₦airaland Forum

TV01,

TV01:
Did you really read my last post?

I said "I try not to moderate" and you launch a full scale offensive in denying that you do so yourself? I never said or insinuated that you did. I didn't accuse you of anything. If I don't do it, why would I let anyone do it to me? All I did was express how I see the tone of debate and "my" approach. There is absolutely no reason for your defensiveness.

Did I really read your last post? Thoroughly. Did you really read mine? I don't know. Where you "try not to moderate" does not and should not tie in with a response to make it look like I'm doing so. Happy now?

TV01:
I use the word "church" in one of two ways.

1. The institutional/traditional/denominational church (especially as it relates to the religious abomination falsely called "Christianity"

2. The body of Christ.

I've noticed that your use of the term "church" as a pejorative term in addressing others who do not fall into your idea and interpretation of church is at best an unhappy exercise. The fact that denominations exist does not warrant a Christian's use of "church" in any pejorative sense. Six churches out of seven in Rev. 2 & 3 had problems, some of which would shock us today; but nowhere do we read that Christ perjured them. Tell me something - these "religious abomination falsely called Christianity" have come under your incessant scathing in almost all your posts: do you see any thing of God's grace to appreciate in them? Nothing at all?

TV01:
I believe I made it very clear (as does the bible) that the "church" in 1. above, is cursed and more besides. Feel free to disagree. If you are still uncertain, I am as ever, willing to elucidate.

No, you did not - show me if I'm mistaken. You read the word curse into I Samuel 8 where there was none and I pointed this out to you. If you're still insisting that Christians in the denominations are cursed, I want the direct verse for that.

TV01:
My questions remain the same;

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church in this day and age?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

Please go read my posts where I addressed both questions. If you're not satisfied, ask. And while you're that, let me enquire: are you of the view that there are only elders and deacons and everything else is needless religion? In other words, no evangelists, pastors and teachers, and other gifts today? Would you mind sharing about your views from the Scriptures?

Ragards.

Thnx

TV01:
I think this insistence on delineating offices, functions, hierarchies, is typical of one who sees the Church as organisation. I sense that you sometimes research to prove a point, or maybe validate what is practiced in your mode of worship. Maybe it would help if (as I feel I have tried to do), share your denominational leaning or mode of worship. After all, surely that's as important as sharing doctrinal positions?

Not at all. I'm not one to see the Church as an organization, but that doesn't mean that there is no sense of the Church being organized. Second, it's not an insistence on delineating the various roles, functions, and offices; it's important to see that the Bible teaches it. If it wasn't important, I'm sure they would not have appeared on the pages of the Bible. (Or, how else did you come to the conclusion earlier that "There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons"?). Lastly, I haven't read anything about you "sharing your denominational leaning or mode of worship" on this Forum; would like you to point this out where you have.

Blessings.

Here again. . . (had to take a short break. . .lol)

TV01:
So for example, you insist on quantifying numbers and identifying names. No problem. Now my question was "How does the apostle operate in church today. You respoded with the quote from Ph 4 about edifying etc. etc. Yes sir, I know that is the reason for all Christian ministry, office, gifts, but my question was very specific. Not why, but what & how. You've mention "apostolic commission and capacity". Please sir, elucidate. Commissioned, how?, capacity, what?

Reason why we got to this point was because you had earlier made the assertion that "Everything else is needless religion." That made me suspect that you perhaps had not taken the time to see what the Bible says about ministering gifts in the Church. As has been debated, it turned out that, where we miss this point, all else will be confused. So, if there were only 13 apostles, it would not matter what the gifts meant anyways, because that would suppose that there were no such gifts beyond the apostles (which clearly is not correct); and secondly, it would presume that if God raised up true evangelists, pastors and teachers today, you'd be obliged to write them off as "needless religion!"

As to the question of "what & how" - I've dealt with those in a nutshell discussing the examples of Peter's commission to the circumcission, and Paul's to the Gentiles, yes? Commissioned: specifically called to the task with authority. Capacity: acting in the office of the calling.

Regards.

TV01,

Goodday. Please don't make it sound like this has gotten to a stage where things are muddled up, and then seek to blame it on my posts. I dare say it seems to me you're going round in circles and not facing issues. Let me take you back a few posts as reminders:

1) my concerns and inputs were informed by your assertions that I found untenable.
For instance, for the sake of this reminder, you surprised me with your cursing the NT church with an OT verse; and you have not been able up until now to show me where I was wrong on refuting that notion.

2) I have not sought to moderate anyone's walk on this Forum, and if that's what my posts read like to you, pray that you check your own posts again and see if that's not exactly what you've been doing as well. In a forum where publicly affecting issues are debated, it's the norm to observe that everyone does their utmost to show how and why they agree or otherwise disagree with the posts they are debating. That does not translate into moderating others' walk.

3) so how could I share without influencing by way of persuasion? And how could I persuade without a reference to some sort of authority - the Bible in this case? And if I don't quote texts, how do my persuasions hold any substance? I don't understand what you mean by moderating others' walk; all the same I've never taken anything personal, unless where things have been said in bad light, like the case with your reference of I Sam. 8.

You may suppose my posts are very 'technical' - can't help it sometimes, and a very dear friend of mine has pointed that out to me (syrup). I'm really not perturbed by the notion, and it's always my style to play it safe by stating it as it is. This is the reason why I pointed out what I did - line by line, precept upon precept; showing from Scripture what and why my persuasions are. The "outworking" of practical Christianity says nothing of itself when people ignore what the Bible says on complaints of being technical or this and that.

Do you care to quote a verse for your misinformation about this:

Ajisafe:
Saul/Paul who was the "author and finisher" of your diabolic faith,

We don't mind your foaming in the mouth, but at least be true to your unnecessarily vexed and hate-killer soul.

Some adherents of the various religions of the world poorly represent their faiths. To them, there's a necessary conotation of hate and kill in the practise of their tenets; but I would not necessarily take my definition from such. Same with Islam. I do not define the Islamic faith as an evil religion necessarily: not because I have loads of Muslim friends; but because the notion of 'Islam' of which Ajisafe is a vendor, does not tally with what my Muslim friends have shown me in the Qur'an.

You win my respect and applause for that. Bless your heart.

At least, the Bible does not hide the fact that it reveals God as the blessed Trinity - and that's not a NT or Christian new doctrine: it's been there all along in the OT:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:26)

But that God revealed Himself as the blessed Trinity does not translate into polytheism; hence -

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD." (Deut. 6:4)

"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods
many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
(I Cor. 8:5-6).

The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be explicated with analogies in creation. Some have attempted to explain the divine relationship in the Godhead with such things as the sun, rays and heat from the sun; others have used the analogies of ice, water and vapour; and yet others have appealed to the analogy of man's tripartite existence - spirit, soul and body. I think all these may be useful to those who use them; but they are beggarly in comparing the Creator to such things. That I cannot fully explain the Trinity does not mean that my relationship by faith in Christ suffers thereby. I believe the collective testimony of the Bible that there is only One God who has revealed Himself as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

However, there hasn't been a Muslim coherrent answer to the questions of the plurality of pronouns used in reference to Allah in the Qur'an as delineated above in my previous post. I don't and didn't intend to slur anyone's faith; but when bigoted assertions are made against the Christian faith by Muslims who accuse us of polytheism, my simple question is that they take a break and turn inward for an assessment of their own system - it's glaring for all to see that the verses in the Qur'an state that a plurality exists in the Allah of Islam, and besides the verses above, there are several more.

Of course, this does not mean no verse exists that speaks of Allah in the first person singular (use of "I". The point is that we should all learn to respect the faiths and convictions of other people as a means to fostering goodwill and understanding across international divides. You may not agree with Christians, and the Forum is not a place for bigotry and religious insensitivity. Casting vitriolic stones at others with hate speech is certainly not the way to earn their handshake, respect and smiles.

Regards.

Interesting points. However, I'm persuaded that there were far more than 13/14 referred to in the NT as apostles, and my reasons are equally strong.

1) First, because Scripture speaks in terms of divine inspiration, there's nothing "loosely" termed in the Bible.

2) There were eleven apostles after Judas fell to go to his place. But when Matthias was chosen to replace him, he was numbered among the eleven (Acts 1:26), making the number twelve; and thus - "the twelve" as they were often referred.

3) Barnabas was not loosely called an apostle - he was placed on the same technical sense that Paul was so addressed in Acts 14:14.

4) A careful study of Ephesians 4:11 shows that the apostle Paul was referring to a class of persons far more than the twelve, himself and Barnabas: these were viewed as gifts to the Church by the ascended Christ (v.8 ). Why is this important? For the simple reasons that they were spoken of as gifts for a special on-going work/ministry in conjunction with prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (see carefully verses 12-13).

Some have thought that after the foundational work of the apostles and prophets in Eph. 2:20, there was no more need for the roles of apostles in the Church since that time. Not true. To make that mistake is easy from ignoring other texts of scripture on the gifts of Christ to the Church. I Cor. 12:28 clearly says that God has set some in the church, firstly apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, etc. Notice it did not class apostles and prophets as being first (that is, foundational) - each class of gifts were specifically recognised as playing their distinct and collective roles in the Church.

The mistake many people often make is to ignore verses 12 and 13 of Ephesians 4. If the apsotles and prophets were only foundational and no more than that, they would not be included in or viewed as part of the gifts in verse 11 for "the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ". These work and ministry are not matters left solely for the evangelists, pastors and teachers -  apostles and prophets raised by God after Paul and the twelve are surely in view in verse 11.

The second mistake many people make is that they see apostles as all doing the same rank-xerox thing. It shouldn't necessarily be so. Peter was an apostle to the circumcision (that is, the Jews), as Paul was to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:8 and Rom. 11:13). Other apostles fulfilled other roles, no less in the capacity of apostles but not every one of them handled the same apostolic matters. For example, Peter was given the keys of the Kingdom to bring the NT Gospel of the saving grace of God to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 2:10 - Jews; and Acts 10:44-45 - Gentiles). Paul on the other hand was an apostle specially commissioned by the Lord to teach the Gospel to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:14; Eph. 3:8; and I Tim. 2:7). More than that, he was the apostle specially chosen for the revelation of Christians both as God's building and as the Body of Christ (I Cor. 3:10 and 10:17).

The point is that the apostles, while all fulfilling their commission in apostolic capacity, did not necessary all do the same things.

Hence, there is just no way we could separate the apostles into "technical" and/or "loose" appellations. They were all apostles; and to view some as this and others as that is to ignore the collective testimony of Scripture.

Regards.

Er. . . jamesz, yours seem a bit ambiguous. Perhaps, you'd like to clarify your concerns so others would be able to make inputs.

TV01,

In response to your assertion that you saw only 13 (or the 12 and Paul) apostles in the NT, my rejoinder was to show that there were more than 13. If you disagreed with Andronicus and Junia being apostles, surely you can't ignore the fact that Barnabas was an apostle, regardless the semantics or versions you read. By that one fact alone, it's clear that your reference to 13 foundational apostles is untenable.

The apostle Peter in writing to those in dispersion clearly addressed himself as both an apostle and an elder. Not only was he addressing foundational matters, but also issues far more than that. Not all the apostles wrote epistles or missives in order to function as apostles; but that did not make them any less apostles. Fact is, Peter was an apostle from the time he was commissioned as such till his death; there was never a time when it so happened that the title was no longer needed or became obselete with him.

Present day misappropriation of Christian terms are rife; but that does not mean that the real meaning of Biblical roles and functions are blurred as a result. There were apostles in early Christianity - far more than 13 of them; nowhere is the idea given that after them, there would be none other called apostles. We have had apostles whom God commissioned - as far as Eph. 4:11 is concerned - and God continues to raise such today as He wills. You ask what roles this class of apostles play in the church? Why, it's clearly outlined in that same passage in Ephesians 4:12-13 - "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

Now some argue that the apostles are no longer needed and there are no more apsotles after the 12 or 13. If that were true, then in the same measure, there would have been no more prophets, nor evangelists, nor pastors and teachers! A careful study of Ephesians 4 will show you that the class of apostles and others outlined there will continue until we all reach the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. That is why God has set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, etc. (I Cor. 12: 28). Apostles are not merely for foundational work; they are also given to build up and perfect the saints.

Now, do not suppose me to be neglecting the tithing issue. First, I have dealt extensively with that in other threads and I don't see a need to go repeating myself on that. Second, I made it clear in one of such threads that you cannot use an OT verse to lay a curse on NT people in as much as God has not done so. Third, I specifically promised to rest your heart with respect to the Law, the Sabbath and Grace - not about tithing. I just wondered why you seemed to be so unsettled about the tithing issue that you'd have to make reference to it anywhere and everywhere you address issues that are not even related to it - ala your reference of Acts 15.

Let's do it like this: I'll leave you no promises about anything henceforth. When I can have the time to address the issues as stated earlier, you'll be reading them.

Regards.

@Nwoke,

No Christian as far as I know on this Forum has been as openly hateful as your Muslim friend whom you're trying to waste a weak defence upon. The manifestation of envy that you're bantering here ignores the facts on ground that today, the Muslim East has openly and perennially been calling for the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people. Black hostility leans more to the question of racism; and you don't have to be black or white to express religious insensitivity and bigotry - as is done here on Nairaland or elsewhere as in Iran.

@Ajisafe
As for the polytheism that Muslims see in Christianity, do they mind turning inwards in Islam to explain why their Allah is not a singular being but many? Sample:

         "Verily We created Man from a drop of mingled sperm, in order to try him:
          So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight."
          - Qur'an: 76:2 [AL-INSAN (MAN)]

          "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape"
           - Qur'an: 15:26 [(AL-HIJR (AL-HIJR, STONELAND, ROCK CITY)]
   
If that is not clear and unadulterated polytheism in Islam, tell me why Allah in the Qur'an would be speaking as "WE" (plural) instead of the singular "I".

Good talk, TayoD.

These days people are ever on a race to redefine the Christian faith that they would do anything just to "prove" that it is an unnecessary evil. Pardon me, but have you noticed that even when they do these researches, they ignore certain things, twist others and arrive at slanted meanings and conclusions that beg the questions? Let me tease you: due to the nature of my work, I travel a lot and guess what? The other day I was in Sweden and had to learn so many things about words we take for granted. Sample these:

Swedish - English

bad - bath

hell! - hail! (an interjectory greeting)

mat - food/meal

far - father
. . . etc.

Guess what is the word for the number "six"? You won't want to know!

The simple word for faith agreement in Christian prayer is "Amen" - and so shall it be, regardless the redefinitions.

Good. Now let me share with you why I supposed that you had not carefully sorted this question before making your assumptions. There were more than 13 apostles in the NT.

a) First, there were twelve whom the Lord appointed (Luke 6:13). After Christ's resurrection, one was chosen to replace Judas who had fallen to go to his own place (Acts 1:16-26); so these were always called "the twelve".

b) Then there were others chosen besides the twelve. Paul was called an apostle, as he most often wrote in his epistles (Rom. 1:1 and I Cor.9:1-2).

c) Barnabas was also recognised as an apostle, for notice that the word 'apostles' (plural) was used in reference to him and Paul in Acts 14:14 - "Which when the apostle[b]s[/b], Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes. . ."

d) Several others were also chosen as apostles by the risen and ascended Lord through the Spirit. Eph.4:11 shows that these apostles were more than 'the twelve' because the understanding there is that (i) this appointment was made after the Lord's ascension (verses 8 & 11 - "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. . . and He gave some apostles. . ."; and (ii) they were given as gifts to the Church, operating in the church rather than outside to establish churches in other places (I Cor. 12:28 - "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles. . .".

Turn to Rom. 16:7 where Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles. All these verses show that there surely were more than 13 apostles besides the twelve and Paul.

The apostle Peter was both an apostle and an elder in the Church in Jerusalem. This is borne out both in Acts 15 and in his epistles. Writing in his epistles, he addressed himself as an apostle thrice (I Pet. 1:1; II Pet. 1:1 & 3:2) and as an elder once (I Pet. 5:1). Notice also that at the time he was so addressing himself as an elder, he did not cease to be known as an apostle even in Jerusalem; so your inference does not hold true that there was no need for him to be called an apostle just because he was an elder based in Jerusalem.

As you can see, teacher TV01, your student does not agree with you on these matters because you've clearly not handled them well. And what's this about your reference to tithes/tithing in almost every thread these days when you're discussing issues about Christianity? I don't see why you're mentioning in red capitals "NO TITHING" in quoting Acts 15:19-25. May I remind you that there was no Lord's Supper or "giving" mentioned in those verses - so then, what's your point? Has this issue become a personal matter that you would mention tithes/tithing with a cynical twist in almost every thread? There really isn't a need for that at all, and I hope you'd stick more to the issues at hand in future posts.

Regards.

I fear you're dodging the issue. It doesn't matter what you detest; my interest is in the substance of the discussion. Apostles, elders and deacons are leaders in the church; and it is of little substance that you detest the term 'leader', buzz word or no. Question is that your earlier assertion that (there are only two offices in the church and everything else is religion) is not a balanced and objective way of reasoning from the Scripture. It would help significantly if you could provide an answer to my question about apostles:

Very quickly, could I ask you, how many apostles do you read of in the NT?

Or, putting it in another way: were there several apostles besides the twelve appointed by the Lord?

It is one thing to express a view; it is quite another to do so in a sane manner. If all we get from the 'thinkers' of Islam is derisive language that convey no sense other than the mindset of hate and killing, that says so much for a religious utopia that owes no one any explanations for the already dented image we see in recent times in the "religion of peace." Whether or not some people owe nobody any explanations, the questions still remain:

1) Why do so many Muslims display open hatred for people of other faiths, particularly Christians and Jews?

2) Why do these same people think that killing Christians and Jews in particular is the only way Allah's
    promise of overcoming all religions can be fulfilled?

The question is a valid one because it helps distinguish between what or who an apostle is from other leaders. My concern is borne our of your statement that "After pioneering is done, you either. . . return whence you came, job done, no need to be called an apostle." The Bible is specific about those called apostles in the NT, but it seems to me that you haven't observed this. Thought you'd have helped clarify that point, then I'll take the time later today to post a reply.

Enjoy!

@ TV01,

My observations:

1) Could you be more specific about what you mean by 'personal need'?

2) Your constant use of the term 'religion' is narrow and seems to be an angst you express towards others who do not fall into your system. Do you care to clarify what you mean by 'religion' and to whom you're referring whenever you use it.

3) What in your eyes is the Church of God?

4) That God didn't invent money means that it is evil in His eyes or what? Has He never directly involved His people in financial transactions in a very positive way? What's the tick with "God didn't invent money"?

Hi there,

Very quickly, could I ask you, how many apostles do you read of in the NT? TY.






PS. Enjoy your summer, lucky you! It's dull out here today, and I'm sunk with work load TDB.

Ajisafe:
Boy, you asked to be forgotten and I have forgotten about you!

Bless your heart. I missed the acid that is all too characteristic of your person.

Could you be a bit clearer on this:

TV01:
There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons.

Everything else is needless religion.

So, what is your own understanding of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11)? Just curious, since you surmised that everything else is needless religion.

Clearer sense makes you confused and not see that you're making no sense, abi? Before 1960, your Tafawa Balewa was known as Prime Minister - yes, or no? In fact, to be clearer, in 1955, your own version of Tafawa Balewa was a Prime Minister, yes?

TV01,

I'm doing ok, and hope same with you. My apologies that my busy schedules have somewhat slowed me down these days; and it looks like the summer's going to see me busier. But my gratitude to God in all things.

However, that you're insinuating my posts are 'overblown & wordy' is inconsequential. I would welcome your strenous rebuttal in as much as they would make good sense and are more about the issues at hand and nothing more. Otherwise, I don't see any need for your emphatic ideas where they are not called for. Why the acrid spirit behind your decrying the convictions of other people simply because you don't understand them? You still haven't given me an explanation as to why you would curse God's NT Church with an OT verse; and then everywhere you quote the Law, tithers have to be bastardised for your own interpretation of some of the things you can't coherently deal with? If as Christians we can't afford to be calm and reasonable with other people, even when we don't agree with their convictions, what sense would we make at the end of the day?

TV01:
An obsession with titles and office is a sure sign of religious obsessiveness. Isn't it startlingly clear that the "religion" of Temples, Priests & hierarchies, sacrifices & ritual, laws and such like is exactly what the Lord died for. All that stuff is nailed to the cross.

No, it is startlingly clear the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus Christ died for religion - whether the religion of Temples, Priests & hierarchies, etc. The collective testimony is that Christ died for us (I Thes. 5:10) - not for religion. It is true that He took the handwriting of ordinances away, nailing it to His Cross (Col. 2:14); but nowhere does Scripture teach that He died for religion.

Perhaps, I should begin by asking you what you understand the Law to be as distinct from the NT. Then maybe our discussion could be a bit more focused and cordial.

Regards.

Hi TV01,

Since you're losing sleep about the issues of tithing and the Law without a real understanding of what they entail, I'll find the time later to put your heart at rest about them. Note first, that tithing preceded the Law of Moses, and by quoting Heb. 7 with the appendage of "tithers take note", I take it that you can't seem to reconcile faith with good sense. If you have to disagree with people, do so simply.

Well, I'm not so sure he actually called Catholics 'pagans' - and he has indicated this with a link to the point. I've followed his link and seen that he refuted the idea of Catholics or other Christians being called pagans.

The point is that you may disagree with people's traditions in Christianity; but that is not the same thing as calling people pagans. Welborn indeed vehemently refuted the Catholic tradition (in my opinion); maybe I'm mistaken, but then I haven't read that he actually called Catholics 'pagans'.

Hello @biggjoe,

Thanks for your responses. However, I'd have to disagree with you on three points:

   (a) Titles
Nowhere did Christ intend for His apostles to become Popes as far as the Bible is concerned. Even when you look at the issue from the qualification for assuming the Papal office, I still maintain that Peter would have been disqualified in the Catholic tradition; and thus, he would not have been a Pope.

  (b) Superiority of Peter
The apostle Peter surely held a very respected position among the other apostles; but that did not make him the head of the apostles. There was and is only one Head of the leaders of the Christian Church - Christ Jesus Himself, and Him alone. The leaders in the Church have their various important roles to play. Paul at one time wrote that he was not inferior to any apostle, but that Peter was commissioned to the Jews while he was commissioned to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:6-. Notice that in verse 9, the apostle Paul classed Peter (called 'Cephas', KJV) on the same level with James and John as 'pillars.' None was 'the head of the apostles' except Christ alone.

   (b) Celibacy of Catholic Priests
In as much as your concerns are borne out of Catholic traditions, you may well regard the Catholic priests who got/are getting married as having disobeyed God. But from the Biblical point of reference, there is nothing wrong with any believer getting married in respect of their call to serve God in His church. He said so; and I don't agree with anyone enacting a convoluted law or tradition to bring people under a certain situation that makes that office what it was not supposed to be.

On the whole, my respects to people believing whatever is their convictions. I'm fully persuaded that the Bible graciously outlines the lifestyle of the Christian who seeks to please God, for that is its testimony (II Tim. 3:16-17).

Regards.

@Ajisafe, if your character is built on addressing people pejoratively without making sense, that says a lot about you as a person. Thank you for not reading my post before typing away in your vitriolic excitement to undo me - but you just unwittingly proved my point.

Compare what you just said:

Ajisafe:
Tafawa Balewa was known as the Prime Minister, while the "Zik of Africa" was the Governor General, and thusly addressed so.

. . . and then re-read what I said earlier:

4get_me:
Following your strain of thought, before Nigeria became independent in 1960 and had her first republic from then until 1966, there were certain titles not in use among her political leaders, such as the Prime Minister (Abubakar Tafawa Balewa) and Governor General (Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, who later became the first civilian President).

How does your correction differ from my point, or what have you added to it? Want some more lecture on the history of your own country? So tell me: were Tafawa Balewa known as "Prime Minister" or Dr. Zik Nnamdi as "Governor General" before Nigeria's independence in 1960?

Dear biggjoe,

Your analogy is quite appreciated but you're overlooking a very important issue in this. Following your strain of thought, before Nigeria became independent in 1960 and had her first republic from then until 1966, there were certain titles not in use among her political leaders, such as the Prime Minister (Abubakar Tafawa Balewa) and Governor General (Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, who later became the first civilian President).

Now, in the same manner, there were no Popes in the early Christian Church such as the Catholic Church would have us believe. The inclusion of the apostle Peter as a Pope in the Papal list and Catholic tradition does not translate into Biblical fact. It is as making a case of calling Lord Luggard a civilian President of Nigeria prior to the first civilian President of our beloved country, and posterity would not know the difference.

No, I submit that Peter was not a Pope; he was rather an apostle - just as Christ made him so, and just as he wrote and acknowledged in his epistles:

1 Pet. 1:1 - Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. . .

2 Pet. 1:1 - Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . .

He was an elder as well in the Church (1 Pet. 5:1), but nowhere do we read of the notion of a Pope in Scripture such as the Catholic Church would have us believe.

As for the Catholic priests who marry in disobedience to the Catholic tradition, I see your point; but it does not seem that in getting married such a priest would be disobeying God's Scriptural authority. One of the prerequisites for leaders in the Church is that they get married (I Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6) - although some have a gift of celebacy from God (I Cor. 7:7). It is not a healthy practice for any Church or institution to force celebacy on others as requirement for the office of ministry among God's people. To do so would be tantamount to something else that does not come from God (I Tim. 4:1-3).

May you might want to point out a few things where you suppose I might have missed out. In the meantime, enjoy your Sunday.

TV01,

I've seen your replies earlier but had little time to address them. Later in the day I'll attempt to deal with a few of the issues you raised and see if you can understand what you're missing in these matters. TY.

Hia TV01,

I've left a short reply for you in this link and later in the day I'll come back to address some of your concerns.

Have a blessed Sunday.