₦airaland Forum

Even some atheists acknowledged that Harris lost --- because of inability to engage the real issue.

Here is something I've posted before https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist/3#9574574


Anyway here are two reviews of the Craig v Harris debate: one each by a theist and an atheist. http://www.randyeverist.com/2011/04/review-of-craig-vs-harris-debate.html

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=15243

^^^ Thank you.

^^^ You can put whatever spin you like on it but the fact is that

(a) Ignatius said where Jesus is there is the "catholic" i.e. the universal Church*

(b) Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them'

Well, it is not difficult to put 2 and 2 together . . . .

*The other first part of that his statement was simply calling the members of each church assembly to unite to their bishops ---- not some monolithic "structure" as such. And yes, his conception of "catholic" encompasses unity but sees each church under its bishop as complete and part of the universal i.e. the catholic Church.

italo: That would mean that I, a Nigerian Catholic, am not "Roman Catholic" as you choose to call it. When the term "Roman Catholic" is used within the Catholic Church (and it isn't frequently used), we are only trying to indicate our adherence and submission to the Bishop of Rome...

To knowledgeable people: (a) saying 'Nigerian Catholic' is an oxymoron; (b) indeed even saying 'Roman Catholic' is an oxymoron.

We simply let the Roman Catholics get away with calling themselves Roman Catholic because it is not worthwhile arguing with them over their choice to call themselves by such an oxymoron.

italo: And all these people you mentioned did submit to the Authority of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). So they were part of The Catholic Church, just like me, no matter where they were from. At the time the New Testament was established, the term "Roman Catholic" was not in use. All were part of The Catholic Church under the authority of The Pope.

This is a spin, in fact a lie, that Roman Catholics like to peddle. I have dealt with it on other threads already, especially https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church and https://www.nairaland.com/1083381/apostle-peter-principle-inclusivity-via

When Roman Catholics peddle this line they usually keep quiet about what they mean by the "authority" of the "Pope".

Knowledgeable people know that the earliest Roman Catholic "popes" and the better/sounder Roman Catholic "popes" did not claim to have any such "authority". Secondly, apart from the Roman Church through the power-mongering "popes", the other parts of the early church did not see the Roman "popes" as having "authority". Instead, what they accepted was that the Roman See had a particular position of honour; to them the Roman See only had a primacy of honour BUT was otherwise equal with the other primary Sees.

For that matter, well before the Roman Catholics were calling their bishops "popes", the Eastern Churches had already been referring to their bishops as "popes". So, it was not even the Roman Catholic Church that coined the word "pope". In the same way it was not the Roman Catholics who coined the word "catholic"; rather it was the Eastern Church at Antioch that coined the word "catholic" and they did not mean by "catholic" what the Roman Catholics have now turned it into. And of course it was mostly people from these other Sees, and not Roman Catholics, who largely shaped the New Testament canon.

The only reason that the Roman Catholics get away with a lot of historical falsehoods is that people in these parts of the world and people outside the Eastern Orthodox Churches are largely ignorant of the real facts.

italo: In your errorneous and dubious opinion. This is what the Anglicans claimed in originating and promoting the term "Roman Catholic." They claimed this just to falsely legitimize their abomination when King Henry VIII broke off from The Catholic Church and established The Anglican Church only so he could get away with adultery. They claimed there were a part of the Catholic Church and that the "Roman Catholic Church" was only a branch of the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church used the term "Roman Catholic Church," it always meant "Catholic Church."

The simple way to answer you here is to point out to you that the current "pope" Benedict calls the Roman Catholic Church, well erm, the Roman Catholic Church. He has done so in very recent and very important documents. Other "popes" (including the last two, I believe) did the same and other popes have done so historically. Other Vatican documents do the same. So, yes the Roman Catholic Church calls itself, well, the Roman Catholic Church.

The attempt to use style to now refer to the Roman Catholic Church as "The Catholic Church" is effectively an attempt at usurpation and essentially a fraud.

italo: One question: what was the name of the Church that the Lutherans and Anglicans broke from at the time?

The Anglicans and the Lutherans broke away from the Church of Rome aka the Roman Catholic Church! They did not break away from the catholic Church.

^^^ Ko ma ye wọn ni!

We say to know when Jesus was begotten is to know when God (The Father) and The Holy Spirit "began to exist" or "came into existence", yet they are still talking of "when" Jesus was begotten.

As someone else has put it before, in talking of the begottenness of Jesus in this particular sense, we are talking of an eternal relationship with the Father. And some people are asking "when". O ga.

Reyginus: The Pope's Infallibility
The immunity to error. To us, the infallibility of the pope, flows naturally from the infallibility of the church.
The question is, is the church(catholic) infallible to begin with?
That you'll answer yourself by the time I'm done.
I am not confusing infallibility with impeccability please. Only that, for infallibility to exist where their is no impeccability, is not possible.
Accordingly, when he(the Pope) defines an article of faith/moral he is infallible, except otherwise. I think we have a problem. Does the Pope operate as a dual entity?
Is it not the same person that makes the moral and faith truths, make the non-impeccable entity?
Can character be dualistic?
I am not trying to act like luther who described the papacy as a 'human invention',but infallibility of the Pope I will look with a similar lense.
Their was a time we had two popes. How do you weigh them in the infallible scale?
This notion is wrong. Let's drop it.
Examples:
i) Pope Gregory xiv was misled by corrupt officials.
ii) Pope innocent xiii made his brother cardinal and practised nepotism
iii) Pius vii crowned napoleon emperor in paris, but later excommunicated him after the emperor occupied rome. Lol.
What infallibility? It is a contradiction of infallibility to breed fallibility.
When we believe a thing for the sake of faith-preservation, we're preparing the faith for self-termination.

After reading the above I was immediately tempted to make this post but I initially resisted for a while. When I remember, however, that some of the Roman Catholics here harp on about "papal infallibility" and also that some Nairaland "intellectuals" say that there is what they call a direct line of succession in the RCC yada yada, I think it is worth it to make the post for some balance and perspective.

Keeping things simple: just google 10 wicked popes

JeSoul: . . . .

---

On another subject - I find myself "understanding" (not completely shifted over though) your opinion on that child baptism thread. Its funny. Somethings have to experienced to be understood - and you were 'kind' enough not to rub that in my face :: appreciated!

I guess you won't be surprised to hear that for a few weeks now I've been looking for an appropriate opening to ask if you had 'thought again' about that "issue".

My greetings to all and especially the special one.

Oh, and of course the above is attested by John 1:1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Oh, another by the way: to know when Jesus was begotten (before he became a man through incarnation) is to know when God the Father Himself came into existence or began to exist.

Jesus was in very nature God before he became a man through incarnation. Simples.

Philippians 2

5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

7 but made himself nothing,

taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

8 And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself

and became obedient to death—

even death on a cross!

Again here is an extract from the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646! (Posted previously on the other thread)

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html

CHAPTER XXV.
Of the Church.

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error: and some have so degenerated as to become apparently no Churches of Christ. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to his will.

VI. {deleted by Enigma because it is inflammatory}.

Zikkyy: You answered like a lawyer. I was expecting a response meant for a layman like me. You assume i am one of your learned colleague




The reason i ask is that it would appear you are trying to force peeps into being part of the 'catholic church'. Your interpretation above indicates there should be one catholic church, not two catholic church. The thing is most Christians don't see themselves as one and one group don't want to be associated with the other e.g. the Jehovah witnesses don't want anything to do with the Roman Catholic; the Petecostal peeps don't want be close to the Cele boys (& girls), e.t.c from your post we see the Eastern Orthodox fighting with the Roman peeps over ownership of the name 'Catholic'. Since these peeps don't believe they are one, who are the true 'Catholics'?



You qualified the gathering here. So how do we recognize those gathering 'honestly'? if you know what i mean

Nna Bros, the thing to remember is that there is only ONE Church! As we say in one hymn like that: "one Church, one Faith, one Lord".

Ignatius who invented the expression "catholic Church" intended it to mean the One Church; the Christian Church, the Body of Christ.

So as far as I'm concerned I know of only ONE Church; the Christian Church. When I say 'catholic Church', I mean the universal Church. The Church which has Jesus Christ as its head. It really knows no "denominations" and "abominations". It comprises of all (as many) as have received Him and who He has thus given powers to become the children of God; see John 1:12.

There are good and bad reasons why some people dissociate themselves from "The Catholic Church" especially when that is understood to mean the Roman Catholic church.

Nevertheless, as I have pointed out before, evangelicals (including knowledgeable 'Pentecostals') describe themselves as catholic; they have always done so and they have done so expressly and deliberately in important documents and credal formulation at minimum since 1646 in the context of the Reformation and even much before ---- going back to the Nicene creed and even before that going back to Ignatius and even before that going back to the recognition of the one universal Church of Jesus Christ.

italo: As far as I am concerned, there is nothing like "Roman Catholic Church", I only know "The Catholic Church." It was protestants who added "Roman" in order to legitimize themselves and make it look like they are part of a wider "Catholic Church" and that the "Roman" one is only one branch. The Catholic Church is The Catholic Church.

I was on that thread and saw how Chukwudi44 debunked your position time and again but you refused to concede.

1. The Roman Catholic Church does indeed call itself the 'Roman Catholic Church' or even sometimes the 'Roman Church'. Vatican documents and other documents of the Roman Catholic Church refer to it as such and its "popes" have also often referred to it as such.

2. The Eastern Orthodox even arguably have a better claim to the expression "The Catholic Church". They invented the expression through Ignatius and people more properly belonging within what is now the Eastern Orthodox were more influential in the original "The Catholic Church" and in shaping the canon of the Bible.

3. If you say Chukwudi "debunked" my argument on the other thread, I can only laugh at that. I know that the lies on which the Roman Catholic Church's arguments are based were exposed on that thread.

Bros, if we are speaking of the catholic Church, then it is very simple and we know it from two important sources, one human and one divine.

Ignatius who coined and originated the expression "catholic" meant "universal and complete" and thus he said that wherever Jesus is there is the catholic church.

Jesus said said 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them'. Thus anywhere you see two or three honestly gathered in Jesus' name ---- you see the catholic Church. in other words the catholic Church is the Christian Church.

There is something that two organisations are fighting over --- that is the "Catholic Church". The Roman Catholic Church claims that it is the "Catholic Church". The Eastern Orthodox say no and claim that they are the genuine "Catholic Church". Hence their name: "Orthodox Catholic Church." However, they are even a little more honest in that they recognise that as there is a schism between them and the Roman Catholic church, it is then questionable to speak of the "Catholic Church".

The Roman Catholic Church needs to be more honest! What it is simply doing is claiming for itself what every one else did. Even things done by people who more properly belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic church is claiming.

Anyway, the main point foryour question is that the catholic Church is the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ ---- and it seen wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus' name.

^^^ And that "Catholic Church" is to be distinguished from the Roman Catholic Church. The people whose works helped the most to shape the New Testament Canon were NOT Roman Catholic; most of them were from places like Alexandria, Antioch, Hippo etc e.g. Origen, Athanasius, Augustine etc.

Even the Roman Catholic's Council of Trent came when? ------- Looooong after, centuries after the non-Roman Catholics had already basically established the New Testament canon.

A little more of both clarity and honesty is required in relation to what is meant by the "Catholic Church". And I repeat that the Roman Catholic Church is not the catholic Church.

The issue has been discussed more extensively on another thread https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

@Jesoul

I did see the experiences you listed and guess what? I have experienced almost all of them; I have lectured, scolded, exchanged heated words etc etc with people who do these things. On the other hand, however, I spend plenty of time in Naija each year (I have already spent over two months in Gidi this year and sometimes even more in other years) to have a wider view of the dynamics. Sometimes, the very same rude, unthinking and unrepentant guy who jumped the queue ---- you will see doing an act of kindness.

There are deeper questions about the underlying causes of the queue jumping ---- why such a culture has developed in particular places. I can identify a number of factors all at play but I don't want to do that. Instead let me tell you the following: at about 12 noon, you are driving in Lagos with all the madness, drivers cutting in from everywhere and jumping red lights; an hour and a half later you reach Abeokuta and drivers are stopping for each other to give right of way, stopping at traffic lights, obeying traffic wardens etc. I know because I have done and experienced it. Why such stark difference within about an hour's drive and less than 100 miles distance?

I think it is inadequate to simply use Lagos, a rather tiny geographical area when compared to the entire Nigerian geography, as a sole or the determinative benchmark for attitudes throughout the entire country. And of course the problem of Lagos particularly is exacerbated by overpopulation or at least some serious density coupled with the idea that it is no man's land for seeking opportunities only. Ultimately, a lot of the residents do not really have any respect for the land. But go to other parts where people have a genuine love for their 'hometown' and consider their attitude to their 'land'.

I have read the thread you refer to --- BUT I am still certain that you are underestimating the goodness, kindness and generosity side of things. Does 'Columbine' and similar etc represent all that happens in America? It is the same way many who live here in the UK say they can never live in America because of things like that. But of course, others will say ------- perspective!

Yes, I might have used a comical tone with the knowing 'swindler and swindled' scenarios but I am very serious about the underlying point. There is a distinction to be drawn between out and out fraud and a case where the 'swindler' knows you can afford to let go that N100 (and you know it too) and the 'swindler' is basically nudging you in the direction of letting it go. These scenarios are even capable of being distinguished from the case of the petrol attendant trying to "die" your change.

Let me leave you with a comparison of two scenarios:

A. You ask a belt seller 'how much'? He says N1,500; you a diasporan are not familiar that much with the culture or prices anymore; maybe you haggle a little bit and succeed in buying the belt for N600; you get home and your sister says ah you've been "swindled" --- the belt is only about N200.

B. You live in the UK, you go into a shop to buy an electrical item; the price tag is £100 (no haggling); you get home and a friend who works in retail tells you that the cost price to the shop was only about £25 even taking account of all their relevant expenses/overheads etc. (An aside: many retailers here have a culture that if they buy 10 items for sale, they should have covered the costs of all 10 and made profits by the time they have sold just 3! Then of course if they need to quickly shift the rest they can do a "sale" or price reduction exercise.)

What is the substantive difference between the two scenarios? And what might differing cultures have to do with it? Just food for thought.

One more thing: I read you earlier suggesting that unemployed youths should go back to the village and engage in farming. I am very sorry that that is extremely simplistic: where will they get free or even any land to farm? Assume they have to pay for land, how are they going to afford it? Can they live on farming alone? How much can they sell their harvest for that will cover their basic general living expenses? Clothing, housing etc?

We may not agree of course and that is fine. Nevertheless, I believe a more proper, sober, forensic assessment is required and not quick/snap and even posibbly emotive assessment. Let me reiterate that I too have experienced first hand the frustrations of sometimes even seeing people behaving hardly better than animals. On the other hand, I have been around several parts of Nigeria other than Lagos to have a rounder picture.

Ihedinobi: lol so hard! "Swindler and swindlee" indeed. I'm so cracked up by this post.

Abeg wetin be "perpendicular pronoun"? I think I ate beans and akamu the day we had that lesson in school. Help?

Look very closely at the sentence that follows the bolded, there are two of them in that sentence.

Whosai or whether na which side?

JeSoul: and that makes 2!

Nice.

JeSoul: There is definitely some good in naija - no doubt there. Where I'll disagree is in which direction the percentages skew...or else the country would be better than what it is now.

A hell of a lot does not mean a majority you know. Those who are corrupt are the more visible, the more able to affect things (than e.g. village dwellers) or even those able to effect change e.g. the 'educated', the politician, the pastor; but that they have control and are more visible etc does not mean they are in the majority.

JeSoul: LOL where you that diasporan? lol.

'We speak of that which we know'! In the words of an immortal vintage TV character over here, the person concerned is one that your present interlocutor is in the habit of referring to with the perpendicular pronoun.

JeSoul: And for every heart-warming story, I can more than double you with a horror one. What I saw was not pretty at all.

No, while I have had my share of engagement with all kind of swindlers etc I am certain you are underestimating the goodness, kindness and generosity side of things. Look, can you believe that even some of the "swindling" is in good spirits and with mutual understanding? I know because I was involved in some of it mysellf as a younger person and all concerned, the 'swindler' and the 'swindled', both knew what was going on and usually laugh about it; as it was in the context of interactions with fellow employees of one organisation, the guys will still buy you a beer while you are all discussing who 'swindled' who.

Now, when I'm home I even allow myself to be a knowing "victim". Just one type of example: you send a little kid on an errand; when s/he comes back you ask him/her for the change from the money you gave him/her; s/he with a knowing smile tells you that she's been asked to come back for the change . . . . .

A few things to consider.

1. True a lot of Nigerians are dishonest, greedy, materialistic etc. There are both defensible and indefensible reasons for these things. We should not underestimate the complexity.

2, We make a judgment of dishonesty etc usually based on urban dwellers dominated by materialistic aspirations (fuelled by many things: Hollywood fantasies, lifestyles of e.g. corrupt politicians and pastors, or of those who have made it or in modern lingo those who have 'hammered'). However, if one pays careful attention and considers the overall population of Nigeria and the demography and 'geographics', are those people not in the minority in the final analysis?

3. Even among the 'corrupt, 'desperate' etc "urbanites", consider a Nigerian hawker who spends all day in the hot tropical sun just to go home with a profit possibly less than 5 US Dollars; consider a Nigerian hawker on the roads (dangerous roads and they do get knocked down or hit sometimes), he runs continuously for several yards after that car, SUV or whatever (in fact after several such vehicles through the day) where someone shows interest in the belts he is selling and if lucky manages to make a sale worth a few American cents; consider the child, teenager and even adults who hawk pure water (joke: possibly neither pure nor even water) and how much do they make at the end of the day?

4. In Lagos, on one occasion of a visit to Naija, a diasporan's car fell into a ditch because he was not familiar with a particular road and where the gutter met the road; he was in a hopeless situation: but then five or six guys passing by without being asked immediately helped to lift the car out of the gutter and back onto the road. Imediately, the car was out, they dispersed and went on their way not even so much bothered about a mere "thank you"!

5. Imagine a young Lagosian city dweller going to a more rural part of Lagos State on research as a student; he introduces himself to a family as an acquaintance of a son of theirs back in town. They totally dissuaded him from going to stay in the hotel he planned to, cooked him the nicest meal and gave him the room of that son of theirs.

We need to place things in balance and context. I also have to say that, while acknowledging the difficulties and that it would take time, I am also one who still has hope for Nigeria.

Another patchwork copy and paste job. Nairaland "intellectuals" and plagiarism, ehn?

Stravinsky: . . . . The fact is if Jesus had been through a Pharisee or saducee rabbinical school he would have been expelled as a renegade. There is no indication of this whatsoever.

Stravinsky: There was a third school of Jewish thought , an extraordinarily conservative fraternity of the Essenes that existed up till AD 68, they lived in isolation in a monastic habitat situated at Chirbet Qumran, at the mountainous edge of the dead sea.

Compare

from http://www.100book.ru/circumstantialism_an_essay_on_situational_determinism_b823556.html

and also http://www.rulit.net/books/miracles-of-the-gods-read-150768-17.html
and a couple of other websites etc etc

But if Jesus had been a graduate of a Sadducees' or Pharisees school, he would have been recognized or expelled as a renegade.

Was there a. third school? There was, but it has not been common knowledge for very long. Until A.D. 68 the extraordinary conservative fraternity of the Essenes lived deliberately isolated from temple Jewry in a monastic-like habitat that had been rebuilt after an earthquake. It was situated at Chirbet Qumran in a fissured mountainous region on the Dead Sea.

Reminds of an earlier and rather quite similar episode!

https://www.nairaland.com/751299/did-biblical-kings-david-solomon/1#msg9157536

https://www.nairaland.com/759143/gospel-john#9148886

ceej24: why not the preach the gospel don't they

Well, the Roman Catholic 'Church' says that the Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, etc are not "churches".

I thought you knew that since you said we should ask any question! Anyway, I hope you realise that that teaching of the Roman Catholic 'Church' is false and contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

OK, let me try another question: when did the expression "Roman Catholic Church" come into use?

Does the Roman Catholic Church regard the Anglican Communion (or Baptist "church" or Methodist "church" etc etc etc) as a "church" at all?

honeychild: This is just simply amazing. I read this thread from the very beginning. Joagbaje, Mabel, hubreality, and all of you who were rejoicing at kenyan28 'testimony' 2 years ago... u have now turned round and accused her of 'hidden sins' being a baby xtian and so on... r u people even xtians? Do you know what the word Christian really means? You are all heartless wicked people. And I can assure you, your time will come. You will find yourself abandoned and abused by your false shepherd in your darkest hour. I am amazed any of you even have the audacity to show your faces on this thread. You have no iota of shame. If I were a member of ur church I will just quietly go back to my coven or is it haven and lick my wounds. Shame on all of you

Their actions/statements are a disgrace to humanity let alone to Christianity!

Wicked, soulless, heartless and manipulative in their slavish following of the falsehood passing for doctrine in their "organisation".

^^^ Well, now there is no question that the two views are now set out. Your views are there for all to read and mine are there for all to read.

^^ Firstly, I stand by what I have said.

Secondly, I Have been discussing the topic of this thread and I have made posts directly on the topic. If you don't see them, there is nothing I can do really.

Thirdly, as far as I understand it, there is no obligation or particular reason to discuss a thread topic with any particular person. Any person can make a contribution to a thread without addressing or discussing specifically with any other person. Thus, I do not have to discuss with you or with chukwudi44 or any other specific person --- especially not with the attitude that has been displayed.

Finally, even when you had been saucy I tried to patiently summarise my argument for you ---- and what did you come back with? More rudeness e.g. accusing me of "dishonesty"! And now that you people saw my own hand small, you are complaining.

OK, below is that summary again. I don't particularly need to say anything again and, above all, you have the freedom to make whatever point you wish to make.

Enigma: On this occasion I will assume you have misunderstood my point rather than accuse you of lying.

First of all the so-called "primacy of Peter" is not and does not mean primacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

Above all, this thread is about the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Therefore my point with Augustine, Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazanzius etc etc etc is that they interpreted Mathew 16:18 as conferring authority on Peter as well as on all bishops worldwide and wherever --- and to some extent even on all Christians.

In short, these early "church fathers" (and who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics) did not apply Matthew 16:18 to "papal primacy".

And with them, I conclude that Matthew 16:18 does not provide any doctrinal basis for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church of "papal supremacy".

The Roman Catholic claim of "papal supremacy" is contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles.

Go and read Chrysostom and the others on their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and learn, with honesty and humility, how they interprete the passage.

Kenyan 28: ha ha ha ha ha ha hu hu which baby are u talking about here??! Am 30 years and my christianity is as old as I am. I am born and bred in Christianity, born again parents,prayerful etc. I was in church as long as I can remember.
I wish I obeyed my church pastor when he insisted I go for several tests after I left the healing school and told him the "testimony"

Don't mind them and all the nonsense "baby Christian talk" which is pure rubbish.

What is being peddled by Oyakhilome and his accomplice "pastors" and followers (with seared consciences) is not Christianity but a sham and diabolical fraud.

^^^ Bros, correct but clarification and amplification as below.

In respect of the tithe of animals and livestock --- cash substitution was NOT acceptable at all. It had to be the tenth animal under the rod or nothing else. That tenth animal could not even be substituted for another one; if there is an attempt to substitute it, then both the original tenth animal and the intended substitute "become holy and cannot be redeemed". (e.g. Pesin wey say ah this number 10 animal na im fat pass and wan substitute am with thin number 11 --- e go lose the two both be that )

With respect to the tithe of agricultural produce, by default they were NOT supposed to be substituted with money. However, allowance was given to substitute with money on the condition of a PENALTY of 20% of the value of the agricultural produce.

The only time that tithe was authorised to be converted to money was when the place to go for worship was too far to carry the agricultural produce and livestock that were the tithes; in that case it was acceptable to sell the "tithes" (livestock and produce) and convert it to money ----- but then the money was not to be given to anyone (whether G.O., pastor, papa, pope or whatever); instead the "tither" was instructed to use the money to buy whatever his heart desired and generally to jollify himself and his family together with widows, orphans aliens etc.

Leviticus 27 (especially the last few verses) and Deuteronomy 14 especially from verse 22.

Ubenedictus: At op,
is this the type of discussion u want on d thread?? All i can see is Enigma making claims and he wont accept a discussion becos he prefers to behave like a child. If this is d type of discussion u want simply say so and i will kindly unfollow. I do not discuss with people wu would prefer not to discuss but would instead rant.
No offence meant

"Behaving like a child" is at least better than lying.

You people have been lying for a long time and I let you get away with most of it out of politeness and because your argument could be deconstructed even despite all your lies. Do you realise that even in your post that I've just quoted you are lying?

And talk of "behaving like a child" ---- let us again expose your dishonesty. OK, first a test: go through the posts of yourself, chukwudi44 and your two cheerleaders/supporters and come back to tell us if you people were not "behaving like a child" ----- on many occasions!

nuella2: @Kenyan

What make you think the cancer will come. Why didnt you say i pray it will not come back .Dont wish people evil bc you could not retain your healing . You thought God was a magician . When trouble comes knocking thats when you see the fruits of a man. A wicked man, unforgiving man, faithless man etc will have real trouble retaing his healing.

Some will recieve healing and be dancing.azonto around Lagos nite clubs and expect God to be a magician. Some no prayer live, study live and come to nairaland and be writing nonsense.

When you resist the Devil he will flee from you. When you attract him with sin he will come and make your body his.house and get tenants.

A word of enough for the wise.

You people are very very very wicked; soulless even!

Well, back to the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 and the interpretation stances of the "church fathers" --- a basic summary.

1. First thing, as has already been noted, is that they did not see it as having anything to do with "papal supremacy".

2. In general they saw the authority given to Peter as also given to the other apostles, to other bishops and even "to some extent" to other Christians.

3. On the technical issue of the interpretation of "on this rock . . .", in general at least two approaches can be discerned: (a) the rock is Peter's confession of faith i.e. 'you are the Christ'; or (b) the rock is actually Jesus Christ Himself. In fact Augustine seems to have started with position (a) and later shifted to position (b).

Now there were all these shouts for "quotes" from the "church fathers" or for quotes not "lacking in pertinence" all of which I of course ignored initially since I considered them daft as the calls stemmed from inability to establish, ascertain, comprehend and acknowledge the truth. Anyway, in the end I gave a rather relatively small sampling but now more for the benefit of the honest and good faith participant I provide the following link to a piece titled "The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18" and which according to its own heading provides:

Numerous Quotations Given for the First Time from the Original Latin and Greek

Documentation from the writings of the following Church fathers and theologians:

Augustine, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Aphraates, Apostolical Constitutions, Asterius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Basil of Seleucia, Bede, Cassiodorus, Cassian (John), Chrysostom(John), Chrysologus (Peter), Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Firmicus Maternus, Firmilian, Fulgentius, Gaudentius of Brescia, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, Isidore of Pelusium, Isidore of Seville, James of Nisbis, Jerome, John of Damascus, Maximus of Turin, Nilus of Ancyra, Origen, Pacian, Palladius of Helenopolis, Paschasius Radbertus, Paul of Emessa, Paul Orosius, Paulinus of Nola, Prosper of Aquitaine, Tertullian, Theodoret, Comments of 6th Century Palestinian and Syriac Clergy from a Letter to Emperor Justin, Comments of Chrysostom, Cyril or Origen falsely attributed to Victor of Antioch

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html


Beyond the above which mostly focuses on quotations/statements, here is also a link this time to an article on "The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18"

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

^^^ Look don't waste my time; why don't you simply keep shouting "enigma is dishonest" or some similar nonsense.

I will post whatever I consider of "pertinence".

Ubenedictus: enigma, u are really a dishonest person, i have asked u "do u wish to bring greg as evidence?" yet u kept ur mouth shut are refused to speak. You are simply quoting greg out of context and playing on emotion. Weldone

Ubenedictus: this is d way a fool wu has no point argue (note:i didnt call u a fool). If u have a point as u claim and ur interpretations are true as u claim then y are u afriad that they b put to test? Enigma pls try some honesty.

Well, you can say as much as you like about my "honesty"; the fact remains that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to "universal jurisdiction" and the arguments used to support the claims are all based on fraud. That is the real dishonesty.

Misinterpreting, misquoting and misrepresenting Augustine etc to claim they say what they never said. We know the Roman Catholic tactics well ---- in fact later, I will post some statements of people who have well summarised the Roman Catholic tactics.