I Am Not Blaspheming - Religion (8) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / I Am Not Blaspheming (11196 Views)
Nigeria Transgender Stephanie Rose Blaspheming God (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by mazaje(m): 11:21am On Nov 13, 2008 |
christains are now have dispute over the bible. . . na wah no be small thing. . . . . |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 11:37am On Nov 13, 2008 |
@Pastor AIO, Good morning. I hope your day goes as you wish.  First off, there's no need to to be reactive - none at all. The problem with many people today is this: while they seem to have "arrived" upon a super-state of spirituality, suddenly all their brethren come under all sorts of accusations. Why should this be the case at all? Let's ask a few questions from your reply and then see if this is not the same thing that is manifesting repeatedly: Pastor AIO: I'm not stuck on any idea, thank you. If you cannot address anything calmly, I can bear with that. Now, when someone is accused as I have been with all sorts (including "stupidity" , I'm thankful that in that condition I could still ask some questions such as you guys are asking, No? But here is the real problem: the WHY?If that is our problem, why blame the Catholic Church and Bishops for anything at all? It makes me wonder that we feel quite at home to disdain people for being simply "Catholic" (than 'catholic') and yet we cannot do better than they have done - because we still have to go back and thankfully use what they have canonised. If that is our problem, why attack others who are asking questions? The post keeps shifting, because one is no longer sure what the problem is anymore: from "translation errors", to "not accepting some books should not be in the Bible", to "why should there even be any canon at all". It seems that nobody is addressing any issue that is queried before the focus is shifted to something else. Is it the "translation errors" that has been the problem? Or, is it the "removed books"? Or yet, is it now "why should there be any canon"? What is next on line to shift the goal post? Consequently, if there is no need for any canon, why should anyone even want to make a fiat to anything called "scripture"? What then is the meaning of Jesus' statement that "scripture cannot be broken"? What is meant by Peter's statement about prophecy of scripture in 2 Pet. 1:20-21? What is meant by "all scripture given by inspiration of God"? What is meant by Jesus' warning in Matthew 5:17-19? What is meant by Proverbs 30:5-6? What is meant by Malachi 4:4? When we ask questions, it is not because we don't have the Holy Spirit, so what's with "you need to get the Holy Spirit in you"? Are we to dispense with the scriptures inspired by God just because we now have the Spirit to "guide" us? To answer your question as to a "canon", consider this: I am not stuck on anything as you alleged. You could simply ask me some questions in regards to John 5:39 if you please, and I would obliged; but that should not be used as a fausse patte to allege anything against anyone. However, if it focuses on Scripture as not necessary to the Christian faith (am only asking, correct me if you think otherwise), could I ask you what you make of Biblical prophecies, among several other things? |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 11:50am On Nov 13, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: You really don't get it. Not at all. I am not oblivious of the promise of the Lord Jesus in John 16:7 and such as regards the Holy Spirit. But the way you guys have been complaining is what invites my questions. Up until now, I have not seen you guys calmly address those questions before shifting the posts, as I hinted to Pastor AIO. The basic thing you are projecting (IMHO) is that you seem very interested in disconnecting the Scripture from the Spirit - and yet you fail to understand that they go together! It may be shocking to read this, and that is why I have invited you guys to solve your problem in reflecting on what you're doing. KunleOshob: How many people who talk about and recommend that "love" today are willing to show that love? Why do we not see these same people who talk and whine about others not be able themselves to show that love? Whatever people do is not what defines the veracity of the Christian faith for me. I have seen people who talk everyday about Matthew 22:35-39 do very unloving things to their brethren, so no big deal there. I have even seen Christians who talk about the Holy Spirit everyday do things that are very degrading and still say they were "led". If loving God and one's neighbour are to be demonstrated in our testimony, we would first need to ask how we treat the things of God before we recommend the same to others. KunleOshob: It is true that you have done the very same thing you accuse others of, so please don't present yourself here as any better. I say this lovingly, though. You seem to be too carried away when you refer to passages on love, and yet fail to understand that ALL THE OTHER COMMANDMENTS are built on loving God and others (see Matthew 22:40)! This is why we are asked to not be partial in things pertaining to God. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by PastorAIO: 12:36pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
pilgrim.1: Good morning Pilgrim.1. Kaaro ojire Nairaland is seriously disrupting my runnings. By the time I answer a couple of posts I find I don't have time to do any of the really important things that I wanted to do. As much as it can be bemusing and even frustrating, I also enjoy it a lot. A bit too much in fact. pilgrim.1: I am now certain that you must be a psychic. How did you know that I was rolling my eyes and frothing at the mouth when I wrote that post. I was really trying to pretend to be calm.
Madam, I believe that when it comes to attacking Catholics on this forum you wear the Crown. I don't disdain any catholics. pilgrim.1: Oo, sorry did I attack you? You know, it's so true what they say about the playground bully. All you have to do is stand up to him and he'll run away crying and claiming that he's been victimised. But honestly, dear, you shouldn't leave your ego lying about, or it is likely to get trodden on. The post is not shifting, the problem is one single problem all the way through. Namely the hand of man in the bible. Whether in translation, in selection of books, or in indoctrination. The Goalpost have remained exactly where they are when Kunle started this thread and your failure to slot the ball into it cannot be blamed on anything but yourself. pilgrim.1: Dear pilgrim I am running out of time so I'll address a few of these as quickly as I can. Peter refers to prophecy in scripture. We know how the prophets prophesied. The spirit of God came on them. He then goes on to warn us that at the same time there were false prophets amongst the people, 'secretly bringing destructive heresies'. When jesus said scripture cannot be broken or paul said it is given by inspiration of God, your canonical bible did not even then exist. Proverb says 'every word of God is true', not every fabrication of man that pretentiously claims to be scripture.
Dear pilgrim.1, pray tell, what are your opinions with regards to John 5:39? |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 1:02pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@Pastor AIO, Pastor AIO: In a bit of a way, same here. Thankfully, I have ample space to work, study and play quite often. Pastor AIO: We all have these feelings sometimes, and it's not hard for anyone to detect it in others. Pastor AIO: I don't deny that, nor do I make excuses for it. The one thing I have said is that, during my long break sometime around April, I have had some reflections and through several friends (Catholic, Muslims and atheists), my understanding of how to deal with issues should be more balanced. Even if I never attacked Catholics and their doctrines (nevermind what I often said "I sidon jeje. . " , does it justify why any other person should be attacking them at all on this very thing?Pastor AIO: Don't kid yourself - some might have thought I was fazed, but no. I knew you were becoming upset and I didn't want you to explode on yourself. That I noted the attitude of those who speak often about love and not being able to live up to their very preaching is one thing that amuses me in this thread. Pastor AIO: Lol, it's like you're hooting as a replacement to wear Kunle's jersey in this game of shifting the posts. No worries. The issues have indeed shifted several times and they were neither articulated nor address when highlighted. It is one thing to ask questions - quite another thing to be completely vacant when asked to answer a few questions relating to the same concerns. We know that there are problems with translating any document into another language. We also know that there are problems with collating a set of documents for any establishment - and it doesn't have to just religion. We also know that there are interpretations in whatever is proffered. But in all this, what exactly is the problem and complaint about the Bible that some are inclined to be disenchanted with it? This is why I repeatedly refer to the first question I asked on page 1 - that question has never been addressed; and the glib answers so far are not addressing that simple question. Which necessitated my approach to ask that those who have written others off as imbued with "ignorance" should tell us what in their own spirituality holds as "canon" if they are very disenchanted with the Bible. Slice it anyhow and any which way, when people can quote from that same Bible on love (both OT and NT), why does it then become tyranical for them to quote other references from the same Bible in just the way they quote passages on "love"? Pastor AIO: Prophecy in Scripture was one of the several references I gave. What happens to "Scripture cannot be broken"? One is dealing with what is contained within scripture - the other is dealing with Scripture itself! I have never been confused about the difference, and this should not be difficult for us all to see. Pastor AIO: You don't seem to have a clue what Scripture really is. It seems that all you are holding is the idea that only the OT is "scripture". Well, I have made references to both NT and OT citations - if the NT fails to qualify, why quote any part of it as "scripture"? Pastor AIO: So tell me, which books in the NT qualify as "fabrication"? Pastor AIO: Gladly - I'll do so in a moment. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 1:15pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@Pastor AIO, Let me go back in reference to some statements you made earlier: Pastor AIO: As a result in many such languages the imperative (command) can get mixed up with the present indicative. I think that is where some people are getting it wrong, for the imperative is not strictly and always a matter of "command". In many other languages, this is very clear, for we know that in French, the imperative mood could be used to imply the following: ■ give an order ■ express a desire ■ offer advice ■ recommend something ■ make a request Like I said as regards the imperative in John 5:39, there was no place in my rejoinders where I used that word "imperative" to imply a "command". I made that thing very clear; so if one were reading the word 'imperative', please don't assume everytime that it is always pointing to a "command". That's what I need to clear first and then I'll share my thoughts on John 5:39. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 1:53pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@Pastor AIO, Pastor AIO: May I remind you again: the word 'imperative' does not mean a 'command' in the context I used it with regards to John 5:39. Understanding that, we can now look at a few issues. If we do a bit of language study, we find that every single language has its own perculiar grammatical rules and lexical construct. Not to make this tedious, the Greek construct in that verse does not attune to the analogy of other languages such as Spanish that you cited. That does not mean that Spanish has no such syntax; but let me share the difference. Why am I convinced that the ‘imperative case’ of John 5:39 is – (a) not a direct command on the one hand; and yet, (b) deliberately not in that verse at the beginning on the other hand? Let me show you. (a) It is not a ‘direct command’ because He was not making it a ‘law’ upon them; rather He was challenging them to go and verify for themselves just this one thing: searching the Scriptures would lead back to Him. However, where the pronoun (‘thou’) highlights their flaw was in their mindset: “you think”. That is why we read in v. 40 that even after they had searched and knew for a fact that the Scriptures bore testimony to Christ, they still would not come to Him. This was why I stated earlier that there was nothing wrong with searching the Scriptures at all. (b) The pronoun ‘you’ [or ‘thou’] appearing at the beginning would only make it more directly a command, (which it is not) from the construct. This is evident when a direct appeal is made as a matter of urgency upon the recipient. However, the ‘imperative’ mood in Greek is used in various contexts, not just only in the case of a direct command. It could also be used as a request without the tone of a more formal ‘command’; or to recommend something to people. This latter is the case in John 5:39. However, there other instances where the imperative mood is more like a command than a request or recommendation. But if we look at what you stated earlier: Pastor AIO: ‘I translate Ereunate as the 2nd person conjugation of the present indicative. ie. 'You search the scriptures, because in them, you think to find eternal life.' It may not be the convention; but I've highlighted the reason why the pronoun "you" does not appear there at the beginning even though it appears unconventionally in some other verses. Besides, it would be meaningless to argue on "conventions" here, because the pronoun appears only once in that verse in connection with their mindset (you think). Since you say that it is not the convention to place the ‘you’ there, I wonder what you make of John 6:26 where indeed the pronoun ‘you’ appears before ‘search’? Like I said, the "imperative" in Greek does not mean everytime that it is a "command", Pastor AIO. When you read that verse even in the Greek, you find indeed that the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search"; and in doing so, it does not break the convention. There’s no denying that the same construct appears in that verse where we find it stated clearly even in the Greek – contrary to what you had assumed. In reference to John 5:39, however, we find just about the same thing in ch. 7:52 - "They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." It does not have the pronoun "you" at the beginning of the 'imperative' - and rather than a 'command', it was understood there as a challenge of recommendation. Bottomline: both John 5:39 and 7:52 show cases of imperative mood which are not "commands"; but the convention does not always hold, because John 6:26 shows where the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search", and yet it is not a command either. I initially assumed that we both were saying the same thing in this regard, that the verse (ch. 5:39) was not a "command"; but you yelled that we were not! No worries. This was what I noticed in justcool's rejoinder who reacted to Image123's entry earlier. Dear justcool had charged that the KJV "omitted" the "you" at the beginning of the sentence, "making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach". This gentleman does not understand the Greek imperative, and his charge against the KJV having "omitted" the pronoun (you) is false. The pronoun does not appear there, and KJV was not making it sound like a command at all! Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by KunleOshob(m): 3:54pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@pilgrim.1 Please check out this thread "Pastors kill witch children in Akwa Ibom" and watch the video. this evil act by these demons that call themselves Men of god is actually justified by the bible in the book of exodus 22:18 which says "suffereth a witch not to live" poor innocent children are being killed / maltreated by demons who are also profitting from it all in gods name and they justify it using the bible. This is why i say as christians we have to discerning when using the bible and allow the spirit of Christ to guide us. This evil act going on in Akwa Ibom(with biblical justification) further goes to explain my assertion that some parts of the bible just doesn't go with christianity. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 4:07pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: So, in other words Exodus should not be part of the Bible/Scripture? Lol, cool down and let me point you to something more to the gist here. Actually, that news was wired to me this morning before I got to the office. Now, if Exodus 22 or the whole of Exodus to Deuteronomy was never in the Bible and all we have as "scripture" are two sentences about "love God" and "love your neighbour", would that solve all our problems here? Certainly not! People have used the same love in Matthew 22 you always quote to do evil things, Kunle! So, whether it is Exodus 22 or Matthew 22, it makes no difference, because so many people today are justifying so many things that the Scriptures do not warrant them to. This was why I had wanted to help in delineating the difference between the LAW and the new covenant in other threads, but it seems people were more interested in their own passions to dismiss whatever was said - and that was why I relaxed. As long as people continue to confuse issues for themselves, these problems will not go away. People have used the very same "delightful verses" of 'LOVE' in the Bible to do hideous and unspeakable things - and they have "justified" their actions right out from the Bible itself. So what is new here with another wicked act committed under the excuse of Exodus 22? |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by KunleOshob(m): 4:44pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
pilgrim.1:Well that is one of the reasons why i said we should not focus too much on scripture but on the spirit of christ in us which is of love, kindess, meekness and a sound mind. After all if we are to follow Jesus directive strictly we should depend more on the holy spirit for guidiance and direction than on written "scripture". |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by justcool(m): 5:12pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
Just food for thought. Please posters, consider the following verses: "Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?" (Joshua, 10. 13.) "Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher." (II. Samuel, 1. 18) The book of Jasher was mentioned twice in the Bible, but not to be found in it. Here is a list of books mentioned in the Bible but not included in it: The Book of Wars - Num. 21:14 The Book of Jasher - Josh. 10:13 The Chronicles of David - 1 Chron. 27:24 The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah - 2 Chron. 27:7; 35:27; 36:8 The Book of the Kings of Israel - 1 Chron. 9:1; 2 Chron. 20:34. The Words of the Kings of Israel - 2 Chron. 33:18. The Decree of David the King of Israel - 2 Chron. 35:4. The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer - 1 Chron. 29:29 The Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chron. 29:29 The Book of Gad - 1 Chron. 29:29 The Book of the Prophet Iddo - 2 Chron. 13:22 The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet - 2 Chron. 12:15 The Deeds of Uzziah by Isaiah the Prophet - 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32 The Book of Jehu - 2 Chron. 20:34 The Record book of Ahasuerus - Esther 2:23; 6:1 |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by PastorAIO: 5:18pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
What are the possibilities for interpretation in all textual matters? Arguably infinite, I think. If text is something that lends itself so easily to interpretations of almost unlimited scope then how can it serve as a vehicle for specific meaning? For example consider the following exchange: Quote from: Pastor AIO on Today at 10:54:22 AM You just don't get it, do you? Why has there got to be a Canon? Why does there have to be an authoritative compilation when you've got the holy spirit to guide you in all things. You're so stuck on this idea of 'searching the scripture' on the basis of 'therein you will find eternal life' that if one bible is proved short of the mark, you immediately seek out another one to replace it. It's not about any canon, ma cherie, it's about the holy spirit and you need to get the Holy spirit in you so you can get the guidance you need. ResponseI'm not stuck on any idea, thank you. If you cannot address anything calmly, I can bear with that. A lack of calm has been read into the first address. How? That's beyond me, but I'm sure that the 2nd dialoguer has perfectly justifiable reasons why the first address smacks of disquiet. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 5:20pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: What really is your problem, sir? Do you really have a problem with that word "scripture"? It seems that anytime something is alluded to from 'scripture', it hasn't quite sunk in with. Dear sir, let me again say this: 'the spirit of Christ in us' is also something that deranged cultists allude to in their sinister acts. >cough-cough!< What was Rev. King preaching all along before he was exposed? Was he saying anything differently from the "spirit of christ"? What about other world-cultists - have they not also focused more on what they call "the spirit of christ"? Whether in Nigeria or America, this same thing is what they have been saying and yet doing the same or even far sinister acts in the "name of the Lord". Some are not even this dastardly in terms of killings: they have become more "cultured" when they speak about 'the spirit of christ' in them. Jesus Miranda is one such example - if you have the heart, you should actually listen to his messages and see how many times he disses the Bible and yet says publicly that he "loves" the same Bible! His ministry is called "Growing in Grace Ministry", and he speaks so many times about "love" and "grace". . yet he is not shy to say he is the anti-christ, adopts 666 as his fav tag, as well denies the reality of sin! Yet in all these things, he speaks about "the spirit of the very christ in me", claiming even that he is 'God'. Since this man is an example that is abusing terms like the "spirit" and "grace" . . . would it also be correct to say that we should not focus on them just because some people are giving these things such a dismal picture? Kunle, whether you focus on the Bible or the Spirit one way or the other, people will abuse them every which way and still shock you. Do not let these happenings make you prefer one over the other - the very Spirit of Christ does not give us a witness in our hearts to downplay the Scriptures. Shalom. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 5:22pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@justcool, justcool: These matters have been treated in other threads before - and there are more. Reharshing the same thing here is not helping the attitude you adopted in making false assumptions against the verse in the KJV you assumed earlier. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 5:31pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@Pastor AIO, Pastor AIO: Lol, if you had to go this length to allege I had "justified" anything in yours, what is the meaning of your agreement thereto as this:[list] Pastor AIO: I am now certain that you must be a psychic. How did you know that I was rolling my eyes and frothing at the mouth when I wrote that post. I was really trying to pretend to be calm.[/list] |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by KunleOshob(m): 5:40pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
pilgrim.1: The spirit of christ is very easy to discern, it is love. Love in this tense is a verb so the love must be acted and seen to be real. Anyone can say anything but it is what they act that would show their fruits. That is why i commented on another thread that the church as failed christians general by their failure to collectively preach, practise and emphasize the commandment which our redeemer described as the greatest commandment. If the practise and show of love was preached and emphasized as fundermental to christianity by most churches as direct by christ a lot of abuses in the name of christianity would not be possible today. My a friend of mine noted in a thread a while back, the type of christianity being practised and preached by most churches today is the selfish type and i believe the church as gone astray from the fundermental teachings of our redeemer.And this straying off startd in a period prior to even when the bible was put together as evidenced in emperor constantine using christianity as a tool to control and dominate his empire . This is the bone of my contention. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by KunleOshob(m): 5:51pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@pilgrim.1 My problem with the term scripture is that we don't know for sure which of the over six hundred writings in circulation as at the time the bible was compiled are actually genuine scripture(cos it was acknowledge at that time that a lot of them were not inspired) the methods used by the catholic church to determine which books to select even though were logical but they are still carnal and not divine. Also the political influence under which they compiled it is quite disturbing. Since we don't know for sure that all the 80 books or is it 66 books contained in the bible are indeed all inspired hence my admonition to let the spirit of Christ discern for us when we read the bible. I never suggested that we do away with the bible. i still read and depend on it every day. it is the greatest book ever written but then, |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 5:52pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: Don't be tedious to yourself. First, the Church is made up of Christians, so to say that "the church has failed christians" is a misnomer, for it is like saying that Christians have failed Christians. I wonder what sense that makes? Second, "love" is always connected to God's Word - in almost every instance where it has to be demonstrated, it is pointing back to the Word. Indeed, when we open the scriptures to find what indeed marks out the Spirit, it simply says: "the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). Everybody speaks about "love", but it is a known fact that not everyone who speaks of LOVE actually longs for Christ. We can preach about "love" from now till the next millenium, it won't change a thing about the fact that people have used that very thing in very cultured ways to promote evil - and they justify the same evil from the passages on love that you quote. KunleOshob: Don't kid yourself. Because we have become Biblically illiterates, that is why we have more problems to contend with than the preaching of "love". Emphasizing this same "love" tends to abuse - because that is what cultists will preach to high heavens and yet still abuse the things of God. KunleOshob: Relax, dear sir. Before Constantine, there were abuses within the Church in apostolic times. The apostles took no nonsense from those abusing the substance of their Christian faith - and we can be thankful today that we have the same pointers in Scripture to read for ourselves. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 5:59pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, KunleOshob: You try with the compromise - there's still hope.  You see, my dear sir, let anybody complain from now till high heavens, I don't have any problem with Scripture. None. This is not a brash statement as to suppose that I know everything in Scripture - no, I don't; and I have made clear that there are a lot of things that are still a mystery to me in nearly all 66 books of the Bible. I could show you 66 matters one from each of the 66 books; but I always marvel at the statement Jesus made that "Scripture cannot be broken". That is so awesome that whenever people have problems with what choices to make, I have often waited to see which book in scripture they could "break" with. Isn't it ironical that when all these complaints come up, we still cannot produce anything better than mere grumblings against the Catholic Church?Please hang on a lil let me share a bit of how God changed my heart. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 6:37pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@KunleOshob, My attitude in these matters - How God changed my heart. Please understand, this is not about a "testimony" of my conversion to become a Christian. I'm rather focusing on my attitude to the very same thing I was attacked in the past: the Bible. Please don't be surprised that I once actually attacked the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation. I wowed so many of my contemporaries in arguing every one of the 66 books of the Bible plus the Apocrypha. But someday, I became a Christian and as I look back, I bury my head in shame that God could use the very same Book that I once thought myself so "intellectual" enough to attack! The problems before my conversion still lingered, though: problems I knew before then, such as translation errors. These problems exist in almost every document translated that I know of, whether religion, philosophy, even science - most of the documents ascribed to Aristotle and Galileo [both of whom are interchangeably called the "father of modern science"] also suffered some mistranslations. However, coming back to the Bible, I wondered (and still do today) that inspite of all these, God still used that same Book to convict me, and still uses that same Book to strengthen my faith in Him. But how is it that these problems about translation errors do not faze me at all? Here are a few things that always come to my heart every single time when these excuses confrot me: (a) As Christians, we often say that we are children of Abraham - for he is said to be the "father of us all", not so? By the same stretch, if we expect everything to just go smoothly, what about the fact that Abraham was once a pagan? Am I to abadon the faith because the man now called the 'father of us all' was a pagan? (b) As Christians, let it not shock us that God has used men of questionable lifestyles to unwittingly prophesy His will. How? Do we not believe in the death and resurrection of Christ? But hey, hang on a minute - who in the NT prophesied that Christ "should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not"?!? The Bible clearly says that this man, Caiaphas, did not make that prophecy himself, but because he was high priest that year, God definitely put it in his mouth, though he was not even aware of the fact (John 11:49-53)!! (c) Following (b) above, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Cor. 1:27). In this same way, if He has been pleased to choose the Catholic Church and Bishops to give us a canon of Scripture, what is my worry? It is not so much the person/people used that should determine whether or not I should follow Christ; rather, it is the very thing He has given as He pleases that should always be my focus. Now let me pause for a moment and reflect. After the weeks when I engaged Catholics on this forum so ferociously, I did not realise how much I was damaging my own testimony. I'm not ashamed to confess this; but hear me out. A long-time friend who emailed me several times during that period always calmly asked me a few simple questions. In my pride, I supplied all the answers so articulately. She never was upset, never angry, never confrontational. . always in simplicity was very interested in what I was alleging about the 11 points about Catholic doctrines from the Vatican. After I sent her some citations to go and check out in their archives, she only sent me a line: "all you said are correct." I have never heard from her again. Not long after that same period, I was blessed to meet another gentleman with whom I have had very deep talks on our faith. He never told me where he was from or what denomination he belonged to - and I was content with that, because I declined to tell him when he asked about mine. But when he started talking about certain Christians whom God had used greatly even among intellectual giants, I was humbled with one fact: they were all catholics! I was dumbfounded! Although I don't always mention these names, at least somewhere in my rejoinders in another thread, the name Chesterton has been mentioned - and sometimes I forget he was a Catholic when I read his works. Kunle, God can use anybody he pleases. Whether it was a "former pagan" in the person of Abraham, we have all benefitted from him. Or whether it is a Catholic, we have immensely benefitted from their works. Even then, not to cause wahala for us, outside religion we have seen that some non-religious folks have produced scholarship that have affected us in beneficial ways in the Christian faith. So, if God was pleased to use the Catholic Bishops in the way He has used and is still using so many of them, my one reaction to His ways is humble thankfulness and deep appreciation for what He does in the lives of His people. Elijah knew that the ravine was an unclean bird; but when God used that same bird to bring him food in the wilderness, the prophet did not protest! Dear sir, God used people - the Catholics are people. When pilgrim.1 attacked some of them, she didn't realise what she was doing. Today, I'm ever greatful that God uses those whom he pleases, and it is not in my place to legislate for Him how he does His works! Shalom. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by Image123(m): 10:11pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
Wonderful lesson above.I hope we all can gain something from it for our edification. I asked for you to verify from reliable sources because it’ll not suffice to just go through some article or similar forum on the internet and then begin to base the truth solely on that.Are your deductions from unbiased and original veritable sources?examples of popular veritable sources are wikipedia and the encyclopedia Britannica.The information on this types of sources are scrutinized and unbiased. Also, what are your sources on church history? After the church began, differing doctrines (heresies) began to come in.This were usually settled by councils.There were already sects within the church.The term "catholic" was already being used increasingly to denote the true faith laid down by the apostles and to distinguish between true and false.The earliest evidence available of the use of the term dates as far back as AD110 in a letter by Ignatius of Antioch. 200 years later,Christianity had grown to a significant state that could not be ignored by the world powers i.e the Roman empire. They had tried to wipe out Christianity but it seemed to thrive on persecution,so then they embraced Christianity (the if you can’t beat them, join them condition). In 380, emperor Theodosius published an edict ordering that the faith taught to the Romans by Peter should be accepted by all nations.The title "catholic" was then reserved for those type of churches worldwide and it became the legal religion of the romans.Is that right or I’m lying? Its years after this that the roman catholic church split into the orthodox, protestants and the R.Catholics. All the factions today technically belong under one of these 3. The point here is, when they "collated" the today’s Bible, we were all together. The Ethiopian church can trace its Christian origins to around AD330 when they had their first bishop.Thats before the split.Due to spread of i slam and church growth decline, Ethiopian Christians became "boxed in" by m uslim countries (communication gap). During this time they among other things embraced monophysitism. I believe that they’ve now being updated. The old testament is made up of 39 books, the Hebrew bible used in Judaism attests to that FACT.There’s no point adding to it. That was what Jesus used and He didn’t complain about it.Of course there were other good books written by men of God during the OT period.e.g c 2nd Chronicles 9v29.God chose these 39. There’s no major truth that any of this other books may contain that are not already revealed in the 39 books. If you choose to, you can access this other books and read,I don’t think it’s a crime, but don’t force them into the bible. B T W, you're yet to finish reading the Bible oo, don't be greedy/ covetous, friend. Coming to the New Testament, many books were written by disciples and followers of Christ, but God has divinely ordained and permitted 27. Others simply could not make it. They’ve probably passed away or are going and coming, which is uncharacteristic of God’s Word that ENDURES throughout the ages. This 27 books have faced uncommon ordeals to be exterminated.They’ve stood the test of time. Many of this 27 books were considered as Scripture by the apostles themselves.And as said earlier, there’s nothing missing in them, nothing. Not all of Paul’s writings are there, not all the 12 disciples’ books are there. Just what we need is there. With what we have on ground, we can get to heaven.That’s the important thing to see/note. That’s the purpose of God’s Word. This 66 achieve that purpose no matter the amount of “errors” and “incompleteness” that we may claim that it has.I'm hoping this can be of help to you |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by cocoman4u(m): 10:41pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
pilgrim.1: @pilgrim 1 What is wrong with you. Are possesed or what. Everybody in this thread is trying to be civil but you keep making false aligations against innocent people. You are the one who was caught red handed lying about john 39. I have been following this thread and you are the person who is always making false claims and aligations. You are a disgrace to christainity. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by Image123(m): 10:53pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
Actually John 5:39 does not encourage people to search the scriptures. Here is the same verse from other translations I didn’t want to reply to this as I was wondering why you picked a verse out of about 5 passages that I quoted and closed your eyes on all the other verses, Is it not obvious from the verse that Jesus said the Scriptures testified of Him? Why are we chasing shadows? The Scriptures are Jesus’ witnesses. If you want to know more about Christ, look into the Scriptures, they testify of Christ. Every follower of Jesus should want to know more of Christ. The Scriptures is a good source.thats what the verse says. You were the one asking if the Scriptures were still relevant to Christ’s followers. I'll like to stop here for now. Please, its not a debate, just consider or reconsider the truth. And please try to get the best from these discussions.Don’t just be looking for holes (in Scriptures and in replies).Be positive at least a little bit. God bless you |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by justcool(m): 11:10pm On Nov 13, 2008 |
@image 123 I am happy that you mentioned wikipedia. Okay lets use it as our reference. Please check out this chart from wekipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ChristianityBranches.svg Also read about the history of Christainity in wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity Image123: The apostles did not start Catholicism. Catholicism was started during the realm of empero Constantine, who tried to make roman christianity the universal religion of the roman empire. This is centuries after the apostles, including peter died. Image123: Before catholicisim took its roots, Christianity was already taking roots all over the world. The Ethiopian othodox church did not branch from catholicism, in-fact it is older than catholicism. Also, consider, the letter addressed to seven churches in asia, in Revaltion. These seven churches were not catholicisim. They were simply chrisatin churches. Catholicism was not found by the apostles, neither was Catholicism found by the disciples, and definitely not by Peter. Before catholisim, christain churches were already taking roots in different parts of the world. Consider the letters that Paul wrote to different churches, some of these letters are in the Bible. Now I ask you a question; Where those churches catholic churches? Was catholicism in exsistance at the time Paul wrote those letters. Thanks and remain belessed. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by Chrisbenogor(m): 5:09am On Nov 14, 2008 |
@Jesoul Chris is here at the background and is watching, when I know little about something I remain mute and allow the masters to carry on. But this thread funny sha! @pilgrim.1 I always wonder why there is a .1 in front of your username   anyway how body? the battle for here no easy oh, I just want to quickly ask you, if the events in calabar were recorded in the book of exodus, would it still remain the same for you? Just asking sha because it seems no amount of evil in the bible will make you think of it otherwise.Cheers. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by Image123(m): 7:14am On Nov 14, 2008 |
@chrisbenogor The lawgiver can't be the law breaker.He is the law @justcool Please, stop picking my words. And I don't remember mentioning 'catholicism'.Just check up the word catholic in the dictionary or somewhere.It doesn't have to belong to the roman catholic church as we have it today.The word had been used by the church fathers before the so called Catholicism started.The early Christians considered themselves irrespective of their location as brethren and fellow labour men.Thy were the body of Christ having need of each other.They need consider themselves as local but worldwide and having the same mind.Lets not get into endless word debate.Be matured in understanding.Thats Bible injunction |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 10:03am On Nov 14, 2008 |
@cocoman4u, cocoman4u: There is nothing wrong with me, and there is nothing like John 39, sir. Those who have been 'trying' to be civil have been very 'Christ-like' in accusing me of all sorts - did you miss that? Or did I use the same language that they have used in addressing me? Meanwhile, if I have been caught red-handed as you allege, what have you guys said about the Greek imperative I addressed in detail - here and here? Did you miss the whole point or you were just hoping to keep pushing this "red-handed" after all that has been said? Dear justcool alleged that the KJV "omitted" something that it never omitted - and he used that accusation to try to force the idea that KJV made it a "command"; I have demonstrated that was false. If you feel otherwise, please show me. Your civility should be able to make you reason, not seek to attack anybody. Many thanks for your kind-hearted appellations, and may God bless you many times over. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 10:27am On Nov 14, 2008 |
@Chrisbenogor, Chrisbenogor: Dear Chris, I'm doing okay, and I trust the same and even better for you. Indeed, what happened in Calabar is not unique, but the way many people have capitalized on that to accuse Christianity of all sorts is what we should be careful to point out. That is why I have tried to address this matter summarily by noting that there is not a single verse in the Bible that man will not abuse. Not one. It doesn't have to just be Exodus 22, even Matthew 22 has been abused by some that I know in more devasting ways. If every single verse in the Bible today has been abused, those who are concerned only about Exodus 22 should also be concerned to remove every single verse and be left with blank pages if that is how to interprete these things. I have tried to reason with people to see the place of the Sinaitic Law, but every single time I tried to do this, many people reacted like I was their enemy numero uno. Today, the same issues are being demonstrated in such happenings in Calabar, and all of a sudden many Christians have been left even more confused. The Calabar happenings do not make me a murderer; Rev. King did not use Exodus 22 in his own instance, yet he had his own set of verses from within the same Bible to murder some of his own followers. I could list at least 21 well-known cases where passages on love, grace, mercy, and faith in the Bible have been abused to commit similar acts, but people have not bothered to make those issues headline news. If Exodus 22 was never in the Bible, man would still do worse. If the Bible never existed, man would still do worse things. It has become a culture today that anything that happens under the banner of Christianity is used to allege all sorts of things; but nobody talks about the culture of killings in our societies that do not spring from a religious affiliation. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by Bastage: 12:20pm On Nov 14, 2008 |
Don't be tedious to yourself. First, the Church is made up of Christians, so to say that "the church has failed christians" is a misnomer, for it is like saying that Christians have failed Christians. I wonder what sense that makes? Yet again your condescending arrogance shines through. The poster made a very simple statement and it's easy to see why he made it. If the Church was so infallible, why did it fracture into so many denominations? Why are there now so many "Christian" churches? What more do you want for absolute proof that "Christians have failed Christians". Or do you mean (as I know you most certainly do) that only your church has not failed Christians? |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 12:27pm On Nov 14, 2008 |
@Bastage, Bastage: Thanks. It has become the culture now, so I'm quite used to such. Bastage: I think it would not hurt to read simple statements and understand what I pointed out. Christians are not a different body from the Church. The Church is actually made up of Christians. If the "Church has failed Christians", it simply means that Christians have failed themselves. Nobody should be seeking to blame "the Church" as if it is a different entity from Christians - that does not translate as the "infallibility" of the Church/Christians, as I have not hinted any such thing. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by Bastage: 12:42pm On Nov 14, 2008 |
Thanks. It has become the culture now, so I'm quite used to such. Then maybe you should ask yourself "Why?". I think it would not hurt to read simple statements and understand what I pointed out. Christians are not a different body from the Church. The Church is actually made up of Christians. No. The Church doesn't exist any more. There are now thousands of different "churches" which represent different denominations of Christians. The Church ceased to exist soon after Christianity began when it morphed into the Catholic Church and it's many offshoots, all believing different things and preaching different ideas. To claim that all these different people belong to one "Church" is misleading. They belong to many different factions within one religion. |
| Re: I Am Not Blaspheming by pilgrim1(f): 12:44pm On Nov 14, 2008 |
Bastage: Maybe those who are very used to accuse others with such language should take a moment and ask themselves why. Is that too hard for them to do? Bastage: Your interpretation. Who failed Christians? |
(1) (2) (3) ... (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (Reply)
Who Is The Head Of A Christian Home? Christ Or The Husband? / What Is Heaven Like? / What Is The Difference Between A Christian And A Disciple?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 260 |