Hi there,

I understand your clarifications - well taken on board and we (or, speaking for myself, I) look forward to your adjustments. I enjoyed the sense of humour in the line that you would "loathe to lose the cutting edge of (your) criticisms".

Anyhow, although some people already hold a mindset when they read the Bible or any document, it would not be fair to "condemn" in the strongest terms before they actually understand what is being stated. Let me give you a small example:

A long-time friend recently blurted it out as we sat over coffee - she told me why she finds the Bible "hard" to digest. Surprisingly, not even the wars in the OT unnerve her! I was surprised when she said it was just one statement that Jesus made in Matthew 19:14 - "But Jesus said, Suffer little children". To save you a long story, she had had a very violent past from non-religious parents as a child (I may be wrong in drawing that connection here, but it's true - I know her). So, in her thinking, any idea of "suffering" of children is a bane that must be condemned with the "strongest possible" force!

As we bantered and I poured my heart and knowledge out to her, I saw she was made up and stiff. Clearly, not only was I losing the war of ideas . . . I had lost the "argument" resoundingly, for someone that stiff!

Another quiet friend (*Lisa, not her real name) who sat and smiled all along as she sipped her cappucino finally broke this stiff girl up. She asked her a simple question: "When you get married, what kind of mother would you be?" Her response? "I DON'T want ANY children!!" she snapped. Then Lisa quipped: "Supposing your mother said that and then killed you at birth because she too did not want any children, would you say she was wicked?" Stunned, our friend blurted out - "What kind of mother would that be? Of course, she'd be worse than a human being!!"

Finally, she saw it - while condemning her own mother, she was no different from that same thing. If it was okay for her not to want any children, then her mother would have been right to not want this girl as a child! The miracle: she softened and wanted to listen. Then Lisa surprised us (we had thought she was a dullard) and only then explained yet again that Matthew 19:14 did not mean that Jesus asked that children be exposed to suffering and inhumanity. Rather, the Greek word means "allow" the children - do not restrain them, and the full quote of that verse was:

"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

Okay, our friend was not converted there and then, but the last time I enquired, she was getting more relaxed and enjoying the NT.


That is just one example of how people take things out of context and become so stiff with their concepts as to even re-consider a discussion that may help them. In which case, I was seeking an enabling atmospehere which could have been expressed simply as: "would you consider a friendly discourse to explain the problem of the topic?"

Cheers.

kola oloye:

You have no point.You could not even back any of your statement up with an evidence or proof.
I hereby declare your response as null and void.Is there anybody with proofs that Jesus was not Crucified?

Lol. . . I think if you look carefully, you'd see that those were not his (4Him's) points - he was being facetious on the usual ad hoc and ad hominem "answers" one gets from people who are used to rejecting the Gospels.

@huxley,

huxley:

A good time to look at this one again

Maybe so. Perhaps we might start within the corridors of academia in the US and see who it is that are actually censoring "thought".


I think there's some substance in this out-of-hand line from Jagunlabi (even though I've not always agreed with him in the past ):

jagunlabi:

The scientific establishment have tried their utmost best to keep these findings from the public so as not to upset the preferred version from whence you quote.

@Jagoon,

Jagoon:

as i said earlier i have found the answer to my question in deuteronomy 22, all the scriptures you quoted in their proper context did not answer my question. Thanx but not thanx

Very much appreciated. According to your own definition of fornication, I wonder if the same Deuteronomy 22 commands anyone to have "sex with someone they are not married to"?

Regards.

@Jagoon,

Jagoon:

@syrup
you are very obviously not open to other views, as i said in the other thread we are haggling in, you are soooo stereotype, you don't want to tolerate other views at all. you always stick to a preconceived view and back it up with several irrelevant scriptures just to bambuzu your way through and impose your opinion on others without any sound basis.

Again, I'm blushing - I really needed such criticism to enable me be more challenged in my studies. No, I do not take offence at your honest remark - and I'm as thankful as it made me more humble. This again keeps me open to other people's views - good or bad.

God bless you.

@huxley,

huxley:

What about what causes sin?

This is one of the threads I saw earlier before trying to post a few comments in the other few. The reason why I passed over was the way you phrased your opening remarks:

therationa:

Thank Goodness, no-one really follows the advice (with the exception of some mos-lems countries) of this impostor from Nazareth . . .

BTW, in these words, Jesus demonstrated just what an ignoramus he was by not recognising that no other organ but the BRAIN is the centre of thoughts,

The emboldened words were yours, and I only highlighted in red to show the deliberate connection you made to those words. If you have already concluded that Jesus was an "impostor from Nazareth" and that He was an "ignoramus", would that be saying you were open to discussions with a serious and friendly attitude?

Remember in one other such threads after several swaps, we both came to the conclusion that "manners, style" etc are as important as the basic considerations for "ground rules" in fruitful discussions. I was not online in the Forum and only a late-comer to the threads when you initially floated them; but it gave me the impression that the possible reason the thread did not bear fruit was because of the concerns expressed above.

Again, it isn't that there are no intelligent Christians to address them (I've read quite a lot of intelligent inputs from them and have been greatly influenced by their styles and insight - you would even see that in the way I almost rank xerox their fonts! ). All the same, I'm fully persuaded that if people are invited to discuss issues in an enabling manner, you would be surprised how many would join in and make it so fruitful on either sides of the bridge. Would you bear that in mind in future correspondence?

Warmly.

Hi TV01,

TV01:

Firstly, where does the bible suggest or even hint at a Christian instituted divorce for any other reason than adultery?

It may not appear that there are "other" reasons, but that is not to say I was forcing one in addition somewhere. My concern was that we often remain with the Gosples and tend to forget that the epistles discuss such issues as well. Hence, I was hoping to remind us that irreconciliable differences (such as the example of physical abuse and violence) might just as well come to the fore in this discussion.

TV01:

Secondly, in that it suggests seperation, does it necessarily imply divorce?

It would seem so; for when we read the reference of one who "departs", the force of that language means the departing one (agreeably an unbeliever) was leaving for good (1 Cor. 7:15) - in which case, the believing partner is not under bondage (or "bound" in such cases.

TV01:

. . . and does divorce presume remarriage?

I would be persuaded it does - not because of a syncretism (blending together) of Christianity and secular thought; but rather because a partner who is not under bondage (or "bound" in such cases means just that: they were not "bound" to remain in such cases without marrying again if they so desired.

By the way, what would it mean to look at the expression: "not under bondage in such cases" (1 Cor. 7:15)?

TV01:

Thirdly, I would think that precisely what the bible does is discounts "worldview differences" as a reason for divorce.

I'd agree it does not lean towards "worldviews". However, it also establishes answers for practical issues within Christian marriages that are common to everyone else (see, for instance, 1 Cor. 7:6 & 25).

Hi Olabowale,

olabowale:

So you win the argument.

I was going to be reserved, but just wanted to highlight that my efforts were not geared to winning any arguments. I'm sorry if it came across otherwise; but you could see that it would not bring out much fruit to discuss this important subject if we are all trying to argue from different sources. As consequently expressed between myself and m_nwankwo - and finished nicely.

Second, I think the originator (justcool) has reminded discussants that his focus is to discuss the subject with particular recourse to the Bible.

All the same, thank you for your warm remarks. Kind regards.

I think it's being discussed in a similar thread already: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-136330.0.html#msg2289920

I also submitted my views beginning from here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-136330.0.html#msg2296373

Perhaps you could join us there? Cheers.

@huxley,

It's a good day out here, and I hope it's even better out there for you.

I have a few comments to make, not on your person, but rather simply on the article itself.

(a)

"science has never been closed to people who had ideas they wouldn't change. Every scientist has a set of presuppositions and assumptions that he never questions."

Excellent distinction - I think a lot of current thinkers are beginning to see this distinction between "science" and "scientists". The discipline itself is not closed to people - and it is constantly being refined as new theories replace existing ones.

However, it is also partly true (not absolutely true) that "every scientist" never questions his set of cherished presuppositions and assumptions. [I'd rather not call names at the moment as I'm more concerned with the article]. Quite to the contrary, most scientists (at least in the present time) both question their own assumptions and others held by their colleagues.

(b)

Wise has been called the "most honest" creationist by Richard Dawkins, as opposed to others who purposely deceive their audiences.[5] But he criticizes Wise for his predetermined conclusions and ability to continue believing in creationism "if all the evidence in the universe turns against [it]."

This is ironic. Richard Dawkins himself is not so honest as not to "purposely deceive" his audience - at least, it is on record that he has attempted this in the past. I do not see his moral jurisdiction in "criticizing" someone else if he holds his own biases with animosity against those who either question them or disagree with him.

olabowale:

Was there a time that he demanded that they call him Emmanuel? No!

He did not "demand" it - they could confess Him as such because the FATHER gave them that revelation to known Him as the Son of God (Matt. 16:17 and John 1:49). Jesus did not go about "demanding" things of people - that is what a cult leader does. Rather, He demonstrated through His life and power that He was who the prophets said He would be called.

olabowale:

Neither did Jesus declared to his disciples, throughout, even as he was being raised up that he was a sign of any kind to his people.

You're wrong. This is shameful, Olabowale - making statements from ignorance and assuming you know something when you don't! This pride is your huge problem.

On the contrary, Jesus declared several "signs" to those He preached to. Let me leave you an example - Matthew 12:39 and 24:30. Humility is a virtue, not a vice.

olabowale:

I do not deny anything. There is no reason for me to deny whatever is obvious.

You have constantly denied many things, so please refrain.

olabowale:

Unfortunately, it would be you who should be concerned that a word so simple as sign needs a scholarship presentation to understand it. Neither is any need for us to have a thesis written up about "he would be called Emmanuel." But when one deviates from the clear meaning of these words, then we can be declare that there is a hidden agenda. In this case to go into excess in the matter of praising a simple man, which resulted in deitifying him.

You obviously have not read the Bible - judging from the several huge gaps you make which I have exemplified above.

Interestingly, the same Isaiah also used the clauses "shall call", "shall be called", or "named" in other instances. For example -

Isaiah 62:12
And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD:
and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.

Isaiah 61:6
But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD:
men shall call you the Ministers of our God:
ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory
shall ye boast yourselves.

Of course, these are NOT personal names - and it is clear that they are rather descriptors, the same as the prophet meant the "sign" to be understood for the "son" in 7:14 and 9"6. When Jesus came, men received revelation to know Him as "the Son of GOD" (Matthew 16:17 and John 1:49). Your problem is that you are ignoring the "sign" with a muslim pride and seeking to translate it into a personal name! Who is it that goes about with personal names as "THE Priests of the LORD"? And did Isaiah mean that "THE Mighty God" was supposed to be the "personal name" of the prophesied son? You make me laugh with your eisegesis!

Olabowale, go and study Hebrew - your cultish loyalty to a denying culture is a waste on this subject. I do not mean this as an insult; but this ad hominem repetitions of saying nothing in your post for the sake of an argument has become so boring and out of date!

olabowale:

I thought I am very direct. And my intention on this board, God willing is to strengthen my own belief and in the process to affect the belief ofindividual M.usl.ims and help the nonMu.sli.ms to at least take a possible look at I.sl.am.

Your were "very directly" saying nothing - as long as you seek to "strengthen" your belief with eisegesis and personal biases read into the prophecies of a prophet that you do not believe in. That is a weakness, not a strength - and as long as you keep trying to pretend you believe in Isaiah as one of the prophets but have a problem with his prophecies, you believe nothing. Zero.

Regards.

olabowale:

Further Isaac would be the best person who knew the meaning of what he said, during his time.

Good - and an Arab in the 6th century would have no clue and cannot come on board brashly postulating empty talk.

olabowale:

When Jesus was on this earth, he would also be the best person to know what all the past prophets before him said.

Good again - and He did not contradict them. We've been through this before and your endless repetitions are boring enough!

olabowale:

It will be so surprising that Emmanuel meant what you claim that it means, for Jesus to stand among his people not to demand that they call him that and provide them the meaning of it.

Isaiah said it was a "sign" - he mentioned that the "sign" was the mystery of the birth of a son. Would that have been strange to his audience? Not at all - afterall, it is normal that women give birth to sons. It was the connection that the prophet made about that "sign" that startled his audience, for he pointed out that the son in question is not an ordinary son! Rather, He would be known as God with us - which is what 'Immanuel' meant. 

Now, if we just remain with only that verse, it is easy to draw the wrong conclusions and assume that this son would go about with the "name" of 'Immanuel'. However, following the simple principle of 'exegesis' (i.e., checking with other verses), we see that Isaiah repeated this "sign" again and used the same pointers later on in ch. 9:6 -

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall
be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Notice Isaiah did not point here that the Messiah would be 'christened' with all those qualifiers highlighted - he did not mean that the "son" will go about with "Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" in the same way another person is "called" John, James, Jones, etc.

It is remarkable here to understand that it is the same prophet who mentioned this "son" TWICE and said that His "name" should be "called" all those appellations listed in both 7:14 and 9:6. Striking indeed that when you interprete the name "Immanu[b]el[/b]", it means "God with us" - and Isaiah also identified that the one to be born was to be known as "The Mighty God".

What then could Isaiah mean by the phrase "His name shall be called"? Because he meant it prophetically as a "sign" (check the Hebrew), he was rather urging his audience to understand that when the "son" arrives, His very Person and work would demonstrate that He is GOD. That is not rocket science - and Isaiah in 9:6 was clear enough to show this point.

olabowale:

That way there would not have been any doubt, considering that Jesus was bent on knowing what and who did the people thought he was.

The answer given by the crowd showed they did NOT know Him; and He was not trying to discover Himself as if He did not know! When Peter confessed that Jesus was the Son of God, immediately Jesus responded that Peter would only have known that by revelation from the FATHER (see it for yourself in Matthew 16:16-17). Besides Peter, there were a few others who had the faith to know that Jesus was the son of God - "Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." (John 1:49).

olabowale:

Later, he did not fail to ask his loyal disciple about who they themselves thought that he was.

As above.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup:
But the verses were straight forward enough that there are no need to read meanings to anything in them, except what they truly meant! If I follow your proposed methods of analysis, then everything in the pages can mean something else. Infact Jesus can mean more than a proper name, title, etc. You see the possibility of what could become of the bible verses? How difficult can understanding the word, "sign" and the phrase, "he shall be called Emmanuel", that we have to go through eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, theology, etc?

The context is straight forward - your problem is to strain at the phrase "he shall be called", while refusing to consider the meaning of the Hebrew word "SIGN" in Isaiah 7:14. Remove or ignore that word and everything you try to analyze is a waste of time, an this is not an exercise of your usual denials or selective reading.

olabowale:

Could sign mean more that it actually means? If it does not literally mean sign, an indicator, a symbol, etc then we truly have a mysterious book, that anybody can read whatever meaning that pleases him/her to. Then creation as a word in the Bible may actually mean something else, then?

I explained in detail what the word "SIGN" points to - and even went on to use the example of the English phrase "In the name of the Queen" in the UK: it does not mean her personal name, but rather the authority vested in that insignia. And we all know that the Queen's personal name is not the Crown - and to continue to force this point ignorantly is not surprising, Olabowale.

As regards the charge that the Bible is a mysterious book, indeed it is not open to whimsical off-handed conclusions that readers like you often draw. You cannot apply your personal and ignorant pre[/b]texts when reading such books as Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel or the Revelation - these Biblical books are prophetic in nature, and there is a huge difference between eisegesis and exgesis. So far, you are trying to force your own eisegesis into the texts and yet hugely failing to make any meaningful inference other than you usual Islamic denials. That is why you continue to have the dilemma of believing in [b]all the prophets in all simplicity.

olabowale:

The best person who knew the meaning of what Jesus actually said, among the people who claim to follow Jesus and Jesus himself, was Jesus.

And a Quraish prophet coming centuries later denying Jesus' words while asking Muslims to believe in the Gospels is simply wasting your time. That is the most incoherent adventure you will ever embark upon - and that is what you have been displaying all along.

olabowale:

If Jesus did not explain what he said meant, then you can not say to me that you truly know any hidden meaning of it, except the obvious, as the verses appears on the pages of the Bible.

If Jesus actually said that He was the Son of God, for instance, you cannot come up drooling about your dilemma to believe that simple statement. And obviously, you can only see "sex" in that meaning when you assume an eisegesis instead of exegesis - do you see the difference now?

syrup:

Just curious - was it not a translation (like KJV) you found the word "infidel" in 1 Timothy 5:8? Is there no such word in translations of the Quan by Muslims themselves?

@Olabowale,

I tried to go back and check again, just to be sure (since my reading the Quran was quite recent). Here are a few I came across that you check up the word "infidel" -

*Sher Ali - Quran 2 v 258.

Just thought you might want to be sure.

Seun:

Beaten to death as a result of your fervent and godly stupidity.

Lol, Seun. It really doesn't have to degenerate to that, does it?

cgift:

Syrup, i believe you are "1Pe 2:11 reborn. Please confirm. Welcome back! I guess some of us can read in between the lines,

Hi cgift, how are you today? Reborn? No. Check my profile - I've been on the Forum since 2006, but was off for a long while to attend to a few things. I hope you're doing well. . . and thanks for the welcome back.

huxley:

Hey,

Just found this on the internet: http://www.ankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W1200.pdf

I took a quick look at that article and found a few things that tally with what I was trying to establish. Good assessment in some aspects on the example on Isaiah 7:14 where the various theologians had attempted to apply the principles of exegesis (there are several of them) - and the critique that followed upon each.

More to come. . . I just thought to note those few for now.

@Olabowale,

I was hoping that you'd have left the mundane habit of unnecessary arguments after several discourses between us. It is not my style to keep on being entertained by mere arguments that seek to overwhelm me with aboslutely nothing to the topic being discussed - so I wonder why you often resort to the same ad hominem device?

It is a very simple case I laid out: the Biblical prophets emphatically declare that God had established atonement and redemption on the intrinsic power of the Blood. You may have a problem with the statement in mine that it does not appear Islam predicates the same. Since you felt I was incorrect to have made that allusion, I expected you would have shown me the same to the effect of precisely the same thing as I stated earlier:

It is Blood that the Bible has always taught as the efficacy for -

   * atonement

   * redemption

   * forgiveness

   * cleansing of sin

Once you miss the Blood and its efficacy, you lose everything completely.

All you needed to have done was show me in simple terms that I was mistaken in my allusion, and then demonstrate briefly that allah also predicates the same thing in Islam. To the effect that you could not demonstrate that, what then is the use of your tedious effort to "overwhelm" me with unnecessary arguments?

In summary, I intoned that the Biblical prophets declared that ATONEMENT and REDEMPTION are predicated on the Blood. I do not find that in Islam. You may speak of "forgiveness" by mere pronouncements - but where is REDEMPTION in Islam precisely as the Biblical prophets have taught? If it is non-existent, please save the argument - it is entirely fruitless.

Cheers.

babs787:

@Syrup

Sister, I will stop responding to your rejoinders since you said that you have provided answers but I never see where you did that, I only responded to your post

Stay blessed.

Okay, I take it on board. Thank you and warm regards.

I'll keep them in mind and see how I could offer a few that may be of help on the introductory level. . . then gradually offer others for deeper perusals.

Regards.

@m_nwankwo,

Much appreciated. Rather than progress into lengthy discourses where our priciples differ, I acknowledge your honest submission and respect your assumptions in their own rights.

Cheers.

Hi huxley,

Finally I'm here as invited. As a background to discussing and expounding on this interesting topic, perhaps it might be a bit helpful to repost an earlier entry where I alluded to such terms in summarily. Here:

---

syrup:


Third, my dear huxley, even informed guesses are made on principles. You cannot sustain a view that you posit out of hand out of pretext rather than carefully examining those views contextually. In science, there are standard formulae, theorems and principles that are observed in investigating any phenomena. This is often known as the "scientific method". Honesty in those who passionately pursue truth of any kind will respect those "methodologies" in each case of study so that informed results are adduced.

So it is with philosophy - people don't go out of hand to engage in teleological (i.e., philosophical) discussions or debates without following certain models and logic. Even in applying logic, one has to know if the case advanced was put accross by "deductive" or "inductive" logic, and what particular path of reasoning such studies are carried out.

And what about theological discussions? Certainly, they follow established principles as well. Often, for those who may not have carefully been following that principle, I have intoned that they take care to not mix up eisegesis for exegesis - they are not the same. When I read so-called objections to the Christian faith (such as you are wont to assume are "valid", you make the serious mistake of drawing your conclusions before even examining the arguments of those who you plagiarize - which is like saying it is okay to hold just about anything as long as it supports your argument against "Christianity" even before you consider any case on the topic!

What is the point of all this? Just simply to remind you that every aspect of rigorous enquiry (whether they are theological or teleogical in nature) must be based on established principles best suited to their own mode of investigation. It is naive to assume that Chemistry can be better understood by applying the principles of Sociology! But the big mistake every single time your authors find themselves making is to cheat behind the counters by ignoring the "models, principles and methodologies" of theological enquries.

I'll build on that and then seek to outline them in simple terms.

Regards.

olabowale:

@Babyosisi: I read in the Bible, the word "Infidel," in 1 Timothy 5 verse 8. Please located Infidel for me in the Q.your'an. Can you, woman?

Just curious - was it not a translation (like KJV) you found the word "infidel" in 1 Timothy 5:8? Is there no such word in translations of the Quan by Muslims themselves?

olabowale:

Am sure you can't.

You can't be sure of your claim here, Olabowale.

@huxley,

Thank you for being an admirable gentleman. I have learnt much from our exchanges. But hey, don't be overloaded with the big words. . . they rub off on us gradually.

Best wishes.

@m_nwankwo,

Thanks for yours - much appreciate your calm and mature rejoinder. I should have followed the same strain in making long repostes as well, but pardon me in saying that they all funnel down to the same things I had already addressed. Repeating myself in new verbiage would not make it any more effective. But just so that our readers don't misconstrue this to mean a laziness on my part, I could once again show why indeed we are engaging with the same questions and nothing creative or new.

That said, let me point out a few areas yet again in summary as to why I feel we're still on the same page - with just the first objection in yours:

m_nwankwo:

@syrub
Thanks again. I will respond to the issues you raised as follows
1. Human sacrifice under any circumstances is wrong. Why will it be different with that of Jesus.

This is a classic objection for those who have never considered two very important issues before assuming to hold unto some beliefs about "Jesus" -
* Biblical prophecies
* Biblical Redemption

People may have ideas about these two issues; but to ignore the prophecies leaves the enquirer without redemption; and to disavow redemption simply means such a person has no Biblical revelation to share - and this is classic with so many who talk about "Jesus" and yet disparage the NT.

m_nwankwo:

If you think that Gods power is not within the terms of his attributes like justice and love, then what exactly is Gods own terms.

I did not make that assumption, m_nwankwo. God's power embraces those attributes; but it is not limited to those abstract qualites. We understand that "love" for example is an abstract quality on its own until it is demonstrated. And what is God's "justice" if it remains only as an abstract quantity - how does God then demonstrate His divine justice?

m_nwankwo:

If the blood of Jesus is efficacious and needed for the redemption of sins, what then is in this blood that gives it that power.

Answer: the LIFE in the Blood gives it that power.

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it
to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

This is not my word - it is God's Word, my dear friend. You may choose not to believe it; but then it brings us back to the same thing I alluded to just above - to ignore bothe the Prophecies and Biblical Redemption is to engender endless arguments.

Pretty much of the other points you raised have been addressed in my previous rejoinders, so it would not be necessary to recats them in new verbiage here and then run the risk of repetitions.

I'm open to fresh concerns that may not have been covered previously. For now, please ask yourself what you have done with the prophecies and redemption God declared. To ignore them. . . well, I said so before.

Many blessings.

@Olabowale,

Your attempt is appreciate; but the reason why it is still hugely flawed is because of the following:

(1) You failed to apply the basic principle of Biblical study - I have talked much about this and mentioned with explanations such terms as 'eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, theology, hermeneutics', etc. Which of these did you apply in your assumptions? To ignore this fundamental principle is to force unwarranted prejudices and miss the most important point in it all.

(2) I had hoped to see you discuss the significance of the word "SIGN" [אות   - 'ôth] in Isaiah 7:14. Since you completely left that vacant, your excessive theorizing does not quite score a mark.

(3) In following a particular subject in the Bible, there is something that serves as a cross-check on whatever inference you draw: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (2 Pet. 1:20). You must always check again and again with other verses to corroborate if your thoughts hold substance - did you do this with the "SIGN" [אות   - 'ôth] in Isaiah 7:14?

(4) When you miss the basic point, arguments of no use will be multiplied. I'm sorry that is not my style, because it with engender useless denials and throw the one making the denials in a serious dilemma - I've seen this again and again with many discussants, no less yourself.

There are far more serious problesms with your thesis, but those should help you understand that since you missed it there, nothing else matters.





By the way,

olabowale:

@Syrup; I could not but said Chineke, as a show of my being very astonished at your argument. Your husband must have used the word "Chineke," before. Yes? When he says that please know now that he is surprised for the good or for not so good.

I'm learning everyday - and yes, I sometimes hear my husband use that word "chineke" when on the phone long distance to Nigeria. Funny that I initially thought he was 'yabbing' me with it. . . until much later when I confirmed from someone else that he was not. Duh! But, I've grown the wiser for it now - so there!

Lol. . . @Jagoon,

I'll refrain for now so that others can contribute, especially because I don't want to make you feel pressured about anything. For now, I can simply say that I know the Scriptures clearly identify fornication (as defined by you) to be a sin - see also the following:

* Matthew 5:32

* Matthew 19:9

* Acts 15:20

* Romans 1:29

* 1 Corinthians 5:1

* 1 Corinthians 6:18

There are more, but it would be interesting to see you explication of those verses where "fornication" is used (I simply consulted the KJV).

Regards.

1 John 2:5 - But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.



- - - - - - - -

Revive:

Does any body need quotation (chapter & verse) for this one?

Maybe Matthew 6:9-13?

I'm blushing. But I'm open to other views would are quite as challenging.

Many blessings

Dear huxley,

huxley:

When I said the rules, I meant not just the content [/b]but also the [b]manner, style and decorum of conducting such discussions.

I won't argue - let me humbly agree.

Cheers.

_{Edited:
sincere apologies for the inconvenient manner in my previous posts where you perceive them.}

@Jagoon,

I'm not a very argumentative person; nor am I gullible. My one question (based on your own definition) was this:

* Are you married to the person you want to have sex with?

If not, is that different from your own definition: "sex with someone to whom you are NOT married"?

Until that question is answered honestly, where's the argument?

Regards.

4 Him:

Just curious - why is the mus'lim so desperate to prove that Christ was not crucified?

I don't know - the only thing that has been confirmed so far in my discussions with some of them is this: the art of DENIALS.