₦airaland Forum

He won't prove it - he just can't. At best he'll tell you that it's a myth (and we're not tired of hearing that); then he'll come back to tell you that he strongly believes that this mythical figure called Jesus actually married according to the Gospel of Judas, or according to an 18 year old UK student (Andrew Walker) who wrote a sloppy runaway "research" posted on the web, or he'll next tell you that another one of his "researchers" by the name of Niels Lemche saw something in Deuteronomy and so twisted the Hebrew language you'd suppose Niels escaped from an asylum. . . or something like that.

Jagunlabi enjoys the fun of being neither here nor there - his ATR/ABR has failed him, and like the rest of his crew, the best way to revive his beliefs is not to share his own, but to attack other people's beliefs. Quaint.

jagunlabi:
Does religion prevents or hinders the use of intelligence in the average religious human being?

Religion does not make morons of people and there are facts on ground to attest to that. Religious enquiries and experiences are quite a different phenomena from scientific investigations, and most scientists today know that. One of the problems people have in seeing this is that they want everything to be tested by the limited prism of a particular branch of science at all costs. This only furthers the problems rather than foster a coherrent understanding of the experiences of humanity.

The Pakistani Physicist, Abdus Salam was a devout Muslim, whose religion did not occupy a separate compartment of his work and family life. He was a very intelligent and hardworking scientist and jointly won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 with Sheldon Lee Glashow (USA) and Steven Weinberg (USA). Infact, for more than forty years, Abdus Salam was a prolific researcher in theoretical elementary particle physics, either having pioneered or been associated with all the important developments in this field, maintaining a constant and fertile flow of brilliant ideas.

The American Physicist Charles Hard Townes (b. 1915), for his role in the invention of the maser and the laser, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1964 (jointly with Russians Nikolai G. Bassow and Alexander M. Prokhorov); was also a committed Christian who was not ashamed nor reluctant to be known for his beliefs. In 1951, he conceived the idea of using ammonia molecules to amplify microwave radiation which birthed the 'maser' (an acronym for “[b]m[/b]icrowave [b]a[/b]mplification by [b]s[/b]timulated [b]e[/b]mission of [b]r[/b]adiation”).

There are lots of other examples of brilliant minds who are religious and have contributed immensely in many fields of knowledge, not only in the past, but in the present. People still continue to benefit from their work. I don't think it is correct to assume that religious people are rationally constrained.

TV01:
The religion of temples, mediatory priests, sacrifice and the like was given to men because they demanded it. Does anyone think religion is God's idea? God hates religion.

TV01:
Assembling/Fellowship/Church is never mandated to a particular place or building. Infact, God hates physical temples

In fact, how many things does this "God" hate? He "hates" religion in another thread and yet He still accepts it in James 1:27; now He "hates" physical temples in this thread when in fact He still allowed the early Christians to continue daily with one accord in the physical temple and in Solomon's porch. What else does He hate? It's a miracle that He even asked His faithful servants to make Him one of the things He "hates" in Exo. 25:8, where He asked Moses to tell the children of Israel to make Him a sanctuary - a physical one at that!

Like you goodguy, I'm wondering about this "hate" . . .

Ok. Just take it easy.

mrlawng:
Please stick to the thread. Its about islam. There are threads about christian religion and its woes.
Why is it that that when people talk about islam, muslims always assume they are christians and they look for bad things in christianity to validate themselves as being equal or better.

I don't think that I've deviated from the thread, nor did I quickly assume that you were Christian. What's informing your vexations?

Oh, great. The replies have been modified.

@Ajisafe, easy. Don't be so embarrased and upset. I don't support the use of impolite language in addressing issues, but let this last one fall on me. I apologise on behalf of myself for the way you've felt unfairly treated by Christians engaging discussions with you. I also apologise to all Christians for the hurts that you've felt from Muslims unfairly treating you. Now I'd like to ask that we all address issues rather than descend to heated exchanges. God bless to everyone.

mrlawng:
How true those pictures are. We do have a few that purport the religion to be of peace. How come their voices are never heard? I think i have an answer to that. Peace my foot, they are not true muslims. The true face of islam is depicted in the pictures above.

I'm not sure I would agree with that thought. There are a lot of Muslims who are not passive or mute in the wake of so much that is happening. The trouble makers certainly are the ones heard more than the peaceful ones, and we know why. Some of the Muslims I know are the most tolerant and humane that I have met; and believe me, their attitude to other people are worthy of emulation. I cannot say if these peaceful Muslims are following the Qur'an by living sanely this way, but they surely have not been passive or keeping quite.

To be quite frank, there are very shameful things that have been done by people purporting to be Christians, and there are pictures on the web to shame some of us. I think we should slow down and stop these misgivings about people and seek to treat other people with some dignity. Apart from Islam and Christianity, some of us have never met some Hindus who are quite peaceful, and if we base our inference on the frequent clashes in India between Hindus and Muslims, we might be tempted to think that Hindus are very violent people, which is not true.

I beg of everyone, please let's foster an understanding among ourselves and not make other people's war our own. Thank you.

topebolu:
It right for one to combine the calling of God with secular job? As in is easy to please GOD and at the same time [maintain a normal job]?

There's no contradiction there - those called of God could hold normal secular jobs, although it's not easy to manage both.

Some are called to full-time ministry, in which case it's almost impossible to simultaneously handle the demands of a secular job and the service of a divine call, especially when such a person is called to an itinerant ministry.

It's unfortunate that today almost everyone who feels himself/herself called into service quickly wants to see themselves as full-time minister, and then handle the ministry like it was supposed to be a secular organization of sorts.

It's an honourable thing to please God in whatever aspect He calls you to serve. It will become evident whether or not His calling was to full-time ministry or otherwise.

Guess this was a mistake - it's just about the same with Making Up Your Cv. Moderator/Admin, toss this one to bin.

Sorry, you didn't leave enough intro to follow. What exactly do you mean?

Lol, Rev. Where do you get all these pix from?

Good to know, TV01. Enjoy.

And thanks, otolorin.

Finally. . .

TV01:
You still haven't given me much idea as to what informs your position, both on the "----cracy" question, and regards tithe as a whole.

I hope my rejoinders will help you reconsider your position on the monarchy-theocracy issue. The consequences are evident in themselves - if one reads things into the Bible that are not there, you could imagine the stuff that will follow. As for the tithe-tax issue, I believe that neither tithes nor free-will giving are obligatory for the Christian; and whatever people decide on is between themselves and God.

There are clearly different kinds of giving in the NT, and I believe that as far as tithes are not expressly condemned in the NT, it is not an issue to be so aggressively opposed to or campaigned against. II Cor. 9:7 simply says: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." If I purpose in my heart that I'd cheerfully give 10% of my income to God, give alms to others (Matt. 6:3-4), support the ministry of God's servants (Gal. 6:6), and yet give freely on Sundays in worship (I Cor. 16:2), why should anyone complain about that if I'm not dipping my hands into their pocket for what I purpose to give? Why should anyone make it their business to militate against the types of Christian giving (tithes or whatever else) and lecture others on what and what not to give? "Do this, don't do that" about tithing simply tells me that anyone militating against this issue hasn't seen what God can do - when they have experienced it, they'll stop complaining and whining. You cannot use the OT to clobber others into not tithing - wiser to leave people to purpose in their hearts to give as they want to; and that includes tithes and all other kinds of giving.

I don't see the sense in someone's calculating all personal expenses before deciding what to give in worship to God. That is simply humanistic philosophy that has no foundation on faith in the Bible - and I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was addressing that kind of attitude in Luke 21:3-4. Ever since I started tithing, God hasn't frowned on me, neither was it easy to do at the beginning.

I've taken time out to address the issues you raised and hope they'll be of some help, even where we look at things quite differently.

Many blessings.

Some more. . .

TV01:
The religion of temples, mediatory priests, sacrifice and the like was given to men because they demanded it.

Tell me, who made any demands for the sanctuary that God commanded to be made in Exo. 25:8 (compare Heb. 8:5)? Who made any demands for the Mosaic Law in the first place (see Heb. 9:19-20)? Who among the children of Israel made any demands for the stipulations of the priesthood and sacrifices in Leviticus? You're surprising me by making inferences that are never in the Bible; and as far as I can see, your interpretations are baseless and cannot be used for the view that "it's outworking is so prevalent today" - especially because you're not discerning what you're reading in the Scriptures.

TV01:
God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators.

That is simply because you don't seem to understand that God actually required and made stipulations for mediators - He said so in all the outlines I gave above (Isa. 1:25-26; Lev. 4:22-26; and Deut. 17:14-20). I'm sure you forgot that in the NT, even though there's only one, nevertheless there's certainly a Mediator - "Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant!" (Heb. 12:24 and I Tim. 2:5). If what you're making reference to in 'mediators' in the NT, then all are priests and none stands as mediator alongside Christ (I Pet. 2:9).

TV01:
Does anyone think religion is God's idea? God hates religion. In Christ Jesus, all those things are done away with.

There's definitely a sense in which religion is countenanced by God the Father: "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27). Often, believers just want to bastardise a word simply because they feel this way or that about it; and that's why many make your mistake that "God hates religion." No, He didn't say so, and w should not put words in His mouth.

TV01:
No more temples, no more mediators , no more rituals. But men won't have it. The Lord cries for and offers relationship. Many Christian tradions pay it lip service, but the hierarchies, cathedrals, traditions and the like always give the game away.

Biblical Christianity was never meant to be all that - and there's no reason why you should mix them up as if that's what Christianity has become in its entirety today. There may be systems built on such elaborations like the Catholic Church; but there are hundreds of churches I know of that don't have those elaborations and "game".

TV01:
In a very real sense, the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be. His way. His will is perfect.

You cannot mix up the OC and NC in such a summary dismissal. Under the OC, people were declared righteous by the Law if they did what was written therein: "And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us."__and__"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." (Deut. 6:25 and Luke 1:6). The OC had only one purpose: to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:24-25). While it was still standing, men could be declared righteous but not perfect; because the Law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:19 & 10:1) - only Christ could effect this perfection in the heart of man (Heb. 10:14). No one could have expected that God's perfect will had been expressed in the OC, so there's no talk about "the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be." It is like saying the NC would never have been necessary if men had continued "perfectly" under the OC.

Continuing. . .

TV01:
That is why there always had to be a new covenant.

Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, . . . 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Please tell me, was the fault Gods? No! It was the demands of men.
That is always the problem. Men insisting on worshipping God in a way they deem fit.
It's outworking is so prevalent today, that few can actually discern the difference. God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators

You should not be too hasty to suppose that Hebrews 8:6-11 is prooftext for your reason as to why there always had to be a new covenant (because of "the demands of men." The mediatory priesthood and monarchy in no way nullified or rendered the OC faulty - not at all! They were defintely God's intention for them right from the beginning (Isa. 1:25-26) - unless you're so driven to read your own ideas into the Bible when in fact what you see is not there!

The reason for the setting aside of the Old Covenant was as simply stated in vs.9 ~ "because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord." Now let me ask you - when was the old covenant established - before or after I Samuel 8? Don't you even read in Hebrews 9:19-20 that the Old Covenant was already set in place before the people asked for Saul to be their king? How then could you make the surprising convoluted inference that the monarchy or mediatory priesthood were the reasons for setting the OC aside for the New Covenant?

The Biblical basis as to why the OC was set aside is simply as found in Heb. 7:19 - "For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." You cannot therefore claim that the Law was given to them in response to "the demands of men."

And so. . .

TV01:
Likewise the monarchy. It was never Gods intention. His plan has always to be amongst His people as their King. A monarchy was never God's desire. And as I mentioned, the consequences of monarchical rule were clearly spelt out in 1 Sam chapter 8. The people demanded a monarchy, so God gave them one. It was indeed Gods graciousness that raised up king David, but again, please read the history of the monarchical lineages in both Judah and Israel. Are we to conclude that the almost universally line of evil kings (especially in Israel, which was not the true throne) was Gods will?

There's a clear distinction between what was God's will and what was man's will. The evil kings did not come up as a result of God's choice of kings for the people; yet, that in itself did not mean that God never intended a monarchy for them.

The monarchy and priesthood were clearly God's predeterminate intension for His people. Ultimately, God would rule among His people as their King, but remember that He had earlier promised to raise kings long before the nation of Israel emerged: "And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee" (Gen 17:6). What kings were these? If you considered that these kings had nothing to do with the Israelites or that God never intended monarchial reign among them, then you probably had missed some very important references to God's economy in this regard among His people.

That there would be kings is indicated by the fact that stipulations for kings/rulers were made in Lev. 4:22-26 and Deut. 17:14-20 long before even the first king, Saul (I Samuel 10:1) was anointed king over the children of Israel by their fleshy choice. Remember that before the question of a rejection of the God's rule among them (I Sam. 8:7 & 10:19), there was clearly an intermediary class - Samuel made his sons judges over Israel, and yet God did not complain about that or saw that as a rejection of theocracy by the prophet himself (vs.1).

Yet, in all that time beyond Exodus 19-20, there was no question about the fact that God was still ruling among the people as their King. That was why Balaak made reference to "the shout of a king" (in reference to the LORD) in the midst of the Israelites in the plains of Moab (Num. 23:21); and though David was king over Israel during his time, he clearly recognized that the LORD was still King over them (Psa. 5:2; 10:16; 20:9; 29:10; 44:4; 47:2,6; 89:18; etc).

If you missed these important key notes as to God's intention of a mediatory class of priests, rulers and kings, you might not get the real sense of His promise afterwards in Isaiah 1:25-26: "And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy tin: And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city." The choice of Saul was a fleshy choice; but the stipulations for kings and rulers were made long before that time.

From all these, you cannot ignore these texts in their contexts and argue that it was never God's intention nor desire to provide a monarchy for His people: the monarchy did not negate His Kingship among the Israelites.

So, here:

TV01:
Theocracy was God's way. I'm currently reading through the OT and I'm at Exodus right now. It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. That was introduced because the people refused to meet with Him as He desired. Please read Exodus 19/20 to clarify this. The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

You've poorly read and interpreted those chapters. The texts in Exodus that you might have been alluding to as postulating this rejection of universal priesthood say nothing of such. They did not reject the priesthood, but they expressed a reverential fear for God who revealed His awesomeness on mount Sinai as indicated in Exo. 20:19-20 - Notice the main purpose for the convocation - (a) God was proving them, (b) that His fear may be before their faces so they sinned not. This has nothing to do with any rejection of an offer of a universal priesthood.

Infact, previously in Exo. 19:9, God Himself revealed the reason why He chose to reveal His awesomeness in full view of the people. Certainly, He was indicating in that verse that His primary focus there was to speak through a mediator - it was with Moses that God spoke and through whom He communicated His mind to the people. Compare the verses:

(a) "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken
we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." ~ Ex. 19:8

(b) "And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud,
that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever." ~ Ex. 19:9

(c) "And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear:
but let not God speak with us, lest we die" ~ Ex. 20:19.

God did not intend to speak straight on with the people without a mediator; and there's nothing to suggest that there was a rejection of a universal priesthood by the people in Exodus 19-20.

TV01:
It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. . . The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

As I've pointed out, the reaction of the people was not a rejection of the universal priesthood as you inferred. You got it wrong in supposing that ecclessiocracy began with that 'rejection'. There was clearly a mediatory class of priests and leaders alluded to in those chapters: (a) Moses was a mediator; (b) God spoke of priests who would approach Him - read Exo. 19:22; (c) there were elders who were a mediatory class - Ex. 19:7. In speaking of ecclessiocracy, you failed to realise that there was clearly a mediatory class among the people, and the Aaronic priesthood did not come about as a result of any rejection or otherwise of what you had supposed in Exodus 19-20.

More later.

Hi TV01,

Hope you're doing quite well. I'd asked those questions to summarise what exactly were your interpretations of God's rule as King among the Israelities. However, since you'd rather I comb through your posts for them, here are a few of my observations. First, I'll summarise my points for easy reference:

# Theocracy did NOT end in Exodus or I Samuel 8.

# God continued to rule as King among the Israelites and as ultimate Ruler over all kingdoms of the earth.

# The Israelites did NOT reject a universal priesthood in Exodus 19 and 20.

# God did NOT give them a mediatory priesthood on their demanded; He had already made stipulations for them.

# Tithes are part of NT Christian personal giving and not to be condemned.

Then, I'll follow through to address them in the next few rejoinders. Regards.

Hi TV01,

It hasn't gone quiet all of a sudden. Between my busy schedules of school and work I'll find time to post some replies. In the meantime, I'd like you to summarise your views (if you don't mind) and help me out with the following questions:

# If theocracy ended in Exodus, when exactly did it begin and when did it end?

# How was theocracy carried out in the Old Testament?

# What were the benefits or consequences of theocracy when it was in force?

# What was/were the consequence(s) following the end of theocracy?

These questions are borne out of the fact that it seems you're reading things into the texts that aren't there; but I'll wait to see what your opinions are and then perhaps I could follow your thinking a bit more understandably.

Thank you.

Never done it - lai-lai!

I've danced with someone I really didn't like at a party.

Binoculars

Awww, lol.
"My backside" would do for now, eh?

I've lost a wallet with $530 before.

Vernacular

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=12469.msg346864#msg346864 date=1147204594]visting a few times is done it, duhh! U lived there even if it was a night. [/quote]Then I've actually lived in Aso Rock (we were there for 3 nights in summer of 2001!)


Done it (tried again before posting ).

I've fallen out of a jeep and landed on my ___!

Ajisafe:
Absolutely, there's no doubt about that. Saul (Paul) was the founder of christianity. Christians are rather called Paulites.

How did you come about this? Is it just a statement you'd like to perennially hold on to without checking it out? I'm curious.

jagunlabi:
BTW,administrative deities are known as ORISHAS in yoruba language.

Oh, I didn't see that at first. Still, I respect your views. Amicably.

@jagunlabi,

You don't need to be sorry. We're all reasoning people, yes?

For you, the way people interpret the Bible carries weight only as far as it helps you kick against its message. That's no problem. I'm neither Jewish nor related to one. You may find me a queer person for still reading the Bible - yes, and that's how I found that Niels Lemche and his team did a sloppy job at interpreting Deut. 32:8-9.

If one is objective, the concern will not be to lean towards ideas simply because they feed our prejudices: we should be humble and open minded enough to admit that someone has made erroneous assertions (as with Niels Lemche); but most people would not do this because they are decidedly biased. I'll give you an example: I'm not a Muslim, but I'd be the least to agree to someone misrepresenting the Qur'an (just like someone said recently that it was written in the Qur'an that Muhammad got married to Aisha when she was 9 - would I be credulous enough to believe that when the Qur'an has no verse on that?). If someone was decidedly biased, it is small wonder that he would lean towards anything that misrepresents what he doesn't like, even if the assertions are false. In the same way, the Bible doesn't suppose separate deities between the most high God and Yahweh - He is just the same one God. Only prejudice would make a man ignore what the text in the Bible actually says and polarise towards whatever misrepresents its message.

God's love covers all people - including the Yorubas. That He was called the God of Israel does not mean at all that He is separate from Yahweh: at least, without prejudice you'd see that the Bible does not suppose two separate deities as you've been led to believe. God's love would spread to every nation through the Jews because "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). The same God rules among all nations (Psa. 22:28 ) and desires that all the nations should know Him (Psa. 67:2). The same God who made all nations will one day bring them together as His own inheritance (Psa. 82:8 ) - and He is not separate, but is the very same Yahweh, the Almighty and the Most High God.

That may sound really preposterous to you. No qualms; but whatever route you take, understand that a genuine concern is not displayed by leaning towards misrepresentations that feed a bias or prejudice. Let's just be objective enough to know that some of those research/articles you're posting have been fermented with the simple agenda to misguide and mislead - Deut. 32 and Niels Lemche et al as examples.

Peace.

Never done it (just visit a few times in summer).

I've splashed in a pool in freezing winter.

Leash