therationa:

And why are there so many instances implying the same understanding (return in the generation) with little explanation to caution about a non-literal meaning (I can only thing of the "one day meaning a thousand/thousand meaning one day" as a commentary to the expectation of Jesus's followers)

Not to worry, I'm trying to re-visit that link so I don't quote the OP incorrectly. However, I anticipated the above quiz from you; which is hardly what I'd be considering offering. In other words, I'm not seeking a "literal interpretation" for the sake of arriving at ideas which fail to look at the collective whole.

The collective whole is what I'm proposing; for to snatch a few verses here and there is the reason why many people have problems understanding simple issues.

@therationa,

therationa:

The literal interpretation means He would return before the all died out. Is there any other non-literal interpretation?

I'm not trying to be tedious to you; but it would help us in this dicussion that I do not misread you at any point. And having clarified your point, I'm willing to share what I pomised earlier.

therationa:

well I will retract my assertion if you can show me that the literal interpretation is not the correct one.

Okay; but then what do you mean by "the literal interpretation"?


- - - - -

@justcool,

justcool:

I have given my thoughts on this issue before:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-101571.0.html#msg1812102

many thanks - a confirmation of what I stated earlier: this subject has been recycled one-too-many times already!

@therationa,

therationa:

Ok, I seek enlightenment from the bible experts. Go on then. What do these passages mean?

Right then. I'd be taking the first example of verses from the link I offered earlier - Matthew 10:23 - just as illustrative of the fact that not many people have a good grasped of these verses, and have thereby arrived at their unbalanced and accusative views.

Of course, by obliging to discuss them, it doesn't mean that I answer to your flattering appellation of 'Bible experts'; I'd rather be content in sharing my thoughts on this subject for your consideration, while asking that you stay on course to defend your own assumptions that we have missed the Lord's 2nd Coming. Would we find you obliging that request as well?

therationa:

(popping out for 30 minutes, will be back soon)

Okay then, gee us a shout when you do come back. Enjoy while thou be gone briefly!

4Him:

Each time "facts" were pointed out to you, you either ignored them, deliberately misinterpreted them or ran away to put u another thread.

@therationa,

The above quote from 4Him is the same thing I'd highlighted several times in the past in your posts: your 'consistency' really wobbles; and it would be a great help to you personally if you take care to demonstrate some more serious coherence in your assumptions.

Nonetheless, I'd like to add a few notes in response to your rejoinder:

therationa:

Funny how you are in the habit of missing the centrality of my questions. It matters NOT whether I believe in the bible to discuss it.

True, it may not matter that much whether or not you believe in the Bible (or any book at all for that matter) before entering a serious dicussion of that Book. However, it matters all the more for you to be consistent when making or reaching any conclusions based on your assumptions in discussing matters in that or any Book.

therationa:

I AM SURE YOU DO REFUTE THE KORAN WITHOUT BELIEVING IN IT.

Valid argument, so I give that to you. However, if that was meant as a trip-up line of defence, it has failed to do its job effectively. At least, those who argue the Koran while refuting its message have often times demonstrated their consistent position in their several arguments. You will be hard pressed to find such discussants plagiarizing other people's assumptions wholesale and then scooting off in their inability to defend their own premise.

therationa:

I am simply looking for the facts, internal consistency and how they correspond with the evidence before us.

Ah - there! The very thing that I'd be looking for when you do take my offer to enter into a discussion on this same subject. Care to do so?


- - - -
edited.

therationa:

Unfortunately, the standard bible not contain the subtext of its passages.

Be that as it may, it should not be that difficult to answer to your queries. Honestly.

therationa:

If this is what is required to really understand these complicates passages, then I do not have that knowledge.

I can well sympathize with you on that; but I'd not be so condescending to take your presumptions on board - otherwise, how then would I be able to offer anything of interest at all to you?

therationa:

Enlighten me if you may.

Okay then, would I take that as an invitation to share something for your consideration?

@therationa,

therationa:

Jesus in his own lifetime said he was going to come back IN THE LIFETIME of his listeners. There at least 4 passages in the bible were Jesus is quoted as emphasising that he was going to come back while his listeners were still alive.

As in the other thread where we (you and I) had a good e-conversation about interpreting the Bible, I think this is another example of the same thing you've just posted. Again, you have already reached your conclusion unfairly even before examining the texts or inviting a discussion - especially when you've torn those texts out of their contexts!

In any case, the same inference and queries have been made on the same issue once-too-many times on this Forum (see, for example: Are These Really Jesus' Sayings And Were They Fulfilled?).

Although not so many answers have been proffered on the Forum thereto, understandably so because it seems that those who are in the habit of making such inferences have been too busy plagiarizing the thoughts of other arguers and not being able to stand on their own to discuss the postulations they make. Of course, I've waited for the poster of the link above to return from his self-exile and take my challenge to not scoot off from his assumptions, but be willing to stay his ground and be man enough to discuss his plagiarized articles.

I would offer you the same challenge here: do you care to enter a discussion  to defend your own assumptions already reached before considering the views of others?

therationa:

I would encourage you guys to examine the work of the biblical textual scholar Bart Erhman.

We'd examine them - and look forward to you discussing them afterward where you have concerns. Fair enough?

4Him:

inter-faith nonsense . . . a poor cover for political correctness.

It's more serious than that. The aftermath of the Archbishop's bog-mindedness (excuse my verbiage) is leaving a lot of unsettled quarters that no one anticipated up until the present in religio-political "correctness".

@therationa,

therationa:

Thanks for the summaries and point well made. I also do understand you distinction. I call it church administration Vs spiritual guidance/leadership.

Okay - and I'm willing to appreciate such a distinction; although perhaps when further discussions into the subject are considered, it may lead to the understanding that they are related. In any case, my thoughts.

therationa:

If I read you correctly (feel free to correct me, please), you are in favour of women in one role but not in another.

Yes, you're correct in reading me so - as I would say the same about men (which in the quotes from that link I stated already: "women play very important roles in church life that NO MALE can replace them in such divine roles".

therationa:

I agree that women played an important role in the new church in 1st century Israel and it was a shame that leadership roles were not readily open to them given the cultural biases of the time.

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the new church in 1st century Israel", but I'm willing to consider your meaning.

In any case,I understand the problem with cultural biases; although I may not be so convinced that leadership roles were not open to them (women) at the time reference you hinted at. Of course, I did not have my views quite crystalized on the subject until I read from various inputs thereto and referred again and again to the Bible for clarification - and I've come to assume the position that women were recognized in the Church in various leadership roles.

therationa:

I personally think there is a huge problem of interpretation in the NT.

I whole-heartedly agree; and I'd be first to acknowledge that I've had a few of such problems in the past (and may still have others presently).

therationa:

How do you deal with the verses where Paul called upon women not to speak in churches?

It's quite simple: look at the word used in the language of the text (Greek) and consider its context and application.

Let me use an example or two:

     (a) suffer:

     Matthew 17:12 - ". . . Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them."

     Matthew 17:17 - ". . . how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me."

     Matthew 19:14 - ". . . But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not,. ."

All verses are taken from the same version of the Bible (the KJV), from the same Gospel account (Matthew), and all are from the same Person speaking (Jesus); although I have only quoted the texts in part without editing anything - i.e., I've torn them out of their contexts!

So, if one follows the out-of-context style of reading the Bible, he or she is sure to come up with the idea that Jesus asked Christians to be wicked to chidlren (in Matt. 19:4 - "But Jesus said, Suffer little children" - can you imagine the nonsense and ingredients?

Okay, on a serious note, we should try to not read verses of the Bible out of contexts. Personally, I have found great help in using a Bible Study tool/aid (like Greek and Hebrew lexicons) to understand very difficult verses that on the surface would seem remarkably shocking to our natural persuasions. This is only one example, of course. But so is the principle that has been of great help to me.

BTW, No, Jesus never asked Christians to be "wicked" to children - for Matthew 19:14 is speaking directly to the cause of encouraging (rather than forbidding) children to come to know Him.

therationa:

By the way, I am in favour of re-interpretation of doctrine to fit a new world order,

Well, in a way, I may agree with you - in so far as such re-interpretatiosn do not prove prove themselves of infidelity to the Scriptures.

therationa:

personally I would open all roles to any one who merits them irrespective of sex/race/etc.

Hmm, I respect your views. But in practice, you would have more problems on your hands than you anticipated!

therationa:

Has he not heard of the consequences of Sharia in Nigeria?

Bros, that is the one thing that appalled me when I read it in the papers last week! A lot of things are happening to show how many mindless fellows just assume ideas without first educating themselves of the implications in the first place!

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Pdeg7ZY8n3-VeM:http://alastair.adversaria.co.uk/wp-content/rowan.jpg[/img] [img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:zqhFXUeZ4pEv_M:http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/canterburyPA180906_434x700.jpg[/img] [img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:i6BhmAWMMzHdhM:http://www.wilberforce2007.com/images/uploads/Archbishop_of_Canterbury.jpg[/img]

@therationa,

therationa:

C'mon brother,

That thread has 15 pages. Can you summarise the main issues here, please?

I would, and willing to do so - that is the reason why I've severally invited you to dicuss issues.

therationa:

I can hardly be expected to trawl through it now to pick out the points you are making.

That's true, and asking you to tediously betake yourself to so many pages would be unfair.

Perhaps, for a start, I'd like you to see two things here:

(a) it'd be unfair for you to reach any inference before having reasonably listened to what others have to say;

(b) my premise earlier was this:

stimulus:

@topic:

Personally, I don't think it is 'good' or even Biblical for a woman to be THE Pastor of a Church.

By simple explanation, here's what I meant by the emphasis: the Church is not supposed to be a single-pastor leadership experience. Such idea of single-pastor leadership is what I'd tried to argue against in that thread; and I could state a few pointers to my position in that thread:

#1 (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.64.html#msg1245442)

I'm sure that when a good outline of what roles are presented in Scripture concerning church life, we shall come to the understanding that women play very important roles in church life that NO MALE can replace them in such divine roles.

#2 (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1248945)

What roles do women play in Church? Women may not have been among the priesthood of the OT; but they are undeniably included in the priesthood of all Christian believers in the NT (I Pet. 2:5 & 9).

I was just thinking about this question this morning, and the thought that crossed my mind was this:

[list]I would rather be in a local church where women are appreciated for their leadership roles than be in one where women are second citizens.[/list]

#3 (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-61492.96.html#msg1248945)

It's just about time that we should be asking the right kind of questions and seeking to appreciate the very profound roles women are called to play in the life of the Church

I could go on and on; but from the above alone, don't they demonstrate that my position is that women are not discriminated against in the way you had supposed?

That is why I have repeatedly asked only one thing of you: please, please and please, at least be willing to demonstrate an open and fair attitude to consider the views of other discussants before holding a prejudicial mindset about them based on your own indefensible ideas.

Now, therationa, I've tried to be fair by tending issues for your consideration. In like manner, do you care to enter into a discussion to consider your own assumptions?

therationa:

I have mademy case by drawing from your bible and am prepare to defend my ground anytime and anywhere. What are the questions you want me to respond to?

I stated it much earlier (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111592.0.html#msg1938827) :

stimulus:

Do you care explicating what you understand by the above?

@therationa,

therationa:

Well in the bible, women are consistently treated as second-class citizens at best, at worse as chattel.

It seems clever to misrepresent issues in the Bible by inferring to certain texts in a cut-and-run fashion. Women are not treated as 'second-class' citizens, nor are they regarded as chattels as you supposed - and it is easy enough to read that supposedly into those texts without carefully examining what is being treated in a collective sense.

When issues like these are presented, I've often tried to offer an invitation for a discussion on the proposer's own premise; but it so happens that so many times, such people are too insecure to discuss their own assumptions while finding it easier to slur the convictions of other people. Do you care to enter a dicussion of your own assumptions so we see where it logically leads?

therationa:

Examples;

Lev 12: A woman is unclean for longer after giving birth to a girl child (66 days) than to a male child (33 days)

The possessions of multiples wives and concubines my the patriachs (Moses, Abraham etc)

Okay - I'll also consider those 'examples' if you'd oblige my request above.

therationa:

Giving away of daughter to be sexually mollested, I think by Lot ( can't remember the chapter/verse, but I am sure you know the story)

Genesis 19:8. I'll also bear that in mind when and if you'd be willing to frankly take up my offer for a discussion.

therationa:

Proverbs 21, 25, 27. Where it says that it is better to live in a wilderness than in a house with a contentious woman.

Perhaps you may have an alternative that is directly antonymous to such a proverbial recommendations? Again, a discussion - would you?

therationa:

No similar complaints is made about men.

The verses in the verses you offered in Proverbs 21, 25, 27 are not "complaints" - perhaps if you can demonstrate it so, then I'd offer you a few verses you probably overlooked.

therationa:

Is the New testament any better?

1 Cor 11: 3.
1 Cor 13:5,6
1 Cor 13:7-11
1 Cor 14:34
1 Tim 2:11-15

Which is why I offered you a simple challenge earlier:

stimulus:

Do you care explicating what you understand by the above?

Are you able and willing to take that offer, therationa?

stimulus:

All the above verse are equally derogatory about women.

Those verses are not derogatory to anybody - you quickly reached that assumption by choice (an indefensible choice from ducking an invitation to discuss them) .

stimulus:

What I meant by biblical consistent (either you are consistently immoral or consistently moral) was that the same standard of the Old testament is preserved in the New Testament, and should be preserved in our modern era.

Oh, really? Perhaps when you take my offer, then you will see how consistent YOU tend to be. Any takes?

stimulus:

I rest my case.

Perhaps insecure about your premise already?

@SysUser,

I'm going to take the time to read through yours; but I particularly want to thank you for this:

SysUser:

THORIUM-LEAD DATING http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm#Thorium Lead Dating

POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm#Potassium Argon

POTASSIUM-CALCIUM DATING http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm#Potassium Calcium

Therefore let us simply understand that the dating methods are still going to be plagued by the initial problems of assuming the initial quantity of radioactive material, assumption of lack of or presence of contamination of the sample by similar radioactive materials either in the past or present etc.

You've made things a bit easier for me, because that's one of the issues we're currently looking at in another interest. Thanks again!

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

I forgot to add that you have also reaffirmed by contention that the churches are a discriminatory and sexist institutions.

The "churches" may need an important qualifier in your context; and until you explicate what you mean thereto, I don't see how such an allegation helps your cause.

On the other hand, you have not visited that link in my rejoinder - please do and you may find a better way to eat your humble pie.

therationa:

Can I challenge you to replace "woman" with "Africans" or "Blacks" or "Indians" and see how your reasoning stacks up.

My reasoning would still be upheld. May I challenge you to crawl out of such cheap and frantic allegations and enter into a discussion on what this subject is all about? If you are not man enough to do so, I don't see what your hysteria amounts to.

@therationa,

therationa:

Stimulus,

Thank you plenty. You agree with me and with Paul that it in un-biblical for women to teach in church. That has restored my "faith" in biblical consistency.

How do the answers offered in my rejoinder help your puling "faith" in Biblical consistency? Perhaps you would have had the manly boldness to take my challenge offered earlier:

stimulus:

Well, it is one thing to state something - quite another to explicate what is stated. If you're unwilling to do the latter, no worries.

Was that too hard to betake yourself to?

therationa:

I though most christian believe in the literal occurence of these events.

How many such do you know who go about with such appellation as "biblical literalists"? Ascribing such tags to people without a fair chance to invite a discussion is perhaps the reason why you have not received any replies hetherto - as it is obvious in the various other threads that you have never demonstrated a willingness to discuss issues in a reasonable manner.

therationa:

If these events did not physically occur, then where is the raison d'etre for fundementalist christianity?

Two things:

(a) As if I knew you'd make a (cheap) reference to "fundamentalist Christianity"! However, I'm still waiting for you and your adulators (such as bawomol/bawomolo) to offer a sane description of "fundamentalist" Christianity - have you done that? It does not appear that your problem is with Christianity; but with such qualifiers, it makes your premise suspicious of adopting a linear postulation that is unable to distinguish issues clearly.

(b) Your reference to "physical" occurence of the events is an example of why we need to ask you to be careful in your distinctions and ideas. I do not know of the "physical" occurence of "Original Sin"; and until you proffer a basis for why you'd deny its meaning and implication, you may as well keep making the same rounds on the same spot.

My point is not to deflect the subject of the thread. Infact, I'd be interested in its progress, even though not many may agree with my own views. But if your premise is to quickly label others with a prejudicial posit before offering the opportunity of reading the views of others, again that may perhaps explain why no one would be interested in answering to such a prejudicial mindset.

@topic:

Personally, I don't think it is 'good' or even Biblical for a woman to be THE Pastor of a Church.

Perhaps this topic relates to one that has been discussed sometime earlier? See: Can You Attend A Church Led By A Woman?

therationa:

Is that not very obvious?

Well, it is one thing to state something - quite another to explicate what is stated. If you're unwilling to do the latter, no worries. Cheers.

@stranger26,

stranger26:

@stimulus; ahem, you need special powers to be able to do that. lol

Na true you talk o jare - since the last time we communicated, I've tried several times to pass it as prescribed. I never get enough power to explain my experience afterwards!

stranger26:

Nah, just don't open your mouth and redirect it through your nose. Man, I should start charging for these lessons "How to hide your boredom when your BOSS is droning!".

Haha! When the fees come in, me I go take off!

therationa:

Any biblical literalist (Genesis literalists) here ready for take on Dr Collins on the subject of genetics and evolution?

It's going to be a hard search and loooong wait finding those you've tagged 'biblical literalists'. How many such do you know who go about with such appellations?

therationa:

The Great apostle PAUL warned against women speaking in church.

Do you care explicating what you understand by the above?

therationa:

Muhammedans are atheist too just like christians.

When are you going to grow beyond the cheap tantrums and be man enough to discuss the challenges offered you already? At least, besides others, I offered you this initially:

stimulus:

What do you understand by the term "atheist"?

Do you care to stop hiding behind those childish games of throwing cheap allegations and employ some reasoning to discuss the above?

therationa:

Has anybody done any further research on the genealogy of Jesus?

Have you commented on the views already offered and sicussed why they could not be helpful pointers on the seeming dichotomy between the genealogies in Matthew and Luke?

therationa:

With respect, I think you are asking the wrong question. I think the question should rather be "Why do we need religion?"

With due respect, the question of the thread is as legitimate as any question on religion.

Amen, O Lord. Amen is Your Name - and I shall praise You for your faithfulness all my days!

bawomolo:

this is a cop out. you seem uninterested or unable to explain the inconsistencies of the bible.

I really would not have bothered to comment; but for the fact that you're sounding so familiar in your inconsistencies.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus; Don't be hatin! If you hate me using the almost, then remove it. Thats exactly what I mean. Finally, I do not hate everything Christian; My mother used to be one. Until God made the light of belief entered her heart. And I love a Christian woman, once. Now, all I want to do is bring everyone of ya, into the fold of The Great Religion. I know thats a tall order. But withallah, everything is possible.

I'll not be tedious to you; so I'll just remain within the topic of the thread. My query about your 'almost' was not "hating" - I don't see how it translates to that. The one simple question I asked was not answered in your rejoinder; so here it is again:

           What do you understand by the term "atheist"?

If you can't reason through the question, then all else you have written do not even sound a gong.