₦airaland Forum

Zahymaka:
You're beginning to ascribe some atributes to these people that helps label muslims as "bad."

It depends on the level of education. Have you noticed that when there's any butchering, it's usually the uneducated ones who go around doing it?

[size=13pt]and[/size]

Zahymaka:
I'm not talking of "book" education. Haven't you seen Doctors who think only slightly better than a hare? I'm talking of a very different kind of education altogether -- education of the mind.

Ok, I see your meaning. It doesn't change how your earlier post reads. Thanks all the same for setting me straight.

Hnd-holder:
Born against or Again is a fanatical way of protesting. Catholic is catholic they are not protestants. OK

Do Catholics believe in being born again? At least, that is what the topic seeks to address. If Christians (of whatever label - Protestant, etc) point to such verses as John 1:12-13 & 3:3-5 in trying to proffer answers, how has that become fanatical? Let's try and be a bit more mature with our comments.

Zahymaka:
I dislike the implications of what you're saying. . .

It depends on the level of education. Have you noticed that when there's any butchering, it's usually the uneducated ones who go around doing it? It's mainly lack of ignorance that causes this -- but please, don't label muslims bad. When you meet a true muslim you'll know what I'm talking about.

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back." That was made by an "educated Judge" at the impending trial of a Muslim convert in Afghanistan - see here.

Hitler's men (who built the Auschwitz extermination camp that murdered millions) were 'educated'.

The businessmen of Enron who pulled the largest financial scam in US history were 'educated'.

Education does not change a man's heart - no matter how much you expose a man to education, if he is evil at heart, he will still carry out his evil perpetration, and it does not matter if he does so by religion, communism, politics, agnosticism, or whatever else.

I know a lot of Muslims who are warm and tender hearted, and I know a whole lot more Christians whose testimony dwarf mine. There are as many bad people as you can count from any walk of life - political, religious, etc.

Your suggestion of a "true muslim" is a relative connotation until you meet those who call for the Sharia law in the Qur'an. I do hope I don't label anyone (Christian or Muslim) as bad; but I don't see Piddo implying what you're suggesting. We all need wisdom & tolerance to be demonstrated in our lives, and there's no talk of either if people are still pushing ideas like those of the Muslim Afghan Judge.

Peace to all.

I think choice.A said it all - but then, the reversal would not make a huge change. Afterall, nferyn and some others have been to the "Christianity for Christians" and made their inputs. I wonder who's complaining of segregation. Anyway, if the reversal is made, all well and good; but as choice.A noted, some people may sometime feel their religious sensibilities insulted - what then would you do?

kimba:
@wellborn

thank u bro, eh, since everyday originated from some God worship, as from tomorrow, everybody goes on a Holiday!
-----------------------------------

Phew! Thanks bro - even if that wasn't official, I'm on holiday all the same

@zahymaka, you've asked a very legitimate question in one of your sequel posts, and I'd like to present you with a few considerations. Please pardon the many questions in my rejoinder as a way to make you do some thinking privately. You asked a question like:

zahymaka: What I want to know is why the people who chose the books decided that some were biblical and others weren't. I really feel they shoul dall be joined together. This Gospel of Judas however, seems to be from somewhere else. I doubt it's authenticity.

Why Should Only Some Books Be Canonized?

Here again, I'd like to make some sense in what you might be appealing for. I do not know what criteria were adopted for choosing the synoptic Gospels and John's as inspired in preference over the gnostic gospels. In an earlier post, I tried to show that God could have used anybody to bring these books together, and whether or not they were common thieves or political criminals is not the huge deal; it's not who put the NT together but what the Bible teaches that matters the most to me. However, I do believe in my heart that the NT books make more sense than the gnostic documents, for the following reasons:

(1) Scripture is Divinely Inspired (II Tim. 3:16-17 and II Pet. 1:20-21)
The claim of the Bible to divine inspiration is something that is conspicuously lacking in the gnostic documents. Don't get me wrong: some of the gnostic gospels also claim to have been "inspired" (more 'mystic' actually); but then, when you ask certain questions, you're more likely to meet a blank wall than get answers. There's not a single pointer to authentic prophecy (past, present or future) in any of the 29 gnostic artifacts that I've read (bar the Gospel of Judas, until it's published and marketed). There's not a coherent teaching on salvation, the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the nature of heaven, hell, or fellowship among Christians. You will not find any real connection between the OT and the gnostics, and the few that make a hint of it make it sound like they've been quoting another book rather than the OT. I do not need at this point to swell this page with discussions on the inspiration of the Bible as the Word of God (maybe sometime in another thread, it'd be a welcome delight to do so). I just leave you to ask yourself this question: in view of the matters mentioned above, what concrete evidence do you proffer for the divine inspiration of the gnostic documents?

(2) Scripture Speaks to the Heart (Heb.4:12)
How is it that when you read the gnostic documents, you very rarely get the impression that you're being challenged as when you read the Bible? Even as a Christian, do you find divine promises in the gnostics as are recorded in the Bible? Do you feel the power of the Holy Spirit challenging you to joyful obedience, integrity and commitment when you study the gnostics? So many questions, but the point is made: gnosticism does not divinely challenge your life as does the Bible. "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." [Heb 4:12]

(3) Are the Gnostic Documents Consistent?
Put all gnostic materials you can find (there are actually more than 29 of them) and ask yourself if they speak the same thing? At least, you have noticed that "the gospel of Barnabas. . .differs grossly from the accounts of the other gospels" (your earlier quote). Not only so, but all the others differ grossly from one another. When you read several of them, it often has to do with "the secret sayings of Jesus" (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, and now as purported in the Gospel of Judas). You already know what you were asking for by suggesting that "they should all be joined together" - if that ever were to happen, what would be your answer to those who'd ask you why the Bible would be full of "inconsistency" by that time?

(4) Do The Researchers Themselves Have Faith in Their Discoveries?
Watch this: you'll always find that the 'researchers' and 'scholars' who are vendors of these new 'truths' do not ever believe or practise them. This is actually classic with such groups as the Jesus Seminar, who after ten years of debating the "authentic Jesus of history", still do not believe in Him - and yet, they will try to persuade you into believing or having faith in their research.

You may have noticed that 'researchers' and 'scholars' who believe that the canonized NT is a political cover-up and hoax cannot defend the contrarian views of the gnostic documents they banter about as "inspired truth". What sets the Bible apart from all these other documents is its claim to divine inspiration, and that is precisely what these documents are lacking. Earlier, I pointed out that as an example, the Gospel of Thomas pretends to have been written by a "Didymos Judas Thomas" - and I'm amazed that even secular scholars themselves know for a fact that its authorship is spurious, or anonymous at best. The same thing applies to the gospels of Philip, Mary Magdalene, Barnabas, Peter, and several others. . . "no one knows who wrote these documents" is often what researchers will tell you.

Now, the question is, why would anyone want to write a document purporting to be the 'buried truth' of the real story of Christianity and yet subscript them with fictitious names? It's just like writing a document and subscripting it with the name "Zahymaka Kimba Welborn" - sounds authentic, huh?    There was no one called "Didymos Judas Thomas" among the early disciples, and the gospel of Barnabas has not been much debated because anyone would see at once that its author was neither Barnabas nor a true Christian. I wonder, though, why you doubted the authenticty of the authorship of the Gospel of Judas. Good point you made, nonetheless.

It is interesting to note that the Jesus Seminar group has produced a "Scholar's Version" Translation of the New Testament (SV for short). With all their scholarship of over a decade, would you be any surprised that most of them have a less than average commitment to the version of the 'Jesus' they recommend to you? I'll just close with a verse in their own translation:

        "You scholars and Pharisees, you impostors! Damn you! You slam the door of Heaven's domain
         in people's faces. You yourselves don't enter, and you block the way of those trying to enter."
         -- Matt 23:13.

May God have mercy on such 'scholars' who spend sleepless night trying to shut heaven's domain in people's faces - don't let it happen to you.


With kind thoughts and warmest regards.

@Zahymaka, I've had a very busy day so could not post what I had for you last night, so here it is as a rejoinder to where we left off. As a friend I'd like to help strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ (assuming that you're indeed a Christian) when you can see the difference that trusting the Bible makes. I'll do this in two parts with regards to your concerns:

The Paganised Sunday Issue

First, from whatever source(s) you're reading or quoting, they have the same connotation for every single day of the week:

  Sunday         -   official day of worship of the Sun god (Mithra) by Roman pagans and other ancient cultures.
  Monday        -   day dedicated to the worship of the moon or moon god.
  Tuesday       -   'Tiu', also 'Tiw', was associated with Mars who was the Roman god of War.
  Wednesday  -   associated with Odin the god of war, wisdom, agriculture and poetry; also regarded as
                           the god of the dead.
  Thursday      -   ascribed to 'Thor', the god of thunder (hence, aka 'Thunderday')
  Friday           -   in ancient Rome named 'dies Veneris' as having been dedicated to the goddess Venus
  Saturday      -   'Dies Saturni' (Latinised) meaning the 'Day of Saturn' (Saturn [Roman] was also
                          called Kronos by the Greeks).

So, if you're inclined to believe the hoo-ha on the net about the paganised Christian adoption of Sunday, in fair exchange be open minded, at least, to believe as well that your preference for Saturday as a day of worship was paganised from the Greeks who dedicated it to Kronos.

You see, what is happening is that some 'scholars, authorities and researchers' are trying to short-change you with only one aim in mind - to take your eyes off the Bible. Discovering the gnostic documents and other artifacts is not new; what is interesting is that some people will easily fall for the fraudulent assertion that these gnostic 'gospels' are the 'emerging truths' that are to replace the NT Gospels. Have you ever asked yourself if anyone of these 'authorities, scholars or researchers' have applied the teachings of these gnostic documents in their own lives? Yet, they want you to throw your Bible away and believe the 'truth' of gnosticism that they themselves have no iota of faith in.

Quoting from one of the links you recommended, this is what has been giving most people the migraine:

       "Contrary to popular belief, there is not the slightest indication in the Bible that Sunday
        observance may have originated with Christ or the apostles."    quoting your weblink

"'Not the slightest indication in the Bible"'? Are these fellows serious, or have they been reading another Bible? Any careful reader of the Scriptures knows at least that Saturday is the seventh day of the week, and that our calendar Sunday is the first day. From the two scriptures I quoted earlier, there is clear indication in the Bible itself that Sunday was quite the normal day of Christian worship - "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (Acts 20:7) and "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." The first day of the week was not derived from Mithra worship - 'scholars' saying that are selling you a big propaganda. Sunday, the first of the week, was the day Christ rose from the dead, and that is what the disciples come together to celebrate in worship - Christ's victory in resurrection over death and Satan, and the establishing of a new covenant that promises a future to believers.

The same source quoted some so-called authorities as having written:

         "It [Mithraism] had so much acceptance that it was able to impose on the Christian world
          its own Sun-day in place of the Sabbath. . ."

and

          "The early Christians had at first adopted the Jewish seven-day week, with its numbered
          week days, but by the close of the third century A.D. this began to give way to the
          planetary week. . ."

Smoke screen. I'm amazed that the authority did not insinuate that the Jewish seven-day week was adopted from the worship of the Greek deity Kronos. I've personally done a check up on these quotes and it's sad to say that these authorities were making bogus claims that could not be authenticated. They were selling their armchair ideas, and even an honest skeptic would tell you that there's nothing scholarly in them.

It is bogus 'scholarships and researches' like these floating on the web that most people are inclined to believe - for the simple reason that they have not read the Bible for themselves, and they don't want to. When these half-baked scholars make assertions like "there is not the slightest indication in the Bible that Sunday observance may have originated with Christ or the apostles", you know who's been trying to blow a smoke screen in your face.

Second part follows shortly. With much love in Christ.

@jagunalbi, you obviously ran out of steam to make any point and so it's understandable that you're backslapping nferyn. Prejudices apart, what I'd like to know is how you or nferyn know that his own version of his tales form the 'truth' of Christianity. For example, does nferyn really understand Jewish traditions before he could debunk the inspired authors of the NT on the basis of the trial of Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin? As for the advice to others to study mythology or history, some of us already do both and more - on the whole, it's a pity that most of the sources you might've been ferreting your ideas from do not represent scholarship at any level.

I'm open to read nferyn discuss what he really knows about Jewish tradition. It's not now a matter of clobbering the PC screen with weblinks - just you tell me what you know for yourself to be Jewish tradition - here or another thread: the choice is yours.

Blessing.

Ok, so you chose not to quote the Gnostic Gospels or the NT. I've seen those links before and have loads of others saved in my 'favourites' folder on my PC. You haven't given me a concrete basis for the belief that Saturday was the normal day of collective worship for the early Christians - that is, if you're taking the early Christians to be the same that received the promise of the Spirit in Acts 2.

What do you have to say about the Acts 20:7 and I Cor. 16:2?

Zahymaka:
Sunday was the official day of worship of the Sun and most "converts" still did so on Sunday.

You said that before, I saw it. I had hoped you'd give me some references - Gnostic or NT, the choice is yours.

My dear, you and some other felas just sort of surprise me. I thought you guys had big 'gbosa' for me so that I go scurrying under my bed. Alright, smile - just teasing you.

Let me ask you something: would I be sent to hell if I don't celebrate Christmas?

Now Sunday: on what day did the early Christians normally gather for worship?

Like what?

owo:
4. Why should there be [size=13pt]beating in the name of deliverance[/size]?

So. . .??!!?       Was I so colossally wrong?

welborn: It's just like someone reading Isa.53:5 - "with his stripes we are healed" - and then he/she picks up koboko to swipe at the cele brethren for healing (thank God they don't go that far - or. . . could I be wrong about that also?).

Haa!! Really?? Someone quipped to me the other day about this flogging and koboko issue in Cele and I just grimaced it off. Didn't know that _[i]ziiiip[/i]_!!  

Zahymaka:
It is good to take everything with a pinch of salt. Many people have read only one book -- the Bible -- and not others. I have done lots of research . . .

In that case I'm taking everything you said here and elsewhere with a pinch of salt.

Zahymaka:
I don't know what to believe -- but I am a Christian myself and I always pray for guidance but I suggest that instead of jumpings o righteously to make your protests, you should do reasearch -- lots of it and deduce for yourself.

Research or no research, simple faith in Jesus Christ is what guarantees salvation and nothing else. Your post is nothing different from what "researchers" always conclude at the end of the day - "I don't know what to believe -- but I am a Christian myself". Typical.

I'll tell you what: do more research, and you'll still come back to say the same thing.

"Lots of research" does not guarantee you the gift of the Holy Spirit. God knows what He's doing, and He has reserved His promise of the Spirit to only those who know and believe the real Jesus Christ - you'll find Him in the Bible. Doubt it to your loss. The Holy Spirit is not given to confuse anyone into confessing "I don't know what to believe"; rather, the ministry of the Spirit is that we may know who we are, what we believe, and why we believe.

Peace.

Lol. . .

Saul persecuted Christians but later became a Christian himself (so he was known also as Paul). If other Christians are 'persecuting' you in like manner, e go tay before they become [b]C[/b]ele later (if it's at all possible!).

Hello again TV01,

First, I'll offer you two things: (a) from the Biblical point of reference, the MOG concept is not a man-made tradition; (b) whatever is referenced in Scripture has been much abused by man; but abuse does not render God's work ineffective.

From my previous posts you'll see the references I made to specific mention of 'man of God' in scripture ('man' here again as a generic term for men and women). Let's understand this: when God says something by divine revelation, it does not speak well of anyone to suggest it as otherwise man-made.

Second, in many circles people have abused the term and applied it to just about anybody who hardly fits the description. However, this does not render it untenable itself or inapplicable to our day. There are real men of God today, and like I said earlier, not every believer is actually walking in the character of men and women of God.

The distinction between men of God and other believers does appear in Scripture in the following examples:

(1) (Wo)Men of God are qualified leaders and not novices
This is clear from both OT and NT examples. Moses, Samuel, Shemiah, Elijah, Elisha, David are all examples of men of God, and their leadership skills distinguished them from their fellow Israelites. When Paul used the term twice (I Tim. 6:11 and II Tim. 3:17), he most definitely had leadership in mind. Men and women of God are people trained and equipped by Him to lead others who are not as experienced in matters relating to the life of faith. I might say: novices are born, leaders are made. It takes time, labour, experience and acquired wisdom to be a man/woman of God.

(2) (Wo)Men of God set examples for others
Paul's encouragement to Timothy is pastoral, and you'll see that in I Tim. 1:3 & 18 the apostle commits a charge to him in no ordinary way that he would have done in general terms to just every believer. Leaders are set by God in His Church to lead others, and these leaders labour to set examples to those in their care because they'll be called upon to give an account for their stewardship. "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation." (Heb. 13:7).

(3) Only Leaders who are (Wo)Men of God can fulfill certain roles
Even when we have the glorious liberty of approaching God through Christ for ourselves, that does not rule out the fact that God's House has precedence of administration (I do not mean hierarchy in the secular sense - see Matt. 20:25-26). The elders play an important role in special situations of prayer - "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (James 5:14). I have seen cases where people reasoned that they could dispense with that verse, and they never got an answer from God until they repented and called for the elders of the church!

Anyone just claiming to be what God has not made him (pastor, apostle, elder, bishop, or leader of sorts) really doesn't know the Word of God. However, just because so many people have abused these gifts and offices does not nullify the fact that God still calls such men and women of God today to be leaders. Just because Christian men are sitting in a church service does not make them all 'men of God'. Those who want to dispense with God's laid down precedence in Scripture about who a man/woman of God is, or what it takes to be one, are not reading with a large heart to receive quietly all that God says. Men of God are needed in our day - because not everyone qualifies as such.

You might have read it many times, but I recommend you read again I Cor. 12:28-31.

Blessings.

Ol' boy, join us - it's been heating up ever since: go here

nightrider:
try telling her that God doesn't exist

Thank God for that testimony. But this isn't really about atheism - questions of whether or not God exists. Some gentlemen may not be denying the existence of God, but they are trying to push the idea that the NT is a fraud, Christianity as we know it today is a big hoax, the Gospel of Judas is the 'emerging truth' (though they neither believe in it themselves or know what it contains), etc., etc.

This one was a real crack - I haven't stopped laughing for hours -

jagunlabi:
Why are you preaching to me, now? This is a forum and not a church.now.State you own opinion on the issue.I doneed the preaching.I get enough of that during services.

As kimba noted, which "service" be that? Na babalawo be d minister or who? Wetin una dey read for worship. . . or service - Judas, abi? Ok, I take it back - I don't mean to be out of sync with anyone, but I'm still rolling on my sides.

Perhaps later, I'll post one of those "challenges" a liberal Christian who believes the Judas text sent me. Relax, it won't make you lose sleep tonight

Seun:
The same Paul that said wives should submit to their husbands also said that it is better not to get married. Why are Paul's uninformed opinions on marriage (afterall he was not married) being taken as the word of God?

Cough. . . er, let me add a few things.  

I think Seun's concerns are legitimate. However, he supposes that I Cor. 7:1 (if that's the reference he had in mind) was an instruction for men not to get married. If that were true, it would contradict all other teachings on marriage. Paul simply states: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." [KJV]. Only in some paraphrased versions that miss the point like GNB (Good News Bible) and the NIV (New International Version) will one find the word "marry" in place of "touch", as in - "Now, to deal with the matters you wrote about. A man does well not to marry." [But see the footnote of I Cor. 7:1 in NIV.] Why is this distinction necessary at all? So many people have confused the two and seemingly concluded that Paul must have contradicted himself, and some of these versions have not helped to better understand what was meant there.

The greek word translated "touch" in I Cor. 7:1 is 'haptomai' and is not the same as the greek word 'gameo' for "marry" in verse 9 ("let them marry [gameo]: for it is better to marry [gameo] than to burn". Touching a woman is not the same as marrying her; it portrays the idea of approaching her for sex without any established connections/relations like marriage. That is what Paul discouraged.

[A friend jokingly sent me his own pidgin translation I Cor. 7:1 - "Ehen, about dat thing wey una ask me before - make I just yarn una: e beta say make no man tap current from any sista in oda to self-service am!"     (Okay, he was not inspired - just kidding in pidgin!).]

In other verses we see the same consistency maintained throughout scripture. In the OT, the same thought is expressed in Hebrew words: hayah (marry) and naga (touch in a general way, but used in the same sense here discussed).

Gen. 20:6 - "Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch [naga]her." [ESV]

Pro 6:29 - "So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth [naga]her shall not be innocent. [KJV]

Num 36:6 - "This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry [hayah] to whom they think best; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry [hayah]."

The sum of all this is that Paul was not contradicting himself. He did not say it was better not to marry in I Cor. 7:1, but that believers should abstain from illicit sexual relationships - the context of this argument is borne out in the very next verse where he says: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (v.2). You can see he actually adviced that believers should get married.

@ jagunlabi and TV01,

I was waiting until now to see what conclusions you'd both reach. Seems to me that when jagunlabi posited that "the entire mainstream christianity is pagan", you agreed with him on the premise that it is "clearly in all denomination/institutional Christianity." Do you understand the play of words in what you're both bantering about?

What makes you a "Christian apologist" is not your mere opposition to Catholicism or the various shades of Protestantism (Anglican, Pentecostal, or what have you). From jagunlabi's summations, anything 'Christian' is paganism - and by acquiescing to his views, you're also in effect nodding in agreement that you're a pagan, whether or not you style yourself an apologist.

Let me remind you of his suppositions:

(1) 

jagunlabi:
I say once again that any christian of whatever variation, who accuses catholism of paganism, is automatically calling him or herself a pagan.

(2)
welborn:  jagulabi, before you ferret out your quasi-list of paganism, would I be correct in calling you a pagan?
jagunlabi:  Aren't we all? O ma se o! Little do we know.

(3) jagunlabi:  "So if we should start doubting the validity of catholics as true christians, then we might as well start doubting the entire mainstream christiandom with all it's diverse variants, which will also include protestants,and all the entire african churches in their diverse forms, because they are all based on catholic dogma and doctrine."

Jagunlabi could care less what shade, variation or hue of Chrsitianity you parade - his curt answer is all forms of Christianity is pagan - including yours, TV01. So, don't even try to play Russian roulette here by acquiescing to jagunlabi's views at any point in hope that everything is agreeably wrong with others except your own. You might be surprised that he'd come back sometime in the near furture to write yours off as the worst type of paganism.

I know lots of churches even in America who are neither fundamentalist nor Catholic, and you'll have to be truly prejudicial to call them 'institutional' or unbiblical. I may not be Catholic or Anglican, but I dare say that anyone who has believed in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, and expresses that conviction in church worship and commitment, is my brother and sister in the common faith of our Lord.

        Gal 3:26  -  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

No denomination (mine, yours or others') makes anyone less of a Christian or more of a pagan because they don't follow certain recommendations of our own interpretations of the Bible. There were lots of Catholics who would attend Deeper Life crusades as I witnessed back in Uniben during my undergraduate days. We are not perfect, and that's why discussions like this on Nairaland help us to rub minds together on issues so we could all learn God's truth in the Bible. Acquiescing to label other believers 'pagan' because they happen to be in the semantics of 'denomination/institutional Christianity' does not make anyone a Christian apologist.

Secondly, when jagunlabi insinuated that "all the entire african churches in their diverse forms. . .are all based on catholic dogma and doctrine", it's clear he just wants to be insidiously mischievous. His assertions lack any real substance, because he would need to have gone through everyone of those churches to make such a broad and exaggerated claim. Otherwise why would people oppose what they might be following? Why did Tunde Bakare (in one of his messages on 'The Reformers') oppose Catholic doctrine if Latter Rain Assembly was based on 'catholic dogma and doctrine'? Such generalizations as jagunlabi's are simply unjustifiably accusative and prejudicial.

I'm not a Catholic nor a pagan. If Catholic doctrine is not based on God's truth in Scripture but rather on the tradition of Catholicism, much as I want to respect its adherents' choice to remain so, I humbly voice my position that I'm non-Catholic in my faith, witness and commitment to Christ. That does not automatically make me a pagan, and anyone who can't see the difference has not understood the nature of Christian apologetics.

Without rancour and with much blessing.

Hi TV01,

I would agree with TYPOP about the generic use of the term 'man' as inclusive of men and women.

However, the dichotomy of clergy and laity you're referring to is another matter entirely. The clergy-laity phenomenon does not seem to be a scriptural teaching, even though I've tried to think of the possibility by any chance. Every believer is included in I Pet.2:9; but not every believer knows the import of the term 'man (or woman) of God'. You'd have to convince yourself that men or women of God are no where found in scripture before you can consign it to church tradition. Go through the Bible and you'll find that there were many such men and women of God whose examples we can follow today.

TV01:
And if we are looking for a man (or woman), isn't that why He was fully man and fully God?

Maybe I didn't quite understand you here, but it wasn't because anyone was looking for a man (or woman) that's "why He was fully man and fully God". Scripture gives us several reasons why Jesus (the divine Son of God) became Man. Besides a few others that readily come to mind, He came to do the Father's will and to glorify Him (John 4:34 & 17:4), not because we were looking for a man or woman of God.

Peace.

@4real, I don't know much about cele. I agree with you that the verses quoted by GREED and goodguy in defense of cele practices were misapplied. It's just like someone reading Isa.53:5 - "with his stripes we are healed" - and then he/she picks up koboko to swipe at the cele brethren for healing (thank God they don't go that far - or. . . could I be wrong about that also?).

Again, let's temper the debate here with some mercy. I shuddered to read your line that: "most of you are nothing but fake." Everyone has their perspective and interpretations of Biblical texts, which I have learnt to respect. I understand your passion to have typed that line, but don't you think that was something huge?

*****************************
And for my 'Cele-brites' (as they call them in my quarters), try not snatching verses out of context - whether concerning oil, candle, holy water or white garment. Try Rev. 19:8 - "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." That should be clear enough that white garments in scripture is figurative language for the righteousness of the saints, not the white garment that you want to defend in cele.

Hot_Coco,

I chose to be reserved with some part of my first rejoinder to yours, guessing if this was what you'd come back with - and indeed, it's no different from what many people who have partial views have tried to noise abroad.

Hot_CoCo:
@ Welborn: There is speculation on the identity of John. That is why i asked the question who knew 'Jesus' firsthand.

The speculations about identities are not only about John - the same sources you're (or might be) referring to also speculate about the identity of John's writings (the Revelations a prime example), as well as the identity of every other disciple/apostle. Have you asked yourself why they do this? In the first place, they have no concrete answers at the end of the day about who is who; and they want to prepare grounds for giving credence to the Gnostic Gospels by discrediting the authenticity of the NT and parts of the OT. An example of such discrediting of the NT Gospels is the campaign for the Gnostic counterparts such as the Gospel of Thomas, which has as its author "didymos Judas Thomas." Those who strenuously accept the Thomas' text have not applied the same vigour in speculating about its author. Does that surprise you? If you want to peruse a list of the apostles, check out Matt. 10:1-5 and Mark 3:14-19. The Gospel of Thomas was written by yet another anonymous Gnostic who was neither Thomas nor Judas.

Matthew was a personal follower of Jesus. Luke was a physician who was not among the twelve that personally followed Jesus, but whose Gospel was sourced from eyewitness accounts (Luke 1:2-3). Mark was supposedly a scribe for the apostle Peter in producing the Gospel of Mark. He is usually called 'John Mark' (Acts 12:25), but should not be confused with the apostle John (John 21:24).

Hot_CoCo:
I am uncomfortable with the fact that the bible was put together by a Roman leader who worshiped Mithra, a pagan deity from the old religion which existed before Christianity.

Rest your heart my dear. I've never been troubled by that, though I understand your concern. I'll not offer an excuse through the back door, but I can confidently say two things here in that regard:

(a) it's not who was responsible for putting the Bible together, but rather what the Bible says, that is of utmost importance to me. If that kind of prejudice continually feeds our minds, how many things would we lose? It even gets worse: who was Rahab (Matt.1:5)? You and I know that she was a 'scarlet woman'* (Josh. 2:1) and yet she happens to be one of the ancestors of the sinless Saviour. Who among the ancestors of Jesus was sinless? No one. Yet, would we reject Him just because __? No. So, just because imperfect men put together the perfect Word does not give me a migraine - my faith is rather in what the Bible teaches, not in who preserved or arranged it.

(b) God works in mysterious ways, using those who are despised to work about things honourable (I Cor. 1:27-29). The Son of God was born to a poor family, lived and ministered among poor and sick folks, and in all that God was glorified. I'm reminded of how God could even put prophecy in the mouth of those who persecuted Jesus (see John 11:49-50). Caiaphas gave the 'prophecy' that one man was to die for the nation, and it was recorded that he didn't speak ordinarily by himself in that declaration - yet the prophecy was put in his mouth simply for his occupying the high priestly office at that time.

Again, I don't question an event or document simply because of the bias that a pagan did this or that. In the same way, I'm not perturbed about the Gospel of Judas, or Gospel of Thomas, or any other discoveries: my one quest is 'what does it represent - truth or misrepresentation?'

Hot_CoCo:
It is interesting how far Christianity has taken Africans. Note from the time Africans picked up the bible given to them by the Europeans who then turned round and enslaved them to now, African people have been in a state of suffering and still call out to a name that they don't even know the origin of. Yet the Europeans have deserted Christianity in droves and they are enjoying life more than us. Could it be that we have been conditioned to empower their deity, which has been created in their image, by doing the worshiping on their behalf.

I beg to disagree with you on this one, especially as you mixing up issues here. Apart from news and articles on European life, I have travelled extensively and witnessed things for myself that don't square with your summation. "Enjoying life" is a relative phrase and depends on what you mean by that. However, life in America, Canada, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Denmark, Germany, Ireland (all places I've visited) may be "enjoyable" economically in contrast to the African experience; but the moral decline is colossal. How many Nigerians have I met in the USA (Georgia and New York) who have told me that after ten years or more, they are heading home to Nigeria for the simple reason that they can't stand the moral declension in the West. The authenticity of the Christian faith does not stand or fall on the notion that 'Europeans gave it to Africans' or that any group is abandoning the Christian faith in droves. If the truth of God's Word has been proven time and again in my life, it would be foolhardy for me to abandon it with the rest of the 'drove'.





* 'scarlet woman' is the euphemism for 'prostitute/harlot' in the part of the world where I live.

joftech:
@welborn, tell me, do you belief in traditional African religion?

I doubt that you will say yes. We are conditioned to belief what we are taught when we are born, and we most likely held to it as the truth and doubt anything that's at variance with it.

It's very very possible for someone to repress anybody's view once you are an authority figure.

Read about Galileo Galilei here and see what the Pope did during his time.

@joftech, sorry to say, but you probably didn't read me well.

To answer your question, I'll offer you another - does traditional African religion (TAR) save my soul from sin or make me a child of God? I'll guarantee you one thing that TAR can't give anyone: it lacks the power of the Holy Spirit.

Indeed, the Gospel of Judas is at variance with the Bible - and that gives you sleepless nights? If it is the 'truth' for you and is not at variance with TAR, by all means don't just talk it - believe it and live it! Don't ask me to put my faith in something you yourself neither know, believe in nor practice. . . that's what the Bible calls hypocrisy. You still have yet to show me why you'd like me to believe in an anonymous document before you lump me off as "an authority figure" who tries to "repress anybody's view" - need I say that's an awkward inference on your part.

The thing that amazes me is, guys like you don't have a rational basis for pushing the Judas text in preference to the NT. I've outlined at least four reasons why the Gospel of Judas is weak in substance by any consideration, which are here reposted in question type in case you missed them:

    (a) Was Judas the author of the 'Gospel of Judas'?

    (b) Did the author of the Judas text know Jesus firsthand?

    (c) How did Judas "exceed" the other Dicsiples?

    (d) Is the Judas text a 'Gospel'?

You certainly would not expect me to play the fool by anchoring my faith in something you have no answers to. In fair exchange, tell me, do you believe in Jesus Christ? If you want to be a TAR pastor/bishop on this Forum, where in my posts did I sound like an 'authority figure' repressing your views on that?

Hot_CoCo:
Tell me which one of the authors Mark, Matthew Luke and John knew Jesus firsthand?

Hot_Coco, seems you haven't read the NT yourself. Until then, you'd little realise that the answer is staring you in the face.

Great. No sleepless nights.

@jagunlabi,

Phew! Is that all you could do - just Christmas, and the whole of Christianity in your eyes became paganised? I'm disappointed, you know. I thought you would come back with one big 'gbosa' that we haven't heard before. If you actually took the time to seek out the true essence of the Christian faith, we would not have wasted the precious time of readers on this board.

jagunlabi, grow up and be mature about this. You really are sporting for a petty fight aint you? But no thanks. Is there any point in trying to be so childish about this matter? If you believe on a Jesus of a 'contrarian view', good for you; then go ahead and post your trash on the thread from wherever you can borrow them on the web - there's nothing new, and I most certainly have read them all and can help you get some more if you happen to run out of your bag of tricks. I'm really surprised you're referring to Jesus as a "he"; didn't one of your Gnostic 'buried truth' refer to Jesus as a "she" and called his name "Judith"? http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44563 .

You obviously know nothing about the Biblical Christ, so tell me about your 'contrarian Jesus' and your relationship to him/she/it - it doesn't matter if he/she/it is the direct twin brother (or sister/something) to Lucifer who masquerades as an angel of light.

You might address yourself as a pagan - good for you. I am a Christian, not a pagan. To refer to others as "paganised" is to cast aspersions on them from a prejudiced point of reference. It's the same thing as calling the entire pagan movement "ritual killers" because I know from first hand experience that some pagans do this. You'd just have to be civilised when you address people and not let your thoughts run wild because of your biases.

Be my guest. I'm always tuned to Jesus - and time will tell when He comes back!

I'm sorry to notice that your ignorance is telling on you. What you call "buried truths" is laughable because you'd only make sense if you're reading your own biases with an open mind. If what you're calling "truth" is a document with anonymous authorship, I need not say anymore - it's obvious you're neither seeking truth nor being rational. If the devil produced a document without an identifiable authorship, you'd most certainly be obliged to call it 'truth' as long as it helps your lollygag campaign against authentic Christianity. Even honest skeptics don't refer to anonymous and fictitious tales as 'truth', and this is why you really need to re-examine your heart in light of your own conclusions.

"Buried truth" - and how much of it do you believe or practise? Christianity is all about faith in God through Jesus Christ; Gnosticism is the very opposite - faith in secret knowledge as opposed to divine truth. Now if the Gnostic Gospel of Judas (which was written neither by Judas nor a disciple) is part of your 'buried truth', how much of it do you believe or practise for yourself? This is why the one thing that amazes me is that those who push the agenda of a "contrarian view" of Jesus neither believe in nor practise their own agenda. Imagine calling something you cannot trust by yourself "truth".

@jagunlabi, do you have a more practical joke than the one you borrowed from msnbc.com?

jagulabi, before you ferret out your quasi-list of paganism, would I be correct in calling you a pagan?