₦airaland Forum

@Olaadegbu

You should take a ride on a Ferris Wheel someday, if you've never.

I think you'll love the thrill.

The thread has been taken over by ad hominem posts.

Nothing more to see here.  

OLAADEGBU:
Since you believe that Jesus drank alcohol because His accusers called Him a drunkard, do you also believe John the Baptist was demon-possessed because his accusers labelled him so?

That's rather straightforward though. Jesus drank alcohol and so they called him a drunkard. John was a wild man of the spirit, eating locusts and wild honey and spreading the gospel without any concern for mundane affairs; and so they would call him a demon-possessed person.

@Sugardiva:

The best thing about being single is sleeping around.

You can sleep all over that lonely bed of yours. Left, right, middle, whatever.

@Olaadegbu @debosky

The fact that Jesus took alcohol does not mean he was rightly accused as a drunkard.

Not everyone who takes alcohol is a drunkard. A drunkard is a chronic drinker who is continuously under the influence of alcohol.

In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a glutton was a person who regularly attended banquet feasts. All kinds of exotic dishes were prepared like Peacock Brains, Flamingo tongues and Elephant ears. Meals often had up to 100 courses or more. These organised feasts just for the pleasure of consumption also provided private tents where participants could go to vomit up thier food. A long feather was provided to help vomit and aftrwards the person could rest for a while and then resume the eating. These were banquets that lasted for days.

Jesus was recorded to have eaten as a guest in many places, and this was why they called him a glutton: obviously an exaggeration as above. By the same token, for them to have called him a drunkard (in exaggeration nonetheless), he must have been known to take some wine when he dined.

The problem is that fundamentalists people keep thinking taking alcohol is the sin, so you can't imagine how Jesus could take alcohol. It is alcoholism or drunkeness that is the sin.

---------------------

"For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners."'" (Matthew 11:18 / Luke 7:33-34)

Jesus contrasted Himself with John the Baptist. Jesus said that John did not eat bread nor drink wine, but Jesus did eat and drink.

What was the difference between Jesus and John, that would make Jesus use this contrast as an example?  

Obviously Jesus was saying that HE drank alcohol (which is not a sin, but I'm sure he didn't get drunk, which is the sin) and ate good food.

They called him a drunkard and a glutton because they were looking for an opportunity to accuse him. Seeing Jesus eat and take wine was enough for them to quickly label him. Would they label him if he never came near alcoholic wine?  

And once again, even while dying on the cross Jesus took some alcohol and it was his final drink. Wine Vinegar is NOT non-alcoholic.

"A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." (John 19:29-30)

I only ask two questions,

What is today's date?
Who is today's date?

I dey laugh o

https://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_low9uiINR31qgeckf.gif

I wonder how it makes sense to imprison people for doing stuff that you are only [i]personally [/i]uncomfortable with.

For the records, I dislike all forms of h[i]o[/i]mo[i]s[/i]exual activity.

Fasting will always remain very relevant in every religion as a means of instilling bodily discipline.

^^^^

As in!!! When I saw Olaadegbu's last post I felt weak. I didn't even know how to reply him.

All that came to my mind was

https://images.sodahead.com/polls/000405621/polls_orly_thumb_5805_861881_answer_8_xlarge.jpeg

@Sagamite

You would only be giving him more publicity and you'll be surprised it will draw more people to him. Nigeria is mysterious.

brainpulse:
Histories can be changed by man, but the facts behind the histories can never be change.-Anonymous

One man can tell a lie about his history, but can not fool his household about his history.-Anonymous

History is tricky business because it is written by scholars paid by the victorious side of a conflict.

I can see that I have wasted precious time on this thread.

People will only believe whatever they want to.

@eGuerrilla:

Spot on about that era! It's obviously not the 21st century where even a 7 year old can run a company e.g. via the internet.

And I laughed about all of the name-dropping (Ron Kenoly, Mc Hammer etc) that was meant to make his assertions credible.  

@Sagamite:

Buahahahaha!

Literally, the song of songs is a love song of the adventures of a woman, her lover and a king (Solomon) who also wanted her for himself.

But let's hear from the horse's mouth.

According to Jewish tradition in the Midrash and the Targum, the book is an allegory of God's love for the Children of Israel. In keeping with this understanding, it is read by Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews on Shabbat eve, to symbolize the love between the Jewish People and God that is also represented by Shabbat. Italian Jews read it on the eve of the first Yom Tov and Yom Tov Sheni of Passover, just before Arvit. Most traditional Jews also read the Song on Shabbat Chol HaMoed of Passover, or on the seventh day of the holiday, when the Song of the sea is also read.

The Jews who study and recite the book often tend to see deeper than the literal sense.

The name of the book ("The Song of Songs of Solomon" comes from a superscription: "The song of songs, which is Solomon's."

"Song of songs" is a Hebrew grammatical construction denoting the superlative; that is, the title attests to the greatness of the song, similar to "the lord of lords", "the king of kings" or "holy of holies" (used of the inner sanctuary of the Jerusalem temple).

Rabbi Akiba declared, "Heaven forbid that any man in Israel ever disputed that Song of Songs is holy. For the whole world is not worth the day on which Song of Songs was given to Israel, for all the Writings are holy and Song of Songs is holy of holies." (Mishnah Yadayim 3:5).

Similarly, Martin Luther called it das Hohelied (the high song). This is still its name in German, Danish, Swedish and in Dutch.

Those wey get the book talk say na the book holy pass, and dem dey read am often. Get your minds out of the gutter, guys 

All quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_Songs

numo86:
we are in d sense that we were created by God, u doubt??, meanwhile i hope u know d angels too are sons of God as job 1:6 tells us, explain how d angels are sons of God too,

Everybody as his creation, we are sons of God in the sense [1] above. Physically adopted.

Angels and those who believe in Christ, are his sons in sense [2] above. Spiritually adopted.

Sense [3] is exclusive to Jesus in his physical nature as the promised Messiah sent to the Jews.

Sense [4] is also exclusive to Jesus as the eternal Word that continuously proceeds from the Father.

@LagosShia

- - - continued - - -

Similarly, the bible never used "son of God" in a literal or carnal sense but it used it in four symbolic senses.

(1) All human beings are children of God
All human beings are children of God. Acts 17:28-29 says: “We are all the offspring of God.” Similarly Luke 3:38 says that Adam, PBUH, was “the son of God,” and so all who are children of Adam (banī Ādam) are thus children of God (abnā’ Allāh).

This does not mean that we are God’s children literally, as though God had sired us (anjabanā). God forbid! Rather, it means symbolically that God loves us as a good father loves his children. God cares for us, provides for us, disciplines us, teaches us, feeds us, etc. This is one sense in which the Gospel uses the expression “son of God,” but is not the sense of this thread. Let's see the next one.

(2) The Gospel says that all who believe in al-Sayyid al-Masī (Jesus Christ) become children of God.
“To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God.” (John 1:12-13)

This one has explicitly shown that it's not a literal or carnal meaning. Unlike the first category above where God has adopted everybody physically, this one denotes the ones that God adopted spiritually. Let's see the next one.

(3) Son of God as the King of Israel whom the children of Israel (banī Isrā’īl) awaited, according to the prophecies in the Tōrah.
In the Torah, King David, PBUH, wanted to build a house of worship to God but God did not allow him (1 Chron 17:11-14) and instead God promised that he will establish a kingdom for a descendant of David, and establish his throne FOREVER. This one whose throne is forever is not Solomon, because he died and was replaced by another king. It referred to another descendant of David who would come in the future and reign forever.

Because of this prophecy, during times of oppression, the children of Israel waited for God to send them a righteous king who would reign forever, just as many Muslims today await the Mahdī. They called this awaited king the Messiah, which in Hebrew means “the one whom God has anointed (masa ahū Allāh) with the authority to rule.” They also called him “the Son of God” because God had said to David, “I will be his father and he will be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him.”

It is clear from these words that the words “son” and “father” in this verse do not indicate any literal sonship to God. The awaited Messiah was to be literally a descendant of David. Rather, this verse speaks of the awaited Messiah as God’s Son only in the symbolic sense that there is a special love between God and the awaited Messiah: “I will not take my steadfast love from him.”

The Gospel asserts that Jesus, to him be the glory, fulfilled the prophecy as the awaited Messiah, King of Israel. This means he was the awaited one, also known as the Son of God.

John 1:49 – Nathanael, one of the first of the awāriyyīn said to our Lord Jesus, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Jn 11:27 – Martha, one of the awāriyyāt [/i]said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, he who is coming into the world.”

Jn 20:31 – “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.”

In these Gospel verses we can see that the term “Son of God” means simply “the awaited Messiah, the King of Israel,” and nothing more. It certainly does not indicate any kind of literal sonship, God forbid. Now for the final usage of "Son of God".

(4) That which springs forth eternally from God IS the Son of God

This sense is very close to the meaning of the term “Word of God” ([i]kalām Allāh). As we noted above, in the Arabic language the word of a speaker can be called “the daughter of his lips.” The Qur’an and the Gospel assert that God’s kalām (word) is eternal (azalī) and uncreated, subsisting in God’s essence (qā’im bi-dhāt Allāh), and that God created all things through his kalām. Thence, both the Qur’an and the Gospel assert that al-Sayyid al-Masī (Jesus) can be called kalimat Allāh.

In several Gospel verses, the term “Son of God” and similar expressions were used by Jesus himself with a meaning which is close to (ma nā yaqrubu min) “That which springs forth eternally from God” (dhālika alladhī yanbu u azaliyyan min Allāh), just as a word springs forth from the speaker (mithlamā tanbu u kalima min al-mutakallim). Here are a few examples in which al-Sayyid al-Masī is speaking about himself:

John 10:30-38 – He said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them… “Do you say of him whom the Father
consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?… The Father is in me and I am in the Father.”

John 14:9 – “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

John 17:5 – “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory which I had with you before the creation of the world.”

John 8:58 – “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

John 5:21-23 “As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”

In these verses the symbolism of Son and Father is like the relationship of a word to a speaker, as in the Arabic expression “daughter of the lips” (bint al-shafa). God’s word springs forth eternally from God and reveals to us the divine Speaker from whom it springs forth. God’s kalām [/i]cannot be separated from God, but rather it subsists eternally in God ([i]yaqūmu azaliyyan bi-Allāh). Everything God creates, and everything God does in the universe, he does through his word (kalām). To honor God’s kalām [/i]is to honor God himself.

When any prophet speaks the words of God, he can say, “Whoever has heard me has heard my Lord.”

The Gospel asserts that in the person of [i]al-Sayyid al-Masī God’s kalām [/i]has become visible [/b]to humankind ([i]al-bashariyya).

Thus [b]only he [/b]can say, to him be glory, “[b]Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.”

@LagosShia:

I will draw parallels between the Arabic language and the Hebrew sense of the meanings so that the point can be clearer. My source text is some theology lecture notes that I once studied and extracted information from.

---

In the Hebrew sense, even as in the al-Qur’ān al-Karīm one term can have more than one sense (wajh), depending on its context and the occasion of its revelation (sabab nuzūlihī).

The word “son” (ibn) also has more than one sense. It can be literal, as a child is born from the union of a father and a mother. But it can also be symbolic or spiritual. For example, the Arabs say that a certain person is[i] ibn al-wa an[/i] or ibn al-balad, or even[i] ibn al-Nīl [/i][son of the nation or son of the country or even son of the Nile]. This does not mean that al-wa an or[i] al-balad[/i] or even al-Nīl took a wife and sired a child by her (ittakhadha ā iba wa-anjaba minhā waladan). It would be ridiculous to try to interpret these expressions in a literal way. I[b]n these expressions, the word ibn simply indicates a deep connection of a person’s identity with a place.[/b]

The Arabic language also uses the word "father" in a symbolic sense. For example, Abū Ammār is not called by that nickname because he literally has a son
named Ammār. Rather, this nickname refers symbolically to the fact that he is an engineer and that he has devoted much of his life to building up his people. The famous philospher and physician Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī (d. 470 A.H. / 1077 A.D.) was probably so-called because he was a source of blessings in others’ lives.

The Arabic language also uses the word “brother” in a symbolic sense. When one person says to another person, “yā akhī,” this does not imply they were both carnally begotten from a single father. It means only an acknowledgment of their common humanity, and may or may not imply shared religious beliefs.

One very interesting expression in the Arabic language is the term “daughter of the lips” (bint al-shafa), which refers to the word which a person speaks. The expression “He did not say bint al-shafa,” means, “He did not say a word.” This does not mean that a person or his lips have taken a wife or sired a daughter, which is his word! Rather, a person’s word can be referred to symbolically as his “daughter” because a person’s word flows (tanbū u) from his being and reveals who he is.

Can the word ibn [/i]also be used in a religious context? Of course yes.

You may be familiar with the term “son of the road” ([i]ibn al-sabīl) (cf. Sūrat al-Baqara 177, 215; al-Nisā’ 36; al-Anfāl 41; al-Tawba 60; al-Isrā’ 26; al-Rūm 38; al- ashr 7). Of course the expression “ibn al-sabīl” does not mean literally that the road took a wife and sired a son by her! (anna al-sabīl ittakhadha ā iba wa-anjaba minhā waladan)! Rather, it means that this person is constantly travelling on the road, so that there is an intimate connection between him and the road, so that when you see him, you immediately think of the road. This is the symbolic meaning of “son of the road.”

The word ibn is also used symbolically or spiritually in al- adīth al- a ī . For example the Meccan Prophet said, “Of all people I am the closest to Jesus. The prophets are sons of one father by different mothers [literally: sons of concubines], and there is no prophet between Jesus and me.” (Anā awlā al-nās bi- Īsā. Al-a biyā’ abnā’ allāt wa- laysa bay1nī wa-bayna Īsā nabī.)

Does this mean that the mothers of prophets were literally CONCUBINES? God forbid! The Arabic expression abnā’ al- allāt means sons of one father by different mothers. But this hadith [/i]does not mean the prophets were literally begotten carnally by one father and many mothers.

Rather, this [i]adīth [/i]means that there exists a deep spiritual link [perhaps translate:[i] rab rū ī wa īd?] and common spiritual bond among the prophets because they all serve One God. Thus we see that the word ibn can be used to allude to a deep spiritual bond, without implying any literal, carnal begetting.

Having established the usage in the al-Qur’ān, let's look at the usage in the Gospels.

LagosShia:
they keep talking that God has given birth to a son.but i'm yet to know who Mrs.God is

I have something for you. I would have asked both of us to discuss this on another thread but let's just continue here.

numo86:
y'all listen, Jesus is d son of God because he is creation of God, all of us are sons of God by creation and so is Jesus

Original no be photocopy abeg. We are not sons of God in the same token that Jesus is Son of God.

Dr Sign Fireman Quotable Quotes

"God is a game; and do you know the funny part of it? The game is very easy"

"If you cannot make what you have to offer clear enough, people are not going to be enticed"

"People go to church but they are frustrated, so somebody has to answer their questions"

The funniest part in Seyi Rhodes' video is where he recognizes the secretary who had just been exorcized. Laughs for days, men

Joagbaje:
[flash=400,300]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9RCYPh4wCM&sns=em[/flash]

Everybody coming for healing has to quiver like an epileptic. Even the "deaf" guy is titubating and convulsing like someone with bellyache, fever and migraine.

9jafreak:
Nigerians are funny.

How is this Man different from Kumuyi (now monitoring and controlling his Empire from the UK), Adeboye (the continent's biggest Emperor), Oyedepo (the over-ambitious business mogul), D.K. Olukoya (President, Ministry of Fear & Personal Vendett ), Chris Oyakhilome (C.E.O Cosy Christianity Centre), Adefarasin (The Repackaged 21st Century Church) Ayo Oritsejafor (the Fund Raiser), Mike Okonkwo (the bureaucratic general), Uma Ukpai (the Miracle Seller), Matthew Ashimolowo (the rabblerouser) Sam Adeyemi (From Corporate Christianity), among many others.

I encourage anybody serious about his/her faith to STUDY (not read but STUDY) the Four Gospels. It is impossible to associate with Modern Christianity after so doing.

There is a reason Jesus never became a part of the popular churches of His time. Remember the Church killed Jesus. Now they killing Him again.

"When the Son of Man shall return, WILL HE FIND FAITH (not church but faith) in the Earth?"

The answer is becoming easier now.

God bless you jare 

^^^^

You know, right? The OP began with a blanket statement that is meant to be taken objectively and yet he has refused to absolutely define the terms in that assertion.

Kay 17:
You clearly mentioned that only God can perceive good and evil, since he is the only being capable of seeing the whole picture. The idea of humans being unable to perceive good and evil is ridiculously and we cant claim God is all good if its an unknowable. Thus its a useless title.

You claim he created evil, thus created imperfection, and being imperfect himself.
Also i never agreed wit u that God was perfect.

What is your point exactly? You asked for a Christian worldview / opinion on a matter and I gave you, now you're telling what's ridiculous and useless? You think I don't find YOUR own viewpoint on the matter ridiculous and useless?

1. I never said only God can perceive good and evil. Quote me if otherwise. I said he is above it, in order to [know it absolutely, to us it appears as objectively] and thus judge good / evil without bias.
2. Where did I say evil was an imperfection?  Don't put words in my mouth please.
3. Oh you never agreed with me, but yet you said  We on the same frequency, good and evil both entail degrees of perfection.? Cool story.

I think I'm done cos I feel like either this is another dishonest discussion or else we keep misunderstanding each other.

Image123:
Na lager quote Bible without brake like this?

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

nomorename:
I found this information on his website

'To be prepared for the work, he read over forty thousand books, and Jesus appeared to him over one thousand times and taught him the mistakes and mysteries of Christianity, making his teaching ministry striking and revolutionary! On the 11th July, 1994 by 8:37pm, God specially anointed him with fire … an experience that burnt part of his face and part of his hair. from then on, literally all manner of miracles began to follow his prayer and words.'

[img]http://troll.me/images/bush/cool-story-bro.jpg[/img]



No wonder his name is fireman. Fire don burn am before before.  

Kay 17:
@thelstan
Can humans perceive good and evil? Is God's creation perfect?

Humans can perceive good and evil the same way they can perceive truth and falsehood.

There are those who know something is true but will act or say otherwise. Likewise whose who know good in their hearts and do evil.

There are those who do not know the truth and ignorantly spread falsehood. Likewise those who ignorantly do evil.

And so on and so forth.

Is God's creation perfect, you ask? What do you mean by perfect? We have agreed that God is perfect, so if God is perfect and God is the creator why should the creation not be perfect since it is an act of a perfect God? Clarify your meaning.

Without God there is no morality.

I couldn't agree more!

It's like saying without an arbiter there can never be a fair game. And this is incontrovertibly true.

The guy think am sotay in come say morality does not exist too cos he believes God does not exist.

So, Kay 17, does morality exist?

^^^^^

Looooool the rabbithole runs deeeeep