shahan
I still put it to you that only very few hausa-fulanis (less than 5%) are christians. You are making the mistake of calling all northerners hausa-fulani thats your problem;

Thanks for your rambling. If you care to carefully read posts, I never said that all northerners are "hausa[b]-[/b]fulani" - and that was your problem and not mine. I only stated this:

shahan:

before I became a Christian, I was somewhat surprised to find that there were many Hausas and Fulanis who were Christians.

Read it yet again: "many Hausa and Fulani". . . not "all northerners are hausa[b]-[/b]fulani" as you alleged. And if you ever cared to to read my posts, you would have no need for your drivel.

babs787:

@all

Please lets not argue back and forth over the issue.

There are muslim Igbos but just that they are very few compared to Igbo christians. Part of the reason could be for the fact that some igbos have never been in close contact with Muslims.

I could remember when my brother went for service at Enugu. He told me that though they have mosque there but that the number of muslims are very few compared to christians. He travels far in order to observe the Jumah prayer every Fridays.

Correct man!

@babs787,

Egbon mi, ba wo??  

babs787:

@syrup,

I have to report shahan to you. From the Gospel of babyosis, I learnt that she went to tie something something with someone someone but did not inform us, her friends on nairaland. I have been thinking that I would declare surplus on that day but unfortunately ,

Why you dey give out invitation card before before party we arrange the exact date? O jibi-jibi-jibi. . . you misread babyosisi's gospel - cahpter, verse and book!! This is the "new international translation" of what she was saying:

verse 1. One oyibo man (called 'aussie') follow shahan come naija.

verse 2. E don go back to Aus.

verse 3. Story end.

Further exposition? Follow this thread.

babs787:

Syrup and Shahan, it seems both of you went to the same school. You construct sentences in the same way and blow big big grammar in the same way too.

Thank God for that - at least it proves I and babyosisi are not the only ladies who went to school. Heard syrup's visiting naija. . .I wish we had the fortune to have met face to face, though.

babs787:

See Shahan, you should sofly softly de blow grammar here because this is not an institution and you shouldnt expect us to be looking for dico up and down when we are not in English Language classroom. .

Okay, I take correction. No mind me o jare - na my lawyer-sis dey rub off on me.

babs787:

I think I have to enrol for adult education but my fear is that they will want to start from alphabets and numerals and that will be waste of time.

. . . not to even mention the high fees they charge nowadays - otherwise, me and you for jam and embrace for the same classroom!  

babs787:

Take care till I hear from you and probably we meet in other threads.

Yes O! You too take care . . and visit that link to warm the house!

babs787:

I love you all

Note: Hope I have not said too much by saying that I love you all. Hope there wont be trouble from , (you know now).

Right. . . na me go first report you to the Sharia council!
Lol. . . enjoy!



Addendum:

babs787:

@shahan,


That does not mean that I wholeheartedly agree to your explanation above. You explained the issue based on your own understanding and interpretation. All the same, thumbs up for the lenghty post.

Cheers.

I know - in just the same way that you offer interpretations from your own understanding. Blessings.

@House,

I'll get back to you soonest. This is just to update and invite another friend here - babs787!!

No, I'm not a spoiler for extending the right and left hands of fellowship to him. . . what shall we do without his usual spice to any discussion??

Oya, babs787. . . e dáhùn!

. . . Or is it rather because, as Jesus Himself said:

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." - John 3:18-21.

@misright,

misright:

As much as I try, I can not seem to grasp the trinity concept. . . I am in a normal christian church and just reading my bible wondering, 'Why do people think Jesus is God when the bible says Jesus is God's son'?

Some discussions on this in Who Was Jesus Before He Became A Man?. Cheers.

ishmael:

yes we know them, some of them have been converted back to islam for fear of being killed.

First, please don't try and entertain yourself this morning by claiming you know every one of the Hausas and Fulanis who are Christians for argument's sake.

Second, while my rejoinders only sought to acknowledged the enquiry of the existence of Igbo Muslims, perhaps you're stretching it. Which would necessitate a question to the concern of why people have to live in fear against their own conscience? Is that not what many people have been querying all along - the fear that Islam brings so people are forced to convert? (see this link as well).

@sage,

sage:

Shahan you really have no grasp of what Soul and Spirit means.

Perhaps. However, why don't you discuss their meanings rather than allege that about me?

And, I think we can share views and maintain good sense rather than focus on discussants.

Meanwhile:

sage:

1 immortality of the soul---------- a big lie perpertuated by the church (looks like we have similar views)

2 Eternal Punishment----------2 bigger lie

3 And the most controversial of all-The Trinity Doctrine----The biggest fraud the church has perpetrated.

#1. What is your understanding of 'eternal annihilation'? How does it square with or differ from such terms as extinction, obliteration, non-existence?

#2. If eternal punishment is a bigger lie, what has been your own argument all this while?

#3. I'll re-direct the issue of the Trinity to its appropriate thread, and then offer my questions to you consequently.

@KAG,

KAG:

Okay, I've read them. I don't see what the first has to do with Jephtah, though.

The first was an established precedence, with dire consequences when violated.

KAG:

The second does apply, however it still in no way excuses the fact that the story has God allowing and accepting the human sacrifice.

Jephtah was bound by his oath, which he was not obliged to have pronounced in the first place.

KAG:

It would appear Jephtah had reason to believe he had to see his vow to the bloody end.

And what reason might that be?

KAG:

No, and in my opinion, it's a little hard to discuss the holiness of being when faced with a story of human sacrifice to the being.

True. And that is why the bigger sacrifice is yet a very difficult one for many people to grasp - the Crucifixion of Jesus on the Cross, and the triumph of the resurrection.

KAG:

Do you believe the Bible God is omniscient and omnipotent?

Without detracting from my question earlier, I believe God to be omniscient and omnipotent. So, the question again:

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

@nferyn,

nferyn:

Obviously not, but anecdote and assertions are no substitute for proper argument

I didn't employ anecdotes and assertions in my post, unless you're deliberately reading them into it. I'm not in the least interested in protracted arguements; and if you care, could you do me the favour of leaving your own small corner of the earth and go into the field of experience to see things for yourself?

nferyn:

What exactly is this ephemeral "holy spirit" and what sets the experience of this holy spirit apart from the spiritual experiences of other religious traditions, except for the mapping of these experiences to their specific religious memeplexes?

When you are ready to be open to the meaning of 'spirit', then we can have a discussion. I did not deny the spiritual experiences of other religions; and your allusion to "mapping" is rather naive. Not all religions speak of the Holy Spirit for the simple fact that they do not believe in His power: they do not have to "map" anything to a specific memes.

nferyn:

Is there any real fundamental difference between the spiritual experiences of Buddhist monks, Hindu Brahmin priests, Christian mystics or Muslim Sufi's?

If you actually were seeking an honestly intelligent debate, then I would oblige you. Tell me honestly, nferyn, that in all your perusals, you really don't find any real fundamental difference between all those religions??

nferyn:

Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test environment.

Let me challenge you to go out and use the very same "Anecdote and placebo effect" and heal the sick. I am not demanding anything more from you than that you simply provide me one case of healing in which YOU have healed someone by the same rule. What you have not experienced cannot be dismissed with small carpings.

You really show how naive you can take issues sometimes. How has it ever been that faith healing and prayer are issues of life that must be subjected to controlled test environment? That is a tattered excuse injected through the back door. How many issues of life are actually known to have been subjected to your idea of a controlled test environment?

Let me even ask you, nferyn, what experiements have you ever conducted in the real face of demon oppression? Please don't come back with an excuse - I'd be greatly obliged if you have actually conducted any such and come back reporting your own experiences as I did mine: for my post was not based on what anyone told me, but rather on MY OWN experience.

nferyn:

Funny then that the relative proportion of self-professed Christians in prisons is way higher than that of atheists. Either Christians are less moral or atheists are smarter not to get caught.
The power of (self)delusion
Meaning?

If that is how you test the reality of the power of Christ, then you're in a small world. I wonder how it is then that I haven't opted to go to prison for becoming a Christian. And many thanks for contrasting and qualifying your adjectives - "self-professed Christians", and yet not "self-professed atheists"! Does the power of your adjective apply in your own case?

nferyn:

@ topic
I don't think that Christianity is a sham in that it would be a deliberate attempt by it's practioners at deception.

Precisely my point, nferyn. . . precisely my point. If I never experienced firsthand in my own life, the very same promises of healing in the Bible in Jesus' Name, then I would indeed have been given to a deliberate attempt at deception - this time, "self-deception"!

nferyn:

Most Christians are genuine in their beliefs, regardless of how ill informed those beliefs are.

Thanks for the compliments, and you're spot on in that regard.

ishmael:

Not true. Only very few hausas and fulanis are christians; they are not even up to 5%. please differentiate between hausas, fulanis and northerners in general. While all hausas and fulanis are northerners, not all northerners are hausas or fulanis.

Then I guess you know every one of the Hausas and Fulanis who are Christians? I didn't mistake them for Igbo or Yoruba - and I knew those referred to in my post.

@TV01,

Hi there again. Your rejoinder acknowledged. However, before posting a reply, would it be too much to request that you discuss the verses offered as to what they point out or convey to your understanding:

Gen. 35:18
"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin." It is clear here that the soul departed from her body, and thus was separate from the body.

I Kings 17:21-22
"And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." Same thing here - the soul which had been separated from the body returned into the body of the child.

Job 14:22
"But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn." Job here marks the distinction between the "soul within" and the "flesh upon" as two separate entities of man.

Gen. 3:19 & Eccl. 12:7
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. .||. .Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The distinction is made between the body of man that returns to the ground (dust) from which it was made; and the spirit of man that returns to God as a separate entity "formed" within man (see Zech.2 12:1 - "formeth the spirit of man within him".

Acts 2:27
"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" We all know that when Jesus died, His body was in the tomb/sepulchre (Matt. 27:60 & Mark 15:46), but it was rather His soul as separate from His body that went to 'hell' (or, 'Hades'). This is underscored in I Pet. 3:18-19 - ". . .he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." It was not with the body in the sepulcher that the Lord Jesus went to 'hell' (or 'Hades') to preach unto the spirits in prison; it was rather the soul as separate from the body.

Rev. 6:9-10 (add vs. 11): "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

I need to really get your point/perspective before saying anything further. Cheers.

@babaearly,

Please follow the link offered - Vicar or Representative of the Son of God
- you'll find that the notion of the Pope wearing the "vicarius filii dei" is yet un[/b]proven. Even the Seventh Day Adventist church had to drop the charge as they were never able to solidly prove that such actually happened.

The Pope forgiving one's sins is another matter for discussion - which may not be the same thing alleged by the topic of this thread seeking to address the 'Pope called Son of God'.

Besides, what did the Lord Jesus mean in [b]John 20:23? --- "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

babaearly:

no one is replying? no body knows?

At least, try to tell us the one YOU know for a start - then others will follow.

Christianity is NOT a sham. For anyone to suppose it is, simply shows they really do not know Christ in the reality and power of the Holy Ghost.

I would never have found Jesus Christ in living reality in my life without the power of the Holy Spirit. I have experienced His healing power in my body; as well as prayed for people and seen them healed in Jesus' Name.

I have seen lives changed, people delivered from demonic oppressions (even oyibo sef dey kolo - for real!); and the testimony of criminals who have been saved and now serving the Lord Jesus by reaching out to other dangerous criminals - would you still suggest the living power of Christ was a sham?

When someone experiences the power of Christ through the ministry of the Holy Ghost, they'll know the difference.

Rom. 8:16 - 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.'

myro:

I have been alive 22 years now and I have not met or heard of any Igbo person who is, was or is even remotly considering the possibilty of maybe some day thinking about trying to become muslim.


Is there such a thing

I believe abdkabir was telling the truth when he said:

abdkabir:

Ofcourse!
You should Check this Out: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-31019.0.html

Outside the forum, a few years ago when I spent a few weeks with an aunt in Katsina, I knew of a few igbo guys who were Muslims. The thing is that religions are not limited or constrained to particular ethnic groups. In just the same way, before I became a Christian, I was somewhat surprised to find that there were many Hausas and Fulanis who were Christians.

@KAG,

Please first read the following:

Exo. 20:7
'Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.'

Eccl. 5:2-7
'Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words. When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God.'

Bloodthirsty. . .shocked. . etc. I just have a few questions:

#1. Did God ever demand of Jephtah what he pronounced with his own mouth?

#2. Did Richard Dawkins discuss the holiness of God, if he ever cared to know in the first place?

#3. Do you think that God would nonetheless have demanded of Jephtah that same thing if he never pronounced it with his own mouth?

@topic,

babaearly:

the writing on the pope's mitre says " vicarius fili dei " meaning " the son of God" please the only Son of God i know is Jesus the Christ then why is this fella impersonating God? Blasphemy i think!

Actually, the expression 'vicarius filii dei' means Vicar or Representative of the Son of God, rather than just "the Son of God".

Christians are also called "sons of God" (John 1:12; Rom. 8:14; & I John 3:1-2); but this in no way compares to Him who is uniquely 'THE Son of God' (Matt. 14:33; 16:16; 27:43 & John 10:36). He was always the divine Son; whereas, we became "sons" by believing in His name (John 1:12).

Christians are called to be representatives of Christ on earth; and the various expressions used in Scripture to indicate this are well established. A ready example is Eph. 5:1 - 'Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children.' To be "followers" is to be "imitators" [Gk. μιμητής - mimētēs]; to be discipled after Him in our lives.

There are several examples that help us gather the import of being 'followers/imitators' of God as His dear children. We are to be holy as He is holy (I Pet. 1:15-16); to be merciful as our Father is merciful (Luke 6:36); to be perfect as He is perfect (Matt. 5:48) - and all these through the power and ministry of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:13), and in dependence on (or, abiding in) the Lord Jesus Christ (John 15:5).

That the Pope wears a mitre with the inscription 'vicarius filii dei' (if at all true) is unwarranted, nevermind blasphemy.

@syrup,

syrup:

Very interesting rejoinder. I'm quite amazed, and your diction is inspiring.

Phew! How did I miss you online earlier? Please come back and make us smile with some of yours - I've been really challenged as well.

Hi @TV01,

Great to read your concerns in reply to my latest posts.

TV01:

Re your post quoted below, and specifically regards your references to the "soul"

Beyond argument? Hardly.

Simply put, the bible shows that man was made from the dust of the earth to which God breathed in spirit.

'Beyond argument' in allusion to the professor of Sacred Scripture whose broad statement cannot be sustained in the Bible.

However, I agree with yours in allusion to Gen. 2:7.

TV01:

A soul only exists in as much as body and spirit are intact. Like two overlapping circles the area of the overlap is the consciousness (soul) that springs forth. So although man is often referred to as tri-partite, I am not sure this is strictly true.

I can understand your persuasion; but it's quite limiting. First, man is actually tripartite - I Thes. 5:23 speaks of man's "whole spirit and soul and body"; and the Bible shows that there is a "dividing asunder of soul and spirit" in Heb. 4:12.

Yet, I'd have to agree with your summation of the soul alluding sometimes to the "consciousness" of man. However, besides that one aspect of the meaning given the soul in the Bible, another is that it represents the "person/personality" of an individual; and yet again, is sometimes used in reference to the 'faculties' of man - in which case Mary's exultation in Luke 1:46-47 ~~ "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."

Although you acknowledged that the soul has more than one meaning in Scripture, let me offer this teaser to the point. We could be sure that God was not meaning to require the "consciousness" of the rich man in Luke 12:20 in the statement: "this night thy soul shall be required of thee".

However, I'm not persuaded about the idea that the soul 'only exists in as much as body and spirit are intact', as though it was some abstract concept less distinguishable from spirit and body. That idea is unsustained in light of the texts alluded to above, and several others in Scripture.

TV01:

It is also clearly evident from scripture, that "soul" can mean several things. Including person(ality), mind and even spirit.

As you yourself allude to in your quote below.

. . . And as reiterated just above.

TV01:

Although it is correct to label the "soul" incorporeal, it exists in it's unique meaning only in as much as the living being is intact.

That may not be the case in light of the Scriptures already offered:

# I Kings 17:21-22 - "the soul of the child came into him again", which suggests a separate, distinct entity intact on its own apart from the body.

# Acts 2:27 - "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell", again demonstrating a distinct entity from the body that was laid in the tomb/sepulchre.

# Gen. 35:18 - "her soul was in departing", indicative of same sense as above.

TV01:

When a man dies, his spirit has departed (goes back to God who gave it). Hence there is no consciousness, that is death.

Okay; but even so I hope that does nopt translate into the idea that when a man dies, there is no "soul" - if the term strictly means "consciousness"? There may not be consciousness in the reality of this world; but that is not to suggest that the soul ceases to exist apart from the body.

TV01:

This will likewise be the case when God destroys both body and soul of the wicked. There will be no more consciousness or remembrance of them.

Now, where does that leave the spirit of man? Also, have we carefully examined the import of God destroying both the "body and soul" in hell? Doesn't that suggest well enough that the wicked will be raised in their bodies as well? And if the wicked have "souls" that will be destroyed in 'hell', does that not hint at the idea that their souls do not cease to exist at death and burial?

TV01:

Not to overlook your references to Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3 above.

Firstly, your exegesis of 1 Peter 3:18-19 is but one possible one (not that I deny you the right to hold it).

True that - it is not the only possible interpretation.

TV01:

Secondly, why does it say went and preached to "spirits" and not souls?

For two reasons, I believe:

(a) 'spirit' and 'soul' are sometimes (not always) used interchangeably to refer to the individual in particular - in just the same way that 'angels' are sometimes referred to as 'men', even though we know they are not synonymous in essence (see Gen. 19:1, 10-11); and,

(b) in their essential nature as separated from their bodies, they were referred to as "spirits" rather than as "souls". The former indicates their nature of existence apart from their bodies; the latter would point to the people in particular rather than their state of existence.

Let me expound on the second reason. Heb. 12:23 speaks of the "spirits" (rather than the 'souls') of men made perfect, emphasizing rather the nature of their existence; but in Rev. 6:9 we read of the "souls" (not 'spirits') of those who had been slain, because our God wants to draw our attention to individuals in particular who suffered for their faith, rather than the nature of their existence after they were slain.

Again, the Bible calls God "the Father of spirits" (Heb. 12:9) and "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 16:22) - which in their context point to the essential nature of men as spirit-beings (cf. Acts 17:28 - 'we are also His offspring'; and John 3:6). However, we also read in Job 12:10 that in His hand is the "soul" of every living thing, defining individuality and personality.

It is interesting to note that the distinction between spirit and soul is also highlighted in Isaiah 57:16 - "the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made" (see also ch. 42:5). Nonetheless, that we many times read of 'soul' as pointing to the individual in particular references is underscored by the refrain: "that soul (not, 'that spirit') shall be cut off from his people" - Gen. 17:14 and Exo. 31:14.

TV01:

Thirdly, to suggest the "soul" survives the death of the body alludes to it's being immortal. I posted earlier on this, showing that the Bible contains no such notion. Now that's beyond argument.

Well, first we both agree that the soul is not inherently immortal. Secondly, that the soul survives death is without question as have been demonstrated severally. Third, the immortality referred to in those verses you posted do not negate the fact that the soul leaves the body and is in a state of conscious existence beyond the grave. If it were otherwise, the texts already proffered for this would have been saying something else.

As to the context of the state of conscious existence beyond the grave, I wonder if you have an explanation for the Lord's statement in Mark 9:44, 46 & 48 - "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"??

Enjoyed the challenges you offered - succinct and refreshing. May I offer my sincere apologies for my reactive response earlier.

Cheers.

@goodguy,

I hear my name mentioned here, so I branch to share a few lines.  

I thought we have "Holy Spirit filled members" on this forum that know it all  

Seen that article before; and anyone reading it carefully would observe that the writer is presenting nothing new that the likes of Dan Brown and the Jesus Seminar group have not already attempted.

However, one would have hoped YOU had something to say about it - are you not a Christian and filled with the Spirit as you queried others?

Now, I don't waste my time engaging in picaresque intellectual wranglings of this sort: that's why you don't find me in endless debates where the whole exercise was configured to discredit Scripture in logomachist pretences. Perhaps, I should oblige you for the present, and hope that YOU also would make inputs on the article itself. _{Sorry for my big-big grammar - na my lawyer sis dey rub off on me!}

Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, ranks as the most hated and despised character in the Bible with the possible exception of Satan. Is such intense loathing justified, or is Judas the victim of biased reporting? Interestingly enough the sole source of information on Judas is the New Testament gospels and the Book of Acts all of which were written long after the events allegedly took place. He receives not a single mention in the writings of Paul, the Gospel of Thomas, or the reconstructed document, Quelle (Q). Also, any mention of Judas is conspicuously absent from the writings of such important first century Jewish historians as Philo Judaeus and Flavious Josephus.

My question is: should the reports of the Evangelists be discredited on the premise that Judas receives not a single mention in the writings of Paul? How would Paul's mention of Judas impact the report in the Gospels? Let's apply the same rule to other names and subjects not mentioned in Paul's writings:

                  - Joseph the husband of Mary

                  - Zachariah the father of John the Baptist

                  - Joseph of Arimathea, the honourable councillor who buried Jesus

                  - some of the apostles, such as Matthew, Andrew, or Phillip

                  - Mary Magdalene

Should we then infer that just because Paul did not mention any of the above, any reader should discredit them as reported in the Gospels? Such an argument in Judas' case is roguish.

As was predicted, Judas went to the chief priests and offered to identify Jesus. They accepted his offer and agreed to pay him thirty pieces of silver which brings up another perplexing question. Why would the authorities pay to have someone pointed out to them whom they already knew? In Matthew 26:55 Jesus says to those who came to arrest him, "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, yet ye laid no hold on me."

The mechanical device introduced here should not escape our notice. We should seriously question the author's inference: Did the authorities pay Judas to "point out" Jesus? On the contrary, this is what the text say:

Matt. 26:14-15 ~~ "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver."

There's a world of difference between "pointing out" and "delivering" (or, 'handing over') someone. If anyone cares for the Greek word used there for 'deliver', it is paradidōmi [παραδίδωμι], which includes the meaning of 'to surrender/yield up'.

The chief priests were not contracting with Judas or anyone for that matter to "point out" Jesus to them; because they knew Him all along, as the Lord Jesus  affirms in Matt. 26:55 as referenced by the author of the article.

In Matthew 18:21-22 when Peter came to him, and asked, “Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Till seven times?” Jesus replied, "I say not unto thee, until seven times: but, until seventy times seven." Therefore, wasn’t Jesus obligated by his own words to forgive Judas? But instead of forgiving him, Jesus openly cursed Judas when during Passover Seder (Matthew 26:24; Mark 14:21) he said, "But woe to that one by whom the Son of Man is betrayed for it would have been better for him had he never been born". Contrary to Peter, Judas never denied Jesus. While his action may not have been all together ethical, Judas, unlike Peter, committed neither apostasy nor blasphemy, the two unforgivable sins.

The text quoted does not support the inference that Jesus "openly cursed" Judas - that was just another mechanical device by the author. The Lord rather pronounced a forewarning of judgement that was quite a familiar expression to Biblical cultures of the day. The idea that someone "openly cursed" another is radically different from a pronouncement of divine judgement, as in the example of Rev. 12:12. We certainly would not suppose that the apostle Paul cursed himself in I Cor. 9:16 when he said: ". . .yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!"

It is also interesting that the author blackguardly strains at this point by failing to consider the premise for forgiveness in the other Gospels and limits his query to Matthew 18:21-22. Earlier in verse 15, the Lord specifically lays down a condition for receiving forgiveness: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." What is meant by the clause 'if he shall hear thee'?

Compare this with Luke 17:3 - "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." Did the author give a moment's consideration to repentance as a condition for receiving forgiveness?

We should understand that the argument is not a theological or intellectual one. Rather, it is eristic and ambidextrous (i.e., deliberate deceptiveness especially by pretending one set of feelings and acting under the influence of another). If it were a theological argument, then he wouldn't have missed the condition (repentance) for receiving forgiveness.

However, if it was an intellectual one, he would have been generous enough to note that the Bible also deals with the case of obstinacy unto hardness of heart that finds no repentance, even if the sin was neither apostacy nor blasphemy (see Heb. 12:17). This was precisely the case of Judas, for he repented only "when he saw that he was condemned" (Matt. 27:3).

The Bible never supposes that repentance succeeds or comes after condemnation; rather, it is through conviction that a person finds true repentance.

Had the Judas story ended with the betrayal followed by the suicide everything might have been hunky-dory, but the writer of Acts couldn't leave well enough alone.

So, what then is the gist of the argument? Is it that everything didn't go hunky-dory/okay simply because the story didn't end with the betrayal? Or, that the suicide was the icing that would have made a good 'story' in the eyes of the author of this article?

In 1:15-19 he tells us that Judas didn't give the money back; he invested it in real estate. We also learn that Judas didn’t commit suicide; his death was accidental. Because of the messiness of this accident, the property became known as (you guessed it) "The Field of Blood." So, did Judas commit suicide as the writer of Matthew claims or was his death an accident as we are told in Acts? Also, was this the same land that the priests bought, or were there two fields of blood? But, it gets worse.

I've offered a coherent discourse on this issue in another thread: Was Jesus Crucified? (post #83) and same thread, (post #94).

Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 state that following his resurrection Jesus appeared to "the eleven." Who was missing? After all that had transpired one would just naturally think it was Judas. Apparently not, because in John 20:24 we learn that the one missing was Thomas. Therefore the eleven had to include Judas. To further confuse things, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5 that following his resurrection Jesus was seen by “the twelve.” This had to include Judas because it wasn't until after the ascension, some forty days after the resurrection (Acts 1:3), that another person, Matthias, was voted in to replace Judas (Acts 1:26). So, apparently Judas neither committed suicide nor died by accident. In Acts 1:25 we are told that Judas "turned aside to go to his own place."

Indeed, Judas did not die "by accident" - for he committed suicide.

This is actually what Acts 1:25 says: "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place" (KJ) or, "which Judas turned aside to go to his own place" (NET). Either way it is rendered, both imply that Judas "fell"/"turned aside" by transgression - in the same sense as in Psa. 125:5 ~ "As for such as turn aside unto their crooked ways, the LORD shall lead them forth with the workers of iniquity: but peace shall be upon Israel."

# What does the Bible mean by "turned aside to go to his own place" in reference to Judas?

Read Acts 1:20 - "For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take." This is language expressive of desolation and death. We find the very same idea in Job 3:11-14 ~~ "Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly? Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck? For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest, With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves."

In particular, when you compare the language of the Psalmist in Psalm 69:25  (which Peter referred to in Acts 1:20) to Job 18:5-21, you find typically the same idea expressed of death and desolation - pointing to the very fact that, not only did Judas commit suicide, but also that he indeed died a horrible death!

Psalm 69:25 - "Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents"

Job 18: 5, 11, 17-19 & 21 - "Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine . . Terrors shall make him afraid on every side, and shall drive him to his feet. . His remembrance shall perish from the earth, and he shall have no name in the street, he shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world. . .He shall neither have son nor nephew among his people, nor any remaining in his dwellings. . .Surely such are the dwellings of the wicked, and this is the place of him that knoweth not God" (see also Psa. 109:4-13).

# What about the seeming insinuation from the "eleven" and the "twelve" that Judas did not die?

The apostles were often called "The Twelve" - whether they were together in one place or not. That Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:33 called them "the Eleven" does not suggest at all that Judas was present in place of Thomas. On the contrary, it suggest that there were 'eleven' apostles yet alive when Jesus rose from the dead.

It is interesting to note that Paul wrote I Corinthians well after the ascension of Jesus. When he mentioned "the Twelve" (vs. 5), who was he referring to in connection with the eleven apostles - Judas or Matthias? Notice that Paul was speaking of those who saw the risen Jesus.

The answer lies in the fact that Matthias was one of those who saw the risen Jesus, as affirmed in the qualification Peter gave out in Acts 1:21-22 ~ "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."

Question: would Matthias have been chosen a witness of Jesus' resurrection if he had not seen the risen Lord? Absolutely not!

It is obvious that when Paul wrote of "the Twelve" who saw the risen Jesus, he no doubt meant the eleven apostles and Matthias as the twelfth; for the same Paul would definitely have been aware of Judas fall by transgression.

In the opening paragraph, the author believes that Judas did NOT receive "a single mention in the writings of Paul". So, how then does he now turn round 180^o to suggest that Paul's reference to the Twelve in I Cor. 15:5 "had to include Judas"??

Another clue confirming the absence of the Judas story in the earliest Christian documents occurs in Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:28-30. Here Jesus tells his disciples that they will “sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” No exception is made for Judas even though Jesus was aware of his impending act of betrayal. The answer may lie in the fact that the source of these verses is Q (QS 62). Q predates the gospels and is considered to be one of the earliest Christian documents. It was obviously written before Judas and the betrayal story were invented by the writer of Mark.

If the author believes that any one of the Gospels in the NT we "invented", then his whole exercise falls flat on its face. On the one hand, he argues against Judas having betrayed Jesus; and yet on the other hand urges that Christians 'appreciate Judas for his "dirty job!" One cannot honestly maintain both positions unless he intends to be intellectually dishonest.

For centuries Judas Iscariot has been held up as the archetypical traitor, the exemplar of treachery, the quintessential turncoat. This is strange indeed when one considers Acts 1:16. Here Peter tells us, "This scripture (Psalm 69:25) must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus." So according to Peter, Judas' betrayal was a part of God's grand plan all along. Not only did Judas serve as a vehicle through which key Old Testament prophecy might be fulfilled, it was by way of his betrayal that Jesus was able to complete his earthly mission. One might say that it was a dirty job, but somebody had to do it. Judas was in reality an enabler. Instead of hating and reviling him, Christians should appreciate Judas’ contribution.

The first question I would like to ask is this: does the author of this article actually appreciate Judas "contribution" as he urges upon others? If he did, such appreciation no doubt would be evident in his walk as a Christian as well - but is that the case? Obviously not!

The Bible states that Satan entered into Judas (John 13:27), for he had often rejected the conviction tugging at his own heart (John 6:70). What then is one to appreciate in a devil-possessed man? Would the author himself tell us what he 'appreciates' in the same Judas who was a thief?

This is the reason why I earlier stated that the whole exercise is eristic and ambidextrous.

Nonetheless, one who knows the Word should never suppose that God predestined any soul for damnation. Some men will outrightly reject God's offer of grace no matter how imploring is the offer. Such men in their wickedness would have condemned Jesus Christ to death - and here is the crux of the issue:

If Judas never had betrayed Jesus, would the Crucifixion never have happened?

Men make so much of Judas today in an effort to glorify him; and yet fail to see that -

     * it was not Judas who arrested and tried Jesus (Matt. 26:57 & Mark 15:16)

     * it was not Judas who condemned Jesus to death (Mark 10:33 & 14:64)

     * it was not Judas who stood accused of the murder (Acts 2:23)

     * it was not Judas who brought salvation to men (II Tim. 1:10).

My faith rests in the simple statements made about Judas in Scripture - he betrayed Jesus. Q.E.D.

@damosky,

damosky:

What does the Bible say the penalty for sin is?

Rom. 6:23: “The wages sin pays is death.”

Let me repeat the beautiful response of syrup to this kind of supposition: "If death pays for sins, why hasn't anyone paid for his/her own sins by their own deaths?"

damosky:

After one’s death, is he still subject to further punishment for his sins?

Rom. 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”

Again, that verse should not be taken as a floatation device to suppose that the sinner who dies in his/her sins would escape the final judgement in Rev. 20:12 & 15. The Lord Jesus categorically affirmed that a sinner will be raised to be judged for his/her sins: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28-29).

Rom. 6:7 is to be understood in light of its connection with the surrounding verses, such as vs. 8 - "Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him". This is also borne out in Rev. 14:13 - "And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them." There is NO hope for those who die in their sins.

damosky:

Is eternal torment of the wicked compatible with God’s personality?

Jer. 7:31: “They [apostate Judeans] have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.” (If it never came into God’s heart, surely he does not have and use such a thing on a larger scale.)

Did the author forget Jude 7 that he quoted in his article, showing that God actually judged Sodom and Gomorrah with fire on a larger scale? What are we to understand from the statement in Gen. 19:24 that says: "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven"??

We should understand that Jer. 7:31 expresses a commandment that forbids this practice into which apostate Jews of the day had fallen; which commandment we find in Lev 18:21 - "And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." The practice of burning one's children in the fire never came into God's heart; but that does not strike out the firm warning of God that the wicked will be punished in a burning hell. There are other texts in the Bible that warn of punishment by fire on a larger scale:

Lev. 10:1-2 - "And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. (see also Num. 16:35).

Deut. 32:22 - "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." (compare II Pet. 3:7 & 12).

The question, however, is whether or not eternal torment of the wicked is compatible with God’s personality? If one sees the awesome holiness of God against the backdrop of sin and wickedness of men, could we suggest otherwise that God should have to relax His personality in this attribute and act less than holy? The talk of 'God is love' should never blind us to the warning that the same God is "a consuming fire" (Deut. 4:24; 9:3 & Heb. 12:29).

damosky:

What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?. . .

But the real roots of this God-dishonoring doctrine go much deeper. The fiendish concepts associated with a hell of torment slander God and originate with the chief slanderer of God (the Devil, which name means “Slanderer”), the one whom Jesus Christ called “the father of the lie.”—John 8:44.

I've severally heard this pseudo-piety from those who have a difficulty with the goodness and severity of God (Rom. 11:22).The sad and amazing thing about this accusative paroxysm is that the people making such statements may not realize such defamation and calumny weighs heavily against them than on anyone else.

Let me reference this as examples from the posts of contributors to this thread; but I do so without seeking to be derisive, and apologise upfront for any miscalculated misgivings that might be misread therefrom.

kmcutez:

This makes a lot of sense to me because i cannot equate the God who calls himself love, and by the way whom I serve, to a sadistic God that will allow his creation to suffer forever.

Bobbyaf:

If the concept of the "forever and ever" doctrine as it relates to the wicked being punished without end is wrong, then the advocates would have been responsble for depicting their loving Creator as a despot ruler, who after giving His creation a choice to obey, or disobey now turns around and hands down the most severe punishment ever witnessed in the universe.

Bobbyaf:

Such a horrible theory is slander against the holy name of a loving God. The devil delights to see our loving Creator pictured as such a monstrous tyrant, and he alone can benefit from such teachings.

By alleging God as a "despot ruler", "a monstrous tyrant", or 'a sadistic God', such slander and calumny weigh heavily against the arguments of those who make such statements; because in many instances they themselves sanction the very same aweful judgement that they disavow. If "a hell of torment slanders God and originates with the chief slanderer of God - the Devil", then see how the same slander has been celebrated in some of the posts of the same people:

damosky:

So the Devil’s being “tormented” there forever means that there will be no relief for him; he will be held under restraint forever, actually in eternal death.

Bobbyaf:

The wicked. . .will be [color=990000]burned up until[/color] they will be ashes under the soles of your feet.

Bobbyaf:

Some of the wicked no doubt will be punished over a longer time period than others, and might I add that Satan will be punished the longest, being the instigator of evil Himself[/b].

How is the love of the Creator preserved by Bobbyaf's admission that the wicked shall be burned up in fire - even if for one minute or one day; or, "a longer time period"? Does that make God's judgement any less severe and euphemizes their argument and position on the subject?

How is it that annihilationists are quick to make such calumnious accusations against God while they themselves are admitting to the same aweful judgement that they decry? Let me offer them to cease from this convoluted piety and come to terms with the declaration of Scripture on the subject.

Cheers.

@damosky,

damosky:

Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?

Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.” (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*“Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB; “the grave,” KJ, Kx; “hell,” Dy; “the world of the dead,” TEV.)

Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.” (*“Thoughts,” KJ, 145:4 in Dy; “schemes,” JB; “plans,” RS, TEV.)

Please notice that Eccl. 9 deals with the concerns and experiences of life under the sun (vs. 6 - "neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun". Indeed, 'the dead' are oblivious to whatever transpires under the sun: they know nothing of the issues of this present life once they have been severed by death - but that is not to suggest that they are unconscious or oblivious in the realities of the afterlife.

Infact, when you read the whole book, you'll find that the Preacher (by his constant mention of that which occurs "under the sun" in every chapter) deals mainly with issues of this life; and not so much with the afterlife or issues beyond the grave (except where he mentions it tersely at the end of the book in ch. 12:14). See:

chapter 1
1:3 - What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? || 1:9 - and there is no new thing under the sun. || 1:14 - I have seen all the works that are done under the sun. .

chapter 2
2:11 - all was vanity and vexation of spirit, and there was no profit under the sun || 2:17 - Therefore I hated life; because the work that is wrought under the sun is grievous unto me || 2:20 - Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labour which I took under the sun.

chapter 3
3:16 - And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

chapter 4
4:1 - So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun || 4:3 - Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun || 4:7 - Then I returned, and I saw vanity under the sun || 4:15 - I considered all the living which walk under the under the sun, with the second child that shall stand up in his stead

chapter 5
5:13 - There is a sore evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept for the owners thereof to their hurt || 5:18 - Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God giveth him: for it is his portion.

. . .and the remaining chapters:

chapter 6 - verses 1, 5 &12
chapter 7 - verse 11
chapter 8 - verses 9, 15 & 17
chapter 9 - verses 3, 6, 9, 11 & 13
chapter 10 - verse 5
chapter 11 - verse 7
chapter 12 - verse 2

The fact that the Preacher limits his treatise to issues of this life is underscored in chapter 6:12 - "for who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun?" He deals mainly with issues of the present existence, as in his reference to "the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun" (ch. 8:15).

Many people settle their ideas on Eccl. 9: 6-10 and still miss the fact that the book focuses on issues of the present existence under the sun. That very chapter emphatically demonstrates this persuasion:

ch. 9:3 - "This is an evil among all things that are done under the sun, that there is one event unto all. . ." || 9:6 - ". . .neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun" || 9:9 - "Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity, which he hath given thee under the sun, all the days of thy vanity: for that is thy portion in this life, and in thy labour which thou takest under the sun" || 9:13 - "This wisdom have I seen also under the sun, and it seemed great unto me"; etc.

The point to note here is that when many people settle their ideas on Eccl. 9, I'd like to appeal that they take the time to study what is actually being said there; rather than assume it makes a broad once-for-all treatise on issues of the experiences beyond the grave - which it does not. Matters of the afterlife are comprehensively detailed in other books of the Bible, rather than in Ecclesiastes.

Luke 16:23-24 is an example of the realities of another existence beyond the grave: "And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame." Whatever may be argued from this passage, the question to ask is: Why would the Lord have spoken this parable if He intended nothing at all?

Rather than get into protracted debates to imply what is or isn't meant by this parable, at least we can all agree on a few vital facts highlighted thereto:

(a) death and burial are literal - "the beggar died. . . the rich man also died, and was buried" (vs. 22)

(b) a state of conscious existence beyond the grave was implied - "in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments . . .And he cried and said. . .I am tormented in this flame" (vss. 23, 24).

The Preacher in the book of Ecclesiates asked a question: "who can tell a man what shall be after him under the sun" (Eccl. 6:12); and the answer is not given in any chapter of that book. Only when we turn to other books of the Bible (like Luke 16 above) can we then get answers to the Preacher's question. Other texts such as Daniel 12:2 and John 14:2 tell us far much more than could be gathered from Ecclesiates. When anyone treats verses in isolation (such as is usually done with Eccl. 9:5-10), then multiplied questions go unanswered in the face of connected subjects treated in other books of the Bible.

damosky:

Does anyone ever get out of the Bible hell?

Rev. 20:13, 14, KJ: “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.) (*“Hell,” Dy, Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.)

(section ¬¦¦>) I'm glad to notice the author acknowledges this distinction which I wanted to point out earlier. Hell (that is, 'Hades') is NOT the same as the LAKE of FIRE; and this should help the understanding of those who argue that Jesus went to "hell" as if it meant the same place where the wicked will be finally cast into at the great white throne judgement. It would be well to never confuse these two radically different spheres.

damosky:

What is the meaning of the ‘eternal torment’ referred to in Revelation?
- - -
When Revelation 20:10 says that the Devil is to experience ‘torment forever and ever’ in “the lake of fire and brimstone,” what does that mean? Revelation 21:8 (KJ) says clearly that “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone” means “the second death.” So the Devil’s being “tormented” there forever means that there will be no relief for him; he will be held under restraint forever, actually in eternal death. This use of the word “torment” (from the Greek ba′sa·nos) reminds one of its use at Matthew 18:34, where the same basic Greek word is applied to a ‘jailer.’—RS, AT, ED, NW.

Please pay particular attention to the highlighted words above, for they do not articulate "annihilation" (i.e., obliteration into oblivion or non-existence). The author is persuaded that the meaning of 'eternal torment' is that "there will be no relief for the devil, and he will be held under restraint forever" - which does not convey the sense of annihilation or non-existence. If someone is being "held under restraint forever", would that be the same thing as such a person being "non-existent"?

@damosky,

Many thanks for that outline articulating your position. It would be unnecessarily tedious to reply to every line posted, and I'm thankful that most of them have already been discussed.

However, it certainly reminds me of the very same material that has been severally recycled on the net, and typically flavours the JW interpretation. Sample:

Article reposted by Watchman on a Yahoo Answers blog. The poster opens his piece by saying: "Everyone goes to hell", and if we simply go by that statement, the problems in defining his position will be multiplied.

In another Forum called StarPulse blog, the same article was reposted by two users there - Britneysucks and Mudslinger.

But, first let me clip out a definition of "hell" as used in the article and see if it applies in every issue raised by the author:

damosky:

The Hebrew she’ohl′ and its Greek equivalent hai′des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind

Whatever the author wants us to understand by the "common grave", would it make sense when applied in the gist of his article? However, having sifted through the piece, there are a few slips which cannot be sustained in the Bible; although quite a few others make sense.

damosky:

Acts 2:25-27, KJ: “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,* neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?) (*“Hell,” Dy; “death,” NE; “the place of death,” Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” AS, RS, JB, NW.)

I hope we all understand that the 'hell' (or 'Hades') in Acts 2:25-27 is NOT the same place as the LAKE of FIRE prepared for the devil and his angels (cf. Matt. 25:41 and Rev. 20:10)?? We are nowhere told that the devil went to the "common grave"; but Rev. 20:10 shows just where he and his rebel crew will be cast, which is a radically different place altogether. Later on, we shall see that the author acknowledges this distinction (see section marked ¬¦¦>); and we should not miss it.

damosky:

Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?

Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” (*“Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; “the man,” JB; “the person,” TEV.)

“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.

“Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ‘soul,’ it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. . . — The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236

It is interesting to note that a 'professor of Sacred Scripture' could deny the nature of the soul as taught in the Bible. If the concept of 'soul' as separate from the 'body' does NOT exist in Scripture, what then does the Bible mean by the following texts? --

Gen. 35:18
"And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin." It is clear here that the soul departed from her body, and thus was separate from the body.

I Kings 17:21-22
"And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the LORD, and said, O LORD my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again. And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived." Same thing here - the soul which had been separated from the body returned into the body of the child.

Job 14:22
"But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn." Job here marks the distinction between the "soul within" and the "flesh upon" as two separate entities of man.

Gen. 3:19 & Eccl. 12:7
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. .||. .Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." The distinction is made between the body of man that returns to the ground (dust) from which it was made; and the spirit of man that returns to God as a separate entity "formed" within man (see Zech.2 12:1 - "formeth the spirit of man within him".

Acts 2:27
"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" We all know that when Jesus died, His body was in the tomb/sepulchre (Matt. 27:60 & Mark 15:46), but it was rather His soul as separate from His body that went to 'hell' (or, 'Hades'). This is underscored in I Pet. 3:18-19 - ". . .he went and preached unto the spirits in prison." It was not with the body in the sepulcher that the Lord Jesus went to 'hell' (or 'Hades') to preach unto the spirits in prison; it was rather the soul as separate from the body.

In this last cited example, we can deduce evidently that the soul indeed survives the death of the body. Were that not possible or not the case at all, how then could it be said that Jesus "went and preached unto the spirits in prison"?

In the same connection, syrup had earlier offered Rev. 6:9-10 (add vs. 11) to show how souls survived the death of bodies of those slain for the Word of God and for their testimony: "And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."

It is beyond argument to suppose that the soul does not survive the death of the body; or that the soul as separate from the body does not exist in the Bible, as some professors of Sacred Scriptures would have us believe. On the contrary, the Bible distinctly teaches and affirms these concepts regardless the denials today.

Secondly, many people take Ezek. 18:4 to mean that the soul itself (as distinct from the body) "dies" - “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” What does this imply? It does not suggest that the incorporeal part of man called soul suffers 'death' - as I've attempted to demonstrate just above. Soul in that verse refers to the person himself, rather than to that which is in contrast to the body, as hinted at in the reference offered by the author - (*“Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx “the man,” JB; “the person,” TEV.)

It is the same sense of 'soul' as used for "the person" in the following: Gen 46:26 - "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six" || Act 27:37 - "And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls || Rom 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers" || I Pet. 3:20 - "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water".

damosky:

Does the Bible also say that upright people go to hell?

Job 14:13, Dy: “[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell,* and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” (God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8.) (*“The grave,” KJ; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)

Job 14:13 does NOT teach that the upright will be cast into the LAKE of FIRE or the place prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41). The distinction is vital here, because we ought to understand that Job never prayed to go to, or be in, the same place where the wicked will be cast in the final judgement (Rev. 20:10 & 15).

Bobbyaf:

@ Shahan

You're dead wrong and as a matter of fact I challenge you to break it down for the fora if you can.

@Bobbyaf,

I would've loved to oblige you your challenge; but would rather let it rest for now on just one question:

If we have to pander to your persuasion otherwise of the phrase meaning "from ages unto the ages", then this is how Revelation 20:10 will read ~~ they "shall be tormented day and night[/color] [color=#990000]from ages unto the ages" Now, how long is the time period "from ages unto the ages" that the torment would last?

@topic,

Prayer is a wonderful resource of the Christian believer. People of many faiths 'pray'; but what really is prayer for the Christian, and how can we strengthen our prayer lives?

It is such a blessing to know that when we come to pray, we can come in the confidence of trusting God as our FATHER. Jesus said, "When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven" (Luke 11:2). This immediately brings us to a relationship and takes away the religiosity which so many people are accustomed.

Another blessing of this relationship is that we are loved by the Father in exactly the same way that He loved the divine Son Jesus Christ. "As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love" (John 15:9). What is it that the Father would deny the Son? Absolutely nothing! Think of it for a moment. "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:32).

At the basic level, when we come before God in prayer knowing that we are His children with whom He is pleased to give whatever we ask, our faith will be refreshed and strengthened. However, prayer is offered in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and with trusting confidence that we ask according to God's will.

To Him be glory for ever.