₦airaland Forum

davidylan:
the above sounds very "christian" but is actually false teaching. When i read through my bible i find several instances where Christ CALLED OUT false teachers of the law!

If Christ had been alive today . . . ye would be among the first to accuse Him of error and judging.

I would not be first to accuse Christ of what you assume, as it's not my forté to be what you're representing. David, we're quite aware of problems within Christendom; and while you're busy droning on about who fits your own description of false teachers, how does that adventure add to your own spiritual health?

On the one hand, I've gone down that road before - quite eager to show how "wrong" and "evil" some others are in their 'false teaching'. I must confess that all through that period, such an attitude didn't quite build me up spiritually. I know - because it was my own experience; and while I fellowshipped with the Lord and prayed as I used to, I sensed there was a great lack of spiritual power in my life. Only when I realised that taking a position to slur people indiscrimately was at the root of such problems in my own life, I repented and have been careful how I walk. This does not mean that it made me any bit special than anyone else; it just humbled me to understand that sometimes when we think that we're justified in pointing accusing fingers at others, God does not necessarily sanction that type of attitude from His children.

On the other hand, some of the verses that brought conviction to my heart about these things are 1 Peter 3:8-12 and 2 Peter 2:9-12. First, I am to refrain my tongue from careless talk; and also should not be impetuous as to speak evil of dignities. I'm sorry, David . .  I'm not better than anyone; and even if my stand seems "false" to you because I would not be so inclined to rail against pastors and the leadership of the Church, that's okay. God is able to deal with them, but my calling is not to be occupied with railing against people lest I use my own mouth to commit what I should not. Cheers.

TV01:
His point to being supported by the gospel was for those whose whole lives  - along with any personal ambition, aspiration or will - were given up for it. Even so, he was not dogmatic about it in practice. He made no demands & always appreciated assistance/offering in regard his need as "gifts".

I don't remember anyone arguing that Paul's receiving assistance was a 'dogmatic' issue. Yet, it is not true that 'he made no demands', for he actually did. When one asks assistance from others, there's no grounds to deny that he was actually requesting such assistance (yes, 'demand' was a strong facetiously word; but it does not negate the very fact that Paul requested and expected assistance from churches).

davidylan:
Pilgrim i beg to disagree . . . Paul did not DEMAND for gold and rainment on his missionary journey.

It's quite okay to disagree. The 'demand' was facetious, but then I didn't stretch it to specifically "gold and raiment". On the whole, it cannot be gainsaid that he had asked for assistance in his missionary work, which is why I posted those verses.

Chrisbenogor:
Disturbed kë, lol lol
just trying to show other people how foolish words are!

Na so na. . shebi we're both doing the same thing, abi?

Chrisbenogor:
Who here can tell me what my state of mind is about pilgrim from my statements?

I can. It's obvious you're quite disturbed.

Chrisbenogor:
This is the point of my reply, not everybody who will read this replies will think I took it personally, others will think I am just messing with you which I obviously am, but you cannot fully say with the degree of certainty with which you post your replies on Nairaland ( no offence meant).
I can say you are a very very smart peacock that does not know the roots of the words humility in your life ( yet again I don't mean this in a derogatory manner ) . Only someone reading your replies at face value would miss the obvious insinuations in your reply that tend towards showing the folly of your adversary but also simultaneously chipping how very good you are at interpreting verses in the bible when all you do 98% of the time is word play and look for loopholes to bring their argument down ( oops yet again I dont mean that in a derogatory manner)
I will stop here for now you are way better than me at this , not derogatory oh,
Cheers.

Doesn't really matter what you make out of reading my posts. It essentially brings out one point, though: '98% of the time' would make my arguments far too 'successful' than what they merit - but it's your call anyways.

Chrisbenogor:
Dear pilgrim,
é ya sorry oh, I don't know why you are taking this personally I was making a general statement. Show me where I rubbish the persuasions of anyone?
Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them
I have decided to read what you have wrote as insulting to my person and I am sure I have a case
Phew!
Anyway just incase someone else is reading this I was responding to this in particular
I feel that the words in the bible, just like any other words can mean anything we read into it even if you are so sure that you have not insulted me with your remarks but I may choose to read that meaning into it!
How the bloody heck is that not in line with this thread?

Em, pele. You took it personally? I forget say you're also a human being - like me. No vex; but again, please refer to my previous reply: I was also making a "general statement" like you when I said:

People who are too eager to rubbish the persuasions of other people actually
assume that what others are discussing are "foolish", and at the end it turns out
they only advertizing their own folly.

That's where I used the word 'rubbish', and then I went on to address you personally thus:

I don't mean this in a derogatory manner at you personally; but it would perhaps
be helpful to let others alone even when you don't understand them.

Again, I apologise - sincerely. I hope say you no go declare WW6 on my head!

@JaguaNana,

First, let me take the oportunity to welcome you to Nairaland. It really does not matter what you say about me, at best it may apply to your prejudices - but that is okay all the same. Do enjoy your joining the forum and don't focus so much on taking sides to slur anyone, it does not add to your spiritual health.

JaguaNana:
You do accuse some other posters of being reactionary, while you commit the same 'crime' yourself. You have a good knowledge of issues ( I must give you that   ) but you now behave like an ITK ie I Too Know, forgetting that others are equally as knowledgeable and even more so than you. In other words, there's a heavy air of arrogance in your posts as if your fellow discussants know nothing. Your arrogance is like that of Paul who proclaimed himself the 'Chief of Apostles' and made sure nobody forgot it  .

Thank you, thank you again, and thank you evermore. I have repeatedly said that: "I don't assume an over-bearing superiority anywhere, and I'm quite happy to be corrected where I might've been missing something". Perhaps you're confusing issues for yourself to suppose that humility is akin to bootlicking where I'm to put up with just about any stupidity thrown my way. if i don't, then I'm not in your good books. Tough luck.

JaguaNana:
Pilgrim.1, you also have the habit of being rude to people in the first instance. I'm referring to you being rude to someone without him/ her being rude to you first. Look at this :

When making a statement, you'd have to validate it after carefully considering what others are saying - otherwise it makes you more of a piffling arrant noise-maker than a reasonable discussant.


  You really did not need to throw the yabis : piffling arrant noise-maker / reasonable discussant . Why not just stick to the topic of the argument instead of descending into [i]argumentum ad hominem [/i]which you relish accusing others of doing ? So by throwing the yabis makes you a reasonable discussant? Get a grip on yourself girl, you do have some narcissistic attitudes !  You certainly love to cherry-pick like a lot of Christians do. This is just one of your quotations dear, there are many of them.

Thank you again. Did you care to scroll up and see the way he addressed me initially - or that was a convenient way to duck behind your PC and rush in to make another back-patting ceremony? No, I don't see you intrigued by his accusative tone in his initial reply; but this is not surprising though - I'm used to such distractions, so no worries.

JaguaNana:
Here's one thing I find funny ( not in a comical sense ) about you. Your conversion story. Even though it isn't a conventional  conversion story, it still makes one wonder who the central character of the story is - you or Jesus? You had all your adulators begging you for more, and you were feeling like some 'star   . Your conversion story read like a poorly- written romance bedtime story. You did a shoddy job in the whole story. My advice here is that you stick to what you do best : thrashing out ecclesiastical issues. This should have been well-discussed in your conversion story a la arguments, counter-arguments, evidence and the whole works. A little trimming ie the romance part is nice in a story, just make sure you know how to do the trimmings well otherwise you''ll ruin the whole story ( like you certainly did).

I just have a feeling I know who's hiding behind the screens and going about with worries about my 'conversion story'. Actually, I took a step back and didn't seek to make myself a 'star'. Many people would read what they want to - and they have. Some even sent me quotes and links of what others have said in various other threads, just in case I didn't see it - again I refused to react. That's just me. If you have a conversion story to share, you can do so without being unduely worried about mine. I don't have to be a clone of anyone else, do I?

JaguaNana:
There's a lot of false humility about you. You've laid this patina of humility thinly though, so a little pressure on you chips it off and then the real you emerges. At this point, you should do an introspection and see whether you reflect the Christ you profess to have in your life.

Thank you again.

JaguaNana:
I'm waiting for your [i]healthy discussion [/i]with Lady today ( hopefully). I hope you two ladies won't descend into tearing each other's hair and eyes out   . It's a well-known fact that the Catholic church brought about the existence of the Bible, I wondered at your reluctance in accepting this truth ( you resorted to writing something totally unconnected to the issue ). It seemed to me that you just wanted to counter Lady for the sake of argument, rather than truth and facts . Tut, tut, tut,

I haven't sought to be what you're misrepresenting about me here; and if you read carefully, you'd have noted I repeatedly asked that ~Lady ~ calmed down and read issues carefully. I left some questions for some catholics there as well, and have indicated that I would discuss further when they proffer answers to them. That does not sound like what you're seeking to present here.

JaguaNana:
I know the above isn't relevant to the topic, I didn't feel the need to open a thread dedicated to you (wouldn't want your head to grow bigger than it already is).

Was there really a need to devote a whole long thesis to bear out your grudges against 'pilgrim.1'? I'm honoured - and thank you all the same.

toneyb:
How does this dis-prove my assertion that there is no universally acceptable exegesis? Every body's exegesis depends SOLELY on his/her theology. According to Pastor AIO link, there are different types of exegesis. People ONLY accept the one that agrees with their own theology. So there is no universally acceptable standard for it and people do not agree to it.

How does the above confirm your previous assertion that "there is nothing like bible exegesis"?? Does Pastor AIO's thread make the same assertion that there is NOTHING LIKE biblical exegesis if indeed you've come round to say that THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES of exegesis?? Do you take time to read through your own posts?

Pastor AIO:
To insist that people bring money when the sharing of money is not at the center of the activity is wrong. It it were a financial Co-op that we were establishing then okay, yeah I would accept that.

The problem might be on 'insisting' on a 'specific' thing - in this case, money. Actually, I don't have a problem with whatever 'specific' thing any church seeks for itself, and thus cannot say that in that specific case they are "wrong". I think it is actually wrong of us to infer that others are 'wrong' when we have not carefully considered our own premises.

In the Deuteronomy passage under review, the "center of the activity" is not sharing money - then what is it? Fill in the gaps - and that takes you to peshat. However, when you draw from it and look at the allegoric meaning, you're moving past the peshat on to remez, which does not require that only a certain kind of contribution be made. Because it is 'allegoric', what then is the basis to say that someone is "wrong" just because it is not money that was being shared from the peshat reading?

It is not here an argument to 'justify' what one particular pastor said, afterall it could be argued that the pastor in question from the other thread was not specifically insisting on 'money' (even though one might argue again that such is what he might have meant). However, our purpose is to look at the value of a balanced interpretation on the basis of Pardes on the verse under review - Deuteronomy 16:16. Is it possible that one could apply the words 'they shall not appear before the LORD empty' in that verse to any other persuasion? If not, then why?

Chrisbenogor:
The wise people in my village would say, "Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them". That should summarize this thread, my point is we can never fully determine what is meant by those books in the bible, I know no christian is willing to accept that it might just be the writings of a psychotic man, an angry man, or whatever emotions they were feeling when they were writing, add that to the mix and another meaning emerges all together.

Chrisbenogor, "Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them". Perhaps that is where the psychotic mix you interjected has led to. There really is no need to make such unwarranted statements by ignoring the basis of the discussion of this thread. People who are too eager to rubbish the persuasions of other people actually assume that what others are discussing are "foolish", and at the end it turns out they only advertizing their own folly. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner at you personally; but it would perhaps be helpful to let others alone even when you don't understand them.

donnie:
Hey pilgrim,

Long time. It's actually because of u i'm here. . . nothing else. I always like to stay away from threads like this esp when i'm not sure of the Spritual state of the poster. . . if he is submitted to the authority of the Spirit himself.

Hi donnie,

Yes, quite some time - and like you, I've come to the point where my discussions are limited to people who make sense with a good head on their shoulders.

Indeed, you've communicated well - and that's another balance I appreciate. However, my inputs were not about making any MOG 'rich' through the offerings and/or gifts of God's people. There's nothing wrong with ministers receiving such assistance from God's people - absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, such is not the focus of ministry. The problem with many is that they focus so much on these problems that they lose sight of the more essential issues about our being believers in Christ. So, you can see that while the concerns of many are too driven by finger pointing and accusative adventures, I've moved past that to try and focus on what is more essential to my being a Christian than worrying about other people's headaches.

That is why you won't find me castigating anyone - such as threads raised up against Pastors - like pastors Chris Oyakhilome, Adeboye, Kumuyi, etc. It is not as if these pastors are all 'perfect', and indeed they have their own issues. But what will 'pilgrim.1' personally benefit from joining in those threads to mudsling anyone? Don't I have pastors who have their own faults as well? I do - and in some instances I may not agree with some of the things they hold. Yet, I've benefitted from one thing they teach us: don't make attacking others the reason for your Christianity. That is why I also came round to realizing that I'm not even better than Catholics - and the threads where I debated them in my mistaken pride are there as testimony to show at least one thing: I have a heart to grow and mature beyond my yesterday.

So, donnie. . . if anyone feels like slurring others is the best they can show for their Christianity, leave them alone. Let them 'belleful' on such, and let God Himself hear and decide on such matters. In your comments above, you've communicated well - and I appreciate your points. God bless you.

KunleOshob:
@PastorAIO
There is absolutely no way pilgrim.1 is going to agree with you on this. If you haven't noticed she is at her best when it comes to twisting scripture and she actually thrives on it. There is no way the scriptures would mean anything to her if she can't force her opinion or bias into it.

I think it is best to keep the discussions to what is being discussed and free from trying to interpolate your usual style of dragging this to personality accusations. Please Kunle, keep me out of your rabies, okay?

Pastor AIO:
Let me demonstrate how I would go about interpreting it.  I would take the feast to represent a communal activity.

That's okay - and in context, yes. The question is: is communal activity restricted to just feasts?

Pastor AIO:
After all a feast is food eaten in the company of others.   I would therefore say that when one is going to engage in a communal activity that one should make a contribution to the gathering.

I don't have a problem with that. However, the communal activity as regards 'feasts' remains on the literal level of interpretation - there doesn't seem to be any hint about remez or derash here. By extension, 'communal activity' goes beyond a feast and looks at other expressions of that same thing - 'communal activity'.

Pastor AIO:
However to specify that one should bring money when it is not money that people are going to share in church is twisting the allegory.

No, you're still on the page of peshat and mistaking it for 'allegory'. A peshat reading is NOT an allegory; and it is when someone is stayed on such peshat reading that he claims that another person is 'twisting' a particular verse. Thus, if we hold on to 'peshat' (literal reading), then there is no room to see anything else other than what the text seems to say: in this case, 'food, food, and more food' - nothing else. Someone comes along and tries to broaden our understanding of that verse by looking at the remez and derash of that verse, and you could imagine what outcry would come from those holding only a peshat reading of that verse. This is exactly what is happening here - because you're still on the peshat page, you're assuming it is a twisting of the 'allegory', whereas peshat is NOT an 'allegory'. Since remez points to the allegory of the verse, there is no 'twisting' of that allegory - and to claim that someone is twisting the allegory is to confuse it for its literality and keep harping on 'feast' and 'food'.

Pastor AIO:
I did not remain on just the feast, but extrapolated to a more general context.

If the more general context is what has been proffered, then how could you be wondering that someone was 'twisting' it's allegory? It seems for a moment you slipped up between peshat and remez while still discussing its literal view - which is what I understood by your statement that "After all a feast is food eaten in the company of others". If we look beyond just a feast-food activity, then I believe the remez will begin to make sense here.

Ability is nurtured in availability.
Make yourself available, and your ability will shine through.

ttalks:
Deuteronomy 16:16 was specific in the sense that a feast was involved.
So one knows that the stuff expected to be brought to a feast is specifically stuff to aid the feast and that is food/drink.

That's peshat.

ttalks:
2 Corinthians 9:7 was not specific in what could be given as it related it to helping others in need.
Anything can be given to help people in need such as those examples I gave including finances.

That's both remez and derash.

ttalks:
that's basically the difference between the two verses.

Which does not take anything away from what this thread is all about.

SirJohn:
@pilgrim1, you're right but then I'd rather classify them all as the same; its just a defence tactic I picked up lately against charlatans.

I know how you feel. Charlatans often get us worked up and upset - but that is not sufficient reason to establish 'guilt by association' by making every case the same as the work of a charlatan. It would be as erroneous for any one of us to declare all scientists as frauds just because a few 'charlatans' have shown up here and there. Each case requires investigation on their own merit.

faith69:
When paul fended for himself why didnt he lambast them for not paying tithes

Are you changing your previous position?    So, having first tried to make shakara about Paul fending for himself, you crawl back still with that same excuse? No worries, please read 1 Corinthians 9 - Paul did not need to "lambast" anybody about any "payments". It is folks like you who have your priorities mixed up that are always reading your prejudices into the texts and looking for words ('lambast') that are not there in the first place.

What's your next sob story?

huxley2:
My favorite is 12th July, which marks the birth of St Huxley. Celebrated with great fanfare in my household.

Uhm. . . Huxley was a 'Saint' (St Huxley)?

Pastor AIO:
I remain unconvinced. Perhaps you could spell it out for me how with using remez and derash the correlation becomes obvious.

What have we observed about remez and derash? Here again:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=281645.msg4054788#msg4054788 date=1245404050]As regards Derash, you're not wrong; but I just need to add that your explication of that term using those examples to draw 'allegories' is more akin in some way to Remez. In simple terms (for the benefit of others following this thread), Remez is also used as an interpretative tool that points more properly to allegories; but again, the difficulty in this is drawn from the context and perspective of the interpreter. On the other hand, Derash is also 'allegorical' but more so on a "comparative" basis. The difference between the two is that, while remez brings out the allegories of a given text, derash seeks a deeper meaning of those allegories and/or metaphors of that given text.[/quote]Basically, both terms (remez and daresh) point to 'allegories' and 'comparative' meanings to be deduced from a given text. They are not focusing on 'literal' meanings. To read Deuteronomy 16:16 and just remain on the idea of Jewish feast(s) and nothing more is to tend to peshat. But by looking at what other ways one may apply the text, that is where remez and peshat come into play - such as that they examine the allegorical meanings of the text that could be applicable in other circumstances beyond the Jewish feasts.

SirJohn:
Maybe I would have believed if I hadn't watched youtube videos of how James Randi has disgraced world renowned psychics and faith healers; or Deren brown who time and time again have demonstrated that the whole phychic sh*t is a psychological trick.

Surely, they could not have gone through "the whole" about the phenomenon known as 'psychic' - past, present and yet to occur. It is such kind of sentiments ('the whole') that one should avoid making.

ttalks:
I don't think that it is right to assume that the giving here is just about financial giving.It could also be other material stuff like food,clothing,medical supplies,etc.They all could make up a bounty to be given to people.
Restricting it to finances(like some bible translations do)is pretty myopic in my opinion.

I wasn't trying to be so restrictive - for which reason I included 'financial' in parenthesis to help those who might be reading from various versions and translations apart from those we might have been generally using.

Yet, I appreciate yours as a very valid point - which would strengthen the very issue we're seeking to explicate here. Examining Deuteronomy 16:16 (and verse 17 by extension) should not be restricted to just the Jewish feast, as long as people do not come to a 'feast' to eat medical supplies. Just teasing. On the whole, everyone is usrged to give as they are able - according to what God has blessed them with.

toneyb:
You are also guilty of "eisegesis", There is nothing like bible exegesis, it all depends on who is doing the exegesis and how well it agrees with his theology. There is NO universally acceptable standard for exegesis, your exegesis will be considered "eisegesis" to another person whose theology differs from yours.

When making a statement, you'd have to validate it after carefully considering what others are saying - otherwise it makes you more of a piffling arrant noise-maker than a reasonable discussant. First, you make the assertion that 'there is nothing like bible exegesis', and then you immediately deflate that assertion by implication that "it all depends" on who's doing the exegesis. Why would anyone be doing what in your narrow cubicle has been asserted to be non-existent? The way some of you folks talk makes me shake my head in pity as to where you have discarded your reasoning ability.

If you had carefully considered my reply earlier, there would be no need to just jump in and start breathing such harrumph. I made clear that "I could well understand that something is missing in my premise" - if my conclusions fail to square with the rubrics of Biblical exegesis. I don't assume an over-bearing superiority anywhere, and I'm quite happy to be corrected where I might've been missing something.

As regards your assertion that "There is nothing like bible exegesis", the fact that there is such a thing is being discussed in another thread raised by Pastor AIO. Just don't jump in a thread and post reactive statements that are vacant and unwarranted.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
This is how I understand Derash.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  It looks at metaphors, similitudes or allegories.  In other words the structure of relationships. 

. . .

So to come to my point, A metaphor is actually about a relationship. The relationship of the elements within a story. That insight of that relationship is then applied to another circumstance that bears the same internal relationships. . . .

Thanks for your observations. As regards Derash, you're not wrong; but I just need to add that your explication of that term using those examples to draw 'allegories' is more akin in some way to Remez. In simple terms (for the benefit of others following this thread), Remez is also used as an interpretative tool that points more properly to allegories; but again, the difficulty in this is drawn from the context and perspective of the interpreter. On the other hand, Derash is also 'allegorical' but more so on a "comparative" basis. The difference between the two is that, while remez brings out the allegories of a given text, derash seeks a deeper meaning of those allegories and/or metaphors of that given text.

So, yes, you've communicated quite well; but remez was more explicated in your observations.

Pastor AIO:
Where I just do not see the correlation is where one is told not to come to church empty handed (without money) because when Deuteronomy tells the Jews to come to 3 feasts they shouldn't come empty handed (without food). Where are the correlants? Is the church sermon the feast? What are they eating there? If it is the pastor's rhetoric that is being shared by the people then everybody should come with a piece of rhetoric of their own so that everybody can share. That would be more fitting.

Questions of this nature arise because you might be looking more at Peshat - the 'literal implications' of the verse under review. What this interpretative tool does is to look at the 'plain' text and draw conclusions only in that direction. If, however, one was to look beyond the peshat and involve both the remez and derash, the correlation becomes easily obvious.

Pastor AIO:
I personally would take that deuteronomy verse and extrapolated from it the lesson that I should never turn up to a dinner I've been invited to empty handed. Always bring a bottle of wine or something.

Again, that is peshat at work. The problem then would be that no Christian could be a 'Christian' if we would have to abide only the peshat rule throughout our reading of the OT verses.

However, look at verse 17 of that same Deuteronomy 16 - 'Every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee'. If we abide the peshat rule alone here, of course it would mean a literal Jewish feast across board and no opening whatsoever to other applications of that verse. However, the apostle Paul was quite clearly alluding to this same verse 17 when he wrote about Christian (financial) giving in the NT - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give' (2 Cor. 9:7).

The basic denominator in both verses is this: 'everyone' was to give according to their ability - such an ability is based on what someone has, and not on what he does not have.

In this way, we can see the correlation in the matters you raised, as well see their out-working as applicable in various circumstances.

faith69:
I can't wait to hear from you on how and when Roman catholicism was created

No worries - I'll oblige as soon as our dear friends help to answer the simple questions I've offered.

Chrisbenogor:
Seriously though just by the way side how do you cope with such uncertainty in christianity, because from my point of view everybody does have a valid point in interpreting a verse in the bible,

Let me make this concise. Chrisbenogor, there are foundational premises for Biblical exegesis. When people fail to follow the rubrics of Biblical exegesis, the result is eisegesis. So, while it seems at face value that someone might be having a 'valid' point, they often may not be able to sustain that very point when closely examined.

That is how I test whatever assumptions I might hold at any one time. After reading a text and drawing a conclusion, if my point does not stand up to the scrutiny of Biblical exegesis, I could well understand that something is missing in my premise - and the better thing for me to do is hold my point with reservations. . . until such a time as another better premise is deduced that answers to the rubrics of Biblical hermeneutics.

Unfortunately, many people make assertions and will never see anything else. When you ask questions thereto, they never are able to come up with sound answers. Why? They know their assumptions are unfounded and only tend to eisegesis, not exegesis.

Pastor AIO:
Good morning Miss Pilgrim. I look forward to a day of juicy debate. I don't want to pressure you but I'm keen to hear what you're going to say next on the thread about the Origin of Roman Catholicism. That one is you and Lady. But please take your time, don't feel pressured, whenever you're ready . . . how about right now. I'm waiting!

only joking! but I'm keen to see how that develops.

Chrisbenogor:
I have got front row tickets to the game, want one?

No worries, I'll take my time and reply accordingly. My apologies I could not appear on the forum yesterday - was a busy day at my office.

faith69:
Kunle abeg tell them
@ Pilgrim please where are you ,could you please educate us on why Paul fended for himself when he copuld have helped himself with tithes

Some of you folks should learn to prayerfully study your Bibles before seeking out 'pilgrim' - this subject is not about me nor anyone else. If you are averse to tithing, keep it to yourself; and then allow others to do what their hearts reveal to them.

That said, indeed Paul fended for himself - but not at all times. There are many instances where he actually demanded his expenses to be sorted out by several churches, especially the churches he was responsible for. Do you want examples?

1 Corinthians 16:6 (English Standard Version)
and perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter, so that you may help me on my journey, wherever I go.

Romans 15:24 (New International Version)
I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to visit you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while.

2 Corinthians 1:16 (New American Standard Bible)
that is, to pass your way into Macedonia, and again from Macedonia to come to you, and by you to be helped on my journey to Judea.

Philippians 4:18 (English Standard Version)
I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God.

Dear faith69, it's useless being reactive just because you find someone quoting verses against church leadership. You didn't take time to prayerfully study your Bible and started out sounding like apostle Paul never received any financial help from the churches, or that the only source of funding his expenses was through fending for himself. If you want numerous other verses where he went so far as to both receive financial assistance from Churches as well 'demanded' that they foot his missionary bills, just gee me a call. Celebrating ignorance is now common place - and if that's what you're all about, enjoy plenty.

ttalks:
Do you really wanna unleash the dragon?!

Lol, @ttalks, you understand pilgrim.1 so well I'm now scared of you! Thank goodness you didn't report me as you threatened earlier. I'm still a good gal and will remain so to you for some time to come.

esensed:
could it be that when the children of isreal in eygpt as slaves were building the pyramid
i wanted to ask some mysterious question but i cant put it in words but , i hopr i can

Lol, that would be great when you can ask it.

faith69:
also somewhere ealier you said christianity preceded roman catholicism,please i would like you to educate me on when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom

@faith69,

I know your quote has appeared several times in my replies - there's a reason why I thus used it to point out something vital to others I was responding to. However, as soon as I have answers to my request, then I'll answer your question about "when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom". Take care.

Omenuko:
Lady posted the below a while back. It basically is a list of eastern catholic churches and rites. These churches, along with the Latin/Roman Church, make up the Catholic Church. We do not call them different denominations; we call them different traditions or rites. Basically, the Catholic church consists of sister churches; same faith, same belief, and in communion with the Pope. Hopefully, Lady and others can help define what is meant by the Catholic Church. I'm busy now and will respond later.

I saw the repost, thanks. I'd be looking forward to your answering the request I made and then discuss further. I'll also like you to keep this in mind:

faith69:
sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

@Omenuko,

Omenuko:
@Pilgrim1,

The the Nestorian church was part of the Catholic Church.  This church was initially known as the Assyrian Church of the East and was later tiltled Nestorian after the Archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius.

The Assyrian Church was not "part of" the Catholic Church as a single denomination - we've been through this before and it's needless repeating the same thing like a broken record. You guys are reading things into the quotes and forcing the Assyrian Church into the 'Catholic Church'; whereas, the quotes often referred to do not lead to that inference.

Omenuko:
Pilgrim1, what is your definition of the Catholic Church?  You seem to be conflating the Catholic Church with the Church of Rome (aka the Roman Catholic Church).

No, I'm not - as could be seen, that idea often emerges in the minds of 'Catholics', as could be seen in faith69's earlier response. Let me quote faith69's direct response to my post earlier as regards how Catholics define 'Catholic Church'  -

[list]

faith69:
sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

[/list]

Just wondering: what makes everyone in any Council to automatically be 'Roman Catholic' (or even 'Catholic Church')? Is any quote so far from any source saying that everyone in any council had to be '[Roman] Catholic'? If this misconception keeps popping up from catholics themselves, is that my worry? The only thing I could do is take the ideas of Catholics themselves and discuss accordingly, so that we can move on and minimise confusion. To this end, I'd be glad to see you guys reading your own ideas into quotes that do not say what you want them to say.

Omenuko:
The quote above asserts that, 1) the Nestorian Church was previously known as the Assyrian Church of the East, 2) that it was in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church, 3) this church was separated from its sister churches (i.e., Rome/Latin, Eastern/Greek, Oriental/Egypt), and 4) the Assyrian, Roman, Eastern, and Oriental Churches were, before the schism, part of one church (aka the Catholic Church).

It seems to me that you're leading on to a dilemma here. Could I just begin to ask questions instead of trying to point out quotes to you? I think probably that may be more helpful if you still fail to see the basic point here.

    1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

    2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

    3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

    4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

Perhaps these would help contextualize the discussion and then we can distinguish between terms and maintain a balance and a focus.

Omenuko:
And how does the quote you provided from wikipedia prove that the Assyrian (Nestorian) church was not part of the Catholic Church (see below):

It all depends on what you mean by 'Catholic Church'.

Omenuko:
What it does hint at is that there were political misgivings between the Assyrian Church and the Roman church.  It does not in any way say that the Assyrian church and the Roman church developed separately or where not in communion. . . .talk less of not being part of one church.

What 'one church' do you mean? Please take the time to identify that 'one church' and let's talk about it, as it's not enough to keep repeating the same thing about 'Catholic Church' and mistaking it for something else midway.

Omenuko:
From your logic, its as though the Anglican or Lutheran Churches waking up one day and saying they were never part of the Catholic Church, because they separated from Rome and were labeled Protestants.  Whether they (Anglican and Lutheran) like it or not they were part of the Catholic Church.  The situation the occurred between Catholic church and the Protestants churches (i.e., separating) can be likened to the situation between the Catholic Church (Rome, Greek, Egyptian) and the Assyrian or Nestorian Church.

I hear. Just bear that in mind as you explicate what you mean by 'Catholic Church'.

Omenuko:
Pilgrim1, what you are saying doesn't make sense.  The Assyrian church was in communion with the churches of Rome, Constantinople, and Egypt.  The Roman/Latin church had administrative influence over most of western Europe and parts of north Africa.  The church of Constantinople had administrative influence over the Greek speaking areas of Europe and parts of the near middle east (including Assyria).  The Coptic/Egyptian Church had administrative influence over parts of north Africa, Ethiopia, and parts of the middle east.  The churches of Antioch and Jerusalem eventually came under the influence of Constantinople.  All of these churches (Rome, Constantinople, and Egypt) were part of the Catholic Church.  They had the same belief and doctrines and were in communion with one another.

Being in communion is not the issue - there are several churches today and back in early history that were in communion but could not be said to be "part of" one vague term. Please identify the term 'Catholic Church' and then we can mirror your assertions against it.

Omenuko:
The very fact that they attended this council and participated is the very reason why they were Catholic.  No one is saying the Assyrian Church is part of the Roman Catholic church.  What we are saying is that the Assyrian Church, and the Roman Church were sisters churches within the Catholic Church.  The Assyrian Church was indeed part of the Catholic Church.

I knew the words in bold is what is controlling the mindset of most Catholics - especially naija Catholics. Just because someone attended a council automatically makes that person a Catholic, kwo? No wahala, please follow through with the simple oft-repeated request above and we can develop your ideas consequently.

Shalom.