₦airaland Forum

seeklove:
@4Him
The bible did not exist before the catholics compilation. What existed was the Torah and some letters written to various churches by Paul, Peter, etc, and many different accounts of the life of Jesus. The catholics collected all these books and out of the many accounts of Jesus's life, they chose four(the gospels) and compiled a book called the Bible. Prior to the compilation the bible as a book never existed. The word Bible comes from the word Bibilea which is a house where Scriptures are collected and kept.
Historicaly, the bible is actualy a book of the Catholics.

The apostles did not tell us they were writing to catholics.

imhotep:
Good. In the same way that 'born again' is not used in the Acts of the apostles. Yet you guys keep shouting 'born again' all over the place??

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

I would take any statement made by Christ anyday over what the apostles say.

imhotep:
I have not seen YOUR bible yet!! Still waiting.

neither have i seen YOURS. Compiling and writing are 2 different things . . . perhaps the boy who found the scrolls in the cave of qumran shld claim parts of the old testament as his too eh?

imhotep:
Show me where they had 33,000 bickering sects in the bible.

They still had bickering sects, remember Paul and Apollos?

imhotep:
You just dodged the issue.

nope. I simply raised a very similar scenario for you to chew upon. You dont look at an issue in isolation.

Northwest airlines.

imhotep:
Then how come Jesus was addressing ONLY Peter. Why did He not assemble the 12 and tell them the same thing?

Or are Jesus' words suddenly meaningless?

In no way do i imply that Jesus' words are meaningless.

However, Jesus Christ had an apostle whom He loved . . . did it mean He didnt love the other 11?

imhotep:
You are mixing up things once more. Jesus is the 'mediator of a new covenant'.

That ezekiel quote is more comparable to this ==>

Matthew 23:2-3
1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples,

2 "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.

3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example

The new covenant does not abolish the position of shepherds feeding the flock. You're simply looking for an excuse to continue following unbiblical doctrines that are leading right to the wide path of destruction.

I ask again, pls show me anywhere in the bible that the apostles understood the catholic idea of John 21.

imhotep:
I repeat, go and interpret John 21 sincerely and holistically

Something must be seriously wrong here . . . are you claiming that not a single one of the other apostles understood John 21 too? I cant read anywhere in the bible they accorded Peter any more importance.

imhotep:
This is why you should stop dodging John 21. Please go and interpret it sincerely.

It was in the quest for a sincere interpretation that i showed you that God had used that same description as far back as Ezekiel 34 . . . what makes John 21 any different?
Those Israelite leaders where also told to feed the flock, why does the very same statement made to Peter assume radically different dimensions?

imhotep:
Galatians 1:18-19

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

And this is the basis for your claim that Peter was chosen as leader of the apostles? Paul went preaching for yrs with Barnabas, should we claim that Barnabas was the leader of the apostles too? What of Ananias who helped Paul regain his sight after his conversion?
Is he a pope too?

justcool:
The ignorance in this thread is appalling. Even a child can see that Cgift and 4Him are only driven by hatrad. With every post, 4Him exposes ignorance. I can't believe that somebody in this day and age can be that ignorant.

Earlier in this thread, I made mention of the fact that the Bible was collected and complied by the Catholics. Can you believe that 4Him's reply was: "King James was not a Catholic.
Please what has King James who addicted an already existing Bible, got to do whit the collection and compilation of the Bible. The guy is terribly ignorant thats why I chose not to address him any more.

the problem with people like this is they usually never have anything of substance to contribute beyond mudslinging only to slink away with their tail between their legs.
Driven by hatred of what? The catholic church? Why shld i hate them? Of what purpose am i served by hating them?

Ignorance? Where? You mention that the bible was already written before King James came along . . . bros, the bible had long been written before the catholics came to do their famous "compilation" . . . the Jews had the Torah thousands of yrs before any pope was born so who is more ignorant here?

imhotep:
1. Peter was among 'the apostles'.
2. These young men were not self-appointed. As we observe in many of todays 'churches'.

So based on that verse we should conclude that ALL the apostles were leaders? Ok so why is Phillip not a pope too? Why single out Peter from a verse that is essentially refering to ALL the apostles?

Your point 2 is correct, but who appoints teachers of the gospel? The pope or Christ Himself working through the hands of those He has ordained?

imhotep:
And you are being inconsistent. If you reject the evil bishops, you should reject their works and compile your own. To insinuate the God may have inspired them is a cheap escape route. For you were not there with them.

Do you have anything else to say besides these tired old cliche?

imhotep:
The catholic church is an evil church. Reject the books they compiled. Compile your own, from the MYRIAD of books flying around. Be consistent.

Repeated again? Well you also should reject the books they compiled because a mooslim found them in the cave of qumran.
This is essentially a silly argument whose bottom drops out as soon as u probe a little deeper.
If the catholic church WROTE those very books then you have grounds to tell us to reject them . . . the books of the bible were written primarily by jewish men . . . if anyone shld be in a position to tell us to claim copyright it is their descendants and not usurpers who just came along and put together documents written hundreds of yrs before they were born.

~Lady~:
I believe you're looking for Acts 6: 1-7, most especially 3-6

3 Brothers, select from among you seven reputale men, filled witht he spirit and wisdom, whom we shal appoint to this task
4 whereas we shall devot ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word
5 The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose, Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmena, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism.
6 They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them

how does this show us that Peter was appointed the chief apostle?

~Lady~:
lol I would really like some people to read the Acts of the Apostles and come back and tell me what happened in chapter 6:1-7

Did you even read it yourself? Now look at verse 1 of that chapter . . .
Acts 6:1 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

Note that Christ appointed only 12 apostles, but on the day of Pentecost alone the number of new converts grew to over 3000. The number of converts had grown much too large for only 12 men to handle, in order to make the preaching of the gospel more effective they laid hands and ordained (verse 2) to cope with the obviously larger need to teach the gospel to the nooks and crannies of Israel.

~Lady~:
Why it is that Peter was the LEADER among the apostles?

Where is that expressely stated in Acts 6: 1-7? Who made him the leader of the apostles?

~Lady~:
Why it is that Paul had to send for Peter and plead a case before Peter as why the gentiles did not need to be circumsised if every man could clearly get it done for temsleves? Why is it that Peter had to make the decree? I mean really Why?

You're reading that passage upside down . . .Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Is that the sign of a man "pleading a case"?

~Lady~:
Clearly if a leader is not needed then Christ wouldn't have appointed one. Right?

Where did Christ appoint one? And pls dont go running to John 21 because its clear you people dont understand what it means beyond the lies you've been force-fed.

~Lady~:
I don't want to hear the rubbish of Christ not appointing the apostles to do that which he did on this earth such as healing, casting out of demons, forgiving, etc. Because he did.

Everyone that believes on the name of Jesus Christ has also been given that power . . . read John 1. Even Judas Iscariot could cast out demons.

~Lady~:
But he made sure that not just every Tom, Dick, and Emeka can lay hands on his sheep, so he instituted the apostolic succession by make Peter (rock) the first LEADER of the Church.

That is a lie. No where is this supported in the bible. Timothy could lay hands on the sick, Paul, Phillip, James even Stephen saw heaven before his death . . .

~Lady~:
But what if they said that the book of Timothy was fake and refused to include it in the Bible, would you then include it?

That is why God is God . . . when He wants something done it will be done even if He has to use an ass or 4 lepers to bring it to pass.

~Lady~:
It took these evil and bound for hell Catholci Bishops to say that this book is truly an inspiration from God.

Paul said so in 2 Timothy 3: 16.

imhotep:
How do you know God was with these evil Bishops? You were not there. It is safer for you to reject them and the book they compiled and approved.

you're simply walking around in circles and saying nothing. I never said God was with the bishops but with the apostles who penned the very words you now pretend to lay claim to.
Was God also with Balaam's ass?

imhotep:
But the evil Catholics bishops effectively said ==> 'This book is inspired'. And YOU believed!!!!!!!! Why??

Paul said so in the book of Timothy . . . i doubt if u even read that portion.

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

imhotep:
Good. This is why you should reject the catholic bible and quickly compile and approve your own.

Including the Torah too? Since when did the catholic church become sole copyright holders of the books of the apostles?

Needlelady:
Girl, you don't need balls. Those two things men carry in between their legs are made with amala. Your veejay can open doors for you. Men can do anything for you just to give them attention.

Maybe the 18-wheeler has made u drowsy. You think everyman worships what is between a woman's legs?

imhotep:
God was addressing the Jewish leadership/priesthood here. You are mixing issues up. And you are yet to interpret John 21: 15-17

You gave the answer in your own flippant "interpretation" of Ezekiel 34.

Besides mr imhotep . . . why did NOT ONE SINGLE apostle defer to Peter after Christ's statement in John 21?
Why didnt the other apostles appoint Peter into the seat of the chiefest apostle? Why did that title go to Paul who was still busy slaughtering believers?

Pls show me any other passage in the bible where the apostles made reference to John 21 in making their apostolic decisions.

imhotep:
But you are yet to address the issue.
=> How come evil catholic bishops compiled and addressed the books that protestants base their ENTIRE faith on
=> How come the Holy Spirit allowed the holy protestants to base their whole faith on a book compiled and approved by evil men

You're conflating issues here imhotep. Atheists have been the ones at the forefront of biblical archeology in Israel, should we disregard their findings as untrue? The scrolls found in the qumran cave were found by a mooslim boy . . . should we have thrown away the scrolls?
If God could speak to Balaam through an ASS why do you think it impossible that he could use faithless men to compile historical documents that make up the bible today?

The key issue is WHO WROTE those words that make up the bible? Certainly not the catholic bishops.

imhotep:
God was addressing the Jewish leadership/priesthood here. You are mixing issues up.

Why then is the address to Peter any different? Infact apostles Paul did more feeding of the flock than Peter, why is Paul not regarded as a pope?

Imhotep, i will prefer to select areas i think are worth pursuing, arguing about whether i shld bow to ur bishops for compiling the inspired writings of others they dont even follow is shallow.

First, find out what the word 'vicar' means. Secondly, interpret this for me ==>

John 21: 15-17   ------------->
Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."

A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

If that is your basis for the entire sham that is the catholic doctrine then pls help me identify these "popes" being refered to here:

Ezekiel 34:1 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks? 3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Perhaps you have missed some jewish popes.

imhotep:
But you silently and implicitly accepted the bible whose authenticity is based on their authority as Bishops.

If they had left it just like the scrolls found at the caves of qumran we would still have the same bible to read perhaps not in the sequence we have it today.

imhotep:
Bishops (men of flesh and blood) compiled the bible, and approved it, and rejected MANY MANY other books as non-canonical.

Note: they compiled it but did not write it. The ultimate authority for the bible rests with the mighty men who penned those very words and to Christ who inspired them not to ur bishops who dont even read the bible anymore.
The rejected works they regarded as "non-canonical" are still subject to dispute today, i've read the book of enoch and it dovetails perfectly with the book of Jude.

imhotep:
This is the contradiction => Why should a person of questionable spiritual character compile and approve a book that you base your entire faith on? Something is wrong there!

Nothing is wrong actually. Those books do not belong to the catholic faith but to the body of Christ. They were written to specific churches by specific and identified men of God inspired by the Holy Spirit. That the catholic church as a body then chose to put these letters together does not automatically give them authority over those books.
In that case should the Jews claim authority over the old testament? Should they not be the ones charged with interpreting the books of the law to us?

imhotep:
This is a dogmatic statement. Its hard to imagine the 33,000 bickering protestant sects come together - talkless of agreeing on the books of a 'new' bible.

should we then bow down to the pope for helping us put together the works of Paul, Peter, James and John?

imhotep:
Correction. Rejection is based on a poor knowledge of the doctrines themselves.

Not really, pls find me a good bible reference for vicarius filli dei.

imhotep:
This is how they sound ==> "We accept your authority to compile the bible; but we reject your authority to interpret the bible you compiled".

This makes very little sense no matter how you look at it.
1. We did not delegate any authority to the catholic church to compile the bible for us.
2. The bible is clear that only the Holy Spirit and not a religious organisation has the authority to interprete the bible to us.
3. All scripture is written by the inspiration of God (not the pope).

has she returned the pots just yet? just in case you break up soon.

imhotep:
Well, the bible and the US constitution are not comparable.

i used that as an example, it may not be an exact fit.

imhotep:
Christ did not write any book. If you disagree with the compilers of the bible, you MUST reject the bible they compiled.

They merely compiled the bible into the book form as we know it today. The torah which is essentially the old testament had been in existence long before the catholics came on the scene. Why shld i reject the letters of Paul, James, Jude, Matthew, Mark . . . because a person of questionable spiritual character managed to put their works together in one volume?

imhotep:
Not written but compiled and approved by the Catholic bishops of 393 AD. There are still many many books flying around but rejected by the Catholic Church. For Protestants to be consistent, they MUST reject the bible of 393 AD and compile their own from scratch.

If we choose to compile ours from scratch it would still be the very same books of the bible.

imhotep:
Otherwise there partial rejection is deeply suspect.

Rejection of catholic doctrine is BASED ENTIRELY ON ITS DEVIATION FROM THE VERY SAME BOOK IT PURPORTS TO LAY CLAIM TO!

imhotep:
How come you accept their authority to compile the bible; the suddenly reject their authority. Be consistent. Go and create your own bible, then you will sound credible. Until then, you contradict yourself.

That concept is flawed. Should we reject the US constitution simply because those who wrote it were slave owners?
We can disagree with those who compiled the bible without necessarily disagreeing with the contents of the bible. The bible was not written by catholic bishops but is merely a compilation of historical sources. Many more copies of the bible were found in the late 1940s at the cave of Qumran independent of catholic interference.

any method, there's more if u want to try your hands.

x +  y +  z =  9 - 1
x + 2y + 3z = 23 - 2
x + 5y - 3z = -7 - 3

it's more comfortable solving it with linear algebra by the way.

I think Pataki's calculation was wrong, RichyBlack got it right but i prefer using simple algebra to solve.

First i label all 3 equations to make it easier to locate:

x +  y +  z =  9 - 1
x + 2y + 3z = 23 - 2
x + 5y - 3z = -7 - 3

Subtracting equations 1 from 2 gives us: y + 2z = 14 - 4
make y subject of the formular: y = 14 - 2z

Subtracting equation 3 from equation 2 gives us: -3y + 6z = 30 - 5

substitute for y into equation 5: -3(14 - 2z) + 6z = 30
solving: 12z = 72
z = 6

Substitute for z in equation 4: y + 2(6) = 14
solving: y = 2

Substitute for y and z in equation 1:
x + 2 + 6 = 9
Solving: x = 1

bawomolo:
Mixtures) The radiator in an automobile holds 14 quarts. How much pure anti-freeze should be mixed with a 20% anti-freeze solution to obtain a 40% mixture that will fill the tank?

this is a little tough but i'll give it a try (with a little bit of help though):

https://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j82/davidylan/Picture2.gif

From the table above create 2 equations:
Eqn 1 - x + y = 14
Eqn 2 - x + 0.2y = 5.6

Since we need to find x, make y the subject of eqn 1.
y = 14 - x

Substitute for y in eqn 2:
x + 0.2(14-x) = 5.6
0.8x = 2.8
x = 3.5 qz

I pity Nigeria, a land where the likes of Tahir above are refered to as "elderstatesmen".

asking him directly would have given you a better idea.

MC Usman:
False

"To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" (Matthew 20:23)
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him not Jesus.

You say its false not because you're right but because you're confused. Read Christ's response to Phillip when he also asked Christ to show him the Father.

MC Usman:
False again

“God raised him up.” (Acts 2:24)

Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says

But you missed where Christ Himself specifically addressed this - John 10: 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

MC Usman:
Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one

"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:32)

Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God's will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus’ wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God's will to let the crucifixion take place. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

Jesus Does Not Know Everything

Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)

Your confusion is based on your lack of understanding of who Christ and the Father is. Start from there.

Needlelady:
sorry to dissapoint you, your dangling yekini can be as long as cutlass but if you don't know how to use it, it's useless. I suggest you read the manual on your yekini very well before another disssapointing outing from you.

Is that why u're obsessing over the articles on erectile problems for ur boos yekini?
True, a supersized snake is as good as useless . . . wait at least he can still use it to direct a stream of pee. Take heart . . . pele.

Needlelady:
Stop hating on my boo plz, he's a supersized man.

Its not the biceps but the size of his dangling yekini that counts. Going by your obsession with articles on erectile dysfunction among Nigerian men, methinks he has a supersized problem.