₦airaland Forum

uplawal:
no comments from christians

Do you mind sharing what the quran teaches you about global warming?

Hello Malbron,

Could I start by asking if you're a Christian? This question is vital if we're going to benefit from sharing on this interesting subject, albeit I think it's already whipped to death in other threads.

Then I would like to come back later to share a few things you might not have considered in the Genesis verses you cited. The whole point is that Jesus Christ IS NOT an incarnation or reincarnation of ANYBODY. Period.

This does not mean that people should not believe whatever they want to believe - even if that is reincarnation. The one thing I'm trying to point out is that you can believe whatever you want to believe about reincarnation, but please don't try to dribble it into the Bible - as the Bible does not teach any such thing anywhere. We shall get to this in due course.

Cheers.

justcool:
@viaro

Your points are well taken. Thank you so much and

Cheers

Acknowledged. Enjoy.

@aletheia,

Indeed, we might be saying just about the same thing albeit a slight miscommunication seems to come between us.

If you took time to carefully consider what I asked: "what Genesis 8:22 could be applicable to", you would at once notice I was not asking for a literal interpretation, but rather its application. So far what I keep reading from you is literal interpretation and nothing about its application. The idea of a literal interpretation of that verse is not very helpful when it comes to applications. If people are looking at it in a literal sense, they should understand that NOT ONCE did we read that these elements {seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night} ever ceased prior to the time of Noah! NOT ONCE. As far as we can see, they continued ight up to the time of Noah, so that after the Flood, they still continued.

Let me identify some:

The ground was cursed right back from Genesis 3:17 - but since that time, those elements in Gen. 8:22 had continued:

[list](a)  seedtime and harvest - Cain harvested what he had sown in Gen. 4:2-3
(b)  cold and heat, summer and winter -  these were never at anytime interrupted right from the time God declared seasons in Gen. 1:14
(c)   day and night - as well, these have continued uninterrupted from Adam's day up to before and after Noah and the flood, otherwise how would Noah have known how to number '7 days' or 'forty days and forty nights;' before the flood? (see Gen. 7:4)[/list]

The point was that Genesis 8:22 should not be stretched far too literally - because to the simple-mined reader, it would look like those elements ceased at some time before the flood, and that verse was promising that they 'shall not cease'. No, they did not cease at any time.

Thus, to help you further, Jeremiah 33:20 was hinted at to show that there possibly could be an application beyond mere agricultural circles. The idea of making it an agricultural circle in the first place does not stand any leg at all - people before the Flood were sowing and harvesting, days and nights did not cease, and seasons continued without any interruptions anywhere, as shown above in the examples! This all prompted my question about applications of Genesis 8:22 earlier. The point, for me, was that this verse forms a foundation of a universal spiritual principle - which I think the OP was trying to share on 'seedtime and harvest'.

It is sad indeed that many people flip and freakout where they read such verses and just react against 'money'. That type of situation is poor, because it leaves believers running between two opinions and never arriving at anything concrete. If that verse (Genesis 8:22) rules out money, that's okay - but again, that would simply rule out any other verse about the spiritual principle of sowing and reaping as well!

aletheia:
2. Agreed, that Genesis 8:22 refers to a covenant as referenced in Jer 33:20; which was why I included the preceding verse 21 in my earlier post.

Please understand that I was not saying that it is only Jeremiah 33:20 that interprets Genesis 8:22; that was just an example, and it is not the only case for the Genesis verse.

You see two things referred to here:
a. The curse in Gen 3:17-18
b. The flood which had destroyed every living creature.
Because of the way we divide our bible, we assume the narrative breaks at the end of chapter 8 but reading into chapter 9 shows that 8:21-22 is an introduction and in verses 9 to 11 of chapter 9; we read this:

Yes, I heard this before. But isn't it ODD that people who make this kind of illation would make HUGE JUMPS and skip verses 1 to 8 of Genesis 9? I'm quite comfortable with the way the sections are divided in the Bible - Genesis 8 ends at verse 22 and chapter 9 is not an extension to verse 22 of chapter 8.

How then is this phrase "While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." about money?

I already shared about the principle of sowing and reaping, citing 2 Corinthians 9:6-11. Notice that ever since, I have not rested everything about all these verses upon money as the only thing it speaks about - rather I have repeatedly said that it INCLUDES the way we handle money. The problem with some of these things is that people tend to make exclusive divides over non-essentials: it is either it must be only about money, or else it is not about money. That is not the way these things pan out for me. The verses point to the principle of sowing and reaping - and that INCLUDES the way we handle money and material blessings.

3. While I agree that certain principles set forth in the old testament are further elucidated in the new testament, I still believe that seedtime is not about money.

My friend, statements like that tend to rule out money - and if you want to stay on that note, it means that you are ruling it out completely mwithout excuse! On the other hand, if you believe that it applies to agricultural circles, such an interpretation has no leg to stand on because the circle was NEVER interrupted at anytime prior to the Flood! So, between these two ideas you espouse, there's just no middle ground and we would just have to move beyond and away from these literalism you tend to give that verse.

An examination of the principle of sowing and reaping as set forth in Galatians will show that to be so:

Gal 6:7-9  Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

Bearing in mind that the preceding chapter of the same epistle has this words:

Yes, I also noted quite well that:

viaro:
The Bible teaches a principle of sowing and reaping - which is not merely an agricultural matter, but is applied in so many instances to other aspects of our lives and faith, including the question of using our resources (financial and material) to further the interest of the Kingdom in people's lives in very practical ways. An example? Please see 2 Corinthians 9:6-11.

. . so I quite well had those other passages of Galatians and James in mind, and appreciate your quoting them. I just would very much hope that as believers we should not hold too tightly to literalism and limit the applications of certain verses where they might be pointing us to certain PRINCIPLES in the Kingdom of God.

^^^ Lol, I already guess so - but I sometimes like to kid these guys on their own terms.

@justcool,

I think all that needs to be said in the preliminaries have been said, so there's no need for me to go round again making the same points. It's not a bother to me whatever purpose drew you to register on Nairaland - whether to convert anyone or not: I take that as inconsequential. There's enough to show that people get converted one way or another by what they read on Nairaland and other sites on the web.

Now to address this:

justcool:
The reason why I am continuing this discussion is not to convert you; it is because you accused me of forcing my opinions on Christians. Here is what you said:

Well, what could I say? I was reactive there in my response to justcool because my day has been hectic indeed. The one thing that irks me is a comment or post that tells the Christian how to believe in the ways of God when such a poster does not even subscribe to the Christian worldview. Ha! But I'd already hit the reply botton before I calmed down and felt I should've been a lil genial and gentle towards justcool

That's why I made it clear here that my view is not biblical neither do I in any tey to tell you how to beleive in the ways of God.

My apologies if it sounded accusative to you; but it yet does not shift a dot from the same point I reiterated in my previous remarks in this thread, viz:

viaro:
2. Following the point above, it is remarkable that many people of various persuasions and worldviews try to engage in dialogues with Christians - not so much as to rub minds together on things pertaining to God, but rather to redefine the Biblical worldview for Christians and yet not subscribe, accede or accent to the Christian Faith at all! It is just as well for the Christian to teach the crossbearer the religion of Abd-ru-Shin without subscribing to the Grail Message! This I find very unfortunate, and that is where all sorts of ideas pass back and forth as to what you may think about 'God' while disagreeing with what the Bible declares about Him and His ways - a very dangerous proposal indeed!

. . . and if I have to go back to the other thread to make the same point, here again:

viaro: First off, you'e forcing your ideas in here by not being consistent with the texts which modupe01 quoted. You asked a question based on the Bible - and if you want to answer based on the Bible, stay with the Bible. Otherwise, your comments actually sound like you are the one who wants to set bounds for God in the Bible and then dictate to Him what He should do and what He ought not to do.

So, if you're telling me that your views are not Biblical and yet trying to tell me what God does and does not do, doesn't that already makes this whole exercise quite futile? If we're discussing the things of God from a Biblical perspective, what would it benefit you to argue anything while yet claiming your views are unbiblical? It would be like you're asking me to look away from the Bible and then pay more attention to your own unblical 'perspectives' and opinions!

justcool:
But in the world of today it is important that people know what their neighbor is all about. All wars that has ever been fought on earth was due to the fear of the unknown. Muslims kill Christains because they have no idea what Christianity is all about; to Christians are people who want to destroy Allah. And some Christians fight Muslims because of the same reason. Take ogboni fraternity for example; from childhood we hear all sorts of things about them; these rumores are born out of fear. But it is unfair to regard them as evil until one sits down and examines their beliefs and practices. What the world need today is dialogue; not to convert but to educate.

This discourse is not about whatever fraternity anyone adheres to - that is the least of my concerns for now, sorry.

I offer explanations in the light of the Grail Message so that you know what the Grail Message says and not to convert you.

Well there - I find the Grail Message quite insufficient in so many subjects, and that is why my concerns about crossbearers trying to redefine Christianity for Christians through the lenses of the Grail Message. You may decry that, but while I don't mean to be uncordial, you have yourself clearly said that "The Grail Message said nothing about Elijah". That is just an example of something that is fundamental to the Christian Faith, and if your worldview does not say anything about that important subject, it would be yet futile to argue back and forth on issues surrounding that personage.

I also want hear your views to educate myself more about the Christian world view but necessarily to convert.

I wouldn't waste my time - or yours. I deeply have the persuasion that discussing serious issues would have the potency to cause people to think deeply as well urge them possibly to conversion. There's no need to pretend here with nice remarks about non-conversions because quite the opposite is what many people on Nairaland demonstrate, whether they deny it or not. Yet, that is not to suggest that I am bent on forcefully converting anyone; although I yet would rejoice where that happens.

The more I know about Christianity, the easier it becomes for me to co-exist with Christains.

Okay.

Look at the quarrel on Nairaland alone. It is not funny because for you it may end on Nairaland; but some may take it deeper and actually go to harm others. I believe that if Mutalab have had to opportunity to actally know Christains and Americans, he would not have tried to blow them up. Ignorance and fear are the two major problems of the world, and I believe that peacefull dialogue can help in the eradication of ignorance and fear.

Outside of Nairaland, Mutalab was exposed to better opportunities of interacting with Christians - it was his own choice that he absolutely would NOT! A man who would not even be cordial to those he met if he saw they were women. In most people's mindset of such leanings, no amount of education, exposure or interactions would change anything.

But if you feel that there is no need for us to continue; then you have all the right in the world to walk out. Either way you chose, I wish you well.

It's your choice, actually - not mine. I already explained why this whole exercise is futile, which is that you hold very unbiblical views and indicate that you would not have a change of heart or perspectives if something is shown you to be the clear declaration of the Bible. Take the example of Elijah: is it not from that subject of reincarnation around him that brought us here? If you are persuaded that the Grail Message says nothing about Elijah, then what is the basis of your arguments in the first place?

Rather than it being my choice to 'walk out', it's obvious that the foundation of this thread is seriously in doubt. If you want a Biblical view of the Christian subjects you hope to discuss here, then the one thing I ask is that you stay with the Bible and throw your own personal opinions aside. As long as you want to keep up this back and forth of choosing what to go with and discarding what you don't like, nothing will be of benefit to you. If the subject is going to be beneficial to you, and you acknowledge that it is worthwhile to acknowledge its proper foundations on the BIBLE, then please stay on the BIBLE and not your own ideas. Or you can do the one thing left: just as well walk out and close the thread.

About Elijah. The Grail Message said nothing about Elijah; I have made it clear that Elijah is not John the baptise. I don't think that the actions of Elijah and Enoch are part of my spiritual life. Their actions are not part of my convictions as a crossbearer; therefore I leave them out of my argument. I know nothing about Elijah and Enuch.

Great - and where does that take us? Do you realise that those two names are germane to the very core concerns of this thread? If we therefore allow you to leave them out of your argument, would that not already be bending the rules?

Nobody says that either Elijah or Enoch has to be part of your spiritual life - nevermind the arrogance in that assumption. I could as well say that Abd-ru-shin is not part of any consequence of my spiritual life, so what's the big deal? If you would make any sense of the subjects you want to discuss, then learn to be quite accommodating and open to the core elements of what your discussants present. If you otherwise would rather not, then what benefit would you derive from all this?

Cheers.

Abu Zola:
@VIARO- bilms had diffuse your err in ruin,

Please where did he do that?
Where did he ever quote a single verse from the Gospel of Barnabas?
Wasn't he just an errand boy who was confusing Barnabas for Solomon?
Did he ever try to post any verse from Barnabas where Muhammad was mentioned by EXACT NAME - or Muslims today have become so confused that they no longer know the name of their own prophet?

Please Abu-zozo, viaro is not ready to laugh all night, please eh?

since you are not a student of literature i would have i love to vividly quote it for you in the Gospel of Barnabas for a novice like you. I have my own copy of the book. If you are interested then open a thread

Please just post it here and save us all this noise.

aletheia:
1. Dear Sir, What does Genesis 8:21-22 actually say?
Can you see from the scripture there that the LORD refers to the agricultural cycle, the seasons and the daily cycles. Why don't we hear about the law of cold and heat? or the law of summer and winter? &c

I asked a rather simple question, not solicit for an attitude - I know how to dish it nicely if so required.

The point in my question 'what Genesis 8:22 could be applicable to' was to show that the verse transcends merely agricultural circles. The prophetic declarations of Scripture go beyond mere literal and simplistic reading - which is what many people do with the Genesis 8:22. If we look carefully, would it not be clear that there was a covenant being made there? Compare with Jeremiah 33:20 where God again highlights His unbreakable covenant of the day and covenant of the night, which yet He does not imply merely for agricultural circles but rather with the multiplying of the seed of David. Of course, 'seed' there does not mean agricultural plants - that much we can agree on.

I think many of us should get past the very simplistic interpretations we often attach in the drive to highlight literalism. There are times when a verse of Scripture which first appears ordinary becomes quite significant in the body of other texts. An example: in 1 Cor. 9:9 the author quotes Deut. 25:4 - "it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn" - but he goes on in the NT passage to note that the passage was not emphasizing the agricultural enterprise of oxen (see end of verse 9 and then v. 10).

The Bible teaches a principle of sowing and reaping - which is not merely an agricultural matter, but is applied in so many instances to other aspects of our lives and faith, including the question of using our resources (financial and material) to further the interest of the Kingdom in people's lives in very practical ways. An example? Please see 2 Corinthians 9:6-11.

2. If you reread my post, you will see that I did not rule out giving money. I only said seedtime as I understand it from Genesis 8 is not about money.

It sounded to me like you had ruled out money - otherwise I don't see why that should have been a problem to you if you did not rule it out in the first place. Whatever, I tried to point out that if we truly believe that money is NOT ruled out, then a better way to have expressed it would be: "Seedtime is not only about money - meaning that it includes the manner of our handling money". For someone to type in bold fonts that "Seedtime is not about money" is saying that money should be ruled out - and yours was the second time I was pointing out the weakness of such ideas (the first being ogajim's in post #4 & #5).

Abu Zola:
Hahaha, could mean a variety of things indeed.

@bilms: bravo, ka rikitar da su. Hahaha kayi kokari

Does bilms understand basic Hebrew?

Where is the Gospel of Barnabas verse where Muhammad is mentioned by EXACT NAME?
Is Barnabas the author of Song of Solomon?

Bravo indeed - after all the noise and yet showing zilch!

Mavenb0x:
viaro haba no carry vex o. Na play him dey play. Or would you have preferred a nuclear warhead from the gentleman aimed at your base?

Warhead? Hehe. . I was only kidding with commander nuclearboy!

But there's more. We have noted that the Hebrew word מחמדים transliterated as 'ma·cha·mad·dim' could mean a variety of things, including desire, pleasant thing, goodly, and lovely. That same word appears in the following verses:

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[list]** 1 Kings 20:6 - '. . . and it shall be, that whatsoever is pleasant (מחמדים) in thine eyes, they shall put it in their hand, and take it away.'[/list]

[list]I guess you would not argue your Muhammad into that verse even though the Hebrew word is the same as in Songs 5:15. In the above example, would you say that they shall put muhammad in their hand and carry him away like a piece of article? If not, then something is patently wrong with your own translation.[/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

[list]** Hosea 9:16 - 'Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved (מחמדּי) fruit of their womb.'[/list]

[list]The sacred-text website also transliterates that word as 'm^ahămadê' - which if you take to be the name of Muhammad, simply says in that verse that he is a fruit of the womb that would be slain. Of course, I guess you wouldn't like to read such a meaning there even though the same Hebrew word is cited in that verse - and there is just no reason why your argument for Song of Solomon 5:16 should be read to mean the name of Muhammad either![/list]

https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Glossary/article_divider.gif

The above is to help you see that the transliterated word 'ma·cha·mad·dim' does NOT mean the name of 'Muhammad', just as no sane reader would mistake 'do·v·di' for 'david'. If you try to force that word into Song of Solomon 5:16 for Muhammad, then you should read the same word as it appears both in 1 Kings 20:6 and Hosea 9:16 - both of which indicate a destruction and not some fancy of your mind!

bilms: In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to make it Muhammad[b]im[/b].

Sorry, nobody was thinking of Muhammad anywhere when that verse was being written - and that is why it is NOT A NAME but rather a quality describing someone in that verse. Secondly, the 'im' there is the Hebrew word עִם and is used often as a preposition and NOT any so-called addendum to respect muhammad anywhere. The word is variously translated into several English words including against, alike, along, besides, near, toward, etc. To save us the hassles of going through so many terms, just please see this resource again to verify the 'im' for yourself.

bilms: In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is yet present.

Sorry, nobody took 'altogether lovely' as a translation or transliteration of 'Muhammad', just as nobody mistook 'do·v·di' for 'david' or 'dauda'. Your attempts to muddle up stuff for anyone would only prove most unfavourable to no other person than yourself.

@bilms,

For the benefit of doubt, let me help you in all simplicity.

After reading your OP and failing to see any verse where Muhammad's name was mentioned by the EXACT NAME in the Gospel of Barnabas (GoB), I requested that you please show us. You have yet not done so. Rather than show us the verse for Muhammad's exact name in the GoB, you went over to Song of Solomon - that seems a rather desperate but unnecessary move.

I know Muslims are many times in the habit of making bogus claims and showing nothing for what they post, which is what I feel you have done here. So, let me repeat as earlier: 'where have you shown that "Muhammad Is Mentioned By The Exact Name In The Gospel Of Barnabas"??' That answer is not forthcoming from you, so I turn to address a few other points in yours:

(1)   The claim that Muhammad was prophesied in Deuteronomy 18:18 has been trashed in many threads, - please see an example where I gave my own shillings in this thread. The point is that Muhammad was not prophesied in Deut. 18:18, and you can flog it from now till the next minaret call and still find nothing moved in the direction to favour your post.


(2)   The idea of Muhammad in the Song of Solomon is a fallacy, and here's how:

bilms:
Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters
of Jerusalem."

Of course, some people have rendered that verse to include the name of Muhammad (or m^ahămadîm) in various places, such as the one that appears in the 'Shir Hashirim' of the sacred-text website.

On comparing these with other established sources as the one below from Biblos, you will not find support for such - the reason is easy: you will first have to ask yourself if the authors of the Biblical texts were mixing both Arabic and Hebrew languages/words into the same verses! Second, if it was 'Muhammad' that was meant in that verse, what would it have meant to the authors in Hebrew? Do Arabic speakers mix up words in their dialects by borrowing words from the Hebrew?

The Biblos website would be a very helpful resource where you can compare each word occurence of that verse. Let's provided a summary:

[list]Hebrew:
חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים זה דודי וזה רעי בנות ירושלם׃

Transliteration:
chik·kov  mam·tak·kim  ve·chul·lov  ma·cha·mad·dim  zeh do·v·di  ve·zeh  re·'i  be·no·vt  ye·ru·sha·lim

English:
His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.[/list]

Consequently, the Hebrew word מחמדים transliterated as 'ma·cha·mad·dim' could mean a variety of things, including desire, pleasant thing, goodly, and lovely. It appears in many verses of the OT, and in Songs 5:16 it is rather a quality that describes someone and NOT A NAME!

@DeepSight,

Deep Sight:
Justcool maybe you can assist me in discussing the nature of God with Viaro. I am at odds that he imagines the laws of God are such that a physical body may dwell bodily in a spiritual realm. I have yet to summon the energy to deal exhaustively with tat presupposition of his. Thanks.

I don't think you have demonstrated "the nature of God" in any discourse between us, which makes your quest all the more teasingly moot. The question of a physical body being taken into heaven as in the case of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11 has been trashed too many times, and not in one instance have you shown me anywhere that Elijah's spirit was separated from his physical body to experience death as Biblically defined (James 2:26 - 'the body without the spirit is dead').

Asking a crossbearer to help you in this case is even far more futile - afterall, did he not say that he could "never know the nature of God" (post #9)?? It is not as if I would acclaim to know everything about the 'nature' of God; but, at least, the Bible declares a few things about God, which I've tersely expressed as 'transcendence' .

Yet, on the question death, the following is excerpted from Grailnet supposedly from Abd-ru-shin's Grail Message:

[list][center]What is Death?[/center][/list]

[list]"Thus it also happens that the soul must separate from a body which has been forcibly destroyed, ruined by disease or weakened by old age, at the very moment when this body, owing to its changed condition, can no longer produce that strength of radiation which brings about such a magnetic power of attraction as is necessary to play its part in the firm union between soul and body!

This results in earthly death, or the falling back, the falling away of the gross material body from the ethereal covering of the spirit, thus in separation. This is a process which takes place, in accordance with firmly-established Laws, between two species which only unite at an exactly corresponding degree of heat through the radiation simultaneously produced, but which can never blend, and which fall apart again when one of the two different species can no longer fulfill the condition laid upon it."[/list]



The purpose of this is to again bring you guys to a common context of the term 'death', just to reiterate the emphasis of "separation" between soul (or spirit) from the body. In which case, I would indeed have expected either you or justcool to contravene the fact that such was NOT the case for either Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), or for Enoch (Heb. 11:5) - at the very least, it is manifestly stated in the latter's case that 'Enoch was translated that he should not see death', and I've waited forever to see verses you guys could produce to show that both Elijah and Enoch indeed DIED in the same context of 'death' as defined in James 2:26 - a separation of the spirit from the body.

Could you please, guys, show me any verse(s) that states quite simply that either Elijah or Enoch experienced this 'DEATH' as we have too many times discussed? It matters very little to me what anyone wants to "perceive" or what anyone means by 'firmly-established Laws' - if after all the back and forths, NONE OF YOU are able to show plainly ANY VERSE(S) that states directly that both Elijah and Enoch experienced death. I don't have the stomach for any further prevarications on this issue from you guys, please - so if you can't kindly oblige my one request, don't bother to be further comical on this point!

@justcool

Thank you for the invitation and your response to my concerns brought over from the other thread. No worries in the way you see things; but a few points to note that would save us going back and forth in this discourse:

1. Just wondering: what purpose would it serve you as a crossbearer to engage in this discourse with Christians where issues are drawn from the Bible? I notice you already said in the OP that:

justcool: My views are not biblical, and I have never claimed that they are

. .  and then later stated that:

What you wrote above may be biblical but this is where my perception does not agree with the biblical perception.

. . thus it becomes even more quizzical to begin our discourse, especially where you know that viaro would be pointing to the Bible for his convictions and not to the Grail Message or drawing from your perception. For me, my faith in Christ is not freelance where you ride any which way on the wings of anybody's "perceptions" - rather, I'm committed to Christ on the basis of what the Bible declares.

If it were to be two Christians discussing from the Bible, I could see where we would be going. But how does anyone begin to argue Biblical matters with someone who affirms that his views are 'not Biblical', nor does it appear that you would be persuaded about any point where it is lucidly pointed out as clearly Biblical in doctrine and theology?

`````````````

2. Following the point above, it is remarkable that many people of various persuasions and worldviews try to engage in dialogues with Christians - not so much as to rub minds together on things pertaining to God, but rather to redefine the Biblical worldview for Christians and yet not subscribe, accede or accent to the Christian Faith at all! It is just as well for the Christian to teach the crossbearer the religion of Abd-ru-Shin without subscribing to the Grail Message! This I find very unfortunate, and that is where all sorts of ideas pass back and forth as to what you may think about 'God' while disagreeing with what the Bible declares about Him and His ways - a very dangerous proposal indeed!

An example: on the matter of 'physcial bodies' being taken to heaven, you guys actually set limits on what you perceive to be the demonstration of God's power, because of your inability to grasp His transcendence. Consequently, you excuse clear pointers in the Bible showing where this is already accomplished (as in the case of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11 and Enoch in Heb. 11:5). However, informed Christians have no problem whatsoever thereto, and that's why your 'perception' has absolutely no value on what is plainly declared in the Bible - whether you agree or disagree is manifestly inconsequential.

`````````````


3. I'd like to say a word about exclusivity, following this statement in your 6th point in the OP:

justcool: You have a right to your own perception of God. God does not belong to me exclusively, neither does he belong to you exclusively.

Although commendable, I'd go one step further to say that Christianity and Abd-ru-shin's religion are mutually exclusive and have no outcomes in common. This is not about anyone's 'perceptions' of God here and there, but rather about what we as Christians believe on the basis of what the Bible declares - afterall, the concerns of this thread are pointing back to the Bible for the most part, and not to the Grail Message or what perceptions are held by crossbearers. So often it appears that authors in the Grail Movement concern themselves far too much with matters about the Christian worldview that one begins to wonder what originality they possess in themselves apart from the Biblical faiths!

The danger in this is twofold:

(a) the tendency to redefine the Christian Faith through the lenses of the Grail Movement - whereby uninformed Christians quickly lose sight of the essentials of the new covenant which we have in the redemption of the Blood of Christ.

(b) the tendency to be blur the distinct message of the Bible by your own assumptions - whereby setting limitations and boundaries on God's transcendence in order to maintain a tribal loyalty to your own worldview.

The second point (b) above is not accusative, because it pretty quickly becomes obvious that your rejoinders would repeatedly be polarised away from the Bible, no matter how many times you may quote its verses for your arguments.


It is on the basis of these preliminary remarks that it seems futile to engage in this exercise, because more than anything you're not arguing Christianity but rather making a case for your affinity to the Grail Message. No matter how many pages we may argue back and forth here, we shall not arrive at any common outcomes - so that, even though I could overturn every point in your arguments thus far, it would be a waste of time and resources to betake ourselves to such an exercise.

nuclearboy:
Notice the capitalization of your name? Na fear O! And yes, Viaro is our resident Alien: from the planet of Infinity

Always knew you have a stranglehold on me. . didn't realise you'd use it so soon!

nuclearboy:
Thought it was only DeepSight that was a lawyer here! Now I find such as "removed parts" from Maven and "oay" from our pidgin illiterate oyibo Viaro who thinks he's Nigerian but doesn;t know how to say OYA!

Oh shooks! I'm now gonna sulk! I resign from posting ever again on Nairaland!

Abu Zola:
@viaro- so you no be full 9ja man, good

Hehe. . who's deceiving you? I'm a son of the soil . . proper.

Mavenb0x:
@Viaro: You know you're undeniably my pal, right? I honestly didnt mean it that way: Im not better because both parents of mine are from 9ja. I was only trying to outline points to show our variance.

Of course, I understand.

Maybe a better point would have been: I dont even know how Viaro looks, cos we have never met. Ma binu, Okoo Iya mi .

[img]http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:JBZCE23WlAOewM:http://image40.webshots.com/41/3/45/39/370334539HZeqfz_ph.jpg[/img]
Is this close enough?

So where have you shown that "Muhammad Is Mentioned By The Exact Name In The Gospel Of Barnabas"??

So, eh. . I guess there are some women who see (and know) all this and yet are celebrated in ordinations to be head of churches, no?

I'm just wondering about a recent one: 'Most Rev. M. E. Benson-Idahosa on her consecration and elevation to the office of the Archbishop, Church of God Mission International Incorporated'. How do these women interpret the verses cited such as blueeye did (1cor 14:34 and35, Tim 2:12 to14)??

. . . and your point was?

bdian:
Those we should be talking about are those BIG pastors that have benefited from these leaders and yet do nothing to speak out against tyranny and injustice.
How long are we going to keep praying?
I feel if some influencial Xian leaders like Adeboye, Okwonkwo, Oyedepo, kumuyi, oyakhilome, daniel olukoya of MFM, etc joined forces these litany of unjust leaders will give way to righteous leadership.

Let me try not to sound accusing anyone, but those 'leaders' who are too shy to speak out against the deplorable political atmosphere and governance in Nigeria perhaps are telling us 'something'. That 'something' sounds like they don't want to ruffle the feathers of those politicians who have been their benefactors in one way or another. . . or they just lack the 'faith' to face up to real issues while they preach 'amazing faith' in big halls and cathedrals.

@commander nuclearboy, hehehe. . many salutes!

This is simply amazing. In the wee hours of just this morning, the 'important person' (ie., the 'she') arraigned me with some very difficult-to-answer queries on my recent activities on NL. .  needless to say, she was very cross at my attitude in the recent posts under my username. 'I shame no be small', said she. I guess the only thing for me to do now is apologise to all who felt offended at my tone (especially DeepSight). M-e-n.  . . was I mad at him for the unfinished business of our 'past lives' and the tête-à-tête of our hypothetical 'reincarnation' in the recent threads. I tell you, 'carbonated drinks' went out the window and I never felt more inebriated on H₂O and CCL4. How many hours are you planning for my e-jail, your honour?

As for Maven and I winking at each other, that landed me in hot soup and fresh bread as well. I should hold my tongue before I face another arraignment from 'she', hehe. . 

[size=16pt]Gr[/size][size=14pt]r[/size]rrrr!!

@Mavenb0x, everything in your confession seems good. .  except for #6 (the devil' number) ~

Mavenb0x:
6. I am a full Nigerian, Viaro is not.

Oh c'mon. . . viaro has Nigerian blood in his veins, and that's as good enough to qualify! How can you put me in the duck like that, huh? 

I speak some poor pidgin, but I think I am still better than Viaro in that respect.

Oh my goodness! Commander nuclearboy, can you just imagine that? If you don't e-jail Mavenb0x on this one, things will start happening left, right and center! Let me try: gbam, kai, oay. . good enough, no??

Hehe. .  folks, do have a very enjoyable weekend.

justcool:
@Viaro
Thanks for your explanations but for the sake of cordiality, I don't want to reply. Your views are well appreciated, maybe sometimes in another thread we may be able to exchange more ideas. I hope you understand what I mean.

That's fine, and sorry about my tone earlier. Maybe another day and another thread then. Enjoy.

Mavenb0x:
viaro, thats the problem I often have with seeklove and his mentor justcool (i.e. If they are not even the same person!), they impose various limitations on their god, and then turn around and say that is the one and same Boundless God that adopted me as His Son. I only have problems with the 2nd part, I am not bothered about whoever other people worship.

Well, what could I say? I was reactive there in my response to justcool because my day has been hectic indeed. The one thing that irks me is a comment or post that tells the Christian how to believe in the ways of God when such a poster does not even subscribe to the Christian worldview. Ha! But I'd already hit the reply botton before I calmed down and felt I should've been a lil genial and gentle towards justcool.

aletheia:
Seedtime is not about money.

Seedtime is not only about money - meaning that it includes the manner of our handling money (whether in making or spending or giving it for whatever cause).

I believe you are referring to the popular misquote of Genesis 8:22 and other scriptures that are taken out of context and twisted to justify the extortion that goes on in some franchises that call themselves churches.

Minus the extortion, please tell us what Genesis 8:22 could be applicable to.

Case in point is your quote of Gal 6:7, how about the following verse

Gal 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

The whole section extends to verses 9 & 10 -

⁹And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. ¹⁰As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith

. . and that most definitely includes the giving of our material blessings to others.

Examining those verses show it to be an exhortation to do good to everyone (of which giving is but a component).

How do you come to "do good" to anyone by including "giving" if you already ruled at 'money' at the beginning?

justcool:
@modupe01

Thanks for your explanations but I don't agree with it. There are no exceptions to the rules of God. God does not change His rules to show mercy to people;

First off, you'e forcing your ideas in here by not being consistent with the texts which modupe01 quoted. You asked a question based on the Bible - and if you want to answer based on the Bible, stay with the Bible. Otherwise, your comments actually sound like you are the one who wants to set bounds for God in the Bible and then dictate to Him what He should do and what He ought not to do. The Biblical answer to such an attitude is Isaiah 40:13 - "Has anyone told the LORD what He must do or given Him advice?" (CEV).

True, many people have come to this idea that God does not 'change' His rules to show mercy to people - but I verily doubt whether those making such statements actually know what the 'rules'  or 'mercy' of God are. Here is what the Bible teaches:

[list](a) the Bible teaches that God has MANIFOLD mercies:
'Yet thou in thy manifold mercies forsookest them not in the wilderness' ~ Neh. 9:19

(b) the Bible teaches that God has MANIFOLD wisdom:
'To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God' ~ Ephesians 3:10

(c) the Bible teaches that the ways of God are MANIFOLD:
'O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches. ' ~ Psalm 104:24[/list]

There are others; but these three examples of God's manifold mercies, manifold wisdom and manifold ways show us that God is not an automaton that could be boxed by man's dictates about what He could do and what He could not do! And if God in His manifold wisdom, mercies and ways shows His love in various manners to people, who are we to dictate HOW He should do so, of WHAT exactly He ought to or not to do?!?

His mercy lies in His rules.

How did you come to that conclusion?

His rules issue out of Love and Justice which are His mercy.

How did you arrive at that?

Mercy is contained in His rules(laws), which need not be changed to show mercy.

How did you come to that conclusion?

It were better that you say nothing at all where you don't know, than to make assertions that can't be sustained when closely examined.

Changing rules for some people is nothing but partiality. God is impartial.

It is not a matter of 'changing rules' - God is NOT an automaton. If your god is such an automaton that has nothing else to do than what you dictate to him, viaro has no qualms about that I would have zipped it and said nothing, for that would be your god. Yet, if you want to teach others that your god is partial, please be our guest and do so without trying to insinuate the same idea into the worldviews that you don't subscribe to.

God has not led every generation in the same manner, law or rule. That much is clear from the Bible itself: for the Jews were given the Mosaic Law that pertains to Judaism - a very different thing from the belief systems of the Grail Message. If that were not true, why are you not practising Judaism to buttress your claim that God does not 'change' any rule when He leads His people? "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation. . ." (Psa. 147:19-20).

There are also circumstances where His Law was violated - such as when the Mosaic law in Judaism required that adulterers and adultresses be put to death where caught within Israel (Lev. 20:10). But when a woman was caught in the act in John 8, rather than put her to death, Jesus showed mercy without changing the Mosaic Law (). His word to the accusers was simple: 'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her' (verse 7) - and if we carefully think of the weight of that statement, we would find that THEY ALL DESERVED TO BE STONED on the same basis of the legalism they applied to the Law, for none of them was without sin ("there is no man that sinneth not," - 1 Kings 8:46)! But rather than that, Jesus showed them mercy, because it is written: "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings" (Hos. 6:6).

Such are the manifold ways and mercies and wisdom of God - not that He applies His love to us whimsically, but that He is not tied down to any law, and because he is transcendent, He knows just how to show HIS OWN LOVE to those who stand in need of it.

It is not my intention to force, coerce, or argue with you to accept my perception.

You seem to have done that already by setting limitations on God - as if to tell us what you can dictate Him to do or not to do. I don't see any other ways you can justify that excuse on strong statements like:
  ~ "There are no exceptions to the rules of God"
  ~ "God does not change His rules to show mercy to people"
. .  and even going so far as to tie everything up to the idea of partiality.

The one thing that amazes me is that when people try to dictate to others what they should believe, then make subscripts about not trying top force this and that. A nice discussion would do, rather than setting bounds about what God does or does not do.

@justcool, thanks for your reply.

justcool:
You said nothing about the link that I gave to Kreyola.

I was trying to come to that (my slow replies are because I'm trying to multitask here - posting and attending to other things online).

You don't find it authentic?

No, I don't.

Please what sources do you consider authentic.

Sources that are not the personal interpretations of misinformed chaps on the web - these misinformed chaps have made and continue to make all sorts of claims that have no scholarly undergirdings to them. It will not be sufficient for anyone to try to argue assertively on articles which are making "suggestions" and "probable" statements with no substanec to them.

I don't know your regards on the authenticity of wikipedia but let me quote it for you:

I quote Wikipedia with caution - which means that not everything you find on Wikipedia is scholarly or factual. But thanks for quoting that article anyways - I'd seen it while researching the subject of reincarnation, but over and against all this is that several of you from the Grail Message group have plainly said that reincarnation is NOT taught in the Bible. Yet, I shall oblige you and show some pointers on the historical antecedence of reincarnation both in Judaism and Christianity.

But as regards the highlighted parts of your interest in that Wikipedia excerpt about the so-called 'evidence' for 'earliest Christian sects' to have believed in reincarnation, let me make some points clear to you: that is all hogwash - and this is how:

There seems to be evidence however that some of the earliest Christian sects such as the Sethians and followers of the Gnostic Church of Valentinus believed in reincarnation, and they were persecuted by the Romans for this.[27]

The footnote [27] reads: 'Much of this is documented in R.E. Slater's book Paradise Reconsidered. But was Slater actually documenting historic Christianity? Did you try to carefully check what you were quoting? For the benefit of doubt, please search out Slater's book and read through. A small sketch of what it was about is given at Brill's publisher's website:

[list][img]http://www.brill.nl/images/product/31152.jpg[/img][/list][list]This book offers a new understanding of Sethianism and the origins of Gnosticism by examining the mythology in and social reality behind a group of texts to which certain leaders of the early church occasionally attached the label ‘Ophite.’ In the unique Ophite mythology, which rewrites the Genesis paradise story and is attested, for example, in Irenaeus’ Adversus haereses 1.30, The Apocryphon of John and On the Origin of the World, the snake’s advice to eat of the tree of knowledge is considered positive, the creator and his angels are turned into demonic beasts and the true Godhead is presented as an androgynous heavenly projection of Adam and Eve. It is argued that Hans-Martin Schenke’s influential model of the ‘Sethian system’ only reveals part of a larger whole to which the Ophite material belongs as an important and organic component. [/list]

Of course, one would doubt whether Slater was articulating historical Christianity - for as we see above, he was more concerned about Gnostic sects of pre-Christian era - the Sethians or Sethianism. These are said to be "a group of ancient Gnostics who date their existence to before Christianity" (Wikipedia).

Of what Sethianism is about, you could see the online work of John D. Turner (Professor of Religious Studies and Professor of Classics and History at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln). Laying out carefully the chronological antecedents of the Sethians (from before 100CE to 300CE), you will not even find strong refernece or evidence to the idea that Sethianism was 'Christianity' - and again, you won't find strong reference to "reincarnation" there either.

Secondly, as regards the question of the Ophite, could I point you to this glossary entry on the web:

[list]

Ophites
One of the earliest Gnostic sects, flourishing in Egypt in the 2nd century and using as their sacred symbol the serpent (ophis) as symbolizing the Christos immanent in man.

[list]"While holding some of the principles of Valentinus [it] had its own occult rites and symbology. A living serpent, representing the Christos-principle (i.e, the divine reincarnating Monad, not Jesus the man), was displayed in their mysteries and reverenced as a symbol of wisdom, Sophia, the type of the all-good and all-wise. [size=14pt]The Gnostics were not a Christian sect[/size], in the common acceptation of this term, as the Christos of pre-Christian thought and the Gnosis was not the 'god-man' Christ, but the divine Ego, made one with Buddhi. Their Christos was the 'Eternal Initiate,' the Pilgrim, typified by hundreds of Ophidian symbols for several thousands of years before the 'Christian' era, so-called" (TG 241).[/list]

[/list]

The point in all this is that there is no scholarly work that you can use to argue the claim that early Christians believed in and taught 'reincarnation'. The source you quoted just doesn't square for this - and I could also show the hollowness of the remaining part of your excerpt, other than that Krayola has soundly done that.

If you are close to any(a well educated catholic priest), you might want request a dialog. If you were in California, I would have intited you to dialog with a catholic priest friend of mine. You d be supprised how knowledgeable these priests are.

Catholic scholarship is one that I highly respect - but that does not mean that any Catholic priest could twist history to suit his personal persuasion about reincarnation.

But you have the right to disagree with me. I still respect you and your views.

No worries - there are reasons why I would disagree with you, because more than anything else, the claims you made are not factual - and that is what we have shown.

Krayola:
I know of the gnostics and their beliefs. They are not based entirely on the bible, and have all sorts of non-hebrew influences. It was like a cocktail of various religious worldviews (kinda like the Grail Message). I think they even claimed the God of the Old Testament was evil. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the gnostics. It was mainly about the Arian controversy which suggested that since the father begat the son, the son was finite and not the same as the father (or sumn like that).

Krayo my man. .  you have done it again. That was where I was going in my response to justcool, but you have mastered it so well that my response would have looked like an uneducated article.

seeklove:
@Viaro
Sorry, I dont want to fight with you. The links that I provided are for you to weigh the pros and cons, not for you to believe everything. I read those articles well before posting them. I considered them well balanced, and not one sidded.

I'm not fightimng with anyone on this thread - and I have shown the emptiness of that article. There's no historical antecedent there that could be called 'scholarly' as long as you and I know that Shirley MacLaine was trying to hoodwink us with the tales of her channelling.

There is no need to insult. I had a conversation with justcool about my engagaments with mavenbox yesterday on another thread, where I lost control. I dont want to make another mistake by getting into a fight.

Good - I shall hold my cool, as long as posters behave on this thread. There was no need to come up here and treat us like we are uneducated dolts - by this quote of yours:

seeklove:
Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

@seeklove,

Just so people don't suppose that viaro ignored or snubbed your attempts to provide links for justcool's claims, let me address just one as an example of why your desperations should not be such a bother here.

seeklove:
Here are more links:

The "real truth" John explains is reincarnation. When MacLaine asks, "Why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?" He answers, "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea" (pp. 234-235).

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html

Nice try, bro. .  nice try! Let me guess: your scholarship begins and ends with Shirley MacLlaine, no??

While we asked for scholarly articles showing the true historical antecedents of any semblance of reincarnation at the Nicean Council, you desperately ran to Shirley MacLaine's medium and channelling that are not even historical? What is wrong with you felas?

Let me quote that article so we see that Shirley MacLaine was NOT articulating any Christian history of any Nicean Council:
(a)

Christianity Redefined

But one undisputable factor is the intentional and dishonest attempts to "redefine" historic Christianity and to blur the distinctions between the New Age and Christian beliefs.

Leaders and promoters of the New Age Movement, like most cults, must deal in some way with the basis of Christian authority and doctrine, the Bible. Typically, antagonists to Christianity will either attack the validity of the Bible or else twist the Scripture to make it accommodate the cults' beliefs. Those in the New Age attempt to do both, depending on which position would best promote their agenda.

(b)

Reincarnation Confusion

An example of this canard would be the way New Age teachers deal with the hinge doctrine of reincarnation in relation to Christianity. In Shirley MacLaine's book, Out on a Limb, her medium/teacher Kevin Ryerson supposedly channels an entity named "John." [For more on the book See The Lost Years of Jesus]

[list]Shirley asks John, "Isn't the Bible supposed to be the Word of God?" He answers, "Yes, in the main it is. Although much of what exists in your Bible today has been reinterpreted."

"Reinterpreted by whom?"

"By various persons through time and through various languages. Ultimately by the church. It was to the advantage of the church to protect the people from the 'real truth'" (p. 204).

The "real truth" John explains is reincarnation. When MacLaine asks, "Why aren't these teachings recorded in the Bible?" He answers, "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during the Ecumenical Council in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D., called the Council of Nicea" (pp. 234-235).[/list]

Several observations should be made here concerning these pronouncements.

First, "John" claims that the Bible cannot be trusted because of "reinterpretations." He seems to confuse interpretation with translation. In fact, there are many manuscripts and quotes from church fathers and other church publications dating well before 553 A.D. The actual corpus of the Old and New Testament Scripture was settled and circulated also well before this time.

The above excerpts are from the very same link YOU provided:
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/reincarnation_and_the_bible.html .

It shows your "education" at the end of the day - you desperately run to a spiritist medium who relied on the confusions of her channelling/medium teacher: they whipped up some smoke screen, made dubious non-historical claims - and you want us to swallow that garboil?

Thank you, but no - true education does not mean we should keel over to such gullible fancies. Just try again . .  even try harder.

cocoman4u:
Yes reincarnation was one of the issues discussed at the council of Nicea but it was not the major issue. It was quickly voted out. The majore issues were Trinity, and the nature of Christ.

Go to a historian and find out.

Please kindly provide any scholarly document showing the subjects of that Council. It would not do to just claim it here and ask people to go to 'a historian' to find out anything - you quote us what your own historian has said, and we shall examine the whole thing. Thank you.

_______________________

seeklove:
Justcool why doyou waste your time providing link for them. Any truly educated person knows that reincarnation was one of the issues discussed in the council of nicea.

Any truly educated person knows the difference between just claiming something and providing scholarly publications that do not smark of conspiracy theories for what they claim. Do you care to show us this? If not, just leave justcool to provide us with anything scholarly.

Even a chatholic prist has told me that in the past.

Yes, anyone can tell you anything - we want authentic sources.

Preexsistance and reincarnation were one of the major things discused in the council of nicea.

Please show us - go beyond claiming and repeating yourself - just show us. Period.