₦airaland Forum

@huxley,

huxley:
Look at this thread where I discussed the origin of Christianity.

I have seen it before you recommended it; but I'm sorry to disappoint you that I don't draw my lessons from sources as such - and I have said that to you directly sometime ago, No?

huxley:
How is this a gnostic claim?  Gnosticism makes no claims about who wrote the bible or gospels.  How is this gnostic claim?

It is it actually a gnostic claim in the sense that people who make such statements would have us believe that the authors of the Biblical documents could not be ascertained and yet these same fellows have no clue who those authors were. It is easy to deny authorship - but for people who do so to then go one step further and ascertain their authors for us becomes a problem to them, and nothing has been substantial than their musings and guesses. Why 'gnostic claim'? If you did a bit more reading, you would understand that those who come up with such assertions group their inferences under gnostic studies. An example? The Gospel of Thomas Judas Didymus - which most secular sources would assert its author to be the apostle Thomas (one of the Twelve); whereas these same researchers pressing these assertions would never see reason to understand that the document leaves a lot of holes to be attributed to that apostle. How could they be asserting such a document was written by Thomas the apostle, and yet have problems with the authors of other documents of the NT? These inconsistencies only tells me that as long as these fellows would grasp at just about anything to push their agenda, it suits them well - which is why I don't settle my thoughts on such inconsistencies.

huxley:
How does that invalidate the point I made about Paul's lack of knowledge about the human Jesus?   Although there are some disagreement in the scholarly community about the authorship of some of the books ascribed to Paul, I have not raised that here.  So where have I deny the authorship.  If you were refering to this statement, then technically you have a point. This statement is not very well defined and specific;

Lol, did you see the verses I quoted earlier of Paul's statements about the humanity of Jesus?

huxley:
I should have said:

Just about the same thing I just discussed above.

huxley:
Why the emotional posturing? Why the use of words like "desperate", "grasping", etc.  Can you not debate without such emotionalism?

I could - and I suppose that you have been heeding your own advice in the way you react to discussions from Christians in recent times? As per the 'desperate grasping', it seems to me that you're pushing your assertions and just being disinclined to look into the texts themselves - that was why my statements.

huxley:
The earliest Chriatian apologist admitted coping a great deal of their beliefs from pagan cults of the day. Have you ever heard of the apologist called Justin Martyr, from whom the word martyr is derived.  Have your seen his defense of Christianity where the concept of Diabolical Mimicry in Anticipation is expounded?

For one, there are various sources quoting that line and using it to fit their arguments; for another, the whole context in translation is open to debate. If one would use such a line of argument, there are many such careless statements among the writings of the early Church 'fathers' - and in discussions with Catholics I have hinted about this very problem of careless statements from such men which have no bearings on the teachings of the apostles - one such example again, though not a church father, is the same Marcion that we have been discussing.

The same careless statements could be found in some other writings of , eg., Clement of Alexandra who tried to unite Greek philosophical traditions with Christian doctrine as early as the 3rd century. That we find these statements from such men does not strengthen the idea that Christianity derived from paganism, not even from Docetist paganism, any more than one could push the idea that Marcion was teaching true Christian doctrine - which sadly up until now we have not seen any defence from those pushing that idea.

@Bastage,

Bastage:
Probaby not after they had been stamped out by the Catholic Church so thoroughly. Twelve hundred years (give or take a century or two) of persecution is a pretty difficult hurdle to recross. Do you believe that Orthodox Christianity would recover just as easily if the shoe was on the other foot? As I stated previously, the victor writes the history. Over a thousand years of working on Marcion has given the Catholic Church a big advantage.

This doesn't make any sense. Marcion's doctrines were rejected by other Christians besides the Catholic Church. Catholicism also persecuted other sects of Christianity, but some of those movements have survived for more than 500 years - not because their proponents were wealthy or powerfully militant to withstand the persecutions. Yet, in the case you're seeking to defend, a simple premise that would do the job for you is to go to the texts and see if Marcion stood any chance of defending his teachings from the same texts he collated as his canon.

Bastage:
But then he was danger enough to warrant the Church placing the mantle of heretic on.

Like I said, if the Catholic Church never even said anything, it does not mean that his views would have become established Christian doctrines.

Bastage:
Phased out? That's a very sanitary way of saying "destroyed by Catholicism". The early Church didn't tolerate any dissent. The demise of Marcionism was not down to it's own weakness - rather the brute power of Catholicism.

Lol, the "brute force"? This is making a very sad apologetic for Marcion! His doctrines did not stand a chance of surviving the scrutiny of the texts of the apostolic epistles.

Bastage:
* I am aware that you are not Catholic, but I use the denomination because that was the one concerned with Marcionite "heresy" when it began.

I understand that: and beyond its era, who has gone around claiming any substance to Marcion's doctrines as veritable Christian teaching - even if the Catholic Church was not pursuing Marcionites to death? People seem to blame everything on the "brute force" of Catholicism; but I don't take that approach. For me to have a good grasp of where Marcion stood, my inclination is to go to the text and see things for myself. Fair deal? No?

huxley:
None of the apostles wrote any of the book of the bible. some book bear their names, but the earliest gospel(Mark) was written at the 70s at the earliest, long after they would have been dead.

That is simply a gnostic claim, and it would be confusing issues for yourself.

huxley:
No new testament scholar, religoius or secular disputes the above fact.

And you argued earlier that "the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus"? Secular disputes may run round in circles, but scholarship does not bear the hallmarks of inconsistencies. Take, for instance, the secular argument for Marcion - he did not write Paul's epistles: but secularists do not deny Marcion's editing Pauline epistles. This cop-out to deny the authorship of the epistles does not tell us anything about who could have been the real authors.

huxley:
Arianism did not arise out of a vacuum. before Arian gave full expression of his idea, he would have been expose to nascent forms of docetism circulating in the empire. Remember, docetism had full expression in most of the pagan cult of the time.

There you have your answer, and I wonder why you sound desperate to just grasp at anything to make a point and yet make none. Dear huxley, Christianity does not mix with Docetist paganism. . . you can't even look into the texts of the New Testament there and defend that idea. Even today, new heretical doctrines are emerging within mainline Christianity - we are familiar with the sad case of a shade of prosperity gospel that is neither prosperous nor a gospel. But does that mean that these fellows who preach these forms of doctrines are actually promoting the NT doctrine of salvation and grace?

It is easy for people to make vacant statements just because they want to believe it so - secular thinkers do this a lot. Yet, when simple questions are asked, it does not come as a surprise that these secularists have no answers, nor do they hold a consistent position in their arguments.

PepERSprAY:
Nimshi is muslim though a bad one because the muslims outrightly rejected and excommunicated him in the other thread.

Is that a fact or just teasing?

huxley:
Yes, the was no single central doctrine of the Church at the time. In fact, that was why Constantine was persuaded to unify the church doctrine by organising the Council. Present at the first council was a strong contingent of Arians. In fact, this issue was not settle until about 100 years later.

I guess you forgot that Arius was a late comer and did not write the texts that are found in the NT? Those texts were written by the apostles who preceded him by no less 200 years, no? I wonder how people miss these simple issues and argue just about anyhow.

huxley:
Why would there have been such diversity of Christologies in the first 300 years, when these people were so close to the events?

For same reason that even in our current times there are diversities of opinion in simple matters in our own day - even when it is not related to Christianity.

huxley:
It is worth remembering that many of the early Christian fathers were Arians.

How "early" was Arius (256?-336) if he only arrived in the 3rd-4th century? Were there no well defined doctrines of the Christian Church before Arius?


Edited.

huxley:
In fact, the apostle Paul show no knowledge of the human Jesus, but the spiritual being.

● Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

● Romans 9:5
Whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

● 1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day
according to the scriptures.

@Bastage,

Bastage:
This is where I have the problem. As I've already stated, the book cannot condemn on it's own. It takes a reader to make that step. If you're referring to Chapter1 Verses 6-9 in your condemnation, I find them to be totally open to interpretation and certainly not enough in themselves to brand him as a heretic.

I'm sorry, but the texts are available for any unprejudiced reader to see that Marcion was anti-Christian (another unpalatable term, perhaps more euphemistic?). Most sources tell us that Marcion's writings are not extant, but from those who have countered him, we could make a pretty good gathering of his persuasions on doctrine - and if we have to be honest about this, his teachings were completely antithetical to apostolic Christian doctrines. A few of them have already been highlighted, and that is why I have been asking that you simply go to the Bible and see for yourself if you could defend Marcion's teachings therefrom. Since marcion preached contrary to what we find in those texts, there's no other way to view him than as has been said already.

Bastage:
In Marcion's day, his views were only a major problem to the fledgling Catholic Church and it was only because he and his movement were deemed a threat to Catholocism that he was branded a heretic. To justify their own beliefs, the Church branded millions of believers (or certainly a large proportion of the new religion) heretics by implication.

Be that as it may, I have said that I'm not a Catholic; but even so, where the Catholic edict was right, why argue against it just for the sake of it and yet refuse to go to the same texts and prove Marcion right?! If the Catholic Church never existed, it would not mean that Marcion was right - unless those who say so would still deliberately refuse to open the texts and see the case for themselves! It is not only the catholic Church that has rejected Marcion's teachings - other denominations down through the ages have done so; and if Marcion had any real danger to the Christian testimony, his teachings would have gained a powerful movemnt to this very day! That his own movement phased out for precisely the reason as seen is testimony that not many people could defend his teachings.

Bastage:
Ironically, if history had turned out slightly differently, people today would be revering Marcion - he certainly had the support.

He had support, and on arriving in Rome (?) donated over 200, 000 sesterces - a very huge gift in his time! But on discovering that his views were actually anti-Christian, his money was retruned to him and he lost support in Rome. Nobody today is that gulible to close the texts and argue from outside it to "rever" Marcion - and this is why those who feel strongly about him are invited to betake themselves to that opportunity to see the texts for themselves.

Bastage:
The saying goes that the victor writes the history. But is that not a denial? How can we brand people heretics when all they merely are is people with a different belief to our own?

A "different belief" is not what Christianity was about - if that is how you defend Marcion's heresy.

Bastage:
By the way. Marcion didn't just collate Galatians. He edited it. Sometimes omitting and sometimes re-writing (although this is rarer). Hence "Marcion's Galatians". To tell the truth, I thought you were aware of this and that it was part of your reasoning behind branding him heretical.

Dear sir, at least I know that much - and in addition, I know just how many books he collated, how many books he rejected; what specific books he included; and what he did with which books, so much so that he edited the Gospel of Luke, No? Of course, I know all these - and that is why I was of the opinion that as far as I was aware, there was nothing like 'Marcion's Galatians.' Even granting the way you explained it still does not mean that by editing Galatians, that book became "Marcion's" any more than what he did with the Gospel of Luke.

Bastage:
You can compare his version with the KJV authorised version with these two links.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians
http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Galatian.htm

Thanks for the recommendation. Actually, there are other sources where I had the privilege of seeing these matters, and that is how I came to that inference shared above.

Cheers.

Okay Bastage,

Bastage:
But you still haven't answered the question.
By whose authority is Marcion a heretic?

Galatians.

The reason why my answer is terse is not to mean that there were no other sources for drawing that inference; but seeing that Galatians itself mentions the fact that anyone preaching differently from what the apostles (including Paul) were preaching, they brought themselves under an anathema. That is why I had invited you to calm down and let's take a reasoned look ourselves, though I acknowledge that your penultimate post says otherwise - my apologies.

Bastage:
I'll state again, I do not agree with Marcion's views but I will not brand him or his followers heretics. By the way, the fact that I don't agree with him would seem to point to the fact that I've already studied Marcion's Galatians. Galatians in itself does not say "Marcion is a heretic". A book cannot talk. Only the reader can.

I'm not aware if there was anything as 'Marcion's Galatians', though - rather, he collated Galatians (one of Paul's epistles) as part of his canon. The point is that when one reads those epistles (and particularly that one, Galatians), there's nothing else to draw from all available inferences that Marcion was definitely leading a heretical life. If he did not, it would be great to open the book and highlight a few pointers for ourselves and see if the case in to the contrary.

Bastage:
No. It was the definition from the Wikipedia link.

As acknowledged.

Bastage:
Finally, I am not reactive or unchilled. I merely disagree with your opinion that he was a heretic. I find it a distasteful word and an insulting one when used to describe anyone's beliefs. By implication it would also mean that a major proportion of early Christianity's followers (though you'll disagree that they were Christians as they were Marcionites) were also heretics.

I know how people feel about these issues; and even though I've been branded all sorts on this forum, the point for me is to be sure that I have my answers from the same germane source that my fellow discussants make recourse to - the Bible. However, though we may disagree on this issue, one thing we could say on opposite sides of the bridge (perhaps euphemistically) is that Marcion's views could not be defended even by the very books he collated in his canon. Those who feel otherwise could open the same books and seek to defend his views from there.

Cheers.

Gamine:
i can guess who the "person" is.

That would be interesting!

@Bastage,

Bastage:
The important word here is "my", They're not your points. They're what you've been spoon-fed and are are parroting. You're doing nothing more than spouting the "party-line". You prove that with the continued statement that Marcion was a heretic. It's not insubstantial logic. It's inescapable.

Marcion was a heretic - I am still making that statement, and rather than react and argue endlessly, the invitation is still open to simply open his most beloved book Galatians and see the reason for that. Why is that such a task to you, Bastage?

Bastage:
Marcion was a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that he was a heretic full stop. Many, many people did not and do not view him as a heretic.

I don't have to be a Catholic to know that Marcion was heretical.

Bastage:
Marcion affirmed Jesus Christ as the saviour sent by God and Paul as his chief apostle. Disagree with a fact all you like. He believed in "Christ". He may not have believed in your version of Christ but he still believed. Because you define in a different way, this makes him a non-Christian?

This is not even my definition, lol! Kai, I thought you were so gleeful to quote links and sources? Why are you so reactive, m-a-n?

Bastage:
Again the word "heretic". On whose authority?

On the authority of his most beloved book - Galatians.

Bastage:
It's tiresome watching somebody chase their tail.

I know, but it's fun watching you complain as you do so.

Gamine:
@Pilgrim.

I was Born a MuCath. Muslim Catholic

Got Muslim Christening n all,

Went to a muslim school, learning arabic, koran stuff.

Before my mum decided to disallow my fathers family's influence

from taking us all under.

Most of my Dads family are still muslims tho.

Wow! That is really interesting and I have to go apologise to someone who mentioned this offline sometime ago! He thought I was just being heady and refusing to admit to that "fact" just because I said I had no clue - he kept impressing it on me, and got upset when he could not get me to say "yes!" That's great to know, thanks!

@Bastage,

Bastage:
@MAzaje

You will find that the vast majority of Christians have run away from the OT god. Of course, people like Pilgrim would say that they're not Christians but the majority of people who follow the Christian faith in the West recognise that the OT and NT gods are not one and the same. Heh!!

Please calm down and simply let your heart be honest to itself. I only referred to the heretic Marcion since we started discussing issues; and not at any time did I say that "a vast majority of Christians. . . are not Christians". If I said so, please show us all, thank you. You don't have to get upset just because I pointed out to you that Marcion was a heretic - and that was why I invited you to look into the details, whereas your reply was "I don't have to". It is because people are disinclined to carefully examine issues that is why they can easily react the way you do.

Bastage:
@pilgrim1
Confusing to you maybe. But as the OC is contained within the OT and as Christ creates a new Covenant in the NT, it doesn't really matter in this context.

I don't confuse them, and the issues are clear. It does matter, and if you calm down and take a closer look, you would not need to be reacting this way.

Bastage:
As I've already stated elsewhere, Judaism was necessary to sell Christianity. And as Jesus was a Jew I'd think it only logical that it was a given that Christianity was a continuum!!!

The logic doesn't work out - go and read the Bible instead of just making these vacant statements.

Bastage:
OK, I'll bite. Apart from a few obvious places - ie the 10 Commandments (which were a given amongst most civilised socieites anyway) and two very, very dodgy prophesies that legitimise Christianity, what relevence does the OT have today?

I have been discussing these issues and thought you really would have good canine to bite. Care to calm down and look directly into the Bible?

Warmly.

[quote author=mazaje link=topic=187476.msg2993395#msg2993395 date=1224956967]

[quote author=Gamine link=topic=187476.msg2993356#msg2993356 date=1224956179]

@MAzaje,

Last time i checked, Jesus Died For The WHOLE WORLD>>>>EVERYBODY

its left to you, to accept this, No one was born a Christian.[/quote] the length you people go to make irrational claims. . . no one was born a christain? the fact that you left islam to christainity does not mean that hundred of millions of people that are practising christainity are doing so simply because they were bron into the religion. . . .[/quote]Em, Gamine. . abeg excuse me small O. . no be you mazaje dey quote? Did you Gamine also leave Islam for Christianity as a fact?

@Bastage,

Bastage:
Hmmm. Yet the same accusation could not be levelled at you I suppose? Why not?
Haven't you merely taken the Bible in a way that's been pre-determined? In fact, which is better? To pre-determine yourself or to let other people do it for you? Isn't the latter lazy or maybe even dangerous?

Lol, this logic even fails to produce any substance. If I let others do the reading or determine anything for me, why would I be taking my time to share issues from the Bible and lay out my points logically? Secondly, would the projected idea of laziness not mean that I would sit down and not be able to critique Marcion's postulations? Rather than assume that Marcion was right based on what you assume from others who have done the reading for you, have you any clue what he postulated about the Biblical faith? of course, one could make any several allegations against me, and I welcome criticisms. . . as long as they help the critic understand his own premise in the face of what he argues.

Bastage:
I used the words "branded a heretic". Branded is a pretty important part of that statement don't you think? And also, does it necessarily mean that the branding was correct?

I wonder if you had the time to read my input there. In plain words: Yes, Marcion was a heretic - and I summarily made a few pointers as to why so. Was that difficult to digest?

Bastage:
Errrr, no he didn't. He discarded the Jewish god as merely the creator and looked upon the Christian god of the New Testament as the "real" god.

Lol, . . .Bastage! I don't think that is what has been presented by researchers. You should have done a bit more research carefully, though. I'm sorry, but Marcion did not present the Christian God as of the New Testament as the real 'god'. A few pointers:

  ● Marcion's christology saw Jesus as nothing more than a ghost

  ● Marcion believed that Jesus was not the promised Messiah

  ● Marcion also believed that Jesus was sent by 'a god greater than the Creator'

There are definitely more than those; but the third point just shows that you could not be correct in your assumptions that Marcion thought Jesus was sent by the 'real god' - no, Marcion rejected that and postulated that there was a God greater than the Creator!In mentioning just thsse three points, no casual reader of the Bible would be able to defend Marcion's heresies from the Bible itself, regardless how many books he had rejected from within its pages.

Bastage:
I don't have to. I'd be basing it on a false assumption that you've made.

I knew you would rather be running with the idea, and not a good grasp of the distinctives.

Bastage:
Says who? What gives you the right to say that Marcion was not a believer? The facts show that he certainly did believe in Christ. Who made you judge and jury? What authority do you hold to say who is a Christian and who is not? I don't necessarily believe in Marcion's duality view but that's only my opinion and I don't have the right to say that he wasn't a Christian. I wonder what power you have that says that you can say otherwise.

If Marcion actually believe in the NT canon he collated mainly from Paul' epistles, then those epistles simply put Marcion out as a heretic. It is even more remarkable that Marcion's favourite book (Galatians) makes clear that people like Marcion were heretics - unless you just want to react without reading it yourself.

Bastage:
I would level the same accusation right back at you. Maybe you should read up on the subject before commenting further:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcion_of_Sinope
http://www.marcion.info/

And even one from the other side:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

And there's plenty more if you can be bothered to look.

I read those already - and that is why I summarised them for you in those 3 points instead of being reactive here. If I had no clues about Marcion's heresies, I would not have been able to correct your assumptions above.

Cheers.

@Gamine,

How body? Lol, e be like say you wan burst there for somebody!

Gamine:
I'm sorry to say, but its rather nonsensical

The logic does not help the topic - as a few people have realized (as Bastage above).

Gamine:
to create something you like and think is good

then discard it or have no attachment to it.

HE HAS to also CARE.

Well, people should not be too worried about this matter. It is a very simple thing we're seeing here, which is summed up in one word: deism - 'The belief that God exists but is not involved in the world. It maintains that God created all things and set the universe in motion and is no longer involved in its operation'.

@Bastage,

Bastage:
The OT is recognised as being out of date by the vast majority of Christians and is considered more in the realms of Islam and Judaism.

No, my dear Bastage, No. It is so easy to confuse the OT for the OC (old covenant). Because so many people often make these mistakes (I once did before my conversion), that is why they constantly wonder about the position Christians take in regards to these matters. Let me remind you with a simple outline:

Old Testament (OT) -- (Genesis to Malachi inclusive)

Old Covenant (OC) -- Judaism.

Judaism was not given as a continuum into Christianity; whereas the OT (Old Testament) is still believed in by Christians especially in doctrinal matters of faith and prophecies. Even the Jews do not discard these two matters, and the paradigm is only a matter of interpretations of the texts (OT) and not of the religion (Judaism).

Having a clear balance of these matters would give you the simple reason why one could not assume that the OT is recognized as being "out of date" - nothing could be farther from the truth.

@Bastage,

Bastage:
So Huxley has it right. There are people who can take the Bible in the ways that he's proposed.

Anyone can take the Bible any which way they have predetermined - that doesn't make them right, unless out of the sake of ignoring the details, one desires to shove his own ignorance as a wild card in the face of the gullible public.

Bastage:
Marcion represented a very large proportion of Christianity until the Catholic Church cemented their power and branded him a heretic.

Rightly so - Marcion was a heretic, and I'm glad for your sake that you mentioned it unequivocally. Even at surface value, what actually did Marcion believe about God that made him largely a 'Christian'? People pass all sorts of theories and label this heretic a 'Christian', and that is because those doing so are largely themselves quite vacant of Marcion's fundamental postulations. In a capsule, Marcion believed in a god that was neither Christian nor Jewish; and those who have been ignoring that fundamental fact have never been able to face up to it. Can you defend Marcion's proposition about his "god" as either Jewish or Christian? Not even if one grants what is distinctly Christian writings from gnosticism.

When you take a view such as Marcion's and label him 'Christian', please take the time to look at the details and not the label. Not everyone who goes about calling the name 'Jesus' is actually a believer.

Cheers.

@sleekymag,

sleekymag:
Well, maybe i should put it this way. I am of the opinion that when studying the bible, rather than study from historical perspectives, or drawing the inference that the (Old commandment)OC in the (Old testament)OT isn't applicable to me, i'd rather study as the spirit leads, and ask "Lord what are you saying to me through these scriptures?".
>snip<

For example, lets say someone has been thinking of taking a major step in business but is kind of uncertain if its the right step, considering his good job, and unsure about what he may get out there. When he reads the following scripture. How should he react?

Deut 2:24 Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.

Does this mean he should be of strong faith and launch out into the business he's uncertain of, based on the light he contacted from the scriptures, or should he shrug it off and say, oh that was God talking to the Moses on behalf of the israelites, and how does it affect me?

That's a good example, and let's look at it this way:

Faith in God's Word births seasonal fruits to the believer as he/she is able to touch the rhema of the Word. But rhema does not suppose that a believer should just apply any verse in order to launch into great tasks or risks - for God does not desire His children to obtain unnecessary loses or dangers to themselves.

If I were facing a major decision - business, marriage, school, career, associates, relationships, - as a Christian with faith, the word is applicable to every area of our lives. But here is something that many people miss: faith is not unreasonable, even though it astounds the doubter. Of course, Deut. 2:24 could be used by God to challenge someone to grow or move to something more challenging and worthwhile. But in the principle of 2 Peter 1:20 guides our faith as well, because no prophetic word is of any private interpretations (ie., it is not quite helpful to treat verses in isolation).

Let's look at the business example: a man reads Deuteronomy 2:24 (or even another verse - Lev 26:9 >> 'For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you'). Yes, rhema brings light to the soul through those verses; but since our faith is reasonable (God calls us to reason together with Him - Isa. 1:18), it would be imperative to apply our faith to His Word.

One very helpful way to do so is to remember the admonition of our Lord - sit down first, count the cost, lest haply if the business man is unable to finish, he exposes himself to mockery (Luke 14:28-30). In as much as businesses are major decisions of one's life, faith does not excuse the need to count the cost. Even so, faith is not ruled by circumstances but by the power of God.

Later, I'll show some examples where even the apostles quoted extensively from the OT in teaching NT doctrines.

Shalom.

Good morning, sleekymag. A very good question by observation you've raised, and here's what I think.

sleekymag:
@ pilgrim.1
I agree that we ought to be mainly focused on the NT, but are you saying the OT is no longer important, since it dealt with Pre-Mosaic and Mosaic eras? Are there not things we can learn and apply to our lives daily? Covenant secrets?

The OT (Old Testament) is not the same thing as the OC (Old Covenant). Let's remind ourselves:

       Old Testament   -   Genesis to Malachi
       Old Covenant     -   Judaism

Judaism is a system that ruled Jewish life and theocracy, and it is contained in the OT. The OT itself is bigger than Judaism, and that is why the OT is still relevant in many respects.

Another way to understand it is this:

 ●  Christians are not called to live by Judaism (the old covenant)
 ●  Christians are called to learn from the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi)

   Examples to distinguish between them:

   ►   Living by the old covenant (Judaism)

            ●  Galatians 2:16 - 'Knowing that a man is not justified by the works
            of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
            Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not
            by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh
            be justified. '

            ●  Galatians 1:13-14 - 'For ye have heard of my conversation in time past
            in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church
            of God, and wasted it: And profited in the Jews' religion above many my
            equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions
            of my fathers.

            ●  Acts 26:4-5 - 'My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first
            among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; Which knew me
            from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect
            of our religion I lived a Pharisee'


   ►   Learning from the Old Testament (Genesis to Malachi)

            ●  Romans 15:4 - 'For as many things as were previously written,
            were written for our own instruction, that through the patience and
            through the encouragement of the Scriptures we may have hope.'

            ●  1 Corinthians 10:-11 [EMTV] - 'Now all these things happened to
            those people as examples, and they were written for our instruction,
            to whom the ends of the ages have come. '

            ●  1 Corinthians 3:19 - [KJV] - 'For the wisdom of this world is foolishness
            with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness'
            (cf. Job 5:13)


The Old Testament gives us the following:

          ►  divine principles to live by, such as loving God (Deut. 6:5)

          ►  divine prophecies, such as of the Messiah (Isaiah 53)

          ►  definite practical wisdom to live by (Prov. 14:7 & 9:6)

          ►  covenants to live by all through the dispensations (Gen. 17:2, 7 and Exo. 19:5)

There certainly are more; but the bottomline here is that there is a difference between living under Judaism and learning from the Old Testament.

Regards.

huxley:
it depends. You have many approach to take:

1) Cut out the barbaric Old Testament and just stick with the New Testament, as Marcion, one of the first Christian scholars did.

2) Cut out the confusing New Testament and stick to the Old testament, as the Jews do.

3) Accept both old and new and play mental gymnastic to cope with the inevitable cognitive disonance of having these two irreconcilable books together.

There's a saying that ignorant people make their heart's condition obvious to the public.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Pilgrim.1,
Have you considered answering the question on the difference between tithes and offerings? Or you cannot afford to answer while you answer other less significant questions profusely?

I'm not aware that it is a crime to choose to either answer or not answer: unless you want to bend my neck to please you by all means. I was developing this matter logically in detail and will come back to attend upon it when the time comes.

If you cannot be patient and must demand an answer immediately, I wonder why you have not tried to answer sleekymag's questions even after he reminded you. Why is it that when questions are offered to you and our friends opposing tithes, you never seek to proffer any; but rather you are too much in a hurry to demand others to answer yours?

I think my answer to that has been often repeated, but I grant you just a concise quip where you cannot wait for that: there is a difference between tithes and offerings, and already we see the mention of it in Malachi 3:8. I have discussed this earlier and demonstrated why the Christian is not tithing under obligation to fulfill Judaism.

So, what essential difference is there?

For one, I don't settle the definition and meaning of tithes the traditional way it has been proffered by so many people. Tithes include 10%; but it is not 10% in every single case in the Bible. They are a certain, stipulated percentage of ("in proportion to" some income. The moment you leave the idea of "just give" (which is not saying anything at all) and then make a determined commitment to "set aside in proportion to" what you earn, brother you're not speaking merely of offering but of tithes. The problem with many people is that they remain on the idea of "10%" every single time, and so cannot see the other instances already outlined. Please refer to the relevant places where I pointed that out.

On the other hand, our offerings apply to special ministrations in the Church. Some call it "love offering", others call it any other term (donations, contributions, firstfruits, gifts, and all sorts of terms that are often not found in the NT); some even don't distinguish between any one of these cases and yet they still come back to acquiesce thereto. I have also asked those using these terms to please show them from the NT; and rather than show us, they excused that request in a rather reactionary way.

anonimi:
Are you still in doubt that indeed there is a difference between 10% (specific proportion) and proportion (a range of 0.00001[or less] to 99.99999[or more but not 100%])?

If you are making tithes (10%) a matter of "specific proportion", is 23.3% not a specific proportion as well as 12%, 15% and 40%?!? What is so "specific" about 10 that makes 12, 15 or 20 to be any less specific?

Even what you call "a range" also includes 10 as long as it is a figure between 0 and 99. I think just for the sake of an undefined and uncertain idea, you are still confusing issues for yourself. If you gave 10% within the range of 0 to 99, is your 10 in that range not still the same 10 that you disdain? What really is the substance of your argument here?

Regards.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=187467.msg2989040#msg2989040 date=1224870261]A good place to start is the Law - since that is where many people often make recourse to in seeking to understand this subject.[/quote]So here:

Understanding the Law

As Christians, we understand that our faith is founded on the new covenant ratified by the Blood of Christ. As a consequence, we understand that our faith is not based on the old covenant which defined Judaism. Often, many people get confused when dealing with matters of the Law as taught in the NT, and it is my hope that our understanding would be helped by the following outlines to distinguish them here.

What’s the difference between the OC and NC?

The Bible is basically divided into two parts: the Old Testament (OT – comprising Genesis to Malachi) and the New Testament (NT – Matthew to Revelation). However, this is not to confuse those terms with old and new covenants (OC & NC). A simple way to understand them is that the old covenant points to Judaism, while the new covenant points to Christianity. So when I refer to the OC and NC, it should be clear to readers that I’m speaking about the old covenant and the new covenant respectively.

Does the Old Covenant (OC) morph into Christianity?

No, the old covenant is a complete system on its own standing and simply defines Judaism. I have noted elsewhere that Judaism is not a continuum into Christianity; and we don’t mix them up. Here are a few reasons why I’m persuaded that they stand distinctly and are mutually exclusive:

Old covenant
● Judaism
● ratified by animals blood
● served by the Levitical priesthood
● its identity was Jewish only

New covenant
● Christianity
● ratified by Jesus’ Blood
● Jesus is its Mediator and High Priest
● its identity is worldwide without distinctions
(Jews and Gentiles all welcome)

Certainly, there are many more distinctions; and we shall see them as we progress.

What about dispensations?

This is another subject which has many people confused. There are actually more than two dispensations, and for the sake of simplicty, I shall classify them under just 3 epochs:

[list]Pre-Mosaic: This includes all those periods and covenants which we find between God and man before the emergence of the Jewish nation, Israel. As such, they include all the people from Genesis right through to the birth of the Jewish nation, such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Certainly, there were also covenants that God made with men in some of those epochs, specifically first for the people under those economies, and then some of those blessings held prophetically for the world from that time to the present - we do well to not mix them up; and in detail they shall be highlighted.[/list]

[list]Mosaic: This is simply the Jewish dispensation of the Mosaic Law (sometimes called the Sanaitic Law, see Exo. 24:12; 31:18 and Lev. 25.1ff). It was specifically that period that commenced the very night of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt with the blood of the passover lamb (Exodus 12, see v. 14); and was ratified in mount Horeb, known as the mountain of God (Deut. 5:1-3, Exod. 3:1 and ch. 24). It should be striking to us that the patriarchs such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham were not given any part of the Mosaic Law; and no Gentile was asked to come under its edicts. There were provisions made for gentiles (non-Jews) who desired to participate in the covenants and privileges of the Mosaic Law (Exo. 12:48-49); but such people definitely were aware that they faced the dire consequences of violating that Law (Lev. 18:26 & 29). In plain terms, anyone who was a Jewish proselyte understood that there was only one Law for both Jews and proselytes (Lev. 24:22; Num. 9:14; 15:15-16, 29); and none others could come under the privilege of what was described as the “commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12).[/list]

[list]Post-Mosaic: The present period known as the Church age, where the covenants of God's grace as prophesied in the Old Testament have been offered to the world without ethnic or racial distinctions (Titus 2:11). It does not draw from the ratifications and rites of the old covenant; but its basis is the fulfillment of the Law by Christ in His death, resurrection and ascension; and commenced when He was glorified at the right hand of the Father (see Acts 2:33). [/list]

Thus far, I have looked at the Law and discussed the dispensations, so I can strike through that one now and seek to go on to the next subject if there are no comments, observations or queries. All welcome.

Blessings.

---

● the dispensations
● the covenants
● the histories
● the identities of people in those dispensations
● the relationship of the Law to the new covenant
● the features of the old covenant
● where FAITH comes in
● the differences in the covenants
● so where is TITHE in all these matters?

@anonimi,

anonimi:
It clears the issue and confirms what I said earlier: your position as it stands is no different from what those who oppose the false teachers of tithe have been saying over the past 59 pages.
You may wish to go and check again.

I think even if we go back the past 59 pages, there is a huge difference between my position and those who have used tithes as the basis for attacking others. How do I make this simple enough? Let me try:

There is nothing wrong with teaching tithes in church - absolutely nothing wrong with that. The question rather is: how do we teach these things? Should we teach them based on the Law? If that is the case, then it is wrong, because that would mean that people who don't tithe are cursed.

But there again, teaching tithes is not the reason why we should attack anybody. if you anonimi think that I have been saying the same thing as you, why did I oppose your reposting Yomisays article on the forum for attacking Pastor Adeboye? Why use tithes to attack that man in the name of "telling the truth" - just because we disfavour tithes? That is not my approach, dear anonimi. . that should never be our approach. Do we think he is one of those teaching the subject wrongly? Then we can share what in his teaching it is wrong - and rather not attack him under any excuse.

You see why I don't like to go down that road. I prefer discussing a matter rather than go out of my way to use tithes to attack anybody. It is unhealthy, for tithes are not the problem - it is greed in some people that feeds the wrong emphasis, and by sharing indepth understanding on the subject, we can help disavow this greed. It will help in the following ways:

● people who have been confused will come to know why they tithe
and some why others don't feel inclined to tithe;

● it will help them understand their freedom and release from the fear
that they were ever under any curses from malachi 3

● it will help those who want to tithe do so joyfully and with great
enthusiasm, instead of just wanting to do so because of any
friend, family, of feeling out of being in the in-crowd

● the more informed people are about what actually is tithes
the more some pastors will be better able to know how to
handle the subject and not push their Malachi 3 agenda

● it will make many of us more accountable in our private lives
as well make some of those ministers see that they cannot
keep playing the games of their abuses on wrongly handling
the subject, even though it is a Biblical subject

● it will help the rest of us walk carefully so we don't unnecessarily
attack anyone out of disaffection to the subject (tithes) than
from a love that helps us react responsibly

● it will give believers confidence against the mockery of casual
observers who often write everything about Church as
"abeg na money business - close the church!"

● it will glorify God in the way we handle money and show the
real nature of our hearts, by not legislating for Him to condemn
what He never condemned

● it will challenge us more to constantly go back and ask God to
show us what we thought we knew and yet have no answers
to; so that our pride will be dealt with to help others in more
beneficial ways.

Why is the greed much more the problem than anything else? Because even when some people do not make mention of tithes, you have no clue that they use other means to draw money from believers much more than any tithes we may give! You would be surprised how much money people give to such high-fliers when condemning tithes at the same instance! So, tithe is 1 out of 10; and some of these fellows will persuade some people to give more than 5 out of 10, and these same dear saints who condemn the 1 out of 10 are too often gullible to dole out 5 out of 10.

It is difficult for anyone to see what is actually going one if they remain with this idea that tithes has always been the problem! The moment we take time to truly investigate wjhat is happeing in many places, we will come back humbled to see how wrong our emphasis to discredit this issue has been.

God bless you.

Dear sleekymag,

Thank you for the friendly move to open a thread to discuss the important questions you raised in the other thread on Tithes. A few pointers first, then I hope to address each one of the questions you raised - and like I said, please call my attention to any slips you may notice without sparing anything, so we all benefit eaither way.

The following comments before I give indepth answers to them:

sleekymag:
1. How do we, or how should we read and study the bible?,

There are several ways which I have found very helpful:

● read it daily, consistently, prayerfully and attentively -
I often use a plain text copy, without commentaries, notes or cross-references,
because it helps often times to just let the words feed your spirit

● note questions and never evade them -
they may challenge you to see some very important points that will be of blessings later

● in studying, take particular notes of what your eyes fall on -
there are basically two questions I often ask myself here:

► the what:
"And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear" [Mark 4:24]

► the how:
"Take heed therefore how ye hear" [Luke 8:18]

the synthesis of those two questions:

► applications (hear & understand):
"And He called the multitude, and said unto them,
Hear, and understand"
[Matt. 15:10]

These are by no means the only or best way to read the Bible - and indeed, along the way we may find some commentaries and study materials useful. However, it seems that many people who have started out reading the plain text first have found that exercise a consistent help in this regard.

sleekymag:
2. do/should we read and study it from historical perspectives i.e. based on the accounts of the people of that era, such as israelites/gentiles and their practices then, most of which are no longer applicable to us today?

The Bible needs to be read with their historical and spiritual imperatives. This is when we ask such questions as:

- who
- when
- where
- what
- why
- why not
- which
- how
- so?

When we look at the last question there, "so?", we are specifically looking at implications of our reading and studying - and this is where interpretations translate into reality. Therefore, if one reads the Bible merely as a historical document, all sorts of questions are raised, and the inference most people draw from such readings is that it's implications are irrelevant. I'm afraid that some believers have fallen into this sad position and remarked that as long as we allow the secular world to define our Christian faith, then we unwittingly embrace read the Bible with pagan spectacles.

On the other hand, we read the Bible for its main purpose - which is to glorify God as we seek to build our relationship with Him. Both are interwoven; for it is only when the believer understands that the health or condition of his relationship is predicated on glorifying the One who gave the Word, that is when the Word begins to give light to his heart. In other words, the Bible was given as a spiritual book: and its basic question is to answer WHY we are here.

What about the history, customs, and practices of what we read - are they applicable today for the Christian? This is where I have benefitted most from two terms in Biblical studies:

* exegesis
* deixis

Exegesis is a veritable Biblical practice in seeking to understand the Word. It basically means, the explanation or critical interpretation of a text (especially the Bible). Many people do exegesis without even being conscious of it - and examples are the interpretation of historical texts based on the culture, customs, political structures, identities, perculiarities and the historical background of any group of people as we see in the works of historians and archeologists.

Another term of this is "exposition" where people are dealing with the systematic interpretation or explanation of a specific topic. If you're doing Biblical exegesis on the topic of tithes, you are seeking at the same time to engage in the exposition of that topic particularly. It therefore means that you would have to look at the deixis of those who were involved in tithing.

But just what is deixis?

Deixis is not a big grammar that should scare us: simply means "aspect of a communication whose interpretation depends on knowledge or the context in which the communication occurs" (Concise English Dictionary). Lacking that knowledge of context is the reason why many people make huge mistakes and arrive at different ideas which are afr removed from the intended meanings of a text in Scripture.

I hope that my inputs so far have not been tedious on anyone. Now, as we brought these issues from the thread on Tithes, what can we gather from the expositions and deixis of this important subject? A good place to start is the Law - since that is where many people often make recourse to in seeking to understand this subject.

I'll try to come back and throw in a few pointers about the Law; and other subjects that may help would include:

● the dispensations

● the covenants

● the histories

● the identities of people in those dispensations

● the relationship of the Law to the new covenant

● the features of the old covenant

● where FAITH comes in

● the differences in the covenants

● so where is TITHE in all these matters?

I don't know if these would be useful to those who are seeking an understanding of this singular subject of tithes - and where I can, inputs will be made to help clarify the gray areas that have presented the most serious problems in our testimony.

Please advice what areas to deal with and which to erase if necessary. Afterwards, I shall come back to those first two questions you raised, and then tie them with the remaining 10, as well as welcome criticism and fresh enquiries.

Many blessings to all.

@sleekymag,

sleekymag:
@Pilgrim.1,
Well, i've opened the thread and it's called "Is the Bible Just An Old Storybook Or a Manual for Living?" However, i wish it was treated here because i had wanted us to limit it to this issue of tithes. Nevertheless, your extensive treatment of the topic (on that thread) would be much appreciated.

Okay, thanks for that genial move - I'll visit, brush up my study notes, make a few prelim inputs as prolegomena, and then build it up from there step by step while seeking to address every single question you raised. Please visit as well between times and call my attention to something you may question - please critic it without sparing anything: because I don't want to mispead anyone thereto. We can then harvest some of those matters and use them to help our discussions on this profound subject.

Blessings again to you. Jesus is Lord.

Dear anonimi,

anonimi:
I agree with you 1 million percent! Regards.

I am really, really wondering if you meant what you just wrote.
Because if you do then you need to read all the posts of those of us opposed to the preaching of tithe (a tenth =10%) requirement and see how it accords with what you just agreed with "1 million %"

I still agree with Enigma 1 million percent; and let me show you why.

Some people (even my very close friend offline) have wondered about that stance as to whether I was not contradicting myself. I offered that is not the case, and I've treated one just above.

However, what are the things that I agree with in Enigma's? They are those which I had highlighted in quoting him, particularly the fact that he mentioned -

      _______________________________________________
      . . . no one condemns tithers or even their choice to do so -
      especially where it is an informed choice; it is the false or
      wrong teaching of it that invokes vigorous opposition.
      _______________________________________________

Without even highlighting anything now, I believe it is easy to see that my agreement is in accord with my previous posts:

(a)     ►  Do I believe that many, many pastors have abused tithes? Absolutely.

        ►  Do I believe that these abuses should be condemned? ABSOLUTELY!

        ►  Does that mean that tithes are the basis of these abuses? Absolutely NOT.

(b)    I aslo explained that tithes are not the basis for the abuses; rather it is greed
       (or covetousness - 2 Peter 2:3) that lies at the root of the abuses.

(c)    People also have abused the Christian ministry, haven't they?
       But is it the Christian ministry that is false? If not, why attack Christian ministry?

(d)   Others have abused the Lord's Supper (even selling it in neat small pacakges);
       but is it the Supper itself that is false? If not, why should we attack the Supper?

(e)    Some yet have abused spiritual gifts (e.g., healing, tongues, miracles, etc);
        but is the problem the spiritual gifts themselves? If not, why should we
        disdain these gifts and use them to attack anybody?

In just the same way, people have abused tithes - but tithes are not the problem; rather, something other than tithes is responsible for these abuses - GREED (besides others). This is why I have appealed that we should not lose focus and begin to use a Biblical subject to attack anybody - whether we agree or disagree with them, let us leave all judgements in God's hands and rather help ourselves understand what is before us. It is for this reason that I shy away from the idea that TITHES are false doctrines; infact, Enigma has captured it in very few words aptly: it is the "false or wrong teaching of it" that I agree with 1 million percent. The problem is that so many times some of us use tithes to attack people and that is why the slips often occur in the statement that "tithes is a false doctrine' - no they are not! It is rather teaching the wrong things about it that is unhealthy.

I hope that helps clear the issue?

Bless.

@sleekymag,

sleekymag:
@ EnigmaIf they are important, then i think they deserve answers, those with no answers don't have to comment. But those with answers should share their views, because their views are tied to all we've been discussing. Anonimi's and KunleOshob's answers would be appreciated.

I think there's an agreement in all here between Enigma, yourself, and my comments following his. We all agree that the questions are important, and as such, we think it is important to share some answers thereto. Perhaps what Enigma (and myself) was thinking about, was that the answers might take some deeper treatment (could even be briefer), and so may need to be discussed broadly in another thread - he invites all to participate as well.

sleekymag:
@ Pilgrim.1,
How body? Hope u're enjoying work and all. I however think my questions could be answered, the briefer the better though, for continuous relevance to the topic @ hand.

My bros, I just dey. It's been a great day, the busier the more refreshing!
As to the questions, they're so refreshing and I hope to share a few thoughts over the weekend.
Bless.

I don't know if this would help here, but just a note on what I posted earlier:

Received from a chat:

  sheena: pilly u'r being 2 extreme .U nid 2 apologise to that guy
  Pat U: why shd I?
  sheena: don't do dis 2 urself babe, u've never had a difficulty apologising
  Pat U: okey-dokes, I'll go back and calm down later
  sheena: DO IT NOW!
  Pat U: wetin naw?
  sheena: I'm serious, just do it! dere r oda qns I nid u 2 address
  Pat U: ok, wait - I'll go back and apologise and then come address ur worries

Later:

  sheena: look at it again
  Pat U: ??
  sheena: dis one: Do I believe that these abuses should be condemned? ABSOLUTELY!
   Does that mean that tithes are the basis of these abuses? Absolutely NOT.
  sheena: don't u tink dat ur misleading peeps?
  Pat U: how?
  sheena: sounds contra 2 me tho. . .

---

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2987419#msg2987419 date=1224851877]► Do I believe that these abuses should be condemned? ABSOLUTELY!

► Does that mean that tithes are the basis of these abuses? Absolutely NOT.[/quote]Okay, just to remove any confusions.

I believe that many pastors have abused tithes; but actually, my persuasions are that it is not tithes that are the real issue (mentioned this point several times, though). That someone abuses something (XYZ), does not mean that XYZ is the basis of his abuses. From what I have taken the time to study in experience, I'm persauded that the real ingredient feeding these abuses in many quarters is nothing other than greed. . . that is the basis for so many of the abuses (others may include sincerity based on ignorance of its true meaning, etc).

The apostle Peter, for example, said that some of these men will make merchandise of people - not through tithes, but through covetousness (2 Peter 2:3). I believe that is the root of most of these abuses; and in experience, some of these sad occurences are cleverly presented in other ways and their proponents do not even mention tithes!

If there's any need to point most of these things out with lucid examples, we shall do so in due course. For now, I just wanted to clarify my point above since some have thought it sounded like a contradiction of my persuasion thereto.

Cheers.

@Enigma,

Howdy? May I comment on yours, please?

Enigma:
@ sleekymag

Some tricky yet important questions there: however, in my opinion, they do not belong on this thread; let them be dealt with in a particular thread of their own.

I was thinking along such lines, because they would take quite some depth to answer them all. Very good questions from sleekymag, timely and apt. We could also bring some of the fruit here by referrals if we treat them elsewhere, what do you think?

Enigma:
General

The continued preaching of the Old Testament law of tithing in whatever disguise simply has to be opposed because of the bondage that its teaching in modern times places Christians under. It is simply enslaving and placing in bondage those who have been set free. Of course, no one condemns tithers or even their choice to do so - especially where it is an informed choice; it is the false or wrong teaching of it that invokes vigorous opposition.

I agree with you 1 million percent! Regards.

Dear anonimi,

I know - pilgrim.1 is very stubborn; and that is not quite a virtue. I had been stubborn in heeding your call to edit as requested; and even several calls by YIM and emails trying to persuade me did not quite move me. BUT . . .

BUT. . I decided to come back and still leave that post as is, not to offend you (afterall is is quoted in your reply), but so anyone would see my sincerity in not pretending anything. Some wonder if I would erase it and then come back and deny that I never said any such. . no, I would not deny nor erase them. Rather than make pretences, I would rather acknowledge that I was wrong to have over-reacted there.

So, in response to several godly people who have counselled me offline, here is my unreserved apology to you: I apologise anonimi.

I hope we can help the health of discussion.

Warmest regards.

Dear obinna5000,

How body?

obinna5000:
@pilgrim.1
I love your posts my dear sister. Keep it up. But why do keep going online and offline?

Lol, Fridays are sometimes my busiest days in the week; and it happens to be the day when many people just inundate my email with questions, YIM pop up all filling my screen. . . and it can be hard concentrating with all these things. Hopefully, by weekend, the tide is less and I find time to breathe. Cheers.

anonimi:
Your earlier post quoted just above does not reflect what you said right here.
So may I ask where do you really belong- with the accommodating etc group or the plenty vitriol group of just a few replies earlier?

Why is it that it is only that quote that got your attention? Perhaps because it was addressed to you personally? Apologies. . it was intended as a wake up call. If you want the several links where I have received good rapport from those who disagreed, I would post them on request.