₦airaland Forum

nynbrada:
yu are utterly wrong here @ bolded. For the fact that we don't have a copius useage of the term in the bible doesn't mean the early early believers never subscribed to the useage of that name

If it was necessary enough to be called a Christian, then there would have been copius usage of believers calling themselves Christians

nynbrada:
Moreso, the singular employment of that name by peter to early believers clearly disproves your claim. As that verse of 1 Peter 4 vs 16 is not a simile but a clear statement of fact. I will deal more on this when i reply malvisguy

Peter is on a different train of thought to yours

nynbrada:
My brother, this is clearly a false analogy as yu already have a premeditated conclusion that the word 'christain' is a slur word and therefore derogatory

My brother, in line with Peter's train of thought in 1 Peter 4:15-16, in his Annals, Roman historian Tacitus points to those who suffered or were persecuted as ''those who . . . were vulgarly called Christians''
Does Tacitus too have a premeditated conclusion?

nynbrada:
The problem i tend to have with some Christians is when they come out and make assertive statements on issues in the bible that they do not have cogent evidence to back up their claims

Answered immediately above

nynbrada:
And yu are found wanton on this unnecessary malady, as there is no shred of evidence from the scripture that the word/term christian is derogative in nature/application

Though answered immediately above, will it grease more

nynbrada:
As a result it will be very wrong for yu to say with any sense of certitude that the word/term in question is derogative to say the least.
So bruh on this one ooh! The ground yu are standing on is a sinking sand. As yu do not have any evidence from the bible to bolster your claim

Its you bro, standing in quicksand, claiming the Apostles, believers, saints, called-out-ones called themselves Christians

nynbrada:
I personally think yu pulled this one up from tradition or from badwagon effect.
'cuz some authority have come up wt such claim and yu graciously inclined to dance along without proper personal study/research on the issue

Biblical fact and historical study is clear on the matter.
You're having truth decay, because you dont want to cleaningly brush up your bible

nynbrada:
Now don't blame Catholics for holding on to doctrine/teachings that has been inspired by spurious traditions of men- but lacking in everyway any scriptural foundation

Shall we stick to the matter, and leave Catholics out.
As am only interested in the truth and not who or which denomination is to blame

nynbrada:
Moreover the word Christian on its own is not derogatory in anyway, as the little i know of it simply means - Christ one /follower/immitator of Christ /Christ like /little Christ.

Did Jesus called the disciples Christian?
Did any of the Apostles call themselves or fellow believers christians?

nynbrada:
From these afforementioned meaning, i do not see anything derogatory in it.
And i'm sure d early believers were not averse 2 subscribe to such appellation, even when it is possible that the non believing Antioch residents used it to spite them for their lifestyle and conduct which was in non conformity with that of the world.
Nonetheless the meaning of the word on itself is not derogatory

You are free to bury your head in the sand but read this
M. Renan in his book L’Antéchrist about the word ''Christian'', says on page 37:
''Well-bred people avoided pronouncing the name, or, when forced to do so, made a kind of apology

nynbrada:
In a nutshell contemptuosly using the word 'christian' does not in anyway change the fact that it means one who belong/ follow /or immitate the person of christ.
- And if that is the root meaning of it, and however it is being used despitefully, i will gladly love to be called by such name/appellation.

The bible clearly endorses Jesus as the Christ and tells what Christ means.
Christ means the Promised One, the Messiah or literally translated the ''Anointed One''

The word Christian, is legacy nickname for the disciples invented by the residents of Antioch

Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire, who once wrote: ''Those who were vulgarly known by the name of Christians''

Peter saying suffer as a Christian is not implying, or saying the early christians and apostles called themselves christians

When I posted that the early christians and apostles never called themselves christians,
you counter-posted with:
Just a point of correction, Well i actually think that the reverse might be the case. As we can see from the following verse of scripture (sic)
putting forward 1 Peter 4:16 as evidence that early christians and apostles called themselves christians

Well, context is king, which is referring to 1 Peter 4:15-16 and keeping to Peter's train of thought in the verses
Now, nynbrada please honestly answer these questions:
If I say:
nynbrada, of course, you shouldnt suffer for being a murderer, thief, criminal, or troublemaker
but if you suffer as a nigger, dont be ashamed; but glorify God that you bear this name.

Am I calling you a nigger?
Did I call you a nigger?
Would a sane fellow black man call you a nigger?
Would you call yourself a nigger?
Would you answer back to being called a nigger?
What kind of person would want to call you a nigger?
Why would anyone/someone want to make you suffer as a nigger?

As earlier and all along insinuated, just like the term nigger, an anti-Black word, was created by the world (e.g. white supremacists, racists, slave owners etcetra)
from bastardizing the word niger (i.e. niger being used before the Slavery era to describe a black man or as used in Acts 13:1 for one of the disciple of Jesus)
and then used as nickname in a derogatory manner in reference to the black man
so the term Christian, an anti/gainst-Christ word, was created by the world (e.g. Jewish community Antioch residents, King Agrippa, heathens, non-believers etcetera)
and used as nicknames in a derogatory, contemptuous ridicule or mockery manner in reference to believer-disciples of Jesus

Now there were in the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} that was at Antioch prophets and teachers:
Barnabas and Simeon that was called Niger
and Lucius of Cyrene and Manaen, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul
- Acts 13:1

From the earliest usage of the word Christian, it was a term used by the Jewish community Antioch residents, King Agrippa etcetera for the early disciples
The name originated with unbelievers who despised the early disciples or true believers
and it carried with it a strong public condemnation, dislike, contempt and rejection for all that disciples are, what the disciples represent and what the aim of the disciples as in Matthew 28:19a is about

Therefore having gone, disciple all the nations, baptizing them
- Matthew 28:19a

Paul was willing to put into practice Matthew 28:19a
and especially pleased to have an opportunity of preaching the gospel to kings and rulers.
Discipling King Agrippa was exactly what Paul was doing when he tried to teach, instruct
and help King Agrippa to progressively to know about and learn the Word of God to become a matured, growing disciple

Paul tried to intimate King Agrippa in the truths of Scripture and the lifestyle required
but King Agrippa in Acts 26:28, wouldn't have any of that, so the king threw the gospel et al, back in Paul's face
and made the infamous sarcastic and disdained comment that Paul wants to turn him into a christian

That King Agrippa's comment in Acts 26:28, to Paul, was spoken and meant to be unflattering, unkind, insulting, disrespectful and demeaning, the same way the word nigger is meant to be when used

Agrippa answered, ''In brief, you are doing your best to persuade me to become a Christian''
- Acts 26:28

A christian is a follower of the religion of Christ,
- this is a world’s point of view,
and it's a misperception or misinterpretation of who a believer, disciple, saint, son of God, or who a called-out-one is

Believers themselves, just as with no denomination (e.g. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Celestial, RCCG, Christ Embassy, JW etcetera), know they have no religion
and that what they, believers, have, is a relationship with the Godhead,
- a relationship centrally and/or particurlarly with God, the Father,
and the relationship is grounded with/in Love, bonded with Faith and Grace

Believers, if pressed for a religion, might succumb to the label ''christian'', if not chanced to properly educate

Bottom line, this has nothing to do with making a mountian out of a mole hill
but more like, if care is not taken to properly understand and be right about little easy, peasy truths such as about the ''christian'' label,
then how are we going to fare when confronted with heavier, larger or difficult truths?
- like it wasnt even ''christian' to start with

I'll leave you with 1 Peter 4:15-16 verses to stew and ponder on
towards accepting and admitting that Peter NEVER called anyone christian in 1 Peter 4:16

I sincerely hope you looking at the original text and see how it originally reads,
instead of all these various translations,
will help you re-structure your thinking on this issue.

Enjoy.
And God bless

malvisguy212:
1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer AS a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify
God on this behalf."

there is something you don't understand here.
First, this is the ONLY place in scripture the word "christian" were use by a man of God,
Secondly, Peter did not label the followers of Christ a "Christian"
The word "AS" means "like or similar to," but it does not mean one is that word. For example:

Genesis 49:9, "...he couched AS a lion," does not mean Judah was a lion when he couched!

Exodus 15:5, "...they sank into the bottom as a stone," does not mean they were a stone when they sank.

Word up my brother,
No diggity, no doubt, you hit the nail on the head with the first, second and that pièce de résistance explanation. Thanks!

malvisguy212:
Good morning my friend. Long time

My dear brother, forgive me for not hailing you earlier and/or sooner

MizyB:
thank u so much for your attention and approval sir.

Madam I've responded back twice
(i.e. via Nairaland and also directly straight to your mail address)
Shalom

MizyB:
hello muttleylaff, can i send u a pm?

MuttleyLaff:
MizyB, hi, yes, of course you can

Holler at me here: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

nynbrada:
Just a point of correction.
You said the early christians and apostles never called themselves christians

Yes, I posted that early christians and apostles never called themselves christians
and you ought to have known better not to use 1 Peter 4:16 for shoring your stance

nynbrada:
Well i actually think that the reverse might be the case. As we can see from the following verse of scripture.

1 Peter 4:16 - Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on his behalf.
KJV

You may think you're right, but you arent
as for this issue, 1 Peter 4:16 doesnt give a leg to stand on

Lets take a trip down memory lane,
the word ''Christian'' in Acts 11:26, in 1 Peter 4:16 and in other places, particularly such as in Acts 26:28, is/was not an endearing word
a word given by the Gentile in derision, to the Apostles, disciples of Jesus, early believers etcetera intended to make them seem of little importance or value

And it came to pass that for a whole year they gathered themselves together with the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} and taught many people.
And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch
- Acts 11:26

Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?
- Acts 26:28

Little poetic licence about going on here,
as I am adding a fictitious detail (i.e. nigger) to 1 Peter 4:16 to make it more interesting
and hoping to make a point, as you give the edited version some serious thought or consideration:

Yet if any man suffer as a nigger, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on his behalf
- 1 Peter 4:16 edited version

Nigger is/was a troublesome word, a slur word, a word used to insult etcetera given to Blacks
Blacks never called themselves niggers,
and on a similar vein, the Apostles, disciples of Jesus, early believers etcetera never called themselves Christians
It was the people at Antioch, out of bewilderment and slighting
who in a contemptuous ridicule and mockery manner, started and/or first called the Apostles, disciples of Jesus, early believers etcetera called Christians

The Apostles, disciples of Jesus, early believers etcetera suffered as Christians (e.g. ridiculed, fed to the lions, burned at stakes etcetera)
and Blacks had some form of discrimination too and suffered as niggers during/in the Slavery and/or Racial Segregation era

nynbrada, saying if you suffer as a nigger, or as a Christian, isnt calling oneself or anyone else, a nigger or christian

Peter knew early believers are likely to have or be subjected to bad or unpleasant experience by a section of the society that calls and/or called them Christians (i.e. a derogatory term)
so he in effect penned that 1 Peter 4:16 verse, implying ''take it on the chin'' IF YOU SUFFER AS A CHRISTIAN
(e.g. if maltreated as a nigger christian, take it in stride)

People sufffer as niggers, get badly treated as niggers, but they dont necessarily go around and outrightly calling themselves niggers

²⁷Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
²⁸They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."…
²⁹"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
- Mark 8:27-29

Know who you are and not what others call/called you
Never allow yourself to be defined by the world's someone else's opinion of you

nynbrada:
I've been enjoying your post though.

God bless.

As it happens, it turns out, you've echoed my thought about yours and every other contributor too, so far on this thread

MizyB:
hello muttleylaff, can i send u a pm?

MizyB, hi, yes, of course you can

Mindfulness:
Love is the most beautiful feeling and I am full of love. Life is beautiful.

Which sense or expression of love are you here, talking of?
Is it agape, philia, storge, pragma, eros, tough, philautia or ludus?

MizMyColi:
I don't know much about Buddhism religion though.

Mine is Love...and like my friend says:

Love has the capacity to believe anything

It's not restricted to any particular type of sect or believe system

It's with arms open wide without any judgement or prejudice

It embraces all and let's all come and go
You come into the realization of something, take it, understand it, learn the lessons it has for you then let it be and move on.
Holding unto anything as the only absolute is mankind's greatest undoing

Okay, this got me literally laughing out loud.

Welcome a-future-board ma'am

Which love please?

MizMyColi:
hmmm
But they have these images and pictures depicting God's. Or is that Hinduism?

First, religion(s) doesnt necessarily need a deity(ies)
Second, Buddhism hasnt got a worshipping deity
Third, yes you're right, Hinduism have images and pictures depicting gods

MizMyColi:
Hehehehehe
Looool

Errrmm, the church is an exclusive preserve for Christians.
I don't want no one suing me

The church aka ekklesia, are ''the called out'' has no exclusivity
it is an open door policy and welcoming hands invitation to all and sundry

Now, one church, is organic whilst the other church, is an organisation
Backlash or suing might come from the latter one
By the way and just you know, you wont find anywhere in the Bible, of the Apostles, disciples of Jesus, early believers call, address or refer themselves as Christians

MizMyColi:
I think Buddhism is being refined.
Same way some Christians will boldly tell you that they do not practice religion.

As for me
Spreading light and joy, Being and then showing love and compassion, nurturing, being in a state of peace and tranquil, and acknowledging the uniqueness/divinity of the human life is my religion
When I coin a name for it, I'll let you in on it first

Its called the James 1:27 kind

MizMyColi:
Hehehehe

So Akathriel "accuses" me of becoming a born again Buddhist and it sounds weird to me.
And I'm thinking if it has anything to do with my whatsapp status update which he saw or a time when I casually mentioned meditation.


You might wanna read up the link though.
Quite elucidative.

I'm kinda averse to religion. Like you, I enjoy cherry picking

Cherry pick with James 1:27

Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means
caring for orphans and widows in their distress
and refusing to let the world corrupt you
- James 1:27

MizMyColi:
My utterances lately seem to give off the Buddhist vibe. Even My You-Know-Who thinks I'm an Eckist
So I quite share the sentiments of that partial piece I shared.

While it's true that today's brand of christianity and indeed most world religions are anything but compassionate, I believe that at the core; before stuff got muddled up as a result of the urge for control and supremacy....in it's truest and purest form, religion is enshrined in compassion.

And as my friend, Spiritsize would say...
"This lost pure form of religion is what our hearts are yearning for now"

The nostalgia for God is what the heart is yearning for
Without agape, pure form of religion which the Father approves of, as in James 1:27, is an elusive concept

Mindfulness:
Actually Buddhism is not even a religion

Why isnt Buddhism a religion?

Mindfulness:
This is where people get it wrong.

Where and how are people getting it wrong?

Mindfulness:
And Christianity is very far from being compassionate.

Why and what makes you post saying Christianity is very far from being compassionate

MizMyColi:
Meditation helps develop a calm, clear, well-trained, self-observant mind. The Buddha accurately claimed that this is the basis for insightful decision-making and action. Where we differ from the Buddha is in the purposes for which we now use it.

Nowadays we use meditation for relaxation and sleep; for stress, anxiety and health; for thought-control and emotional restraint; for concentration and decision-making; for self-knowledge and body-awareness; for sports performance and achieving goals; for aesthetic pleasure, philosophic understanding and much more. A calm, clear, well-focused mind is useful for virtually anything we do. Most Westerners who meditate even within a Buddhist context are likely to do so for these non-Buddhist reasons.

Buddhism deserves respect as a religion and it has given its meditation practices to the world. Other than that, its moral credentials are average. Its indifference to charitable works makes it less compassionate than Christianity or even Western governments. Its psychology is antagonistic to the individual. Its reliance on karma, reincarnation and a duality of body and mind make it quite unscientific.
I am grateful to Buddhism for its meditation practices but I am happy to leave the rest behind.

http://www.perthmeditationcentre.com.au/articles/buddhist.htm
cc: Akathriel

⁵As by fat and as by oil, my soul will grow fat, and with the lips of praise my mouth will praise you.
⁶I have remembered you upon my bed and in the nights I meditated upon you
⁷Because you have been a helper to me and in the shadow of your wings I shall triumph!
- Psalm 63:5-7

I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways
- Psalm 119:48

Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart,
be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer
- Psalm 19:14

¹How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
²But his delight is in the law of the LORD, And in His law he meditates day and night.
³He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers
- Psalm 1:1-3

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth;
but thou shalt meditate therein day and night,
that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein:
for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success
- Joshua 1:8

malvisguy212:
Have you ever seen a demon being cast out from a man ?
Prior to his deliverance, you will notice, the victim will be speaking with a different voice,
after he was heal, he will deny it, because the demon and the man are distinct from each other.

The above example is how God the son incarnate in Jesus

dolphinheart:
So jesus is possessed by god the son.
The scripture says "the word became flesh'' not possessed flesh

''became flesh'' is what incarnate is about

malvisguy212 is tying self up in knots trying to explain this thing
and you dolphinheart are helping him misusing possession for incarnation (i.e. embodiment)
by suggesting he is implying that ''Jesus is possessed by God the Son''
when what malvisguy212 actually wanted to explain with his example was God became flesh, God became human

With the exception of God, spirits, whether good or evil ones (e.g. demons, satan angels, other celestial being),
cannot or do not become flesh (i.e. incarnation)

malvisguy212 and dolphinheart, give a honest reply to these 2 below:
Is it possible or impossible for God to be in two places at the same time?
Is it possible or impossible for God to be simultaneously and concurrently in heaven Spirit mode by default and on earth in the flesh?

Ubenedictus:
I thought the transfiguration happen at mount tabor?

The jury is still out on where the transfiguration etcetera happened

PastorOluT:
Funny u, what entirety do u seek

Just the truth will suffice

PastorOluT:
cos all I can u from ur questions and all u said is nothing

Trust you to avoid answering those not difficult questions

PastorOluT:
but assumptions which will only lead to more assumptions

Assumptions can be tested or proven to be true or false

AAinEqGuinea:
Happy New Year!
darkskingoddess(f), MuttleyLaff, Airforce1(m), spyder880(m), theDEVILisHERE, Republlican(f), tartarus(m), fightforchange1(f), gatiano(m), MzLaurel(f), kingkoboko, abdulwastecx(m), asumo12, 215keji(m), holusormi(m), igbo2011(m), MyPWisINCORRECT, PabloAfricanus(m), seunthomas, Chukwugekwu(m), cap28, captainBIAFRA(m), Shymm3x, Eniola341, kncokolo, Curlieweed, xmich(m), 9free(m), BiafranPrince, fhranciz(m), tpiadotcom, harryobas, easystudy101, sonOfLucifer, Javanian, WhiZTiM(m), wkid(m), AkanIgbo, ExInferis(m), MockinJay(m), 190theclown, JackOfAllTrades(m), sarmiie(m), panafrican(m), pcguru1(m), uselessgoat(m), tsdarkside(m), morpheus24, RandomAfricanAm, grayht(m), guassian, Horus(m), clubone0501, Decryptor(m), SirShymexx, rokiatu(f), coogar, MissTechy(f), pleep(m), PhysicsQED(m), Godvilla(m), BlackTechnology, blueyedgeek(m), BlackGirlsCode, PAGAN9JA(m), hollandis(f), erad(m), Rilwayne001, IG, canachy(m), Pakingzzz(m), dhtml18(m), chim14(m), bigfrancis21(m), anneedu, Baryoh007(m), theV0ice, muafrika, princejude(m), datribune, Fulaman198(m), TerryCarr(m), CAMNEWTON4PRES

AAinEqGuinea Happy New Year

PastorAIO:
A lot of these questions are off topic but interesting all the same

Whatever questions I ask, they all stem from what I met on ground, as in, what already was mentioned, raised or hinted on this thread

PastorAIO:
I just want to say, the transfiguration was not the only time Jesus went to pray with others.

It is the only time Jesus took along others (i.e. three witnesses of Peter, John, and James)
normally when Jesus goes up the mountain to pray, He goes alone

PastorAIO:
Specifically those 3 others. Matt 26:36.
His prayer in Gethsemane is another recorded example

The transfiguration among other things happened in the Garden of Gethsemane or if you prefer, the Mount of Olives

PastorAIO:
The whole point is about the belief that the departed are alive and are a part of the Living communion that is the church.
And we can commune with them as we do our living fellows.

Am not sure you're correct implying that we can, as yet commune with them as we do our living fellows
Did Peter, John, and James commune with Moses and Elijah? I dont think so

PastorAIO:
I do not think that Jesus was being rude to her

Refreshing to know, you do not think that Jesus was being rude to her
Why address her ''woman'' then. What is His point in referencing her in that manner?
Is it part of the culture for a son address his mother ''woman''?

PastorAIO:
You bring up quite a few off topic points, so while you're at it please permit me to do the same.

I am not haphazardly bringing up quite a few off topic points.
I am only responding to what I've met already mentioned and referred to on the thread
Sure you have right of passage

PastorAIO:
If Mary had other children besides Jesus then why should she leave her able children to move into the home of John?

Simple, it's called estrangement
- she didnt leave her able children, they left her, she was already abandoned, just as Jesus too was abandoned
Jesus knew this (i.e. she'll be left without needed protection or care) that's why He roped John in
Even if James didnt abandon her, remember it's only John who wasnt martyred but lived enough to die a natural death unlike the other apostles

PastorAIO:
I say you have. I could be wrong in which case rather than have me go on a wild goose chase in which I might never find the post why don't you just state it categorically her for the record:

Jesus acknowledged Mary as his mother and called her so. Those passages where Jesus calls her woman have no bearing on the filial relationship he had with her.

Can you say the bolded?

Just for the record.
Was Jesus being rude to Mary when He referred to her as "woman" in John 2:4 and/or John 19:26?

Am more interested in John 2:4 particularly to know why she's called ''woman''
and not at all interested when He repeated it again in John 19:26
In short, am not concerned about John 19:26 until anyone is willing to share why John was chosen for her in John 19:26

And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come."
- John 2:4

²⁶When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!"
²⁷Then He said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother!" From that hour the disciple took her into his own household
- John 19:26-27

italo:
If it is paganism to talk to Mary, it was paganism when Jesus talked to Moses and Elijah

This is a chalk and cheese comparison

PastorOluT:
Just continue to delude urself,
Mary's worship is now d same as Jesus talkin to Moses n Elijah?

Was Jesus asking favors from or praying to n thru Moses n Elijah?

Maybe Moses and Elijah were receiving a commendation after handing over (i.e. transference)

dmandy:
Pastor, can you please explain to us what worship means.
And while you are at it you can throw more light on what Jesus was discussing with Moses and Elijah

The illumination really has to be on why did Jesus need three witnessing Him meeting with Moses and Elijah

PastorOluT:
Smiles, I have seen this before so I aint ready for going back n forth.
I strongly believe are disposed to a dictionary n bible, so help urself out.

But I will oblige ur second question on what Jesus was discussing with them

And, behold there talked with Him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
Who appeared in glory, and spake of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem
Luke 9:30-31.

U see they were discussing His crucifixion, not Him praying to them or seeking some help!

Discussing His crucifixion? Is that all?
Jesus usually goes up alone to pray, but this particular time made an exception by taking Peter, John, and James along with Him
Peter, John, and James were not only allowed to see Moses and Elijah but also were able to experience and see Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27 or Matthew 16:28 to come true
The questions are:
1) Did Moses and Elijah see Peter, John, and James?
2) Were Moses and Elijah conscious of Peter, John, and James?
3) Why did Jesus allow Peter, John, and James to visually see and come to realize or understand that it is Moses and Elijah they are seeing?
4) What did the presence of Moses and Elijah represent? (i.e. what did the individually stand for)
5) Apart from the transfiguration, what else were Peter, John, and James witnessing?

dmandy:
Thanks so much for that honest answer

Honest answer it might be
but we all know that PastorOluT didnt or wasnt able to give the entirety of the answer

dmandy:
They were discussing about his coming death according to the bible.
What could possibly be the role of Moses and Elijah (who are dead as at this time) in the coming death of Jesus[/b]?

As for worship, you can do well to refer me to where you explained it, at least I can know what constitutes worship and how I should worship God

Yeah, thats what I like you and PastorOluT to share with all
What could possibly be the role of Moses and Elijah (who are dead as at this time) in the coming death of Jesus
What could possibly be the significance of the presence Moses and Elijah (who are dead as at this time) on that mountain at that night, in the coming death of Jesus

vooks:
Why would he excuse Jesus of some bodily functions?
One would argue that pain is also a bodily function

PastorAIO:
Okay o, some bodily functions but not all.
Only those bodily functions that we read about in the bible.

After Jesus digested the food what happened? Did the food just rapture from his belle?
Because nowhere in the bible do we read that Jesus ever went to the toilet.
Personally in is my doctrine that food automatically raptured from his stomach.

With Deuteronomy 23:12-13 in mind, there is a mention of a toilet of some sort in the bible
however nowhere in the bible do we read that anyone specifically or somebody in particular ever went to the toilet(s)
Haba! Going to the toilet, sitting on the throne, is not something deemed uncommon for Jesus to do

OLAADEGBU:
Was Jesus being rude to Mary when He referred to her as "woman"?

Jesus was not being rude to Mary,
that is the mistake, we all make in interpreting and understanding bible passages such as this
Many of us want to understand or digest bible passages
but when we have issues with how to slice and eat it correctly,
then problems with understanding it correctly presents itself

esere826:
Cultural and personal perception of rudeness differs

The situation/circumstances has nothing to do with lack of manners or being discourteous

OLAADEGBU:
You have not answered the question, sir.

esere826:
Yes I did.
Let me try again..
If Jesus and the woman were westerners living today in a western society, then Jesus was indeed rude.

No, some people in the West, say ''this is my woman etcetera....'' and it is deemed endearing and not rude

esere826:
In some Nigerian cultures, that would also be rude, while in some this would be acceptable
and even considered endearing depending on the age of Jesus

Fela will remind you about the African woman, that:
''If you call am woman, African woman no go 'gree
She go say, she go say, "I be Lady o"

[Chorus]
She go say, "I be Lady o"! She go say, "I be Lady"!
She go say, "I no be woman"
She go say, "Market woman, na woman"
She go say, "I be Lady" etcetera

esere826:
So, except you fully understand the Jewish culture of that time,
and the relationship between Jesus and his mum, you really can't say it is so and so.

...always remember this: context is everything

Has nothing to do with Jewish culture,

This is a remark made out of a somewhat intuitive knowledge
and the context is around Eden, Genesis 3:6, Genesis 3:12 and particularly Genesis 3:15

OLAADEGBU:
Why didn't Jesus show more respect to His mother in John 2:4?

It has nothing to do with not showing more respect or disrespect.

Jesus has observed a re-enactment happening again before his eyes, hence the ''woman'' statement
- here recreating aspects of a historical event was happening again
e.g. the ''woman'' in Eden telling Adam what to do, and again the ''woman'' telling another Adam what to do
The ''woman'' involving Adam, at the wrong time (i.e. "the man's hour has not yet come.'')
and the ''woman'' here again involving the other Adam (i.e. "Woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My hour has not yet come'')

It is the manifested ''woman'' in Mary, his mother, which is the same ''woman'' in Eve, that Jesus was addressing
- it isnt an inappropriate remark to make, when Jesus called Mary, His mother, woman

Mary, His mother, is the prophetic ''woman''
or the other ''Eve'' of the Genesis 3:6, Genesis 3:12 and particulary Genesis 3:15 account

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed;
it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel
- Genesis 3:15

kallmemrB:
what made Jesus weep?

Wouldnt you like to know
Open up a thread for what made Jesus weep
and share, in context (i.e. taking into account the background of) that Jesus wept John 11:35 verse

Yorubago:
MuttleyLaff

You've been doing a good job with the these replies but please know this today!

The Kingdom of God is different from the Kingdom of Heaven!

Heaven's Kingdom is where we'll be harvested to and the Kingdom of God is here on heart in our hearts according to the Bible

You would have noticed how and when differently, I deliberately used Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven
e.g. you hear about the Good News of the Kingdom of God etcetera

The Kingdom of God is the rule of God, rule over something, anything, someone, somebody, your heart for instance etcetera
which is why Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you or us

The Kingdom of Heaven is territorial, extending from Heaven to the end of designated points
(i.e. John the Baptist announcing it's near, to Jesus announcing it's drawn near)

¹In those days John the Baptist came to the Judean wilderness and began preaching. His message was,
²“Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.
- Matthew 3:1-2

From that time Jesus began to proclaim and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near!"
- Matthew 4:17

kallmemrB:
now i concur....u are not well learned abt bible...so pls dont counter others interpretation

SMH at the dogged sheer display of incorrigibility

When the Bible is intentionally/unintentonally read out of context, that's how and when erroneous assumptions creeps in
When the Bible is interpreted out of context, that's how and when erroneous assumptions creeps in
When the Bible is mistranslated and/or mistransliterated that's how and when erroneous assumptions creeps in

omojeesu:
YOU MEAN

'Since the days of John the Baptist, people have been pressing on the Kingdom of Heaven to enter it but those who push hard enough are the ones who succeed to enter into it'

Yes, exactly what it means as the gate is narrow, so you'll have to forcibly push yourself in to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven upon hearing the Good News of the Kingdom of God

Remember that, it was John the Baptist who was announcing ''Repent, repent'', (i.e. Change, change) for the Kingdom of God is near
before Jesus and His disciples came on stage, to finally announce that Kingdom of God has come near to the hearers

omojeesu:
Since John, the Kingdom has been strongly appealing to men who because of that have been flocking / rushing into it and those who are determined to enter it seize it and hold on to it powerfully!

Exactly.
As the gate is narrow, you'll have to force your way in, you have no alternative that to force or press your way in,
the Kingdom of Heaven allowed, tolerated, permitted (i.e. suffereth'') these ''the violent'' to enter in this manner

Here is the witness scripture (i.e. Luke 16:16) that not only backs Mathew 11:12 up
but also puts Mathew 11:12 into perspective (i.e. Luke 16:16 makes the gist in Mathew 11:12 clearer)

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence,
and the violent take it by force.
- Mathew 11:12

"Moses' Teachings and the Prophets were [in force] until the time of John.
Since that time, people have been telling the Good News about the kingdom of God,
and everyone is trying to force their way into it
- Luke 16:16

"Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides.
But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in
- Luke 16:16

''Suffereth'' in Mathew 11:12 means tolerated, allowed, permitted
and the ''violence'' in Mathew 11:12 DOES NOT mean behaviour involving physical force with intention to hurt, damage, kill or be destructive
but rather eagerness to push in, to press in etcetera through the ''narrow gate'' in order to gain access into entering the Kingdom of Heaven

kallmemrB:
just pointing out the obvious and also that diff bible diff interpretation.....

Bible translations arent God inspired
Scriptures (i.e. Bible) were translated differently for political reasons, hidden agenda, denominational bias, ulterior motives, doctrinal basis etcetera

kallmemrB:
if you are well equipped with the Holy spirit, you will understand that one particular verse can mean a lot of diff things depending on the situation at that very moment

I'll repeat we are trying to understand Mathew 11:12 in its context
and doing an exegesis on it at around that very moment when Jesus made that statement
and not doing an eisegesis or trying to know the ''different'' meaning of a verse ''depending on the situation''

kallmemrB:
like how "Jesus wept" can be interpreted in diff ways

''Jesus wept'' can be interpreted only in one way
and that one way, is in the context (i.e. background) of how that statement came about (i.e. the context or background surrounding the phrase)

STEVENcrack:
Thanks a lot bro, you wrote with precision and in brevity without mincing words

Thanks for clearing this out BUT I still have a verse that I need help with concerning this tithes stuff (1 Corinthians 16:2)

Bro, if you are honest and sincere with yourself, you will know and admit that 1 Corinthians 16:2 has nothing whatsoever to do with tithe stuff

As a matter of fact bro, if you are seriously honest and sincere with yourself,
you will know and admit that 1 Corinthians 16:2 is about a collection for the saints (i.e. collection for believers)

1 Corinthians 16:2 was a request made by Paul to the Corinthians,
that at the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday) they should in proportion to what they have, weekly lay aside something from their surplus,
and save it in the house until when he next turns up to pick it up,
all this so no collection bowl will have to be passed around for the benefit of the saints when he comes visiting

STEVENcrack:
and why do my conscience always prick me whenever I miss out on remitting my tithes.

Regards.

Tithing is like the law of gravity, it will always bring one down
but if operating on a higher law, like the law of Aerodynamics, you will soar

The tithe giver is operating under the Law and would always be pinned down by the law,
the cheerful cheerful is operating with Grace and would always soar in the air with grace

You can rendered that ''my conscience always prick me whenever I miss out on remitting my tithes'' inoperative
by being mindful of 2 Corinthians 9:7

''You must each decide in your heart how much to give.
And don't give reluctantly or in response to pressure.
"For God loves a person who gives cheerfully.''
- 2 Corinthians 9:7

and if you want to do religion, then James 1:27 is the kind of religion God approves

kallmemrB:
you are mistaken abt what was going on during John the baptist Era.....before John the baptist worshipping God was never accounted as crime and also try to understand why his baptism was required....before the new testament the power of the pharisees and sedducees has grown into been a key factor as a decision maker...all this lead to assault on Gods people with less tolerate....

Jesus spoke mostly in proverbs....that suffereeth means diff thibgs in alot of bible...and pls dont tell me KJV is the real bible cos we all know King James was a protestant who broke out from catholic

We are reading Mathew 11:12 in context and doing an exegesis on it
and not doing an eisegesis or going off on a tangent with some KJV-protestant-catholic distraction

omojeesu:
The verse can be paraphrased as:

The Kingdom of Heaven is under the attack of contrary forces but anyone that wants to enter that kingdom must overcome the contrary forces.

Try reading it in other versions such as Amplified and Message versions.

You've paraphrased inaccurately

Was the Kingdom of Heaven not under the attack of contrary forces prior to the days of John the Baptist?

Remember it states: ...from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence

Remember the Kingdom of God wasnt preached until John the Baptist on to now
This is not about ''contrary forces''
but rather it is about ''friendly forces'' who upon hearing the Good News about the Kingdom of God preached from the days of John the Baptist until now (i.e. the present), the Kingdom of Heaven has allow, permitted or tolerated (i.e. suffereth) them (i.e. the ''friendly forces'') to press in, push in, force their way in (i.e. so they, as violent but not in a destructive or evil manner) via the narrow gate to enter the Kingdom of Heaven

kallmemrB:
OP am sorry to say this but u are totally wrong and have misinterpret that same verse itself

What the verse clearly illustrated is that the kingdom of God ain't as easy or sure bet for anyone again that now you must strive and work earnestly and endlessly before u can enter into heaven due to sin, iniquities and the abuse against God.....

Kingdom of God suffereth violence due to sins,disobedience,iniquities and persecution of Gods people
Only the violence taketh it by force fervent hardwork thru service, worship, praise, prayers and been righteous before God

The violent is used in the context of upon hearing about the Good News of the Kingdom of God from the days of John the Baptist to now, people forcing themselves in through the narrow gate to enter the Kingdom of Heaven

The ''suffereth'' has previously mentioned above means tolerate, allow, permit
Matthew 19:14, Luke 18:16 etcetera will help put the meaning of ''suffereth'' or ''suffer'' into pespective

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven
- Matthew 19:14

But Jesus called them unto him, and said,
Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God
- Luke 18:16

This is an observational statement made by Jesus, noticed about the kingdom entries
(i.e. people are keen or eager to pressfully/forciably enter the kingdom though the gate is narrow)
and not a criteria statement of fervent hardwork thru service, worship, praise, prayers and been righteous before God for kingdom entry

kallmemrB:
Note: During John the Baptist Era there was heavy persecution of Gods people

You're mistaken
Before John the Baptist era there was heavy persecution of God's people
During John the Baptist era there was heavy persecution of God's people
After John the Baptist era there was heavy persecution of God's people
Now, there still is heavy persecution of God's people