₦airaland Forum

Neither. Nigerians are Nigerias greatest obstacle. I suggest carpet bombing, fumigating and restocking with Ghanaians, genetically spliced with Senegambians, with perhaps with a hint of Camerounian. Why do you ask ?

Please. Forget the ill-fitting, gaudy, "straight out of pimps paradise" outfits favoured by the Pentarascal upstarts. Everyone knows the "high churches" have the best kit. Some of those Catholic ensembles with the "chi chi" beret style fílá', are to die for and wouldn't look out of place on the haute couture runways. !

Hmmmm, seems like you are on fire. Go and marry quick, quick ! _{(And please spare us the details afterwards !)}

Joagbaje:
@TV01,

Have you asked yourself where Jesus got money to hire boat, and for welfare.
Luke 8:3
And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
Where did Judas get money to steal from jesus?
John 12:6
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.

I asked you a question on another thread - related to Gods supposed tithing plan as a vehicle for prosperity or some such notion you postulated - if I recall, you did'nt even acknowledge the question, let alone respond. Anyway.

Welfare = Need. This exists with or without preaching and I spoke to this already. Please try harder. "The Labourer is worthy of His wages".

Thanks
TV

Image123:
^someone who will do anything of significance in this world must use money. Money is a defence. The person who wants to spread the gospel effectively must eat, transport himself and take care of others. You're not more spiritual than Jesus who himself talked about and spent money. You're not on the internet free, are you?

Sounds very plausible doesn't it? Please demonstrate from the bible where/when/how money is requird to preach the gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ. When He sent them "out with nowt", they took nothing. How was it funded?

Maybe you could put a figure on it. Could you perhaps "unitise" it, then attempt to "monetise" it. Say " a unit of gospel preaching" could be UGP the unit cost of preaching the gospel (UCPG). Pray tell us how money defends one preaching the gospel? Please post something with a little thought behind it.

I can't say I'm more spiritual than Jesus, no. But no one can show where Jesus talked about or spent money to preach the gospel?

God bless
TV

It does not take money to preach or to spread the gospel. Money in the body of Christ moves almost overwhemingly for physical need. End of. There is nothing writ in scripture or any biblical example to suggest otherwise - although I stand to be corrected if anyone can evidence otherwise. As for organised religion, now that requires cash money, and plenty of it.

God bless
TV

And lets not forget Traugott  !

<sup>Could it be an intelluct so massive it had to be split amongst multiple users? The worrd is on the tip of my tongue. Patience TV, one, day will be one day, when all darkness shall be exposed by light.

Some people will remain on my "utterly discredited" list until such time as they forsake their wickedness. I particularly dislike the damage to the Religious board community fabric often perpetrated by duplicitous users of multiple id's. What exactly do we pay mods generous allowances for? Abeg, seek and ban jo !</sup>

Purist:
Downplaying the role of women and forbidding them to speak in church implies what?

In what way did Paul "downplay" the role of women? He outlined gender specific roles and responsibilities in the home and church. Are you saying that having outlined the roles he downplayed them, or the roles somehow downplayed women?

Paul did not "forbid" women to speak in church, he set context. If you wish to label that chauvinist that is your subjective opinion. If you have anything that objectively demonstrates Paul was a chauvinist - considered or treated women inferior - I'd be very interested to see it.

Could I ask, in context - i.e. the role/position of women in society in that era - what would actually constitute a chauvinist? Or is your position based on a more contemporary view of what may be described as chauvinist?

Purist:
He may not really be chauvinistic as a person, but that instruction smacks of one borne out of a chauvinistic tendency,

If he is comfortable with delivering an instruction that "smacks" of chavinism, surely that makes him one- at least by agreement, if indeed he was merely "delivering the instruction" And likewise if he actually formulated it?

Don't have to tip-toe around it. Given the "sticks & stones" he suffered for his faith, I doubt a few "words" will make much difference.

And true while I am a "Christian" - and seems to mean as many things as there are Christians these days - I won't be proclaiming a "fatwah" if we don't see eye-to-eye on this, with or without any back-up to your assertions.


Thanks
TV

Joagbaje:
Tithing is Gods form of financial security for us .

@Joagbaje, I hope you are well.

I would really appreciate it if you could expound further on your statement above, specifically as follows;

1. Exactly what "financial security" entails
2. Exactly how God ensures that security via the tithe. And perhaps if you have the time /inclination and for completeness,
3. If there are caveats around the security, alternative ways to go about securing it, or perhaps co-dependency on other actions.

Thanks
TV

Could someone please show or detail the Apostle Pauls alleged chauvinism . Personally I'm struggling to see it.

Thanks
TV

Hi KAG & thehomer, hope y'all are good. I read through the links you so kindly provided. Good - if excrutiatingly dull - reads, but in truth not much advance on adaptation from what I could see. 

Hi justcool,

I trust you are well. Thanks for your responses. I had to take time to read and re-read in the little time I could muster and at the same time try to keep abreast of the thread.

Loads of questions, so will try and synthesize and revert later.

God bless
TV

And we do. From the community with Apo-AIM (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html) to the community with a mutated limbs that gives them an advantage when it come to climbing (I'll have to find a link later), there are pockets of humans with some known beneficial mutations. The flip-side, of course, is the number of humans with maladaptive or damaging mutations.

So be the mutations good or bad, they remain humans, no?

However, yes, they are still humans, but one wouldn't expect just a known mutation here and there to cause speciation.

So what would?

It's more than a case of them being bipedal. The kangaroo rat species can't mate nor produce a fertile offspring with other rodents. More than that, their features from their kidneys, lack of sweat glands and gestation periods set them apart. I don't know what you mean by something different emerging, but I suspect you're thinking of some sort of saltation which isn't what the theory of evolution states.

Simply stated, Kangaroo rats are not actually rats. We have just presumed to label them that and assumed "evolution" from rats, as it can't be evidenced?

Would a phenomena such as lions and tigers or horses and donkeys being able to mate, but producing sterile offspring be more suggestive? And are there different species of human, as this is not the case with us? Surely there must be something to lend greater credence to the "fish to amphibian" postulation?

Thanks
TV

KAG:
Not really, no. I don't see the logic between a continuum and star trek and webbed feet, but, while there are humans with "Spock ears" and webbed feet, generally, the mutations that occur in most species are easily contained, repaired and/or unnoticeable amidst the many other proteins, etc in the genome. To be fair, many (most?) mutations, particularly in humans, are not physiological.

My point being that seing as adaptative/mutative evolution  - please excuse my use of terms, just trying to be understood and avoid "semantic drag" - is so random, wouldn't we expect to see some very peculiar adaptations in particular human populations? And in as much as those things occur (maybe not as vividly as in Star trek perhaps ), they are still humans and not another species or creature entirely.

As for most mutations not being "physiological", thats nice to know, but presumably some do become codified over time?

KAG:
First, evolutionary adaptations don't "need" a millennia to occur: they may take place, depending on gestation, in generations.

Second, genetic drift can also play a part, in that several small populations may have already possessed traits that help them to survive changes to their environment. Natural selection may then com into play.

Finally, yes, the immediate ability to adapt - plasticity - varies between species, and many species will go - an have gone - extinct as result of less plasticity.

I have no quibbles with any of this. But does this mean different/new creatures? This is merely variation in what I'd call the "genetic bandwith" inherent within each creature. Take dogs as an example. There're a million different "Mutt" variations, but they are all still dogs. And can viably mate with one another - Sausage Dog and Great Dane. Chihuhaha and Alsatian.

KAG:
Has it been shown to lead to new species? Yes. Rats make a good example as new species of rats have arisen based on changes, and/or transportation to new, environments. Kangaroo rats are a good example.

A new species that cannot mate or produce fertile offspring with non Kangaroo rats? Again not to drag, species is a form of construct, I'm talking one creature "evolving" into a completely different one here.

So some rats have big glutes? So do certain populations in Africa. Does that make them a different species fom the African or non-African populations that don't?

Adaptation, mutation with certain "genetic bandwiths" I can see, but morphing into a completely new creature I am yet to see evidenced.

Thanks for you as ever cogent post though.

Best
TV

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6186467#msg6186467 date=1276155895]Hi TV, and welcome.[/quote]Hiya MadMax,

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6186467#msg6186467 date=1276155895]The 'intermediate species' argument would entail a long explanation that would include explaining everything about evolution itself again. There are no strict intermediate species, because there isn't a biological continuum, the end of which a species is consciously moving towards. We're not at 1, and aiming for 3, with evolution as the vehicle. Adaptation takes place mostly to ensure the species survives a new, previously
unanticipated change in its biological fortunes.[/quote]No need, you'd probably lose me quite early on anyway . But based on what you've said above, it makes it even harder to comprehend.

If there's no continuum or pre-defined end-point, with random mutations - and lets assume they are all beneficial - happening all over the species, shouldn't the variation amongst humans look like something out of Star-Trek? Webbed feet for the dwellers/fishermen of the Lagos lagoons, big padded bottoms for those who spend all day seated at computer screens and the like? But seriously!

Do biological threats - or any other kind - really lead to new species? Again, simply put, would a real biological threat take a "time out" for an "evolutionary response (over millenia)" to happen? There is either pretty much instantaneous change to cope or the population/sub-populace perishes. Just like when new diseases are introduced to  populations. Resistance/immunity may be developed/acquired, but it will be based on the immediate ability to adapt no? Has it been shown to lead to an entirely new species?

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6186467#msg6186467 date=1276155895]If Dinosaurs hadn't vanished I suspect we'd still be here, but we'll have a body that has factored in the threat of dinosaurs, and adapted to it. Maybe we'd have great speed, or flight, or toxins that brough them down, or be as big or bigger than they are.[/quote]Again, this may sound somewhat plausible at first glance, but does it really bear close scrutiny?  Humans as big as Dinosaurs? Flying? At least lets start with webbed hands and feet . If Dinosaurs came before humans, wouldn't that suggest that humans wouldn't even have made it? Human response to such threats has been more technological than physical.

[quote author=Mad_Max link=topic=371029.msg6186467#msg6186467 date=1276155895]Adaptation isn't a continuous thing, but happens in fits and starts, when it has to. With us, it was a bit like making a baby, only we weren't growing but adapting. You see a foetus at one day, ten days, ten weeks, five months, nine months. What's the difference between the baby at say,two weeks, and the baby at two weeks plus one day? And the difference between that and when you add an extra day, and another extra day, and so on?You barely notice any, do you? But there's a very startling difference, after a long process, between the baby at nine months and the baby at two weeks isn't there, even though you couldn't see the day to day differences? If the changes had been taking place outside the womb, as adaptation, you would have called the nine month old baby a different species from the two week old foetus, and wondered where all the
'intermediate species' were. The question isn't 'Where are the intermediate species'. The question is: If you were shown the 'intermediate species', would YOU recognize it?[/quote]If adaptation is not a continuous, happening in "fits and starts" and evolution is not a continuum, how can you analogise via aging? which is continuous, pretty steady and absolutely a continuum, with very clear pre-determined start and end points?

If an embryo via foetus to an adullt likened to speciation, would a seed to a mighty oak be considered likewise. Growth/ageing do not IMO mirror your position on evolution via adaptation or otherwise.

All adaptations or change responses, to whatever kind of threat/difference, are based on whatever is inherent. Over time, some may become dominant or codified, but based on what was there.


Its why Justcools point of evolution being an end point is at first glance somewhat intriguing, although I'd need to hear more to better understand the creative timeline and reasoning behind it.

Oya Justcool  !

Thanks
TV

mantraa:
All mad max is saying is that the evolutionary changes are very small over many generations. For instance, you may look the same today as you did yesterday, but over the period of several years you will notice that you have changed. Evolutionary changes are much slower than that. For example, you may look similar to your father and grandfather but you will look nothing like your great great great great great great great great great great grandfather after all the incremental slight changes are taken into consideration.

I hope this helps you understand the logic of small incremental changes over long periods of time.

There could well be many changes or variation between a person and their G¹⁰Father due to a number of things, diet, lifestyle, climate etc etc, , but does that make them a different species? All the changes responses are to make him better suited, not different.

Over time the result of adaptation or variation may well make one change, but they'd still be the same "species" no?

Thanks
TV

Evening All,

All in all a really nice narrative discussion. Thanks to all the contributors of what for me has been a great read and in some ways a bit of a "humbler" for me. Only recently I was "whingeing" about there being nothing noteworthy on the religious board these days. Well resurrected moderator, one could be forgiven for thinking I whined directly to you. And about evolution, one I normally avoid, being in no way, shape or form a scientist.

@justcool, I must say, you've pretty much "owned" this thread - IMHO & thus far anyway - and the merits of your position apart, your very concise posts and patient unfussed responses has been great. You have my regards.

From your first post (#4), its seems to me that you believe in both creation and evolution, indeed it appears that you consider they are somehow part of the same process. Apologies if I misascribe anything too you, but if I have, I expect the same deliberate rebuttal that has been your hallmark on this thread.

My position is pretty much what you'd call the"default" Christian one of creation, not by revelation or even study, but primarily because I haven't heard anything to convince me otherwise.

I'm intrigued by your postulating evolution somehow bringing us to an "end point" as it were and would appreciate more on this if you care to indulge. Especially in light of this statement;

Evolution is a reality only that scientists have not yet figured-out exactly how it happened. The major problem, like you pointed out, is that evolution is not a repeatable experiment. We cannot repeat the process in a lab and observe exactly how it happened.

And my own thinking that humans beings, being in a fallen state, are if anything, for the most part spiritually and physically degenerating.

To all and regards evolution at large, I am yet to be convinced that any variation amongst humans is anything more than adaptation based on what is contained within the human genome and I guess what I'd describe as phenotypical differences? I also fail to grasp how this variation - whether termed evoutionary or not, could give rise to a whole new species, or even if it did, why (a) the species being evolved from would necessarily have to disappear (to the extent that they are not easily traceable by fossils or some other evidence, or even co-exist and perhaps inter-breed) and how (b) these changes would somehow uniformly transmit amongst a whole population.

Appreciate any thoughts regards my position and concerns

God bless
TV

John 8:34
Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin.

No be me talk am 0!

Can a believer lose salvation?

The way questions are posed can reveal quite a lot.

Firstly, "believing" does not make one "saved". Nor does it make one "born-again". To expound a little those experiences are neither simultaneous nor synonymous.

Upon believing, salvation is not necessarily a given, but upon grasping what true salvation is and believing Gods grace to attain it in Christ Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit, it cannot be lost. Though it could I guess be given up?

^{Following the WOF'ers vs. the non-WOFer's - yeah, I detest labels too  - discussion earlier, its easy to see how one side see the promises of God in Salvation in Christ and speak of though t experiencing them although they don't, whilst the other side not experiencing them, deny them although they are in clearly writ in scripture. Once salvation is properly understood and attained, all such contentions will cease.}

God bless
TV

Hi All,

Thanks for the responses thus far.

For me, the anchor is Christ - not church, not religion not even christianity per se - and whilst I have no quibble with those that subscribe to reincarnation, the enunciation of it I have heard - on this thread at least - makes some implicit and to my mind questionable assertions, to wit;

- The work of Christ is not atonal, and pursuant to that man makes his own atonement - if he is good - or is doomed.
- The work of Christ is not salvific. Savation being something of a mute point or pretty much mirroring the outworking above.
- At the very least I believe I heard the omnipotence of God brought into question.
- Why did the Lord come to earth? No cogent reason and again as above, it didn't quite go to plan? Mans intent thwarting Gods will?

Not to mention claims such as Paul being a misogynist, contradicting The Lord, - never having met Him - and there being many ways to God? He is The Way, The Truth and The Life, no one comes unto the Father except by Him.

In an era when women were considered nothing more than chattel to be disposed of as men saw fit, Paul exhorted believers to "love their wives - have just the one - and live with them with understanding". Misogynist? Au contrairé.

Contradictory teaching? Paul was "co-opted" to preach the Gospel of The Lord in a way no one else was or ever will be. Paul met with the risen Lord the way we are all supposed to.

Its also clear that deception is rampant, not least due to some questionable spiritual practices. Nethertheless, I agree with the notion that God will lead those who are truly seeking Him.

God bless all who seek Him in truth and may He grant the grace to do so
TV

Hi All, sorry I'm late. May I beg your leave to join the convo? Thank you kindly .

First, I'd like to say this is such a well mannered thread and interesting, and I'd like to applaud all the discussants. I've all but swooned at the cast and of course the submissions, revealing as it were the earnestness of some of the seekers here. I'll try and post in the same vein and not let the more "unascended" parts of my nature get a look in. Although I may well be tested if any of our resident fantasists, demagogues or cross-dressers make an appearance.

I know it’s currently modish on "The Land" to laugh in human, angelic and antique languages, however, right now, I'm rather standing here looking quizzical and scratching my head in KiSwahilli, as some of this is Greek to me - no offense of course to any Greeks - pele 0, on your current financial travails - or KiSwahillians (lovely country y'all have there ) for that matter.

Apologies if I'm rambling, but I've been on a "posting sabbathical". I also went away - sun, sea and sand, since you so kindly ask - so I'm a little rusty as I make myself ready to actually articulate something. Please bear with me, its late here, I’m musing and the thread is a little quiet, so hopefully I have it all to myself for a while. ^{Hope I don't get yellow-carded before I actually say anything. Aunty Jess, ManMustDine, please 0, no vex!}

I wouldn’t want to derail the thread either – for a straight red - but as is wont to happen this thread has developed a few “side-tracks”, and my questions – 2 in total – pertain to some of those.

1. Reincarnation:
It may be helpful to note here that I’m happy to be identified as Christian – in as much as that can mean something different to everyone who identifies themselves as such. Having said that, I don’t have a hard and fast doctrinal position on re-incarnation, nor is that a particular concern. However, the default position in Christianity appears to be that such a notion is unfounded, the teaching being one of resurrection.

Being an avid reader of the scriptures, I have been conscious – for a while now - to see if I can glean such a notion myself and frankly I can’t. Further, the parts of the biblical narrative posted on this thread to support it, I honestly don’t see as doing so. Not having any revelationary insight or scriptural gleaning, could someone please explain in simple terms;

- What resurrection is
- What is its purpose
- I’d also be grateful for any personal experience or biblical outline for it
- Is anyone is willing to expound on the worldview they follow which teaches it?

Particularly Mad_Max, m_nwankwo and MyJoe. And sincere apologies if I’ve mis-ascribed anything to anyone. Whilst many of the comments appear to take ressurection for granted, I didn’t sense a coherent or consensus position on it, not here and not thus far at least.

Could TV01 really be John The Baptist, or should that be Elijah or whoever came before him or after them both, or? I hope you appreciate the reason for the KiSwahillian/Greek intro now?

2.Biblical Inerrancy
First I actually followed this to MyJoe’ thread on the subject and I’d actually stopped by there before, but since I wasn’t “called out” as it were, I didn’t actually post. I could post there I suppose, but I don’t think I really need to. However, if it gets to that point, I may well yet. For now, two things;

(a) My answers to the original questions posed on that thread would be i. Mute point and ii. No.

i. If you have a heavy duty mac designed to keep out the rain – and it does just that – yet it has a frayed hem, holed or lint filled pockets and is rather scruffy, even ill-fitting even, is it fit for purpose or not? When you understand the purpose of the bible and see that it perfectly fulfils that purpose, then inerrancy becomes a mute point.

ii. I need a recipe for sea-bass and I’ve searched the scriptures to no avail. No, it’s not complete in the sense that all questions are answered therein. It’s complete in its purpose and intent. I’m hungry and the bible is not a cookbook, nor is it bread. But it shows the way to satisfy that hunger. You can’t know God from the bible, it’s simply not intended that purpose.

(b) Mad_Max, you at once discredited the bible, yet at the same time sought recourse to it too ground your notion of reincarnation and even built a theory based on it. Shouldn’t a “gazillion tampering” mean discarding it in its entirety?


Thanks for your time everyone and I’d really appreciate some insight per my two questions above. I’d like to be able to stop the head-scratching - in any tongue. But its late here and I’ll bid you all goodbye for now in English as I yawn in Arapaho .

God bless
TV

Krayola:
I think it mostly boils down to belief in heaven/hell as actual places where people/souls/whateva spend eternity. When what guides one's conduct is whether he/she will be rewarded/punished for it by some authority, and not personal reflection on the real life consequences of one's conduct, then you shouldn't be surprised that people will do such. I don't think it is so much what the bible says, but how it is understood.

A good point sir and as it goes, I cannot speak for everyone on this, so I'll outline my personal motivation

At a point, notions of heaven and hell did come into consideration. Along with the sense of the eternal futulity of the vanities we pursue on this earth and my very real sense of personal sin and hopelessness

There are at least 3 different schools of thought on hell and I personally can't claim any revelational knowledge about it. My best reading of the bible and consideration of the views of others does not lead me to the commonly accepted view.

But as my journey unfolds it is less about doctrine as such and not about rewards or blessings. Its about the relationship and my desire to know
Him, to please Him, to honour and to glorify Him. My terror at the thought of forniction/adultery, is not so much at the consequences to me - which is less than my concern about the impact on others - its about the thought of damaging or impairing my relationship with Him. Perish the thought.

God bless
TV

^{Phew, it was bloody out there, but with mighty scything blows of my well thumbed NKJV, I put the gentile princes to flight - or "area scatter" as I'm told its known as these days". Timing wasn't great, but a little light exercise after a meal aids digestion. No time to relax my mission is as yet complete. Resets helmet and points chariot in the direction of the kings palace. tbc,}

JeSoul:
Unfortunately been up since 6am and will be at work practically the whole of today

Aw, sorry to hear that Jess. Be sure to get some rest later.

_{TV ends vigil and breaks fast - with rare tuna steak and avo salad if you must know - strengthened and ready for battle. There is much at stake. The beauty of the kings daughter has spread abroad and the finest gentile princes head towards the holy city, hoping for the reward of her hand. Hmmmm thinks TV, just enough time to put them to flight before dessert - apple crumble and custard - then checks flights to the east coast. No dullin'  !}

God bless
TV


_{ps will revisit the heaven/hell as motivation  - or not - notion later. rushing out.}

GODSON2009:
however the part which i will comment on on this thread is that which addresses which of the elders or five fold might have pre eminence.
the way i see it,the prophet has been unwittingly given pre eminence due to the fact that most christians,especially the young christians whose faiths need regular boosting and who constitute the majority of the global church requires the services of the prohet more than even that of the pastor.

I'm sure I've touched on that already. In talking about church - the gathering and the local congregation - there is no pre-eminence amongst elders. Some may well be more mature, they may be variously gifted, minister in differing capacities, but I personally do not see pre-eminence.

In reference to the five-fold, I would still like to know what role an apostle or prophet performs in the congregation. And what is the "unbalance" that results due to their absence or not being accorded due prominence?

GODSON2009:
im not sure if you r also the one that made the comment that a christian is not bound by heirachy or structure,but if you did then i will have to disagree with that as well simply because our GOD loves order,also the bible says precept upon precept,line after lineincluding several places in the old and new testament where respect for constituted authority was severally highlighted

Without reading through I can,t say for sure, but to clarify, in the church - as gathering - sphere, we must all be subject to shepherds and duly constituted authority, just like we would be at home, in the work place or in the community at large. But my view remains that a Christian is not bound by "church hierarchy" in anything but church.

God bless
TV

Hi GODSON 2009, thanks for honouring the request.

GODSON2009:
@tv01
i didnt realise such a thred existed,funny enough i agree with most of your original assertions on this particular thread,so it seems to me that you are disagreeing with yourself more on the other thread for some reason,

Ah, ah. Come now. On the other thread you disagreed with me and on this one I disagreed with myself  . Brother please!

Everything I have said on both threads is in consonance. This one speaks more to what was a digression on the other and I gave leave there as the initial assertions regard the pastoral role were yours and we were waiting for you to enunciate and provide back-up for your position on SAP. I also pointed out that you seemed to misunderstand me as much as disagree with me, hence my efforts to clarify matters.

Having said all that, if you agree with most of my views on this thread - which are the same as on the other  !, why don't we discuss areas of difference and see if our respective positions are in any way reconciled?

God bless
TV

Deep Sight:
Thank you, but you are yet to say if YOU will be celibate for life in the event that you do not marry.

Yes. His grace is sufficient. I counted the potential cost at the outset. And as much as I desire holy matrimony, its all or nothing. His will be done.

Deep Sight sir, no offence, but in the face of one who lives it, your argument - although forcefully asserted  - simply falls apart. Its not theology, neither is it doctrine. It is not by command nor religiously enforced - I don't belong to any sect. It is not without experience of the alternative and neither has there been any detrimental psycholgical or physiological effects. In fact, quite the opposite. I could go on, but in the absence of any genuinely enquiring discussion piece, I hold mine.

Having handled always trumps having heard.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
Oga, that one no ga happen at all hehe even if I no find for hia, I will hunt either you, Krayola or TV down

Sister JeSoul come 0? In the highly unlikely event that you do have to do a spot of hunting will you favour the unbeliever over god fearing me? Chei !

_{Bro' TV hastens to schedule more prayer, fasting and night vigils in place of his proposed trip to the east coast !}

God bless
TV

Hi GODSON2009.

Per concerns about derailing, I have ressurected an erlier thread in a similar vein to the one we are discussing. Lets resume there if you please.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-30552.0.html

Cheers
TV

Ressurected so I can discuss with GODSON2009

ilosiwaju:
Yoruba people have an adage that goes thus:
Eni meji kii padanu iro which is translated as: Two people cant both fall victim to a lie, if the listener does not know he is being lied to, the liar surely knows himself.
Meaning, it's just a test in Hypocrisy 101, you know the answer though you dont have to provide it. But i go like hear that your own gist sha, would you oblige?

Not sure about the import of your "owe"? but like I said, if you can give a cogent reason for the show of hands, I'm happy to bare my heart - or expose my ynash as the case may be !

God bless
TV

ilosiwaju:
The christian point of view on pre-marital se.x is fundamentally flawed on this one.

The Christian view is there should be no physical intimacy outside wedlock. Quite simple. I see no flaws?

ilosiwaju:
He goes further on his perversive trip by implying / recommending that men should only get married if they cant hold on their sexu.al urge. In other words, women are property(which is not new in the jewish world) and are to be taken to the altar only because of agro .

St. Paul totally lost it there, he should not get a scrap of praise from anyone of the feminine folk who knows what self-worth means. WHAT? Women only as se.x objects? That's a sweet example of condescending. I am however willing to hear some defense for him from Nlanders here(Barrister Deepsight, offering pro-bono services? ) and some enlightenment of course.

Here is my ask (jesoul, other ladies and everyone here), for those emphasizing on marriage before bang, would you as the lady(even if you were told) go into marriage because your boyfriend is se.x-starved with a piece of laminated paper as evidence of the legitimacy of the union? yeah, i thought so too. The jews are a set of chauvinists and it only amazes me why we still swallow all they spit hook, line and sinker!

If - not that it is so - the Christian position is for men to marry to slake the urge - as if women don't get it too? - how is that worse than the alternative? Don't marry her - and take on the responsibility for and care of a wife - just chop and clean mouth Does that not reduce women to lust objects? Or is there another alternative I'm missing?

So how does female self-worth play out if men get to romp without commitment ?

ilosiwaju:
By a show of hands posts, how many(of the proponents) here really adhere to the no-se.x-before-marriage thingy? You're free to lie though. Only asking.

If you give me further insight into the reason for this poll, I'm more than happy to discuss my personal experience.

God bless
TV

contd

GODSON2009
good so he/she is competent in the role of a sheperd which i agree with and has been my point however going back to your 1st point(no 1)isnt that a mild contradiction? or maybe you ment to say co-sheperd or co-elder lool

TV
No contradiction – mild, medium or mature! Shepherding is to be performed by suitably qualified elders labouring in concert. No pre-eminence. That’s not to say some may not be more gifted in certain areas than others or minister in different ways or have been elders for different lengths of time.

GODSON2009
i totally and unequivocaly disagree,the bible out of many other things is also a moral and religious compass,if you feel like you know everything there is to know as a christian and also are imminently capable of handling every single thing and situation that comes your way, then that is your personal prerogative but speaking for the majority of christians, i believe the church leadership,specifically the five fold have been relevant till today because clearly christian growth is for a lifetime pastor adeboye when asked about his level as a christian said he is still learning and taking each day as it comes,we have heard him admit to mistakes. same goes for several frontline men and women of GOD IRRESPECTIVE OF YOUR DENOMINATIONAL PERSUATIONS even romans 12;6 recognises that we do not have the same measure of faith hence enjoins us to prophecy,only in proportion to our individual level of faith

TV
And you have every right too. But again, I feel you miss my point here. I’m talking about church structure and operation. But as to individuals, three things. Has one attained to “till” as outlined earlier? Is one led by the spirit? What of the maturity Paul wrote about in Hebrews 6?

GODSON2009
again i totally disagree with you,and i will take this as what it is,your own personal and private stance which has absolutely no bearing on the bible i read

TV
I read you your rights already sir! I asked earlier, what an apostle does in the local congregation, stating your conviction here would help. Perhaps extend that to explain what an apostle does?

GODSON2009
im sorry but again you have contradicted yourself here,apostel paul,was a leader,same as peter e.t.c and they all went out preaching the gospel and convering unbelievers.what do you call what apostle paul was doing all through acts onwards if not over seeing  ? have you read all his letters to the different churches and then compare it to what an overseer does these days??

TV
Please outline the contradiction. I agree Paul – not so much Peter – went about preaching. But the outworking was the same. Preach, convert, gather local believers, raise up elders, move on. The church is then self-sufficient. The Apostolic was to erect the structure according to the blueprint and ensure the eldership function was in place. He didn’t even concern himself with the deaconate. Elders could attend to that once in place.

He wasn’t overseeing in the “G.O.” sense. He was strengthening, counselling, exhorting. These were new believers, new churches, but the apostle wasn’t shepherding or overseeing them remotely. How could one effectively oversee on the road, or by the means of communication extant in those times? He new he would be “departing”, why was there no succession plan if he was GO? He merely exhorted the shepherds to keep doing so and without self interest.

One formed even if there were apostles present, on a day to day basis, they would function as elders/pastors/shepherds, exactly as Paul claimed to do when he was in situ.

GODSON2009
no one is arguing this fact with you,which you seem to be re gurgigating,but paul did not move on,he adressed timothy as a singular leader and timothy wasnt the only one moreover he nurtured and wrote letters of encouragement to all the churches so i dont know where you got your own interpretation from

TV
Timothy laboured with Paul. Timothy’s work in Ephesus was in effect an extension of Pauls. Pauls instruction was to do what he would have done “raise up suitably qualified elders”. If you like, Timothy was working to the same apostolic blueprint. He wasn’t a presiding bishop or overseer as many would like to label him to justify what obtains.

God bless
TV

Apologies, I've been delayed.

GODSON2009
first of all,i hope you will permit me if i say that from all i have read of your comments,this is simply your own personal views of what the functions of the pastor should be in the body of believers.

TV
Permission granted. O boy you are taking this constituted authority thing to far 0! I was only joking about that elder thing!
But seriously! Absolutely. My views, based on my understanding. Presumably exactly what you posts are? Your views, based on your understanding? Hence your use of the phrase “personal convictions”?

GODSON2009
while this is clearly stated and understood in the context of ephesians 4;11,in fact a secondary school bible studies student knows that none of them have pre-eminence over each other. i dont re collect having said a pastor is more than a prophet or evangelist,

TV
You appear to be misunderstanding me as well as disagreeing with me. That’s not to say you would agree if you properly understood, so let me take it upon myself to clarify further.

Ephesians 4:11
And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

Does this mean;
1. All those 5 are present and have roles in a local congregation?
2. Does it mean all the functions are currently extant?
3. Could it be talking linearly - historically to date - and not just at a point in time?
4. What does an Apostle do? What would one do in a local congregation?
5. Per 4. For an Evangelist?

That was food for thought and not to overly digress, let me state this. A local congregation only requires shepherds and deacons – who are not even mentioned in this verse – to operate the biblically outlined church structure.
In view here is the role of the pastors/shepherds. I am not contrasting or comparing or grading them against the other 4 roles mentioned. I hope I have clarified that point.

GODSON2009
all i said was that the traditional orthodox churches and new generation pentecostal churches as presently constituted have had "pastors" as shepherds of  the congregation,

TV
We are not debating what obtains, that is self evident. What we are discussing is what the bible outlines and the scriptural narrative depicts.

My first point was there was nothing to suggest sole authority pastorship – SAP - in the bible and the congregation was to be shepherded by a “plurality of elders” – POE.

Indeed that was the first question posed to you. Show scriptural backing for SAP, which you still haven’t done, instead referencing “what obtains”, tradition and the dictionary.

I am not suggesting a congregation is shepherded by a mix of the five – in any proportion – in Ephesians 4:11, or the seniority or right of pre-eminence (if it exists or matters) between them.

GODSON2009
now we can look at all these churches and begin to find where a collection of the five have collectively made every decision including preaching altogether every sunday the fact that a pastor leads and sheperds does not automatically mean he is "the boss" in the context you are looking at it

TV
I hope you understand my position now and realise that you misunderstood my context. Hopefully this point is now moot?

GODSON2009
but it certainly gives him/her the mandate to have a say when a brother wants to marry a sister in a church  he/she is a sheperd of. .in addittion i am struggling to see the relevance of this to the threadster's comment but oh well,

TV
As the discussion progress, we should touch on roles, scope and spheres and hopefully give a fuller answer to the OP’s question. To do that we have to build logically. IMO the short answer is no. In discussion format it would be line upon line.
No mandate – scripturally anyway – is given. Counsel can be asked for and given, but it is not a question of asking for permission. That is for the familial authority to grant and its there the responsibility lies. Church/pastoral involvement is at best adjunct. Not mandatory and not binding. Mandate ke?

So in reference to “inform the pastor” scripturally there is no such thing, which was what we honed in on. If changed to “inform a pastor/elder/shepherd” the answer is still no, and there’s still no mandate. That’s not to say there is no recourse to counsel. But first recourse is always to the family. You seem to have overlooked that point in your Abraham/Isaac example.

GODSON2009
i disagree with that unless you can show me assertive proof by back up or supporting bible verses to that effect that it has a time frame,also you should have realised that i dislike open ended statements where does "for the most part" start and end sire?

TV
Happy to do so sir, let’s read on;

12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;

Please note the first word in v13. Please read it from v11 again, And He himself gave, till. It’s for a time, serves a purpose and when that purpose is served, finito. I appreciate you may have different convictions. I say for the most part, because as long as people are being added to the body, there will be some on the path to “till”. But for an individual, as some stage “till” must be reached/attained. It’s a journey. The relevant function/role can equip/help you there. Also note that in a larger context, it’s talking about the whole church and not individuals. Is this now clarified somewhat? Your dislike of open-ended statements is noted.

GODSON2009
secondly i dont think you have read that bible verse well or else you wont say they deal with only the physical,last i read prophecies is more spiritual,same goes for teaching the word of GOD evangelising and what the five fold deals with,christian needs and development is more geared towards the spiritual which will drive the physical go and read watchman nee's book"breaking of the outer man,release of the inner man"

TV
For the most part believer fellowship will be physical. Hence the need for structure and functions during gatherings. “The fullness” comes from The Lord via the Holy Spirit. A whole new discussion. Maybe someday we’ll have the pleasure.

I managed to read a half a Watchman Nee book once. First time I never finished a book. Maybe someday. It’s not war games or fillums. You got to live it for yourself. Not to denigrate anyones writings of course.

There’s a well known “prophetess”who is big in certain circles here. I meet a lot of ladies who follow her. They go to one of her seminars and she talks about wilderness. They come out and start shouting wilderness. Christianity is not something you get taught or recieve via doctrine. It’s something you experience, something you live.


GODSON2009
while the church is a part of the life of a christian,choosing a partner from both the female and male perspective is also a very important crossroad in one's life as choosing the wrong partner can be disasterous as several biblical instances have shown us, samson and delilah is one,including several GODLY people who were led astray to their destruction due to a union with unGODLY women,there were ocassions when GOD forbade the israelites from marrying from specific tribes e.g the moabites showing the importance of GODly counsel in these matters

TV
Agreed, its important. Samson disobeyed his parent not the Rabbi. It still remains the family prerogative. Church elders can be sought out if required, but not mandatory and not binding. Basic Xtian requirements are clearly laid out. If one can’t adhere to those probably not readt to marry anyway. Ultimately a pastor cannot forcefully stop a wrong/bad/improper union happening anyway. Per your quote, even God did not force his instructions down their throats?

GODSON2009
well i am yet to see what particular part of a christian life  the church is not relevant,which i hope u will educate me on,but we are talking about marriage and without question i stand by my surmissionthat the church and also the pastor either as a "co-leader" or not is very relevant

TV
The church is only in view when believers gather. Church and by extension elders have no authority in your home, work life, social life or anything outside the gathering. What they feed can influence, motivate, colour or drive, but their authority is confined to the church sphere. As I noted, your Christian faith, beliefs and worldview should colour everything you do. Hopefully your relationship with Christ goes with you everywhere.

Apologies for the formatting, spelling and incomplete response, but its late and I’m tired. I’ll perhaps attempt to tidy it up tomorrow. Conscious of not responding in a timely manner.

Talk soon

God bless
TV