sharpwriter:


Very vast knowledge. I'm humbled. God bless you and increase your knowledge. Amen.

it is very funny when people clap for mediocrity

Nodogragra4me:







2 Timo 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Please where can one place this your stigmata doctrine in the word of God

gal 6:17

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I
bear in my body the marks of the Lord
Jesus

sharpwriter:


Very vast knowledge. I'm humbled. God bless you and increase your knowledge. Amen.

it is very funny when people clap for mediocrity

Wiseman5:

From the Catholic perspective, stigmata (singular stigma) is a term used to describe body marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ, such as the hands, wrists, and feet.
For the purposes of clarity, it's necessary to understand Jesus ministry here on earth, it's a ministry of substitution; He took our place that we should take his place period.
He was made sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him - 2 Cor.5:21
He became poor that we might be rich
-2. Cor. 8:9
He became a ransom that we might be free, saved and justified. Matt 20:28, Acts 13:38-39.
Having said this, it's important to know that anybody that is not practising this substituted life of Christ is not a child of God. every child of God took the place of Christ and that is what unbelievers in Antioch saw and called them CHRISTAINS. Act 11:19-26. No Christain or church is permitted to suffer the pains or marks Christ has suffered in correspondence to him,for he paid the price once and forever for everyone. read this:
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:10‭-‬14 KJV
whoever that practices this pains of Christ is therefore demonic and anti -Christ beacuse he/she goes against the scripture.

you haven't been reading your Bible.

gal 6:17

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I
bear in my body the {o} marks of the {p} Lord
Jesus



Paul was the first to claim he had the marks of Jesus literally on his body.

the Greek word for mark is stigmata

Wiseman5:

God bless you for sharing this truth, I pray that everyone that's still under the shackles of ignorance especially the believers of Roman Catholic doctrines be set free today for their damnation will be worst than those that do not believe in Jesus Christ.

there is no truth there, there was no set canon for Christian until the 4th century, the first to propose a canon was a heretic.... the Christian Church continued rejecting certain books eg revelation and 2 Peter until the councils of hippo and Carthage, what you have there is a rather ignorant copy and paste

donnie:


I do not doubt that she's actually bleeding from the eyes. What I doubt is the interpretation of many folks. As for the host "coming out of the mouth", forget that thing....that's plain silly.

I can bet the OP didn't witness the event firtshand. She was actually given the communion to take as is commonly done to stigmatists. Do your research.

or she received it from an Angel, I have seen someone which communion on her mouth and no body put it there.

I don't know about this one though, I wasn't there, I didn't witness this one and the Church hasn't investigated it

NPComplete:


Horseshit. She isn't even bleeding from the eyes. More like her lower eyelid. Seems painted and forced even. I have seen stigmatas that are more real than that horseshit.

where you there or are u judging based on pictures

NPComplete:
The next jackass that mentions Padre Pio is getting smacked.
Padre Pio existed at a time when our medical knowledge was much more limited. And most of the stories about him were told by his followers who were probably mostly gullible Catholic morons.
I will like to see someone try that trick in this age. Especially the bilocation and levitation he was supposed to be capable of.
Unverifiable stories form the 20th century do not count as fact.

not really true the last century isn't even up to 20 Years ago and it was certainly advanced in medicine, in fact most of the medical breakthrough we enjoy today is from the 19 & 20th century.


that people are Catholics doesn't diminish their credibility unless of course you are a close minded bigot

Nodogragra4me:



Go Iver the thread and find my reply to a similar post. This ignorance must not be carved over to April. The Bible gave indications of it existence even before the name Catholic was proposed by a cardinal.

not true, d name Catholic wasn't proposed by a cardinal nor was there a Christian Bible by then

Ubenedictus:
not true, d name Catholic wasn't proposed by a cardinal nor was there a Christian Bible by then

Who did, Jesus or Peter

Ubenedictus:
or she received it from an Angel, I have seen someone which communion on her mouth and no body put it there.

I don't know about this one though, I wasn't there, I didn't witness this one and the Church hasn't investigated it

Angel ko, Angelina ni.

Ubenedictus:
there is no truth there, there was no set canon for Christian until the 4th century, the first to propose a canon was a heretic.... the Christian Church continued rejecting certain books eg revelation and 2 Peter until the councils of hippo and Carthage, what you have there is a rather ignorant copy and paste

Neither you nor myself was there in that century . Our knowledge is according to the material available to us. To reduce the time spent on back and to argument I have included scriptures which indicated that the scriptures were available even before Constantine came on the scene. ...the Bible is agreeable to everyone as a source book ... do same by pointing out scripture that inferred that what I have pasted wasn't so.... did Daniel have the book of Jeremiah ,did Jesus upbraide some followers . Were the Jews expected to know the and mediate on the law day and night according to the scripture, again.

Give biblical support for your point

donnie:


Growing up as young lad, my sister once saw finger nail marks on my back as she dressed me up which they concluded were the result of witchcraft attack. Though about 9-10years of age, I remember very clearly.

A few others including my mum and dad saw the marks. That was a supernatural occurrence but definitely not of God. I even remember the strange dream I had the night it happened.

Dad kept his "spiritual" water by my bed the following night for protection. Mum, who would have none of that, took me to meet one charismatic brother in our catholic parish who prayed laying his hands on my head.

That was the last time it occurred; thank God my folks were smart enough not to assume it was stigmata

However, several years after, while in Uni, I would experience spiritual "pressing"

What has your story got to do with anything?

Nodogragra4me:



Neither you nor myself was there in that century . Our knowledge is according to the material available to us. To reduce the time spent on back and to argument I have included scriptures which indicated that the scriptures were available even before Constantine came on the scene. ...the Bible is agreeable to everyone as a source book ... do same by pointing out scripture that inferred that what I have pasted wasn't so.... did Daniel have the book of Jeremiah ,did Jesus upbraide some followers . Were the Jews expected to know the and mediate on the law day and night according to the scripture, again.

Give biblical support for your point

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon


ignorance is not a virtue read up.


The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians
regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a
Christian Bible . Which books constituted the Christian
biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament
was generally established by the 5th century, despite
some scholarly disagreements, [1] for the ancient
undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
traditions, before the East–West Schism).


there was no Bible in those centuries until the Catholic Church made the canon. nor was the Bible made as a compendium of all Christian doctrine and practices, you guys are even misusing it.

Ubenedictus:
where you there or are u judging based on pictures

Based on the pictures. And we all know Nigerians are fake bastards

Ubenedictus:
not really true the last century isn't even up to 20 Years ago and it was certainly advanced in medicine, in fact most of the medical breakthrough we enjoy today is from the 19 & 20th century.


that people are Catholics doesn't diminish their credibility unless of course you are a close minded bigot

Oh yes, it does. Their faith closes their minds to scepticism towards anything that confirms their faith. I am sure non Catholics back then doubted him plenty.

See u don't have to be a bigot to see that. U only have to have some little sense.

Nodogragra4me:



Go Iver the thread and find my reply to a similar post. This ignorance must not be carved over to April. The Bible gave indications of it existence even before the name Catholic was proposed by a cardinal.

the name catholic was not proposed by a cardinal.The name catholic was first used to describe the catholic church by st Ignatius of Antioch in 107CE long before cardinals started existing in the catholic church

Ubenedictus:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon


ignorance is not a virtue read up.


The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians
regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a
Christian Bible . Which books constituted the Christian
biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament
was generally established by the 5th century, despite
some scholarly disagreements, [1] for the ancient
undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
traditions, before the East–West Schism).


there was no Bible in those centuries until the Catholic Church made the canon. nor was the Bible made as a compendium of all Christian doctrine and practices, you guys are even misusing it.

I ask you to point out one chapter from the scripture to support your point. You saw more than one in mine. Until you do that your are addressing yourself.


Wikipedia can be edited and turned upside down by anyone. It is not a source.

donnie:


Angel ko, Angelina ni.

you're already closed minded nothing I say will help you

Nodogragra4me:



I ask you to point out one chapter from the scripture to support your point. You saw more than one in mine. Until you do that your are addressing yourself.


Wikipedia can be edited and turned upside down by anyone. It is not a source.

so you think the Bible that actually contains different pieces of letters to different local churches will tell you d date it was compiled?

you get comprehension problem?


wikipedia may be edited but the good thing is that it supports itself with references

Scholarship has been moving away from this traditional
perspective toward a view that says there was no fixed
Old Testament canon in the time of Jesus or before and
the New Testament did not reach its final shape until the
4th and 5th centuries

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0017.xml


The canonical Christian Bible was formally established
by Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 C.E., confirmed by
the Council of Laodicea in 363 C.E., and later
established by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 C.E. In
his Easter letter of 367 C.E., Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as
what would become the New Testament canon, and
he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in
regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in
393 C.E., approved the New Testament, as it stands
today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision
that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 C.E.
and 419 C.E. These councils were under the authority
of Augustine of Hippo , who regarded the canon as
already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome
in 382 C.E., if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly
associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to
that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a
sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus's
commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the
Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the
canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a
list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius
of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke
on the matter, however, they were not defining
something new, but instead "were ratifying what had
already become the mind of the Church." Thus,
from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the
West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is
today), and by the fifth century the East, Eastern
Orthodoxy with a few exceptions, had come to accept
the Book of Revelation and thus had come into
harmony on the matter of the canon.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Biblical_canon



these are not been edited uh

NPComplete:


Oh yes, it does. Their faith closes their minds to scepticism towards anything that confirms their faith. I am sure non Catholics back then doubted him plenty.

See u don't have to be a bigot to see that. U only have to have some little sense.

and your lack of said faith and possible anti faith makes you as biased if not more, you didn't see the evidence before you concluded. what screams bias more than that?

NPComplete:


Based on the pictures. And we all know Nigerians are fake bastards

then you don't have much to go by except you fallacious stereotype and your condemnation of something you didn't witness

Ubenedictus:
and your lack of said faith and possible anti faith makes you as biased if not more, you didn't see the evidence before you concluded. what screams bias more than that?

Sadly, I don't have faith in any Catholic horseshit. Nobody does. Only u Catholics believe ur own horseshit.

Ubenedictus:
so you think the Bible that actually contains different pieces of letters to different local churches will tell you d date it was compiled?

you get comprehension problem?


wikipedia may be edited but the good thing is that it supports itself with references

Scholarship has been moving away from this traditional
perspective toward a view that says there was no fixed
Old Testament canon in the time of Jesus or before and
the New Testament did not reach its final shape until the
4th and 5th centuries

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0017.xml


The canonical Christian Bible was formally established
by Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 C.E., confirmed by
the Council of Laodicea in 363 C.E., and later
established by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 C.E. In
his Easter letter of 367 C.E., Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as
what would become the New Testament canon, and
he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in
regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in
393 C.E., approved the New Testament, as it stands
today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision
that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 C.E.
and 419 C.E. These councils were under the authority
of Augustine of Hippo , who regarded the canon as
already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome
in 382 C.E., if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly
associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to
that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a
sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus's
commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the
Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the
canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a
list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius
of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke
on the matter, however, they were not defining
something new, but instead "were ratifying what had
already become the mind of the Church." Thus,
from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the
West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is
today), and by the fifth century the East, Eastern
Orthodoxy with a few exceptions, had come to accept
the Book of Revelation and thus had come into
harmony on the matter of the canon.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Biblical_canon



these are not been edited uh

This is what I ask you to do. You weren't there when those nonsense you pasted was coupled together and I wasn't either. The one agreeable book to every Christian is the Bible. Check through it and pick a chapter that supports your drivel . Until you do this, you are writing rubbish.......I went from history back to the scripture...do same


Here is mine, as I earlier stated:


That fact, as well as its availability to all, is very clear from Christ's rebuke of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...." (Luke 24:25). He would not have used such harsh language in holding these two ordinary people responsible for their ignorance of prophecies had not all of the Old Testament Scriptures been readily available,familiar, and understandable to the ordinary Jew. He then expounded unto them in all the Scriptures (which must therefore have been known) "the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).

All of the Scriptures were even available to the faraway Bereans north of Greece, who, as we have seen, "searched the Scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11). The same evidence is found in the fact that Timothy knew the Old Testament from early childhood (2 Timothy 3:15) and that it was taught to him not by the rabbis in the synagogue but at home by his mother and grandmother, who themselves were women of faith (2 Timothy 1:5).

Its real, I live around Enugu Ezike, my siblings often go there but I Haven't been there myself. though only God can tell the genuineness of such miracles.

Nodogragra4me:



This is what I ask you to do. You weren't there when those nonsense you pasted was coupled together and I wasn't either. The one agreeable book to every Christian is the Bible. Check through it and pick a chapter that supports your drivel . Until you do this, you are writing rubbish.......I went from history back to the scripture...do same


Here is mine, as I earlier stated:


That fact, as well as its availability to all, is very clear from Christ's rebuke of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...." (Luke 24:25). He would not have used such harsh language in holding these two ordinary people responsible for their ignorance of prophecies had not all of the Old Testament Scriptures been readily available,familiar, and understandable to the ordinary Jew. He then expounded unto them in all the Scriptures (which must therefore have been known) "the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).

All of the Scriptures were even available to the faraway Bereans north of Greece, who, as we have seen, "searched the Scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11). The same evidence is found in the fact that Timothy knew the Old Testament from early childhood (2 Timothy 3:15) and that it was taught to him not by the rabbis in the synagogue but at home by his mother and grandmother, who themselves were women of faith (2 Timothy 1:5).

1. the Bible isn't an agreeable book, the early Church and the Catholic Church had 73 books, you Protestant deleted some and have 66 books, the Orthodox churches added some and came up with up to 81 books, so it is incorrect to claim the Bible is agreeable to all, do you mean the ancient Christian Bible or the one of Luther or that of the Orthodox or the Jewish one?

2. all the passages above are not talking about the Christian Bible, it is talking of the Jewish old testament which was memorised by Jews and available to them...the new testament wasn't even written then.

2 Tim 3 tells us that what they are talking about is the old testament which Tim already knew from childhood as part of his bar mitva... the Christian Bible hadn't been formed then.

NPComplete:


Sadly, I don't have faith in any Catholic horseshit. Nobody does. Only u Catholics believe ur own horseshit.

then you are already bias and can't be objective

Now I understand why one of your popes decided to re write the entire bible to suit your catholic doctrine .....the Bible is not agreeable to all Christians huh. Timothy suddenly no longer suit your argument and has become a Jew ...
What you have indirectly done is to tell Christians that Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian since the prophecy he spoke about were in the 'Jewish Old Testament'

Ubenedictus:


1. the Bible isn't an agreeable book, the early Church and the Catholic Church had 73 books, you Protestant deleted some and have 66 books, the Orthodox churches added some and came up with up to 81 books, so it is incorrect to claim the Bible is agreeable to all, do you mean the ancient Christian Bible or the one of Luther or that of the Orthodox or the Jewish one?

2. all the passages above are not talking about the Christian Bible, it is talking of the Jewish old testament which was memorised by Jews and available to them...the new testament wasn't even written then.

2 Tim 3 tells us that what they are talking about is the old testament which Tim already knew from childhood as part of his bar mitva... the Christian Bible hadn't been formed then.

Ubenedictus:
gal 6:17

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I
bear in my body the marks of the Lord
Jesus

So Paul was the first person to replicate the wounds of Jesus Christ, bah. No longer the man mentioned here by some of your brethren . It is now Paul according to your imputation.
From history account, including of your church no where has it been mentioned that Paul was bleeding or that the stripes of Jesus was supernaturally manifested on his body ... Paul made it clear that he had suffered persecution for the gospel sake ...physical harms not supernatural harms and affliction

When I return I will help you with the scripture in 1 Cor


This is how you people try to use the bible to defend the works of the devil. You guys will wake up and be praying to some dead man and be mixing the bible as supportive of such practices

Nodogragra4me:
Now I understand why one of your popes decided to re write the entire bible to suit your catholic doctrine .....the Bible is not agreeable to all Christians huh. Timothy suddenly no longer suit your argument and has become a Jew ...
What you have indirectly done is to tell Christians that Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian since the prophecy he spoke about were in the 'Jewish Old Testament'

no Pope rewrote the entire Bible that is your usual Protestant lie. the new testament hadn't been written when Timothy was a child, so he couldn't have been reading the new testament as a baby. what he was reading was the Jewish old testament not the Christian Bible you have today, just the old testament part of it. you seem ignorant that many early church converts were formerly Jews and would have read the Jewish old testament.


Christian means follower of Christ, how can Jesus be a follower of himself, Jesus is the founder of Christianity, the author and finisher of our faith, it is we his followers who are called Christians. that is simple English.

Nodogragra4me:




So Paul was the first person to replicate the wounds of Jesus Christ, bah. No longer the man mentioned here by some of your brethren . It is now Paul according to your imputation.
From history account, including of your church no where has it been mentioned that Paul was bleeding or that the stripes of Jesus was supernaturally manifested on his body ... Paul made it clear that he had suffered persecution for the gospel sake ...physical harms not supernatural harms and affliction

When I return I will help you with the scripture in 1 Cor


This is how you people try to use the bible to defend the works of the devil. You guys will wake up and be praying to some dead man and be mixing the bible as supportive of such practices

I actually didn't bother to interpret the passage, you are the one drawing the varied interpretation.

someone ask about the stigmata in the Bible, well that is the Greek word Paul uses in describing bearing the marks of the Lord physically in his body, maybe he meant the scars he received in preaching the gospel... or some other mark that reflects on his body the wounds of Christ. the word is there, how you interpret it is your story.