noetic16:

 they are all over nairaland.

How come i have never seen ANY? . . , Pls list just one or two so that I can be aware of your prophecies. . . .Prophet noetic. . . .

He who sends another to commit an act is guilty of perpetrating that act. This holds true even in law.

Em, You are confusing yourself. In Law, killing someone, and sending an assassin to do it are not the same. Whilst in both cases, the instigator may, or may not be guilty of murder, the offences, and penal/criminal codes that describe them, are quite different - and for good reason.
Hiring an assassin to kill someone is not 1st Degree Murder, it is called Proxy Murder or Murder by Proxy, and Joint Enterprise in English Law.

Wikipedia - "The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation (and within the United States, by state). However, all jurisdictions recognize the criminal nature of the actions taken by the instigator, and they may be charged under any of a variety of statutes, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder."

William Blackstone, an authority on English Law states - "AN accessory is he who is not the chief actor in the offense, nor present at its performance, but is someway concerned therein, either before or after the fact committed."  He goes on to define an accessory-before-the-fact in these words - " him to be one, who being absent at the time of the crime committed, does yet procure, counsel, or command another to commit a crime. Herein absence is necessary to make him an accessory."


Now to the other issue. You say -

Similarly it remains indisputably true that the lying spirit referred to in the OP was sought, authourised and dispatched by Yahweh  and as such the actions of that spirit in telling lies were the actions of Yahweh carried out through an agent. This is irrefutable

Here is what you said before - Yahweh by his own admission has stated that he tells lies". This is a patently false statement.  Whilst it is true He sent the lying spirit, there is nowhere He admits to telling lies. The bolded text is intended to highlight your deductive argument, some of which has been already dealt with above on the issue of Law.

A deductive, or logical fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument may have a true premise, but still have a false conclusion. Example -    1. All birds  have beaks.   2. Octopuses have beaks.   3. Therefore an octopus is a bird.

No one is saying Yaweh is not[i] responsible[/i] for the actions of the lying spirit. But, what you are saying is that Yaweh is a liar because he sent the lying spirit. If you cannot see the difference, you must be blinded by your illogical hatred.
Responsibility for an action, is not the same as Perpetrating the action - even in law, as already shown earlier in the post. Its not rocket science, so should not be so difficult for you to to grasp.

mazaje:

How come i have never seen ANY? . . , Pls list just one or two so that I can be aware of your prophecies. . . .Prophet noetic. . . .

search for an END-TIME PROPHETIC thread Jesoul started, . . . .there u will find some of prophet noetic's prophecies.

noetic16:

search for an END-TIME PROPHETIC thread Jesoul started, . . . .there u will find some of prophet noetic's prophecies.

Just give me the link pls, Mr prophet. . . . . .

mazaje:

Just give me the link pls, Mr prophet. . . . . .

just search , .I cant lay my hands on the link . . . .but the thread should be titled something . . . . .End-Time - Biblical -Prophecies.

why are u so bothered, disbeliever mazaje?

noetic16:

just search , .I cant lay my hands on the link . . . .but the thread should be titled something . . . . .End-Time - Biblical -Prophecies.

why are u so bothered, disbeliever mazaje?

I am not bothered, Just wanted to read them. . . .the search engine is a mess right now. . . .

^^^

I have made over 4 attempts myself . . . . .try later.

Quote from Romeo4real -

Em, You are confusing yourself. In Law, killing someone, and sending an assassin to do it are not the same. Whilst in both cases, the instigator may, or may not be guilty of murder, the offences, and penal/criminal codes that describe them, are quite different - and for good reason.
Hiring an assassin to kill someone is not 1st Degree Murder, it is called Proxy Murder or Murder by Proxy, and Joint Enterprise in English Law.

Sir, I am a lawyer by training and so sorry, will not be so easily mis-guided by your rhetoric.

I am surprised that you did not note within the quote below the bolded words -

Quote
The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation (and within the United States, by state). However, all jurisdictions recognize the criminal nature of the actions taken by the instigator, and they may be charged under any of a variety of statutes, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder.
- Wiki

- Which underline the facts that -

1. At all events the instigation is a crime (Thus by analogy Yahweh instigating a lie is still committing a wrong act – thus the point still stands against your contention)

2. The Instigation can be tried as MURDER - just as I earlier stated. Please see the highlighted and bolded in the last line of your wiki quote above.

This is underscored by Section 308 of the Criminal Code Act, which expressly states and I quote –

[308.]. . .Any person who causes the death of another person, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever is deemed to have killed that other person.

Thus it is clear that DIRECT action or INDIRECT action “by any means whatever” are deemed to amount to an act of killing.

Section 316 goes ahead to define Murder. I quote -

[316] Definition of Murder.
A person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances –
    [1] if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person. . .
- is guilty of murder.

Kindly note the operative word there – CAUSE the death. Thus I may deduce that a person who contracts another person to murder has himself caused the death of the murdered person – especially because Section 308 states clearly that the action of killing may be direct or indirect.

I therefore stand by my statement that he who procures or commands another to do an act is himself guilty of that very act – exactly because that person is acting as an agent for him.

If we were to reduce this to commercial law, the Principles of Agency also bear this out in terms of the relationship between an Agent and a Principal.

So, my friend, there is no escape for Yahweh – you statement that there is a difference between “sending lying spirits” and “lying” is illogical and eminently mis-footed.

I am surprised you would attempt such a lame defence as to state that he did not do it himself but merely sent others to do it.

What makes him different from a politician or Mob Leader then? Is this all the defence you can muster for Yaweh’s lies? ? ?

Mazaje here is the link Noetic is talking about

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411119.0.html

@Deep Sight: Oh please spare me. What is there to appreciate? You are always quick to point the finger but when you are in error you cover your tracks, destroying the evidence arrogantly rather than apologizing. This is not the first time and in cases like this The damage is done already so editing your post after the victim reads it is just a dirty way of trying to be smart, making others think you were polite. Nothing in that deserves honourable recognition. You should take responsibility for your actions.

By the way, I hope you have seen what I was requiring of Pastor AIO. Its not that I did not I did not understand him, like you insinuated. Rather, i returned expecting him to continue on the evolution claims since he said he would do so had he the time. And the OP also indicated interest. The post he made rather pales by far in respect of the interesting post I thought he made.

Ok, I apologize.

It is better to retract something said in the heat of the moment than to leave it as said.

I am Sorry if i offended you.

@Deep Sight -

Sir, I am a lawyer by training and so sorry, will not be so easily misguided by your rhetoric.

The above statement is as irrelevant as it is inconsequential to the argument. You should have known that sending an assassin to kill someone is NOT necessarily the same in Law as killing them yourself; and it is not 1st Degree Murder as you claimed. The Law is clear on that. That is why there are different penal codes for them. Y

all jurisdictions recognize the criminal nature of the actions taken by the instigator, and they may be charged under any of a variety of statutes, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder.

Oh Purrleeeze! I did notice what I posted. But dont move the goalposts. The argument was not about the criminal nature of the act. It was  about whether it was the SAME thing as killing the person yourself- even in Law – remember what you said?

The Instigation[sic] can be tried as MURDER - just as I earlier stated. Please see the highlighted and bolded in the last line of your wiki quote above.

Em, what you should have highlighted in that text was the word CAN. You said  IT was 1st Degree Murder. That is a definite statement, and quite different from what you assert. Dont you think? But then again, you should have known that – as you were trained as a Lawyer.

This is underscored by Section 308 of the Criminal Code Act, which expressly states and I quote – [308.]. . .Any person who causes the death of another person, directly or indirectly, by any means whatever is deemed to have killed that other person.

What criminal code is this? And from what country?  What year, And what state, if from the US?  My excerpts shows that the law varies from country to country, and also within states in the US. It is therefore disingenuous for you to claim that[b] “He who sends another to commit an act is guilty of perpetrating that act. This holds true even in law. “[/b]  Please post the link to this Criminal Code Act, or simply tell me what Country, Year and State it is from!

Thus it is clear that DIRECT action or INDIRECT action “by any means whatever” are deemed to amount to an act of killing.

Moving the goalpost again. just by repeating something ad nauseam, doe not make it true. We are not arguing about what is tantamount to a “killing”, and   are not arguing about the culpability of the parties involved. What we are arguing about is you saying -  Sending a lying Spirit,  is the same as lying yourself, thereby this makes you a liar. I have already shown that this is a logical fallacy, and patently false statement

I therefore stand by my statement that he who procures or commands another to do an act is himself guilty of that very act – exactly because that person is acting as an agent for him.

Circulus in demonstrando - A circular argument. Well, the Law in general, disagrees with you. The above may be true in your State, or Country, but not necessarily everywhere, so don’t make overarching statements to that effect.  You highlighted it yourself – The law say that the person may be charged with a VARIETY of offences, and it lists them - murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder.

I am surprised you would attempt such a lame defence as to state that he did not do it himself but merely sent others to do it.

Em, you are very much mistaken. This is not a defence in the slightest. It is a rebuttal of your attempts to obfuscate the issue and post incorrect accusations. Say what you have to say, argue your point. No need to add or take away from it.

^^^ Your come-back is bizzarre.

You plainly admit that a principal who sends an agent to commit murder can be tried for murder - you quoted this from wiki -

The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation (and within the United States, by state). However, all jurisdictions recognize the criminal nature of the actions taken by the instigator, and they may be charged under any of a variety of statutes, including murder,

It states - The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation

Accordingly we are able to deduce that this is the case in some countries and not the case in other countries.

I therefore stand to be corrected when I state that when you commission a hired assassin, you thereby commit murder YOURSELF.

I am a Nigerian living in Nigeria and I see no reason to quote a foreign criminal code. The Criminal Code I quoted is the Nigerian Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which happens to derive from the Criminal Law of England.

Under that Act it is VERY CLEAR –

- Section 308 states that killing may be direct or indirect

- Section 316 defines murder as the killing of a person when the offender intended to cause his death.

It thus follows that a person who commissions a hired assassin is indeed guilty of straight-up first degree murder.

This is the position of law and I stand to be corrected on that.

Now, Nigerian Law aside, the fact remains that in EVERY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD, a person who procures another person to commit an offence (murder inclusive) has himself thereby committed an offence. Thus whether you call it first degree or tenth degree is of no consequence in the context of this debate – for the very reason that the issue is whether Yahweh has done something wrong, and not the degree of the wrong

1. We must contextualize this discussion – do not try to distract attention from Yahweh’s lies by arguing about law out of context – the context in which the legal issues came up was my assertion that if a person commissions an agent to do something, it has the same effect as though he has done it himself – he is guilty of committing that very act.

2. Rationally this is not something that you can deny – I may send my PA to deliver a letter – this does not mean that I am not the one who has sent the letter! Such a contention is ENTIRELY ABSURD as it seeks to absolve a Principal from the actions of his agent – when the Principal specifically instructed his agent to carry out those acts.


3. In the Instant case Yahweh specifically instructed the lying spirit to proceed forth with the lies. It is thus comical that you will attempt to absolve Yahweh from responsibility. Absolutely comical.

InesQor:

By the way, I hope you have seen what I was requiring of Pastor AIO. Its not that I did not I did not understand him, like you insinuated. Rather, i returned expecting him to continue on the evolution claims since he said he would do so had he the time. And the OP also indicated interest. The post he made rather pales by far in respect of the interesting post I thought he made.

U are asking for too much, if u expect "pastor" AIO to honour his words or come up with an insightful "evolution" of Yahweh as promised, , .he normally absconds when placed on the searchlight.
I eagerly await the thread.

@Deep Sight - I have no wish to engage in unprogressing and unproductive circular arguments. The error is your post has been made clear, yet you refuse to accept it. That is your prerogative.

You plainly admit that a principal who sends an agent to commit murder can be tried for murder - you quoted this from wiki –

According to the excerpt I posted, Yes, but it also says they can also be tried for other things -  conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder. You said, and I paraphrase you – "They can ONLY [/b]be tried for murder"– "[b]1st Degree Murder" to be exact. I do hope you see the difference. If not, your name should be changed to "Shallow Sight" or Myopic Sight", as you obviously cannot see anything deeply.

It states - The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation. Accordingly we are able to deduce that this is the case in some countries and not the case in other countries.
I therefore stand to be corrected when I state that when you commission a hired assassin, you thereby commit murder YOURSELF.

You have already agreed that this is not the case in all countries. So why make an overarching statement that purports it to be so?

I am a Nigerian living in Nigeria and I see no reason to quote a foreign criminal code. The Criminal Code I quoted is the Nigerian Criminal Code Act, Cap C38, Laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which happens to derive from the Criminal Law of England.

When quoting, it is important to be clear about your source – for the benefit of your audience.
I do not dispute what the Act says in Nigerian Law. I disputed what you said as a blanket statement. NL may be based in Nigeria(not even sure that's correct. It depends on where the hosting servers are), but its an international forum. This was your original quote - He who sends another to commit an act is guilty of perpetrating that act. This holds true even in law. It may have been pertinent for you to mention the caveat that you were talking specifically about Nigerian Law.

Now, Nigerian Law aside, the fact remains that in EVERY COUNTRY OF THE WORLD, a person who procures another person to commit an offence (murder inclusive) has himself thereby committed an offence.

Well, no one disagrees with that, but that wasn't the premise of your initial argument. Your initial assertion was that it is 1st Degree Murder.  An offence may be murder,or it may not be. Surely, you, the lawyer knows that? Be specific and clear in your assertions when debating.

Thus whether you call it first degree or tenth degree is of no consequence in the context of this debate –

It actually is, and I can’t believe you just said that. In the context of any debate, any accusation,or assertion should be clear, precise and specific - and should be backed up with proof.  Remember - You brought up the murder analogy. So, the question to you is - Why bring up an analogy, to use in a debate, that by your own admission, clarification of that analogy is irrelevant? That makes no sense.

for the very reason that the issue is whether Yahweh has done something wrong, and not the degree of the wrong

Whether He has done something wrong or not is for you to conjecture - I certainly don’t subscribe to that. The issue is – Is he responsible for the lying spirit? –Yes. Is he a liar?- No. What part of this don’t you understand? Please read up logical fallacies again. It may help overcome this hurdle.

my assertion that if a person commissions an agent to do something, it has the same effect as though he has done it himself – he is guilty of committing that very act.

Don't you get tired of your forever shifting stance on this issue? Since when did “it has the same effect as though he has done it himself” [/b]translate into “[b]he did it himself” ?

Rationally this is not something that you can deny – I may send my PA to deliver a letter – this does not mean that I am not the one who has sent the letter!

Deep Sight, you are twisted up in legalistic dogma. I mean, read your statement yourself – Yes, it means you sent the letter; but through your PA; subsequently, your PA delivered the letter, and not you! By your logic, if your PA, whom you sent to deliver the letter, is now a messenger by virtue of the act, this means that you are also a messenger? Can you see how it makes no sense? Aha!

Such a contention is ENTIRELY ABSURD as it seeks to absolve a Principal from the actions of his agent – when the Principal specifically instructed his agent to carry out those acts.

Nothing absurd here, and there is no absolvement of responsibility. No one has said God was not responsible for sending the lying spirit. Please see my earlier quote on this thread. Argumentun ad nauseum.

In the Instant case Yahweh specifically instructed the lying spirit to proceed forth with the lies. It is thus comical that you will attempt to absolve Yahweh from responsibility

Again, see above. As far as I know, I haven’t contended nor disagreed with this statement, neither have I tried to remove responsibility. In fact, I have admitted Yahweh’s responsibility for the lying spirit, so don't know what your point is. This is what I said (quote) - No one is saying Yahweh is not responsible for the actions of the lying spirit - Are you reading the posts?

@Romeo4real:

What you ought do is go to DeepSight's profile and check his previous posts. If you can find a single one that shows objectivity when Christianity is being discussed, I'll eat snake meat! This is some form of imagined vendetta and he doesn't realise he's actually coming across as without depth and insincere when he argues thus. You would be better served arguing with Mazaje who for all his seeming aversion to christianity, comes across as sincere and will actually back down or apologize if you show maturity and sense. DeepSight will never do so and is ready to throw the most inane "amazing" arguments you'll hear just to "win". Who he's winning, I wonder!

Read his reply to my post (this) - He'll tell us how he's been searching since 10 years old for truth and has gallivanted through the eastern religions. Though he's left them, he holds on to them in attitude which makes you wonder. For someone in High school some 16 years back, one would assume early thirties. A 20+ year search is not likely to have failed if it was a sincere search. NL chronicles show rather a desire to package God, squeeze Him into a box DS made and peek inside once in a while to see if He's behaving. And Yahweh doesn't behave according to the mold of impersonal mysticism. Rather he has a personality which DS doesn't like.

Save your time and breath.

Who's this "Romeo4real"? I'm liking him!

There are certain points that need to be clarified.

1) Were the prophets, prophets or Baal or prophets of Yahweh.  

2)Why did Jehoshaphat request for prophets of Yahweh?

3)  Why, if they were prophets of Baal, did they speak in the name of Yahweh.  ie Yahweh says . . .  yahweh will deliver them into your hand . . . . etc etc.

4)  If they were not prophets of Yahweh then how did they manage to invoke Yahweh, or his spirits.  

5)What exactly did being a prophet entail in those days?  How did one prophecy?  Why were there colleges of prophets, or guilds of prophets?  What was their relationship to the priesthood?  Was there any conflict?

If nothing else is taken from this thread at least some measure of caution should be taken.  It is not everyone that calls on jehovah, shouting jehovah this and jehovah that is going to come out with a true prophecy.  Every year in churches all over the world pastors receive 'a word' from the lord and promise a wonderful year to their customers.  Yet how many of these yearly prophecies actaully come to pass.  Is it possible that these pastors have been afflicted by a lying spirit.

I'll return to answer the other issues later.

Romeo4real:

[size=16pt]According to the excerpt I posted, Yes, [/size] but it also says they can also be tried for other things - 

We can end the argument here as this statement is a wholesale concession. You have absolutely acceded (as necessary by common sense and reason) that one who sends a hired assassin can be tried himself for murder. Thanks for seeing reason.

Case closed.

conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder. You said, and I paraphrase you – "They can ONLY [/b]be tried for murder"– "[b]1st Degree Murder" to be exact.

Learn to paraphrase accurately. I never stated that that would be the ONLY thing they could be tried for. This is an outright lie on your part which is disgraceful for a Christian. Criminal charges often come with varied counts. I stated that it would amount to first degree murder and I have proven that quoting copiously from the Criminal Code Act.

You, by contrast, produced a wiki quote which only affirmed what I said – namely that a person who commits murder by proxy can be tried for murder himself.

The bout is over son.

It may have been pertinent for you to mention the caveat that you were talking specifically about Nigerian Law.

Let me throw in a sweetener for you: I positively assert that it holds true within the vast majority of jurisdictions globally.

I mean, read your statement yourself – Yes, it means you sent the letter; but through your PA; subsequently, your PA delivered the letter, and not you! By your logic, if your PA, whom you sent to deliver the letter, is now a messenger by virtue of the act, this means that you are also a messenger? Can you see how it makes no sense? Aha!

Whose letter is it? The PA’s Letter? Or Mine ? ? ? ? Aha.

Argumentun ad nauseum.

Ad nauseum, ad infinitum. . .

nuclearboy:

This is some form of imagined vendetta and he doesn't realise he's actually coming across as without depth and insincere when he argues thus.

Spare me. I have no need to impress anybody with any "depth" or "sincerity."

No one will judge me when i'm done save God.

If I were interested in the opinions others have of me, I would not so publicly advertsie my stance on even the most carnal matters - which you are well aware of.

DeepSight will never do so and is ready to throw the most inane "amazing" arguments you'll hear just to "win".

You really are alarmingly biased. When the members of your gang write epistles about Paradise in Hades and God in a physical body in Heaven, you ARE NEVER TO BE HEARD making a single sound. Simply because those folks are christian you will tolerate even the most absurd contentions on their part. But Deep Sight dares whimper that all men of good will are in the right place with God and oooooo . . . .

A 20+ year search is not likely to have failed if it was a sincere search.

Now you must be omniscient to be so bold as to determine the success or failure of each man's inner and personal search for truth.

@Pastor AIO:

Pastor AIO:

I'll return to answer the other issues later.

I still await your contribution as earlier stated.

---

There are many things in the Old Testament that may not be understood except they are properly unlocked, with the explanation or definition of an obscure word in the Hebrew text. The Jewish Targum does this for Hebrews, and even for non-Hebrews like myself.

As to your post above, let me share some things from the Jewish Targum to illuminate the scriptures in the OP.

Verse 9. The king of Israel and Jehoshaphat]
"Ahab consulted false prophets; but Jehoshaphat sought instruction from the presence of the Lord, and prayed at the entering in of Samaria; and before these all the false prophets prophesied lies." -Targum.

Verse 20. Then there came out a spirit]
The Jewish Targum gives a strange gloss here:
"Then the spirit of Naboth of Jezreel came out from the abode of the righteous, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will deceive him. And the Lord said, By what means? To which he answered, I will be a spirit of false prophecy in the mouth of his prophets. And the Lord said, Thou mayest then. But although the power of deceiving them is given unto thee, nevertheless it will not be lawful for thee to sit among the righteous; for whosoever shall speak falsely cannot have a mansion among the righteous.

Therefore go forth from me, and do as thou hast said." - Targum.

In the Bible, God is repeatedly represented as doing what, in the course of his providence, he only permits to be done. The lying spirit was doing its own work to ensure things worked out as planned.

A rather weak analogy that comes to mind right now is that of a baker who wants to make a DELICIOUS cake, but he ends up adding up SWEET, SOUR and BITTER ingredients in the right proportions and doing what he knows best with them.

Thus, it will be a rather unfortunate scenario for a child who manages to dip his finger in some sour or bitter ingredients and goes around telling everyone that the Baker is not the confectioner that people claim he is, but rather he makes sour or bitter cakes.

We can end the argument here as this statement is a wholesale concession. You have absolutely acceded (as necessary by common sense and reason) that one who sends a hired assassin CAN [/b]be tried himself for murder. Thanks for seeing reason. case closed

You are a joker! And quite a disingenuous one for attempting to "close" the case when your fraudulent statements are being comprehensively dismantled. The above is what [b]I quoted, and agree with, but NOT what you said. Do note that the operative word is[b] CAN[/b] - which means there are other options. Here is what YOU originally posted.  I do hope it jogs you memory-

He who sends another to commit an act is guilty of perpetrating that act. This holds true even in law.
In the same way if i hired an assassin to murder you, I would be convicted of[b] first degree murder[/b].

This is a clear and absolute statement, and i see no "CAN" in the above statement. You are undermining your own argument (but then, there is no other option)

Now, this is the Wiki quote i posted, that you have been quick to refer to -

"The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation (and within the United States, by state). However, all jurisdictions recognize the criminal nature of the actions taken by the instigator, and they may be charged under any of a variety of statutes, including murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and/or accessory to murder."- Hardly absolute is it. It even gives OTHER options apart from Murder. I am sure you know the meaning of - may, or may not?

Learn to paraphrase accurately. I never stated that that would be the ONLY thing they could be tried for.

I have just shown you (above) that is exactly what you did. I will do it again here. No paraphrasing this time -

"In the same way if i hired an assassin to murder you, I would be convicted of first degree murder." - Do disagree you made this statement? 1st Degree Murder is the only charge and conviction you put here. If you agree there was others possible offences, why didnt you mention them here also?

Let me throw in a sweetener for you: I positively assert that it holds true within the vast majority of jurisdictions globally.

Err, Deep Sight, you are incorrect, again! Here is that your favorite Wiki quote i posted. Again! -

The person instigating a proxy murder may or may not be legally guilty of the crime of murder; this legal distinction varies by nation (and within the United States, by state).

As you can see, you cannot "positively assert" that the act of procuring an assassin to murder someone, would automatically lead to a charge of murder  in the "vast majority" of jurisdictions for that person.

Whose letter is it? The PA’s Letter? Or Mine ? ? ? ? Aha.

I am now convinced that you are irrevocably silly – And this is no insult, it is simply an observation.  The argument is not about whose letter it is; but if the sender,and the messenger are guilty of the the same offence.(But I'm sure you have forgotten that). Again, Here are some of what you said –

1. "He who sends another to commit an act is guilty of perpetrating that act".
2. "What is the difference between sending a lying spirit and lying? ? ? ?"
3. "The same difference between sending a hired assassin and killing someone yourself"
4. "In the same way if i hired an assassin to murder you, I would be convicted of first degree murder"

As I said before, using your logic above, which i have laid out so you can follow easily, - If you send out a letter via your PA, your PA then becomes a messenger. By your logic, you are also a messenger. You should have no problem accepting this statement. Quite clearly, you have not read up on Invalid Deductive Arguments, otherwise we wouldnt be still debating this point.

As a lawyer that you purport to be, you seem quite persistent in perpetuation a clearly illogical and irrational polemic. I have consistently refuted and deconstructed your fallacies with precise deliberations. There is nothing wrong in accepting that you made an emotional statement, that wasn't well thought out - That doesn't change the premise of your original argument. The more you argue on this particular issue, the sillier you look. It is up to you.,

Romeo4real:

You are a joker!

Smile. Life is beautiful.

The above is what I quoted, and agree with, but NOT what you said.

Since it is what you quoted and agree with, you hereby re - affirm that a person who commissions a hired assassin can be tried for murder himself.

I thank you once again for your willingness to concede and see reason with that which is obvious. A toast to your humility and willingness to learn.

I am now convinced that you are irrevocably silly

Smile. Life is beautiful.

The argument is not about whose letter it is; but if the sender, and the messenger are the same.

LAWD HAVE MERCY ! ! !

Now we must get really really stern around here.

Did you actually write this? ? ? ? ?

You dare brandish this outright lie here? ? ? ? ?

What do you mean by saying – “The argument is not about whose letter it is; but if the sender, and the messenger are the same” –

The argument is, always has been, and will continue to be about whose letter it is for Christ’s sake. Exactly because we are trying to uncover whose lie it is. I am sure you are not so befuddled as to fail to see that that is EXACTLY what the discussion has been from the point you entered right up to this very millisecond.

How dare you state that the argument is about “if the sender, and the messenger are the same? ? ? ? ? ?” Are you for real?

Is there any person on this thread that asserted that Yahweh is the same person as the spirit that came up to him? ? ?

Haba, did you not see my several references to a Principal and an Agent? ? ? ?

Did I for ONE SECOND state that the Principal is the Agent? ? ? ?

Did I not repeatedly state that the Principal remains responsible for the acts of his agent: indeed those acts are his own acts so long as he instructed the Agent to act in that regard!

This is comical.

I am sure you can now see how dreadfully you have confused the issues. Frankly I am aghast that you could assert that the issue is “not whose letter it is.”

Wake up son! That is, and always has been the issue.

Unless you are hallucinating NO ONE here EVER argued about God and the messenger being the same entity. Where the hell did you get that from? ? ?

Kindly do some study on the law of Agency and the relationship between Principal and Agent.

I positively assert to you that it is ridiculously absurd to claim as you have that the actions of an Agent who takes command from his Principal are not the actions of the Principal. For what you assert to me is that no General in history has ever fought a war – given that they issue instructions to others regarding the wars. Or that no Head of State has ever taken an action – given that they simply give orders to other people regarding such.

That is a comical statement in the extreme and should not even be heard in a nursery school.

YOUR GOD – The Jewish Pagan Deity that you worship gave AN EXPRESS INSTRUCTION AUTHOURIZING THE DISEMINATION OF FALSEHOOD AND NO AMOUNT OF SPIN ON YOUR PART CAN CHANGE THAT FACT.

Good grief.

Please if you will engage my time, up your game.

All due respect to "pastor" AIO but your "questions that need to be clarified" are clearly nonsensical.

Pastor AIO:

There are certain points that need to be clarified.

The only point that needs to be "clarified" is whether you even read the story or understood it.

Pastor AIO:

1) Were the prophets, prophets or Baal or prophets of Yahweh.  

It is clearly stated in the passage they were not prophets of God, even the blind can read braille. 1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all [size=13pt]these thy prophets[/size], and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Interesting that the Lord here CLEARLY STATES that the prophets in question are NOT His but Ahabs'.

If you cared to read earlier chapters, you find out Ahab's history with the worship of Baal. First he marries Jezebel, daughter of the King of Sidon who is called Ethbaal ("with baal". Next he goes on to forsake the worship of Yahweh, setting up an altar to Baal in Samaria.

1 Kings 16:31 And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him.
32 And he reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria.

1 Kings 18 describes an encounter between Elijah and the Ahab's prophets of Baal.

Pastor AIO:

2)Why did Jehoshaphat request for prophets of Yahweh?

This is a senseless question. What is it meant to imply? Perhaps Jehoshaphat requested for prophets of Yahweh because he (jehoshaphat) was a king who reverenced Yahweh and knew it was foolish to rely on false prophets of baal?

2 Chronicles 17:3 And the LORD was with Jehoshaphat, because he walked in the first ways of his father David, and sought not unto Baalim;
4 But sought to the Lord God of his father, and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel.

Following the battle that took Ahab's life, Jehoshaphat goes a step further in destroying the temples of Baal erected by Ahab. 1 Kings 22:43

Pastor AIO:

3)  Why, if they were prophets of Baal, did they speak in the name of Yahweh.  ie Yahweh says . . .  yahweh will deliver them into your hand . . . . etc etc.

Again a senseless "question" that exposes the ignorance of the person purporting to ask it.

1. "Baal" itself means "master" or "Lord". So when the prophets of Ahab say . . . 1 Kings 22:6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.

It doesnt imply that they were speaking in the name of Yahweh. Infact Jehoshaphat's very next question indicates HE and others around KNEW QUITE WELL that those prophets were not speaking in the name of Yahweh at all . . . 7 And Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of the LORD besides, that we might enquire of him?

Why would Jehoshaphat be requestion for YET ANOTHER prophet of the Lord if the prophets of Ahab were speaking as oracles of Yahweh?

Pastor AIO:

4)  If they were not prophets of Yahweh then[b] how did they manage to invoke Yahweh[/b], or his spirits.  

At no point in 1 Kings 22 are we told that those men ever invoked Yahweh or His spirits. Please read the passage with some honesty. 1 Kings 18 clearly tells us their predecessors could not invoke anything.

Pastor AIO:

5)What exactly did being a prophet entail in those days?  How did one prophecy?  Why were there colleges of prophets, or guilds of prophets?  What was their relationship to the priesthood?  Was there any conflict?

Quite a silly set of ignorant questions . . .

What exactly did being a prophet entail in those days? - A biblical prophet was simply one who served as the spokesperson of God to the people . . . Num 12:6-8, Jer 1:9, Is 51:16.

How did one prophecy? - They heard from God and delivered the message to the people. this question is no different from the first one.

Why were there colleges of prophets, or guilds of prophets? - As helpers to the main prophet of God. Num 11: 16-18, 26-29. In some parts of the bible these men are refered to as "sons/disciples" of the prophet - Samuel, Elijah and Elisha are examples of major prophets who commanded such a "school" of prophets . . . 2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 9:1 . . . among others.

What was their relationship to the priesthood? - Not related. The prophets are the mouthpieces of God. The priest stands in the temple to offer sacrifices on behalf of the people. Only the priest NOT the prophets are allowed into the holy of holies.

Was there any conflict? - None. Why is this relevant to anything?

Pastor AIO:

If nothing else is taken from this thread at least some measure of caution should be taken.  It is not everyone that calls on jehovah, shouting jehovah this and jehovah that is going to come out with a true prophecy.  Every year in churches all over the world pastors receive 'a word' from the lord and promise a wonderful year to their customers.  Yet how many of these yearly prophecies actaully come to pass.  Is it possible that these pastors have been afflicted by a lying spirit.

This is a point that the christian is already fully aware of.

Romeo4real:


As I said before, using your logic above, which i have laid out so you can follow easily, - If you send out a letter via your PA, your PA then becomes a messenger. By your logic, you are also a messenger. You should have no problem accepting this statement. Quite clearly, you have not read up on Invalid Deductive Arguments, otherwise we wouldnt be still debating this point.

It is clear that is it is the CONTENT of the message that is mine - not the timberland boots of the messenger, his predilection for candies, his laziness or any other thing about him.

So no dice. Try again.

davidylan:


Interesting that the Lord here CLEARLY STATES that the prophets in question are NOT His but Ahabs'.

So its very good for your Yahweh to tell lies to people once they are not "his people. . ."

You guys are still not getting it.

You fail to see that a God who would descend to the level of falsehood simply because he is dealing with people who are in themselves false, has simply reduced himself to their level of zero morality

You continuously debase God with every argument you make.

@Pastor AIO: I still await your personal perspectives with respect to your first post on this thread, where you claimed Yahweh evolved. Rather than the jokes and speculations you posted above. As Davidylan accurately said, the one prophet who sought Yahweh got the answer. The rest were false prophets. I wait.

@Inesqor, let me address this because if I don't then I know that I'm in serious hot pepper soup.  

I am currently reading a book by Karen Armstrong called A History Of God.  Now, while I don't agree with a lot that she says, she brought up some interesting points.  First of all the radically different nature of El to Yahweh (or jehovah).  
El, the canaanite God which Abramham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped was a more approachable figure.  You could sit down and have a meal with El.  In fact El came visiting Abraham with 2 other fellows of his.  Abraham welcomed them and entertained them before they then left.  His grandson Jacob even had a wrestling bout with El.  This is a very interesting ontology of El.  
And before the Muslims come jumping in and saying that it is because of corruptions in the bible let me hasten to add that this is in keeping with the way the Canaanites saw their Gods.  So it is not only the bible.  In that part of the world at that time it was possible to eat with God and even wrestle with him.  In fact in the bible there is an incident where Paul and Silas go to a Greek city and get mistaken for deities.  That could only happen if people expect to be able to see deities in physical forms.  The Hindus call them Avatars, I believe.

In Hinduism, Avatar or Avatāra (Devanagari अवतार, Sanskrit for "descent" [viz., from heaven to earth]) refers to a deliberate descent of a deity from heaven to earth, and is mostly translated into English as "incarnation", but more accurately as "appearance" or "manifestation".[1

wikipedia

So these stories are not a corruption but rather in perfect harmony with the way the people of that part of the world at that time thought of their deities.  

But then comes an apparently new figure.  A terrifying awe inspiring, jealous being.  A deity unheard of in Canaan.  El was a Canaanite deity.  El Elyon was the Ruler of the Gods, the Elohim, in ancient canaanite religion.  How this new deity was first encountered, not in canaan, but in Midian.  He tells Moses not to approach but to take of his shoes.  Already this is quite different from El.  El walked through paradise in the evening calling out to Adam.  Yahweh is telling man to keep a distance.  

Karen Armstrong suggests that there was conflict with the introduction of Yahweh to the Israelite community, and that the Israelites didn't first accept him because they didn't know him.  I find that all highly speculative.  I have no opinion on that matter but without a doubt and by Yahweh's own admission the reason why Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know him was because he used a different name with them.  

YHVH says in Exodus 6.2–3:
I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Ēl Shaddāi, but was not known to them by my name, Yahweh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)

Wiki continues:

This affirms the identity of Yahweh with either Ēl, in his aspect of Shaddāi, or with a god called Shaddāi. Also affirmed is that the name Yahweh is a more recent revelation. One scholarly position is that the identification of Yahweh with Ēl is late, that Yahweh was earlier thought of as only one of many gods, and not normally identified with Ēl.

Yet Yahweh seems soooo different from El in so many ontological aspects.  Not just El as he was generally understood and worshipped in Ancient Canaan, but also the El that revealed himself to Abraham in the bible.  

I'm not going to go through the entire thing right now, but the above should just be a start to whet your appetite to look deeper.
One day, if I ever get out of my present financial mess and I make a lot of money I will commission a bible to be translated that left all names intact in their original language.  So Yahweh will always be called Yahweh instead of 'The Lord' and El will always be called El instead of God along with a myriad of other names.  The Elohim will also remain strictly the Elohim ( a plural word), rather than the sons of God, or the council of God, or the Council of El even.

Very interesting, Pastor.

@Davidylan, thank you for condescending to address my question sir.

davidylan:
Again a senseless "question" that exposes the ignorance of the person purporting to ask it.

1. "Baal" itself means "master" or "Lord". So when the prophets of Ahab say . . . 1 Kings 22:6 Then the king of Israel gathered the prophets together, about four hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.

By necessity, that is what questions do! They expose the ignorance of the person asking it. While the answer is then supposed to banish the ignorance. However in your case your answer, far from banishing ignorance has only uncovered more ignorance (your own). Either your ignorance or your disingenuity. You picked your verses very carefully didn't you. Actually the word translated to 'Lord' in verse 6 is Adonai, which does mean lord, yes, not baal.
However if you look at verses 11 and 12 and most other verses, the word translated to 'lord' in in fact Yahweh. So my question still stands, 'how can a prophet of Baal claim to speak for Yahweh'? Please if you don't know, it is okay to confess your own ignorance too. Ignorance is not a crime, but when it is coupled with arrogance and deceit then it becomes quite unwholesome and ugly to behold.

1 Kings 22:12 Hebrew Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
וְכָל־ הַנְּבִאִ֔ים נִבְּאִ֥ים כֵּ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר עֲלֵ֞ה רָמֹ֤ת גִּלְעָד֙ וְהַצְלַ֔ח וְנָתַ֥ן[b] יְהוָ֖ה[/b] בְּיַ֥ד הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃
KJV with Strong's
And all the prophets prophesied so saying Go up to Ramothgilead __ and prosper for the LORD shall deliver it into the king's hand

[b]
יְהוָ֖ה [/b]Yah·weh 3068 the LORD

http://biblos.com/1_kings/22-12.htm


. . . And all this illustrates my point perfectly that when care is not taken in translations it allows for Fakes to conflate names and terms as they wish to further their own agenda.

Quite a silly set of ignorant questions . . .

An answer such as the following would have been a much better start:

14The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

17The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. 18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; [/b]I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20But a prophet [b]who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”

21You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD?” 22If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

It was suggested that every generation should have a prophet because the people did not want to get too close to Yahweh and Yahweh was pleased that the people were too afraid to get close to him. The prophet should belong to your generation, ie he should be someone who is a brother to you.

If this criteria were adhered to then there will be no more pastors in most of these churches around. Every new year they make predictions because they know that they can get away with it. If, as Yahweh ruled, they were to be stoned to death if their prophecies did not come true there would be no more inanity such as 'this year is your year of prosperity' . . . etc etc etc.

@Deep Sight -

Please if you will engage my time, up your game.

Your game is to obfuscate, muddle, perplex, evade and cloud. You constantly shift your position, attempting to hide your stance behind dogmatic reasoning and straw man logic, using tautology and non sequitur arguments.

You have been found out, and shown yourself to be foolish in this regard. Let us see some of what the Bible says about a fool - Most would agree, that based on this discussion, it clearly applies to you -

Proverbs 18:2
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Psalm 53:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, doing abominable iniquity; there is none who does good.

Proverbs 18:6
A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating.

Proverbs 10:14
The wise lay up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool brings ruin near.

Proverbs 18:7
A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul.

Proverbs 28:26
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

Proverbs 15:14
The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly.

Proverbs 13:16
In everything the prudent acts with knowledge, but a fool flaunts his folly.