₦airaland Forum

@TayoD,

Well done, bros! How blessed it is to read well-thought out answers from seniors like you.

@batu,

batu:
Quote from Stimulus:
My Dear Stimulating Stimulus;
Far from it!! You are NOT a odd christian or person at all. You are indeed an objective individual 'as you can' possibly be. That is the point of having our senses, after all God said in Isaiah "Come and let us reason together,,,,,,"

Phew!! Well, that makes my day, bro! Na because some people dey twist my ears so painfully that's why.

batu:
Now if we look at all the passages you've quoted from the bible in which "people are compared to many things," you will see that there is none of them in which the comparism was because of their "race or ethnicity, gender etc"; but rather because of certain attitudes, behaviour or as a test of faith.

Precisely my point, and you're dead on spot.

batu:
You and I agree this is different from a prophet who claims "Jews" are monkeys; or that "women" have half a brain and are possessions like donkeys; or that satan looks like a "black man"; or that the heart of a "blackman" is as gross as a donkey. You can see that all these comparism are on the basis of unchangeable attributes; rather than on opinion or attitude. I therefore wonder what kind of god will say through his prophet that his creation is like a donkey, or like satan etc.

You know, batu. . . when I read such lines in reference to Muhammad's "scientific" religion, I wonder if women still have "half" brains or half intelligences in comparison to men. Any wonder why most Muslim men today who continue to follow the "Islamic way" of Muhammad would rather have their daughters uneducated. . . and prepare her for the harem among 71 one other virgins in paradise??

batu:
I am sure you see the difference now between the false gods and prophet in the Quran, and the God who looked at ALL his creations and said in Genesis that "It is very good"!!
Bless you, bro!!

No, no, no. . . hehe I rather think if we follow Mo's recommendations (even without the "scientific" Muslim apologists), then we can "see" the difference. Did I confuse you?? Okay, let me re-state that -

In the Bible, God made man. . . and then declared 'It was very good!'

In Islam (Qur'an and Hadith combined), "Allah" made men and women so that he can fill hell with them!! "And surely, We have created many of the jinns and mankind for Hell. (Qur'an, Sura 7:179); ". . . but the Word from Me will come true, "I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together." (Qur'an, Sura 32:13).

Again, with "Allah", everyone of the men he 'created' has a jinn (devil) attache - Sahih Muslim, #6757.

See the difference now?? Ol' boy, I tire to explain issues for our celebrated babs787!!

@babs787,

babs787:
Haba. I am not bored and can never be bored. I am ignoring all questions and will focus on Islamic threads. Hope you are ok with that? I love you jare.

You may sound like you're not bored; however, your recent posts are a minus to the celebrated 'improvements' of the previous weeks'.

babs787:
Another one of those infantile questions, eh?
Or, is it that you got dazed by pilgrim.1's questions on the 99 names of Allah, that you got so red in the face to dribble this one. Well done!  

Is that what you think? Go read the thread, I have answered my sister.

Haba alhaji, take style confess. How can you deny that all your recent efforts are not a reaction to pilgrim.1's posts, when in fact you just admitted it?? See am again:

babs787:
I have stopped creating new threads but started it when i saw pilgrims'.

Besides, reading the debate on the issue of the 99 names of Allah shows that you haven't said anything other than recycling what you were taught by rote. Her basic questions and assumptions are yet unanswered (at least, that's how it stands with me; and I could provide more explicatory inferences for my take on that topic after pilgrim.1's rejoinder to you).

babs787:
If the question is simple as you stated: "WHICH IS THE REAL JESUS?" then, you can again go through the Bible and see that all of them were real in their persons; but ONLY ONE was called the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16). None of the others claimed the same identity with the Son of God.

Are you saying that of the Mathew is the real Jesus Christ?

Which one of the other connections with the name "jesus" claimed to be the Son of God than He who is called the CHRIST??

babs787:
Further, please babs787, whenever you quote the Bible, could you afford to be honest enough to not misrepresent what it says? There is NO name like "Jesus Barabas"; and Matt. 27:16-17 identified two people: one called "Jesus, which is called Christ"; and the other "a notable prisoner, Barabbas". It is obvious in vs. 21 that Pilate was presenting two persons before the Jews on that day when he asked: "Which of the two do you wish me to release to you?" Did you see that also in your "ancient manuscripts" as well?

Na wa o. Dont ever try to lie. You think I just post anything without having proof. Oya Grab your RSV, read mathew 27 v 16 and you will see letter k after barabas, now go the footnote and read Jesus Barabbas yourself.

No wahala, I "grabbed" the RSV and followed your directives. But even then, the same RSV also showed that Matt. 16:21 indicated Pilate's reference to TWO different people. Quote from RSV: ²¹[/b]The governor again said to them, "Which of [b]the two do you want me to release for you?" And they said, "Barab'bas." Abi na lie again?

babs787:
At least, your assumptions should have helped answer your own questions - they "share different attributes".

So which of the authors has real Jesus?

Go read them - all the NT writers distinguished who was being referred to in the contexts where the personalities were mentioned.

babs787:
On the other hand, if the question is as to the Name "Jesus" proving that He was God, that is arguable; for the same name has been used of others who were mere men and differ from Him who is the very Logos (the Word), and Who in John 1:1 is called GOD.

What is this man saying. Am asking you, if the name Jesus meant the same thing as Immanuel.

Haha. Don't sweat it. No be you dey act like say you have a degree in Biblical studies, hmm?? Okay, for simple ABC clarity, "Immanuel" (or, Emmanuel) means "God with us", while 'Jesus' (the latinized name from the Greek 'Joshua' or its Hebrew equivalent 'Yehoshua') means 'Yahweh is salvation'. Would the article on the link on the etymology of the name Jesus be of some help to you, babas787?

babs787:

Not only so, Isaiah 9:6 and several OT verses provide textual references to His deity as well His humanity. None of the others by inference of the name "Jesus" could claim the very idenity of what/who Jesus called Himself - the Son of God (John 10:36).

You know what, I don't have to argue with you on the sonship of God. A christian like you, domwas2 provided detailed explanation on that and the meaning to the Jews. You are laying claim to Isaiah 9 v6, was Jesus King of the Jews? Did he sit on any throne of Davd?

Sorry, domwas2 is not an authority on Jewish thought; and you keep making reference to what he reposted for the simple reason that it provides the otiose basis for your weakly spun theories of denials.

One question, though: if Isaiah 9:6 does not refer to the Messiah, who then in Jewish and Islamic thought combined was the verse referring to??

babs787:
Barjesus is not the same name as JESUS. Go figure.

Minus Bar-jesus, remaining other 4 Jesuses

And which one of them is still giving you sleepless nights??

@sage,

Thanks for your replies. Will do 'em answers before midweek when I'm less occupied.

Cheerio.

Alhaji babs787,

babs787:
I am with you, let me have your question(s)

Why you dey pretend like say you no fit read again? Are the questions not already stated??

babs787:
Going through the bible, I came across some Jesuses. There is nothing wrong in coming across names when reading any book but christians made me believe that the name is one of the reasons why Jesus is God. The holy spirit told him that the son shall be called Immauel Jesus, meaning God with us. So if the name Jesus shows that he is God , how many Gods are we having because we have the names in four or five different places.

Secondly, I found out that the Jesuses share different attributes,as a result want to know which is the real jesus out of them all.


1.

Acts 13 v 6: when they had gone through isle unto paphos, they found a certain sorcere, a false prophet, a jew, whose name was Bar-Jesus.


2.

Mathew 27 v 16-17: And they had then notable prisoner called Barrabas. Therefore when were gatyhere togwther, Pilate said unto them, who will ye that I release unto you? Barabas, or Jesus which is called Christ?

Note: Other ancient manuscript have Jesus Barabas

3.
Mathew 2 v 13 – 16: Now when they had departed. Behold an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, rise take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and remain there till I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child and destroy him. and he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed for Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod.

Note: following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt where they stayed until after Herod’s death in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughtered all male infants two years old and under. There were 28 generations from David to Jesus and the annunciation occurred after Mary had conceinved Jesus.


4.
Luke 2 v 22- 40: ( a long story, I can't type)

Note: following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in the area of Jerusalem for the presentation (about 40 days) and then returned to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There was no slaughter of the infants. There were 43 generations in all and the annunciation occurred before conception.


5.
Colossians 4 v 10-11: Aristechyus, my fellow prisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unot you, receive him).And Jesus, which is called Justus…


Thank you.

@babs787,

Another one of those infantile questions, eh?
Or, is it that you got dazed by pilgrim.1's questions on the 99 names of Allah, that you got so red in the face to dribble this one. Well done!

If the question is simple as you stated: "WHICH IS THE REAL JESUS?" then, you can again go through the Bible and see that all of them were real in their persons; but ONLY ONE was called the Son of the living God (Matt. 16:16). None of the others claimed the same identity with the Son of God.

Further, please babs787, whenever you quote the Bible, could you afford to be honest enough to not misrepresent what it says? There is NO name like "Jesus Barabas"; and Matt. 27:16-17 identified two people: one called "Jesus, which is called Christ"; and the other "a notable prisoner, Barabbas". It is obvious in vs. 21 that Pilate was presenting two persons before the Jews on that day when he asked: "Which of the two do you wish me to release to you?" Did you see that also in your "ancient manuscripts" as well?

At least, your assumptions should have helped answer your own questions - they "share different attributes".

On the other hand, if the question is as to the Name "Jesus" proving that He was God, that is arguable; for the same name has been used of others who were mere men and differ from Him who is the very Logos (the Word), and Who in John 1:1 is called GOD.

Not only so, Isaiah 9:6 and several OT verses provide textual references to His deity as well His humanity. None of the others by inference of the name "Jesus" could claim the very idenity of what/who Jesus called Himself - the Son of God (John 10:36).

Barjesus is not the same name as JESUS. Go figure.

@viee,

Lef the bobo. . . he's bored and this seems the only thing that keeps him happy - like feeding bottle in tata's mouth!!

Hi @batu,

Although I'm quite busy, I couldn't help but make a quick response to some issues you intoned in your rejoinder just above. There are persuasions in yours that I'd agree with; however, here's the line of concern to me:

batu:
Now whether they were black people, 'some' or all jews, chinese, mullato or whatever, what kind of god will command his prophet to 'compare black people to satan'?; and that "if a black man comes to you, his heart is more gross than a donkey's." From a supposed angel of god, right?

While many of us (myself included, unfortunately) sometimes take a default position in decrying Islam as a pseudo-religion claiming credulity from the Biblical God, I think one has to be objective in doing so. There are similar constructs in the Bible (even in the NT) where people have been compared to many things, (whether animals, rivers, floods, seas, etc) that even Muslims could counter-argue in like many to question "what kind of God" Christians worship. Let me remind you of a few such examples:

Ezek. 23:20
'For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.'

Job 11:12
'For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt.'

Jer 5:8
'They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour's wife.'

Matt. 7:6
'Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.'

Matt. 15:26
'But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.'

It is not hard to read all these texts in their contexts and see that people are being compared to these animals. I may be a very odd Christian; but then, please understand that my style of debating issues with people (whether atheists, Muslims, or fellow Christians) is to be as objective as I can possibly be; and not rather assume that just about everything is wrong with a system that I don't belong to.

However, the point in the Bible comparing people to all of the above and several others, can be deduced from the passages in which they appear. There is always a reason as to WHY we read of people being spoken of in such manner - and in most cases, it is in reference to their sin and rebellion (as in Jer. 5:8; Phil. 3:2 and Rev. 22:15). In other instances, reference is made to the strength, agility, and grace of appearance in the people described (Song of Solomon 1:9 - "I have compared thee, O my love, to a company of horses in Pharaoh's chariots".

The reason why (for me, at least) Muhammad's comparing people to animals and other things would be untenable, is partly due to what you have expressed concern over, and even more - the racism and denunciation of non-Muslims.

Let us even for a minute assume that the prophet of Islam had any substance to his statements as such; one would have to ask, "What crime did Jews and Ethiopians commit for them to be so labelled as Muhammad did unto them?" Where is the sin of the Jews (and the Ethiopians) that would have merited Muhammad's denunciation and racist speech against them?

Unfortunately, there was none. Even Muslim apologists who look for every excuse to euphemise Muhammad's denunciation cannot find ONE text in the Qur'an or Hadith to fully substantiate their apologetics in this regard.

Bottomline: Muhammad's denunciation is without substance; and only goes to confirm that he was racist to the core. Not many people would know this; but any Muslim inviting a debate can be assured that I could provide numerous texts for this persuasion from both the Qur'an and Hadith.

Cheers.

Oga @abdkabir,

How body? It's interesting to see that you're trying ever so hard to defend these issues which have been resoundingly laid to rest. The problem here is that you seem to be a moderate Muslim (or a liberal one at that) who hasn't taken the time to really look at the big picture.

Muhammad's career as a prophet cannot be defended in light of the overwhelming textual evidence in Islam's holy books.

Enjoy.

topefisayo:
She is an Ahmady and i"m thinking of walking to the society to seek their help.

May your parents' prayers not to lose you be answered!! You wan waka go where??

Ol' boy, if thou hast ears, love and romance aside, seriously seek help from God. From all the threads on this issue you've opened, it does not appear you're inching your way closer to divine help. May I join your parents in praying for you??

Respectfully.

@IDINRETE,

Are you one of those Jews whose article you reposted? If you are, or one of their celebrated fans, then take a look again at Psalm 16:10 and understand that it is part of the Jewish Scriptures.

Besides, if these same Jews can afford to question their own Scriptures, no one should lose sleep over that. You may as well as ask more mundane questions from Genesis to Malachi; at the end of the day, we would still have great respect and pity for those chaps.

BTW, did pilgrim.1's answer make any sense to you? Didn't the Jewish scriptures clearly reveal that God has appeared as MAN in the past?

Enjoy your Sunday, and try not sweating over those mundane questions - they're simply crafted by fellows who cannot read their own Scripture.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
I have resolved to make no further comments.

Islam has been a blessing to me and i'm happy to be a believer. Islam has taught me not to discriminate by tribe or ethnic background and thats why i follow it. If Islam had taught racial discrimination, i wouldn't have followed it.

Your religion to you and Mine to me.

Ma'Salam.

Islam actually teaches racial discrimination; only you haven't seen the relevant references.

Cheers and enjoy.

The incident still leaves me baffled. Of course, no one would stop to ask if cheating in exams was wrong; and one can argue that cheating is morally permissible (just like al-taqiyya) in matters relating to testing one's knowledge about Islam in an examination setting.

However, people wonder that the perpetrators of such a heinuos crime still roam our streets freely: no arrests made; no one questioned; and the matter was brushed aside sooner than expected. In fact, it would have been surprising indeed if any arrests were and justice sought - for that would have been a positive sign of true democracy in our country Nigeria.

Apart from the otiose claim of desecration of the Quran (which applies only to non-muslims, and not to Muslims themselves), perhaps readers should understand why NO arrests would be made. Al-taqiyya and cheating aside, it is yet another belief in Islam that Muslims can get away with any heinuos crime committed in their commune. It is a sort of Islamic immunity that cannot be enjoyed by anyone unless he or she was a muslim.

Here is the hadith that licences the act of Muslims killing non-Muslims and going scot-free.

Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 3, Num. 111 -

Narrated Ash-Sha'bi:
Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked Ali, 'Have you got any book (which has been revealed to the Prophet
apart from the Qur'an)?' 'Ali replied, 'No, except Allah's Book or the power of understanding which
has been bestowed (by Allah) upon a Muslim or what is (written) in this sheet of paper (with me).'
Abu Juhaifa said, "I asked, 'What is (written) in this sheet of paper?' Ali replied, it deals with The Diyya
(compensation (blood money) paid by the killer to the relatives of the victim), the ransom for the
releasing of the captives from the hands of the enemies, and the law that no Muslim should
be killed in Qisas (equality in punishment) for the killing of (a disbeliever).

Okay, there you have it: Qisas!! No Muslim should be killed for killing a non-Muslim. So, readers can now understand why crimes continue to be perpetrated by some Muslims (referred to as "the bad eggs among us" by other Muslims), and no one dare asks any questions or make any arrests. Heaven knows what's next; for only when the crimes have been committed do we hear such glibs as "the entire Muslim community condemns such acts of barbarity!"

Is Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 1, Book 3, Num. 111 and other interpretations of Islamic laws the reason why we read statements like:

Islam do not just endorse anyone to kill anyone but i am sure by now you are very familiar with the sharia legal system which is wholly derived from the islamic dictates. Its not a situation of lawlessness neither is it a state of anarchy. There are constituted authorities to deal with legal and communal issues.

I applaud the mettle of the gentleman who has come under fire for defending the tenets of his religion; and this where people like babs787 should be man enough to show their spunk, instead of ducking real issues and asking silly questions of why Muhammad's tales are worth the daylight that no one else should see for being non-muslim.

Last note, on reading such Hadith as quoted above for Qisas, I wonder what to make of this other line:

]We muslims loves you all and your continued hatred can not get you any result but more anguish and frustration

source: Oga belloti himself!.

ziddy:
give them a break!

O' boy no make me laff!  

Where wert thou when people like babs787 and others would not give Christians a break? Abeg, pilgrim.1, continue the journey: we want to hear you! Dem say our bible no complete; now we want to hear the other side of the story whether the Qur'an can survive without the Hadith!  

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
@stimulus & davidylan

How far will we go dogmatically arguing against one another on an issue that has perhaps done more harm to our people than Good. Millions and million of people killed in the name of religion. I see religion as a means to achieving happiness for me, my people and world. If Islam and christianity doenst help that , then there's no use.

I think davidylan has well answered your reposte.

However, you amaze me with the prejudice of claiming that religion helps, and yet Islam and Christianity might not help, achieve your ends. This sounds like you are quickly dissociating yourself from Islam as a Muslim, and assuming a chair in a no-man's-land of "religion!" If Islam has failed you, I can empathise with that; and that is why people continue to challenge its claims, and will continue to do so until more Muslims come round admitting the seriousness of its untenable claims.

abdkabir:
I think it wasn't right of you to choose a part of the reported sayings of Muhammad to suggest Muhammed's hatred towards the Jews.I made me do a random search on jew related issues and on the two main source of Hadithes (Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari) ,Heres the page: link: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html , please type the word jew on this . From the result i saw and trying to put things in context, Muhammed could be said to have been tolerant. History even as reported by non believing scientist have confirmed that the rule of Muslims was more tolerant to the Jews than other recent powers that ruled on Jews in pre modern times.

Thanks for the offer, and I assure you that I followed your advice as given. What you fail to understand is that Muhammad's "prophecy" in Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985 is the same "tolerance" that is being used today by Muslims who want to see every Jew annihilated so that Muhammad's "LAST HOUR" may be fulfilled according to his "prophecy". Did I miss it there again??

abdkabir:
On this issue , i will not take side because i'm muslim or christian, if religion will divide or cause hatred among our peoples , then of what use is it.I will not hate a people because of the wrong doings of a group of them and i look straight to the belief in one God and one alone.

Like you, I'm sure many people are willing to vouch for peace and tolerance regardless of cherished religious convictions. However, it is hard to convince anyone that you or any other person is a Muslim if he or she does not adhere to the beliefs of Muhammad; in just the same way that my being called a Christian would be without substance if I don't adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The hatred in Islam is not something that is peripheral or tangential to the religion; it is not some virus that was injected along the line by some backyard boys centuries after Muhammad had perfected his religion. Hatred, intolerance and violence against the Jews were the very foundation of Muhammad's teachings; and those who are popping up those references and acting on them today are actually quoting him verbatim.

abdkabir:
Yes, its true, Islam advises, if both sides do not agree then you go your way. Thats why i maintain your way to you and mine to me.

I know, that's why I quoted the Sura for you earlier. If only Muhammad had kept within the confines of sura 109:6, we would all have been happier without the sword and bombs today.

Shalom.

Hi @Viable,

Viable:
Hell fire is an event and not a place as so many christian denominations do teach today

Did the Bible describe the lake of fire in Rev. 20:10 as an event and not a place? Were the devil and his rebellious host cast into an event or into a place?

Viable:
The bible says unquenchable fire, that is a fire which nobody can put off untill it consume every sinner. that means that sinners will be burnt up with fire which noone can put off

Where did the Bible say "UNTIL" it has consumed every sinner, when in fact it says day and night for ever and ever?

Viable:
see Isaiah 24;1-6 and jude verse 7 where the bible mentioned the destruction of sodom and gomorrha as example of eternal fire

We don't read of what you described in Isaiah 24:1-6. The 6th verse says: "Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left." The earth and lake of fire are not the same place; nobody is left who is cast into the lake of fire.

Viable:
So if the Jehovah's Witnesses told you that hell fire is not a place as many christians teaches today, they are right but if they taught you that GOD will not punish sinners to death with fire, they are wrong

The Jehovah Witnesses are doubly wrong. The lake of fire is described in Scripture as a place into which the devil and his rebellious host will be cast. That event occurs at the final judgement.

@pilgrim.1, good points there.

IDINRETE:
Did it ascend to heaven, or did it decompose as with any human piece of flesh? During his lifetime what happened to his hair, nails, and blood shed from wounds? Did the cells of his body die as in ordinary human beings? If his body did not function in a truly human way, he could not be truly human as well as truly God. Yet, if his body functioned exactly in a human way, this would nullify any claim to divinity. It would be impossible for any part of God, even if incarnate, to decompose in any way and still be considered God.

Psalm 16:10
"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

Acts 2:27 & 31
"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption . . .

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."

sage:
And you said in every goverment that God appoints Christians are supposed to ,

If i might ask which one is the Govt that God appoints and which one does he not appoint

And How come when the bible talks about the destruction of Human rulers it talks about all of them?


Besides if the national rulers really had God's approval, why would he destroy them?

@sage, please patiently go through my rejoinders and see the difference between them. Your problem is going to remain perennially as long as you keep lumping them up from your default position without carefully examining God's Word on the issue.

sage:
Il come back and Clarify you on the issue of the beasts and what they represent. I told you the discussion was actually more extensive than what i posted


AND YES THE CHURCH IS PART OF THE HARLOT (THOUGH NOT ALL OF THE HARLOT). I'm feeling lazy now. Its almost 5am here.

Il come back and address this issues

I'll be waiting to see how THE CHURCH is interpreted as THE HARLOT/LovePeddler! It may take a while for me to reply your your extensive posts; but I'll do my best as time permits (we're getting really busy as we leave the winter behind! yipee!!! )

Cheers.

@sage,

sage:
Besides in what sense did Jesus say that we should pray for human rulers?
Give the scripture and let us examine it,

1 Tim. 2:1-4
"I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

sage:
Note that Jesus asked us to PRAY for our enemies and those who wish us bad but does that now imply participation with them? Besides Jesus and the first century apostles and disciples also OBEYED and RESPECTED the rule of law of his day and PRAYED for their enemies, even the rulers of the Land, but THEY WERE STILL POLITICALLY NEUTRAL.

To be politically neutral requires CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!! You do NOT obey any government to which you are "neutral!" To RESPECT, PRAY FOR and OBEY the diabolical beastly rulers are NOT the responsibility to which Christians are called; rather, we are called to do those things ACTIVELY to governments ORDAINED by God - Rom. 13:1.

sage:
Lets put this into context though using an example.

When Satan wanted to try Job, he went to God and told him what he wanted to do. God said that he could go on and do whatever he wanted except for killing Job. The fact that God told him he could go ahead with his plan did it now mean that God approved of the Devil, his plans, his ways nor his deeds? That he told the Devil he could carry on with his plan does that in any way suggest that God would want any of his faithful servants to participate in it? Did God really approve of the Devil and his plans even though the plan went ahead with God's say so?

God okayed the Devils plan to try Job. He gave the Devil the go-ahead. (The authority with which the devil tries Job could be said to have been ordained or granted from above, the same as the authority with which Pilate killed Jesus) At the same time the bible says that God does not try people with evil things. That God says ok go and do this does not necessarily mean it is according to his will nor does it mean it has his Actual approval nor does it mean that he wants his true servants to participate or be involved in that same thing that he said it is ok for the Devil to go ahead and do. (It only means that those things happened only because God gives them full permission and allows for them to happen) That he gave the Devil an OK does not mean that he will not destroy the devil at the end of the day

I don't think the Bible says that "God does not try people with evil things." I may agree with you if you meant rather to quote James 1:13 - "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." In which case, Job was put to the test in the divine economy of God's will (James 5:11).

While I appreciate your offer to illustrate your point, there are a few problems with your analogy. For one, it does not clearly bring out the fact of God "appointing" or "ordaining" civil and political governments. The devil has often sought to try godly people or those favoured by God - as he did in Luke 22:31-32 when he asked to sift Peter as wheat! Satan's request to try Job is not the same thing as God's ordaining civil governments and our Christian responsibility to OBEY, RESPECT and PRAY FOR kings and all those in authority. NOWHERE did Job or any other godly character OBEY, RESPECT, or PRAY FOR the devil!! So, unfortunately the illustration is a weak application to the present discourse.

Second, you still have issues with seeing God severally declared in Scripture as the One who GIVES human rulership to whomsoever He wishes. This is not a passive roundabout dribbling with passive words like "permission" and "allow" - please read the references and let the Word of God speak to your heart.

sage:
Human rulerships have God's ok to go ahead and do what they want in exercising rulership. It can be said in that sense that their rulership is granted from God. But that does not in anyway mean they are really in harmony with his will, nor does it mean that they will not in the same manner be destroyed by God.

This all sounds like making God some passive being who is unable to do anything than merely "permitting", "allowing" or "okay-ing" something that someone else does! The Bible clearly says that He ORDAINED, APPOINTED, GIVES, ESTABLISHED, and SET UP those government.

I have also offered Isaiah 13:11 to show that evil governments shall be judged - "And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible."

@sage,

sage:
Non of those verses you quoted in anyway support the idea that the present political system of the world or any rulers power comes from God.

It is not so amazing that you'd come back knotting yourself in the issues delineated clearly in my rejoinder. If you cannot humbly acknowledge the obvious declaration of Rom. 13:1 and other numerous akin verses, then you will continue to find a huge difficulty acknowledging that God ALONE is the One who APPOINTS, ORDAINS, SETS UP, or ESTABLISHES human rulership; and the devil is NOWHERE said to have that jurisdcition. Please read ROMANS 13:1 again - "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." You would only make sense if you could find me the verse that says "the powers that be are ordained of the devil!"

sage:
That the bible says that It is to whom God wants that he gives power (does not mean that human goverments are in line with his will and Romans reminds Christians of their obligation to obey goverments)

It is really hilarious to suppose that God would ask us to OBEY, RESPECT and PRAY for governments that are not in line with His will. If Christians would for one minute suppose that Rom. 13:1 are outside the will of God, then it is no wonder that so many of us are failing in our spiritual responsibility to obey God's Word as simply stated.

sage:
Neither of the two passages nor any of the other passages gives the slightest excuse for Christians to participate in wordly politics.

I can understand how difficult it is for you to let your default assumptions be settled by the Word of God. Go read about the lives of godly servants of the LORD who were employed in political offices, and then come back condemning them as those who will be destroyed in divine rage!

sage:
Besides you said that the beasts refer to the end times? How then did The beasts of Daniel chapter 8 turn out to be Alexander, his empire and the Persian empire?. Why would the angel in Revelation refer to the the Seven headed wild beast as rulers who rule over mankind?

Please calm down and let Scripture speak to your heart. How is it that Daniel was severally told that the vision did NOT apply to his time and day? More so, the angel that gave him understanding repeatedly asserted that "at the time of the end shall be the vision" (Dan. 8:17)?? Do the seven headed beast tessellate with what you read in Rom. 13:1; or would you describe the present time as already the Armageddon??

The problem with your type of reasoning is that it is unable to clearly delineate and distinguish between issues that speak of the apocalypse, and those which speak of what God is doing in the CHURCH age. That is why it does not surprise me that you constantly misconstrue THE CHURCH for the HARLOT!!

@sage,

sage:
i wanted to answer your question in due time. I really wanted you to see that in the light of bible promises and God's divine plan, the human political system has no future and is not where a true Christian should be found.

What many people typically do is to take a default position even before they examine God's word. That is why they mix up issues in the Bible; and then without conviction try to pass their ideas to others. That is one thing I try to avoid; which is why I often challenge the ideas being put forward by others, especially where those ideas do not seem to have Scriptural foundation.

In the same way, you might agree come to the understanding that Scripture does not teach that the devil GIVES human rulership to whomsoever he wishes. If that were the case, he would have done it in the past countless times; we would have clearly read of it in God's Word as is stated about God who does that; and then, we can't miss how the Bible clearly delineates that the ultimate rebellion of Satan is during the apocalypse.

sage:
Whatever my answer to that singular question was and still is not going to change God's plan to end human rulership. I was amazed at the way you kept pounding on it as the answer to that question would nullify all what the bible had said.

But i was going to answer you that question regardless.

My challenge was offered for the simple reason that you were using a faulty premiss to launch into unbiblical ideas. You may be concerned about my reservations on other issues - and that was due to the fact that they were outside the purview of my concerns; nor did I rigorously attempt to deny that wicked and rebellious governance will come to an end by divine judgement. Recall again that to this end I offered Isaiah 13:11 - 'And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.'

Once we understand WHO is in ULTIMATE CONTROL, then the tendency to lump up ALL civil and political governments as diabolical will be minimized.

Cheers.

sage:
@Stimulus no problems. We are all busy from time to time.

Meanwhile i did not misconstrue anything. The bible revealed the identity of the wild beast that recieves rulership from the devil in the book of Revelation as rulers, the same way it did for Daniel. Go through those scriptures that i posted. It wont be hard for any good bible student to have identified who the beasts were referring to even before the angel clearly identified it. The similarities to the beasts of Daniel are just too striking to miss.

Its also interesting to know that humans made an image of this beast and it begins active rulership over humans and humans now pledge their allegiance to it.

It would be in the good interest of any good Bible student to clearly distinguish between issues here: (a) civil authorities ORDAINED and APOOINTED by God for our OBEDIENCE, RESPECT and PRAYERS - Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Tim. 2:1-2 and 1 Pet. 2:13-14; and (b) governments led by diaobolically influenced rulers in the apocalypse as in the Revelation and Daniel.

sage:
Il come back and discuss Romans 13:1-4. In fact Romans 13:1-4 was written by a politically neutral apostle to a politically neutral Christian congregatin in Rome. Those First Century Christians clearly understood that their Christian calling left no room for any sort of participation in the wordly political system. BUT THEY ALSO CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT OBEYING CAESARS COMMANDS WHICH DO NOT CONFLICT WITH CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES WAS A CHRISTIAN OBLIGATION. CHRISTIANS WERE NOT TO TO TRY TO SUBVERT THE STATE IN ANYWAY. But Neither that nor the book of Daniel in anyway condone true Christians participation in the political affairs of the world.

True neutrality does not remotely suggest that that Christians PRAY for leaders in civil and political governments. Go back and read Daniel and see that he was actively employed in political office in Babylon (Dan. 8:27 - "afterward I rose up, and did the king's business"; so the reasoning to see "neutrality" in those Scriptures is weak.

OBEDIENCE, RESPECT and PRAYER are not words of NEUTRALITY!! These are active words Christians exercise towards the political and civil governments APPOINTED by God (Rom. 13:1-4); but they are NOT the same things we express towards the beastly rebellious governments of the apocalypse who give themselves to blaspheming God and waging a war against the saints.

sage:
Il give my final thoughts and also put an end to my side of this discussion. I believe i have done this topic justice. Everybody has his choices 2 make in life

I concur.

@sage,

sage:
What do you mean by that . Did you read those scriptures at all

Stimulus has been asking for an example of where the devil gives rulership to human rulers. He kept asking the question as if it would negate what the scriptures has promised is in store for Human Rulership and all those that partake of it and their military forces. He keeps asking those questions like it would nulify the example Jesus and his apostles set for any true christians with regards to wordly political affairs.

I kept asking the same question to help point you back to the fact that Scripture shows us the example of the Lord Jesus and the apostles was for us to OBEY, RESPECT and PRAY for political leaders and governments appointed/instituted by God. To suggest that those civil and political governments have been ordained by the devil is a huge fallacy.

sage:
The bible identifies the wild beast with seven heads and ten horns as human rulers. It is interesting to note that the image of the wild beast given rulership by the Devil is formed by Men who now pledge their alligiance to it.

The beasts of the apocalypse are not to be misconstrued for the civil governments God has ordained and asked us to PRAY FOR, OBEY and RESPECT.

sage:
The way the Angel identified the wild beast as human rulership is uncomfortable to the vast majority of those on earth but so is Truth in general.

Which is like admitting to the uncomfortable feeling elicited by those who can't see the difference between the beasts of the apocalypse from the civil governments spoken of in Rom. 13:1-4.

sage:
I want him to reply to this and then il post my last postings and lay my case to rest.

There for now - as above. Cheers.

@sage,

sage:
we have been arguing this for a while but let us examine this.

Rev Chap 18 gives a very classical example of the sense in which Caesar is God's Servant

The Seven headed wild beast which recieved its rulership from the devil is also used by God to achieve God's purposes. The Harlot that sits on masses of people, that had formed an unholy alliance with the beast (Human Political rulers), is destroyed by the same Beast she had been in colaboration at the instigation of God. God puts it into the hearts of these rulers to carry out his will even though their rulership power comes from the Devil.

The bible is clear that the wild beast (human rulership) recieves its power and authority from the Devil but God has ultimate power and even though the wild beast is under the direct control and influence of Satan, God can still use human rulers to achieve his purposes. It is within his power to do so.

Let's not jumble issues here. My premiss has been that God "gives" human rulership to whomsoever He wishes; and the devil does NOT have that jurisdiction, even though he may instigate, influence or manipulate evil in governance.

Second, that the beasts receive their powers from Satan does not presuppose that he is in ULTIMATE CONTROL over world affairs; for we have seen by many references that God ALONE has that prerogative, even as you now concede to in the highlighted words above.

Third, the rebellious system of the world will be divinely judged by God Himself on the day of reckoning.

Fourth, of those civil and political governments which God Himself has appointed (Rom. 13:1), Christians are to OBEY, RESPECT and PRAY for them.

Fifth, we cannot confuse the apocalyptic beasts for present civil and political governments instituted by God.

sage:
The fact that God uses the beast to accomplish his will still did not mean that the wild beast was not to be destroyd.

Granted.

sage:
God turns around and destroys this wild beast (Human Rulers) and everything associated with human rulership, including their military[/color]

It does not therefore mean the notion that "Christians have a battle against world leaders", (as you stated earlier on); for that would hugely contradict our spelt-out responsibility towards the governments appointed or ordained by God.

@sage,

sage:
To start with lets examine bible references to Human rulership in Daniel.
Daniel Chap: 7:2-8 describes four beasts coming out of the sea. [color=#550000]A Lion, Bear, Leopard, and a huge fearsome beast with ten horns. Dan:7:17 clearly identify these beasts as representing Human rulers on earth.[/color] In a second vision Daniel in Chap 8:3-8, 20-25 sees a two-horned ram that is struck down by a He-goat with a Great horn (which was later replaced by 4 horns). [color=#990000]These creatures along with the horns were clearly explained to Daniel as representing human rulership (representing the dual world power Medo Persia and Greece).

Now moving along to Revelation.
In Revelation chap 12:7-9 identifies the Dragon as Satan the Devil.
R[color=#770077]ev 13:1,2 describes a Wild beast with Seven heads and ten horns also ascending out of the sea. The beast also posseses the Characteristic of a Leopard, Bear, a Lion, and possessed Ten horns (The very same characteristics of the beasts that represented human rulership in the vision shown to Daniel). And The Dragon, Satan gives the seven headed beast Rulership[/color]. Rev16:10-16 shows that action taken by God would result in the Dragon and The wild beast acting to gather the all the political rulers of the world in opposition to God. Rev 13:11-15 describes the emergence of a two horned beast which acts with the authority of the Dragon and will give breath to the image of the seven headed wild beast which was set up by humans. The image of the wild beast now go on to take an active part in the rulership of the earth, mislead the Earths inhabitants and have them follow it. Rev: Chap 17:2-10 reveals the identity of the wild beast with seven heads and ten horns. It calls it kings or mountains (Mountains and Kings have been used in the bible to refer to governmental powers. Compare Jeremiah 51:24,25, Dan 2:34,35,44,45) and also refers to the horns on the wild beast as Rulers who would unite to fight against God’s King Christ (compare Rev 16: 14,16 Rev19:17,18) Clearly The Seven headed ten horned Beast that had been given Power and Authority by the Devil represents world rulership and political system under the control of the devil.

Interesting. However, you clearly missed the issues presented in these texts as relating to the core question that has brought us up until this point. I'd like you to see that these are dealing with the apocalypse of the endtime when Satan gathers the rulers of the world to the battle of that great day of God Almighty at Armegeddon (Rev. 16:14, 16). Infact, when reading Daniel's prophecy, note that the events described in chapters 7 & 8 were said to have reference to the endtimes:

Dan. 8:17, 19, 26; 10:14
"So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. . . And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. . . And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. . .Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days."

Again and again, Daniel was told that the vision did not apply to his time and day; nor are we to take it to mean that we are already in the day of the Armageddon. There are a few things you should see in this connection:

(a) the time of these beastly kings - "at the time of the end shall be the vision" (ch. 8:17)

(b) the nature of their ascension to power -
"four great beasts came up from the sea. . . four kings, which shall arise out of the earth" (ch. 7:3 & 17)

(c) the operation and [/b]character[/b] of their power -
"I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them . . .
and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered" (ch. 7:21 & 8:12)
"he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High,
and think to change times and laws" (ch. 7:25).

(d) the diabolical source of their powers -
"his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power" (Dan. 8:24)
"And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast" (Rev. 13:4).

The basic reason why I delineated these issues is so we do not mistake the apocalyptic visions of the endtime for that which God in His grace at the present time offers to the nations in terms of civil governments which HE ALONE appoints (Rom. 13:1). When dealing with the ultimate rebellion instigated by Satan, we should not confuse issues and lump them up as applying to EVERY political government in the world presently. The following reasons are why I'm persuaded that there is a distinction between them:

(a) In EVERY government appointed by God (Rom. 13:1), Christians are actively to RESPECT, OBEY, and PRAY for them (1 Tim. 2:1-2; 1 Pet. 2:13-14). Whereas, in the beastly kings of the apocalypse, we are not urged to show the same deference to them.

(b) The civil and political governments appointed by God bear the following features: they are "sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well" (1 Pet. 2:14); also, these "rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. . .he is the minister of God to thee for good . .a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (Rom. 13:3-4). Whereas, the apocalyptic beastly rulers are the direct opposite, such that they "cast down the truth to the ground; and practised, and prospered" (Dan. 7:21 & 8:12); also speaking "great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints" (ch. 7:25).

These are just part of the distinctions that should help us understand that the apocalyptic diabolical kings are not to be taken as literally applying to ALL political and civil governments which Scripture clearly says are ordained by God.

sage:
After the destruction of the Harlot (whose identity scares Tayo D ) by the Beasts., Rev 19:15-21describes the destruction of the wild beast, human rulers and their military forces at the hands of God's king then rightful rulership is given back to Christ.

Since the wild beast and its image refer to Human rulership or the human political system, the Dragon grants this wild beast its rulership and authority

The Harlot of Revelation 19 is NOT the CHURCH, and I hope you can mark that distinction quite well.

sage:
This completely harmonizes with other passages of the bible [color=Black]that clearly identify the Devil as the ruler of the world
[/color]
Luke 4:6, 1st John 5:19, John 14:30,

John 12:31, John 16:11

2nd Corinthians 4:4

This discussion is really more extensive than this. Il come and give a few more postings later in the day before i log out of this discussion

Unfortunately, they do not "harmonize", in as far as you were lumping them all up and unable to distinguish between them. Besides, I've dealt with the verses you gave above to show in what context Scripture speaks of the devil as the god/ruler/prince of this world - and not in even ONE instance is there the remotest idea that the devil is in ULTIMATE CONTROL. May I remind you that even when some might think that Satan is the sole mover of events during the apocalypse, God was still in control of the affairs that would seal their doom:

Revelation 17:17
"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

@sage,

Right, I'm a bit less busy so hereare my rejoinders to yours; and thanks for your patience.

I'll start by answering the points you raised in your earlier reposte and then come up to date with the latest. Pardon my being comprehensive; but just so that no one misses the clarity of the points I'd be delineating.

sage:
Guyy il post those scriptures for you don't worry. (it will be a long post and im a little busy now) but i want you to answer this question straight. Dont bring up the issue of where the passages are. IL give them to you

You can't seem to answer those simple questions. Address these questions seperately

1 The devil is the ruler of the world. He controls the political realm and ultimate control over the wordly political system (Rev 16: 14'16). He did not forcefully take that power from God. For him to be the ruler of the earth he has to be given that authority.

First, let me quote Rev. 16:14 & 16 - "¹⁴For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty . . . And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

Now, come off it sage, these verses do not tell us that the devil has ULTIMATE CONTROL of the political realm and worldly political systems. That he influences political governments with his diabolical operations is not to be stretched to mean he has ULTIMATE CONTROL over them.

Just to buttress the point of who has "ultimate control" of the world, please go over the verses again:

Psa. 62:11
"God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God" (power does NOT belong to the devil).

Prov. 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will."

Dan. 4:17
"the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will, and setteth up over it the basest of men."

Dan. 4:32
"the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will."

Dan. 5:21
"till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that He appointeth over it whomsoever He will."

Psa. 75:7
"But God is the judge: He putteth down one, and setteth up another."

Rom. 13:1
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Please remember that the core question has been if there was ANY verse clearly teaching that the devil GIVES (i.e., ORDAINS, SETS UP, ESTABLISHES, INSTITUTES, APPOINTS, or PUTS IN PLACE) human rulership, and does so to whomsoever he wishes. I don't find any verse teaching that in the Bible; and not one comes close to proposing the idea that the devil does the same thing as God does in the verses just cited above.

Now, carefully look again at Rev. 16:14 & 16 that you quoted; you would see it says no more than that the spirits of devils (or demons) go forth unto the kings of the earth to gather them to the battle of the great day. To "go forth unto" and to "gather" the kings of the earth do not mean the same thing as to "GIVE, APPOINT, ORDAIN, or ESTABLISH" those kings in the first place! The question then for you, sage is: "WHERE does it teach that the devil APPOINTED or ORDAINED those KINGS of the earth?"

Let me illustrate this point for you about how the devil tries to diabolically influence the kings/rulers of the earth through the activities of demonic spirits. Read Acts 13:8-12. Elymas the sorcerer was trying to influence the deputy to turn away from the faith. Notice what the Spirit-filled Paul said to the sorcerer: "O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Here we see a demonic spirit in the sorcerer trying to diabolically influence a ruler (the deputy) in just the same way as Rev. 16:14 & 16 tells us that these spirits of devils "go forth unto" the kings of the earth. And when you read further in Acts 13, you find God was in ULTIMATE CONTROL as Paul pronounced blindness on Elymas the sorcerer (vs. 11-12).

The devil is NOT in "ultimate control" over anything in the world God has set up, whether world political systems or anything else pertaining to the civil lives of people in the world. Dan. 4:26 - 'And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule.'

sage:
Who gave the devil the authority to rule the world and in what manner?

I've tried to explain the context in which the devil is spoken of as the god/ruler/prince of this world, as well the manner in which he exercises his diabolical activities. Let me first repost the relevant section for you, and then answer your question in a simplistic manner:

There are several contexts of the word "world" in Scripture. 1 John 5:19 does not suppose at all that the devil has absolute power or control of the world in the sense of being in control over the universe; for that is alone the prerogative of the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom it is doubly testified that He upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), and by Him all things consist (Col. 1:17).

When Scripture speaks of the devil as the god of this world (2 Cor. 4;4), it is in reference to the rebellious system of men and fallen angels in the world. It is from such a rebellious system that the Lord Jesus gave Himself to deliver us (Gal. 1:4 - 'that He might deliver us from this present evil world'). This rebellious and ungodly system of which the devil stands as the prince is expounded for us in Eph. 2:2 & 3 - "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

Never forget that all power in heaven and on earth is in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18); and in the Lord's prayer, believers recognize that the power and the glory and the Kingdom belongs to God (Matt. 6:13), and not at all to the devil.

Hence, when the Bible speaks of the devil as the prince, ruler, or god of this world, it is in reference to a rebellious system operating in the lives of the ungodly. It is not in reference to any idea of the devil setting up or giving rulership to anyone in the first place.

Now to answer your question again in a simplistic way,

(a) Who gave the devil the authority to rule the world?

The devil does NOT rule the world in any sense in which God is the Ruler of all that He has made (Psa. 29:10 - 'The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever'; Psa. 103:19 - "The LORD hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all". God did NOT create him as the "DEVIL" nor gave him DIABOLICAL powers or authority.  He was created as 'Lucifer' and set as the anointed cherub (Ezek 28:14 -"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so". The devil turned his God-given power/authority as the anointed cherub into something other than was given or intended (Ezek. 28:15 - "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee"; and Ezek. 28:18 -"Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick".

It is vital here to understand that the devil operates by diabolical powers and authority - which he never received from God. And as already explained above, he is called the ruler/god/prince of this world in reference to a rebellious system that is as ungodly in all its ramifications as he himself. Such terms as used of the devil do not suggest that he rules in ULTIMATE CONTROL over God's creation in ANY sphere.

It is for this reason that the devil is NEVER called "the Lord of the world", or "the king of this world", in as much as believers know for a certainty that GOD ALONE is heralded as LORD of HEAVEN and EARTH (Acts 17:24).

(b) to rule the world and in what manner?

The devil "rules" in the sense of being the head of a REBELLIOUS and UNGODLY SYSTEM, variously expressed as "the course of this world" (Eph. 2:2); and "this present evil world" (Gal. 1:4). As 'the prince of the power of the air', he is at work in the children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2).

sage:
2 When i contrasted Jeremiah 13: 1,2to other scriptureswhich says God planted the wicked?. What does that mean and in what sense did God plant the Wicked?

The Word of God shows us He does not set up wicked men to be rulers over His people without a cause. There are times when He appoints good rulers who bring relief and good governance to erring people, as in the case of Othniel in Judg. 3:7-11. But when they did evil in the sight of the LORD, He made them serve Eglon the king of Moab for eighteen years (vs. 12-14).

However, there are other instances where God appoints cruel rulers over nations as a sign of His judgement to those people. This is exemplified in many texts of Scripture, as in Isaiah 19:4 - "And the Egyptians will I give over into the hand of a cruel lord; and a fierce king shall rule over them, saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts."

What we should not fail to notice is that, it is not the devil that appoints or ordains these cruel rulers; God Himself is the One who appoints, sets up, or ordains these kings and rulers in every instance. Rulers may become wicked men, influenced by the devil unto ungodly and rebellious governance in their kingdoms; but even so, Scripture teaches that it is GOD ALONE who appoints or ordains kings and rulers.

However, we also learn that every king and ruler who has operated in wickedness and iniquity will be divinely judged by God on the day of reckoning:

Job 34:11 - 'For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.'

Isa 13:11 - 'And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.'

Nothing can be farther from truth to suppose that God will punish and destroy EVERY ruler and king regardless of their performance in the exercise of their governance. Quite on the contrary, Scripture teaches the following:

Eze 33:15 - "If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die."

Prov. 29:14 - 'The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.'

sage:
Thirdly you are wrongly corelating the scripture in Daniel to the one one in Romans to say that God approves of his true servants participating in politics. That is totally wrong. Il address that when i come back

Il come back when i finish doing some of what im bugged down with now.

Answer those questions though

I did not argue that any verse in the Bible necessarily gives the license for Christians participating in politics. My entrée into the dicussion of this thread was a simple question challenging the idea that the devil gives human rulership to whomever he wishes. My position has been consistent right on through to the present, that God and He ALONE appoints human rulersship as attested in both Daniel and Romans. Once you can see that, then the several wrong assertions you've made become obvious to you.

JVI - Jack Van Impe.

I enjoy Hal Lindsey as well.

HELL BELLS should make careless souls think - very revealing.

@abdkabir,

abdkabir:
Now clearer, you are blindly biased against Muslims or Islam. You have made conclusions even before discussing.

Perhaps, it is true I'm being biased against Islam (rather than against Muslims) - but not blindly; for my inferences are only borne out of the same bias Muslims have viciously expressed towards Christians and Jews. And please don't come pretending you've been practising a version of Islam in a vacuum, in as much as you failed to see that I've followed this discussion all the way through before drawing my inferences as pointers to lead you back to the basics of the religion you thought you knew so well.

abdkabir:
The Muslims awaitbno Messiah to Save them from any thing. The Muslim awit the fulfilment of the promise of their lord,the Last day and the signs that shall herald the last day. The rising of the Sun from the west, the return of Jesus , Son of Mary an dapparently a companion of Jesus in the name of Mahdi etc.

Interesting. So what are the promises of your 'Lord' that Muhammed failed to leave you in the Qur'an??

This is another issue that really makes one wonder if you guys have your acts together. Some Muslims on the other side of the bridge on this issue deeply believe that there's a "Messiah" figure or avatar who's yet to come, popularly known as the Madhi - and which you even indicated in your response. So, what's this hapless yapping all of a sudden to confuse yourself with a contradiction of the same thing you acknowledge in one breath?

It is even more interesting that babs787, one of your celebrated Muslim apologists, discusses the Madhi as a Messiah avatar in the thread: Judgement Day (signs, Stages & Proceedings). Naming him as Muhammed ibn Abdullah (aka Jaabir, from the progeny of Fatimah, daughter of the prophet through Hasan), the Madhi will be a guide and reformer. Notice babs787 also states that the Madhi "will fill the earth with justice as opposed to its injustice and oppression. He will restore peace and reform peoples' lway (sic) of life."

That babs787 is not alone in this belief is confirmed by many Muslims; and you can access this highlighted weblink to see another article on the Madhi commonly understood as a "Saviour figure in Islam".

abdkabir:
Your way to you and my way to Me.

I understand that verse from the Quran (Sura 109 v. 6) is the refrain usually pronounced when a Muslim runs into a brick wall in his arguments. Enjoy.

abdkabir:
It is nothing but foolishness to hate a people because of the errors of some of them. For those who advocate hatred towards the Jews , they are indeed in great Error. I'm a Muslim and i know of what i say.

Okay. Since you are a Muslim who knows what he says, which of the categories of emboldened words would you classify Muhammad's prophetic hatred for the Jews?? Does that surprise you? By way of reminder, Muhammad left Muslims a pivotal statement that is widely regarded as a 'prophecy' that must be fulfilled at all costs. Could you please explain what this so-called prophecy is all about? Here:

Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews
and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind
a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah,
there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say,
for it is the tree of the Jews.

Dare you call Muhammad's prophetic hatred against the Jews "nothing but foolishness" or "great Error"??

abdkabir:
The hatred the palestins and those apologetic to their cause harbour for the Jews might be understandable in context but is definately not a religious. That a Jew (allegedly killed Muhammed SAW) is no excuse for the hatred of an entire people and i'm sure this is the position of islam.

God be with you.
abdkabir

I'm sure you and I can be forgiven for not being Palestinians. However, if we let them speak for themselves, we can't miss the fact that their hatred for the Jews is concretely established on Muhammad's 'prophecy'. They preach this hatred openly in their mosques as an Islamic tenet. Video clips and online articles available on request (for example, Ibrahim Mudayris' sermon of May 13, 2005 - just clicl on the link if you have a windows media player on your PC).

God's mercy to you.

Bottomline: Muhammad did not perform ANY miracles. Only embarrassed Muslims who are desperate to give him some sort of credibility are the ones going about with some eye-pupil "falling" to the cheeks. So much for the 'scientific' Qur'an and the more scientific Hadiths.

Even Muhammad himself was so embarrassed by the same question many times; and instead of autheticating his prophetic career with a clear miracle, he often referred to others' authenticated signs and miracles. Yet, he was even more embarrassed by the fact that he did not know the God of the Bible; and the plot thickens until he finally 'performed' one that the his followers will never forget: his 'miraculous' hatred for the Jews! If some of you have forgotten, it runs something along the lines that trees and stones will "cry out" to the Jihadists that some Jews were hiding behind them. At least, we see that 'miracle' as clear evidence in our day; although one will searchthe Quran in vain for the types similar to those of Moses and Jesus.

@Ananlytical,

Thanks for your commendation. It makes any reader wonder that it would take nothing less that 35 replies to get sage offering even one verse that stipulates what he categorically stated, and which he continued to maintain for that long. Bottomline is that, we can only try to reason with people; and if they would rather take it otherwise, mercy to them.

Blessings

@sage,

Many thanks for at last offering an answer to my question. Forgive my inability the past few days to post a reply due to tight schedules, but I was impressed all the same.

However, before coming back to deal with the verses you offered in defence of your persuasions, I'd like you to carefully go through them again and mirror your discourse on Rom. 13:1-4 and the other verses from the OT I've severally offered. Particularly, I'd like you to reflect on what relationship Christians bear in respect to the beastly powers which you misconstrue for political and civil governments of our time as God gives them.

Second, please carefully reflect on your misconstruing the "harlot" for THE CHURCH; and then see if it makes any sense at all that you might be mistaken - and gravely so.

Lord willing, this weekend I'll be back to address the points you raised and hope that you'll find me the verse that specifically stipulates your statement that the devil "gives" human rulership to whomever he pleases.

Cheers.

mrpataki:
Does Islam guarantee death? YES

Does Islam guarantee abundance of women for sexual pleasure? YES

Does Islam guarantee foolishness? YES

Does Islam guarantee stupidity? YES

Does Islam guarantee wanton destruction of lives and property? YES

Does Islam guarantee Salvation after death? NO

That's just the icing on the cake!!