AssemblyBoard
March 22, 2019, 10:55:17 am *
The board has been closed to new content. It is available as a searchable archive only. This information will remain available indefinitely.

I can be reached at brian@tucker.name

For a repository of informational articles and current information on The Assembly, see http://www.geftakysassembly.com
 
   Home   Search  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Samuel  (Read 8976 times)
Margaret
Guest


Email
« on: December 24, 2005, 02:57:36 am »

In reference to the recent posts on the Wounded Pilgrim thread about Samuel's visit to Chicago, I wonder if it was similar to his visit in Fullerton in 2003?  http://www.geftakysassembly.com/Articles/AssemblyTeachingPractice/SamuelInFullerton.htm  Apparently he was in the US again last year (2004), when he spoke in Forest Park? He was in So. Cal. last week--anybody heard anything?
« Last Edit: December 24, 2005, 05:05:33 am by Margaret » Logged
matthew r. sciaini
Guest


Email
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2005, 05:16:48 am »

Margaret:

I was invited by Bob Ressegue to attend a film-showing time and potluck a few weeks ago at his house, where Samuel was to show slides of Nigeria, but I did not go.


Matt
Logged
al Hartman
Guest


Email
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2005, 06:21:17 am »



I was invited by Bob Ressegue to attend a film-showing time and potluck a few weeks ago at his house, where Samuel was to show slides of Nigeria, but I did not go.



Good call, Matt.  True Christians don't believe in "luck."  Unless they invite you to a potgrace, don't go!  (Even at that, first find out what they mean by "pot.")

al Wink
Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2005, 10:23:12 am »

No I don't know how to get in touch with John.  I called his number just now but there was no answer.  I saw him last year when Samuel Ochingala spoke in Forest Park.  All the people who had left received an invitation to come and here him speak.  He asked if I had found a church and I told him I was checking out a Pentecostal one.   He basically said some of the same things you said in this post in light of not judging the churches that I visit to harshly.  I will ask Gene when I go for my next dentist appointment how to get in touch with John and let you know.

I'm curious thomasson.  What was Samuel's message about?

Marcia
Logged
thomasson
Guest


Email
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2005, 10:42:07 am »

I'm curious thomasson.  What was Samuel's message about?

Marcia

I honestly do not remember.  But I left with the impression that because they did not have regular visits from Bro George they did not feel they had put him on a pedestal as much as we did.  And now I am trying to remember if the meeting was the end of 2003 or early 2004.
Logged
thomasson
Guest


Email
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2005, 10:45:43 am »

It would seem that those doing the inviting believe that Samuel retains enough credibility to warrant a hearing.
Business mut be quite good if he is indeed flying to the US yearly...
But seriously, it would be a confirmation of their calling of one of these guys could convince George to repent.
Verne


I don't know if it is so much that business is good.  His son is in school in Charleston so I think he tries to see him as often as he can
Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2005, 11:08:39 am »

I honestly do not remember.  But I left with the impression that because they did not have regular visits from Bro George they did not feel they had put him on a pedestal as much as we did.  And now I am trying to remember if the meeting was the end of 2003 or early 2004.

Are you saying that because they had not put George on a pedestal, they were not really influenced by his ministry?

And do you agree with them?

Marcia
Logged
thomasson
Guest


Email
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2005, 11:22:15 am »

Are you saying that because they had not put George on a pedestal, they were not really influenced by his ministry?

And do you agree with them?

Marcia

I would like to believe that they were not.  I would like to believe that some of the things I saw in Samuel were as a result of his being Nigerian moreso then his being influenced by Brother George. 
Logged
outdeep
Guest


Email
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2005, 06:25:53 pm »

Are you saying that because they had not put George on a pedestal, they were not really influenced by his ministry?

And do you agree with them?

Marcia
My guess (and realize this is just somewhat educated guess because I really don't know) is that it is kind of a yes and no. 

On the yes George did influence Samuel side, Samuel did think very highly of George.  I remember back at a prayer meeting where we rejoiced because Samuel took a stand and was execercising exclusion (i.e., we don't meet with you because you don't worship right).  Samuel was around enough to be schooled adequately in many of the carry-over PB principles and ideas of George.  Since no one in the US could conprehend them, most of George's books were sent to Africa where they request Christian literature of any kind.  God only know what they got out of them.  (Some of us undercomers used to joke about the toilet paper shortage in Africa, but that is another story.) 

The Assembly did help Samuel with building his house, etc. (US dollars go a long way in Africa) so that created a tie that would be hard to break.  Samuel referred to George as his father in the faith and named one of his sons after him.

On the no George didn't influence Samuel side, Samuel didn't have a full time Betty to take George's principles to its uttermost inanity.  Further, George needed Samuel as much as Samuel needed George.  He was a major "open door" in George's world-wide journey that took him all over the world.  For the same reason, George had been interested in China for years because to his generation "the land of China" (they would say it like that) always represented the uttermost parts of the world.

Anyway, because of this, I suspect George treated Samuel well enough that he wanted to stay loyal.  I'm not sure we always got the same treatment in the US.

Again, just my guess and I welcome correction on this.

Logged
matthew r. sciaini
Guest


Email
« Reply #9 on: December 25, 2005, 06:01:26 am »

Al:

Actually, the term "pot-luck" comes from a Native American word (potlach) referring to feasts that they would hold from time to time.  I forget from which tribal tongue the phrase comes.

Matt
Logged
thomasson
Guest


Email
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2005, 03:25:09 am »

My guess (and realize this is just somewhat educated guess because I really don't know) is that it is kind of a yes and no. 

On the yes George did influence Samuel side, Samuel did think very highly of George.  I remember back at a prayer meeting where we rejoiced because Samuel took a stand and was execercising exclusion (i.e., we don't meet with you because you don't worship right).  Samuel was around enough to be schooled adequately in many of the carry-over PB principles and ideas of George.  Since no one in the US could conprehend them, most of George's books were sent to Africa where they request Christian literature of any kind.  God only know what they got out of them.  (Some of us undercomers used to joke about the toilet paper shortage in Africa, but that is another story.) 


Dave:

After reading your post and thinking about it some more I can see your point.  But somehow I see Samuel being more influenced by Roger Grant then Brother George.  And I think that because of Roger's influence Samuel may be relearning a lot of things like the rest of us are.
Logged
moonflower2
Guest


Email
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2005, 06:47:33 am »

Al:

Actually, the term "pot-luck" comes from a Native American word (potlach) referring to feasts that they would hold from time to time.  I forget from which tribal tongue the phrase comes.

Matt

Hi Matt,

I spoke with someone who is familiar with many Native American languages who said  that it was a custom widespread among the Northwest Coastal tribes like the Salish.
Logged
M2
Guest
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2005, 10:57:24 am »

My guess (and realize this is just somewhat educated guess because I really don't know) is that it is kind of a yes and no. 

On the yes George did influence Samuel side, Samuel did think very highly of George.  I remember back at a prayer meeting where we rejoiced because Samuel took a stand and was execercising exclusion (i.e., we don't meet with you because you don't worship right).  Samuel was around enough to be schooled adequately in many of the carry-over PB principles and ideas of George.  Since no one in the US could conprehend them, most of George's books were sent to Africa where they request Christian literature of any kind.  God only know what they got out of them.  (Some of us undercomers used to joke about the toilet paper shortage in Africa, but that is another story.) 

The Assembly did help Samuel with building his house, etc. (US dollars go a long way in Africa) so that created a tie that would be hard to break.  Samuel referred to George as his father in the faith and named one of his sons after him.

On the no George didn't influence Samuel side, Samuel didn't have a full time Betty to take George's principles to its uttermost inanity.  Further, George needed Samuel as much as Samuel needed George.  He was a major "open door" in George's world-wide journey that took him all over the world.  For the same reason, George had been interested in China for years because to his generation "the land of China" (they would say it like that) always represented the uttermost parts of the world.

Anyway, because of this, I suspect George treated Samuel well enough that he wanted to stay loyal.  I'm not sure we always got the same treatment in the US.

Again, just my guess and I welcome correction on this.

Dave:

After reading your post and thinking about it some more I can see your point.  But somehow I see Samuel being more influenced by Roger Grant then Brother George.  And I think that because of Roger's influence Samuel may be relearning a lot of things like the rest of us are.

Hi thomasson,

Looks like you are saying you see Dave's point but disagree with him.

Those are the facts as I remember them too, and added to that there was hospital aid, and a school as well, and children's ministry training.

In light of the facts I believe that Samuel was definitely very influenced by the Geftakys ministry.  George spent about 2 weeks in Nigeria almost every year.  He only spent about 2-4 days/year in most of the assemblies in North America, yet his influence was undeniably present.

While I also believe that some can re-learn, it is dishonest for them to claim that George's ministry was of little influence because of proximity or otherwise.

Marcia
« Last Edit: December 26, 2005, 07:28:28 pm by Marcia » Logged
Oscar
Guest


Email
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2005, 11:52:31 pm »

Al:

Actually, the term "pot-luck" comes from a Native American word (potlach) referring to feasts that they would hold from time to time.  I forget from which tribal tongue the phrase comes.

Matt

Matt,

A few thoughts on the potlatch/potluck connection, with a point I used to make when I taught American History.

1. The aboriginal tribes that were here before the first European contact are not "Native Americans".  America is a set of ideas imported to this continent by Europeans.  The dirt, rocks, rivers, trees, bunnies, and the tribal peoples were all here first, no doubt about that.  But there was no "America" in those days. America is a cultural/religious/philosophical/political set of ideas that have been inacted into laws and institutions. 

"Native American" is a politically correct term that became popular as the Left gained control of education and media in the USA.  When the modern day "Indians" discovered that the US courts would not honor any claims by "Native Americans" but would grant legal standing to the "Indian" tribes they had signed treaties with in the past, they dropped the term like a hot potato.  If you don't believe me, just try to find a Native American Casino.  Grin

2. The Potlatch was/is a custom among the northwestern coastal tribes.  The same bunch that built totem poles. It was, however, a very different concept from a potluck dinner.  It was sort of a status symbol where a villiage would prepare for months in advance to put on an extended period of feasting/dancing/socializing for all the other villiages in the area.  All the guests were given presents to take home. 

A villiage chief that could afford this was considered totally cool.  Of course, then all the other villiages had to compete by throwing their own potlatches and inviting the others.  Then many of the gifts were given back!  Grin

3. My best guess is that the term "pot luck" comes from people bringing a pot of stew or whatever to a community gathering and trusting to luck as to what they got to eat. No telephones in those days, and folks stayed near the farm most of the time.  We pass out "potluck" announcements at church asking people to check off "desserts", "salads", "main dish" or whatever.  Not much luck involved nowadays.

4. I excpect to be elevated at least one level on the pedantic know-it-all scale as a result of this post.  But what the heck.  What's the fun of being a know-it-all if you can't fill the ether with useless information once and a while.   Wink

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Member, Royal Order of the Golden Pedestal
« Last Edit: December 27, 2005, 08:50:03 am by Tom Maddux » Logged
moonflower2
Guest


Email
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2005, 02:05:53 am »

Al:

Actually, the term "pot-luck" comes from a Native American word (potlach) referring to feasts that they would hold from time to time.  I forget from which tribal tongue the phrase comes.

Matt
And not to outdo the local "know-it-all", here is additional info:

   The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.  2000.
 
potlatch
 
SYLLABICATION: pot·latch

PRONUNCIATION:   ptlch

NOUN: A ceremonial feast among certain Native American peoples of the northwest Pacific coast, as in celebration of a marriage or accession, at which the host distributes gifts according to each guest's rank or status. Between rival groups the potlatch could involve extravagant or competitive giving and destruction by the host of valued items as a display of superior wealth. 

ETYMOLOGY: Chinook Jargon, from Nootka p'achitl, to make a potlatch gift. 
 
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

http://www.peabody.harvard.edu/potlatch/page5.html
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!