@deepsight
thanx i was expecting you would have appeared on this post much earlier. Your views are highly welcome.

Indeed Kunle, i only just saw it now, you know this is one of the subjects i am most concerned about.

Human beings have a natural tendency to hero-worship.

The hero-worshipping instinct, i will adduce in a future thread, is actually firm psycological evidence for the existence of a supeme being: God: the ultimate hero. But i digress.

Back to hero worship. It is my view that hero worship is the cardinal plank on which christian dogma seems to have derailed.

First hero-worship of Jesus of NAZARETH, despite his admonitions against worshipping him - and his adjurations towards worship of GOD only.

Then hero-worship of the apostles through canonization. I must wonder if Christ would have supported the idea of cannonizing humans as saints given his words against calling even himself good: emphasizing that only God is good. How then do we hero-worship humans and declare them "holy" by cannonizaing them as saints? Over to Chukwudi44.

Then by hero-worship pf Popes. The doctrine of papal infallibility even going so far as to declare the pope "infallible." Good grief.

Nowadays in Nigeria we have inched towards what i may term "pastoral infallibility", another vicious form of hero worship in which our pastors are virtually deified as God. The cardinal plank on which this has been built up is that fraudulent refrain - "touch not his anointed. . ."

In all of this where is the ideal of christian humility, modesty and equanimity? Why do we have the aggressive, abusive and empty sort of christianity espoused by motor-park touts lacking ethics, upbringing and civility such as Davidylan?

@DeepSight: Your last post is a wailer!!! LMAO You had me in stitches as I read towards the end!!

@kunleOshob: More, sir!

@Nuclearboy: I apologize i may not be such an active poster in the next few days. . . complications, complications and a busy schedule. But i will try to keep following the discussions & see what I can do, God helping me.

Three of my favorite posters on one page. Really interesting sunday

Deep Sight:

The hero-worshipping instinct, i will adduce in a future thread, is actually firm psycological evidence for the existence of a supeme being: God: the ultimate hero. But i digress.

Back to hero worship. It is my view that hero worship is the cardinal plank on which christian dogma seems to have derailed.

First hero-worship of Jesus of NAZARETH, despite his admonitions against worshipping him - and his adjurations towards worship of GOD only.

Then hero-worship of the apostles through canonization. I must wonder if Christ would have supported the idea of cannonizing humans as saints given his words against calling even himself good: emphasizing that only God is good. How then do we hero-worship humans and declare them "holy" by cannonizaing them as saints? Over to Chukwudi44.

Then by hero-worship pf Popes. The doctrine of papal infallibility even going so far as to declare the pope "infallible." Good grief.

Nowadays in Nigeria we have inched towards what i may term "pastoral infallibility", another vicious form of hero worship in which our pastors are virtually deified as God. The cardinal plank on which this has been built up is that fraudulent refrain - "touch not his anointed. . ."

In all of this where is the ideal of christian humility, modesty and equanimity? Why do we have the aggressive, abusive and empty sort of christianity espoused by motor-park touts lacking ethics, upbringing and civility such as Davidylan?

I agree with Everything you wrote above Except the Jesus part. Maybe I missed something but please detail some of these scriptures on Jesus admonitions

^^^^ Mark 10: 18

John 14:28/

John 20:17

I explain away all three quotes as language idiosyncrasies. Let me explain:

Mark 10:18. He was doing the exact opposite of what you claim. Remember He spoke mainly in Parables except to his inner circle. By asking that question, He was saying "Oh, so you know that God is the "good" one and you call me "good", doesn't that make me God?"

John 14:28 says "the Father is greater than I". Here Jesus was standing clothed in Flesh, subject (by self-choice) to the laws of nature and 4 dimensions. As you read these words of mine, I'm certain you accept they're not all there is to me. The state in which He was restricted Him whist the purity didn't have those restrictions of nature and 4 dimensions etc.

John 20:17 (My God and your God). Many of us yorubas (I don't know the structure of other languages) do the following almost daily. ME: "Oh F$*k, Nuclearboy, you need to go sit down, visit yourself (remember we're thinking in Yoruba) and talk to your inner self to avoid all this rubbish you're doing". Was I going to visit a different person from myself?

Would you deny me my right because you don't speak like I do?

[img]http://Given your catholic back ground it is obvious that you are biased about the issues at stake[/img]

given ur non -catholic background should I also say u re biased.I just produced historical facts for you,the onus is now on you to refute them with credidble historical writings.

The is no proof thnat more than 30 gospels were written ,however evidences abound that certain heretical gospels like the gnostic gospels were concocted in the second century,these are available for you on the internet.Those who were privileged to hear from the apostles rejected these books why on earth should I accept them,if you want to go ahead and read and practise their teachings ,there are available on the internet but I warn they may take you to hell.

Then hero-worship of the apostles through canonization. I must wonder if Christ would have supported the idea of cannonizing humans as saints given his words against calling even himself good: emphasizing that only God is good. How then do we hero-worship humans and declare them "holy" by cannonizaing them as saints? Over to Chukwudi44.

no body is being worshipped as a saint,canonisation is simply a confirmation that a person is now in heaven and can now be asked to pray for us the same way any person can be asked to pray for us.

There are certain processes involved some of which are two post-humous miracles attributed to the saints intecession,otherwise nobody will declare you a saint.

Saints like Anthony of Padua are one of the most venerated saints and has posthumously raised people from thedead ,five of which occurred in the first few months of his death.Countless miracles has been attributed to this great man of GOD.

KunleOshob:

Whilst it is not wrong to collect donations and contributions to run an NGO a ministry it is the intergrity of those entrusted with the funds that matters. As long as one is using the money for the purpose for which it is eant and not selfish reasons backed by twisted scripture. However people establish and fund NGOs without soliciting for donations/ contributions from others the most prominet of these NGOs being Rockefeller foundation, ford foundation and the Bill/Melinda Gates foundation. It is my intention to purely fund my NGO myself, people that are interested in supporting it would be given a list of orphanages/ mother less babies home to which they can give their support to directly. A principal activity of the NGO    ministry would be preaching to people to give to christ through giving to the poor and the needy as taught by christ in matthew 25:31-40

So in other words, you'll ultimately be asking us to fund your NGO abi? and we're supposed to trust you have good intentions and that all the money is going to the needy abi?

DeepSight and Nuclearboy: i really must chip this in. Its One thing to worship Jesus the man and another to Worship the Word who become flesh. I believe one reason why no corpse was left behind for Christ is so that men would not worship it as another idol.

Moses made a bronze serpent to be lifted up to save the sinning Israelites and Jesus likened himself to it. Did you know that the Israelites didnt understand that the serpent was just a vessel and not the real source? They started worshipping Nehushtan (that exact bronze serpent), see 2Ki 18:4 rather than look up to God. Jesus emphasized that only God in his divinity was good &to be Worshipped (Matt 4:10), and that his human form was only a vessel prepared for him (Heb 10:5).

I think u are both right but the Word needs to be well divided, is it Jesus the man or The "non-human" Word who was known on earth as Jesus that is not to be Worshipped? (see John 4:24, Phi 3:3)

Think of it like a Hollywood star in a movie and in reality. The guy in the movie is the man Jesus, he is not worthy of an Oscar. The real actor gets the Oscar. As a participator in the Godhead as Son of God, Jesus deserves worship. But not Jesus the Man. "Jesus" the Word.

In Revelations, the Word was worshipped (who was known on earth as the Son of Man) and in Joshua 5:13-15 in pre-incarnate form he appeared as the captain of the Lord's hosts &allowed Joshua to worship him (something that angels wont do, see Rev 19:10, Rev 22:9).  Not once as man did Jesus require worship of anyone IMO.

@Mavenbox:
God bless you for this absolutely brilliant addition to the discourse. I had issues expressing what I felt but its like you read my mind and brought forth life. And not just for this thread too

Deepsight:
I think the problem is the inability to separate the Human and the entity behind the Human yet seeing them together as it were, in one entity. That is why on our "Nuclear holds a Sword" thread, I pointed out the limitation brought on by the flesh clothing. In that "situation", He was as it were, the actor Mavenbox has called Him and not meant to be worshiped. Yet! Yet He still remained essentially what He was: The Word of God who was the Son of Man. My context is the now I exist in 2000 years after He said those words. His context was the THEN in which He spoke. At times I have decided (comes and goes in my mind) that He deliberately allowed this confusion and went back and forth in history (from where I stand) because He wants us to know to a point then move further in "trust/faith".

@nuclearBoy: LOL God bless you too. The funny thing is that I was typing (rather slowly) on my phone (and I type each character, cos I don't like T9) so I started replying right after DeepSight's Bible verses, only to see that 3 posts had been made before I could respond! I am glad that the post was not too long I am learning!!

On the question of the simultaenous humanity and divinity of Jesus, i can only post what i have previously argued with Viaro -

And the one point I will respond to is – you guessed it – your belabored struggle to separate Christ’s humanity from his Deity.

Perhaps I should at this point, since I promised to be brief, only throw a few posers, and reserve the thesis for a later post.

Here are the posers –

1. Did Christ lose his perfect Divine nature, by becoming human?

2. If he did lose that nature, then the sacrifice was a sacrifice of an imperfect being, and not that of a perfect being, yes? Out-the-window goes all the talk about a “perfect” “unblemished” savior being required, yes?

3. On the other hand, if he did NOT lose the Divine nature, then he perforce remained perfect – thus fully in tandem with the Divine will; such as to make the request in Gethsemane an incongruity and a paradox, yes?

4. Did Christ lose all his knowledge about the DIVINE plan concluded in heaven with his father, about the redemptive work on the cross?

5. If he did not lose such knowledge (as apparently from scripture he did not); then why would he seek, within human form, to change that which he himself as ALMIGHTY GOD had perfected and concluded in heaven?

Man, I hope you see the point clearly; your “hypostasis” on the simultaneous humanity and deity of that carpenter leaves gaping wide holes.

It surprises me that each time I repeat these obvious facts, you resort to empty platitudes about Christ being “human”, and then promise to deal with the issue in future.

Let’s carry on . . .

You spoke about the “Divine will” being different from the “Divine person”.

OH MY GOD, WHAT A GAFFE; DOES IT NOT OCCUR TO YOU THAT IN STATING THIS, YOU DIRECTLY DENY THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY, FOR IN THAT TREASURED DOCTRINE OF YOURS, THEY ARE ALL SAID TO BE ONE!

AS A FOLLOW-UP: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY YOUR SUMMATION THAT THE WILL IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PERSONAGE, WHEN CHRIST SAID A ZILLION TIMES THAT THAY ALL AGREE AS ONE, AND THAT HE WAS “ONE” WITH THE FATHER, AND THAT THEIR WILL WAS IN ONE ACCORD? THUS HOW COULD THE “PERSONAGE” HAVE A DIFFERENT WILL FROM THE “WILL”? YES, THE LAUGHABLE NATURE OF THIS JOKE OF A DOCTRINE IS BEGINNING TO BECOME CLEAR TO YOU NOW?

I HOPE YOU SEE IT’S BEGINNING TO FALL APART IN SENSELESSNESS FOR YOU VIARO – BUT THAT IS NOT SURPRISING: INCOHERENT DOGMA LIKE THE TRINITY MUST NECESSARILY FALL APART. . .

Christ! (No pun intended).

Deal with the five questions above, and then we may take it from there.

Finally – Although I did not want to do it, I am going to introduce more scripture that suggests clearly that Christ DID NOT want to be crucified, and that the crucifixion was in fact NOT the will of God. Go and read up Jesus’ parable of the Vineyard, and then we will address that.

And -

Divinity is the core nature and principle of original existence, or original being. It is eternal, infinite, and accordingly an absolute. It thus is not capable of the sort of whims and caprices attributable to imperfect human beings (or to the Abrahamic God).

To draw wisdom from the Bible itself, might I invite you to appreciate that this is the reason why it is stated that God is the same yesterday, today and forever more. The Divine will is inflexible; adamantine. This is also why it is stated that “heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the lord abideth forever.” I draw these from scripture, in the hope that your escapism will not be so great as to be desirous of evading the unchangeability of God which is something that is enshrined in scripture, aside from being obvious to the deeply philosophical mind.

It is with the foregoing in mind that your response fell way below the mark.

This Christ is said to be God in human form. He thus had a deep knowledge of the purpose and will of God regarding mankind. From time eternal, being divine, he must know very well the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the Godhead: given its perfection – for that which is perfect cannot be changed.

It is in the light of this that you can begin to appreciate just how ludicrous it is to claim that a personage (who is himself ALMIGHTY GOD) and is fully cognisant of –

1. The nature of the Divine Will
2. The Purpose of the redemptive work
3. The absolute necessity of that work for the salvation of his creatures

- would begin to petition himself to avert the divinely willed occurrence.

This can only suggest that he was either not divine, or had a poor grasp of the adamantine and unchangeable nature of the divine will – especially in the context of such a historical act of redemption?

You MUST accept that the foregoing is simply pushing the boundaries of all reason into absolute insanity. If not insanity, it is at the very minimum, evidence of a woefully failed philosophical schooling – nay – it borders on suspected truancy in English Comprehension classes, in earlier stages of the life of anyone who advocates this incomparably outlandish myth.

Viaro – in this, I demand the most exacting sincerity from you: although I know I will not receive it for one reason: dogma is a terrible blindfold.

Already I have a hint of the fading of your sincerity in this matter as you did not hesitate to tell an outright lie in your desperation to deify the Jewish carpenter whom you worship –


Quote
Now, I'm not calling you A SlowPoke, nor being pejorative against your person; but your assumptions are quite cowardly and not man enough to see that He NEVER at anytime made a "request" that His sacrifice would not take place.
.

Please retract this shocking falsehood; I needn’t paste the whole of the prayer in Gethsemane here before you accept that you have definitely lied here. Christ DID request that the “cup” should be taken away from him - yes, that "cup" which we have defined above, which AS GOD, he must have known all about.


Quote
If anything, not only did He frequently tell His disciples that such an event was inevitable
.

If he knew it was inevitable why in hell would he make that odd prayer in Gethsemane? Was he hoping against the “inevitable?” Just remember that this is almighty God you are referring to.

And given the analysis of divinity and the divine will that I set forth above, that, dear Viaro, positively affirms that he is not GOD, could not be, unless we speak of an inferior god, than that which is divine and unceasing in its perfection.

It was amazing how you also sidestepped the core issue on the evident dichotomy of wills in the statement – “not as I will, but as thou wilt”. You merely stated –


Quote
There is no grounds to assume a dichotomy of 'wills' - if there was, you have not demonstrated such a grounds but are only yapping. I would like to invite you at a set time to discuss why I believe in the Trinity - the time will come. For me, it is not a matter of additions and multiplications, but of subsistence (you can hold me to that statement when the time comes). And yes, in that discussion I will share many matters with you about the divine hypostasis of Christ being both Deity and Human. I shall not preempt it here; but mark my summations until then.

- And left it at that! Good grief, again I ask you, you can accept a possible difference of wills within the Godhead, after all Christ’s statements about being “one” with the father, and all ? ? ? ?

I hope it is now not lost on you that beyond attacking my cosmological theories (which have nothing to do with this dogmatic issue) you made absolutely no sense, and not a single valid point at all in all your responses: because you did not address the issues, but evaded them in favour or absurd taunts.

I shudder at the way in which dogmatic Christians such as yourself are happy to debase the perfection of God in order to justify dogma! What is most terrifying is that you are normally a very reasonable man, but once your dogma is fluttered, you are willing to consign all reason and all obvious truth to the waste bin, in a rabid attempt to justify your worship of a fellow human being, which has been handed to you by your colonial master.

But heck, worship the dead Jewish carpenter all you want. . . you are entitled to do so just as surely as the adherents of the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star are entitled to insist that Olumba Olumba Obu is God. And just as surely as Hindus are entitled to worship cows.

And further -

You have talked about His essence being different from his will.


Let us grant that that is the case. It still begs my core question –


“Could the will ever disagree with the personage?”


This is an odd question, but that is the oddity that the Trinity leads us to: I ask again – Could the “Will” of God ever differ from that which resides within the “essence” of God? That is – could the will be of a different or contradictory desire or direction, to the essence


In my view, it certainly cannot, because the will proceeds directly from the person, or, as you put it, the “essence” of God. For this reason the will can only be reflective of the essence, and certainly could not contradict the essence.

Once you accept this, as you per force must, you have conclusively ceded the debate: because as you will see below, God's will could not request of God that God should change God's will to suit the will of God who was on Earth at the tinme.

I dare you to suggest tat the will can contradict the essence, or bear a different desire, and let us see just how far you are prepared to carry this absurdity.


Answer now, and let the issue rest. We have reached a head; with this cardinal question, which will resolve this debate once and for all!


You did answer in the affirmative that Jesus did not become less divine by becoming human, you also naturally agree that he was the perfect embodiment of God’s will (He was God in fact, you say, which ties the noose of wills only tighter).


Given this, the simple question is ask; for the umpteenth time is this –


How could he say: “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt?”


Does this not show God (or Christ, who you stated did not become less divine by becoming human - remember that) willing or pleading for something that was AGAINST the Divine will.


Does this not show a possible dichotomy of wills? That his will could conceivably be different from the Father’s will?


Could the son have a different desire from the father? If he does, would that not do sacrilege to the concept of their “oneness”?


Indeed Viaro – I have a second sure plank of victory (not that this discourse is about victory, of course) – your acceptance that he did not become less divine by becoming human nails away all your assertions about his “human” side, showing up such to have been poorly thought-up excuses for absurdities that your dogma presents.


This debate is effectively concluded against you, based on your own responses and now I think some history is apt. If I might ask, do you know anything of the Arian heresy and the Council of Nicea?

So please even a thorough reading of the garden of gethsemane must indicate that there was nothing Divine about Jesus. . .

I personally have always argued against the word Trinity. The word came from pagan Rome. It is to me wrong that three are one. Rather, I have always seen it as one shown as three. Given this scenario of one shown as three, I could expand to that one being then shown as a myriad which could include a dog, a snail and a piece of chalk. Taking these three examples as a "population sampling" for my illustration, would you take them to be the same or have the same capabilities? Or do you believe the Almighty unable to be 2 different things in different places?

Would you expect say, the snail to eat meat or the chalk to crawl since they are same? I have used the flesh covering of Jesus to argue for limitation. Remember that the spirit is said to struggle against the flesh plus there's still the soul in this human mix. A cry for help can come from tortured flesh struggling against a Spirit rigid in its purpose. And the cry of a tortured soul is even worse. At Gethsemane, foreknowledge of what the next 24 or so hours held would have caused great grief for the soul. Remember the Spirit was not going to be the one feeling the pain. It was Flesh-Time! It caused sweat of blood, didn't it? To what? Spirit or flesh. I believe the flesh rose here and struggled. I come from a military background and know that the "Rambo" personality sold on TV is ridiculous. If God didn't cheat and Jesus was both fully Man and fully God, there was a distinct clash between the different portions of His being that I believe explains away the seeming turnarounds. Total humanity explains the fear. Total Divinity explains the acceptance of the Divine will. This I believe resolves the issue of "will" versus "personage". Of course, here, will would be Spirit whist personage is the mishmash. As an example, I would (my will) that I jog 10 miles every morning. Bros, I assure you my personage doesn't wish to get up early in the morning.

Re: It is more blessed to give than to receive

Isn't it obvious that that statement would have been recognised by the people Paul was talking to. He wasn't telling them for the first time, he was reminding them.

The explanation that I accept is that there were lots of 'words of Christ' that were being passed around orally. All the sayings of the gospels were part of an oral tradition, not every aphorism in this oral tradition made it into the 4 gospels. Hence we have Paul quoting a saying of Jesus that is not recorded in the gospels.

Hence the gospels are not a complete rendering of the teachings of christ.

@DeepSight: Let me attempt to be brief in my response, expanding my previous analogy and deepening Jesus' perspective.

On Gethsemane:

Using my analogy of Keifer Sutherland acting as Jack Bauer in the action series "24", I know you will agree with me (if you watch the series) that many times, Jack Bauer is close to death, and like every other human being, he does not want to die unless he absolutely has to. In a hypothetical scene, he has been left inside an underground chamber while he tries to deactivate a scheduled nuclear warhead, guarded by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

Jack Bauer (in his mind): Not my will, director (The director is Keifer Sutherland), but yours be done. I really want to get out of this scene alive, and save the people of the United States. (frantically tries to deactivate the warhead, while still shooting the Fundamentalist terrorists that are trying to gun him down and prevent him from doing the work)
Casual Observer (someone who has seen the movie last night on MNet): what nonsense?! Doesn't Keifer know that he will not die, and the CTU will rescue him in the next few minutes? Why is he acting like he doesn't know? Are you sure Jack Bauer is Keifer Sutherland? 'Cos he was interviewed last week and he already told us about this scene!
Maven:   But of course he has to behave like that, because that is what his role requires! And if Jack Bauer dies in that movie, Keifer Sutherland will never be Jack Bauer again. At least until another movie. Self-preservation is a fundamental human trait, and he's only human to act that way

Furthermore, I want you to note that everything Jesus did and said was for our benefit. If he acted all macho and marched to the cross, how would we know how to deal with circumstances where it seems our will is far easier than God's more complex (difficult?) will? Here, Jesus was going to undergo a three-day journey that would at first separate him from the Godhead due to the enormity of man's sins. For the FIRST time, the Son of God was going to be divorced, so to speak, from His Father. In actuality, He knew it was temporary, but for our benefit, he had to take it like a man (no pun intended).

Jesus took his disciples along with him so as to show them how it is to battle out such spiritual tussles, but they were just sleeping like logs  

@Nuclearboy: Omigash! Once again I spent so long typing, only to get "Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post. ".

Sticking with the other thread please. I'm going dizzy. Mavenbox, please join at https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-369330.0.html

Okay, Deepsight and Nuclearboy, meet you guys on the other thread.

simmy:

So in other words, you'll ultimately be asking us to fund your NGO abi? and we're supposed to trust you have good intentions and that all the money is going to the needy abi?

If you read my post well you would read were i stated it would be a self funded NGO and those who are interested in supporting would be given a list of Orphanages/ motherless babies home that the ministry is supporting to give the money to directly. I would not accept funds directly from any one so as not to compromise the real objectives of the ministry.

KunleOshob:
@pastorAIO
Apart from the fact that we know a core part of Jesus tachings was about being of help to the poor and needy around us, we ought to know that Paul did not depend on the four gospels we now rely on today as they probably had't been written as at the time paul was ministering. Paul was recored to have been taught directly by Jesus himself who appeared o him after his acension. That apart i am quite aware that there were over thirty gospels written on the ministry and life of christ, however onlt four of them were cannonize by the RCC. It is quite possible that paul got this teaching from the other gospels that were not cannonized by the RCC.

Great job but I have a point of disagreement with you. The canon was determined prior to the RCC.

Mavenb0x:

DeepSight and Nuclearboy: i really must chip this in. Its One thing to worship Jesus the man and another to Worship the Word who become flesh. I believe one reason why no corpse was left behind for Christ is so that men would not worship it as another idol.

Moses made a bronze serpent to be lifted up to save the sinning Israelites and Jesus likened himself to it. Did you know that the Israelites didnt understand that the serpent was just a vessel and not the real source? They started worshipping Nehushtan (that exact bronze serpent), see 2Ki 18:4 rather than look up to God. Jesus emphasized that only God in his divinity was good &to be Worshipped (Matt 4:10), and that his human form was only a vessel prepared for him (Heb 10:5).

I think u are both right but the Word needs to be well divided, is it Jesus the man or The "non-human" Word who was known on earth as Jesus that is not to be Worshipped? (see John 4:24, Phi 3:3)

Think of it like a Hollywood star in a movie and in reality. The guy in the movie is the man Jesus, he is not worthy of an Oscar. The real actor gets the Oscar. As a participator in the Godhead as Son of God, Jesus deserves worship. But not Jesus the Man. "Jesus" the Word.
In Revelations, the Word was worshipped (who was known on earth as the Son of Man) and in Joshua 5:13-15 in pre-incarnate form he appeared as the captain of the Lord's hosts &allowed Joshua to worship him (something that angels wont do, see Rev 19:10, Rev 22:9).  Not once as man did Jesus require worship of anyone IMO.

I understand here that you are saying that Jesus is not to be worshipped. Hmmm.
John 9:35-38
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said to him, “Do you believe in the Son of God?” He answered and said, “Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?” And Jesus said to him, “You have both seen Him and it is He who is talking with you.” Then he said, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshiped Him.
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

@aletheia: thanks. But i never said Jesus was not worshipped or is not to be worshipped. I was dividing between the Word and Jesus the man, with respect to requiring our worship. Deepsight, to whom I was speaking, does not agree with the Divine participation of Jesus.

Is the worship of God not another form of hero worshipping?

KunleOshob:

If you read my post well you would read were i stated it would be a self funded NGO and those who are interested in supporting would be given a list of Orphanages/ motherless babies home that the ministry is supporting to give the money to directly. I would not accept funds directly from any one so as not to compromise the real objectives of the ministry.

So any1 who has similar intentions to yours but proffers a slightly different modus operandi, i.e say, he receives your donations directly is of the devil abi? and then, didn't the priests in the OT take levies and donations to run the temple?

quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

simmy:

So any1 who has similar intentions to yours but proffers a slightly different modus operandi, i.e say, he receives your donations directly is of the devil abi? and then, didn't the priests in the OT take levies and donations to run the temple?

quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

. . . not from tithes

simmy:


quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

With all the hoards of churches already running in Nigeria (sometimes like 2 - 3 of a single denomination on a single street) WHY EXACTLY DO YOU NEED TO OPEN A NEW ONE? WHAT IS THE NEED? WHY NOT JOIN AND HELP BUILD EXISTING ONES? WOULD THE MONEY FOR BUILDING A FRESH ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY CHURCH NOT GO BETTER TO MOTHERLESS BABIES HOMES OR DONATED TO HUNGRY PEOPLE IN RWANDA? ? ? ? ? ?

WHY EXACTLY MUST EVERY TOM DICK AND HARRY START A FRESH CHURCH IN NIGERIA? ? ? ? ?

Tonye-t:

@KunleOshod,

I must say a big thanx to you for this topic and the posts you made same for NuclearBoy and PastorAIO, you guys got me searching my biblos again .

In my remark, i w'll say this is REVEALING! But i keep wondering why my dear brother will never stop at mentioning or ascerting tithing as a mojor form of counterfeit christianity.it baffles me sha!

Well if you remember that tithing was not introduced to christianity until the year 585AD after the council of Macon you would realize it occured as a result of some men [catholic bishops] adding their own ideas to the scriptures thus counterfeiting christianity further. it is instructive that the catholic church that introduced the scam nolonger preach it has compulsary to their congregation but the pentecostal movement that was born as a result of love for filthy lucre is finding it almost immpossible to let go off this scam.

simmy:

So any1 who has similar intentions to yours but proffers a slightly different modus operandi, i.e say, he receives your donations directly is of the devil abi? and then, didn't the priests in the OT take levies and donations to run the temple?

quick question, assuming i have a genuine desire to serve God and start a church/ministry, how do you intend i source for funds to run the church?

How you decide to source funds is your own wahala, i have merely stated how i would go about it if i do start a ministry and my idea of what a ministry should be. I never recommneded my approach to you or anyone.

KunleOshob:

How you decide to source funds is your own wahala, i have merely stated how i would go about it if i do start a ministry and my idea of what a ministry should be. I never recommneded my approach to you or anyone.

hehehehe. Yet you're bold enough to call people who administrate in churches 'agents of the devil' simply because they have chosen a different path to funding from yours?
Now I'm not saying there aren't several thieving pastors out there who milk their congregation dry, but Mr. KunleOshobs you seem to imply that any1 who asks for tithes and offerings in his church is satanic. Remember, many churches don't force any1 to tithe. They only remind you that God will bless you if you give to Him.