@olabowale

what's the point you want to make?

olabowale:

@Carmelily:« #814 on: November 24, 2008, 09:31 AM »
The buhddists, also believe that their "handsome, long haired, lean youth," is devine. Thats what the Christian thinks about Jesus. isn't it, babe? The Buhddist boy performs "miracles" that must hav convinced the "Buhddists" that he is "devine."

Are you getting my drift, now? The conclusion of devinity, according to christians, which is what the Buhddists are making, is that their respective "devined" person performed "convincing miracles!" The Buhhdist guy, by the way was reported to have gone without food or liquid for 3 years, in one stretch. And to have remained motionless for over a year. Yet he is only 18 years old.

- It is clear the disciples did not give themselves that name if not it would have read - and the disciples refered to themselves as christians first in antioch.

You seem to be getting to understand me in your own slow way. When i read that your "lukewarm" sh*t. I laughed. I laughed because you don't even know me and you didn't have an idea about my beliefs. I've been screaming on top of my lungs, telling you that I stick to what Christ did and what He said. That's what "Christ-like" means.

Sorry to disappoint you but Paul has no place in my faith. We were never told about him as an "Apostle to the Gentiles" by Christ before he appeared on the scene with his set of doctrines which went quite contraary to most of what Christ preached. If you want to follow Paul, say so outrightly. Christ said the servant is not greater than His master, (if indeed, Paul is as much as a servant) so when in doubt, i default to Christ. simple. I choose to follow Him. You don't have to do that. It's my choice. Get it? Why say you are a "Christian" and be more willing to be a Paulian and attach labels coined by non-"christians" to yourself? What stopped Christ, in His divine wisdom from coining the term? Why didn't He tell us to be sure to follow Paul, as influential to your faith as Paul is today

Do yourself a favour, make a list of everything that constitutes your Christian faith today - doctrines, principles and all. Then make a table with two columns. One for Christ and the other for Paul. At the end of the exercise, decide whose follower you are.

This blind dependence on the "Holy Spirit" is what has thrown your Christianity into the big, black hole it's in today. I am free to act like a total slowpoke and attribute my actions to the "Holy Spirit". Your Paul found that out 2,000 years ago. It is only catching on in Nigeria now. so pitiable.

You, my ~Lady~, are the one who really needs to find herself. I found true freedom when i did. If Christ didn't endorse it, it's not for me. Sorry.

@ poster

the church is not the building or place of worship but THE BODY OF CHRIST! Idolatry is worshiping creatures rather than the Creator, who is God.
I have observed the Roman Catholics carefully and am bold to say "WHAT THEY CALL CHRISTIANITY IS DEVILISH". Thank God for the scriptures and for his Holyspirit who teaches us all things.

Roman Catholics are not only the guilty ones, U cud also be one of them who practise Idolatry! It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of God's judgement.
Examine ur ways and desist from evil!

~Lady~:

I speak from the discussions on this board.

Ok, so why do you believe in Christ, if you don't believe in anything he says or does, because you do not. DOn't fool yourself to think that you do. Christ gave power to men, and you don't believe in the exercise of this power, so why follow him if you don't believe in what he has done?
Also, if you won't take what the apostles say as truth and won't hae regards for them, how can you take the stories of the Gospel true? The apostles wrote them, how do you know that Christ truly did and say what they say he did and say. How can you have regards towards what Christ did or say, when you don't have regards for those who wrote down what he did or said. They could have easily made it up.
[/b]Do you get what I'm saying?

I am saying if you do not hold in regard these people who penned down what Christ said, how can you truly believe that what they said about Christ is true. How can you believe that what Christ said is truly what Christ said?

[b]O wow, so dependence on the Holy Spirit too is also wrong? Hm well you truly aren't a Christian. Please abeg leave Christ out of your mouth, you are not a follower of his. You are against his teachings.

Incase you haven't realised God wants us to be completely and totally dependent on him and for us to be completely directed by him, rather than on ourselves. Now those people who do atrocious things and say it's because of the holy spirit are wrong, the holy spirit won't lead you to do wrong.[b]
But I don't get the whole Paul statement in that. [/b]What did Paul do that was atrocious and that he put on the holy spirit.

carmelily:

Sorry to disappoint you but Paul has no place in my faith. We were never told about him as an "Apostle to the Gentiles" by Christ before he appeared on the scene with his set of doctrines which went quite contraary to most of what Christ preached. If you want to follow Paul, say so outrightly. Christ said the servant is not greater than His master, (if indeed, Paul is as much as a servant) so when in doubt, i default to Christ. simple. I choose to follow Him. You don't have to do that. It's my choice. Get it? Why say you are a "Christian" and be more willing to be a Paulian and attach labels coined by non-"christians" to yourself? What stopped Christ, in His divine wisdom from coining the term? Why didn't He tell us to be sure to follow Paul, as influential to your faith as Paul is today?

DavidDylan:

this is most absurd. Did you stop reading the bible after St. John?

carmelily:

Ah ha! at least you get the point that i read (or follow, rather) the Bible with my brains, i.e., selectively

DavidDylan:

I get the point that you read the bible "selectively" . . . i.e. those parts that agree with your own concocted belief.

I don't get how that makes you read the bible "with your brains" though.

If you think Paul was a heretic then you'd also agree that so was Peter (one of those who ordained Paul), timothy, John, James, Jude and Philemon. In short you don't read the new testament beyond the gospels at all.

Luke was one of Paul's proteges . . . so you must disregard the gospel of Luke too i suppose . . .

carmelily:

This blind dependence on the "Holy Spirit" is what has thrown your Christianity into the big, black hole it's in today. I am free to act like a total slowpoke and attribute my actions to the "Holy Spirit". Your Paul found that out 2,000 years ago. It is only catching on in Nigeria now. so pitiable.

carmelily:

Look, you say it's my "concocted" belief, right? so it doesn't have to be rational to you, does it? Works for me just fine. You can believe whatever you want to as long as you don't try to force it down my throat, alright with me, dude.

DavidDylan:

no one is "forcing" anything down your throat. I'm doing exactly the same thing u've been doing to Lady for the last 5-6 pages . . . showing you and others the inconsistencies in your posts.

carmelily:

Lol. Didn't say you were. Read again. My point is, your way isn't logical to me. Mine doesn't necessarily have to be logical to you either. That was what i told Lady when she implied her way was THE WAY. We are all "pointing out inconsistencies" here. Just saying as long as it stops there, COOL.

Your response is just a mish-mash of false starts and misdirected talk. Especially the parts i put in bold. Maybe you should read my last post again and modify your response. You don't quite seem to be responding to my post.

Na wa oh oga david, I thought the real authors of the gospels were unknown?

Chrisbenogor:

Lady these are the things I say christians ought to know. I suppose you do not know about the document Q either and the synoptic problem of the gospels.
The catholic church as usual just ascribed the names to those people. In summary we do not really know who they were.

Chrisbenogor:

Bros david take it easy, the authorship of those books is not known with certainty especially mark and john.
It was in the 2nd century Ad that the gospel according to mark was called that way.
I am not thrashing anything but just for us to ascertain what facts are.
Oh by the way I mentioned document Q and the synoptic problem because I was trying to ascertain if she had an idea about those. No where did I allude it was connected with the authorship being unknown neither did I say document Q existed was a fact I fully know well that it is a hypothesis.
Why don't you ask questions next time you do not understand like
Are you saying the synoptic problem and document Q are connected with the authorship of the books if so why?
Not for my good or yours but for people reading this.

Chrisbenogor:

Before I go on I think its important we iron out some things,
Are you saying that only if I agree to your own assertions would I be searching for knowledge?

Chrisbenogor:

And let me set your mindset about my mindset straight, simply put I am skeptical as most people will be if they found the real deal about these books.

Chrisbenogor:

Like I said earlier don't you think asking and clarifying from me is a lot better than assuming?

Chrisbenogor:

I ask you once again if someone does not agree with you does that mean they are wrong and not really seeking the truth?

Chrisbenogor:

Are you the custodian of all knowledge?

Chrisbenogor:

So you are assuming then, no one reading this should take you seriously.
I see no reason why you are being overtly on the defensive, [b]all we are trying to do is to lay the facts do[/b]wn as we best know them, there is no need to bring up all these many kini you are saying.

Chrisbenogor:

That the authors are unknown is the issue here not whether what they wrote should be believed, david lets focus.

Chrisbenogor:

Lets focus again david leave falsehood aside, all the evidence you have that it was mark is from Eusebio if there are any please show us.
Repeating that they are well known is not true and that is the real falsehood that abounds in the church.