Image123:


Muskee, which kain fake resurrection be this one. Where is your manfrom mars abi sonof satan account? You don lose password?

na BANarbas o.. dem lock my account troway key.

musKeeto:


na BANarbas o.. dem lock my account troway key.

They are truly the sons of consolation. Welcome back.

Image123:


They are truly the sons of consolation. Welcome back.

Thank you. How body and your ministry? Time has made friends of us.

musKeeto:
Thank you. How body and your ministry? Time has made friends of us.

Hehehehehehehe, fine fine. Time, politics and God.

PastorAIO:
4They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.” 5But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mark 10:5


“When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
Deuteronomy 24:1

According to Jesus Moses wrote laws that were not issued from God but rather were a compromise to the recalcitrant disposition of the Israelites. Yet these laws are part of our God given biblical laws, according to some bibliolaters.
How much of the OT is a directive from God and how much is Moses' own tinkering?

It is amazing how a passage in plain sight can be misunderstood and misinterpreted by most people over centuries, including Jesus apparently.

Perhaps it's Jesus' own misinterpretation (or should I say the author of Matthew's interpretation?) that has lead even the brightest bible student from properly understanding the Deuteronomy passage.

Nevertheless, the passage taken in full context assumes the divorce practice rather than instructs it. The commandment was not about divorce specifically, but about a woman's remarriage eligibility.

It is important to understand the background at play in Matthew: Jesus' and the Pharisees' understanding of the text was based on the Rabbinic Judaism interpretation however wrong it may be.

In conclusion, Moses actually never commands a divorce practice. Who knew that Jesus could ne wrong?

Ubenedictus:
OK, i'll broaden it, the bible is inerrant as regards all truth that the authors intended to convey.

is dat wide enough?

Oh yes, it is, indeedy. So wide in fact that we can apply it to any and every communication ever.

Every book, video, film, poem, dance, expression, utterance, is inerrant as regards all truth that the authors intend to convey.

PastorAIO:


Okay, so that is what you meant to say. You see, it is possible to get to the point without all that verbal diarrhoea.

To address your point: 1. No bible writer denied that their was their own with the exception of a handful and even they didn't claim god, they claimed other human beings. The idea that the books of the bible were written by god came later after the writers had died and gone.

Matthew, Mark, John were written by unknown people and it was later claimed to be written by Matthew Mark and Luke. This is the same case as with Daniel. And possibly many other books too, or parts of other books which have been copied, added to and redacted numerous times over the centuries.

2. The bible is far from a Grade A piece of work. Grade A in what sense. It's a total fail in terms of scientific knowledge. Morally it is extremely questionable.

Hmmm!

I was not aware that the degradation has eaten this deep.

And, actually, that was not all i said. You can try a little bit harder and read all.

by the way, you have to developed the capacity of being patient with deep concentration skills, the write up there you could not attend to shows a lack of concentration capacity on your part, you rather pounds on a brief bit of it. LOL.

The Jews must have been very daft, even though they were adapt to keeping records and were instructed to do so.
Thousands of years later, after your kind exacted varied effort to destroy this books that was collated (Bible), you now think you know better.
Jesus and the Apostles that quoted from those writers must have been blowing hot air.

You started by criticising the statement of the Prophet Moses, now you have jumped to Matthew mark luke John, where and when will it stop? LOL.

PastorAIO:

1. No bible writer denied that their was their own with the exception of a handful and even they didn't claim god,

On the above, is it a contradiction? "No bible writer denied that their was their own with the exception of a handful"

At least, You said, Only a handful, and no one.

Guy, you need to cool down o. The effort you are putting into this is already taking a tole on you.

Matthew, Mark, LUke and John, What with those history? are you contending that they are not a correct History about the life of Jesus? or, Your anger is that, the writers did not care to glorify themselves as you would have done had it been you were the one that wrote those books?

Well, those books were handed over to other Humans, and those people knew who wrote the Books, Hence, they passed it on. Or, did you think they were abandoned on the road?

I wonder why that would stumble you! Is your bother not supposed to be the content? You just turned your self to an irrational critic struggling to lay your hands on whatever you can to justify your ways even though unreasonable. Am not worried, as long it is authentic, and verified factual.

What do you mean by "Grade A Moral"? I had said the bible is a best seller. NO? Do you disagree that it is a best seller? Yes it is!

Well, The Jews had all their Books by their prophets intact in their temple in Jerusalem before the Temple was destroyed in 70ce. The writers of those books was not under contention by the Jews but for your type. Those that received them knew their God and knows that he Communicated to them. Why is your concern not the content of those books?

Well, all Bible writers were Jews, take note. Some of Your sort are fond of saying they were written around 400ce.

On the Bible being a Good Moral book, i will say the test of the pudding, is in the eating, how would you know since you don't live by it? look around you and see the result of human waywardness and those not following the Bible Morals. I for one, i do, and I am telling you it is very very EXCELLENT!

Peace

Ubenedictus:
Inspiration, simply says there is divine influence, u can be inspired to write a book, a song, draw a portrait or just show love. the bible is inspired i.e d God used human, with their own understanding and xperience to write down his truth, even though it may be coloured by d writers understanding and perspective.
public revelation is what God wants d whole world to know about himself, d world, ourselves, etc.

inspiration can be personal, ...a voice in ur head, a set of xperience u blive is leading to a reality, public revelation is public, meant 4 d world.

public revelation may be a subset of inspired thing.

e.g i fink my career choice is inspired, all my being every circumstance i encounted, d problems i faced, my mind points to it as if God wants it for me, bt that is hardly a tin of public revelation, it doesnt even concern d next person, if d next guy denies my claim it doesnt matter, it personal inspiratn nt public

What about the playwright who is inspired to write a play. The play is coloured by the writer's understanding and perspective etc yet it is written for public performance and it inspires and edifies all who come to watch it. Where does it's role as public revelation start and it's role as private inspiration end?

A lot of inspirations (in fact I believe all inspiration) that a human individual can experience are for the benefit of all of humanity. I personally believe that each of us are like 'God's gift to the world'. We all have gifts we bear for the betterment of humanity and this planet.

PastorAIO:


Oh yes, it is, indeedy. So wide in fact that we can apply it to any and every communication ever.

Every book, video, film, poem, dance, expression, utterance, is inerrant as regards all truth that the authors intend to convey.

lol, i get d sacasm, BUT i think dat is d extent of inerrancy, that every intended point was made without error, and those points are true.

Image123:

Hehehehehehehe, fine fine. Time, politics and God.

musKeeto:

Thank you. How body and your ministry? Time has made friends of us.

I wonder if it is possible that Time can turn Image into my friend. Kashimawo!

PastorAIO:


I presume that your following post was the shortened version which I have now responded to.

NOPE, It is not. That had a completely more message.

And, on an issue like this, it is close to the heart of most, hence, it is a wrong expectation to be expecting short post. Some should be .......................................................

PastorAIO:


What about the playwright who is inspired to write a play. The play is coloured by the writer's understanding and perspective etc yet it is written for public performance and it inspires and edifies all who come to watch it. Where does it's role as public revelation start and it's role as private inspiration end?

A lot of inspirations (in fact I believe all inspiration) that a human individual can experience are for the benefit of all of humanity. I personally believe that each of us are like 'God's gift to the world'. We all have gifts we bear for the betterment of humanity and this planet.

Take d next lines with a pinch of salt.

public revelatn is usually d type that is considered absolute truth, D type everybody must blive. D play above edifies people but no one is asked to blive them or lose happily thereafter in heaven.

PastorAIO:




I wonder if it is possible that Time can turn Image into my friend. Kashimawo!

You can always smash the mirror

musKeeto:

Abi o.

Hmmmm! long time.

truthislight:


Hmmmm! long time.

oga, ive been around. im sonoflucifer. hw body?

.

musKeeto:

oga, ive been around. im sonoflucifer. hw body?

Lol. what with Sonoflucifer ok, Lucifer means Shining one. I hope you are not having other ideas with that name?

Any how, good to know you are well?

PastorAIO:




I wonder if it is possible that Time can turn Image into my friend. Kashimawo!

Hehehehehehehe, nothing is impossible with God.

Ubenedictus:
Take d next lines with a pinch of salt.

public revelatn is usually d type that is considered absolute truth, D type everybody must blive. D play above edifies people but no one is asked to blive them or lose happily thereafter in heaven.

If the bible is a public revelation as you put it would you say that one must believe that the Sun stood still as told in Joshua 10:13 or lose happily thereafter in heaven?

PastorAIO:


If the bible is a public revelation as you put it would you say that one must believe that the Sun stood still as told in Joshua 10:13 or lose happily thereafter in heaven?

Why are you this slow? Considering the Level of scientific consciousness then, how did you expect that such knowledge would have been translated to those ancient people? Or that man would have explained his thought?

Should a science test book had been opened to teach them/Japhther first How the earth goes round the source of light before explaining how the source of light will continue giving light? Talking from Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but, it calls for deep thinking to developed empathy and the like. lack of such deep thinking and meditation has always been the bend of your sort, so quick to jump to conclusion.

Again, next, they Ask how spirit caused diseases then and not Bacterial/Micro-Organism. One wonder if people of those days knew anything about Bacteria and would had Made any sense of it if such were to be told to them. SMH. Maybe, they had Microscope somewhere.

We humans do communicate with kids in a language they would understand, does that make us Slow? SMH.

Different strokes for different folks.

The Bible is a book written so that people of all times, Generations, tribes and works of life can relate to without necessarily having to be a professor like you.

Peace.

*Editted*

truthislight:


Why are you this slow? Considering the Level of of scientific consciousnesses then, how did you expect that such knowledge would have been translated to those ancient people? Or thank man would have explained his thought?

Different strokes for different folks.

All this one has absolutely no bearing on what is being discussed and further more I wasn't even talking to you. If you want to contribute don't you think that you ought to first understand what is being discussed?

PastorAIO:


All this one has absolutely no bearing on what is being discussed and further more I wasn't even talking to you. If you want to contribute don't you think that you ought to first understand what is being discussed?

Well, am sorry if you don't see what i was saying and you feel so. but what you are writing is in a public forum and is open and will be open for people to read for only God knows how long, some of us just feel that while you express your opinion, others should be allowed to have a say. Silent is consent they say.

Hence, it will be fair i think, that those not consenting, and wishing to air should be allowed to do so.

Peace.

Actually, the Argument that It is the earth rather than the Sun that goes round the Sun and as such the Sun cannot stand still is not a recent argument, it does not need one to be a genius to relate with what the question, aim and intents are.

Must every body see and agree with only one side of the Issue? I don't think so.

truthislight:
Well, am sorry if you don't see what i was saying and you feel so. but what you are writing is in a public forum and is open and will be open for people to read for only God knows how long, some of us just feel that while you express your opinion, others should be allowed to have a say. Silent is consent they say.

Hence, it will be fair i think, that those not consenting, and wishes to air should be allowed to do so.

Peace.

It is a public forum and I appreciate contributions, but they must be pertinent. That's all I'm asking for.

truthislight:
Actually, the Argument that It is the earth rather than the Sun that goes round the Sun and as such the Sun cannot stand still is not a recent argument, it does not need one to be a genius to relate with what the question, aim and intents are.
Must every body see and agree with only one side of the Issue? I don't think so.

What I was discussing with Ube was the status of the bible as a source of Truth. While he agreed that God communicates and inspires humans through everything and anything thing, he claims that there was a special communication issued through the bible and that while the non biblical communication is often personal and relevant only to the person receiving the communication the Biblical communication is public and is true for everybody.

I then asked about the sun standing still in order to query whether he thinks that the bible is a record of historical fact. My query was not scientific or to challenge the bible's knowledge of science. My query was aimed at whether the bible can be a document of historical facts that can be, or ought to be, objectively accepted by everybody.


I apologise for being curt earlier.

PastorAIO:


If the bible is a public revelation as you put it would you say that one must believe that the Sun stood still as told in Joshua 10:13 or lose happily thereafter in heaven?

what is the intended message? Joshua wasnt talking scientific fact, he was telling a story with a message. Remember how i desscribed inerrancyy.

Ubenedictus:
what is the intended message? Joshua wasnt talking scientific fact, he was telling a story with a message. Remember how i desscribed inerrancyy.

No, he certainly wasn't talking scientific fact. But my question is: Was he talking historical fact?

Ubenedictus:
Take d next lines with a pinch of salt.

public revelatn is usually d type that is considered absolute truth, D type everybody must blive. D play above edifies people but no one is asked to blive them or lose happily thereafter in heaven.

I think it might help if we define what we mean by truth.

I believe in logic that truth is just a value that is assigned to a statement. So any statement e.g. "London is in England" can be assigned one of two values, True or False.

For me personally, I like to define Truth as That Which Is And Always Is The Case.

With this definition I am not just referring to statements but to the entirety of experience. The world that we perceive with our senses is not the Truth because everything in it is subject to change. Things might seem to be the case one instance and cease to be the case the next instant. Ultimately, by my definition, Truth can only exist in eternity, but in this world of our senses we see derivations of truth.

I'm asking for your definition because of your use of the phrase 'absolute truth'. Absolute truth as distinct from what? Relative Truth? I suspect that you do not believe that there is any such thing as relative truth (being a catholic).

PastorAIO:



I think it might help if we define what we mean by truth.

I believe in logic that truth is just a value that is assigned to a statement. So any statement e.g. "London is in England" can be assigned one of two values, True or False.

For me personally, I like to define Truth as That Which Is And Always Is The Case.

With this definition I am not just referring to statements but to the entirety of experience. The world that we perceive with our senses is not the Truth because everything in it is subject to change. Things might seem to be the case one instance and cease to be the case the next instant. Ultimately, by my definition, Truth can only exist in eternity, but in this world of our senses we see derivations of truth.

I'm asking for your definition because of your use of the phrase 'absolute truth'. Absolute truth as distinct from what? Relative Truth? I suspect that you do not believe that there is any such thing as relative truth (being a catholic).

now that is a scary definition, while i may agree to an extent that truth on earth is sometimes coloured, i disagree it is an imposibility, my complexion is dark is true, everytime white light is disperssed my skin will alwways absorbs the dark rays and m complexion is certainly dark to anyone wwith good eyes. Even on earth there is truth in the general sense. Here is absolute truth, atleast i believe there is, for me the existence of God is absolutely true, it is true for all times unto eternity, there is objective truth, my complexion is an example, then the is relative truth, that one is up to each individual, like human beauty. The catholic church isnt anti relative truth, but most doctrine arent in the relattive box.

On the otherhand i doubt i can fully define truth.

PastorAIO:


No, he certainly wasn't talking scientific fact. But my question is: Was he talking historical fact?

possibly, unless the whole sttory is alegorical. Again whether or not the earth did stand stil isnt his intended message.

Ubenedictus:
possibly, unless the whole sttory is alegorical. Again whether or not the earth did stand stil isnt his intended message.

How specific does an intended message have to be? i.e Can a double entendre be intended? In which case the intention is not one point or the other but the contemplation of the possibility of both points.

On the other hand in communication how accurately does received understanding reflect intention. You say what you mean but do I get what you mean? Or did you mean what I Understood?

These and many other interesting questions can be addressed to the issue of communications.

truthislight:


Lol. what with Sonoflucifer ok, Lucifer means Shining one. I hope you are not having other ideas with that name?

Any how, good to know you are well?

Yes, I'm well, alive and kicking. Extend my regards to striktlymi and ijawkid if you have their contact.