₦airaland Forum

my dear exu, when you say things like this you expose the spite of your own heart. Even when you do not believe in a particular worldview, faith or ideology, do you have to be so acrid in your statements?

@ ijele, my dear, slow down. Before you begin to rush people to HELL, take a good, hard look at yourself. In the same way, if you like teach all you know and try to correct people about speaking in tongues and pentecostalism, if the truth is not found in you, you are as good as ___

Okay, just kidding with you. But seriously, let's calm down the heat and be slow, really sslloooooooooooowww, in clobbering our brethren with HELL! Good point you raised about not using the name of God in vain - let us not even take the grace of God in vain (II Cor. 6:1) or any other thing about God's ways in vain. God help me to love everyone more and more.

Kind regards

@owo, thanks for speaking my mind. 'Diatribalism' is a characteristic of unbalanced views, especially one coming from the caller to freedom from slavery without the slightest hint of what he's talking about. I love my country and do my best to represent Nigeria wherever I go. God bless Nigeria!!

@nferyn,

Many thanks for your responses, and my comments to the points you raised are thus:

(1) I knew you most probably meant Christian gnostics in your earlier input and I could provide you with lots of sources for the distinction. However, it really does not change the way you handled the idea of gnosticism - or Christian gnosticism for that matter. Even so, 'Christian gnostics' did not believe that salvation was possible through knowledge of Christ or anyone as you had stated earlier:

Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

(2) You're one of the few who does not favour the gnostics over the NT or vice versa - I guessed so earlier, but my statements were broader than just referring to you. Further, you surprise me with the statement that "There is no convincing evidence even for the mere existence of a historical Christ," for that is the recycled theory of such fellows at the infidels.org and others which have no erudite scholarship to the point. Without any bias or polarisations to the Christian view, I'd urge you to check up non-prejudicial and non-Christian references for the following:

- Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD)

- Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD

- Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians (110-115 AD)

- Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul

- Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD

These are usually a few on the list that people avoid or ignore or excuse away when discussing the historicity of Christ. One thing any unbiased scholar or historian would tell you is that the Romans were thorough investigators and had zero tolerance for accepting myth as truth. If Christ never existed as a historical figure, Pontus Pilate under whom He suffered would also be a myth. Even some 'scholars' have vigorously contested that Nazareth was a historical geographic location - but archeological findings have shut them up. No, my dear friend, Flavius Josephus was not the only source (contemporary or otherwise) to have mentioned Jesus, neither was that even a doctored document - you'd have to prove that your statements about this are historically certain, because I've read and heard that many times from people who simply just want to ignore the facts.

(3) As far as 'the relative legitimacy of Christian gnosticism' is concerned as a historical fact, your point here is carried, to be fair to you. However, I'll make a little addendum to it. Before you could properly call a movement 'Christian' you'd have to come up with a legitimate definition of the term. The Islamic and Bahai faiths also acknowledge the validity of some of the teachings of Jesus - but does that make them legitimately 'Christian'? In just about the same way, you could not make this push that gnosticism (even the so-called 'Christian gnosticism') was legitimately and properly Christian. Refer to my findings about gnosticism earlier - it is a "mystical syncretism - a mixture of various opposing religious and occultic elements" including 'Christian' elements. In fair exchange, you could not refer to gnosticism as legitimately 'Christian' just because they adopted certain elements from the Christian community.

(4) Again, I'd give that to you with a little addendum
Notice that your sources (forgive my ignorance as I don't know for a certain what sources you might've been getting your points from) are only interpreting/re-interpreting facts. Without much argument, I'd concede that the 'Christian gnostics' rejected the authority of early Christian leaders (not just the pontificate or the primacy of Peter) - for the simple reason that gnostic religious experience was "diametrically opposed to their (Christian) beliefs" - as you noted. However, the gnostics who did not see Christ as the principal figure of their religious experiences were more inclined to their own gnostic leaders - Simon Magnus, Marcion, et al. To ignore this fact and make broad generalizations is to make Peter, John, Paul and the other early leaders "Gnostic persecutors", which is hardly the case. Remember that these Christian leaders were themselves persecuted and murdered by the Roman authorities who were non-tolerant of Christianity.

(5) The same point as (4) above. Should I add also that "there is no justification for the relentless and violent persecution" of the early Christians and their leaders - Peter, Paul, John, and several others who were murdered in despicable manners, and some thrown to lions in theatrical entertainment in the Roman amphitheater and colosseum.

(6) Now you come back to precisely my point about gnosticism - "The heart of gnosticism lies in the deep study and inner knowledge thus obtained". This is why I earlier mentioned that Gnosticism did not view Christ as Saviour or Intermediary. Gnostics (even 'Christian gnostics') believed that salvation was not in Christ but in each person - each person was to save themselves (to put it bluntly). I do not use the canonical texts (the Bible) as my yardstick in trying to make sense of the Gnostic documents; but as you observed, anyone reading the gnostic materials (even without having read the Bible) comes away with a feeling of not having understood them. This is why Elaine Pagels and her team who are making so much noise about the legitimacy of the Gnostic Gospels have not been able to arrive at a coherent interpretation of their teachings.

nferyn, thank you once again for your food for thought and opinions. If I have been somewhat prejudicial, I beg your forgiveness o note it wasn't intentional - we are all apprentice scholars who want to make good sense in matters of life.

Kind regards.

TV01:
Hi Welborn,
I'm not sure we we are in the discussion, especially after the problems with the database, so I'll reply briefly.
I thing I''ve made my point about denominationalism and the fact that there are degrees of error and corruption in them all (which may or may not include pagan rituals).
Galatians 3:26 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
My point exactly, anything more (tradition), or anything less is not faith in Jesus Christ.
And no, I don't agree with Jagunlabi, although he does have a point about syncretism being a problem.
Like I said I'm not sure if this is ahead/behind where we have already got to. I hope you have a better understanding of my perspective now.
Thanks & God bless

Hello TV01

Well, I noticed we had a problem earlier with the server or database, whatever. But great to be back.

The way many people view the question of denominations or groups of Christian gatherings are many times uninformed, and quite often the excuse is that if people don't follow our own interpretation of the Bible, then they must be in error. I don't take that view.

I trust that anyone who has believed in Jesus Christ as the Bible prescribes is actually born again (John 1:12; 3:3-5). Then when we come to the matter of fellowship, people are bound to make mistakes and give wrong interpretations of some subjects; for example, most people believe that 'born of water and of the Spirit' in John 3:5 refers to water baptism while others say it's not; etc. So, whatever interpretations you give to John 3:5, how could you be sure that others are wrong and yours alone correct? Just speaking allegorically.

I'll try and elaborate a bit more in answer to your rejoinder on denominations/church structure (read it here).

Warm regards.

Hi again, TV01,

I see you're really interested in holding a conversation about the matters you raised. Thank you for leaving me some replies - I've seen them before but didn't have the time out of my busy schedules and travels. Well then, if you'd like to discuss church models or structures here or in another thread, I'm available anytime (though you'd have to forgive my late responses as I explained).

However, I quite understand what the church is from the NT and the talk of "going to church" is not wrong but merely semantics. The Church is the community of believers, and one could "go to" these believers for something other than a meeting of worship as in Acts 4:23 ("they went to their own company". It is true that as believers in Christ, we are the Church; but that does not mean that one couldn't 'go to' the church as the community of believers.

TV01:
At no time did I say I do not assemble or fellowship with other believers. Neither have I forsaken collective worship, the breaking of bread or ministering.

That may well be true, but you didn't give me a clear picture in your previous post about your position when you wrote:

TV01:
I actually do not have a"church" that I am a member of, neither a group that I belong too.
It really is just me.

This is not what I see in the Bible, for even the apostle Paul recognizes people as belonging to a local church and not free-lancing (pardon the word) - see the following Col. 4:9 & 12 where he referred to Onesimus and Epaphras as being members of the local church in Colosse. The fact that the Body of Christ includes every believer does not negate the responsibility of active participation in a local church as such. When the Church in Jerusalem sent messages to believers in other places, they clearly designated the bearers as belonging to the local church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22 - 'chosen men of their own company'). There are several other texts that clearly demonstrate the responsibility of fellowshipping as believers in local churches rather than a spirit of independence. But as you later replied, you may not have forsaken collective worship, which is good - but I just wanted to make this clear from the impression you gave me in your earlier post.

TV01:
Assembling is not a question of numbers, 2 or 3 satisfies.
Fellowship is primarily with The Father and His Son Jesus Christ - 1 John 1:3.

Christian fellowship goes together with other believers as well. Study that text in I John 1:1-3 carefully. You will see that the fellowship with the Father and the Son is expressed in a collective way with other believers. John spoke of fellowship with the Father and the Son as an affirmation of the fellowship that believers have together with the apostles: (1) "that ye also may have fellowship with us" comes before (2) "and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ". You can't separate the one from the other, because one is useless without the other.

Answering your questions:
I don't understand what you mean by tradition/model of worship, but briefly I'll say that our local church does not reject or refuse what the NT states.

Everyone is encouraged to love the Lord and express this love in joyful commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Everyone is encouraged to discover their gifts serve as the Lord apportions and enables each one.

We apprecaite and love the leaders in our church, esteeming them in love for their labours.

If I'm missing your point, please let me know.

Kind regards.

jagunlabi:
I am afraid,you're the one doing the dribbling.I have made my own point crystal clear in my previous posts.but if you have chosen to dance around the points i have laid down,then that is left to you.
I will repeat it once again,Judas did not betray Jesus(according to this manuscript),but collaborated with Jesus to fullfil his goal.The motivation of Judas for doing what he did is the key here,what makes the significant difference to what was written in the three gospels of the NT.
The latest information i got about this theme is that the greek word used in the original greek texts from which all the gospels were translated was the verb "PARADIDONAI".A verb that means "to hand over" in english.There was nothing like the verb "to betray" in the original greek texts.That verb was later added into the later translations.
Now you can start your dribbling.

@jagunlabi, it's not new and often you get your info from polarised sources that hardly get the facts right. The verb "betray" and its derivatives were well in use in Greek and Aramaic languages before the NT was written; and kindred words like "traitor" [PRODOTES] were also in use at the time. They were not added into the later translations but have been in use among Greek scholars and philosphers of their day; so who ever was telling you that there was nothing like the verb 'to betray' in the original Greek texts either did not do their homework well, or simply wanted to be biased and ignore the facts. That said, there are a few observations I'd like to share with you:

(1) you spoke of "the original greek texts from which all the gospels were translated" - Since you didn't leave any sources to butress your claims, consider this: Several greek lexicons, Bible concordances and hebrew & greek study helps (examples: Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, and Young's Analytical Concordance) have the word "PARADIDOMI" in the following texts where they appear in the NT. The word primarily means "to give over to" (or "to hand over" as you suggested), and is correctly translated "betray/betrayed" in the English Bibles. [If you can take the time, see the list below at the end of my reply].

The word also has a Hebrew equivalent (RAMAH) and is translated with the same English word "betray" as in I Chron.12:17 -

"And David went out to meet them, and answered and said unto them, If ye be come peaceably
unto me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you: but if ye be come to betray [ramah] me
to mine enemies, seeing there is no wrong in mine hands, the God of our fathers look thereon,
and rebuke it."

The word "ramah" is not simply to deliver or 'to hand over', but rather connotes the idea of giving someone over to the enemy. This 'delivering up' into the hand of the enemy is what makes the words "ramah" (Hebrew) and "paradidomi" (Greek) equivalents to the English "betray." The same word is interpretated variously as 'betray' or 'deliver up' (as in Matt.24:9 - "Then shall they deliver (paradidomi) you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."__and Matt.24:10 - "And then shall many be offended, and shall betray (paradidomi) one another, and shall hate one another". When Steven accused the maddening crowd of murdering Jesus, he used the kindred word [PRODOTES] in Acts 7:52: "Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers (prodotes)and murderers."

jagunlabi:
I will repeat it once again,Judas did not betray Jesus(according to this manuscript),but collaborated with Jesus to fullfil his goal.The motivation of Judas for doing what he did is the key here,what makes the significant difference to what was written in the three gospels of the NT.

(2) Jesus called Judas much more than a betrayer.

If Jesus had a 'secret' discourse with Judas for a so-called "collaboration", how come you have failed to give us the original greek word for "collaborated" in the original greek text from which the Gospel of Judas was translated? Even if the verb to betray was later added to the NT translations (which is not the case), what sense would Judas' collaboration have made if he did not betray Jesus? Would it make any sense for Jesus on several occasions to afterward have referred to Judas as a 'devil', and that it were better that he had not been born? (John 6:70 and Matt. 26:24). Not only was Judas a betrayer, he was a thief as well (John 12:6).

From the foregoing, there's no going round the facts - Judas was not the author of the Judas text; he did not "collaborate" with Jesus in the betrayal, but rather betrayed Him

______________________\\_________________________//___________________________


Texts where PARADIDOMI appears in the NT:

Matthew: Mark:
Matt. 10:4 Mark 3:19
Matt. 17:22 Mark 14:10, 11, 18, 21, 41, 42, 44
Matt. 20:18
Matt. 26:2, 16, 21, 23, 24 25, 45, 46, 48
Matt. 27:3, 4
Matt. 26:15 (same word "PARADIDOMI" but translated "deliver"

Luke John
Luke 22:4, 6, 21, 22, 48 John 6:64, 71
John 12: 4
I Corinthians John 13:2, 11, 21
I Cor. 11:23 John 18:2, 5
John 21:20

The word PARADIDOMI was also used for other people apart from Judas:
Matt. 24:10; Mark 13:12; Luke 21:16; Acts 7:52.

You'll find the kindred word PRODOTES (translated as "traitor/traitors" in the following -
Luke 6:16 and II Tim. 3:4 (traitors)

jagunlabi:
Very true.

nferyn link=topic=10074.msg292513#msg292513 date=1145046482:
Not true. the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb. For that rejection of the intermediary role of the orthodox catholic church on their road to salvation, they were persecuted, imprisoned maimed and killed.
Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

Gentlemen, it seems to me that for the mere sake of arguments you're polarised to believing what you neither know for certain nor understand, as long as they offer you the excuse of doubting the NT naratives in favour of the Gnostics. Let me amicably share some vital information that you seem to be ignoring.

nferyn:
Gnostics thought that salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ as the intermediary to reach the innermost of the divine (God)

Your assertion here is neither true nor based on a factual understanding of Gnosticism. I hesitate to quote wikipedia because the article there is amateur and quite limiting (see the disclaimer at top of that page). However, wikipedia agrees with standard sources that Gnosticism predates Christianity and is "a mixing of rites and myths from a variety of religious traditions, combining Occultism, Oriental Mysticism, astrology, magic, elements from Jewish tradition, Christian views of redemption, and even aspects of Plato's doctrine that man is not at home in the bodily realm." In one word, it is a mystical syncretism - a mixture of various opposing religious and occultic elements. Gnostics never believed that "salvation was only possible through knowledge of Christ" - whether as the intermediary to God, or anything else. The role of Christ in Gnostic interpretation does not go beyond esoteric interpretations in which He could save nobody but Himself, and others following His example could possibly save themselves through the same knowledge of themselves. . . which is not what Christ came to preach (see Matt.19:25-26).

nferyn:
the gnostic churches were legitimate churches during the days of early Christianity. The only reason why you don't hear much about them anymore is because they rejected the authoritarian structure of the pontificate and believed that in order to go to heaven, they personally needed to better themselves instead of following an authoritarian priest that wanted his flock to be obedient and dumb.

Again, this assumption is not true because the Gnostics did not reject any authoritarian structure of the pontificate, but rather had their own structure. Most so-called Gnostic Christians do not base their authority or principles on Christ but rather on those purported to have been the founders or fathers of gnostic mystical teachings, such as Simon Magnus (who was thought to have been a magician), and Carpocrates (who encouraged the practice of free sexuality and taught reincarnation). Indeed, many gnostic teachings were surpressed by the Roman Christian leaders, such as Marcion's doctrine that the death of Christ on the cross was only a hallucination, since (he supposed) Jesus did not have a physical body; and also Marcion's rejection of marriage. You should understand that the Gnostics themselves contradicted one another on countless issues, which I'll share with you in just a moment.


Do the Gnostic Teachings Make Sense?

Among the now 34 gnostic materials that I've personally read, there are widely differing and contradictory ideas in them. Some people would like to assert that the gnostics alone truly understood Christ's message while other streams of Christianity are all wrong. But here's a sample of how the Gospel of Thomas purports to have recorded Jesus' view of women when Peter suggested that Mary should leave them:

"² Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit
resembling you males. ³For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven."
(Gospel of Thomas, v.114).

So, according to the gnostic gospel of Thomas, no female enters into heaven unless she changes her sex and becomes a male! Does that make sense? There are quite a number of such mystical sayings in this manuscript that I'm surprised that those who count the NT as politically motivated and corrupted have not been able to iinterprete and make sense in the gnostic writings. Here's another of those mystic verses:

"Jesus said to them, 'If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves,
²and if you pray, you will be condemned,
³and if you give to charity, you will harm your spirits.
(Gospel of Thomas, v.14).

In order words, fasting is a sin, prayer brings condemnation, and giving to charity harms the spirit of the giver! Even if you don't believe in Christ or the Bible, there's only one spirit behind these sayings that is trying to stop people from fasting, praying, and being benevolent - it's none other than the devil! It does not surprise me that many people who say that the gnostics give the true interpretation of Christianity have not actually read the gnostics before they condemn the Bible. And that is the amazing thing about such prejudices. Let's talk as gentlemen who know the facts before making statements that are biased.

Well, most people have the same view as yours. . . but differences of opinions or views shouldn't draw your daggers at 'em all as to sentence 'em all to hell. Take it e-z dearie

I wonder why Muslims have not been actively participating on this Forum.

The traffic situation resulting from conventions or Christian gatherings is a sad experience. I remember the early years of the RCCG conventions - the same thing used to happen until they got the wiser for it. Perhaps, as that was the first convention of Christ Embassy they were still wet behind the ears about crowd control and traffic decongestion. With time, they would improve on the situation like others?

It's not unique with the Nigerian experience - even in Atlanta when some churches hold conventions, there's often the painful aspect of clogging up the roads and thereby denying other non-participants the right of way for no fault of theirs. I pray that people who organise any convention anywhere would be more understanding and not have to cause untold pains to other people.

As for me and my house
We will celebrate with a bounce.
It doesn't matter what they say
If they've not had a good day.


For everyday of the year
Pagans will always yell.
If we ever hold back His praise
The stones will be amazed!


If it wasn't the Da Vinci Code
Or some wahala they stole
The Complaints are too weak
To make a very bad week.


The angels rejoiced at His birth
And there was sadness in hell;
God's Son came from heaven -
That's bad news for the devil!


Ever since the controversy
The Gospel has continued elegantly.
Beelzebub will continue his lies
For he is the lord of the flies!


So, whether they like it or not
The Gospel won't lose a jot!
Hallelujah to the King of Peace
His praise shall never cease!!


- Easter Greetings to all who love the Lord Jesus
He died, He rose, He lives. . . He comes soon!
welborn.

yeepa:
I can't be surprised that many people criticize Islam and Muslims but one thing I have noticed is that 99% of those people that know little or nothing about their own religion

So, what in effect are you trying to say? That Islam should not be criticized or what? If it wasn't for the recent developments, would Muslims have even criticized certain aspects of their own religious ideas? The indiscriminate use of fatwa by the Islamic authorities that make no sense? The recent Afghani push for death sentence on a convert? The thoughtless rampage and murders in the name of a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed?

Sorry if I'm sounding somewhat surprised at your insinuations, but I don't even shrink from the fact that certain trends in Christian history are criticized - and I welcome the criticisms: the Inquisition? The murder of Galileo Galilei by so-called "Christian authorities" in the 17th century? How many more - in the past and contemporary times? What you have to realise is that those authorities claiming the titles were not practising Christianity by the Book, anymore than Hitler claimed to have been directed by God to murder the Jews.

Even so, other worldviews have been criticized - atheism, agnosticism, New Ageism, communism, naturalism, and countless "-ims" out there. To me, anyone who is afraid of being criticized has not learnt to live among the mix of society. Christianity is not afraid of criticism, even of the harshest kind - we were warned that such will come both from within and without the Christian fold, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself was acridly criticized to the extent that He was called a glutton, winebibber, as well as accused of working miracles by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the devils! (Please see Luke 7:34-35 and Matt. 10:25 & 12:24).

What does criticism accomplish? There is such a thing as "constructive criticism", as well there is criticism of the prejudicial type that only shows a man's heart for what it is. I welcome criticisms if someone has something beneficial to share with me. However, if the aim of the caller is merely to ridicule my faith or convictions for the mere fun of it, I'll let him/her have the day because it does not remove anything from me. That is why, I enjoyed mlks_baby's call to fellow Christian believers to slow down this kind of criticism against our Muslim brethren and rather respect their convictions even when we do not agree with them (see it here).

Any regular visitor to or user of the Religion Forum on Nairaland would have noticed that so many questions that have been posted about Jesus are merely a vaunt with a prejudicial slant and nothing more. I laughed at Reverend's take recently with such captions as George Carlins View On Religion and Was Jesus An Extraterrestrial?. The guy is still feeling the scotch of his botch on suggesting that Jesus Used Cannibis and bari_kade's knockout punches at his [b]kinky[/b]marymagdalenechurch (kinky_marymagdaline_church). What's wrong with this chap called Reverend? It seems to me that since he has been exposed for his sinister backdoor entry into Christendom with a disguise of his pornography club, the only way to get noticed is to come back and be against Christ. If he is truly called with a 'Reverend' badge to his ministerial cloak, why has he never sought to present the real Gospel of Jesus Christ to anyone - much less defend the Christian faith?

Okay, I digressed - as not many people like to read 'epistles' on Nairaland.

In one word, if criticisms help and challenge you to investigate your faith and convictions, stop whimpering and get to work! That's why I'm grateful to God that the Da Vinci Code helped me to investigate my convictions, drove me to my knees, and God strengthened me by His grace. Such other issues like Jesus Walked On Ice and The Gospel of Judas had the same effect on me - challeneged me to have a second look at my convictions. . . but the result for me is that, those propaganda are too weak to shake me now! Those gentlemen would have to pose a greater joke to the world to shake my faith in Christ!

Blessings.

Hi TV01, 

Very good points you raised - and many thanks. I sat for a few moments after reading yours and tried to make sense of a situation of being Christian without the need for church (in the more general sense). However, again and again, Heb 10:25  kept coming back to mind - "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching."

I have great respect for your position, but may I share some things with you about why I felt the Holy Spirit leads believers to church, not away from it -

(1) The Church Occupies a Central Place in Jesus' Heart (Eph. 5:25)
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" - that is huge. Add to that the tremendous promise He left her in Matt. 16:18 - "I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

(2) The Angels View God's Mystery in The Church (Eph.3:10)
"To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God."

(3) The Church is Where Believers Express Collective Worship (Heb.2:12)
"Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee" is Jesus' prophetic declaration, and indeed He has promised to be in the midst of those gathered unto His name (Matt.18:20).

Indeed, as individual believers who believe in Jesus Christ, we belong to Him. But there definitely is more we are called to be as the Body of Christ. It cannot be overstated, however, that there are matters in our commitment that cannot be accomplished as individual believers:

  -- celebrating the Lord's Supper (or breaking of bread) - I Cor. 11:26-27,33.

  -- worshipping as 'church' (Heb.2:12).

  -- the giving of our substances (Heb.13:15-16).

Even in first century Christianity, there were threats of heresies or errors among believers (I Cor.11:19), but the apostles did not ask Christians to make out their own individual "pathway" - those who tried to do so, met with a rebuttal from Paul (I Cor. 1:12-13). The apostles laboured to correct the misconceptions among believers then, and urged them to not forsake the assembling together of themselves. There are so many reasons why people will not want to go to church at all - and in many instances, the concerns are genuine. However, you will not find an absolutely 'perfect' church until Jesus comes back - for He is the One who perfects all things.

In Revelation 2 & 3, almost every church spoken to had problems in varying degrees (except one - the church in Philadelphia). However, even to the most corrupt church, the Lord still expressed His love to them (Laodicea). But, what about the other churches that had problems, even errors? Read it for yourself my dear - Jesus was still in their midst. How do I know this? Chapter 1 says Jesus was "in the midst of the seven candlesticks" (v.13). In verse 20, He said the candlesticks are the churches. So, even though they were imperfect and some of them had errors, Jesus was in their midst! He was constantly warning that the churches repent, but never did He threaten to leave them - He promised to be with them till the end (Matt.28:20). To individuals who had a concern to leave the churches, the Lord simply said, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" - the Spirit is speaking to the churches collectively, not as individuals.

In loving appeal, may I urge you to reconsider your position and ask God for help. I guarantee you He will show you what the Church is to Him, and point you to where you belong in the Body of Christ. Read I Cor. 12:15-18 and see how important it is to realise our place in collective worship rather than individually. Churches may be weak and imperfect  today, but God wants to see us joining our brethren collectively serving and worshipping Him - because, more than anything else, that is where Jesus Himself gathers with the saints.

Much love in our Saviour.

lol. . .will be good to see how that holds out.

Okay, way to go. I'll advice we take this very interesting discussion about salvation to another thread so I could ease up more and calmly share my views with you on John 3. God bless.


P.S.
Perhaps, if you're going to open the thread, I'll suggest a topic: "What Is Salvation?" or something like that. Anything will do, though.

TY.

my2cents:
Again, sure, there were probably 7 days of celebration for other gods. All I was saying is that it is funny that that date was chosen in the first place. Many years ago, I am sure that date was accepted as fact, until someone started researching that it was too cold for anyone to be out on december 25th.

They are wrong. I lived in the Scandinavia (Sweden, Finland, and Norway) for no less than 4 months on the average because of the nature of my work. You'll be surprised to find that, pregnant women have been very active in winter in these places. In Mongolia, most of the pregnant women are active in winter with domestic chores - even trekking for miles away from home. It doesn't make sense to doubt the timing of the Lord's birth simply because some people researched that "it was too cold for anyone to be out on december 25th." That is the kind of research that emerged recently with a professor suggested that Jesus might not have walked on water but on ice. (find it here). This is one of the few things I wanted to amicably point out to you before you spinned off. Let's just take it e-z and have a sane discussion about issues.

About baptism making people Christians. I'm afraid baptism does not make a person born again as is found in John 1:12-13  and  3:3-5. Many people have been baptized and still were not born again. The Ephesian disciples were baptized and rebaptized after Paul preached to them in Acts 19:1-6. Even Paul stated that he did not baptize any of the Corinthians (except Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas) - I Cor. 1:14-16. Water batism has its own value as a public witness of one's faith in Christ; but nowhere does it make a person "born again" (which is by faith in Jesus Christ). This is not to say that I'm against or play down baptism - I just state that it does not have the power to make anyone "born again."

I hope we can talk now, but if not, let me know  

my2cents:
I c u didn't spot the sarcasm.
I am for reason. I am for battling ideas out. In the end, we can agree to disagree.
So perhaps you should take it easy. It is interesting that some people, when it comes to religion, wd rather jump off a cliff, than reason something out.
Now I can see you are pissed - u used to end your posts with ", bless, ". Now, it is "warm regards" LOL. Make God no bless me again? Na wa o!

@my2cents,

were you really trying to be sarcastic?! - because I wasn't; and if you're suggesting that I didn't "spot the sarcasm", then I take it you left me a sarcasm to spot in your post. No thanks, I don't live my Christian life that way. Again, if you could not reason out anything from my posts, good as well - but I noticed you do have a penchant for petty brawls by stating that "some people. . . wd rather jump off a cliff."

Let me explain something to you. You may not find it difficult to be uncivilized. And, no thanks - I'm not pissed. I thought you'd be mature enough to see that and be grown up; if you still don't, no qualms. I end my posts in several ways than one -

   Peace to all
   Bless up
   Many blessings    
   . . . or simply no subscript at all.

If I wanted, I could say the very same things with "warm regards" - that means I'm pissed? I don't think you really needed to stoop that low. I've asked you to talk to me - in sane discussions. Seeing you're more interested in having a brawl, seeking to be sarcastic than sensible, and coming back with vituperations, I'll leave you to foam in the mouth if you please. And you don't need my blessings for that. When you come back with good points, I'll see ya then.  

You don't get it, do you? Once you begin to sport for a fight (wrestlemania and all that trash talk) - welborn doesn't partake. If you want to learn, re-read my post, sit back and ponder what I've said - then make some sense from it. Need some sane discussion, talk to me.

Warm regards.

my2cents:
Welborn, no need preaching to the choir. I am only reasoning with him and others.

In the end, we shouldn't just go to war based on who said what. We should sit back, ponder what they said and make it a battle of ideas.

Sorry dude  ,

I wasn't preaching to the choir. . . and I most certainly read your post before making comments - you should've seen that if you applied the same rule to yourself. Some of what you stated are not facts - that's why I asked you to take it e-z. When you make issues a battle of ideas, did my rejoinder sound any less so?

Bless up dude.  

Now, now, now, my gentleman, e-z! 

my2cents:
Well then nightrider, allowme to retort . . .
I will agree with you there, but the date chosen is pretty interesting. If my secondary school teaching serves me right, I believe it was originally a day set aside to honor a roman god. It is funny that that day of all days would be chosen. Check out http://www.holidays.net/christmas/story.htm

I really don't know where you stand, but the arguments about Dec.25, Sunday, Saturday, Easter, etc. will lead us nowhere. I amuse myself sometimes by browsing the net for news, and I've come across so many things about each day of the year (including the leap days, Feb.29) dedicated to one god/demon/pagan deity or the other by Romans or some other civilizations. Question: if everyday of the week was owned by a Roman pagan god, did your secondary school teaching not give you what day was dedicated to Christian worship? The interesting thing is that some of the sources I read these things from say that everything in Christianity was borrowed from Roman paganism! Meaning? Simply meaning that. . . you most probably have been eating your breakfast as borrowed from a Roman pagan deity (whoops!!  ). No, seriously.

As for me, I celebrate His birth, death and resurrection in several ways than one - worship in Church, at home singing and dancing to praise songs about the victory of Jesus, His soon coming back, and the glorious hope that awaits wretched sinners like me whom He washed in His blood. His triumph would never be have been possible without His incarnation and birth. I'm not going to let any Roman pagan god dedication (Mithra or otherwise) prevent me from shouting His praise! [size=14pt]Hallelujah!![/size]   

my2cents:
LOL. I don't even want to begin to think what this line means. But again, I will maintain, that for years, we have been led to believe that Jesus was white. If not, y do all the photos, statues, etc show him as such? So sure, Jews are white and black. I am not even saying he was black. He definitely wasn't white.

Okay, Jesus was not black, and He wasn't white - do you have a name for what you describing? I'm still scratching my head. . . maybe, uhm. . "translucent"?  (God, please forgive me!) See, my dear, you've a great mind, but don't waste it. If you're neither here nor there, why bother? The way I see it, He is not racist; and His death on the Cross was to bring people of all cultures, race and tongue together in the divine family of God - see Gal.3:28. He most certainly was born a Jew, and Jews have a colour; but His being black or white does not make you or me any more or less spiritual.

I suppose that II Cor. 5:16 speaks to people who try to ferret out questions of all sorts about the identity of Jesus - His colour, height, sleeping campbag, colour of eye, weight, pedicure and manicure. . . haba! Wetin happen? I just don't care so much about these things: before the incarnation of Jesus, we were all sinners in the eyes of God. So, if God chose to send His Son to the world through the sinful nation of the Jews, is that any worse or better than if God had sent His Son as an American, South African, or Aborigine? God promise that salvation was going to be by the Jews - the prophecy was fulfilled, and that should rest our hearts. 

Let's just rejoice in Jesus - He is the thrill of my soul, and I just can't wait for Him to return - and there'll be so much joy in that day to even be concerned about Dec. 25, Mithra, His skin colour, etc. Just relax and enjoy in Him.

God bless 

Mongue:
Please help and enlighten me so that I can become a supporter of prosperity preaching!! Any facts and figures on where the billions are going would shut people like me up more than saying let's not judge the pastor leave it to God,

Now, my dear Mongue, 

First, God does not seek "a supporter of prosperity preaching" - He doesn't need you or anyone else to support what He's doing; rather, He seeks sincere hearts and true worshippers. . . and He blesses them all the same.

What you have written may seem clever, but it is a mix-up that is at best misdirected. Let me make it clear that I don't support the idea that people should make money by religion - whether Christian, Islam, Free Thinkers, New Ageism, Babalawo, or whatever. Jesus frowned at this bane of religious money making phenomenon in His earthly ministry - in one radical moment, He drove out the merchants in the Temple (Matt. 21:12-13). You'll be surprised that some of His disciples thought He was going to destroy the Roman government of His day ("those brutal politicians" -  the equivalent of the "Roman Occupation" in the land of Israel, as the Iraqis would say of the Americans). But no, He would make them understand that He was not a social disturber - and that's why, even though He was "free" and not obliged to pay taxes, He nonetheless acquiesced and sent Peter to do so on His behalf (Matt. 17:24-27).

However, there is a place for the contributions of believers by their financial giving for the poor (II Cor. 9:1ff).

Your position is sad by suggesting that  Politicians and Pastors are responsible for your troubles. . .you make it sound like all Nigerians are either politicians or Christians. I dare say that there are far more non-Christians and non-political Nigerians who are holding themselves back! It is really unwise for anyone to want to lay a huge weight of the blame on pastors (good or bad) or politicians (astute or criminal). Many Nigerians by default are prone to pointing accusing fingers on others; what are they doing by and for themselves to better their own lives? Ask these same people who they are, story is always the same - zero! It's not surprising therefore that such will be the first to look for others to blame - if it's not their great aunty somewhere, or their jealous neighbour doing 'juju' or 'jazz' for them, or someone somewhere 'remoting' them, then it has to be politicians and pastors. Please!

There are far more criminals than 'politicians and pastors' - we as Nigerians do not trust our own National polity and identity. We don't have to take our billboards to Aso Rock or National Assembly. Our lecturers are corrupt - no one is asking them to account for the money they collect on "handouts" they poorly plagiarise and force on students. God has blessed me (praise Him - and I pray that many more Nigerians will be as blessed) so that I have been able to travel to 7 European countries and USA & Canada. The experience is the same everywhere - if you're seeking admission into their university, you go sweat, because they have it posted on the internet and their faculties that "Nigerian applicants are to strictly adhere to a different rule." Interpretation: they don't trust your kpali - no matter whether you went to first generation universities or bagged a first class.

The Law Enforcement agencies in Nigeria are no exempt from your blame. People in public and private sectors of our economy are equally corrupt - bankers and financiers, businessmen/women, engineers in the oil industry, immigration and customs, pharmaceutical and medical practitioners . . . infact, tell me who in Nigeria today is not to blame for "holding Nigeria back"? You may not agree, but your whimpering is actually contributing to Nigeria's backwardness.

Until we as Nigerians stop pointing accusing fingers at others, we will remain where we are. In 1999, I quipped to a friend abroad, "Obasanjo will seek a third term, unless something happens." Her answer? "Oh, c'mon - the guy's clean and genuine, he's not going to do 'at (sic)." Politicians - especially Nigerian politicians, will continue to be what they are, and there's no golden ray on the horizon that they'll get any better - unless, of course, something happens. YOU will still continue to accuse them, unless, of course, something happens. Same with unscrupulous pastors - they will still go on with their schemes - unless something happens. Churches will still emerge, and some will have their licences revoked. Whatever they say or do is not my headache - I've stopped insulting my dignity with petty accusations and long started living above the problem of unscrupulous politicians, pastors, lecturers, law enforcement agents, bankers, businessmen and -women, engineers, babalawo, and fake doctors. And I don't care the tirade that will follow this post   

Nigeria, live!! Your problem is not the politicians and pastors - you are your problem!

Phew, I was a little busy, so my rejoinder came in a bit late. But thank God for a good day at the office.  

TV01:
Baby4U2/Welborn,

I agree absolutely with the last post.

But "Give to get"? Is "God supplying all our need" predicated on us giving to Him first?
What about the very poor? What about those who bless/help in other ways??
Say I give time, what do I get in return?

Shouldn't that be "give to bless" or "give to honour"

"Give to get" too me has prosperity gospel writtern all over it.

God bless

@TV01,

Give and you'll get - that is prosperity taught by Jesus Himself. You don't agree? Then please elucidate this for me:

Luke 6:38 - "Give, and[b] it shall be given unto you[/b]; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

You may have a problem with prosperity as taught in God's Word, but others like me don't. I used to struggle with this teaching until God used a crisis in my life to teach me the divine principle that anyone who gives receives again. I have experienced His goodness again and again. Your problem is that you take a stance against this issue just because many people have abused the teaching on this and many other issues.

However, the balance of Scripture shows that just because God prospers His people, it does not mean that we are called to focus on and emphasize "prosperity" - that kind of misapplication is largely responsible for the idea behind the "prosperity gospel" message, and I have the feel that you're confusing the two. What is called "prosperity gospel" is an emphasis on material prosperity with very little attention (if any) on the essence of Christianity. This materialism is discountenanced in Scripture in so many verses; e.g. -

Phil. 3:18-19 >>  "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."

I Tim. 6:17 >>  Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy."

No, God's supplying all our need is not predicated on us giving to Him first. But He actually says that giving yields such grace for receiving again in a "running over" proportions. God did not save His children in order to starve them; and if non-Christians can be wealthy, why should spirituality in the Christian faith be synonymous with poverty? The grave mistake so many of us are making is that we want to be smarter than God Himself - when He says clearly in His word that a giver is a receiver, we come up with a dialogue to dissuade our clever minds from applying what He says. This is why those who are complainers are not receivers. No insults meant; but I'll appeal to you to unload your mind of such reasoning and see the transformation that can happen to you.

Good one baby4u2. In addition, here's a little to help.

TV01:

baby4u2 link=topic=10384.msg287679#msg287679 date=1144851772:
my money was given to me by God, so i give a little portion back to get an even greater portion

Could you please explain how this works? It sounds like a sure fire investment.
Only my job sucks and I'd really like to take early retirement.

It's not something that should sound strange: it's there in God's Word -

              "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth
               bountifully shall reap also bountifully." II Cor. 9:6 (please read the whole chapter).

God does not compel me to give - my giving is simply an expression of my love and devotion to His bountiful grace. The fact that the matter of giving has been much abused does not make God change His mind about blessing those who obey His divine principle in any matter. People have abused the Lord's Supper - even in the days of the apostles (I Cor. 11: 21-22), but did God ask them to stop celebrating it? No. While Jesus walked the earth, people had abused the matter of giving and were buying and selling in God's temple; but Jesus did not try to stop people from giving, and even commended the widow who gave her all into the treasury (and we know what the corrupt priests would do with her two mites!) - Mark 12:41-44. Other things which people have abused and continue to abuse are too numerous for me to swell this page with at this time; but God pays very little attention to our whining and complaining and simply looks to the man or woman with an obedient heart. I am called to give - God loves a cheerful giver; but I am not called to be God's accountant - He is the Judge and is quite capable of balancing the books on that Day!

There's nothing that you can claim comes to you by your own power (Deut. 8:17-18). "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." (James 1:17). It is He who "gives richly all things to enjoy" (I Tim. 6:10).

        ". . .and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it,
                   why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" - I Cor. 4:7.


Yes, everything we enjoy today is given to us by God Himself - and to Him be the glory.

With love.  

Tolerance, Seun. . . tolerance If U disappoint with us, wetin we go do?

charlisco:
it is a welcome development, and will give room to those who are anxious to know about muslim to just click once and see all the detail (topic) related to Muslim like wise the Christian too, instead of tudeous searching for topic of your faith

That's the line that I thought made some sense to me. I already know that the boards have been merged - however, no qualms.

TV01:
Which is why certain denominations are not considered truly Christian by others. Since I personally do not belong to any denomination, I wonder how I would be viewed by them?

Hmmm, U know. . . you sorta remind me of many groups I've encountered along the lines of "we are not denominational." It's my personal opinion that they really are as much denominational as others, even though they don't realise it, or try to claim the contrary. Some of the groups I've been in and out of include "Church(es) of Christ" and "Living Stream Ministry" (LSM) (besides several others), and my experience in these say much the same thing that inform your outlook.

I believe denominationalism of any expression (including those who claim to be not denominational) is a sad experience among God's people. However, I believe that separation from some "Christians" whose teachings are aberrational (hyperscriptural or unscriptural) is a direct command of Scripture: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Rom 16:17-18).

You have made good points as well, TV01. However, I really do not care to which group a believer belongs - afterall, how are we sure that our own "undenominational denominationalism" is better than anyone else's in God's sight? I engage in useful conversations with Catholics, LSM, and believers from the various shades of protestantism; and I respect them as Christians while acknowledging that of necessity people sometimes want to be clearly identified for their strain of worship style - in just the same manner that you're stating your own position (undenomination Christian).

I appreciate your inputs, and I'm humbled if my rejoinders have been somewhat ambiguous. We learn everyday, and how much of that I need in my commitment to Christ  

babymine:
I second Charlisco!

You beat me to it! Anyway, I 'third' Charlisco

lioness:
@Hnd - Holder
That means you [catholics] discriminate other christians. You despise other christians that are not catholics.
So every other christian who Christ died for is a protestant, just because they are not catholics.

Maybe Hnd-holder does not actually. He was helping out to inform us of the epistimology (big grammar - "background meaning" of the term "protestant", and in that respect I enjoyed that input.

TV01:
Christians don't have labels. They are just that Christians. No qualification required.

I have no problem with debate between "denominational apologists" (or even those that expend their energy championing various MOG's), but please leave us Christians out of it!

Hi TV01,

I've seen the rejoinder you left me here about MOGs and I'll take time to post a reply. What you do have to understand here is that I was not responding as a "denominational apologist". You're sounding as though "us Christians" excludes every other Christian in the various denominations. Please wake up - that is the most pitious sectarian spirit any believer could ever exhibit.

Listen to what some chaps were arguing about in I Cor. 1:12 - "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." Now those who were claiming "I of Christ" were acting as if others were "denominational" except they themselves. What they didn't realise was that they were as sectarian as those who they regarded as denominational, because they were acting as if others were not equally "of Christ" as much as they. This lullaby of "Catholics are Catholics. . Anglicans are Anglicans. . and ad infinitum" is a bit weathered by now, and we should learn to realise that we are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:26) - and that is precisely what makes a person "born again", regardless the labels used by many today. If some Catholics feel a bit averse to the teaching of being born again, that is what the topic seeks to address.

Much love in Jesus