₦airaland Forum

chakula:
Miraculous Birth
(2) "Moses and Muhummed were born in the normal, natural course, i.e. the
physical association of man and woman; but Jesus was created by a special
miracle. You will recall that we are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew 1:18." '.
. . . . . BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, (Joseph the Carpenter and Mary)
SHE WAS FOUND WITH CHILD BY THE HOLY GHOST.' And St. Luke tells
us that when the good news of the birth of a holy son was announced to her,
Mary reasoned: '. . . . . HOW SHALL THIS BE, SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN?
AND THE ANGEL ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HER, THE HOLY GHOST SHALL
COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE HIGHEST SHALL OVERSHADOW
THEE: . . . . .' (Luke 1:35).

The miraculous birth of Jesus does not negate the fact that He would be that Prophet like unto Moses. Muhammad had nothing miraculous about his birth; and if one looks closely at the births of all three personages here, that of Jesus is akin to that of Moses. We see that toba has already hinted that at the time of Moses' birth, the lives of children were threatened - and so it was at the birth of Jesus. However, in Muhammad's case, it was like every other Arab where nothing significant was recorded.

chakula:
The Holy Qur'an confirms the miraculous birth of
Jesus, in nobler and sublimer terms. In answer to her logical question: "O
my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me? The
angel says in reply: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: when He
hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it "Be," and it is!' (Holy Qur'an,
3:47). It is not necessary for God to plant a seed in man or animal. He
merely wills it and it comes into being. This is the Muslim conception of the
birth of Jesus".

The Muslim conception of the birth of anybody has nothing to do with Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18.

chakula:
"Is it true that Jesus was born miraculously as against the natural birth
of Moses and Muhurthmed?": "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses,
but Muhummed is like Moses. And God says to Moses in the
Book of Deuteronomy 18:18 "LIKE UNTO THEE" (Like You, Like Moses)
and Muhummed is like Moses."

Yes, Jesus was born miraculously; but Deuteronomy 18 is NOT making a case of how a prophet or anyone is to be born. The verses 15 and 18 in that chapter is more about the raising of a Prophet, and not about how a prophet is born. It is this confusing between the function of a Prophet and the birth of people that deflates your arguments.

chakula:
@ vairo,

will you continue to conclude the verse translation, since that word brethren is the only word that you translate out of the verse,

No problem, when I cite a verse reference, I'll try and quote what it says.

However, I'm sure it's not only "brethren" you saw in all I've posted so far - there were other points you seem to have ignored. Why?

chakula:
Three Unlikes: In the FIRST place Jesus is not like Moses, because, according to you - 'JESUS IS A GOD', but Moses is not God, is this true?"

It is true that I believe Jesus to be God because He is Deity - the OT and the NT are agreed on this point. However, even though Moses is not deity, that does not negate the fact that Jesus is that 'Propeht' spoken about in Deuteronomy 18 who should be like unto Moses. Later on I shall show you the true implications of the 'similarities' between Moses and Jesus Christ.

chakula:
"SECONDLY, according to you - 'JESUS DIED FOR THE SINS OF THE WORLD', but Moses did not have to die for the sins of the world. Is this true?"

Absolutely true. Just like the first argument above, Jesus was not supposed to be a 'clone' of Moses; and the redemption that Jesus brought to humanity was not denied in Moses' writing (Genesis 49:10 and Deut. 30:6). This was why Jesus Himself said in the NT that Moses wrote about Him (Jesus) - John 5:46; and some among His followers recognized indeed that Moses had written about Jesus and not about Muhammad >> 'Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph' (John 1:45).

chakula:
"THIRDLY, according to you - 'JESUS WENT TO HELL FOR THREE DAYS', but
Moses did not have to go there. Is this true?"

That is also true - and even so, your argument does not negate the fact that Jesus was that Prophet like unto Moses. Just as your second argument above, the fact that Moses is not God and did not die for the sins of the whole world, still does not make Muhammad like Moses. You would first have to explain how Muhammad as an Arab was in the midst of the Israelites as Deut. 18:15 says, and if you cannot answer that simple question, then it becomes apparent that you're desperate to force Muhammad into the Bible.

chakula:
Father and Mother
(1) "Moses had a father and a mother. Muhummed also had a father and a
mother. But Jesus had only a mother, and no human father. Is this true?" He
said: "Therefore Jesus is not like Moses, but Muhummed is like Moses!"

Having a father or mother is not a similarity that puts Muhammad in Deuteronomy 18. ALL the prophets had both fathers and mothers, even though the parents of some prophets are not named. In fact, it could be argued that while Muhammad had over 20 wives, Moses could not boast of even 5 wives - where is the so-called 'similarity' between them?

Again, we know at least, that while Moses was a Jewish prophet, Muhammad was not Jewish. And since Deuteronomy 18:15 says that the Prophet like unto Moses would rise from the midst of Israel, it is clear that a Jewish prophet was expected. How do you argue any Jewish background for Muhammad then?

TrueSeeker:

@viaroOh c'mon , hehe - even TrueSeeker knows that his JW arguments do not have a leg to stand on in this thread on John 1:1. I was trying to be polite to him that was why I simply left his cut-and-paste for a while until I picked it up on the question of "the μονογενής (monogenēs) of the Father". Of course, that one also JW will deny - and any cut-and-paste from them will be roundly trashed in this thread. Try me.

You are wrong. You should have refuted my cut-and-paste in the light of scriptures.

What is there in your cut-and-paste that has not been refuted by others in so many instances on the net? Unless you also want me to go cutting-and-pasting, I don't see what substance that is fresh for anyone to bother on "refuting" that post of yours.

Mind you the thread is not just for one ideology.

Never said it was, did I?

I only step-aside from the thread, because you agree that doctrine of trinity is not important to salvation. I reasoned that any further contribution will just be wasting of valuable time that I can use for other important thing than discussing or argue trinity which is not relevant to christian faith.

Nobody predicated salvation on a doctrine of the Trinity (other than DeepSight who had tried to dribble that non-starter into the thread and hang it upon my neck). That aside, there's no problem in withdrawing when you did, and I wouldn't suppose that you stayed because you wanted to argue Trinity one way or another as the foundation of salvation.

Odunnu:
So sori V. I evn tried to log bt it kpt saying that 'yahoo encounterd a problem while processin my last request' Its alrite.I'l send u a mail ryt away wt anothr addy.

That's fine. Will check in due course. Thanks.

Odunnu:
Viaro,seen my mail yet?

Hi Odunnu. I tried but the mail failed. Said that the account does not exist. Try sending me one at [ . ]@yahoo.com - I'll try and reply soonest.

chakula:
@davidlyan, nuclearboy,

i am not happy adjacent to your post, but sha no problem hope that you all discovered the above verse that withuot disparage i asked for it 's meaning, but you guys were busy pointed the word brethren and capitalised on it, what of the other parts of the verse like(" like unto thee" "and I will put my words in his mouth " "and he shall speak unto them" " all that I shall command him" won't you know the meaning of this,if not, guys evacuate please,while if yes translate!!!!.As i mentioned earlier no room for argue make use of your number six only to depend your point not to apply through ignorance and vilify please.

Well, I wonder if you tried to understand the whole picture in Deuteronomy 18. Here are a few again:

(a) You cannot fully understand verse 18 if you ignore verse 15 of Deut. 18.

(b) It is in verse 15 we find that the Prophet was to rise "from the midst of thee" - that is, from the midst of Israel, and not from another nation.

(c) This should make you chakula ask yourself a most pertinent question:
(1) was Muhammad raised from the midst of the nation of Israel?
(2) were the Arabs in the midst of Israel at the time of Muhammad?
(3) was Muhammad as a Quraish Arab under the Jewish covenant at the time of Islam?
(4) did Muhammad bear any burden of a "prophecy" in line with Jewish prophecies?

(d) Besides, Muhammad was not like Moses - for it is written that God spoke to Moses face to face, that is "directly" (Exo. 33:11 - "the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend"; but where is it recorded at anytime that Allah spoke to Muhammad face to face or directly?

(e) Again, to assure you, the Bible declares the manner in which God related to Moses in Num. 12:6-8 >> "With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold". The same thing is declared about Jesus Christ (John 6:46 - "he hath seen the Father". Please tell me: where has Muhammad seen Allah at any time?

(f) In this matter of speaking from God, Moses declared how that Israel heard the voice of God during his time (Deut. 4:33 and 5:4); the same thing happened as Jesus ministered to the people who heard the mighty voice of God (John 12:28-29). In several instances, we read how that the people heard the voice of God during Moses and Jesus' time on earth - so the question I ask you is this: where did any of the followers of Muhammad at any time hear the voice of Allah? Where did Allah speak directly to Muhammad?

You see that in so many ways that one could compare between Moses and Muhammad on the identities of a PROPHET, Muhammad does not even come close to the standing of Moses. There was not a time at all that Muhammad ever saw or heard Allah directly; nor did anyone who followed Muhammad ever hear or saw Allah. NONE. I would spare you other details, but these few should help you come to a conclusion about how flawed your interpretations were.

chakula:
@vairo thank you,

but yet my question is unanswer, all i want is not beyond to enligteen me, by responding that the verse was referred to so person, without vilify i want you to mollify and answer me straight forward, that is the beginning of the disscussion with you.

But didn't I show that it was referring to a Person? At least I discussed the point on a number of highlights, as davidylan pointed out; and here's a recap -

(a) it was referring to a Person:
In my first repost, after showing what the covenants were pointing to, I summed it all up by saying - "And all those 3 elements were pointing to the very Messiah in Jewish prophecies."

(b) it could not be pointing to another person like Muhammad:
Again, after delineating the points in my answers, I gave the summaries - "nowhere in the Law is an Arab included in the covenant of the Jews. Muhammad is not one of the Jews, nor could he have been one of their 'brethren' to rise from among them based on that Jewish covenant."

So, I really don't understand what you might possibly mean by saying your questioned was unanswered. Care to explicate?

nuclearboy:
Chairman V: Finally, you drove my main man DS out of NL. How sad!

Commander nuclearboy, my deepest apologies.
It was not intentional and I must admit to my overreaching myself in that. Only heaven knows how many times I tried to not explode and send him out quicker - not minding how often I tried within reason to appeal to his rationale point of humanity.

davidylan:
She answered you with very fine details TWICE.

She thoroughly explained what Deut 18:18 meant by the term "brethren". She CLEARLY differentiated between "brethren" or "strangers" and gave 3 biblical distinctions between them. She gave concrete reasons why arabs are NOT considered "brethren" with jews (thus nullifying mohammad as being the person refered to in Deut 18:18 since he is NOt considered brethren with jews).

She also asked WHY muslims want to push themselves as "brethren" with jews (in order to force mohammad into the bible) while IGNORING all other children of Abraham from his concubines and Keturah.

You did not respond to ANY of these details . . . rather you come back to whine that your "question" was unanswered? Unbelievable.

Haha . . . davidylan - all the "she" for viaro?
Shoulda been a "he", lol.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5722318#msg5722318 date=1268991722]

Are you kidding yourself? Did I argue that celibacy is the reason for priests (or anyone's) failed marriages or immorality?

Ofcourse you did, you've been arguing that it is a failed system. If it isn't the cause for immorality then it isn't a failed system. Pick a stance please.[/quote]I haven't shifted from my stance. My argument has been that -

(a)  Celibacy is not the reason for anyone's failed marriage, immorality or even the cause of anyone's piety.

(b)  Celibacy as an "institutional vow" is a system - and that system has FAILED.

Anyone could see I have been maintaining that consistency all along and qualifying my statements. I did not blame any virtue or vice on 'celibacy' itself; but I have noted several times that celibacy as an instance of "institutional vow" that becomes a SYSTEM has failed.

Could I illustrate the distinction further by the following -

        (a)   'money' - nothing wrong with that in and of itself

        (b)   the love of money - that's the problem

In the same way, I have maintained that "celibacy" is not the reason for failed marriages, nor is it the reason for piety. Rather, celibacy as an "institutional vow" is a failure - that "system" has failed, and we cannot deny the fact. This is why even Catholics in many places are debating AGAINST that "system" without saying that 'celibacy' in itself should be scraped.

I hope that would help the point here?

Oh but darling a Pope can never be chased out of Office.

^{>viaro looks left and right  . . . blushes . . and lets out a sigh of relief that his woman is no where nearby<}

Okay, I would have posted a few to show that this has happened at least one notable case. But I have to let the discussion alone at this point. Thanks and cheers.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5722211#msg5722211 date=1268990739]

Your question was a deflection - that was my point in trying to wake you up. Obviously you didn't see it

No it is not a deflection, it is entirely a case of u not being able to answer bcus u know that your answer will only give proof to my assertions.

You speak of institutional vow and that it is wrong bcus it doesn't leave room for 'free-will' so I brought an example of an institutional vow of marriage and asked you if a married man has the free will AFTER taking a vow to sleep with another woman. You still haven't answered me yet.[/quote]Again that is a deflection. But if you want me to REPEAT my answer, I could. Rather, I would exercise the "free will" to answer again in paraphrase. deal?

So here again is an answer to your 'question'.

Celibacy in the Catholic church is an instance of an 'institutional vow' - in which case, it does not allow a "free will" exercise for anyone who instends to marry to then be able to do so. In this case, the catholic church has IMPOSED that 'vow' in direct controversion of what the Bible teaches (1 Tim. 4:2-3). The Bible does NOT "impose" celibacy upon anyone who is seeking to serve the Lord in any capacity - which is why I noted much earlier that celibacy is a choice and not an institution.

Now, when someone assumes any role in the "priesthood", can they enjoy married life? Your argument is yes and no - yes, because those who were married have no worries to continue as 'priests' while enjoying married life; and no, because a 'priest' CANNOT marry.

Now, if you want to draw an analogy here at all, I would expect that the case in your argument is that some can indeed be "married priests" and other priests "CANNOT" get married! In one case, your analogy says yes; in the other case, it says no!

So, if you want to drag it all down to 'marriage' alone as your hatch for 'free-will' in institutional vows in the non-starter for your IMPOSED catholic rite, then I ask: where did I suggest that a married man can go sleep with another woman? This was why your question is begging the whole point on false premise. Those who are married priests are not assumed by institution to be sleeping with other women apart from theur wives - in so far as we know that even under the pledge to be "priests", there is no reason for them to seek celibacy in their marriages!

All this points were made in my replies earlier and your complaining that I had not addressed your question is quite funny.

I won't allow you to turn this into a 'where did I imply this?' I am asking you a question, I expect an answer.

I answered - again and again. You chose to refuse to see it - and I had to ask WHERE I had implied what you are insinuating! Do I not have a free will to ask that question?  Please show me WHERE I had implied what you're forcing into my post - afterall, I did not swear to any institutional vows of Catholicism.

Just show me where I implied what you are forcing into my posts - or stop using such excuses to deflect from the point.

If u will not be respectful enough to answer then let me know, and I will quit responding to you.
I also can exercise my free will to stop posting.

Oh please. I already did - several times already. If you want to stop posting, please let me reach the door first . . . I didn't even see how you have made any point in your controversions anyway.

Was that even remotely suggested in any replies of mine so far? Why this desperado suddenly showing up in your replies?

I see you're still trying to dodge it. Nice try, answer the question.

I did not dodge anything. Rather, I'm asking you to stop suggesting what I never argued, and that was why I asked you to show me where I remotely suggested what you are forcing into my post.

Now I am going to ask you to answer that question directly: "Was that even remotely suggested in any replies of mine so far?" Please answer that question instead of obfuscating issues.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5722167#msg5722167 date=1268990327]Then there is no vow. You cannot take a vow to be celibate only to want free will to not follow the vow and enjoy the priviledges that come from u taking that vow. It is entirely the case of having the cake and eating it too. It makes no sense.[/quote]I agree your arguments make no sense. The Bible does not teach such an institutional vow - in very fact, quite the OPPOSITE is taught by the apostles. And this should have been obvious to you from InesQor's post in #39. The forbidden to marrying is an instance of "institutional vow" IMPOSED by the Catholic church in direct controversion of the apostles' teaching. The only way to scuttle round this and still try so hard to maintain the indefensible is for you to argue now that "there is no vow" in that regard - you can't pull both strings in a linear course.

On what planet does it make sense that a person enters into a contract only to say that they won't fulfill their end of the contract but still want the priviledge?

In the make-belief 'planet' of the Catholic church. History attests to this.

Because both are Offices that take vows. The vows being different does not make them unrelatable. Point is vows are made in both Offices. If u will not tolerate the President breaking his vow and enjoying the benefits of the Office of President, why would u tolerate a Priest breaking his vow and still enjoying the benefits of the Office of the Priest?

Both do NOT take the same 'vows' - for in the case of the political office, the President does not indenture any vows of celibacy in the office of presidency in his capacity to serve the people. In the pontificate and Catholic institutional vows of priesthood, the vow is not just to serve people but one of celibacy.

We cannot mix issues here and make them planks of the same dockyard. If the Presidency is predicated upon or involves a case of vows of celibacy, then we could see the relation it might have borne to the case of the institutional vow of celibacy in the Catholic church. So far, nothing ties them together in this scenario - and that analogy is best consigned to the bin.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5722055#msg5722055 date=1268989174]According to you it is a non-starter in any situation. Free-will is still limited my dear.[/quote]Hehe. . . I'm sure I qualified my statements. I was particular in noting that your argument for "free will" does not correlate with an 'institutional vow of celibacy'. I made that point plain for all to see - so coming with this excuse that it was a non-starter in ANY situation sort of spins round issues for you. Now again, you shift the goal post to argue that "free-will is still limited" after having blandly argued the complete negation of same for priests who are seeking to get married ("a Priest cannot marry", said you - the "cannot" smacks of a tone of finality).

no really u didn't. u left me scratching my head wandering what your talking about.

Perhaps you're skipping my points and assuming you can see what I've been saying - which is little wonder, judging from the way you seem to offer excuses that have not helped your conjectures and post-shifting.

__________

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5722116#msg5722116 date=1268989800]What you're thinking is that married priests enjoy the same priviledges as unmarried priests, they do not.[/quote]Ah there! What did you say when I pointed out the difference? You were quick to dismiss it as the ideas of . . who? . . . "non-catholics and ill-informed Catholics" (post 26). But now you turn round to argue for a distinction between them? This is so wimbledon!

They no longer have the duties of the Priests, unless in dire circumstances, but as I said it is a mark on their soul.

Oh, they are still "priests", but they no longer have the duties of priests. Interesting again. Okay . . . okay - I've heard enough for this morning.

Aha but he doesn't enjoy the same standing. Maybe one should've studied the subject on hand before diving into it?

Eh, care to look again at your dismissal in post #26 when I made clear that they were not the same?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5722031#msg5722031 date=1268988854]Because the free will is exercised upon entering the Priesthood. That is the reason I asked the question (that I haven't seen u actually address)[/quote]What question did you ask that I haven't addressed? The whole point is that your 'free will' and an institutional vow are hemispheres apart - they do not correlate at all. If the priesthood is reserved for "celibates", then we should not be having you trying so hard to defend what you just cannot defend. At least, you seemed to have argued that "celibacy" has been the stamp of the 'priesthood', going so far to conjecture that Peter "amazingly" became celibate after he became a 'priest'. Yea right!

So, Peter could become "celibate" (your conjecture), but others who were already married could enter the priesthood and throw celibacy out the window (it's not an issue to them), and yet others who are priest and desire to get married are put in a straight jacket to not get married - and all is fair weather, yes?

The institutional vow of Catholic celibacy and your argument of 'free will' do not greet each other - there is no close links between them. Not even where you were throwing in that conjecture for Peter.

That if a man takes a marital vow, should he have the free will of sleeping with another woman?

Was that even remotely suggested in any replies of mine so far? Why this desperado suddenly showing up in your replies?

1. The Catholic Church did not impose a thing on anyone.

Oh yes, it did - and that is why you have been trying to defend it unsuccessfully, making up stories for Peter as you trudge along.

2. The celibacy system isn't a failure.

Haha - even Catholics themselves know that it is a huge failure! That is why more and more Catholics themselves are questioning it and asking that such a thing be summarily thrown out. Tell us: what has the Catholic institutional vow of celibacy achieved in the lives of erring priests?

3. If celibacy is the reason for the Priests to engage in sexual acts, then why is it that married pastors are actually far worse.

Are you kidding yourself? Did I argue that celibacy is the reason for priests (or anyone's) failed marriages or immorality?
Now, who was the pope who was so morally vile that he was chased out of his office and ended up giving it up altogether in order to go and pursue his adventures? Note: he sold his office of popery. Oh c'mon - you know the answer already! And you talk about "married pastors" being actually far worse?!?

Or better yet, why is it, that married people are having affairs or is the institution of marriage a failure too?

Did I not give an answer already?? Post #11 - "It goes without saying that celibacy is not a cause of misconduct or piety."

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721895#msg5721895 date=1268987105]Who said celibacy is the reason for failed marriages?[/quote]That's plainly what you had implied by stating this:[list]

There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

[/list]. . . in other words, their failed marriages should be blamed on the vow of celibacy?

Just because some sought married life does not warrant the sort of statement you made about their failed married lives - many people in the Catholic church did not need any such vows to have lived unspeakably immoral lives, as are others outside the Catholic church. Which again underscores my point that failure in this or that issues of life about marriage cannot be blamed on any celibacy one way or another - thus, that statement from you was unwarranted and you should not be seeking to ignore its implicatons.

Are you clearly reading what I wrote? I think not.

Perhaps you should first think about communicating so you're not misunderstood. If someone does not understand what I have stated, I could oblige an explanation rather than assume the person is unable to grasp anything.

No I didn't intone that they had suffered failed marriages, I wondered why it is among those who got married that majority of them had failed marriages, I actually intoned about them failing their marriages due to their breaking of their vow to God not that they were celibate, go back and read please. Someone seems to have selective reading eh.

Thanks for the 'selective reading', lol. Now you're shifting your goal posts. You did not articulate earlier that your statement does not apply to all priests who step down, but rather a bland statement that included all within the purview of your statement: "There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail". Now it has become "majority of them". haha.

Besides, you're still saying the same thing here - that the failure in their marriages should be blamed on their 'vows' of celibacy {"them failing their marriages due to their breaking of their vow to God"}. You did not here blame it on a wonder about anything else but on that institutional vow. If you were actually considering that the vow was not responsible for their failed marriages, you would not be repeating the same argument over an explanation that holds no substance.

What are you talking about? Who is blaming a wife for celibacy? Do you even know how to read?

I do know how to read - and I can see already that your attempt to pull a fast sleight of hand is not working. If you care to not use analogies that are unrelated to your arguments, this whole stuff would not be necessary.

I asked you a question, usually that comes with an answer.

Your question was a deflection - that was my point in trying to wake you up. Obviously you didn't see it.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721829#msg5721829 date=1268986109]

It is in this instance the talk about 'free will' becomes meaningless

How does it become meaningless?[/quote]I already explained - with lucid examples so that no one is left wondering what I was stating.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721829#msg5721829 date=1268986109]Is one forced to become a Priest in the first place? Does the person not know that after one becomes a Priest they do not have the option of getting married?[/quote]Please. This is not about "forcing" this and that - and if that even comes into the picture, I have made my point earlier that nothing should be IMPOSED upon any man. The talk of 'celibacy' is antithetical to 'free will' in so far as one who becomes a priest is forbidden from getting married if he afterwards feels the need to. Others who are already married before they become 'priests' continue to enjoy married life - how does that square off for priests who also want a family life while carrying on their work as 'priests' at par with those others who are married?

Their free will is exercised when they choose to become a Priest, and it is exercised when they choose to step down from their Office if they cannot fulfill the duty.

This is becoming very, very interesting. Are you not the same person that argued that priests are priests for life even though they go to hell? So what is this talk about chossing to "step down" - step down from what and become what: non-priests?

Your argument is controverted. Period. You're trying to maintain a position of 'free will' in an institutional vow and that is why your conclusions are arbitrary. If a man (p.A) chooses to be a 'priest', observes that others (p.B,C,D, etc) are still 'priests' even though they are married, and then he (p.A) wants to get married and enjoy the same standing as others (p.B,C,D, etc), what is this talk about "choosing to step down" while the others (p.B,C,D, etc) continue to enjoy the 'priesthood' without bothering about any issues of 'stepping down'?

Look, there is no grounds upon which you can maintain your argument of 'free will' in this whole business of institutional vows - the whole thing is just wobbly.

I wonder how one would apply it to the President of Nigeria. Does the President not take a vow to? Isn't he expected to live up to that vow? Should we now allow the free will of the President to take place when he doesn't want to fulfill the vow he took?

What is the correlation between a political vow of office and a Catholic institutional vow of celibacy? At least no one is asking the President to "step down" and suffer a failed marriage as a result of his political vow, nor yet is anyone asking the President to assume a life of celibacy because of a political oath of office. This whole thing just does not add up to your account.

In case u do not know, the Priest has an Office. It is called the Office of the Priest.

Thanks - I know that, and I also know that there is a vast difference between a political office and the 'office of the priest' .[color=Black].[/color]. unless you're trying to say that they are one and the same thing, yes?

So while he is in that Office he has to follow the rules. This is how life works, there are rules to live by.

The institutional vow of celibacy does not accentuate the talk of 'free will' - that is the point.

Apply your logic to a married man. He takes a vow, should his wife allow him his rights as a married man, if he fails to live up to the vow he took to be faithful to her?

Does he become an adulterer if that man seeks to serve the Lord as a 'priest'?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721770#msg5721770 date=1268985255]

There is no such thing as 'free will' in a matter of institutional vows. One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married while under that vow and then retaining the privileges of the same institutional vow(s).

Ofcourse not, just like a man doesn't have the free will to take a marital vow with another woman when he already has taken a marital vow with one. Such is the institution of marriage in Christianity. Such a person wants to have their cake and eat it too, impossible. The Church takes care of EVERYTHING for the Priest, right from toothbrush to retirement, if a Priest wants a wife, he needs to take up the responsibility of a job to care for his wife.[/quote]Lol, I think you're arguing against your own ideas. You had blandly stated earlier that "there is such a thing as free will in the Church", and now you are the same person who is again arguing that "of course not" there is NO free will in this regard?

This is not a matter of a man eating his cake and having it - that is just begging the question. The Catholic church imposed celiebacy on priesthood and should be responsible for the failure of that system. The Bible does not make any such imposition upon any man, and that is why we have observed that leaders in the church are encouraged to have families. The Bible also recognizes that local churches are to take care of those who minister to them (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

The whole argument (in your case) for 'free will' is a non-starter as far as institutional vows are concerned.

They have the free will to step down. I think in yorubaland what they call the person that does that you state is Oleoshi.

I don't know Yoruba (could learn, someday) - but the idea that someone should step down from the priesthood is making a case for an unbiblical nuance.

You completely miss the point of my statement.

My apologies.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721799#msg5721799 date=1268985697]No one claims otherwise. Infact you only prove my point, that it is not celibacy that causes these men to behave the way they do. It is entirely their character and their unwillingness to allow God to transform them.[/quote]I'm sorry I do not 'prove' your point in any way. Please go back and re-read my comments following what you had stated. Celibacy is not the reason for failed marriages, and you had intoned that married priests had suffered failed marriages because of some 'vow' of celiebacy - as if the vow of celibacy is responsible for failed or successful marriages. Sorry, my comments and yours are worlds apart.

If a married man takes a vow to God and his wife, and is unable to keep that vow, would u credit his inability to keep that vow to his wife to the institution of marriage, and all together call for the scrapping of marital vows?

An institutional vow of celibacy in the Catholic church cannot be blamed on any man's wife or the institution of marriage. Thus, the Catholic church or any other denomination that has imposed such institutional vows upon men should take responsibility for their own failure instead of looking for someone else to blame.

would u suggest that he take on another wife bcus he cannot control his own lust?

Was that what I stated or argued? Where?

It is not the vow that causes him to want another woman, it is his own sinfulness that causes it.

But you had supposed that the failed marriages were to be blamed on the vow of celibacy in stating this:[list]

There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

[/list]
. . . in other words, their failed marriages should be blamed on the vow of celibacy?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721799#msg5721799 date=1268985697]These designations are only from non-catholics and ill-informed Catholics. The Church does not recognise one as an 'ex-priest.' A priest is a priest forever, even if he dies and goes to hell.[/quote]Should that not be the more reason why a priest who gets married is still a priest and should suffer no restrictions for getting married after becoming a priest? This is why the argument that "a priest cannot become married" does not add up - because if a priest remains a priest even though he goes to hell, what then is the whole argument that priests cannot get married?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=413090.msg5721736#msg5721736 date=1268984707]What part of a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot become married do u not understand?[/quote]It doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the face of the facts on ground, which again makes the talk of 'free will' meaningless.

Ok let me explain. It means that if a man is married before he considers the priesthood, he can become a priest. But if he is already a priest before he is married, he cannot get married. It has been that way since the time of the Apostles.

The apostles did not teach any such thing - the Bible is there and we all can read it for ourselves. It is a clear sign of double standards to maintain the above.

Peter was married BEFORE becoming a Priest. But amazingly after becoming a Priest, he was celibate.

Please where did you get that from? That is pure conjecture that is indefensible. There is no record of Peter being celibate.

Clearly his wife wasn't being thrown into jail with him, and wasn't moving about the world founding local churches as he was.

Is that the 'reason' for your conjecture about an assumed celibacy for Peter? That argument holds no substance.

chukwudi44:

Now, if "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT", then why impose "celibacy" in the first place?? Just what is the point of your argument, chukwudi44?

the answer to the boldened portion is found in the writings of the great apostle Paul

"a unmarried man concerns himself with the affairs of God while a married man is concerned with the affairs of his household'

But was Paul 'IMPOSING' celibacy on anybody in 1 Corinthians 7:32?

In that same chapter, Paul had already said: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). That does not sound like he was imposing marriage (or even celibacy) upon anybody, does it?

The same apostle recommends that those wo want to be in leadership positions in the Church should be married (1 Timothy 3:2 and T[color=Black]it[/color]us 1:6).

It's hard to come to the conclusion that Paul was IMPOSING celibacy on priests.

@chakula,

Arabs and Jews
If Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of the same father Abraham, then they
are brothers. And so the children of the one are the BRETHREN of the
children of the other.

Nope, they are half-brothers - for they are not of the same mothers. To argue the way you are doing would mean that you are ignoring the sons of Keturah (Gen. 25:2-3) and other sons that Abraham had through his concubines (Gen. 25:6). Nothing in all these passages can be used to claim that Arabs were under the Jewish covenants in Deuteronomy 18, and that is why your arguments completely collapse.

The children of Isaac are the Jews and the children of Ishmael
are the Arabs - so they are BRETHREN to one another.

The children of JACOB are the Jews; while the children of Jacob's UNCLE are the Arabs - your uncle and yourself cannot be said to be "brothers" of the same direct father and mother.

The Bible affirms, 'AND HE (ISHMAEL) SHALL DWELL IN THE
PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.' (Genesis 16:12). 'AND HE (ISHMAEL)
DIED IN THE PRESENCE OF ALL HIS BRETHREN.' (Genesis 25:18).

(1)    Did you first take note of that fact that the Bible affirms that Ishmael would be a WILD MAN and his hand shall be AGAINST EVERY MAN (Genesis 16:12)? What does that say to you, personally?

(2)    Have you taken the time to find out how many were the "brethren" of Ishmael? Scroll up and see for yourself.

(3)    Did you take time to note that the dwelling of all the sons of Abraham were NOT the same place? The sons of Abraham by his concubines went to the "east country" (Gen. 25:6); Ishmael the son of Abraham by Hagar was dwelling in "the wilderness of Paran" (Gen. 21:21), while Ishmael's descendants were dwelling from 'Havilah unto Shur' that is before Egypt towards Assyria (Gen. 25:1[color=Black]8[/color]); while Isaac was dwelling by the well Lahairoi in the "south country" (Gen. 24:62 and 25:11).

(4)    From the above, it is plain that Isaac's dwelling place and that of Ishmael are not precisely the same. Therefore, you cannot read either of Genesis 16:12 or 25:18 to mean that they all were dwelling as one racial entity and/or in the same precise location.

(5)    Genesis 25:18 ("he died in the presence of all his brethren" does not mean that Ishmael died in the same place as all his half-brothers were dwelling. Rather, it simply means that his half-brothers had come to pay their last respects when Ishmael was dying, and thus they witnessed his last breaths - it was commonly understood in that manner back then, such that relatives came from a distance to a common place where they mourned their deceased (cf. Genesis 23:2 - "Abraham came to mourn for Sarah".

The children of Isaac are the brethren of the Ishmaelites. In like manner
Muhummed is from among the brethren of the Israelites because he was
a descendant of Ishmael the son of Abraham. This is exactly as the prophecy
has it - 'FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN'. (Deut. 18:18).

How do you then explain how Muhammad could have risen from the midst of the Jews in Deuteronomy 18:15? This verses clearly says: "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken."  As an Arab, what was Muhammad doing in "the midst of" the Jews in the Jewish covenant under wich the Israelites received that prophecy (Deut. 5:2-3)? The Arabs were not even dwelling in the midst of Israel - not back then, not in Muhammad's day - so how do you explain deuteronomy 18:15?

The the prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming prophet
who would be like Moses, must arise NOT from the 'children of Israel'
or from 'among themselves', but from among their brethren.
MUHUMMED THEREFORE WAS FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN!

This is where again your interpretation collapses upon itself.

(1)  The prophecy distinctly mentions that the coming Prophet who would be like Moses, must arise indeed from the 'children of Israel' - that is what verse 15 distinctly declares: withese words "from the midst of thee,"  and we know that Muhammad's Arabian tribe was not in the midst of the Jews nor had any part in the Jewish covenants.

(2)  Muhammad was therefore not among their brethren, for the prophecy is clear that it was not looking outside Israel when it declares: "from the midst of thee" in Deut. 18:15.

chakula:
@vairo,

thank you and i will ready for this discussion with you, on the otherhand i will like to answer my question in a simple words for me to understanding.

No worries, chakula - I don't know it all, but I'll try and consider your questions.

matters concerning brethren i have a source over it, which is
The prophecy is much more than this single phrase which reads
as follows: "I WILL RAISE THEM UP A PROPHET FROM AMONG THEIR
BRETHREN LIKE UNTO THEE . . . . . ." The emphasis is on the words -
'From among their brethren.'

I think I've addressed what that means precisely. The 'emphasis' in itself is the reason why I outlined the fact that it could not have meant any other nation or tribe than only than those under the Jewish covenant as the nation of Israel. It was not pointing to outside entities from the Israelites, but from within Israel - this is why Deut. 18:15 makes plain already what was meant: "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken."

Moses and his people, the Jews, are here
adressed as a racial entity, and as such their 'brethren' would undoubtedly
be the Arabs.

Not at all. See again Deut. 18:15 where God spoke about Israel and only Israel - the Prophet was to rise from WITHIN - "from the midst of thee" - words could not be clearer.

You see, the Holy Bible speaks of Abraham as the "Friend of
God". Abraham had two wives - Sarah and Hagar. Hagar bore Abraham a
son - HIS FIRST-BORN - ' . . . . . . And Abraham called HIS SON'S
name, which Hagar bore, Ishmael.' (Genesis16:15). 'And Abraham
took Ishmael HIS SON . . . . . ." (Genesis 17:23). 'And Ishmael HIS
SON was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of
his foreskin.' (Genesis 17:25). Up to the age of THIRTEEN Ishmael was the
ONLY son and seed of Abraham, when the covenant was ratified between
God and Abraham. God grants Abraham another son through Sarah, named
Isaac, who was very much the junior to his brother Ishmael.

Hang on here, chakula. You don't know what a 'covenant' is, and that is obvious. Let me help you:

(1) The verse in Deuteronomy 18:15 & 18 were spoken to a nation who were under the JEWISH covenant, and not to someone else under any Egyptian covenant. It is for this reason that much ealier in Deut. 5:2-3, Moses declared boldy that the Jewish covenant which God gave to Israel did not stretch back to the times of Abraham --- "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the LORD make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today."

(2) You can see from the above alone that Deuteronomy 18 was spoken to a people under the Jewish covenant expressly ratified and confirmed much earlier in Deut. 5:2-3. It had nothing to do with Egyptians or Arabs, and as such, you cannot extend this to mean that "brethren" in Deut. 18:18 was pointing to the Arabs, in so far that vese 15 makes clear that the Prophet was to rise "from the midst of thee" - from within the jewish nation, of which Muhammad has no trace whatsoever.

(3) It is remarkable that Muslim apologists who often argue "brethren" for the Arab prophet Muhammad in Deut. 18:18 often stop at Genesis 17 when talking about Abraham's children. Please go further than that and read up to Genesis 25:1-2, where the other children of Abraham are mentioned:

'Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian,
and Ishbak, and Shuah.'

(5) Why is it that Muslim apologists do not read up to Genesis 25 when arguing the "brethren" of the Israelites? Just as Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother through Hagar, so are those other guys (Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah) Isaac's half-brothers as well through Keturah!

(6) Now, those to whom Moses spoke to in Deuteronomy 18 were the twelve tribes of the Israelites who were of all from the twelve sons of JACOB (Genesis 49), and the same Jacob was called 'Israel' (Gen. 32:2[color=Black]8[/color]). From this, we know that Ishmael was Jacob's "uncle", being the half-brother of Jacob's father, Isaac - thus, you cannot begin to dribble any Arab from the twelve dukes/princes of Ishmael (Gen. 25:16) into the twelve tribes of Jacob.

guvera:
chukala, you are an ignorant fool.

Lol, let's help him instead to see what he's missing.

karo93:
your only reply was that the servant is to be worshiped and is still a master and i have told you why.

Please stop monkeying around. How many times have I quoted John 1:1 to you both from GNB and KJV? Are you deliberately evading that verse showing that Jesus IS God? Can you tell us why you keep dodging that simple verse?

it doesn't change the fact that he was MADE messiah, GIVEN authority and all things and IS A SERVANT TO THE GOD OF Abraham,isaac and jacob.

You're mixing up issues here - typical of JW and their errand boys. The God whom the patriarchs and Israel knew is the same Messiah who is the Mighty God - Isaiah 9:6.

hence my repitition.

Your repetition is a sure sign of your desperation. Do you want to keep confirming how desperate you are? Go on then.

chukwudi44:
are people coerced to take the oath of celibacy.Are you implying that people are forced to become catholic priests.The fact remains that becoming a priest is something someone freely decides in his mind to do ,no one is forced into it.

Please. Why don't carefully consider what I have stated instead of insinuating what is not there?

Again, I remind you: "One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married".

What that means is not about being forced into any priesthood; rather, I argue that under the vow of celibacy, there is no such thing as "free will" to get married UNDER THAT VOW. If there were any such talk of "free will" under such institutional vows, then no one would be making statements like "[a] married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry" - and there would be no such obstacles in this same "free will" such that any popes of the Catholic church should have had to resign in order to pursue marriage.

This all is not about being 'forced' into the priesthood - but the moment one chooses to become a priest, he knows that he is coming under an institutional vow, and as such he has no grounds to argue the idea of 'free will' under that vow in order to get married and still retain the exact same privileges of the vow of celibacy.

even clergy men in your penterascal fold has failed to keep their marital vows

That is no point there. I have noted indeed that "[an] institutional vow does not in itself transform the life of the vower." And consequently, I noted the "many scandals both in the Catholic and the Protestant divides in christendom". To clear all doubts, I was gratuitous enough to note that any sad report in this regard extends to "any man in any religious, philosophical or non-religious system" - so, this is not just about Catholicism, and I don't know why you're feeling a need to be defensive.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO SEE THAT REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AS THERE ARE ALSO PREVALENT IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES THAT HAVE MARRIED CLERGY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals

This shouting about "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT" is not headline news - for it is no different from what I said earlier:

viaro:
I don't remember anyone arguing that celibacy was the cause of any s[color=Black]e[/color]xual misconduct.
. . .

It goes without saying that celibacy is not a cause of misconduct or piety. It is a choice, and not an institution.

Now, if "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT", then why impose "celibacy" in the first place?? Just what is the point of your argument, chukwudi44? 

karo93:
Jesus was a spirit like God and the angels before he became man

What kind of 'spirit' exactly? To say that He was "a spirit like God and the angels" is meaningless, because it seems to be saying that there is no difference between God and the angels.

For all we know, I reckoned you would fall for that JW trickery on that question. And that was why I left you a clear outline, repeated below:

viaro:
Question:
     WHAT was Jesus Christ before He "became" a Man?

     Answer:
     He is God (John 1:1)
     The Word who is God (John 1:1) "became" a Man (John 1:14)

After that outline, I asked you the question:

viaro:
@karo93, WHAT was Jesus Christ BEFORE He "became" a Man?

Therefore, coming back with the evasive answer that Jesus was "a spirit like God and the angels" is to confuse issues for yourself and be neither here nor there. Human beings also are "spirits", but they are NOT deity - the angels are called "ministering spirits" (Heb. 1:14), and they are not "like" God, for they are NOT deity.

Unless you're in the habit of trying so hard (and failing) to deny the obvious, I don't see how that question should be difficult for you, especially since i have shown you an outline already - John 1:1, 14 and Revelation 19:13.  I really don't know what you find satisfying to yourself in deliberately denying what is in front of you.

Acts.4.27
and the people of Israel against Jesus YOUR HOLY SERVANT WHO YOU MADE MESSIAH.

THE SERVANT AND THE MASTER Can never BE THE SAME PERSON AND THE ONE WHO WAS MADE Cannot BE THE One WHO MADE.

This is a sure sign of your desperation. What do you gain from repeating the same thing that has been answered already - several times? This is the same hoax DeepSight was playing by making redundant repetitions until he injured himself and had to bail out of Nairaland. You don't want to injure yourself, dude - so quit acting like a child and grow up.

chakula:
Deuteronomy, chapter 18, verse 18.

"To whom does this prophecy refer?" i am sure some are refer it Jesus, if you refer the verse to him, what is your reason?

Here is my answer in another thread on the same thing raised by Abu-Safwan:

---

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5216409#msg5216409 date=1262176465]This exactly as the prophecy has it- 'FROM AMONG THEIR BRETHREN'.(Deut.18:18).[/quote]And that is what I shall dwell upon.

The foundation of Deuteronomy 18:18 is the Mosaic covenant given to Isreal as found reiterated in Deuteronomy chapter 5 - "The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb", and goes on to show that this covenant was not made with any other nation apart from the Jews. For Deut. 18:18 to have any import, it would have to be based on the covenant which forms its foundation - and that is where we shall try to understand what is meant in that context by 'brethren'.

First, Jews do not receive their prophecies from Arabs - which is why that verse in 18:18 clearly points out.

Second, 'brethren' as used there is one of covenant relationship among all those who are home-born as Jews and can show their pedigree from the families of Israel. Others who lived among them but could not point to any Jewish family ties were called 'sojourners' or 'strangers', not brethren. It is for this reason that two distinct groups were recognized in Israel based upon that covenant: "Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel" (Lev. 20:2).

Third, it is important for anyone at that time to identify their pedigree - otherwise it would be practically impossible for such a person to know where they stood in relation to the covenant life of Israel. Some of these covenant living include:

[list][li]the feast of the Jews[/li]
[li]political and civil life[/li]
[li]covenant relationships in prophecy[/li][/list]

Where is Muhammad in all that?

But more to the point is that there was only ONE LAW applicable to all who dwelt within Israel (Lev. 24:22); yet, sojourners (that is non-Jewish people dwelling in Israel) could not partake of the feasts of the Jews in exactly the same ceremonial standing as a native Jew. Why? Because when the covenant was made and ratified, it was representing only Jews - "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day" (Deut. 5:3). So what then does this entail? Look below:

A. Jewish Feasts - Conditions for the Sojourner:

[list]Exodus 12:43-45, 48 ~~ "And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof." . . . "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."[/list]
[list]Exodus 29:33 - "And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made, to consecrate and to sanctify them: but a stranger shall not eat thereof, because they are holy."[/list]
[list]Lev. 22:10 - "There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing."[/list]


B. Jewish Political Governance - Strangers Cannot Be Kings

[list]Deuteronomy 17:14-15  ~ "When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."[/list]


The Law makes a clear case for the following regarding Jews and sojourners/strangers:

[list](a) a sojourner or stranger (a non-native Jew) could not be a Jewish priest
(b) a sojourner or stranger (a non-native Jew) could not be a Jewish king
(c)  a sojourner or stranger (a non-native Jew) could not be a Jewish prophet[/list]

And all those 3 elements were pointing to the very Messiah in Jewish prophecies.

You can see that the Law does not confuse a Jew for a non-Jew; and nowhere in the Law is an Arab included in the covenant of the Jews. Muhammad is not one of the Jews, nor could he have been one of their 'brethren' to rise from among them based on that Jewish covenant. Deedat should have pointed all this to you and told you the plain truth - no, he did not; rather he just trailed off wherever he saw 'brethren' and assumed it applied to Muhammad; yet, not even Muhammad recognized the Jews as his 'brethren', and that is no surprise to see why the Arab Muslims hate the Jews to this day.

Odunnu:
Hey V.whtz wt d asterisks?is NL against exchange of emails?

Lol, no - nothing against sharing email addy. I don't know if you ever experience this, but in other forum where I made the mistake of posting my email online, all sorts of spam mails were sent to my e-box (I almost got the sack at one time) - that's why I asterisked yours and thot you'd delete it afterwards. But it doesn't matter if you choose to leave it though. I'll send it later today.

toba:
I agree with u that he was given authority.U should then tell what the authority given to him qualifies him to be.
Yar adua is sick,the NA gave goodluck authority to act as what? Which function is goodluck performing? Liken that to d functions Jesus is performing

Hehe .[color=Black].[/color]. but we should know that being given authority does not change the "essential being" of the person. Before Yar Adua was sick, he was a HUMAN BEING. When he became ill, he was still a HUMAN BEING. When he leaves office as President, he will remain a HUMAN BEING.

The same with Jonathan Goodluck - before he dreamt of Yar Adua becoming President, Goodluck was HUMAN BEING. When NA gave him "authority", he did not transform into an angelic being, but was still a HUMAN BEING. After Jonathan Goodluck, the next person is still a HUMAN BEING!

    Question:
    WHAT was Jesus Christ before He "became" a Man?

    Answer:
    He is God (John 1:1)
    The Word who is God (John 1:1) "became" a Man (John 1:14)

@karo93, WHAT was Jesus Christ BEFORE He "became" a Man?

Odunnu:
****@****.com

Got it. I'll email you today. Thanks.

karo93:
Viaro

John.8.58
…before Abraham was I am

Satan also was too. Where did Jesus say he was their God?? U disappointed me!

(1)   In John 8:58, Jesus did not say "I was" - rather He said "I AM". It was not a question of whether He had been existing as in the past (I 'was'), but rather He shows He is eternal by words which cannot be controverted: "I AM".

(2)   We know that Satan never claimed anywhere in Scripture to be "I AM" - Satan "was"  created - and the Bible clearly teaches this (see Ezekiel 28:13 - "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

(3)   The "I AM" of Jesus Christ shows that He is the very One who is the God that the patriarchs and the Israelites knew (see Exodus 3:14).

2. in that verse Jesus was drawing a thin line btw him and God for many others were also called “good” see matt.25.21

(1)  In that verse (Mark 10:18) which you had quoted, Jesus did NOT say that He was "not good", as you had argued. To argue that is what he had sad would be to directly lie against that verse.

(2)  When He said "I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11 & 14), He was not drawing any so-called 'thin line' between Himself and God for any "others" to be called 'good'. In Matthew 25:21, He showed that He is the Master who sets others as 'rulers' over many things - but as regards redemption and salvation, He is "the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep".

(3)  That immediately tells His audience that He was indicating His Deity to them, for in the Psalms is written 'The LORD is my shepherd' (Psalm 23:1); and also with regards to redemption, Psalm 49:7-9 shows that only the Messiah could redeem humanity because of His divinity -

    'None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God
    a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it
    ceaseth for ever) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption.'

(4)   In all of this, let it be remembered that your arguments are flawed, because there is not a single verse in the Bible where Jesus ever said that He is "not good".

3.your father is a son to someone dosnt make him less of your father, the head servant is a servant to oga but a master to all servants

Even you karo93 are the same person who said that the "Servant" (Jesus) is to be worshipped, not so? Why are you still beating yourself over this issue?

Your father is a son to someone but is a father to u. Jesus is a servant to God but still master to others.

Jesus is DEITY - He is God (John 1:1). That is why ALL the angels worship Him (Heb. 1:6) and that is why ALL men will worship Him (John 5:23).

You can argue forever on this issue, but I have noted again and again that even your own preferred version (GNB) and the KJV clearly say in John 1:1 that the Word was GOD, because it is the same Word that "became" flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). I ask you: who was Jesus Christ before He "became" 'flesh', huh?

And here is a small appendix: Jesus is the very One who is called 'the Word of God' (Rev. 19:13, GNB and KJV) - and that Word "became" flesh (or Human) and dwelt among us (John 1:14, GNB and KJV); and before He "became" flesh, He was that same Word that was GOD (John 1:1, GNB and KJV).

Please, karo93 - again I ask: Who was Jesus Christ before He became a Man?

Odunnu:
Viaro,seen my mail yet?

Odunnu, good morning - and thank you for reminding me. I have not seen the email yet - probably was auto-deleted (I just learnt that my settings may be the problem). Is it possible for you to give me your email-addy just now so I could rush you an email? (pls. delete your email address afterwards).