Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1240398 members, 1643533 topics. Date: Wednesday, 17 September 2014 at 06:35 PM

View PastorAIO's Posts

Nairaland Forum / PastorAIO's Profile / PastorAIO's Posts

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 158 pages)

Religion / Bible School Slave Camp- by PastorAIO: 3:57pm On Sep 12

Reginald Wayne Miller, the pastor, founder, and college president has finally - since being accused three months ago - pleaded guilty to four felony charges.
Religion / Re: PastorOluT, Lets Talk. by PastorAIO: 10:40am On Sep 02

I am very much interested in the knowledge of what happened to the church too.

Me too.
Religion / Re: "What Is The Origin Of The Catholic Church?" by PastorAIO: 2:23pm On Sep 01

Lies to you is the truth and the truth you see as lies. That is what satan does to those who reject the truth. They are given up to believing lies.
Right! so who has been lying? Look at the facts and then tell me who has rejected the Truth.

You say this because you have no idea what it means to become a Christian. Christianity is not a religion it is a lifestyle and a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ our Saviour.
I didn't say anything. I merely asked some questions. And you are incapable of answering those question honestly so you digress into what it means to be a true christian. I'll repeat: Did constantine convert to xtianity? Did Constantine make Christianity a State Religion or did he merely make it legal?

Heresis existed even during the time of Christ. What are you yapping about? See the depiction of Isis in the depiction below.
Lol, desperately Trying to Digress. a common disease also known as DTD. cool
What I am 'yapping on about' is your lies that are exposed by the Anachronism of your statements. If the Catholic church started in the 4th century and Origen wrote about mariology in the (2nd)/ 3rd century then how did Catholicism start Mariology. The issue is simple. Did Catholicism pre-exist the 4th century, the reign of Constantine, or did it only start with constantine as you have mendaciously claimed?
You haven't answered the questions: Where was Isis ever referred to as theotokos? Which temples of Isis were converted to temples of Mary?Remember that Satan is the Father of lies, so if you want to disown your father you have to prove here that you have not been lying.

If that is so why didn't Jesus offer His flesh and blood and let his disciples take a pound of flesh out of Him? undecided
Lol! DTD. You have failed to answer what I stated. Listen to the words of Jesus in Matt 26:26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

So you see, according to the bible, Jesus did indeed offer his flesh and blood. Of course you are denying this because you are a liar and your Father, satan, is a liar from the beginning. This blatant evidence from the bible will not suffice to shut you up, I know that already. But I'm posting for the general readership of this thread.

The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church are really two branches of the same story, as the power was transferred from one entity to the other.

What power? Besides it was only the western side of the Roman empire that fell. The political power in the empire had already shifted to the East when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople. There were bishops of Rome long before the fall of the Roman empire dating all the way back to the first century. The church of Rome had already existed. That is again another lie you are peddling. All the while DTD-ing. You didn't address what I said about Canon 27 of Chalcedon.

What do you know? You are not even a Christian, how then would you know about the truth about Christianity? It is dangerous to delve deep into Scriptures when you don't have an open mind to believe, obey and practise the will and word of God.

This standard desperate ruse. It's so sad. Anyone that doens't agree with you is 'not even a christian.' I remember you once even attacked Davidylan with the same desperate move when he wouldn't agree with your hateful polemic on one thread like this. That surprised even me. It was truly wondrous in my eyes.

Anyway the facts remain that you have been lying consistently in keeping with your satanic character. masquerading as an angel of light.
Religion / Re: "What Is The Origin Of The Catholic Church?" by PastorAIO: 11:07am On Sep 01
You are now famous for your lies, but that doesn't stop you.

OLAADEGBU: Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Did Constantine Convert to Christianity? Did Constantine make Christianity a State Religion or did he merely make it legal?

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

The lies are too much. Where is Isis called 'Theotokos'? Sources please? Please name one or two temples of Isis that were converted into temples dedicated to Mary. I'm not aware of them.
Biggest lie: Catholic Mariology occur in the writing so of Origen from Alexandria. But wait Origen lived from 184 to 253. Constantine was emperor in the 4th century. If Constantine invented Catholic Church then how come Origen introduced catholic mariology in the 3rd century?

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

'Possibly the religion of several Roman emperors'? Like who? Constantine was into Sol Invictus not Mitraism. And you forgot to mention that it was Jesus himself that called the meal his flesh and his blood. That is not a small omission to make, don't you think. In fact that above is a blatant and misleading lie.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

The issue here is too deep to go into here so I'll skip this one for another thread.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the[b] city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire[/b], and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.
Again you are contradicting yourself unwittingly (due to lack of historical knowledge). By the time christianity was legalised Constantine had removed the center of Roman empire away from Rome to Constantinople. There were no emperors of a unified Roman empire living in Rome while christianity was legal. In fact it was the Bishop of the See of Constantinople that was favoured. It was Bishop Leo that tried to make the Empire recognise Rome as the head but he was often ignored. It would be interesting to read Canon XXVII of Chalcedon where the eastern bishops challenged Rome. Reading in between the lines there seems to be an acknowledgement that the Bishop of Rome used to be the head of the Church but since Constantinople was the New Rome and the new Imperial centre then things had changed.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

If any of your 'many more examples' are as unsound as the ones you've offered so far then don't bother. you are only trying to reinvent history to suit your hatred for christianity. You might be good at twisting the bible but historical facts are a totally different proposition altogether.
Religion / Re: "What Was Early Christianity Like?" by PastorAIO: 10:14am On Sep 01
These anticatholic penterascals are so desperate.

So totally incapable of answering simple questions to elucidate their position.

Since the catholic church didn't exist in the 1st century then where is the church that existed then? Where is the church of the early church fathers? What these anticatholics are saying really is that christianity has finished. It has died out.

I also can't help noticing a lot of arrogance and ITK-ism.

Please where is the universal church today. If I want to write a letter to them, the way that St. Paul wrote a letter to the Romans, where would I address the letter to?

This question is soooo simple that even a child that knew what he was talking about ought to be able to answer it.
Religion / Re: What Is Church? by PastorAIO: 11:49am On Aug 26

Answer: Many people today understand the church as a building. This is not a biblical understanding of the church. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.”

Pharisee is derived from Latin pharisæus, -i; from Hebrew פְּרוּשִׁים pĕrûshîm, pl. of פָּרוּשׁ pārûsh, meaning “set apart”, Qal passive participle of the verb פָּרָשׁ pārāsh,[7][8] through Greek φαρισαῖος, -ου pharisaios.;[9])

Food for thought.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:29pm On Aug 25
maestroferddi: There are so many basic/assumptions lacking.

Was Paul presupposing the possibility of another means of God aside the Jesus he was preaching?
Acts4:12: "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no there name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

Do you suppose that Paul and an Ifa priest stand on the same footing before God.

We keep discovering the graces of God but the ultimate/sole mediator/intercessor is Jesus Christ as per Christian teaching/doctrine.

Paul was not making wild conjectures but by divine inspiration was teaching on the sole legitimate way to access God.

God revealed Himself as the Tetragrammanton or Yahweh to the Jews. His identity has never been speculative.
That an Egyptian god was referred to as a "hidden one " does not make the god the eponymous Almighty God.

Well, you should show consistency. It is either we are not making speculations or we are not making them at all. We can't have it both ways. It was you that ran away with the speculation/assumption that Paul was quoting Epimenides while, in fact, there are a gamut of possibilities. Please note that Paul did not state he was quoting the poet.

My job was to provide counterpoints to destroy your subjective case. Since you are not coming from the standpoint of certainty or absoluteness, it then becomes apposite to confront you with the other side of the coin.

Nothing here addresses what I said.

If you want to speculate baselessly why display such a lack of imagination. Why not start with Lizards from outer space that came to earth and genetically modified humans and made us worship them and these lizards are the ones that wrote the poem. And then they telepathically communicated it to Paul who then wrote it to Titus totally ignorant of the fact that the Lizards had also inspired Epimenides with the same poem centuries before.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:17pm On Aug 25
maestroferddi: There are a lot of mix-up. Paul's message to the Galatians was never to substitute or challenge the Jerusalem Church.
Instead, his argument centered on eliminating the corruptive influence of Judaisers who have infiltrated the church. These Judaisers were Jewish Christian who accepted Christ but were still enyoked by Jewish law-centric practices. If you have instances where Paul was substituting teachings/theology of the Jerusalem with his own, please let us know.

I don't think the question of whether Paul could deploy extra-scriptural means to win his audience arises at all. Paul was an inspired teacher and therefore was merely providing deeper insight to what the salvation message entails. At least the insight he was providing was non-existent till he got to Galatia and other churches.

Unless we are trying to eliminate the possibility that Paul was inspired.

None of the issues you are addressing above are in the post you are responding to. Maybe you didn't understand the post well. Let me repeat it ...

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?

The questions were: 1) What are the results that you think Paul is aiming for?

2)Do you support a 'by any means necessary' approach to proselytizing?
Religion / Re: Paul: The False Apostle by PastorAIO: 9:12pm On Aug 25
thorpido: If your mom brought food from a party and you eat and enjoy it,who do you appreciate?

Common sense!

Hmm.. sounds like a trick question. Let me see....

Ans: God!!! grin grin
Religion / Re: See Why You Can't Argue With A Christian by PastorAIO: 8:44pm On Aug 25
They knw better.
The religion one belongs to is usually d religion of the society.
Imaging wasting time on Allah or jehovah only to meet Zeus on judgement day grin

It makes the whole affair very very dicey. grin grin grin


Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 8:42pm On Aug 25
1ord: See no matter how you try to twist or interprete your own statements even if it suits your own prerogative you will end up loosing this argument. Because i have facts and research from countless sources whilst you just have opinion. It is a one sided battle i wish to sit out because you have decided not to look at any ones perspective but yours. I am willing to look at yours whilst your not willing to look at the hard core proof and evidence i am willing to provide. You are not willing to answer accusations i can make against leaders of your faith and the faith itself. You are willing to turn a blind eye against whatever i say. It is a preconceived idea in your mind that i am evil and that some mysterious angel of darkness has sent me to let you astray. If you are willing to look up facts unbiased answer questions and accusations i will make against the christian faith its dogmatic believes and listen to logic i will reply if not i rather do something else than engage in nonconstructive arguments . "You can't wake up a man that pretends to sleep"

Is this madness?

See no matter how you try to twist or interprete your own statements even if it suits your own prerogative you will end up loosing this argument.

I haven't twisted anything. I just reiterated what I said previously. If you ever heard me say anything different please present the quote.

Because i have facts and research from countless sources whilst you just have opinion.
Good for you. Now rather than just boast and beat your chest how about you actually make an attempt at presenting an argument.

It is a one sided battle i wish to sit out because you have decided not to look at any ones perspective but yours. I am willing to look at yours whilst your not willing to look at the hard core proof and evidence i am willing to provide.
Yeparipa, come and see Were. All because I said we have God-given altruism and you responded that Altruism is not the voice of God and then I agreed with you that it wasn't the voice of God. It has now turned into a one sided battle where you have hard core proof. Proof of what exactly I don't know.... Proof that I said altruism was God's voice? Menhhhh, as you are 'willing to provide' I cannot deny that I'm very very keen to see this evidence because that will make you a magician and a miracle worker and I Will become your foremost disciple.

You are not willing to answer accusations i can make against leaders of your faith and the faith itself.
It just keeps getting funnier and funnier. Where you burst out from wey you still get rope for neck? sebi you will first make accusation before you know if I'm willing to answer. But first you must demonstrate it's relevance to the thread.

You are willing to turn a blind eye against whatever i say. It is a preconceived idea in your mind that i am evil and that some mysterious angel of darkness has sent me to let you astray.
grin grin grin
You really are a delightful chap. I shouldn't laugh, I know, after all you are somebody's child, but I can't help it. I don't think you are evil or any of the other things that you think that I think of you. However since reading this your latest post I do think you have hallucinations and delusions.

If you are willing to look up facts unbiased answer questions and accusations i will make against the christian faith its dogmatic believes and listen to logic i will reply if not i rather do something else than engage in nonconstructive arguments . "You can't wake up a man that pretends to sleep"
What has any of this got to do with the Moral Grounding of Atheists? Abeg my friend, Face your problem where your problem is doing you.
Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 4:58pm On Aug 25
1ord: Sorry sir but altruism is not the voice of god it is an instinct we have discussed this before. Read up the science of ethology and the works of neuro biologists Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman on altruism.

I never said it was the voice of God. I said it was god-given. I repeat, what about the voice of God that says, 'listen to your god-given altruism'?

Could you answer that please?
Religion / Re: See Why You Can't Argue With A Christian by PastorAIO: 4:50pm On Aug 25
zeemahn: Paschals wager is a weak argument.

yet at the heart of most (in my opinion) nigerian's adherence to religion is Pascal's wager. Can they be said to have faith?
Religion / Vodun by PastorAIO: 6:59pm On Aug 24


Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 10:38pm On Aug 20

If you don't fear anything in life, i beg you in the name of all that is good to PLEASE fear the bolded in any religious person you come across!

That "ought-ness" has led to the death of over a hundred million native Americans, millions of jews in the dark ages, and several pagan communities all over Europe (directly or indirectly)!

My 2kobo !

That 3rd voice of 'Oughtness' is more prone to saying, "Don't help him, his a muslim/pagan/jew and he ought to die". More times than not people have overridden their God given natural altruistic instincts and opted to obey the Nasty Evil voice of Oughtness.

What about the 3rd voice of Oughtness that says, "Listen to the first voice of Altruism because that was given to you to guide you in Love for your neighbours."
Religion / Re: Paul: The False Apostle by PastorAIO: 10:32pm On Aug 20
thorpido: What has christianity done?I'm sure your parents attended missionary schools even if you didn't and they are the main reason why you can even type on the keyboard as you've just done.
You can stick with what you know but don't rubbish what you have no understanding of.

Perhaps you should convert to Islam. After all it is from the Arabs and the Moors that Europeans, your teachers, got their education and scientific knowledge. Even the numerals that you use to do simple 1 plus 1 equals 2, which I believe we all learnt in school, this was given to us by the muslim arabs. So if Education was your reason for becoming a christian then kuku go to the source and convert to islam.
Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 4:48pm On Aug 18
Joshthefirst: The question is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If you won't believe foundational basic things, why should I waste my time?

Religion / Re: What Is Atheist's Moral Grounding? by PastorAIO: 11:38am On Aug 08
He won't understand what you are getting at here. He has lost the capability. He's literally given up the ability to make ethical and moral considerations for himself and it shows in his character.


This right here is the 'highest' form of morality.
Tell me, Ola, do you do good because you fear hell and hope for a reward, or because it is the right thing to do?

This is why I contend that atheists--("baby killers", "godless people", "infidels"-- are more moral than theists is because they do good out of fear and greed. Fear of eternal punishment, and greed for everlasting life. I'm sure if they were told there was no "hell" or "heaven" Christian, Muslims, --theists, -- will show their true colors. Even now they believe in the sky daddy (god), sky fairies (angels) and heaven and hell, they are still more immoral than we heathens.

Einstein said it best:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. ..."
- Albert Einstein, quoted in: All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists, by Madalyn Murray O'Hair

Survey reveals only 0.02% of prisoners identify as atheists not 2% not 0.2% but 0.02% guess who makes up the remaining 99.98%? shocked
That is, 2 people in 10, 000. and we are the bad people? undecided

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 1:44am On Aug 07
maestroferddi: My man give it up. You have been found out! [b]You said Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting. [/b ]You did say both Paul and Luke cannot both be correct. When I painstakingly demonstrated the full import of your assertions, you derisively branded my effort an English lesson and then surreptitiously smuggled in a belated face-saving reference to the church in Galatia . Tell me you are kidding me!

Meanwhile check out the addendum in my last post. Was omitted when my device ran out of power..

Give what up exactly! And still you haven't answered any of the questions I've asked.

Are you now hallucinating? Where did I say that Luke's theology and that of Paul in Galatians were conflicting? Are you actually reading this thread?

You presented an english lesson to demonstrate that Conflict means contradiction which is a total load of rubbish and shows that perhaps you don't even understand english too well, or are being disingenuous. All the while you did that you were hoping that you could avoid the actual issue under discussion and the questions I asked. Further more , as if to expose yourself, you then accused me of playing musical chairs and shifting the goalposts which of course we all now know is your psychological projections which is a natural reaction to being under pressure.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:53am On Aug 07
maestroferddi: Oga I may have to exit this interchange if you continue slouching behind. Paul quoted Epimenides: how? Can you build a watertight case? The Bible was written by men under divine inspiration. There were no need to seek authentication from unreliable human narratives. You can do better than to default to wild assumptions and extrapolation by providing conclusive proofs.

In Titus Chapter 1 Paul says:

12One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.

I've pointed out that the Cretan Prophet he was quoting is Epimenides, who said this:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

A Cretan Prophet called Epimenides wrote a poem called the Cretica. Paul quotes a line verbatim from the poem and furthermore affirms that it comes from a Cretan prophet. I don't know how much more watertight you need. Although I suspect you will still say that it is not proof enough.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:49am On Aug 07
maestroferddi: I still maintain that you are playing a game of musical chairs.

You thought you could pull a fast stunt on us by playing with nuanced adjectives viz polemical and conflicting. Two adjectives that on the surface look neutral but nonetheless have negative connotations.

Oxford Advance Learners Dictionary - 8th Edition, pp 304 & 1131:

Conflict (verb): conflict (with something) if two ideas, beliefs, stories etc conflict, it is impossible for them to exist together or for both to be true.
Synonym: clash
Example Sentences: conflicting emotions/interests/loyalties * These results conflict with earlier findings * Reports conflicted with on how much of the aid was reaching the famine victims *

Polemical (adjective) <formal>: involving strong argument for and against sth, often in opposition to the opinion of others.

If the foregoing is not contradiction, then you tell me what is!

So we are now doing english lessons!! shocked

Contradiction refers to two statements that negate each other. There is conflict in the middle east. There isn't a contradiction in the middle east, there is a conflict. These two words are very different. Stop squirming.

There is nothing neutral about polemics, or conflict. They both mean 'negative' things. I don't disagree with you, and there is no fast one that I'm pulling. Paul's letter to the galatians was polemical. if you see that as negative that is your problem. The fact is that it was polemical and it addressed a conflict that was going on in the church in Galatia. I'm not trying to be 'neutral', I'm stating facts. Can you deal with them?

I notice in all your 'English lesson' that you've failed to answer any of my questions. If you know you can't answer it then just take your leave from this thread. Otherwise answer. Let me repeat these ones:

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?
Religion / Re: How Does The Translation Process Impact The Inspiration, Inerrancy Of The Bible? by PastorAIO: 4:37pm On Aug 06

I have said from the onset of this thread that translations are not inerrant the autographs are. Below is a quote that answers your query.

Even then this does not help your case as we do not have the Autographs. So therefore, nothing that we have today can be considered the inerrant text.

That quote you posted is nothing but pure speculation with next to no basis.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 3:35pm On Aug 06
maestroferddi: You keep introducing introducing extraneous issues that could lead our veer off the issue at hand.

Like what? Where is the extraneous issue? What is the issue at hand for you?

Yes, an Ifa worshipper, a Hinduist, Greek pagan or a Buddhists can all make the statement alluding to their concept of higher being(s) each time. But are they right? The answer is a resounding No. They all have an inkling of supreme being(s) but their apparent knowledge is a grievous IGNORANCE. Note that Paul accentuated the foregoing in V22. He was like, you guys have the spiritual consciousness of God but you clearly do not know how to access Him. That is why you dub Him "UNKNOWN". If you had known how to find Him, you would have gone to Jerusalem because salvation is of the Jews. If you had gone to Jerusalem, you would have heard of the ministry of Jesus. But alas, you did not make the sojourn! Now here I am, Paul, to give you guys with THE answer to the very God you guys have been seeking to know. And he proceeded to explain...
If an Ifa priest, for example, makes a statement calling his god kind and benevolent; does it mean a Christian who wants to praise God cannot use the preceding phrase while alluding to the Almighty God?
Thankfully, they did not address the statement to Zeus. They dedicated it to an UNKNOWN GOD. In order words, they disowned Zeus (assuming in the unlikely case they did subvert Zeus' worship/obeisance to Almighty God). Since Zeus couldn't do anything about it , I don't see why it should be an issue or are you fighting for Zeus?
Is the so-called verse from Epeminides different from a typical worshipful line? The problem you have is that Epeminides was quoted to have made it. Well, Pharaoh could also have made it thousands of years earlier. By the same token, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Moses could have made it to the Almighty God without your knowing. Position: statement is a mundane devotional/supplicatory line. You cannot prove that it was first made to Zeus.
The same logic applies to the statement about Cretans...

Why would an Ifa worshipper, a Hindu etc by wrong? Why a resounding no? Please explain.

Who is not Grievously ignorant of God? Are we not all looking through a glass, darkly? Did Paul ever claim absolute knowledge? Or did he say 'whether there be knowledge it will vanish away'?

That we cannot know God absolutely is attested to in many religions and cultures. In Egypt they worshipped Amun as 'The Hidden One'. In Rabbinical traditions they still insist that God is beyond our grasp.

The rest of your arguments are based on sheer speculations. How do I know that someone else didn't say those phrases before epimenides? I don't know. And neither do you? But if you want to base your argument on what we don't know rather than on the information available to us then that is your choice. I'm not down with wild speculations. At least not on this matter. Many on another topic if you get me in the right mood then we can speculate on what we don't actually know until the cows come home.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 3:14pm On Aug 06
maestroferddi: Maybe you also need to show that being polemical equates to being contradictory. Paul was entitled to deployed the most effective methodology to achieve maximum results. I don't see anything wrong with that provided he was not contradicting existing scriptures.

Na wa for this your style of conversation. Please where did you see the world 'contradictory' in any of my posts and what was it in reference to?

I spoke of 'conflict'. At least you agree that galatians is polemical, so therefore there must have been conflict. Let's not shift the goal post from conflict to 'contradictory'.

(aside: why is it that certain people do something and straightaway they accuse everybody else of doing that very thing that they are doing while seemingly oblivious to the fact that they are the worst culprit of that thing they are complaining about? This matter of psychological projects is really terrible on Nairaland.)

As regards the 'most effective methodology to achieve maximum results', what exactly are the results that you think that Paul is aiming for? And do you really support a 'by any means necessary' approach? What about lying and stealing? if they are the most effective methods to achieve your aims then would it be alright to employ them?
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:11pm On Aug 06
maestroferddi: Conflict or contradiction? Please may we know what you deem conflicting?

The whole of the letter of Galatians and it's polemical tone is enough for you to know that there was conflict in the early church between Paul and the Church in Jerusalem.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 12:01pm On Aug 06

The syncretism charge must be such that the practice is alien to Pre-Paul Christianity or that a particular practice is not in line with the bible. From my explanation, there is nothing untoward in Paul's conduct in the cases reviewed.

You're getting the wrong end of the stick. I never said that syncretism was a bad thing or was wrong. If you look at many of my posts on Nairaland and many of the reactions against me it has been often the accusations of syncretism, though maybe not in those words exactly. While I've often argued that it is the same religious truth articulated variously by various cultures.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:51am On Aug 06
maestroferddi: You are shifting the goalposts.

From where to where? Nothing has shifted, if you've seen any shifts please point out exactly where it is shifting.

Let us take it one thing at a time: Can the "a" part of Acts17:28 be legitimately applied to God? In other words, can a christian make that devotional sentence without sounding paganistic? If your answer is a yes, then the charge of syncretism falls on its face.
If it is a no, then you need to tell us why. Is that sentence not universal, religion speaking?

Can an Ifa worshipper make that statement? Can an hindu make that statement? Can a Greek pagan make the statement? Can a christian make the statement? If the answer to all of these is yes then it's open season for Syncretism.

If they make that statement knowing that it is a reference to the Greek God Zeus then the case for syncretism is pretty much an established fact.

Now your major grouse is apparently to the reference to poets. If you start from V22, Paul hinted on the superstition of the Athenians and the fact that were seeking God ignorantly.
Now the assumption that the unknown God must be Zeus is your own invention. Zeus has a name so the allusion to him is, at best, an unfounded allegation.

No, it is not my invention. You need to look up the verses by Epimenides. And also by Callimarchus. I'll quote it out for you here:

Epimenides was a 6th-century BC philosopher and religious prophet who, against the general sentiment of Crete, proposed that Zeus was immortal, as in the following poem:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

— Epimenides, Cretica

Denying the immortality of Zeus, then, was the lie of the Cretans.

The phrase "Cretans, always liars" was quoted by the poet Callimachus in his Hymn to Zeus, with the same theological intent as Epimenides:

O Zeus, some say that thou wert born on the hills of Ida;
Others, O Zeus, say in Arcadia;
Did these or those, O Father lie? -- “Cretans are ever liars.”
Yea, a tomb, O Lord, for thee the Cretans builded;
But thou didst not die, for thou art for ever.

— Callimachus, Hymn I to Zeus

Those words were taken straight out of the Hymn to Zeus. So you see, I'm not just inventing things by bring up Zeus. Those two phrases, 1)Cretans are always Liars, and 2) In whom we live move and have our being, are taken straight from Poems written by prophets of Zeus in honour of Zeus.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:57pm On Aug 05
They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being.
- Epimenides

It is also a common accusation thrown at christians from pagans in the Roman empire that the Christians were saying nothing new.

When we call Christ the Logos, do we mean that in the sense that the Greeks understood the term or is there another sense in which we understand the word Logos?

So we find Christianity all over the pagan world, the only difference is that the concepts have been given new names but a rose by any other name will smell just as sweet.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 11:52pm On Aug 05
maestroferddi: I am still finding your logic pretty nebulous. Are you saying Paul should have preached a different message since there was a subsisting legend on the death and resurrection of Zeus? Did Paul substitute Zeus for Jesus or make any kind of obeisance to Zeus? What do you really understand by syncretism? I think some understanding of demonology will come handy to you.

You are leaping to abrupt conclusions on the Athenian spectacle. Paul never coveted a heathen shrine. When he got to Mars Hill, he saw a SIGN marked with the inscription: "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD". Now, who is the unknown God? He definitely cannot be Satan. Satan invariably has an identity. If you view religion from the God-Satan dialectic or good-evil relationship, you would see that what is not of Satan must be of God as the two are the only forces in contention. Compare the foregoing with the statement Jesus made that those who are not against Him must be for Him.

If I meet a man who believes God exists but is trying to access Him via a wrong channel or who doesn't know how to access God, am I suppose to refute the very existence of God and manufacture a new one? No, that would be counter-productive. What Paul did was to confirm the existence of God but declaim the only means of accessing Him which is via Jesus Christ. There is nothing syncretic about that!


Syncretism /ˈsɪŋkrətɪzəm/ is the combining of different, often seemingly contradictory beliefs, while melding practices of various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merger and analogizing of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.

Who is the God in whom we live and Move and have our Being? Ask any Christian today and he will say Jesus. Ask any Hellenic pagan and he will say Zeus.

By quoting from a prophet of Zeus that all Cretans are liars he is making a very direct reference to Zeus. In the Hellenic world in which he lived that would be totally unmistaken. By claiming that that was the God that he was preaching it cannot be seen as anything less than syncretism.

Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Who were the Greek poets talking about? Who is it that 'we are all also his offspring.'?

The Greek poets state quite explicitly that it is zeus.
Religion / Re: Will God's Chosen People Do This ? ( Graphic ) by PastorAIO: 9:50pm On Aug 05

Okay i agree but please explain this,_2014.

Palestine has fired over 3055 rocket bomb into isreal just from january to july alone, Nobody complained, Isreal retaliate, everybody is complaining.

Palestine know isreal is stronger but they keep on looking for trouble, Isreal kept quiet till late July. Even countries that are not as powerful as isreal would have retaliated since. Just imagine one rocket bomb is sent from Nigeria to Russia, what do you think would happen immediately?

I don't need to explain anything. Someone asked how the conflict started this time around and I told them that it is over the death of 3 kids and there was no proof that the palestinians had anything to do with it.

If you want to start dragging the entire history of the conflict into it then we should go back to 1947 when Israel was formed. But that's not even the subject of this thread although you are free to open a thread on that issue.

1 Like

Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:46pm On Aug 05
maestroferddi: We really need to cut Apostle Paul some slack. In paganism just like other religions, there abound some moral truths. The question then is whether we expect Apostle Paul and other christian leaders/writers to stand the truth on its head just because a particular religion was the first to make a particular assertion or statement of truth.

This isn't just a small matter of some moral truths. The prophecy that Paul was quoting was about the supposed death and resurrection of Zeus. Unless you want to equate Zeus with Jesus. this is not just a matter of Moral truths. This is a matter of syncretism.

Paul does it again in Athens when he tells the citizens that a shrine that he found in Athens was the shrine of the God that he is preaching to them.
Religion / Re: The Falsehoods Of Paul by PastorAIO: 9:43pm On Aug 05
maestroferddi: I honestly cannot see your point. The primary human validator of Paul's apostleship/discipleship was Ananias, a reputed prophet and, to some extent, Barnabas, an able disciple. Paul's meeting with Peter and the rest cannot be to validate his office as an apostle because we should suppose that the witness and reputation of Ananias ought to have gotten to their knowledge. Paul had a direct instruction of the mode and means of his ministry so I really do not see where the need to be tied to the apron strings of Peter and the rest arose. Paul and Barnabas/Silas met with the rest as the occasion called like the council in Jerusalem.

My point is that there is a discontinuity between the Early Church before Paul and the Teachings of Paul. This caused a lot of friction in those days. Hence the polemical nature of a lot of Paul's letters, especially Galatians. In acts there isn't a single whiff of this conflict and it is made to seem as if Paul blended in with the other christians.

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (of 158 pages)

(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: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise. 202
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.