naijadeyhia:


If you understood the meaning of grace as i outlined and when i used the word "undeserving" then you would catch my drift.

ktjohnpaul:

You have either not been reading my posts or something else, time without number I have mentioned how we all do not merit the grace we are given. For the sake of clearity, I will repeat my self again using different words.

Grace is a participation in the life of God, which is poured unearned into human beings, whom it heals of sin and sanctifies.

Full of Grace becomes the only reason why marry is without sin, because there is simply no room. Her body and soul is FULL OF GRACE. Note that the angelic declaration happens just before incarnation so as to prep her to become an Ark that will Carry the sinless Jesus for nine months.

naijadeyhia:


Grace is given for a [b]specific purpose and it was never to erase the sins of Mary. if her sins were erased before conception then Christ would not have fully taken on the likeness of man because the likeness of man was sinful but the truth is that Christ was both the Son of Man physically but the Son of God spiritually and since his birth from Mary was physical she could only lay claim to him from the physical and not from the spiritual. Please stop the delusion. [/b]

naijadeyhia:


Grace is given for a specific purpose and it was never to erase the sins of Mary. if her sins were erased before conception then Christ would not have fully taken on the likeness of man because the likeness of man was sinful but the truth is that Christ was both the Son of Man physically but the Son of God spiritually and since his birth from Mary was physical she could only lay claim to him from the physical and not from the spiritual. Please stop the delusion.

ktjohnpaul:

Grace is a mystery that cannot be explained logically. And what is the specific purpose of grace? Sola Scriptura pls

naijadeyhia:

WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ACTING MORE LIKE A SECRET CULT BECAUSE ONLY SECRET CULTS KEEP SECRETS. EVEN GOD REVEALS HIS SECRETS TO THOSE WHOM HE LOVES. CALL IT SOLA BIBLE OR WHATEVER, IF YOU CATHOLICS HAVE A DIFFERENT BIBLE SAY IT HERE AND ALSO POINT OUT TO ME WHERE IT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT MARY DID NOT DIE BUT WENT UP TO HEAVEN WITHOUT SEEING DEATH AND I REPEAT I WILL BECOME A CATHOLIC IN NO TIME

chukwudi44:

catholic church do not keep secrets.The life and writings of the church fathers are there for all to see.The study of their life and writings are called pastristics.The assumption of mary and the daeths of the apostles are well described in the writings of the church fathers some of which witnessed these events.

naijadeyhia:


[b]“and His grace toward me was not in vain;
but I labored more abundantly than they all,
yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me”
I CORINTHIANS 15:10

God’s Grace is not a sentiment but a power. Grace, as with everything in God, is given with purpose and intention. We see here in Corinthians that the REASON Paul laboured so abundantly was BECAUSE of the Grace of God that was with Him. Its purpose is to produce within us a life that reveals God’s salvation, His life, and His righteousness. Grace received which does not bring forth an ardent pursuit of the Living Christ, a labouring in the ministration of His Life, and a salvation that produces a life of a growth in righteousness is a grace that has been received in vain.

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present world”
TITUS 2:11 – 12

This same Grace which brings salvation into the life of every believer is the SAME Grace that “teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts” and enables us that we should live “righteously and godly in this PRESENT world!” How we misrepresent God when Grace is presented as a sentiment with no correlation to living a life of righteousness in this present world. The grace of God has appeared to ALL MEN but its efficacy and power is known only in those who reveal it by the life they live.

We read here that that Grace produced within Paul a labouring and a life of strenuous discipleship for he was empowered by the grace of God that was working with him to the Glory of God.

“We then, as workers together with him,
beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain”
II CORINTHIANS 6:1

The Glory of the New Testament is that Jesus HAS COME and IS COME. He is at work within our hearts by the means of HIS Grace to bring forth in us a “working out of our own salvation” because He is ever “working in us” a will to do His Will!

“work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
For it is God which worketh in you
both to will and to do of his good pleasure”
PHILLIPIANS 2:12 – 13
[/b]

naijadeyhia:


I AM AMAZED THAT YOU CLAIM SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS ACTUALLY WITNESSED THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY YET THEY DIDNT DEEM IT FIT TO INCLUDE IT IN ANY OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AS WE KNOW IT INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL 7 BOOKS THAT CATHOLICS UPHOLD?

SO YOU BELIEVE THE SO CALLED CHURCH FATHERS RATHER THAN THE WORD OF GOD? ONE MORE TIME IF YOU CAN SHOW ME A SCRIPTURE WHERE IT WAS NOT EVEN BOLDLY MENTIONED THAT MARY DID NOT DIE BUT WENT STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN BUT A SCRIPTURE WHERE IT WAS EVEN HINTED VAGUELY THEN YOU WILL CONVERT ME

naijadeyhia:


I AM AMAZED THAT YOU CLAIM SOME OF THE CHURCH FATHERS ACTUALLY WITNESSED THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY YET THEY DIDNT DEEM IT FIT TO INCLUDE IT IN ANY OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AS WE KNOW IT INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL 7 BOOKS THAT CATHOLICS UPHOLD?

SO YOU BELIEVE THE SO CALLED CHURCH FATHERS RATHER THAN THE WORD OF GOD? ONE MORE TIME IF YOU CAN SHOW ME A SCRIPTURE WHERE IT WAS NOT EVEN BOLDLY MENTIONED THAT MARY DID NOT DIE BUT WENT STRAIGHT TO HEAVEN BUT A SCRIPTURE WHERE IT WAS EVEN HINTED VAGUELY THEN YOU WILL CONVERT ME

chukwudi44:

what do you know is a word of God?How do you know the gospels were written by Mattew,Mark,Luke or John.You have not been able to provide answers to these questions.You protestant ignoramuses actually think the bible fell from heaven abi? why dont you read the gnostic gospels and other gospels which were not canonised by these church fathers.

ktjohnpaul:

John 21:24-25 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.  There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

This is referring only to Jesus, not to talk about the other players in the salvation story.

chukwudi44: If you beleive the gospels were written by Mattew,Mark,luke and John then you also beleive in the church fathers shikena.Any other thing is hypocrisy

ktjohnpaul:

John 21:24-25 This is the disciple who testifies about these things and has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.  There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

This is referring only to Jesus, not to talk about the other players in the salvation story.

naijadeyhia:


Ironically i have read the 7 other books and already they had one thing in common, contradictions and fallacies. Plus my bible tells me that all scripture is inspired by God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

.

naijadeyhia:


John authoritatively as someone who actually witnessed the works of Christ. This was why he said "I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." This is simple english. It shows no other books had been written when the appostles where alive. If any other book was written it would be after their demise and this would lend credence to them not being inspired by the Holy Spirit

naijadeyhia:


John authoritatively as someone who actually witnessed the works of Christ. This was why he said "I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." This is simple english. It shows no other books had been written when the appostles where alive. If any other book was written it would be after their demise and this would lend credence to them not being inspired by the Holy Spirit

naijadeyhia:


And who are these church Fathers you keep repeating? A father owns and has rights over a thing. Jesus owns the Church and there is no Father to the church besides Him

chukwudi44:

i am afraid this conclusion is afigment of your imagination.Besisdes that gospel was not the last biblical scripture that was written

chukwudi44:
i am afraid the apostles did not just aabandon the church without leaving people to take care of them.We have several of them bu i will start with the three apostolic fathers namely;Clement of rome,Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna

naijadeyhia:


Did you read where i wrote no other book would have been written when the apostles where alive only after their demise. Yes they did write other books contained in the Bible that i know. But may i ask, Who is JUDITH? who is TOBIT? who is MACCABBEES? who wrote ECCLESIASTICUS? who added BEL AND THE DRAGON to daniel? who is BARUCH and who wrote the book? who is SUSANNA? who wrote TOBIAS?

naijadeyhia:

Apostolic Fathers? That word again. smh. Once again your clement of Rome, Ignatious of Antioch and Polycarp were all hirelings! The True Vine and Good Shepherd, The redeemer of Israel is the Father of the Church

chukwudi44:

you should be asking who removed the 7 books from the bible and not who added any book since the 7 books were included in the bible right from inception.

naijadeyhia:


Did you read where i wrote no other book would have been written when the apostles where alive only after their demise. Yes they did write other books contained in the Bible that i know. But may i ask, Who is JUDITH? who is TOBIT? who is MACCABBEES? who wrote ECCLESIASTICUS? who added BEL AND THE DRAGON to daniel? who is BARUCH and who wrote the book? who is SUSANNA? who wrote TOBIAS?

naijadeyhia:

WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ACTING MORE LIKE A SECRET CULT BECAUSE ONLY SECRET CULTS KEEP SECRETS. EVEN GOD REVEALS HIS SECRETS TO THOSE WHOM HE LOVES. CALL IT SOLA BIBLE OR WHATEVER, IF YOU CATHOLICS HAVE A DIFFERENT BIBLE SAY IT HERE AND ALSO POINT OUT TO ME WHERE IT IS WRITTEN IN YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE BIBLE THAT MARY DID NOT DIE BUT WENT UP TO HEAVEN WITHOUT SEEING DEATH AND I REPEAT I WILL BECOME A CATHOLIC IN NO TIME

chukwudi44:

why dont you show me where your 'true shepherd' showed you who authoured the gospels and other anonymous scriptures which topday bear names of authours

naijadeyhia:


[b]The Catholic Church claims to be the divine guardian of truth and claims infallibility in its presentation of truth. Yet it claims to have given us the Bible in 397 A.D. and then added to it in 1546 A. D. Which time did it err? It either erred in giving us just part of the Bible in 397 A.D., or it erred in adding the other books to it (note they were added to the Old Testament too -- not to the New Testament) in 1546 A. D. There is no way out of this dilemma, and either horn they accept means that the Catholic Church claim of being the infallible guardian and giver of truth has been disproved.

The truth of the matter is that they never had anything to do with the selection of the books of the Bible. As already noted the Bible was in circulation and accepted long before the Catholic Church ever came into existence or had any ideas of giving a decree on the Bible. As for the extra books that are accepted by the Catholic Church as Divine in 1546 A.D., we might note that the Church itself never accepted them as divine until 1546 A.D. -- a very good argument against their acceptance. If divine, why did they have to wait until 1500 years after Christ to finally accept them?[/b]

obayaya:

and Jesus asked the isrealite to mould for themselves a snake, that whoever looks upon it won't die from a snake bite or isn't it in your own bible?

chukwudi44:

Oga please endeavour to be raeding my posts.for the umpteenth time i will tell you those books were included in the original canon approved by the cathjholc hurch in the the late third and fourth centuries.I will reproduce here again resolution 24 of the council of carthage held in 417CE more tahn 100 years before the council of trent.

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
•Genesis.
•Exodus.
•Leviticus.
•Numbers.
•Deuteronomy.
•Joshua the Son of Nun.
•The Judges.
•Ruth.
•The Kings, iv. books.
•The Chronicles, ij. books.
•Job.
•The Psalter.
•The Five books of Solomon.
•The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
•Isaiah.
•Jeremiah.
•Ezechiel.
•Daniel.
•Tobit.
•Judith.
•Esther.
•Ezra, ij. books.
•Macchabees, ij. books. ◦The New Testament. ■The Gospels, iv. books.
■The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
■The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
■The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
■The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
■The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
■The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
■The Revelation of John, j. book.



Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm