StillDtruth:


And i repeat the answer we do not count the number of children a couple has at the beginning

It is when the couple stopped birthing or did not have other children after passage of time that we count

So a Jewish couple will not dedicate their child until they have finished giving birth? Then they will identify the "firstborn"?

Is that your answer?

StillDtruth:


And the passage immediately drew attention to his his brothers and named them

Of which It would not make any sense why Mathew would name Jesus's cousins because the whole of Istreal including Mathew are His Cousins. And we have even argued that which saw you land on Clopas which i pointed out that Simon and Judas are not in your Clopas's lineage.

So which lie are you going to spin now to hang simon and judas and co on?

And besides, if they were cousins, the bible told us as it did for Clopas and Elizabeth, so, no road here.

So do.you have any other place to hang the lies your church created?

The bible does not at any point call those relatives Children of Mary. You can argue all day but the bible doesn't say it.
Judas is the same name as Jude, he wrote an epistle, he is a brother of James.


Personally I'm not particularly interested in matching all the names. For me, it suffice to show you that those who you think were blood brothers a few of them had their parents well accounted for in the bible. So they are not blood brothers

StillDtruth:


You are the one being fraudulent here. No one asks you about the dedication of your child who may be the only child or he might have siblings.

And do we count the number of children a couple has at the beginning?

Is it not when the couple stopped birthing after passage of time that we count if they had only one child or 2 or 12?

And you know this is so but because you are being deceitfull, you therefore pretend not to know and go and check to see whether Mary had other children especially as The Commandment was just only for the period of time she was carrying The Holy Child.

The issue is even you, do not go around and call your only child, first born.

I will repeat the question.

The law says a Jewish man must dedicate his first born, does the man have to wait for him to have a second child before doing the dedication?

You already argued that a first born cannot be called firstborn unless there is a second child.

StillDtruth:


And my response was "off point" i just broke my responses to point out the fact that i read through your answer and it did not address the question.

We all know that God will not answer sinners which is why we pray for mercy and forgiveness at the beginning and during the mass which leads to the question 1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given) which you did not answer.

Do you know the prerequisite for a prayer for mercy?


Maybe my long response was too long for you, let me make it short.

What do you need to come with to ask God for mercy?



And how do you understand this passage?


Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.

[quote author=ocnovakmichael post=131810778]

Brother trying to explain away the point through the doctrines of venial sin or mortal sin is not the issue.
What the writer is saying is that, irrespective of the sin type, every sincere person in that congregation had asked for God's mercy several times during the mass before the liturgy of the communion. Yet, we see many of us Catholics sitting down on the pew during the communion because they felt God has not heard their prayer for mercy.

Again I think you should read my post again. The difference between mortal and venial sin is not used to "explain away" the issue. It is a solid point that the Catholic church teaches clearly.

Anyone who have venial sins will know clearly that his sins are forgiven simply by the penitential rites of the mass. That is why any Catholic who had evil or angry thought doesn't think 2ice to go and receive because he knows that his sins are forgiven right at the beginning of mass.

However there are sins that the bible talks about very harshly.
This is why heb 10 say Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.

Those are deliberate, well planned sins even after knowing very well that they are sinful. The is what the Catholic church will say, full knowledge, free consent and action. The bible says for those kinds of sins we should not presume that they are covered.
This is the reason why the Catholic church advices confessions because the bible also says in John that Jesus gave his apostles the power to declare all sins forgiven when he said, whatsoever sins you forgive are forgiven, whatsoever sins you retain are retained

This is the ordinary way in which Catholics deal with sins that are grave and deliberate after they are already Christians because the bible talks about such sins in a particular kind of way.


However

If a person has truly come to hate that sin he committed because he now has in his heart a true love for God and has decided in his heart to have no link whatsoever to that sin again...(This is called perfect contrition, the bible says a contrite spirit of God you will not spurn)...then his sins are forgiven right there and then even at that mass even before ever going for confession. Such a person can receive communion even if he didn't go for confession yet. Do you understand this?

You can't say I am working on the sin of fornication and my girlfriend is in my house right now and because I said sorry at mass I will go for communion. No the Catholic church says you need a perfect contrition. It must be that you now hat that sin and immediately you get home you are offloading you girlfriend and telling her that the relationship will no longer be sexual. If that is what you have in mind when you were saying sorry to God, the Catholic church says you can go and receive.

What keeps a person seated during communion is not the church (unless the person isn't Catholic), it is whether or not he has forsaken his sin and has perfect contrition. If he has he can receive communion that very mass before confession. If he hasn't then it is better he remains in his seat for there is no sacrifice for those who intend to continue sinning deliberately.

Except you're not being sincere, all you need is look around you during the mass and see a host of Catholics, who should've matched to the altar to receive the communion, on their seats during communion. Yesterday at the mass I looked around and saw many, even some of them church wardens depriving themselves the body of Christ because of unbelief.

Hebrews 4:16
[16]Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Where else can we find mercy if not on the altar of the communion? Why run away in your sins when Jesus says COME BOLDLY that you may find grace and mercy. Again, Jesus says, come unto me all you who labour and are heavy laden (the burden of sin) and I will give you rest.

At one point, Peter asked Jesus, how many times should I forgive should my brother offend me? Jesus replied, seventy times seven times ( all in a day). I don't believe God who commanded us to forgive will not forgive one who had asked for mercy several times during the mass.

I'm not trying to convince you, all I'm saying is take a minute and look around you during the mass: you might even find members of your family/relative/friends sitting on the pew during communion. Do the latter and revert with your feedback.

After quoting that passage remember

Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.


If they intend to continue to deliberately sin, they should not come forward. Paul is clear in Corinthians that such a person will eat condemnation upon himself. It doesn't matter how boldly you approach the throne, if you are not contrite and you are not intending to hate and forsake that mortal sin, you have not received the clear to come forward, Paul is very clear that you must examine yourself if you you'll eat condemnation

Emusan:


If the Apostles actually taught it then there's no reason it shouldn't make it to their written.

because the apostles themselves tell us that scripture was never supposed to be an exhaustive record of all they taught.

In fact, the idea that everything the apostles taught should be written down in the bible is unbiblical because the apostles tell us they never attempted to do so! They told the church to hold on to the oral teaching they received and to pass on this teaching from generation to generation.

The idea that everything they taught should be in the bible is unbiblical and unhistorical.

THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT IT before The New Testament was written part of the scripture supported the reason why it should have made it to their writings.

I repeat, the new testament WAS NOT written to be an exhaustive account of Christian belief. The apostle were never interested in putting everything in writing because they commanded the church to hold on also to what they've been orally taught.

This view that the bible should contain everything is a new heresy barely 500 years old in Christendom.

So why such important message didn't make it to their writings?



So, if Mary perpetual Virgin was wide spread if the reason it didn't make it to God's word.

because God word is not limited to the written word, it also includes the oral teaching which the apostles committed to the church and commanded them to hold.

Does it mean Mary perpetual Virgin is more WIDELY SPREAD THAN THE GOSPEL ITSELF?

At a time it was more widely spread than the new testament. The new testament was compiled in the 4th century

The fact still remains that Mary perpetual Virgin isn't of important to the Salvation Jesus brought.

and that idea is against scripture which explicitly teaches that the church must hold on to the teachings that were delivered by word of mouth. If you 2000 years later come here and tell me that the teachings delivered to all the ancient churches from the apostles by word of mouth are not important, I will say, I chose to hold to them as Paul instructed, I will not follow you to say they're unimportant. That's a sad way to treat apostolic teaching.

God is not stupid to have INSPIRED the Apostles to pen down His Word, if Word of Mouth is reliable God won't have INSPIRED ANYONE.

God never said the written word was supposed to contain every thing. The holy spirit himself inspired how apostolic teaching is to be passed down and preserved 2 Tim 2:2.

The real point is that Mary perpetual Virgin has nothing to do with The Salvation Jesus brought for mankind.

this isn't what the apostles taught the church

Also, that Jesus didn't pass through Mary womanhood still remains false. No scriptural backing for it.

you are making an argument from silence. That is a fallacy.

That the bible doesn't record something does not mean it didn't happen. It isn't explicit in scripture is not the same as it is false. That's a quantum leap.

I never said Jesus didn't pass through Mary's womanhood. I don't know where you heard that.

And that is more IMPORTANT THAT GOD'S OWN TESTIMONY THROUGH HIS OWN WORD.

God's testimony through is word in scripture is important, God's testimony through the apostles to his church is also important. That is why the bible says we must hold both the written scripture and the oral apostolic witness given to the church.

Well, many teachings were held by people past and now but some of these teachings have nothing to do with mankind salvation.

In as much as they are apostolic teaching delivered to the church, the bible says we should hold them. I won't disobey what the bible says about the oral tradition that the apostles committed to the church simply because a modern day protestant does not like them.

btoks:

Also, the knew her not until in it's use in Greek (Matt 1: 25) at the time does not indicate what happened afterwards. Matthew's main concern was to clarify Joseph had no hand in the conception. Through sacred tradition, it is known Mary remained a virgin in marriage.

He doesn't care to know. That's why I hate these online conversations, you have someone who is wholly ignorant and has zero biblical scholarship write nonsense about something he doesn't know and he has no desire to learn.

I'm here only for the sake of others who may pass by

StillDtruth:


This was your answer when i said "off point"

Ubenedictus:
the prayer for forgiveness at the beginning of mass does not make a person a practicing Catholic

Which i answered
Off point! No one said it does.

I honestly hate dishonest people.



This was your question

Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given)

This was my response



the bible actually says God does not hear the prayers of sinners. That is why the Catholic church will tell you that the penitential rite is for minor failings like venial sin and for venial sin you should use the sacrament of confession.

However if you have perfect contrition for all your sins then the word of God applies "A broken and contrite heart o God you will not spurn". In such a case all your sins are forgiven even at the penitential rite.




Now tell me what part of the response you didn't understand

StillDtruth:


Yet you still talk about dedication

And even you, do not call your only child, first born.

This is how I know if I'm talking to a honest person.


if I give birth to a child today and I'm a Jew in 1st century Israel, will I go and dedicate the child as my first born or will I wait to have a second born before dedicating him?
The question is not hard to answer for someone who is honest.

StillDtruth:


See it now, you are Lying very openly

Did you not see see what the people said about Jesus and his mother and father.
Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

See it. It is clearly and boldly written in red, yet you decided to Lie and said the verse did not say so, see how you wish not to.see the Truth? Clearly proving how much you love Lies!

Clearly proving that you are one of those
People swallow greedily any lie that flatters them, but sip only little by little at a truth they find bitter.' Dennis Diderot

Further, Simon and Judas are not in your Clopas lineage.

And furthermore, lineage is traced by the men Joseph and your Clopas and not by the women Mary and your Mary, clopas's wife.

So see, it now, your church lied to you and now here you are Lying to others.

Clearly, your church is a church of Satan, the father of Liars

I think you have a problem with English language.
The verse you quoted is refering to Jesus.

"Is he (Jesus) not the carpenter's son? Is his(Jesus) mother not Mary?

The passage identified Mary as the mother of Jesus! It doesn't claim Mary is the mother of any other person!

It says Mary is the mother of Jesus and that Jesus has other relatives, but nowhere does it say that Mary is the mothers of those relatives.

StillDtruth:


This is your guilt talking for all i did was to explain using an example.



You already know this is what i contend and dedication is not in issue at all, which is why i have asked you to cite an example, where you see the bible call an only child, a first born.

And as you see, you have not seen any one single case as of course no one calls an only child "first born" for firsborn always means that child has other siblings.

So, you are wrong.

It is simple, if I give birth to a child today and I'm a Jew in 1st century Israel, will I go and dedicate the child as my first born or will I wait to have a second born before dedicating him?
The question is not hard to answer for someone who is honest.

And the question isn't about dedication, it is about understanding who a firstborn is according to Jewish scripture.

StillDtruth:


Your response was off the point which i pointed out.

A person cannot be asking about Tyres and you would be talking about engines. That is off point. We all know the difference between when a question and when a person is talking off point

And your answer talked about other things not asked for but did not address the very question, asked to wit
1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given)

2) Does it mean God hears only the confessions we make before the Priest?"

Which remains unaswered,

Civilized people will either speak on tyres if they truly had the knowledge of it or stay silent. Talking about rims, shock absorbers and the car is not talking about tyres.

So, clearly you cannot answer these questions

Put your question 1, place next to it the response I gave and tell me how it didn't answer you question.

Emusan:
At first this was your point

You have not addressed HOW this miraculous birth was known.

it is not hard to address.
All the ancient churches teach that the perpetual virginity of Mary was taught to the church by the apostles and have been taught, handed on and believed since then.

Was Mary Perpetual Virgin part of their preaching?

If Mary perpetual virgin was already WIDE SPREAD before the scripture was developed, how come such important message was ignored?

it was not ignored. The bible was never meant to be an encyclopedia of every Christian belief and practice. The church already believed and practiced before the new testament was written. The church was already taught by the apostles before they even began to write things down
The bible was majorly developed in the fourth century. That was when the church put together what we now call bible. And even by then Mary as perpetual virgin was already wide spread. They didn't need to go put it in the bible because the bible was never understood as an encyclopedia of every Christian belief and practice. It was protestants who came over a thousand years later who started to treat the bible like that. This is the reason why NO ancient church believe that the bible alone should be used for doctrine.

The main point is, since it's not in the scripture then it's not something God wants to bother us with.

the point is that scripture was never meant to have everything God wanted to reveal. The revelation of God was passed down by both written scripture and oral tradition. 2 Thess 2:15 says the church must stand firm on BOTH sources of divine revelation. Just as the letters were put together so too, the oral teaching were committed to faithful men who in turn were to commit them to others from one generation to the next 2 Tim 2:2. So the fact that a teaching is not explicitly spelled out in the bible does not mean Gid didn't want you to be bothered with it. The simple question is to ask, was this part of the teaching the apostle committed to the church by word of mouth? Ask any ancient Christian church, the answer is yes.

If that's how you see it, but the truth is you have not addressed the real point here.

what is the real point I did not address?

In a nutshell, you don't have evidence to support your miraculous birth.

the evidence for it is the testimony of all ancient Churches for thousands of years who all teach that it was handed to them by the apostles.
Again are you not surprised that this teaching isn't only held by Catholics? It is held by all ancient churches and even the early protestant held it.

StillDtruth:


Now, you.have shifted to another leg since the one you used has fallen.

If you were truly sincere, you would see that the bible is about Jesus and not about Mary and her children, exactly how in Genesis,it focused on Abraham and not on his brothers.

And secondly, it is known the bible has always described lineage in terms of the father, in this case Joseph and not on mothers which is where Matthew 13:55-56 shows your church is lying in saying
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? (Joseph) is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

So your church has lied to you!

"There is no valid argument against the Truth"

Or is there any other leg of argument you can make?

The verse you presented does not say that Mary is the mother of anyone but Jesus.

It only identified Mary as the mother of Jesus, the rest he calls the Adolphoi or relations of Jesus but not once did he call them sons of Mary.

In fact the bible tells us that they are kids of Mary's relative who married a man called Clopas.

StillDtruth:


See, it! Instead of addressing the issue, you have resorted to accusing me.

Where did i say "if something is not explicitly recorded in the bible then it didn't happen?



You are being snaky in pretending as if you do not understand that the argument is about you saying "Acess and full picture" whereas, the bible has given us the relevant and sufficient information we need like that boy's thread. And no one went outdide his report lookong for any full picture.

So this is you not liking what you see, so like Isreal you went out looking for what you want which clearly are Lies because, it is liars who go looking for what is not missing..

Anyway, your life and your death!

The bible also clearly tells us that not all that happened was recorded(John 21:25). The bible also tells us that Jesus commander his apostles to teach all nations. How did they teach? By word of mouth and by letter, the letter says it doesn't contain all things and that Christians must hold on to what was taught orally. (2 Theses 2:15). it also says that oral tradition must be passed down to the next generation who must also teach the next generation. (2 Tim 2:2)
This is why every ancient church believes in tradition! The bible teaches it. So if you want to know what the apostles taught about the perpetual virginity of Mary, first you check scriptures, it doesn't say much, then you check all the churches that were taught by the apostles, what have they received as apostolic tradition. Ask the church in Antioch, in Greece, Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, Asia minor.... whatever ancient Church you go and ask, what is the apostolic tradition that has been passed on to you about Mary. They will all tell you, ALL OF THEM, that the faith passed on to them from the apostles is that Mary was always a virgin.

You can go and argue all you like, but that is the witness of every apostolic church.

StillDtruth:


I did not insalt you, it is you who is putting yourself in a very bad and indefensible position, like a thief trying to defend his stealing and even trying to say it is right.

So, every condemnation you get feels like an imsalt

Does it not interest you that in the same paragraph where you said you didn't insult me, you likened me to a thief?
Your lack of self awareness of your own word is outstanding.

You are being fraudulent in making the issue look like the argument is about the fedicstion of a child, whereas, it is not!

The issue is and had always been do you see anywhere in the bible where they called "an only son or child" "FIRST BORN"? . And iasked you for an example .

And clearly, you did not see any one or single case where an only child is called firstborn
.
So, you are wrong!

You are debating that the term first born in the bible is a legal term to mean whoever opens the womb, whether or not he has other siblings.
The question is simple, when a woman gives birth to her first child in ancient Israel will she dedicate the child as the law says or will she wait for the "second born" to be born before she dedicates the child?
It is not a hard question if you are honest

StillDtruth:


Off point means you did not answer the point of the question and clearly, you cannot amswer it, which i the op said, none of your people could answer it.

off point means you failed to understand the response you were given. Go back to the response I gave you and if there is something there you don't understand ask.
That's how civilised people have conversations, you don't just say "off point" because you don't understand

StillDtruth:


See you are now resorting to lies like jws do to asdert their point.

Abeg, where? Where has anyone called a pregmant aunty let say Amaka, Charitu a virgin? Anyway the argument is going on in the thread

.
There is an aunty who was pregnant and is called a virgin. Aunty Mary. You don't seem confused that such an illogical thing is an article of faith in Christianity, you are just confused that God passed through her womb and she remained a virgin? That is the one confusing you?

There is and i showed you and i am waiting for your response on the thread., so need.

There is no single passage you presented that claims Mary had other children

See we not see you bowing don and rubbing statues of Mary &co and rolling on the floor?

https://www.nairaland.com/5573290/evidence-catholics-worship-mary#84773924

https://www.nairaland.com/4214787/worshiping-idol-now-traditionalist-asks#62980404

lol
The Israelites too were Boeing down in front of a temple that had images. I guess they too were idolaters

Exactly how jws argue when they have lied by using truths to hide and cover their lies.
1) Your parents are alive and not idols.
2) We see you greet your parents, and not bowing and worshiping them. Which is why if and when the greeting is excessive and heading to worship, people would warn you saying "e don too much o, wetin, e never do" and you stop. But you do not greet yout parents up to that extent.
3) And you dont spend up to 5 minutes greeting your parents compared to the hours you spend worshipping Mary.

The issue is simple bowing down before something or someone that isn't God does not automatically mean idolatry. One may bow before the mace in the national assembly, ever heard "take a bow" the mace is not an idol, Bowing is not idolatry, the mace represents something and the Bowing is showing respect to what it represents.
It's funny since this heresy that any image one bows to is idolatry was condemned by the entire Christian church in the 8th century. Some protestants just like repeating old heresies.
..

Off point.
We are talking about David's wrong doing and God leaving him and not about God's promises..

God's promise it to his church, he said the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Any protestant who claims that the historical Christian church fell into heresy is calling God a liar, to claim that the devil prevailed against the Catholic church is to call God a liar

See yourself, you have already countered with.a fallacy of reversing the burden of proof and yet you are lying that it doesn't need a counter, when clearly you had no counter

it seem you don't even know what a fallacy is. You are just talking like a child. If you claim that any church that has sinners has failed, then your own church has failed and even the church of Jesus and the 12 apostles was a failure since Judas was there. That shows that your premise is incorrect because it leads to untenable and nonsensical conclusions.

True, division, is there, i missed it but clearly you have overstretched it exactly how jws do using truths to lie because Paul knows and people know that not all divisions are sins. Eg the levites stayed away from Isreal when they went aworshipping the golden calf. Even Paul was at variance with the disciples on circumcision and he argued with them and thankfully, they appreciated his correction, hence why no division occured.

So, we know the division that is sin and evil, which clearly is what is captured in Galatians. And your church is full of lies hence why roghteous people must leave it.

Sorry bro, there is no provision in scripture where you are allowed to leave the church Jesus and the apostles founded and found a new church. Whether you are a judaiser, like in the time of Paul, or you are a gnostic like in the 2nd century or and Arian like the JW or a protestant like you. The word of God is clear to cause fraction in the church so you can go start your own group is a sin. You pastor did it and the biblical judgement is that those who do such will not enter the kingdom of God.

OLAADEGBU:


Below are the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church

1) The Catholic Church is the one true church (CCC 2105),
2) Infallibility of the Catholic Church, (CCC 2035),
3) Only the Roman Catholic Church has authority to interpret Scripture (CCC 100),
4) The Pope is the head of the church and has the authority of Christ (CCC 2034),
5) The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation (CCC 846),
6) Sacred Tradition equal to scripture (CCC 82),
7) Forgiveness of sins, salvation, is by faith and works (CCC 2036 CCC 2080 2068),
8] Full benefit of Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3),
9) Grace can be merited (CCC 2010 CCC 2027),
10) The merit of Mary and the Saints can be applied to Catholics and others (1477),
11) Penance is necessary for salvation (CCC 980),
12) Purgatory (CCC 1031 CCC 1475),
13) Indulgences (CCC 1471 CCC 1478 CCC 1498 CCC 1472),
14) Mary is Mediatrix (CCC 969),
15) Mary brings us the gifts of eternal salvation (CCC 969),
16) Mary delivers souls from death (CCC 966),
17) Prayer to the saints (CCC 2677),
18) The Communion elements become the actual body and blood of Christ (CCC 1374 CCC 1376).

Lol, I'm laughing because Ola is your source for this nonsense.

Each of the teachings above are clearly Christian teaching. If you don't believe them it is probably because you are in one of those factions that the apostle Paul condemned.

StillDtruth:


We were talking about 2 now,
1) calling a woman who gave birth a virgin.

We also call a woman who was pregnant a virgin. I didn't see you complain, that pregnant people are not virgins. We said it was a miracle and you were fine. We said Jesus can pass through closed doors, you said oh yes, but you think he can't be born an the woman will remain a virgin. You think it is impossible for God to do .

2) doing like jws in denying the bible which.Saith she had other children.

There is no passage in the entire bible that says Mary had other children. The bible actually says Jesus had brethren and later the same bible told us the mother of those brethren was not Mary the mother of Jesus.

3) Lying you don't worship Mary whereas you are.

I guess now you have omniscience to know who I worship so that you feel confident to presume to tell me who I worship or don't worship after I have clearly informed you.

4) Lying you don't worship images whereas, we are looking at you bowing and kneeling to them.

https://www.nairaland.com/7600700/why-catholic-church-evil-majority#121547568

If kneeling and bowing immediately means worship, that means I have been worshipping my parents.

And he admitted them and stood guilty for them.and God left him in those days thereby showing the way that when you do a wrong righteous people will leave you, so you have nothing here.

no bro, maybe you don't read your bible.
The bible says the calling and promises of God are irrevocable....
That is why the bible says if we are faithless he remains faithful because he cannot deny himself.

So when Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church he built, he meant it.

Fallacy!
Clearly, you cannot counter.

It doesn't need a counter. If your church also has sinners that means what you claim of the Catholic church as deserted by God is also true of your church.
I don't think you know the implications of the argument you are making

See it. You have nothing. Galations is about sins and schism is about division and separation from a group eg cult, church political party, band of kidnappers.

You people and jws are the same. Liars and frauds!

So you did not see division as one of the sins listed in Gal 5 as condemnable? Are you dishonest or just didn't read well?

idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions

New Living Translation
idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division,


According to Gal 5, division is a sin that will make you not enter the kingdom of God, so you and you pastors who a busy causing division with new churches everyday should know where they stand according to scripture

StillDtruth:





We know hence the importance of the prayers for mercy and forgiveness, hence the question,
1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given) which yoi have still not answered.



Off point

The place you wrote "off point" answers the first question. It is not my fault you didn't read

The question is
1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given), which you have not answered.



I did not ask about Him hearing more than that i asked a specific question nor His process.

I asked
2) Does it mean God hears only the confessions we make before the Priest?"

this was also answered

[quote author=StillDtruth post=131534754]

Who can give full picture of anything? Who needs full picture of everything? Even you cannot give the full picture of your neigbbourhood.

See this guy's case https://www.nairaland.com/8186055/been-scammed-neighbor#131518390
Has he not already given us the picture we need? Who has asked for more pictures?

You are the one claiming that if something is not explicitly recorded in the bible then it didn't happen. You are still the same person here now agreeing with me that the bible doesn't claim to paint a full picture.

If the bible doesn't paint a full picture, as you admitted, why do you expect to find every Christian belief and practice explicitly stated in the bible? If the bible doesn't claim to have all the information if what happened in the life of Jesus, why are you so pained that all ancient churches believe things about Jesus that are not explicitly stated in the bible?

You are just showing you are one of those sucessfully scammed by the Romans. because you failed to think and therefore you fell for their scam of removing you from the Book of Truth (bible) so that you can see and accept their inteligently woven lies in other books

you see why ignorance is not good? The perpetual virginity of Mary is not held only by the Roman Catholic church. It is held by EVERY APOSTOLIC church, any church that can trace itself by by 2000 years. This includes the Ethiopian church in Ethiopia, the Coptic church in Egypt, the Syriac church in Antioch, the Greek orthodox church, the full orthodox communion, the oriental church, the ancient churches in Jerusalem...all of them. Those who believed it include protestants like John Wesley of the Methodist, Martin Luther of the Lutherans, etc.
So if you claim I was deceived by the Roman, what about the Ethiopian church, that of Alexandria, that of Greece, Jerusalem, Antioch...who deceived them? Was the entire Christian church deceived for 1600 years until your protestants church showed up?

And that is why you do not know what is True for you are corrupted and full of lies.

It is people like you who make atheist call Christians brainwashed meanwhile you are never there to defend the lies they have seen and experienced because they too were catholics but they were watching to see if the lies held up especially the fact that lies always raised up more questions and more lies.

No, it's people like me who understands who Christianity started and what it has always believed. I make no apology to atheist. If an atheist doesn't believe in God then he can't believe in a virgin conceiving. His first problem is lack of faith in God and if you don't know that maybe you aren't even mature enough to be discussing with atheist.

No reasonable person requires anybody to tell the fullestest story only the Truth, the sufficient and the relevant part. And if clarity is needed, questions would be asked as seen in that thread. No extra threads required.

Truth exists; only lies are invented[/b].Georges Braque -

the truth is all ancient Churches and even the early protestants reformers all teach that Jesus was born of a virgin and that she remained a virgin.

They do not claim the bible says "and Mary remained a virgin", they know it because that is what has always been believed among Christian. When someone comes 2000 years later and say all Christians before him were wrong and he is right because he saw "brethren" of the Lord who were never called sons of Mary, I start to laugh

StillDtruth:


I said "Cite examples where the bible decribed an only son as a first born." i did not ask for definition or redefinition. I just said give us an example.

And clearly, you see, THERE IS NOT ONE CASE WHERE THE BIBLE EVER CALLS AN ONLY SON, "FIRST BORN"

So, you see you are talking rubbish and have therefore fled away as all liars must do when they are caught.

You have descended to insults and to be sincere I'm too old for that rubbish. You can go play in the sand with your age mates where you can decide to call them liars.

When a man gives birth to his first son, is he mandated to dedicate him or must be wait to have a second born before he can dedicate him. Since you claim that only child cannot be a first born?

It's simple, if you can reason without insults it's not really hard

StillDtruth:


We know, the wide meaning of the word breathren means relative.

But we also see and appreciate the narrow meaning of brethren which means biological brothers as we see in Joseph and his brothers/Judah's sons, Er and Onan.

And whsat differentiates these 2 meanings is their lineage.

They were relatives of Jesus that is why the Bible calls them is "brethren", but they were not children of Mary the mother of Jesus.
Do you understand?

If bethren.means relatives, then Mathew will not say brethren because him, matthew and the whole of Isreal, whether Nazareth or Capernaum or Jerusalem are his relatives.


John 19:25
standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother 's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Matt 27:56
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Mk 15:49
There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.

See it many Marys, James, Johns, Sals, simons etc Names are replicated in their families, so Mary and Joseph have their own James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas. You can even see you said "the younger james" meaning, there is an older james.

And see Simon and Judas are not mentioned in that family, so you see, lineage proves you are wrong and your church lied

You are trying to be cleaver by half.
In the entire bible Mary the mother of Jesus is only addressed as the mother of Jesus. No other.

In case you don't know who the younger James is please ask questions and I'll tell you, Jesus had 2 James among his apostles, one was the son of Zebedee he was older, the other is James the son of Alpheus AKA Clopas, he was younger. The bible says their mother was a relative to Mary so they are brothers of Jesus.
There are no many James or Jose's in the passages I gave you, they are all talking about the women at the foot of the cross and they all corroborate that a relative of Mary was there who was the mother of James, Joses and Salome. This James is James the younger or James the less, who is an apostle. Since you were wondering about Jude, Jude wrote an epistle. He claims to be "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James," he is a relative of James probably his blood brother.

So the passage you brought claiming that Mary had other kids does not prove any such thing. Instead the bible tells us that many of those listed had a totally different mother, not Mary the mother of Jesus.



That is clear enough for any sincere person. If you feel like going about to argue, I have no desire for useless arguments.

Emusan:


But the scripture recorded the birth of Jesus and nothing was said about being miraculous.

If it's not recorded in the scripture, where did early church get such info from?

The early church was taught directly by the apostles. The gospels were written over 30 years after the resurrection. Before we had a single book of the new testament, we already had a church, the early church didn't begin to learn about Jesus by reading a new testament! No! The apostles preached and were already preaching for over 30 years before the holy spirit inspired them to put some of what they had taught into writing.

So really it is very ignorant to ask "if it isn't in scripture where the the early church get the info from"?
Sorry but that's a very ignorant question. The early church already knew about Jesus before we had a new testament and even the new testament tell us it doesn't attempt to put everything down in writing.
If you want to know all that the apostles taught the early Christians that the bible itself say it couldn't write because it will be too much, then go check the practices and beliefs of those who the apostles taught and those who those people taught. Check out all the churches that can directly trace themselves back to the apostles and see what all of them have always believed.

Kingsempires:
you just come on nairaland once a while

Yes I have a whole life out there to live.
I don't have the time for long arguments from people who have already closed their minds.

All I am doing if fulfilling all righteousness. The moment I notice a person is unteachable, I leave them to their thoughts.
Even scripture forbids me from arguing over words

StillDtruth:


Does your bible not have Matthew 12:46 and Matthew 13:55,56?

Matthew 12:46
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without desiring to speak with him.

The word translated as "brethren" in that passage also means relatives.
It is the same word used in Gen 13:8
And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren

We know Abraham and lot aren't real brothers, they as relatives uncle and nephew

The same word is used in Gen 14:14
Now when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house,

We know it wasn't his brother

In Lev 10:4

And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them: 'Draw near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out ...

The word is not simply about biological brothers, it also is used for relatives.

Matthew 13:55-56
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Note Jesus is called the carpenters son, they tell us his mother is Mary, then they list his brethren... remember that brethren is also used to denote relatives.

So let us check the bible to see if those "brethren" where biological brothers of Jesus.

John 19:25

standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother 's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Matt 27:56
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
Mk 15:49
There were also women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.


So if you read you bible very well you will notice that the bible tells how who were these people. Joses and James were sons of a relative if Mary who was married to a man called Clopas. Jude was also their brother. Their sister is called Salome.

They were relatives of Jesus that is why the Bible calls them is "brethren", but they were not children of Mary the mother of Jesus.
Do you understand?

StillDtruth:


This is not true!
Cite examples where the bible decribed an only son as a first born.

I already gave you the biblical definition of a first born as one who opens the womb, even though he might have no siblings. If you are not satisfied with that, have a good day

StillDtruth:


Is a letter not an access? Does Abraham Lincoln's letter and Paul's letters and the bible not give us access to what transpired?using words like "at that time" or "in those days"

the letters of Abraham Lincoln as lovely as they are do no give us a full picture of what was happening in America in his day nor does it purport to record every American culture, belief and practice. The new testament gives us some sense of what happened in the first century, but it was not written to give an exhaustive understanding of every Christian belief and practice. When Paul was writing to Ephesus, he wasn't trying to give a compendium of Christian teaching, in fact he assumed someone had already taught them before his letter, nor does he attempt to tell us all Christian practices.

If you want a full idea of what was going on through out America in those days, you'll need to read the different people who lived in the days of Abraham Lincoln and those who lived immediately after.
If you want to know all that the apostles taught, you read their letters and read the writing of the Christians they taught who were charged to teach others

The bible even laid out the practies and laws of the people it is talking about incliuding when, where and who kept them or broke them. So you have no valid excuse.

since you are sure of this, kindly tell me how the church in Rome conducted their service every Sunday.

If in crime scenes investigators ensure that the evidence there are not corrupted or tainted, is it now the bible, the Book of Truth?

investigators don't only look at the crime scene, they talk to the accused and the presumed victims, then they talk to all who were there at the time the crime was allegedly committed.
That is why after reading my bible, I check the historical context in which it was written, the church it was addressed to, the practices of the early Christians, how they understood the passage. Anyone who has studied scripture will tell you of patristics and HCM.

I get it, you don't like whole and pure Truths as is your right, no wahala

People swallow greedily any lie that flatters them, but sip only little by little at a truth they find bitter.' Dennis Diderot

I could say the same about you. That is why you are scared to check how Christians from the beginning have always understood scripture.
Instead you take them and wrest them to your own desires

StillDtruth:


Off Point!

on point

StillDtruth:


Off Point/Deflection!

The point is about the announcet says "only practicing catholics" should come for the communion even after all the prayers for forgiveness at the beginning and during the mass.

the prayer for forgiveness at the beginning of mass does not make a person a practicing Catholic

1) "Does it mean God did not hear our prayers for mercy? (at the begining of the mass or during the mass or the one just before the communion is given)

the bible actually says God does not hear the prayers of sinners. That is why the Catholic church will tell you that the penitential rite is for minor failings like venial sin and for venial sin you should use the sacrament of confession.

However if you have perfect contrition for all your sins then the word of God applies "A broken and contrite heart o God you will not spurn". In such a case all your sins are forgiven even at the penitential rite.

2) Does it mean God hears only the confessions we make before the Priest?"

He hears a lot more than that, but he also has his process. You think the people of Israel couldn't get their sins forgiven like David who had perfect contrition? Or you think God was stupid to have then confess the sins on an animal?

StillDtruth:


Unity is an.agreement.and consent and compliance thing exactly how we see that Christ did not disagee or object or disobey any of His Father's Laws, Doctrines and Priinciples because they had nothing wrong in them.

Nor the disciples to Christ.

But catholic church has said so many wicked lies and.have done great many evils such that no reasonable righteous loving person can be uniified with them, exactly as[b] David said, for God's Laws are very very clear and without any ambiguity, so anyone who does not obey them, is not a member of the Body of Christ

What lies did the Catholic church tell?
It is funny that you claim "the Catholic church has...done so many great evils such that no reasonable righteous loving person can be unified with them" and then you went to quote David. Are you ignorant of scripture?
Is David not the king who did "many great evils" and yet God did not go back on his word to confirm his descendants on the throne?
This same David was the one who was to unite the righteous in Israel. So you can go and look for the sin of a catholic or many Catholics, it doesn't change the fact that Jesus only built one church and he promised to be with her till the end

And catholic church.by their words and deeds, is not a.member of the Holy Body of Christ[/b]

And I'm sure your church is filled with all holy people. This isn't an argument

Where did the bible say schism is a sin?

Gal 5:19-20

Emusan:


Yes! It's not logical and that's why the scripture says it's a miracle.

But did scripture say it's a miracle that Mary gave birth without the baby passed through her womanhood?



If it's based on just logic I won't believe it but I believe it because it is attributed to miracle.

The scripture doesn't claim to record everything that God did in salvation history. In fact scripture tells us it did NOT record everything. The certainly for this miraculous birth of Jesus is not found in scripture. It is attested to by the early church, this is why all ancient Churches agree that Mary is perpetually a virgin