₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
I'll consider. But first educate vaxx on how complex the Bible is. Start with "love thy neighbour", which he thinks is a "verse [that] interprets itself without any form of ambiguity”. You might want to show the many ways Jesus taught that lesson and why, and then move on to it's modern day implications which it would seem many have not yet learned even though it is taught in just about every religion worth the salt. It might enter his blockhead coming from you.

You are directly telling him to make bible a complex text book. And I am sure he is smart enough to avoid that tricks. muttleylaf is one of the few christain I respect his theology prowess on nairaland. he will not fall into your charm. How can he argue against his own standard of truth.

MuttleyLaff:
ican bet my bottom dollar you're arent familiar with Professor Sophie 'Bosede Oluwole also known as Mamalawo
I also doubt you're conversant with her works
or have read any of her books, especially the one titled "Socrates and Ọ̀rúnmìlà: Two Patron Saint of Classical Philosophy"

You own the liberty to your own opinion or assertion. It is too unimportant for me say anything regarding that. Well, if I we say anything here, madam Sophie is consider one of those people I own in a high esteem in Nigeria. I noted ORUNMILA is consider a sage and might not be consider a philosopher in the modern sense of the word. I am sure you avoid that in my writing. This is my veiw, philosopher are those who are wise enough and this trait has distinguished them for wisdom and their sound judgement while a sage is a wise induvidial whose trait has distinguished them for their wisdom and from experience. This is what orunmila represent in ifa. And if pro Sophie in her book find it a reason to claim that ORUNMILA is a philosopher by comparing him with Socrates . Then I must welcome it too. She is an authority on the subject. Maybe i need to cheap in something. There had been there Greek thinkers before Socrates who deserved the name philosopher (such as Heraclitus or Anaxagoras or Parmenides), but Socrates’ dialectical method of inquiry —seeking the truth through focused questioning of others—made it possible to place him in such position.""philosopher"" but ORUNMILA already come with a solution rather than making enquiry. ORUNMILA was given solution not just simply giving enquiry. This is my own take.and this is trait that made him more advance than a philosopher

vaxx, you're innocently unaware of the reason of and/or for Jesus

Another opinion here ok...

Jesus, is God, on a mission
To have anything to say on epistemology, meta-ethics or whatnot isnt the objective

This is fuel by desire. And I wish it is true.Anyway that is reason why it will make no absolute sense to compare such a figure as a philosopher. He does not have the perequsite in entire gospel.

Maybe you don't or didn't know, that some Greeks, came to worship, and thereafter, expressly wanted to see Jesus.
At this, the disciples relayed the request to Jesus,
but check out, how Jesus responded and what He had to say to the Greeks.
People overlook it and you wont find it explained in Sunday Schools and/or other believers' gathering

This is out of the context. The question is- is there any undeniable record or documented evidence Jesus had contact with these men (I.e) socrate, Plato and Aristotle.i await one.

Jesus, true to His special modus operandi, immediately expressed Himself to the Greeks, at their level
and indeed spoke with the Greeks, in a way they could understand and relate to

That is not the veiw I projected. What I say is- there is no record of Jesus having knowing the works of those men. Anyone can talk to the Greek without using those men philosophy.

Ah-ha!
So there you are, if depicted as a learned figure,
then it's suffice to say, He would have been familiar with the rich body of work from earlier Greek philosophers

This is where it become more complex.since there is no record showing direct contact of him with these men works. To say he is familiar with their philosophy will be mere assumption.

Many learned men in China and India during those perioud too had no contact with those three Greeks men works . GREEK philosophy was not the only standard of knowledge

MuttleyLaff:
Is it vaxx, now, who is a "pussy"

vaxx will rather crash the ball of a pussy than falling to be like one. Vaxx remain vaxx.

budaatum:
Well, next time you wanna start telling me vaxx is a "pussy", you might wanna read some first!

I already withdraw my initial apology , so do expect me to jab you with vaxx words again

budaatum:
Really? What was the "goal initially"?

I have stated the reason on my first explanation on exegesis in this thread. Do you avoid to understand it or perhaps you don't see the reason to belive it .

First, the Bible did not express itself. Some people expressed themselves in the Bible, and it is left to us to understand it, hopefully, in the sense they could have meant it to be understood - though many don't, dare I say - and even, in a context that makes it relevant to us in our own subjective time. :

This is not simple as it is.many part of the bible are just simple to grasp. Jehovah witness have adopt to use or quote bible literally and this is evidence that it expresses itself. May doubt it if that suit your desire.

As to "love thy neighbour" being "without any form of ambiguity", and interpreting itself as you claim. I think you are being unserious, or did you not insult me in your very own thread about weapons?! Weapons of love, were they?

This is not my thread , this is happy pagan thread. Telling you bible express itself does not mean I agree with the bible. It just way to pass some explanation regarding the importance of exegesis to you.

vaxx:
""The true philological spirit, or critical spirit, or scholarly spirit, in biblical interpretation has as its goal to discover the original meaning and intention of the text. Its goal is exegesis --to lead the meaning out of the text and shuns eisogesis --bringing a meaning to the text."" Anonymous .

Exegesis focus is to arrive at objectivity and any form of personal interpretation is highly discarded.

Have you read the exegesis meaning of that verse?


This are simply my own opinion.

budaatum, this is the first place i first borrowed the word exegesis while giving explanation.


And it seems you just want to argue. Nothing here I have said differ my other comment.

And if you can' stil feel the urge to continue quarry me on this simple explanation, then it is not due to lack of explanation again but unneccasry urge to argue.

budaatum:
So, even exegesising can, and often is, pure subjectivity, right?

That is not the goal initially. The Bible expressed itself already. ( love your neighbour as yourself) i think this verse interprets itself without any form of ambiguity. Subjectivity is just simply based on human desire in this category and not the scope. I will agree that many bible apologetic have a penchant for isigesis (reading into the text) as opposed to proper exegesis (a critical explanation or interpretation of a text.

budaatum:
Vaxx, are you admitting that while one may claim one is exegesising, objectively, one may in truth be being subjective, and even eisegetic?


Are "different perspective" and "personal interpretation" not both subjective?

Once the goal of defending a particular theological position replaces that goal of objectivity, biblical interpretation becomes a matter of pitting my theological prejudice against yours and it is done to favour desire and not the scope ( this is definitely subjective ). So i belief it is this approach that is causing the biggest challengies in church today.

This is why some people called the entire theology diciplne pseudoscience just like like how social science is consider soft science because of this subjective nature.

budaatum:
Are you avoiding answering the question, or did you not understand it?

Can you point out references to "personal interpretations" (and thereby, subjective) in your statement?

I have explain it in details. And when I say they do not always arrive at the same conclusion. It simply means there are diffrence perspective from personal interpretation or independent body.


Catholic understanding of bible is different from Anglican. .

budaatum:
Can you point out references to "personal interpretations" in the above statement?

This two things are objective method and that is the scientific study of the gospel. (Some say pseudoscience anyway)because they do not always arrive at the same conclusion.


Therefore exegesis is basically the same method but may arrive at different interpretation.

sonmvayina:
Not at all, they

Most who differ are Christian apologetics... Not real Jewish rabii who explains from historical and theological perspectives.

Christianity is derived from Judaism. It is a product of Greek influence on Jewish religious philosophy and practices. The Christians apologetic had enough understanding of Greek philosophy and they adopt it to find the authentic meaning of the bible. This is what brought exegesis.

It will be too erroneous to discard their entire research of Jesus based on the proto evangelium techniques .


It will mean the bible in its whole entirety is wrong. (I mean both old and new testament).

sonmvayina:
,

Yes I have.. From wide range of authorities.. In such fields.

And your conclusion is the verse has no no correlation with the latest verse.

budaatum:
And in your own experience, would you say people who claim to exegesise discard personal interpretation?

Based on my own findings , the exegesis are based on two things and that is all what interpretation of Scripture depends: which is the process of discovering what is needed to learn, and the process of presenting what have been learned.

sonmvayina:
I don't think so.. Have you really studied or seen the basics..?

Take for example, the book of Isaiah, chapter 45:7,which says "I form the light and creates darkness, I make well being and create disaster I the Lord do all these things.
Then his supposed son in New testament is saying some one else is responsible for evil, darkness and disaster.. It does not make any sense..
The old testament is a unitary system of belief where God is 1,and responsible for both good and evil, while the new testament is a dualistic belief with separate Gods for good and evil..
I don't know if I am communicating with you?

""The true philological spirit, or critical spirit, or scholarly spirit, in biblical interpretation has as its goal to discover the original meaning and intention of the text. Its goal is exegesis --to lead the meaning out of the text and shuns eisogesis --bringing a meaning to the text."" Anonymous .

Exegesis focus is to arrive at objectivity and any form of personal interpretation is highly discarded.

Have you read the exegesis meaning of that verse?


This are simply my own opinion.

budaatum:
Meta-ethics addresses questions such as "What is goodness?" and "How can we tell what is good from what is bad?", seeking to understand the nature of ethical properties and evaluations

I suggest you read the Gospels!

Ok I will. If all these can be gotten from the gospel.

budaatum:
Socrates and Orunmila… Putting Premium On Africa’s Indigenous Philosophy


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrrpo4mxFkI

I know madam Sophie very well. Not just on video here. i have been wanting to get that book anyway......i have that video with me already.

Her idea are brilliant and i welcome her veiw.

sonmvayina:
Most of the time it is out of context quotations...

i see where you are coming from.. but not all the time . so many effort had been invested to proto- evangelium that is even study as part of theology program in the uni.

It is a serious research business. Though it comes with own flaws. But there are good reasons to see logic in it.

sonmvayina:
Google "the forged origin of the new testament" it is a good research by Tony Bushey...

In a good Friday bouquet In 1514, pope Leo x, raised his chalice and said " How profitable this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors"

What really clinched it for me was the fact that there is absolutely no connection with the old testament.. It's like me adding a biology textbook at the end of a physics textbook and giving it a new name..

Check for "the jesus the jews never knew" on Amazon, it's a good read

hmmmm, what about exegesis used by bible scholars

sonmvayina:
Or Olodumare and Yaweh, same idea different nomenclature

He made a blunder there which I let go. ORUNMILA is never likened to Yahweh. It is rather olodumare. And I agree it is a poor attempt.


Another mischievous claim is the new idea within trado christo. ( the new name i coined for those who are both traditionalist and Christian)is likened Jesus to orumila which is another poor attempt.

sonmvayina:
Just as JK Rowling depicts Harry Potter as a smart little wizard..

Make the connection your self,
JK Rowling s in this case will be Eusebius. The master forger..

I personally ask you once to provide whatever you have as evidence against Jesus nonexistence. Can you pls do i want to read your veiw.....

Eusebius is an important christain figure , mind you.

[quote author=budaatum post=71880541][/quote]You shouid have made it a wine colour or bold black that will have tell well whatever you mean.

Akdegreat:
I asked eager to know if you had other references on Jesus. Otherwise, I think it's erroneous to judge from the accounts of Matthew, Luke, John etc for we know that the bible gospels are not immune to human errors and deliberate subtractions by the authorities that be then to serve their purposes.

I understand. but I will only agree with you if there is other alternative to bible where Jesus biography including his thoughts and veiw regarding issues of life or what he was known for (love your neighbour as yourself) apart from the bible is given in accurate details.


Most books regarding Jesus Christ has insufficient message as well. This book with me assumes so much that I completely doubt it.

budaatum:
If Orunmila were understood beyond the level of divination we would say the same about it. There are many lessons taught by it that are on what could be called a philosophical level.

If you understood what I said about John 3:16, you would not be repeating me and think you were opposing what I said. Please go back and check and let me know. Otherwise, you might want to consider that this might be beyond your level of understanding and just shut up and learn. It does not diminish one if one is ignorant about some things.

I am not here to make you look like a dumb like I always did.

I have not even opposed you yet. I just said the idea of claiming he can be liking to the known philosopher is a complet hogwash. Sekenah.

You must learn to read to understand rather than speaking from spoiled faculty. I think it is important..


And mind you ORUNMILA was not only about divination.

Akdegreat:
Are you judging Jesus from bible alone to know all he said and all he didn't say?

other than the bible, what is the most important book do you think an inqusitive mind can read to know more about Jesus Christ? You will be doing me a lot of favour for telling me one.

As far as I can tell, bible gives more information regarding Jesus Christ than any book. Though it is still consider insufficient because bible is silent from age 12 to age 29 years of his earthy life.

I have a book here with me, he describe Jesus as a riki scholar that was trained in India. I have a lot of doubts on the book anyway but contain some information that am a bit open to.

budaatum:
Profound! I would go as far as arguing that he was atheistic to the beliefs of his day, and if they hadn't gone and wrapped him up in divine crap, Jesus would be beside the likes of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. No one asks for them to be believed.

We atheists should perhaps learn to treat him like the philosopher teacher that he was, instead of the god the religious folks claim he is. And rather than "believe in him", perhaps we can teach them to learn from him instead.

You, sir, make my day by seeing what you see.

lol...

You budaatum is attributing the biblical Jesus to Socrates and Plato . I am assuming you are joking. It is like me saying ORUNMILA had so many deep insight explanation to most of the issues related to life and hence a philosopher. I actually don't think he will qualifiy unless I am being biased.( though he is consider a sage but will not be taking as a philosopher today )

Jesus idea was not unique, many religious leaders of his time across major tribes preaches similar idea. "" leave your dammm business and follow me to go do my stuffs""

Jesus was silent on so many things. For example, he says nothing on creations, epistemology nko ? He says he is not here to change the law, so the idea that the people of his time understand God was assumed , even the idea of you can not come to daddy except me the son was not a rigourous logic. It failed flat. Permit me to say. John 3 vs 16 should have been taking from the bible. Whoever wrote it did a bad job and likewise
On meta-ethics, I doubt he says anything.

I believe he exist, the evidence is enough to convince me but there is no evidence that he was familiar with the rich body of work from earlier Greek philosophers (the famous three - Socrates, Plato and Aristotle - all lived way before Jesus)..who will have change his method or views of thinking.


Well, the bible depict him as a learned figure.

bluefilm:
You are the cause of your own misery.

And if care is not taken, you will surely die in that misery.

Keep on comparing your life to others and you will see how misery and depression becomes your constant companion.

And you sound so effing egoistic too.

Whoever told you, you are actually better than any other person?

Better in what ways, if I may ask?

Because you are better than me in mathematics and physics, does it mean you are also better than me in bed?

My friend, you better wake up from your slumber.

You think your life is defined by 2.1 and 2.2s?

Sadly, life is much more than that.

In case you haven't heard, the owner of this nairaland does not even have a 2.2 or a third class or even an ordinary Pass.

And yet, he is the founder of one of africa's biggest forum.

Think about that as you sink further down into your melancholic depression.

Nonsense.

I like this.

The headline is incorrect, it should be has the clergies lost their power. Church is a body that consist the members and the clergies

Clergies are those who interplay the role of God in the church ( serving as the mouth piece of god).

They don't really have any power before except what the church (members) gave them. The members are powerful.

I shall return to this thread and show evidence that Christianity is more pagan than the paganist themselves.

Christianity is a complete misture of pagan religion....


I will be back soon.....

LoJ:
Hello Vaxx,
Thank you for your kind answer. I sent you a private message.

You said in a previous message that you worship osun. Do you have any personal experience with the goddess? Have you ever met her? Are you allied? Is there in Ifa any particular mean of contacting and dealing with her?

Moreover, I assume you know the 7 great orishas. What is their importance and what is the role of Osun among these?

Your answers can help me a lot. Thank you.

oh my bad , I lost the password to this very moniker. If you will not mind posting your email here. ""Let me have your address"" And to all others three moniker who sent me pm as well Pls you can post your email here too.

In regards to your question above, I never said I worshiped osun, I said I pay obeyance to osun.and as well to other orisha(both study and unstudy one). I shall be creating a thread about those ones that are not popular like the 7 orisha soon.

I am personally an ifa adherent but with much interest in all other orisha as well. Since the purpose is to annexed them to my own benefit. I already create a thread on how you can awaken this orisha without any form of ritual or jamboring. You even commented on that very thread..

Anyone willing to venerate Osun's powers can go ahead with the use of efun, mirror and all other beautiful ornaments( the object are used to control imagination ) it is thru this we learn how we can use beauty to move joy thru the world.

Osun is also a deity of healing thru images and joy. Because of the purity, beauty, and pricelessness of her power, her color is gold.

So to unlock her power is to recognise that joy does not come from objects, but from our own imagination (emotional images we create in our mind).paying obeyance to Osun is the cultivation of how to control our imagination to produce joy on demand.This is because joy is a POWER. It can heal sickness and it can destroy violence.

felaismyhero:
im not making any progress,i hear u.i doubt if you even understand what 'science' and 'faith' mean.i should scrutinize your arguments that have no basis! im not a philosophy student,so i do not use its terminologies,but that does not mean i cant reason.you talk of 'faith in science',thats impossible.give me a scientific law or theory based on faith? and you say 'why' question is in philosophy alone.thats a blinkard view,science was birthed by philosophy,so they are answering the same questions.you would surely be the one going online to get information,not me.if i was,i wud have had so much illustrations to give you.have i shown you any link since? no i havent.

Then let's politely end it by disagreeing peacefully as we are not making any progress.

The question you just ask there confirm it.

I only expose you to links to position my argument that what am saying is not my own limited veiw. .but scholarly veiw.


Physical science separated from main philosophy long time.if you must treat physical science as philosophy today, be ready to work with ""if hypithesis"".

Anyway have a good day.

[quote author=felaismyhero post=71816354][/quote]you are not making any progress. I expect you to look into my argument and scrutinized it and not just speaking side way while I am scrutinizing your initial postulation.

Faith in science works with confidence And this confidence is based on assumption that can not be empirically verified. We only accept it simply because it has work. It is working but no one can actually predict if it will work tomorrow.


Science also don't answer why either. why question belong to philosophy class.


Even if you are going to read opposing veiw online. Ensure you understand it.

1stSonOfLucifer:

Descended to a word banter with him vaxx?

oh my bad. Nairaland really evolve me.

That is why I opted out of the discussion.