₦airaland Forum

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
Maybe I owe you a small apology because I really thought that you were being a maradona when you sought to make a distinction between Command and imperative. however on reading this post again I see how your position is based on that distinction.

Lol, that's okay. Sometimes I've also misread a few people and had to wait to get a better understanding of what they were saying before drawing any inferences - just as I misread yours earlier (consequently said that was "why I waited to make yourself clear".

Pastor AIO:
However, accepting this point does not change much. And again it hinges on that word 'you'. The word you is not used when constructing the second person of verbs except for emphasis. For example, a similar thing occurs in Italian. Imagine I met a tranvestite. A woman that is dressed as a man, has had the sex change and would like to be addressed as a man. She says to me, " Sono uomo" Sono means I am in italian while uomo means man. But in response I can shake my head and say, "Io sono uomo". That is I am a man. The emphasis makes a distinction, an important point that I am trying to convey.

Yes, I understand the distinctions; but even so, that would not necessarily make it a "command" , would it?

Pastor AIO:
If you see the word you in ancient greek then an important nuance is being indicated. Now consider the phrase:

Search the scriptures; for (in them) you think . . . .

In greek this is : ερευνατε τας γραφας οτι υμεις δοκειτε

You is Humeis which is emboldened above. It is followed by dokete which means to suppose or to think. Now, rhetorically, why would Jesus suddenly add the personal pronoun when it is not necessary grammatically in the language. I say it is because the Supposition is theirs and their especially (if not theirs alone). He emphasises the you to imply that it is their position, not necessarily his.

Wow! I think you have actually captured the essence of my emphasis all along. Let's not lose focus on the very basic thing I have addressed all this while, and I would like to quote that emboldened line in yours to show what exactly I had been pointing out:
______________________________________________________________

Now, rhetorically, why would Jesus suddenly add the personal pronoun
when it is not necessary grammatically in the language.
______________________________________________________________

The question there is "why" - that is, why add the personal pronoun there at the beginning of the verse in John 5:39? Briefly, some assume that the KJV has "omitted" the pronoun and therefore made it to sound like a "command". In other words, to these gentlemen the omission of the pronoun sounds like it was a "command" and I have been pointing out all along that (a) the pronoun is not there in the Greek in the first place, so it is wrong to accuse the KJV of having "omitted" it; and (b) even standing without the pronoun at the beginning of that verse, nobody was trying to make it sound like a "command". Let me remind you of the allegation made earlier that I had referred to:

justcool:
In some translations, the meaning was changed or distorted, i.e, in King James version we have:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (King James Bible)

The king James translation omitted the "You" at the beginning of the sentence making it sound like a comand, but actually it is a reproach.

Bottomline: the KJV did not "omit" the pronoun at the beginning of that sentence, for the pronoun was not there in the first place; it did not change or distort its meaning; and it certainly did not make it sound like a "command". The allegation was untenable and unhealthy, especially where justcool had not checked his assumptions in the first place. Like I said earlier: "Nobody was making it a "command" as justcool alleged."

Shalom.

@Pastor AIO,

Let me follow your replies in reverse order. But first, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts - I really appreciate all you have said. A few things, though, I would like to point out in summary.

Pastor AIO:
Pilgrim.1 said:

Since you say that it is not the convention to place the ‘you’ there, I wonder what you make of John 6:26 where indeed the pronoun ‘you’ appears before ‘search’? Like I said, the "imperative" in Greek does not mean everytime that it is a "command", Pastor AIO. When you read that verse even in the Greek, you find indeed that the pronoun "you" comes before the word "search"; and in doing so, it does not break the convention.

This is the original Greek of the verse.

ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν· Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ζητεῖτέ με, οὐχ ὅτι εἴδετε σημεῖα, ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐφάγετε ἐκ τῶν ἄρτων καὶ ἐχορτάσθητε.

Now here, as is most often the case the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) - you seek/search does not have a pronoun attached to it.  Which all goes to further illustrate my point. It is a totally different verb from ερευνατε which means to peruse/investigate/examine as what one would do with a text, as opposed to looking for somebody.

Glad you recognize that the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) does not have a pronoun preceding it, which demonstrates that it is not the convention to always have or otherwise leave out the pronoun in Greek imperatives. All the examples cited so far (John 5:39 and 7:52 and 6:26) point to the fact that such imperatives may have the pronoun or otherwise do not have the pronoun.

What has been the underlying thought is whether that pronoun 'you' was "omitted" in order to make it sound like a "command" - in which case my rejoinders have been saying that the KJV did not "omit" the pronoun and did not make it sound like a "command", because the pronoun was not there in the first place. If it had been there in the Greek and we do not read it in the KJV, then indeed it would have been an "omission"; but as we can see, it was not an "omitted" word as charged by justcool, and the KJV was not trying to make it sound like a "command".

Pastor AIO:
However, come to think of it, you don't have to make zeteite the present indicative.  You could just as easily translate it as the imperative like before and you'll get
And Jesus answered them, "Verily verily I say to you, Seek Me, not because you've seen signs, but because you are full of loaves".

Which is quite a delightful interpretation of the verse, don't you think?

Lol, I would not want to go into another detailed discourse on that. While appreciating yours, let me note something in connection with what you stated earlier as regards ζητεῖτέ (zeteite):[list]

Pastor AIO:
Now here, as is most often the case the word ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) - you seek/search does not have a pronoun attached to it.  Which all goes to further illustrate my point. It is a totally different verb from ερευνατε which means to peruse/investigate/examine as what one would do with a text, as opposed to looking for somebody.

[/list]

Okay, I commend your submission on distingusihing between ζητεῖτέ (zeteite) and ερευνατε. For the sake of our readers, perhaps it may be necessary to point out further that in Greek ζητεῖτέ could be used for both searching for something and someone. Would it help to check with some study aids (like Thayer's Greek Definitions); and then looking at a few examples where ζητεῖτέ is used in both cases? A few of such examples:

     ■    ζητεῖτέ used in searching/seeking someone:

       John 7:11 - 'Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?'

       2 Timothy 1:17  - 
      'But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me'
      _______________________________       

     ■    ζητεῖτέ used in searching/seeking something:

       Luke 15:8 - 'Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece,
       doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?'

       1 Cor. 1:22 - 'For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom.'

       Matthew 13:45 - 'Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man,
       seeking goodly pearls.'

In either cases, the words ζητεῖτέ and ερευνατε are used whether as regards seeking/searching for someone or something. And examples where ερευνατε is used as indicative for searching/seeking for something other than a text (but in connection with people) could be found in Romans 8:27 and 1 Cor. 2:10.

* Romans 8:27 - 'And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what
    is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to
    the will of God.'

* 1 Cor. 2:10 - 'But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:
    for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.'

@Image123,

Image123:
@pilgrim
Hello, you know I was beginning to feel sorry for you because of the negatives coming from everyside.Then I looked into the Scriptures to see if I could get some words of comfort to give.But blimey, right now,I'll like to be in your shoes.See some of what i saw
2Corinthians 4:8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
2Co 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
2Co 4:10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
1Peter 3:14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;
And the one that blew my mind,

1Peter 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the Spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
The Spirit of Glory! The Spirit of Glory!I hate to concede to this but I'm envious of you this moment.Always remember,It is well

I want to thank you for your that encouragement. Those verses are taken to heart and have blessed me seasonally. Yes, it is well, and my warmest thoughts to you - may the Lord Jesus fill you with ever increasing wisdom. Shalom.

Time Travel - When Machines Are Made Possible

[list]Dr. Michio Kaku tries to explain 'Physics of the Impossible' in the vid below. According to Wikipedia, Physics of the Impossible "examines the technologies of invisibility, teleportation, precognition, star ships, antimatter engines, time travel and more—all regarded as things that are not possible today but that might be possible in the future. In this book, he ranks these subjects according to when, if ever, these technologies might become reality. In March 2008, Physics of the Impossible entered the New York Times Best-seller list, and stayed on for 5 weeks."[/list]

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2yQPw6s&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Time Travel - Without Machines?

[list]Håkan  Nordkvist - he is said to have time-travelled, and even filmed himself (with a mobile phone) standing with 'himself at 70 years old'. Things happen, the dude didn't need a machine or spell: it just happned and he came back to tell his story.[/list]

      [flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2sp-clMk8s&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Here's another theory that some thinkers hold in diverse thoughts: Red Rain. Certainly, not all the details are in yet, so like I said: don't bash the theory - just observe.


[list][size=14pt]Red rain could prove that aliens have landed[/size]

https://education.vsnl.com/godfrey/redraincells.jpg

The following correction was printed in the Observer's For the record column, Sunday March 12 2006

In the article below, Dr Milton Wainwright was quoted as saying that red rain lacked DNA. Dr Wainwright has asked us to make clear that currently he has no view on whether red rain contains DNA and that it is physicist Godfrey Louis who is of that view.

There is a small bottle containing a red fluid on a shelf in Sheffield University's microbiology laboratory. The liquid looks cloudy and uninteresting. Yet, if one group of scientists is correct, the phial contains the first samples of extraterrestrial life isolated by researchers.

Inside the bottle are samples left over from one of the strangest incidents in recent meteorological history. On 25 July, 2001, blood-red rain fell over the Kerala district of western India. And these rain bursts continued for the next two months. All along the coast it rained crimson, turning local people's clothes pink, burning leaves on trees and falling as scarlet sheets at some points.

Investigations suggested the rain was red because winds had swept up dust from Arabia and dumped it on Kerala. But Godfrey Louis, a physicist at Mahatma Gandhi University in Kottayam, after gathering samples left over from the rains, concluded this was nonsense. 'If you look at these particles under a microscope, you can see they are not dust, they have a clear biological appearance.' Instead Louis decided that the rain was made up of bacteria-like material that had been swept to Earth from a passing comet. In short, it rained aliens over India during the summer of 2001.

Not everyone is convinced by the idea, of course. Indeed most researchers think it is highly dubious. One scientist who posted a message on Louis's website described it as 'bullshit'.

But a few researchers believe Louis may be on to something and are following up his work. Milton Wainwright, a microbiologist at Sheffield, is now testing samples of Kerala's red rain. 'It is too early to say what's in the phial,' he said. 'But it is certainly not dust. Nor is there any DNA there, but then alien bacteria would not necessarily contain DNA.'

Critical to Louis's theory is the length of time the red rain fell on Kerala. Two months is too long for it to have been wind-borne dust, he says. In addition, one analysis showed the particles were 50 per cent carbon, 45 per cent oxygen with traces of sodium and iron: consistent with biological material. Louis also discovered that, hours before the first red rain fell, there was a loud sonic boom that shook houses in Kerala. Only an incoming meteorite could have triggered such a blast, he claims. This had broken from a passing comet and shot towards the coast, shedding microbes as it travelled. These then mixed with clouds and fell with the rain. Many scientists accept that comets may be rich in organic chemicals and a few, such as the late Fred Hoyle, the UK theorist, argued that life on Earth evolved from microbes that had been brought here on comets. But most researchers say that Louis is making too great a leap in connecting his rain with microbes from a comet.

For his part, Louis is unrepentant. 'If anybody hears a theory like this, that it is from a comet, they dismiss it as an unbelievable kind of conclusion. Unless people understand our arguments - people will just rule it out as an impossible thing, that extra-terrestrial biology is responsible for this red rain.'


Source: Guardian.co.uk[/list]

[list]Further reading:

ANALYSIS OF RED RAIN OF KERALA

Dr. Godfrey Louis' Homepage[/list]

[flash=425,355]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBR3FPh5NM&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

Shows you the dichotomy of thoughts among some scientists. Just a theory, though, especially that Professor Steve Jones is 'a leading genetics expert'.

Some more stylz.

https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/2365817897_fdf25198d7_m.jpg

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2204/2180754451_a31c575778.jpg?v=0

https://lh4.ggpht.com/abramsv/SAhAxg2pqPI/AAAAAAAAOss/YfxIOPBNzkc/s800/043_deti.jpg

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2010/2180749103_0f198a7ea7.jpg?v=0

https://thebeautybrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/weird_hair2.jpg

@kobomoje,

Lol, I know those loads would be too much to carry on your shoulders.

[list][size=14pt]Strange 'twin' new worlds found[/size]

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41960000/jpg/_41960898_planemos_203_eso.jpg
The planemo twins:
Two peculiar planet-like worlds

A pair of strange new worlds that blur the boundaries between planets and stars have been discovered beyond our Solar System. A few dozen such objects have been identified in recent years but this is the first set of "twins". Dubbed "planemos", they circle each other rather than orbiting a star.

Their existence challenges current theories about the formation of planets and stars, astronomers report in the journal Science.

"This is a truly remarkable pair of twins - each having only about 1% the mass of our Sun," said Ray Jayawardhana of the University of Toronto, co-author of the Science paper. "Its mere existence is a surprise, and its origin and fate a bit of a mystery."

'Double planet'

The pair belongs to what some astronomers believe is a new class of planet-like objects floating through space; so-called planetary mass objects, or "planemos", which are not bound to stars.

               Now we're curious to find out whether such pairs
               are common or rare. The answer could shed light
               on how free-floating planetary-mass objects form.
               Valentin Ivanov

They appear to have been forged from a contracting gas cloud, in a similar way to stars, but are much too cool to be true stars.

And while they have similar masses to many of the giant planets discovered beyond our Solar System (the larger weighs in at 14 times the mass of Jupiter and the other is about seven times more massive), they are not thought to be true planets either.

"We are resisting the temptation to call it a 'double planet' because this pair probably didn't form the way that planets in our Solar System did," said co-researcher Valentin Ivanov of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Santiago, Chile.

'Amazing diversity'

The two objects have similar spectra and colours, suggesting that they formed at the same time about a million years ago.

They are separated by about six times the distance between the Sun and Pluto, and can be found in the Ophiuchus star-forming region some 400 light years away. They go under the official name Oph 162225-240515, or Oph 1622 for short.

"Recent discoveries have revealed an amazing diversity of worlds out there," said Dr Jayawardhana. "Still, the Oph 1622 pair stands out as one of the most intriguing, if not peculiar."

His colleague, Dr Ivanov, said they were curious to find out whether such pairs are common or rare.

"The answer could shed light on how free-floating planetary-mass objects form," he added.

Oph 1622 was discovered using the ESO's New Technology Telescope at La Silla, Chile. Follow-up studies were conducted with the ESO's Very Large Telescope.

Source: BBC News[/list]

mazaje:
pilgrim how body? whats the beef with all the guys in the room? hope u are doing good out there?. . . . . .

Lol, mazaje, I'm cool. And you? I don't have any beef with anyone. . I just wonder about the new culture.

huxley:
The thing I called nonsense was exegesis (not teleology or theology). By the way, if you disagree it is nonsense, why don't you make a case for that. I am prepared to change my view is your case is reasonable and plausible.

If something does not make any sense to you, what reason are you asking for yet?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
My interpretation, when taken with 5:40 is that it is an admonishment.
It's basically saying that the study of Scripture isn't the be all and end all. One has to look at the bigger picture as well.

Glad you pointed that out. This has been my point all along: John 5:39 was not a command; and among the things I tried to point out was this: "it was understood there as a challenge of recommendation".

Bastage:
Well. You did ask.

Now that's what I mean by people dialoguing and not accusing. I appreciate that.

Bastage:
Again, very misleading. Ever heard of the word "insinuate"?

You insinuate with nearly every post you make in reply to someone with an opposing view to yours. Being devious enough not to outright call someone a liar or an idiot, but leaving an independent reader with the impression they are, by means of pretty blatant insinuation, does not make you an innocent.

I did not call anyone by the terms they have used and are still justifying.

Bastage:
Again. Does nothing for your defence.

What has been said about John 5:39 yet?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
I have every intention of addressing it. But it will take time. For a start your arguments are so convoluted as usual, so I will need the time to sit down and pick at it. Suffice for now to say that I disagree with it and that I think that you are trying to use semantics to wriggle you way out of your quagmire.

All accusations welcome. When you're done, please let me know.

KunleOshob:
I don't know what you intend to achieve with all these semantics and playing with words, i am pretty certain that the import of my post was not lost on all those reading this thread. As usual instead of addressing issues you are looking for straws(technicalities) to grab at instead of addressing the subtstance of the issues raised.

Was that the only thing I addressed? The Church (members and leaders) failed herself. That was no big deal - but that is now the bigger deal that others have been shouting every single time. Why?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
But truth be told Pilgrim.1, and I say this without malice, your complaining about how people treat you is really poor form.  Jesus said, do unto others as you would have them do onto you and since I've been aware of you on this forum, and your manner of engaging people, you have no right to complain about people accusing you of anything, especially when the accusations are justified.

Truth be told, they could reason with me where they disagree with what I have pointed out. I reasoned with you; and if my manner was not welcomed, no worries. Not in one instance have I called anyone "stupid" no matter how much they don't agree with me. Not in one instance have I used expressions such as "fanatic", nor "rude, malicious, mendacious, attacker, accuser, fight-fight-fight". ,   what is all that for? Is that how I have been addressing them? Did I call anyone "crazy" or "ignorant"? Where did I refer to anyone as "selfish"? Why is it that the "truth be told" that others recommend, they cannot see these matters at all before seeking to justify these same things? Where have I ever referred to anyone as a "disgrace" to Christianity? Where have I ever tried to justify anything in this regard and in such manner?

None of these things move me; I take them and return their kindness to those who feel well at home to use them. If I were using the same language at them, a thread would be set up to call for my ban. It has become increasingly the norm, and that is why I am asking question, not because such things bother me. Let those who recommend their "Christ-likeness" share with us why anyone should justify these same attitude from among themselves.

Pastor AIO:
I guess that now would be an excellent time to point out to you that your excessive use of the word 'hubris' is in fact the very height of hubris itself.

Thanks, and when queried about it, I explained what the term meant and in what context I used it. As regards my using it in response to you, I stated clearly that you seemed to have bought into, not that I therefore concluded that was the case. The scientists who appeal to such attitudes are very well resisted by their colleagues; and that was why I clearly stated it was an arrogant statement that many scientists make - not that I directly used it to allege that you were "arrogant".

Pastor AIO:
Afterall, what is more arrogant than seeing every opposing viewpoint as arrogant.  An in your case it has been absolutely every viewpoint that did not concur with yours.

See? Did I not agree with you earlier that we said the same things - but no, you yelled back that I had lost my marbles! After discussing it in detail, did you come back to disagree? Why is it that you guys are not helping yourselves to be consistent? If "pilgrim.1" is your worry, I could as well leave the forum for you so you no longer suffer yourselves to be worried about me.

@PAstor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
If I was frothing at the mouth and rolling my eyes don't you think that I'd be better of rushing to the hospital than commending you for psychically perceiving it.  I actually thought you were playing a double bluff by saying that you could tell because you have been like that too.  Wow pilgrim!  How often do you froth at the mouth and roll your eyes in a crazed manner?  I'm going to bring this up again on the 'Can a christian be possessed by demons' thread.  I just have to, it is too good.  

Anyway, I was just being sarcastic. See what too much false indoctrination can do to you.  It has made you so laughably low context. You take everything so literally now, not just the bible. Please can you tell me what you think of Edward Hall.  see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_context_culture

I know when and how to tease along with people, even when they are being sarcastic; not when they are trying to justify the very things they cannot receive. If anyone has been very 'literalist' in Bible reading, we have seen them aplenty - for this was the very things they all did and reacted so much about when I tried to point out the place of the Law in other threads. If the Law was such as to be interpreted literally in the new covenant, what then was the purpose of people reading it at all and getting confused all the more? Their reactions would not equate me to Edward Hall, would it?

Pastor AIO:
So while we are on that point I would like to know what you think about this bible passage from Mark 2: 17  "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick;  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."  
I've always been taught that Jesus had his tongue in his cheek when he said this.  Would you agree, or would you take it literally and say that Jesus knew that the Pharisees were without sin?

You give it your own interpretation as best suits you. The one funny thing that I often find is that after the sarcasm and accusations that people have tried to justify, I wonder why it is often the culture that after I point out something, nobody refers to that same thing anymore. I have been accused about the point in my rejoinders as regards John 5:39, I discussed it in detail, I had pointed out simply that we were on the same page (it was not a "command" and you disagreed. After discussing it, nobody made reference to it anymore but the culture of justifying accusations and insults seems to be the norm. Lol, how has that very things helped you guys in this thread?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1 thanx for the education on the meaning of "church" and what makes up the church but semantics apart i am sure even my daugther would understand i was refering to the church leadership and not church members when i stated that the church as failed christians.

Church leadership and church members are in the same Church - the Church failed herself, and we should live with it.

Let me make something clear to you guys. I've been trying to reason with posters, but somehow just because you don't want to reason, all sorts of language and accusations are now the order of the day. My question is this: why seek to justify such language at all? If I have been using such lingo, what then would you guys have said with all the talk about being "Christ-like"? This is the one thing I find really amusing today: people who recommend that others should be "Christ-like" and lovable are the very ones who do not care one hoot about what they recommend, and will seek to justify those same things they accuse others of! If that is the norm, what is my worry?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
I've pointed out why I accuse you. Would you like me to repeat why?

Do you really have to be accusative rather than reason with people? What justifies the habit of people accusing others with such language?

Bastage:
The power hungry, money grabbing charlatans who believed that control of the Christian Faith was more important than it's ideals.
You may call them "Christians". I call them the Church authorities.

Church authorities, christians - what difference does that make? Are these two seperate bodies?

Bastage:
Then maybe you should ask yourself "Why?".

Maybe those who are very used to accuse others with such language should take a moment and ask themselves why. Is that too hard for them to do?

Bastage:
No. The Church doesn't exist any more. There are now thousands of different "churches" which represent different denominations of Christians. The Church ceased to exist soon after Christianity began and when it morphed into the Catholic Church and it's many offshoots, all believing different things and preaching different ideas. To claim that all these different people belong to one "Church" is misleading. They belong to many different factions within one religion.

Your interpretation. Who failed Christians?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
Yet again your condescending arrogance shines through.

Thanks. It has become the culture now, so I'm quite used to such.

Bastage:
The poster made a very simple statement and it's easy to see why he made it.
If the Church was so infallible, why did it fracture into so many denominations? Why are there now so many "Christian" churches?
What more do you want for absolute proof that "Christians have failed Christians".

Or do you mean (as I know you most certainly do) that only your church has not failed Christians?

I think it would not hurt to read simple statements and understand what I pointed out. Christians are not a different body from the Church. The Church is actually made up of Christians. If the "Church has failed Christians", it simply means that Christians have failed themselves. Nobody should be seeking to blame "the Church" as if it is a different entity from Christians - that does not translate as the "infallibility" of the Church/Christians, as I have not hinted any such thing.

@huxley,

I wonder if you expect anyone to reason with you if on the very same subject you had concluded that it is nonsense? If that is the way you have already concluded the subject even before reasoning with others, why yet ask if there is "any thought"? Anyway, hope you're doing okay?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim.1
I always wonder why there is a .1 in front of your username anyway how body? the battle for here no easy oh, I just want to quickly ask you, if the events in calabar were recorded in the book of exodus, would it still remain the same for you? Just asking sha because it seems no amount of evil in the bible will make you think of it otherwise.
Cheers.

Dear Chris, I'm doing okay, and I trust the same and even better for you. Indeed, what happened in Calabar is not unique, but the way many people have capitalized on that to accuse Christianity of all sorts is what we should be careful to point out. That is why I have tried to address this matter summarily by noting that there is not a single verse in the Bible that man will not abuse. Not one. It doesn't have to just be Exodus 22, even Matthew 22 has been abused by some that I know in more devasting ways. If every single verse in the Bible today has been abused, those who are concerned only about Exodus 22 should also be concerned to remove every single verse and be left with blank pages if that is how to interprete these things. I have tried to reason with people to see the place of the Sinaitic Law, but every single time I tried to do this, many people reacted like I was their enemy numero uno. Today, the same issues are being demonstrated in such happenings in Calabar, and all of a sudden many Christians have been left even more confused.

The Calabar happenings do not make me a murderer; Rev. King did not use Exodus 22 in his own instance, yet he had his own set of verses from within the same Bible to murder some of his own followers. I could list at least 21 well-known cases where passages on love, grace, mercy, and faith in the Bible have been abused to commit similar acts, but people have not bothered to make those issues headline news. If Exodus 22 was never in the Bible, man would still do worse. If the Bible never existed, man would still do worse things. It has become a culture today that anything that happens under the banner of Christianity is used to allege all sorts of things; but nobody talks about the culture of killings in our societies that do not spring from a religious affiliation.

@cocoman4u,

cocoman4u:
@pilgrim 1
What is wrong with you. Are possesed or what. Everybody in this thread is trying to be civil but you keep making false aligations against innocent people. You are the one who was caught red handed lying about john 39.

I have been following this thread and you are the person who is always making false claims and aligations.

You are a disgrace to christainity.

There is nothing wrong with me, and there is nothing like John 39, sir. Those who have been 'trying' to be civil have been very 'Christ-like' in accusing me of all sorts - did you miss that? Or did I use the same language that they have used in addressing me?

Meanwhile, if I have been caught red-handed as you allege, what have you guys said about the Greek imperative I addressed in detail - here and here? Did you miss the whole point or you were just hoping to keep pushing this "red-handed" after all that has been said? Dear justcool alleged that the KJV "omitted" something that it never omitted - and he used that accusation to try to force the idea that KJV made it a "command"; I have demonstrated that was false. If you feel otherwise, please show me. Your civility should be able to make you reason, not seek to attack anybody. Many thanks for your kind-hearted appellations, and may God bless you many times over.

@KunleOshob,

My attitude in these matters - How God changed my heart.

Please understand, this is not about a "testimony" of my conversion to become a Christian. I'm rather focusing on my attitude to the very same thing I was attacked in the past: the Bible. Please don't be surprised that I once actually attacked the Bible - from Genesis to Revelation. I wowed so many of my contemporaries in arguing every one of the 66 books of the Bible plus the Apocrypha. But someday, I became a Christian and as I look back, I bury my head in shame that God could use the very same Book that I once thought myself so "intellectual" enough to attack!

The problems before my conversion still lingered, though: problems I knew before then, such as translation errors. These problems exist in almost every document translated that I know of, whether religion, philosophy, even science - most of the documents ascribed to Aristotle and Galileo [both of whom are interchangeably called the "father of modern science"] also suffered some mistranslations. However, coming back to the Bible, I wondered (and still do today) that inspite of all these, God still used that same Book to convict me, and still uses that same Book to strengthen my faith in Him.

But how is it that these problems about translation errors do not faze me at all?

Here are a few things that always come to my heart every single time when these excuses confrot me:

(a) As Christians, we often say that we are children of Abraham - for he is said to be the "father of us all", not so? By the same stretch, if we expect everything to just go smoothly, what about the fact that Abraham was once a pagan? Am I to abadon the faith because the man now called the 'father of us all' was a pagan?

(b) As Christians, let it not shock us that God has used men of questionable lifestyles to unwittingly prophesy His will. How? Do we not believe in the death and resurrection of Christ? But hey, hang on a minute - who in the NT prophesied that Christ "should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not"?!? The Bible clearly says that this man, Caiaphas, did not make that prophecy himself, but because he was high priest that year, God definitely put it in his mouth, though he was not even aware of the fact (John 11:49-53)!!

(c) Following (b) above, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty (1 Cor. 1:27). In this same way, if He has been pleased to choose the Catholic Church and Bishops to give us a canon of Scripture, what is my worry? It is not so much the person/people used that should determine whether or not I should follow Christ; rather, it is the very thing He has given as He pleases that should always be my focus.

Now let me pause for a moment and reflect. After the weeks when I engaged Catholics on this forum so ferociously, I did not realise how much I was damaging my own testimony. I'm not ashamed to confess this; but hear me out. A long-time friend who emailed me several times during that period always calmly asked me a few simple questions. In my pride, I supplied all the answers so articulately. She never was upset, never angry, never confrontational. . always in simplicity was very interested in what I was alleging about the 11 points about Catholic doctrines from the Vatican. After I sent her some citations to go and check out in their archives, she only sent me a line: "all you said are correct." I have never heard from her again.

Not long after that same period, I was blessed to meet another gentleman with whom I have had very deep talks on our faith. He never told me where he was from or what denomination he belonged to - and I was content with that, because I declined to tell him when he asked about mine. But when he started talking about certain Christians whom God had used greatly even among intellectual giants, I was humbled with one fact: they were all catholics! I was dumbfounded! Although I don't always mention these names, at least somewhere in my rejoinders in another thread, the name Chesterton has been mentioned - and sometimes I forget he was a Catholic when I read his works.

Kunle, God can use anybody he pleases. Whether it was a "former pagan" in the person of Abraham, we have all benefitted from him. Or whether it is a Catholic, we have immensely benefitted from their works. Even then, not to cause wahala for us, outside religion we have seen that some non-religious folks have produced scholarship that have affected us in beneficial ways in the Christian faith.

So, if God was pleased to use the Catholic Bishops in the way He has used and is still using so many of them, my one reaction to His ways is humble thankfulness and deep appreciation for what He does in the lives of His people. Elijah knew that the ravine was an unclean bird; but when God used that same bird to bring him food in the wilderness, the prophet did not protest!

Dear sir, God used people - the Catholics are people. When pilgrim.1 attacked some of them, she didn't realise what she was doing. Today, I'm ever greatful that God uses those whom he pleases, and it is not in my place to legislate for Him how he does His works!

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim.1
My problem with the term scripture is that we don't know for sure which of the over six hundred writings in circulation as at the time the bible was compiled are actually genuine scripture(because it was acknowledge at that time that a lot of them were not inspired) the methods used by the catholic church to determine which books to select even though were logical but they are still carnal and not divine. Also the political influence under which they compiled it is quite disturbing. Since we don't know for sure that all the 80 books or is it 66 books contained in the bible are indeed all inspired hence my admonition to let the spirit of Christ discern for us when we read the bible. I never suggested that we do away with the bible. i still read and depend on it every day. it is the greatest book ever written but then,

You try with the compromise - there's still hope. You see, my dear sir, let anybody complain from now till high heavens, I don't have any problem with Scripture. None. This is not a brash statement as to suppose that I know everything in Scripture - no, I don't; and I have made clear that there are a lot of things that are still a mystery to me in nearly all 66 books of the Bible. I could show you 66 matters one from each of the 66 books; but I always marvel at the statement Jesus made that "Scripture cannot be broken". That is so awesome that whenever people have problems with what choices to make, I have often waited to see which book in scripture they could "break" with. Isn't it ironical that when all these complaints come up, we still cannot produce anything better than mere grumblings against the Catholic Church?

Please hang on a lil let me share a bit of how God changed my heart.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
The spirit of christ is very easy to discern, it is love. Love in this tense is a verb so the love must be acted and seen to be real. Anyone can say anything but it is what they act that would show their fruits. That is why i commented on another thread that the church as failed christians general by their failure to collectively preach, practise and emphasize the commandment which our redeemer described as the greatest commandment.

Don't be tedious to yourself. First, the Church is made up of Christians, so to say that "the church has failed christians" is a misnomer, for it is like saying that Christians have failed Christians. I wonder what sense that makes?

Second, "love" is always connected to God's Word - in almost every instance where it has to be demonstrated, it is pointing back to the Word. Indeed, when we open the scriptures to find what indeed marks out the Spirit, it simply says: "the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10). Everybody speaks about "love", but it is a known fact that not everyone who speaks of LOVE actually longs for Christ. We can preach about "love" from now till the next millenium, it won't change a thing about the fact that people have used that very thing in very cultured ways to promote evil - and they justify the same evil from the passages on love that you quote.

KunleOshob:
If the practise and show of love was preached and emphasized as fundermental to christianity by most churches as direct by christ a lot of abuses in the name of christianity would not be possible today.

Don't kid yourself. Because we have become Biblically illiterates, that is why we have more problems to contend with than the preaching of "love". Emphasizing this same "love" tends to abuse - because that is what cultists will preach to high heavens and yet still abuse the things of God.

KunleOshob:
My a friend of mine noted in a thread a while back, the type of christianity being practised and preached by most churches today is the selfish type and i believe the church as gone astray from the fundermental teachings of our redeemer.And this straying off startd in a period prior to even when the bible was put together as evidenced in emperor constantine using christianity as a tool to control and dominate his empire . This is the bone of my contention.

Relax, dear sir. Before Constantine, there were abuses within the Church in apostolic times. The apostles took no nonsense from those abusing the substance of their Christian faith - and we can be thankful today that we have the same pointers in Scripture to read for ourselves.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
What are the possibilities for interpretation in all textual matters? Arguably infinite, I think. If text is something that lends itself so easily to interpretations of almost unlimited scope then how can it serve as a vehicle for specific meaning?

For example consider the following exchange:


Quote from: Pastor AIO on Today at 10:54:22 AM
You just don't get it, do you? Why has there got to be a Canon? Why does there have to be an authoritative compilation when you've got the holy spirit to guide you in all things. You're so stuck on this idea of 'searching the scripture' on the basis of 'therein you will find eternal life' that if one bible is proved short of the mark, you immediately seek out another one to replace it. It's not about any canon, ma cherie, it's about the holy spirit and you need to get the Holy spirit in you so you can get the guidance you need.

ResponseI'm not stuck on any idea, thank you. If you cannot address anything calmly, I can bear with that.

A lack of calm has been read into the first address. How? That's beyond me, but I'm sure that the 2nd dialoguer has perfectly justifiable reasons why the first address smacks of disquiet.

Lol, if you had to go this length to allege I had "justified" anything in yours, what is the meaning of your agreement thereto as this:[list]

Pastor AIO: I am now certain that you must be a psychic. How did you know that I was rolling my eyes and frothing at the mouth when I wrote that post. I was really trying to pretend to be calm.

[/list]

@justcool,

justcool:
Just food for thought.
Please posters, consider the following verses:

"Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?"
(Joshua, 10. 13.)
"Behold it is written in the Book of Jasher."
(II. Samuel, 1. 18)

The book of Jasher was mentioned twice in the Bible, but not to be found in it.

Here is a list of books mentioned in the Bible but not included in it:

The Book of Wars - Num. 21:14
The Book of Jasher - Josh. 10:13
The Chronicles of David - 1 Chron. 27:24
The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah - 2 Chron. 27:7; 35:27; 36:8
The Book of the Kings of Israel - 1 Chron. 9:1; 2 Chron. 20:34.
The Words of the Kings of Israel - 2 Chron. 33:18.
The Decree of David the King of Israel - 2 Chron. 35:4.
The Chronicles of Samuel the Seer - 1 Chron. 29:29
The Chronicles of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chron. 29:29
The Book of Gad - 1 Chron. 29:29
The Book of the Prophet Iddo - 2 Chron. 13:22
The Words of Shemaiah the Prophet - 2 Chron. 12:15
The Deeds of Uzziah by Isaiah the Prophet - 2 Chron. 26:22; 32:32
The Book of Jehu - 2 Chron. 20:34
The Record book of Ahasuerus - Esther 2:23; 6:1

These matters have been treated in other threads before - and there are more. Reharshing the same thing here is not helping the attitude you adopted in making false assumptions against the verse in the KJV you assumed earlier.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
Well that is one of the reasons why i said we should not focus too much on scripture but on the spirit of christ in us which is of love, kindess, meekness and a sound mind. After all if we are to follow Jesus directive strictly we should depend more on the holy spirit for guidiance and direction than on written "scripture".

What really is your problem, sir? Do you really have a problem with that word "scripture"? It seems that anytime something is alluded to from 'scripture', it hasn't quite sunk in with.

Dear sir, let me again say this: 'the spirit of Christ in us' is also something that deranged cultists allude to in their sinister acts. >cough-cough!<  What was Rev. King preaching all along before he was exposed? Was he saying anything differently from the "spirit of christ"? What about other world-cultists - have they not also focused more on what they call "the spirit of christ"? Whether in Nigeria or America, this same thing is what they have been saying and yet doing the same or even far sinister acts in the "name of the Lord".

Some are not even this dastardly in terms of killings: they have become more "cultured" when they speak about 'the spirit of christ' in them. Jesus Miranda is one such example - if you have the heart, you should actually listen to his messages and see how many times he disses the Bible and yet says publicly that he "loves" the same Bible! His ministry is called "Growing in Grace Ministry", and he speaks so many times about "love" and "grace". . yet he is not shy to say he is the anti-christ, adopts 666 as his fav tag, as well denies the reality of sin! Yet in all these things, he speaks about "the spirit of the very christ in me", claiming even  that he is 'God'. Since this man is an example that is abusing terms like the "spirit" and "grace" . . . would it also be correct to say that we should not focus on them just because some people are giving these things such a dismal picture?

Kunle, whether you focus on the Bible or the Spirit one way or the other, people will abuse them every which way and still shock you. Do not let these happenings make you prefer one over the other - the very Spirit of Christ does not give us a witness in our hearts to downplay the Scriptures.

Shalom.