huxley:

I would get into a scholarly conversation with you once we both understand the ground rules of scholarly academic discussion. Otherwise, it would just be a dogfight, and I would loathe to stoop so low.

The rules of scholarly academic discussions are largely vacant in your responses. Go back and see where I offered you a few principles on theological and teleological enquiries. If you cannot take them, like I said: you've got no fish to fry.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:

Ha well.

I have not made any claims about being intelligent or proud. There goes another logical fallacy. Because I raise questions about these text, you are presuming that I claim to be intelligent. Are these questions not obvious to any open and fair-minded person?

Ah, I see. Should it be logical to assume that you come across as an unintelligent person? If your syllogism works, excusing yourself on a no-claims bonus does not add value to your queries.

huxley:

I had trouble with this at about the age of 10 when I first came across these multiple versions of the commandments. And I am not intelligent.

It's not my worry that you present yourself as unintelligent - which logically throws out your jurisdiction to query others on issues you haven't clearly outlined.

huxley:

Can you imagine what I might have found out if I was intelligent and proud?

I could well imagine - at this age, I believe you have moved on and added several more years above 10! Is it any better now?

huxley:

I simply asked, which set of 10 commandments should take precedent and why are they different. And I get all this ad homenims.

Simply, I asked for an outline - either way, you could just offer one or decline. That should have set us beyond this. These endless complaints are not adding substance to your arguments. You only quoted full chapters - I asked simply that you deduced from the chapters which actually are the decalogue. A simple request - too difficult already?

huxley:

Imagine you had a 10 year old child who asked the same questions,

I know many 10 year olds who understand simple request - they would not make endless complaints. . . not even beyond that age.

huxley:

viz;

1) Why are there given in three sections of the bible?
2) Why are they not the same?
3) Why are we downplaying one set (Ex34)?

What would you say?

This is what I would say:

1) Let's outline them together, shall we?
2) Which do you think are not the same?
3) How do you come to that inference?

On top of that, I'm sure the 10 year-old would seek to discuss each issue - not brashly cut lose in his tongue and then come back complaining.

huxley:

Please, let's get back to the question and avoid making personal attacks or praise.

I did not seek to attack you - I started by asking a question. Your response was hardly an answer.

huxley:

I would rather that my intelligence/pride/etc/etc NOT be the subject of the debate. Any valid arguments should stand or fall on its merit (not on the merits/dismerit of the messenger)

Which was why I started out focusing on the QUESTION! I did not seek to examine your IQ - I asked a question.

huxley:

Note: If I attack a text for being reprehensible, that does not mean I am attacking you personally.

If I attack an irresponsible response, that does not mean I am directly attacking you - yes?

huxley:

You should learn to make that distinction.

I did.

huxley:

I think by and large you are a descent person. However I do not think that the text your are defending is a good book.

I want to believe same applies to you. I have tried to present issues calmly and responsibly, and I believe you have cherish philosophies. How would you take me if I started out by drawing conclusions already about your own worldview and kept refusing to lead on into discussing why I feel that way?

I have longed for simple neighbour dialogue. If that cannot be offered, dear huxley it's not something to be irate about.

Cheers.

@Jagoon,

If the opinions were mine, why did I ask for your own definition of what fornication was?

Interestingly, you have just mentioned "pre-marital sex" above - does that not bring you round the fact that you are still struggling to find an excuse around this question: "Are you married to that person"?

Whether my inputs have been helpful or not is contigent upon whether you have found your own definition unfruitful. It often happens - man always finds that when he tries to force his assumptions upon Scripture, he will sooner than later begin to experience huge problems with his own definitions. I've been there before - so I know. That is why I prefer following the Word contextually than assume things.

Cheers.

Now, plagiarism over - get to be man enough to betake yourself to serious scholarship. Thank you in anticipation.

@huxley,

Let me give you one example. I think this plagiarism worry is the most immature concern I've read so far in all your threads; so I'd just oblige you with just this example.

I was actually searching for the threads where I was sure I'd visited similar concerns (offline) over the same matter on the prophecies on the Birth of Jesus - in this case, although I remembered vaguely, yet it so happened that those I mentioned were spot on: stimulus and babs787.

The topic of the thread you raised: "Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages" (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1939992). I'd like you to notice several things here:

(a) at post #6, stimulus observed:

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?).

(b) the highlighted part ("Are These Really Jesus' Sayings And Were They Fulfilled" that stimulus was referring to was linking to another thread where babs787 had posited the same: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-101571.0.html#msg1784840)

(c) on that same entry, he said this:

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.

(post #6)

(d) At post[b]#16[/b], justcool says:

I have given my thoughts on this issue before:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-101571.0.html#msg1812102

(e) At post #23, when stimulus began to answer the question, he noted that the verses used in both yours and babs787's thread are essentially the same: (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111677.0.html#msg1940437) . . and he went on to say: "and this would help the poster in the other thread realize that plagiarizing the fancies of other arguers does not make an intelligent person out of him. "


Back to base. You objected to my insinuation that most of your articles and threads appear to have been plagiarized, mostly because even before seeing them on this Forum, I had seen and read them elsewhere. Mid-way through your concerns about this, you complained through the history of your threads, the questions have been framed by you - which does not essentially depart from the fact that they were not originally yours.

You have kept so busy about this infinitesimal complain about plagiarism - such a big issue to you, understandably; but I have offered several apologies to help us get on. To go on harping yet again about the same thing is simply beggarly and actually confirms that you actually are not interested in discussing your presumptions at all.

You have insinuated brash things at others as well - no less myself; inferring that I was disrespectful and dishonest at the same time, and yet it was not such a big deal for me to now abandon the main thrust of my concerns (which is rather to discuss the topic rigorously). If this was a way of saying you cannot discuss, it's nothing new - I've seen the very same excuses several times in other fora where those who made so much about these subject actually had no fish to fry.

Dear huxley, give or take, we both my be wrong on the plagiarism - we both might be right on our own terms. . . or yet again, ONLY you are always right: no problem. You crave an apology - I offered in abundance. You want more? Here again: APOLOGIES.

If at this point you cannot grow past this, oh bother. . . I just will be kept amused at the empty exercise.

So long.

@Jagoon,

I started out by carefully asking you to define fornication - it is your own definition I applied, and after carefully "dissecting" your analysis of Leviticus 18 (as requested), I answered that it was a sin indeed.

So far, the protests you are making are saying nothing more than excuse away from your own definition. Pardon me, but you have never been able to come to terms with the question of showing how sex with someone a man is not married to is NOT fornication - that is like asking us to forget that marriage was mentioned in that chapter, and then arrive at something else.

I read the topic carefully; I answered carefully. Does fornication (as defined by you) excuse having sex with someone you're not married to?

Blessings.

@justcool,

First, I want to thank you for responding graciously. . . and with a sense of humour!

justcool:

@syrup
Here are a few translations:

“And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me.”
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

“And after giving thanks He broke it and said, "This is my body which is about to be broken for you. Do this in memory of me."
(Weymouth New Testament Bible)

Here you see, the first translation added, “which shall be delivered for you.” This will lead the reader to think that Jesus was speaking about His betral by Judas, who sold or delivered Him for crucification on the cross.

That misreading on "delivered" happens for those who read their pretexts into the texts.

justcool:

The second translation added “which is about to be broken for you.” Leading the reader to think that Jesus was talking about His crucification on the cross, which was about to take place.

Could I just ask here: what's your view about the Cross? Was Jesus crucified there or not?

justcool:

You see how meanings are added and lost in translations. You might want to buy at least 3 different versions of the Bible and compare each verse. (I did this when I was a pastor) You will amazed at what you will find. You will find some verses that say exactly opposite what the same verse says in another translation. I can give other verses if you want.

The essential message of the Cross is quite preserved in many versions and translations. I wonder why many people read their pretexts into the texts and then have problems with the contexts. A better way is simply to let the text speak to our hearts - that is a safer ground to occupy that assuming what is not there.

justcool:

Now about the real significance of “the blood of Jesus.”

According to the gospel:
“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”

Here was he talking about actualy drinking His blood? This is what lead catholics to come up with the idea of transubtantiation. They believe that one actualy  have to eat the flesh and blood of Jesus inorder to abide in Him, hence they turn bread in to the body of Jesus. I used to teach people this when I was a catholic. From the above verse you can tell that He was not talking about actually drinking blood niether was He talking about wine nor bread.  From the verse in red we can deduce what he meant from blood and flesh. The verse said “this is the Bread that came down from heaven” Did His body come down from heaven?
Just as you chew meat, swalow it and digest it, you shuold accept His words, examine it(Chew the meat), understand it(Digest it) and swallow it(implement it in your life. To drink His blood is live in His Truth. Just as blood circulates your physical body and nurishes it, so shall His Words(The Truth) circulate in the body of your spirit and nurish it. The human spirit perpertualy needs the flow of Truth to remain alive. The Truth is food for the the spirit, the spirit grows and matures only in the Truth, and as long as the spirit lives in the Truth, the spirit will live forever. And the this Truth which the spirit is dependant on is the blood of Jesus.This Truth which only comes from Divinity—(Jesus, God, and The Holy Spirit.) This is what is meant by the “blood of Jesus.”

In summary, you have missed the point yet again. I have already shared with you on Biblical symbolisms and figues of speech. That much we seem to argree are used in Scripture.

The problem now is to find out what exactly points to what.

*Does Scripture show that wine is the basis of redemption?
* Does Scripture show that words spoken are the basis of atonement?
* Does Scripture translate the Blood as mere "words"?

These are a few considerations that should help you seriously seek to understand the basis of Biblical redemption and atonement. As to its significance in Scripture, I gave you two verses from both the OT and NT - neither in one or the other does blood translate into "words".

justcool:

My dear, I have to call it a day today. I have to study for my calculus test, and you are distracting me. If I fail my test you will be in trouble.(Just Kidding)

May God help you to pass that test - I might need your numerate brains afterwards to cheat somebody in the marketplace!

Anyhow, much success in your exams/test.

justcool:

I wil post more after my test.

Looking forward to it.

Denials. . . a serious dilemma for the claim to "ALL" or "SOME" belief system.

huxley:

First, do you know what plagiarism means. Check out some of the previous threads where I had this accusation made against me. When I pointed out that where I used other's materials, it was duly and properly referenced. This is NOT called plagiarism.

I even had Stimulus withdraw his charge of plagiarism. I thought that was very magnanimous of him.

Now I an having you making the same charge. OK, my challenge to you is this;

Can you prove that I have plagiarise material (using the standard academic definition of the word)


HAVE YOU NOTICED WHAT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD IS? IT IS "WHEN WAS JESUS BORN"

What do answers about Jesus Genealogy got to do with WHEN he was born?


You see the point I am making? You are repeating exactly the same thing the others guys did. You fail to answer the question. When I start a different thread to deal with your mis-directioning the thread, you accuse me of evasion.

Who really is evading the questions? I have not seen your own answers forthcoming here, have I?

Pretty same responses you've in the other thread that leaves us on just the same point. See: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.32.html#msg2303633

@huxley,

huxley:

Well my personal standards are such that I find it hard to hold a discussion with people who are being disrespectful and dishonest.

*Disrespectful - if that was the case, I both apologised and reasoned with you. To posit that you cannot hold a discussion with people who are such and then pass that off to me is leading me to the view that any excuse is enough to say you simply don't want to discuss.

*Dishonest - I have been very articulate in my proposals and had hoped that you would refer me, at least, to the line you can point your finger and say: "it is not so". You made a "NO ANSWERS have been forthcoming" as well - and I simply highlighted that the claim was not true. If that was being dishonest (and disrespectful), you have not convinced me beyond just the present protests about plagiarism. Rather than lose my cool on that the accusation of being dishonest, I even went so far as to extend some friendliness and disregarded the sly invective: would that benefit you rather?

huxley:

I see you have apologised, which I am minded to accept, but you have not withdrawn the charge

I have not seen you articulate convincingly that the several things I pointed out are "not so".

huxley:

Should I read from that that you also withdraw the charge?

If I begin to be dishonest with the facts before me, then you'll read me doing so. However, it is not a "charge" I threw at you; and that is why I apologise if you forcefully read it as such. If my apologies are not enough - perhaps it makes me safely infer that you never were interested in discussing in the first place.

Which is it?

@Olabowale,

How are you today?

I took time to carefully read through your response. For the life of me, I admire your penchant to argue on and on and on . . . and yet absolutely miss the point. You tried out trying to "overwhelm" me on the question of "atonement" and "redemption" in Islam; unfortunately, you left me where indeed you actually enunciated those principles in either the Quran, the Hadith or any other Islamic sources.

This is what I said earlier about these issues:

syrup:


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.

Even when you tried to fill several pages long of arguments, dear Olabowale, where is ATONEMENT and REDEMPTION by BLOOD in Islam in your treatise? If I have missed it somewhere, could you please summarize the line and simply post it in brief?

Until you show me directly where in Islam you have a teaching on redemption and atonement by BLOOD, please save me the "overwhelming" emptiness.

Cheers.

Dear huxley,

Rather than keep up this banter about the allegation of plagiarisms or not, can I ask that we see something in your response directly upon what I offered on the topic? I don't see how this asking to be clear on plagiarism would be adding value on your arguments; afterall, I remarked as well that it is worrying to observe that you often make other claims that are untennable - such as claiming that "NO ANSWERS" were given in another thread where obviously that is not true.

So, when do we see your response to the topic I addressed in detail?

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:

Have you found out yet where I admitted to plagiarism? I would not have my integrity impugned by you and you getting off lightly.

As far as I am concerned, you should;

1) Prove that I admitted to plagiarism
2) Prove that I plagiarised
3) Or apologise if you cannot prove 1) and/or 2)

No point in discussing with someone whose honesty remains in question.

My honesty is not in question as you may wish. The reponse I made which seems to have eluded your notice is this:

---

huxley:

I challenge you to show where on the internet (or other media) you think I have copied my questions that have not been referenced!

You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about? Just a reminder:

huxley:

Some of these questions may already exist out there.

. . . and an example is the one on the Virgin Birth which stimulus rigorously answered. Funny thing is that Babs787 had used those same questions repeatedly in several threads - and I don't see what your "challenge" here is warranting a red scream for.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113676.0.html#msg2303331

---

If it were not so, then no worries. I hope you're not sulking or pouting just so you want "apologies". I don't see you response to the issues at hand - and if this present plagiarism stuff is the excuse to detract from the discussion, I can well bear with it.

I offered an amicable response above so we could move on. However, you seem to want an apology by all means! Here: APOLOGIES.

Now can I see your own intelligent and principled response to my detailed reposte on your topic?

Hi TayoD,

Tayo-D:

@topic,

Was the Council of Nicea pre or post the following Bible verse? Colosians 2:9 because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily

There are numerous verses to add to that. What's important is whether the Biblical documents came before or after the Nicean Council.

@huxley,

huxley:

Would be interesting to see where I admitted this? Can you shown the forum, as nice and honest christian as you are.

I did - please read carefully.

huxley:

You are so illogical, it is incredible;

Thank you, don't let it worry you so much. I often get that as a response when discussing with people who have nothing to say after my detailed response.

huxley:

Let's say I made an argument that there is a monster encased in mount Kilimajaro, but could not sustained that with defendible reasoning. Does that constitute plagiarism?

I'd like to see it so, and if I found where you plagiarized it, I would say so.



Now, huxley. . . I have offered responses to what I thought you had as your own arguments on this topic. I also offered simple principles for understanding Biblical naratives (don't bother about the terminologies of "hermeneutics, eisegesis, exegesis, teleology, etc" - we catch up on them as we progress). I was honestly seeking to discuss - and I did as is clear from my detailed response on the subject. Could it be that you could also offer something as detailed and principled as well - following the same theological and teleological principles? If you'd rather not, no problem. If you may, I'd be glad to read from you.

For now, please relax and calm down. . . I did not mean to irritate you, and I'd rather be friendly than fiendish! My apologies where I may have caused you any inconvenience.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:

It is hard for me to comment on this, firstly as it does not relate to the topic being discussed (Virgin birth).

Certainly it has a heavy bearing on the Virgin Birth - for the Virgin Birth is meaningless without the prophecies that speak of His "coming" to dwell among His people. Of what use would be your argument by excusing the prophecies in other texts?

huxley:

If this was a prophecy of Jesus, then it is strange that when he arrived, he was rounded rejected by the people he was sent to (the Jews) but found company amongst Gentile.

Again, your problem could be simply "eisegesis" - reading one's personal biases and pre[/b]texts into the texts and rejecting the [b]con[/b]text! Please, don't let that irritate you - that's why I said "could be" so you may understand I'm not being accusative.

You definitely have not carefully examined the texts about the Incarnation of Jesus - OT and NT. It is not "strange" that the Jews rejected Him while the Gentiles received Him. You quoted Isaiah's prophecy on the Virgin Birth - but the same Isaiah has answers to your queries here! You must have missed it: so here -

Isaiah 53:3
He is [b]despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.

Would it not have been "strange" indeed if only one part of the prophecy was fulfilled while the other part took another occurence? It seems you had missed this very answer to your question.

huxley:

Am afraid, you have started to do the same thing that I found irritating (pardon me) with the earlier discussants. We should really be talking here about the prophecy of virgin birth. Shall I go start a thread about other prophecies of Jesus Christ?

You are free to open a million threads on the same subject - would that have any difference from the fact that when answers are given, you are rather refusing to sustain your own assumptions? I was hoping you would discuss issues, not complain about being irritated and rushing off to open another thread on the same topic!

huxley:

By right I think you should really be addressing the following issues raised in the main post;

I did, and rightly so. Remember I offered you the principles of Biblical hermenuetics? Good - because I applied them. Just so you may gain a better understanding, I elaborated on them; checked out my assumptions on other verses corroborating the inference I reached, tried to make sure that I did not ignore issues out of hand, and even challenged myself a secodn time to be sure I don't risk conducting my own eisegesis while worrying that others were often doing that!

In fair exchange, rather than complain, dear huxley. . . could you do precisely the same? Delve into the Bible, throw your disclaimer aside and take a serious look at your own assumptions and proffer something more tangible instead of hooting to open another thread on the SAME topic. What happened to this one?

huxley:

1) The issue of mistranslation of the word virgin/young woman in the Septuagint.

The mistranslation does not affect the context borne out in the narratives pointing to the Incarnation. If you believe it does, I'd be glad to consider your concerns.

huxley:

2) The context of the narrative in Is 7;

I believe I have dealt precisely with that in detail - particular what you missed out: the SIGN!

huxley:

Am afraid, you have not dealt with any of these in your post.

Please take the time to read through - I don't believe this claim as it has said absolutely nothing about everything I said in that detailed response.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:

I asked you to proved that I have plagiarised. You seem not to be able.

I made pointers - did you yet gloss over them again? Too hasty to read my repostes?

huxley:

My very first thread on this site reference material by another author. Check it out; It is titled "The Dangers of Religiosity to Intellectualism"

Okay, that one was another I recently skimmed through this morning in my leisure - I could not have known it was your first post; but it appears you also posted the same thing in another motherboard (politics or so, can't remember clearly). I'm saying this just to let you know I'm not making mere claims of having followed your posts - I have actually been doing so since you let me know you were the same as therationa.

huxley:

Where I have not referenced sources, I have constructed my arguments from my own wits based partly on things I would have read in the past. Does that constitute plagiarism.

Plagiarism takes many forms - pretending that something was originally yours where it is not could pass as well. If those arguments were originally yours, you would not claim that you "lack knowledge of the texts", and secondly would have been able to sustain what is originally yours.

huxley:

A trip to the dictionary would help you understand the mean of the word "plagiarism".

Don't let me laugh.

huxley:

I await your evidence that I have plagiarised.

Already hinted above.

huxley:

Even if I did, it does not lessen the force of the arguments.

Is that another admittance that you did?

@huxley,

huxley:

Firstly, I am getting exactly the same thing from you as I got from the four other guys, viz;

Personal attacks
Accusations of plagiarism
etc;

Despite the fact that I bent over backward to be courteous to them. That is why I asked that they "may not" respond. If you understand the England language, you would know that that does not mean they should NOT post. I just found the personal attacks irritating. And I see you making exactly the same here now.

I understand the English language and use it quite well, thank you. What you offered was a weak excuse to cop out of the arguments you raised. Rather than seek to hold your grounds, you started complaining about "personal attacks" - which does not say very much about your attitude, because you failed to see your own vitriol and attacks on others.

This strikes me often about some atheist friends: they start out attacking others (often so presumptiously), and when you read something they don't like, then they begin to complain about attacks. Why is it that they demands you make of others suddenly become tyrranical when demanded of you?

huxley:

Since you started engaging me, have I attacked you?

Yes - you did once, and I brought you to smart up for it. We both had to be humbled, and I've learnt my lessons since. If you feel my replies are cast as attacks, I apologise upfront and would appreciate where you felt I came off the wall on that. More than that, I would appreciate where you can point me out to say "thus-and-that is not so. . . because this, that and the other is so".

huxley:

Try as I might to get the discussion back on track, I get all sorts of abuse. That was why I asked that until they change their behaviour I would not respond to them on my threads.

That is hardly convincing. I have not been following the Forum always even when offline, but even this morning on the thread on 10 Commandments, your reposte to my simple question left much to be desired about your attitude.

huxley:

Which the duly did. Apologies were exchanges and accepted alround. If you want to engage me, I would be oblige if you would be respectful and withdraw your charges of plagiarism.

Where I felt you lifted those questions, I have made particular references. If you would engage me as well, seek to do so with some sense of dignity.

huxley:

BTW, do you know what plagiarism means? I can hardly be accused of that.

I could only say that "plagiarism" was euphemistic in what you did - could have been uglier than that.

@huxley,

huxley:

I challenge you to show where on the internet (or other media) you think I have copied my questions that have not been referenced!

You admitted them earlier, so what's the shouting about? Just a reminder:

huxley:

Some of these questions may already exist out there.

. . . and an example is the one on the Virgin Birth which stimulus rigorously answered. Funny thing is that Babs787 had used those same questions repeatedly in several threads - and I don't see what your "challenge" here is warranting a red scream for.

huxley:

On the question of starting many threads, I had to resort to this for two reasons;

1) I had a lot of issues to present to the forum.

2) Each time I started a discussion, a number of disccusants (4HIM, Stimulus, Imhotep etc) had the tendency to spin it off into another direction.

I disagree - at least the few I have perused and earlier hinted at disavow that claim. For one, stimulus offered answers to some of your queiries. Perhaps he noticed you had been recycling some of those questions from others, and subsequently raised the flag. But to have afterwards intoned that they were welcome to NOT post replies in your thread was a grave mistake on your part. Second, recently in another thread I just responded to, you claimed that "NO ANSWERS" were forth-coming - a very misleading claim to make in the face of the fact that they gave you answers.

Your claim here is untennable - please go back and have the humility to acknowledge the same.

huxley:

So I went off and started a thread to cater for the new direction they wanted to go and leave the original thread to stay on the main topic. That was my strategy to keep each thread on topic.

You cannot deny that they also respected your threads - specifically those you had requested were particular for the benefit of non-believers. If I remember clearly, one of them (stimulus or imhotep?) had definitely observed some admirable cordiality to respect your request (where he initialy had posted a reply about Anthony Flew the Deist).

huxley:

If you peruse the threads I have started, I have always stayed around to field responses, where the responses were on topic and relevant to the thrust of the argument.

Not true - more often than not, you either:

* asked that they were welcome NOT to post any replies; or -
* if they posted, should not expect any replies from you; or -
* complained they were attacking you personally (where you failed to be cautious of your own verbiage).

@huxley,

Having set an intro to a proper understanding of theological discussions - particularly Biblical hermeneutics - I'd now be examining your other worries on this sound principle. To violate this principle is not my problem: it would only rubbish the arguments of those who assume to see a "valid" argument out of cacophony - and I hope that is not where you'd like to see your thread going.

huxley:

If you look at the history of my thread, where I have used material for known sources, I have endeavoured to say so by quoting the references.

I did not see that happening when I visited your earliest threads. You seem to have been somewhat forced to admit to that after others impressed it upon you.

huxley:

Where there are no references, I have simply phrased some of the questions I had about religions and Christianity as best I can.

If they were responsibly put across, it should not have been difficult to hold and sustain your own arguments afterall. Why is this vacant in a higher percentage of "your" threads?

huxley:

Some of these questions may already exist out there.

Indeed - I've seen so many of them elsewhere.

huxley:

Others are purely my own. In either case, these questions may be due to my lack of knowledge in the text and doctrine; or they may be because I find the text inconsistent and therefore not worthy of being believed.

That's okay so far. However, if you understood that you lack knowledge in the text and doctrine (as you stated), why not invite responsible answers by seeking amicably to discuss them. Often, unfortunately, you started out with a bias not to discuss, but rather to ridicule and castigate issues you have no understanding whatsoever about!

There are many things outside of religion that are believed - I leave it open to you to make your pick (science, philosophy, naturalism, cultures, etc). People have sought to calmly investigate matters seriously without falling on their faces with the recourse to animosity. I am aware of many scientists, for instance, who are have admirable attitudes in seeking answers to things they do not understand in religion. But here is an important distinction: my friend, ATHEISM is NOT science! You can shout "science, science, science" from now till your next taxonomy, but they are not the same!

However, people who are so assuming and presumptious are so unable to see the difference. I've appreciated the discourses of some other atheists who see the difference, and not too long ago one reminded me of something I already know: 'evolution is not atheism'. The mistake many people make is to assume that they are synonymous - and this type of attitude is sadly what the fundamentalist atheists often assume.

@huxley,

Thank you for responding - a better deal from the other two threads I just posted on.

huxley:

It hardly matters whether the ideas are my own or not as long as the arguments are valid. I have read alot around the subjects in all sorts of media (books, journals, internet, videos, etc) so it is not surprising that I would be influenced by some of these material. That is generally how knowledge (or falsehood, for that matter) gets transmitted.

What is remarkable is that the points or arguments are not as valid as you posit - often because you have failed seriously to stand or sustain those same views when answers were proffered. I don't understand how you could feel so threatened as to have raised objections to some people replying your threads (notably 4Him, stmulus and imhotep) if indeed you assumed that your arguments were "valid".

Second, "valid" arguments would mean that the discussants (whoever they may be) put their views across quite simply. Overweening pride or uppity is a display of insecurity, and often times has been used as firstaid by those who have no fish to fry. Are you actually one of such? If not, what is wrong with addressing issues responsibly without recourse to such arrogance?

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.

That said, let me summarize your other concerns.

@huxley,

huxley:

It would have been more interesting if you had really tried to answer the question.

I could do precisely that. A few moments since discovering your several threads, I took time to see the sort of discussant you make and sadly found that you really are not seeking a rational discourse. Perhaps I should have listened to those who warned me earlier - but I wanted to prove you for myself.

Plagiarism, in my view, is beggarly and unfortunately absurd - because it gives the plagiarist every excuse to pretend the scholarship as his/her own until they begin to make disclaimers to where they are unable to hold rational discourses. That is the sort of thing that struck me in many of your threads - I don't see you holding your ground when attempts were made to offer answers.

One other thing that struck me is this:

huxley:

No answers have been forthcoming on this thread so far!

This is pitiful, huxley. Why this immature pretences of "no answers" when several have been pointed out? I carefully went through this thread in particular and visited the links stimulus offered:

stimulus:


On Jesus Genealogy:

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.32.html#msg1942568)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.32.html#msg1942609)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.32.html#msg1948298)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.64.html#msg1950177)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.64.html#msg1950188)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-111222.64.html#msg1950363)


On your disclaimer:

(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113303.0.html#msg1963913)
(https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113033.0.html#msg1963907)

How on earth you could claim that there have been "no answers" is beyond me! That is sadly bordering to . . . well, duplicity! The one thing you could have said better was that you were not satisfied with the answers offered - and then seriously articulate your own points rather than ducking behind other authors whose articles you shlepped unto.

Could I safely conclude that you take time to present yourself in a more amicable and responsible light in your claims? I trust this is not a difficult request to make.

Blessings.

@huxley,

huxley:

Why is it for me to do that. I do not subscribe to this reprehensible dogmatic text from nomadic tribesmen from the desert.

I asked a simple question, but by the day you come across as someone who actually has nothing intelligent to offer. Is it such a demand upon your person to get over this overwheening pride of yours and seek rather to put across your view points quite simply? You actually convince me that you fit precisely the image of those who have adviced already that you have nothing intelligent to say. It's all up to you to prove them wrong by acting grown up.

huxley:

Your worldview is built around this text, so it behooves you to master the material, if you want to be reasonable and intelligent about your religion.

So far, I have tried to be reasonable - that is why I stated my question simply and responsibly. You have a problem with that? Or am I to be even more impressed that you own worldview makes a sorry and vexed soul with such hubris?

huxley:

If you want to be spoon-fed, the so-called 10 commandments are given in Ex20, Ex34 and Deut 5. Interestingly, Ex20 is never referred to as commandments in the bible.

A simple question put across to you should not mean that I am asking to be spoon-fed. Between the three passages you offered, I wanted a simple outline from you as to where you had questions. If that was too much an exercise for you, I apologise. However, your pride is not to be mistaken as intelligence.

huxley:

But Ex34 is, as per the below;


11 But you, on your part, must keep the commandments I am giving you today. "I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
12 Take care, therefore, not to make a covenant with these inhabitants of the land that you are to enter; else they will become a snare among you.
13 1 Tear down their altars; smash their sacred pillars, and cut down their sacred poles.

Once again, see the action of your loving god, ethnically cleansing a piece of land to install the Jews on it.

How does that cut out the portion of what I asked as per the 10 Commandments? I'm sorry huxley, but this is actually a sad discovery to find that you have no handle on simple comprehension. My question was simple enough:

syrup:

It would be interesting to see you identify what exactly is the 10 Commandments.

Since you could not do so, it leaves much to see how you demonstrate your intelligence.


Cheers.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:

@Syrup: Is this better than animal sacrificing? Its worse. This is human sacrificing my friend.

I understand your problem with the prophecies of the Biblical prophets. But as I often say, it is not my call to instruct God what He would do - it is His prerogative and His alone.

He spoke of the redemption and atonement that He would grant through His Son long before it was fulfilled. The prophets faithfully declared these things, even though they were constantly ridiculed and their messages and prophecies denied. I understand that in Islam there is no thought of redemption or atonement - and that is why we have been through the question of whether or not you believe in ALL the prophets. Do you see how futile your continual denials are?

Rather than keep denying anything, my stand is rather to receive all that God has spoken by the prophets, even as we find in Jesus' clear warning in Luke 24:25-26 >>

Then he said unto them:
O fools, and slow of heart to believe [size=14pt]all[/size] that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?

Dear Olabowale, it is a futile exercise to try to instruct the prophets on what to declare or believe - and denying what they have stated as prophecies will not give you peace or reason. I was blessed to believe ALL that the prophets have declared rather than making mere claims and cutting corners. May God help you to take heed and calmly examine your denials and their implications upon your life.

God bless you.

A few of the other prophets who spoke of God coming to dwell in the midst of His people include the following:

Zechariah 2:10
"Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion:
for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.

Malachi 3:1
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold,
he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Here, God prophetically declared that He would come to dwell in the midst of His people (Zech. 2:10), and though the Jews were looking forward to this event, it nonetheless says that He would "suddenly come" to His Temple - and for all that they would not recognize Him! WHY? Because it was a "sign" - the sign of God Himself in the Incarnation of the Child born by the virgin in a supernatural way.

These both speak of the "sign" of His coming to dwell with His people that is alluded to in Isaiah 7:14. Often, prophets speak in symbolic language - and there is a reason for that: (Isa. 28:9 - "Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts". The immature who deliberately reads his own pre[/b]texts into Scripture without considering the [b]con[/b]texts disqualifies himself from understanding the significance of prophetic signs!


[b]So, a "Name" in this context speaks of the 'Subtance' of that prophecy?

Precisely; and we can be confident of this, because Jesus was also called many other names by other prophets, but they were all symbolic of WHO and WHAT He was rather than appellations upon His Person. Another example is found in Jeremiah -

Jeremiah 23:5-6
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David
a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall
execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved,
and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called,
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Our righteousness fall far short of God's Holiness. This was recognized by the prophets, and that is why even Isaiah declares that "In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory" (45:25) - it IN the Lord Himself that we find our justification unto righteousness.


What is a "NAME"?

Even in modern usage, a name is more significant than mere appellations for calling someone - it points to meaning and substance rather than to what we "call" someone. It often points to a person's reputation and to his/her authority. Here in the UK, civil and legal matters often take place "in the Name of the Queen" - it does not mean that allusion is made to the Queen's personal name (Victoria), but rather to the authority of the Crown.

In the same way, the "sign" that Isaiah alludes to in 'Immanuel' was not perculiarly alluding to an appellation as we might address a person (Jones, John, James, etc); rather, that sign points to the substance of that "Name".

Emmanuel - God has fulfilled His promise by the prophets: He IS with us.

Many blessings.

@huxley,

I tried to go through quite a number of your threads and came to the conclusion that most of the articles were actually lifted from other sites, as I've seen them well debated in other fora as well. I was actually looking forward to your own contributions, as it would be counter-productive to embark on debating articles from authors who are not here on this Forum to respond directly. Perhaps this was why it struck me that you often really didn't stay on to face up to the answers provided in some of those other posts you raised - probably because you were not well prepared to examine the claims you lifted from other authors.

To this end, I'm inclined to agree with this one-liner:

4Him:

You've had plenty of reviews, what have you done with them? Its not like you usually stay to debate those reviews.

. . . and that is something I observed for myself in going through most of your threads. If you'd stay on a particular thread and sustain your own arguments (if they could be called "yours", then I'd have the enthusiasm to take you on several of them quite seasonally. If that is not the case, it would be of no use slaving on any one of them.

Let's see you go back and actually provide detailed responses of your own to the answers which have been offered by a few - including imhotep, stimulus and 4Him. The disclaimer would be meaningless as an excuse which is what some others often resort to as an easy escape and a first aid.

However, in the spirit of sharing as to give you the confidence that I'm not glibly ducking away from any one of your assumptions (so you don't suppose I have nothing at all as a response), let me take your last query:

huxley:

Why was Jesus never called Immanuel as prophesied in the OT. Was it a failed prophecy?

It was not a failed prophecy. If you take time to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture, you will indeed find that the prophecy was pointing to the substance of what He was in Himself rather than a mere calling of names.

The Name 'Emmanuel' means 'God with us' (Matt. 1:23), and Matthew points out that this was a prophecy alluding to Jesus when He was born: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet" (Matt. 1:22, see Isaiah 7:14). This sheds some very profound light on the nature of the prophecies relating to "Names" of the Messiah. Simply put, the fulfillment of that prophecy was in its substance, rather than bearing the name 'Emmanuel' (or 'Immanuel'). The substance of that prophecy is that God had indeed come to be with His people ("with us" in the Incarnation in fulfillment of the many prophecies alluding to this event.

What other prophecies alluded to the Christ as "God with us"?

There are several of them. Let me give you a few examples more.

Several OT verses speak of God being with His people: (a) Psa. 46:7,11 - "The LORD of hosts is with us . ."; and (b) Isa. 8:10 - ". . speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us". Such proclamations of the confidence that the Divine Presence was with His people abound in the OT.

However, when you carefully examine the prophecy relating particularly to the promised Messiah (Christ), you find that it was specifically called a "sign" -

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Those who know the significance of prophetic language have no problem understanding that "a sign" goes far beyond the mere calling of the name - it stood rather for the substance of what He really IS in Himself when that prophecy would be fulfilled: the substance was that God would actually come in the flesh to be with His people - to identify Himself with them for the prupose of redemption.


Since this is a prophecy, is it corroborated by other prophets?

Certainly, for that would be the substance of Biblical hermeneutics ("Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." - 2 Peter 1:20). One should be willing to exercise the discipline to look at other verses of Scripture that point to the same event. Did Kenneth E. Nahigian ever try to do this? If he was failing in doing this, you can be sure that he was deliberately doing eisegesis rather than exegesis.* The first is "pre[/b]text", the second is "[b]con[/b]text".


_{*[b]eisegesis} - reading one's biases into Scripture by refusing to consider the context in other verses
*exegesis - exposition of the Bible by careful attention to contextually reading

I'm glad that even Hegel's dialectic was seen for the problem that it actually was.

True, every proposition has its positive and negative. However, UP and DOWN are not the only directions one could face. If I don't look "up", and choose not to look "down", I could take another option from the others - including LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT of me or BACK!

Just don't worry about these pagan-warriors. There has always been something somewhere mid-course that they never would be comfortable with in their considerations.

syrup:

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.

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.

Many blessings.

@justcool,

justcool:

@syrup
LOL
According to the Scriptures, Christ once said:
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
In this Scripture quoted above, Christ did not include, "that will be shade on the Cross." HE simply stated, "which is for you." due to interpretation some translators have translated it to be, "This is My body, shade for you." And from this interpretation came the idea, "this is My body shade on the cross for you." You see how things get lost in translation?

Okay, this is getting really serious and interesting, lol. However, I'd like to see those translations to save me the risk of my assuming it is so. I'm not aware that any such translations speak of the Body of Christ as being "shed" - rather, it was said to be "given" in the Gospels and "broken" in the Epistles (big difference). But I'd like to see yours.

justcool:

According to the Gospel, Christ once said:
"because this is my blood of the new covenant that is being poured out for many people for the forgiveness of sins."
New American

Here He said "being poured out," which is tantamount to "which is given for you."

However in King James version, we see a different translation:
"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Here we see the idea that erroneously lead people to think that He was referring to His blood that will be shade on the cross. But that is a different thing, He was referring to His words which He symbolized with the wine that He gave the apostles.

In Biblical hermeneutics, you just don't draw inferences from off the stove like that - there is a solid principle known as "exegesis" which simply is to follow the Bible and not read one's biases into it (which is "eisegesis". What you have summized is not exegesis, it is rather eisegesis.

(a) If Jesus was referring to His "words" as interpreted for the Blood, it would simply mean a foreign element altogether. In Biblical symbolism, "wine" does not represent "words" - if it does, there would be verses that show that.

(b) Jesus meant clearly His Blood, for if He meant it as something else it should be clear in His word to His disciples. However, we find that in Biblical exegesis the Blood is always connected with sin: the forgiveness, remission or cleansing of sin. This is why I hinte to m_nwankwo that it is absolutely important to understand Jewish thought before assuming a contrary position. A few examples about real Blood connected with forgiveness of sin include:

Hebrews 9:22 -
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood ;
and without shedding of blood is no remission"

This thought did not just spring up in the NT - and it is important to see the place of Blood in dealing with our sins in the OT as well. Here is one more thought:

Leviticus 5:9-10
And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon
the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be wrung out
at the bottom of the altar: it is a sin offering.
And he shall offer the second for a burnt offering, according to the manner:
and the priest shall make an atonement for him for his sin which he hath sinned,
and it shall be forgiven him.

What is happening back here is that the animal for sin offering had real blood (not "wine" or "words", and it was the blood of the animal that was "shed" (that is 'wrung out'). Based on this, it declares that the atonement is made, and on that basis "forgiveness" is secured.

For one to assume that the Blood of Jesus Christ was rather His "word" that was being shed is to miss the very basis of Biblical atonement and redemption. Take the Cross away, and you are left with no atonement, no redemption, and certainly no forgiveness - for such a person has rejected the efficacy of that Blood and arrived at something far removed from what God revealed.

If you take His blood to be literal, then when according to the gospel He said "eat and drink" He was telling them to actually eat Him and drink His physical blood? Is he telling men to be vampires?

Wasn't it pretty obvious that He symbolized His Body by bread and His blood by wine? Why should the idea of "vampire" be entertained here?

The wine points to the real Blood of Christ shed on the Cross - that is what the wine portrays. There is no mistaking that at all; nor is there a reference where that becomes translated as His "words shed on the Cross". 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.

huxley:

As you are new to the forum, you may want to know that me previous pseudonyms were therationa and tpaine.

It's good to know - I would never have guessed as I've been a long while away from the Forum until just recently.

It would be interesting to see you identify what exactly is the 10 Commandments.

Religious zeal is a serious defect when it is borne out of superfluity. @iku, why does Islam have to be an "option" - is it something to be selected among several other "options"?

iku:

Outside ISLAM and being a MUSLIM- no alternative and its simply the best option.