legendarymega:
Any Christian who says Catholic are idol worshiper, is also an idol worshiper. This is bcoz catholic started Christianity, they are the original owner of ur bible, and if the foundation is not christian, mean every other angle are not either

Nodogragra4me:
Your knowledge of Christianity is defective and elementary. Christianity starter in the upper room on the day of Pentecost. Paul. Formerly Saul then spread it the most across Asia and Europe. If you have never learnt what the many books he wrote was about, know it today that he wrote those books as letters to different branches of the church.it wasn't the catholic church or the pope that wrote them, Paul personally did the writings ..when next you open the scripture and read something like the Saints at Ephesus, Corinth, Macedonian, he is dealing with not dead people but living Christians.

Priscilla and Aquila were an ordinary husband and wife who labored daily at tentmaking Acts 18:3 Yet a church [met] in their house (1 Corinthians 16:19) and they were capable teachers of God's Word, even instructing a man so eloquent as Apollos (Acts 18:26). Paul referred to them as "my helpers in Christ Jesus" (Romans 16:3).

Nwanne you brought me over here by your spamming chronic appeal plastered all over the Religion forum, urging all and sundry, to come visit this thread.

Hmm, defective and elementary you typed? Those that leave in glass houses, shouldnt be throwing stones. Nwanne, Christianity, never started in any upper room on any day of Pentencost. Christianity, as in, Constantine Christianity, in cahoot with the "church" started in Rome.

"I was circumcised when I was eight days old.
I am a pure-blooded citizen of Israel and a member of the tribe of Benjamin
—a real Hebrew if there ever was one! I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law."
- Philippians 3:5

"Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,"
- Acts 13:9

Also Paul, was not as you put it, formerly Saul, this is because Saul and Paul were both already existing names he was known by. As a matter of fact, Saul was his Hebrew name, whilst Paul was his Roman name.

Paul had dual citizenship, he was both Roman and Jewish. He after the Acts 13:9 experience, stuck to using his Roman Paul name, for obvious reasons of the the work ahead and terrain he will be working

Nodogragra4me:
Another proof that you are an ignoramus is your claim about the source and ownership of the Bible.

Jesus Christ quoted the old testament while alive in flesh here in earth . The apostles did same. Daniel in the old testament was reading the books of Jeremiah in prison. Dan 9:2

The entire Old Testament was well-known when Christ was here and undoubtedly long before, for every Israelite was required to meditate upon it day and night. In Old Testament times the common people were expected to know God's Word, not through rabbinical interpretation but for themselves, and were able to know it.

The above 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).

Your ignorance is formerly and forever cured today in the mighty name of Jesus Christ. Just respond with an amen.

I am currently at page 6 since steadily reading from the beginning, but needed to interrupt my reading, in order to quickly interject immediately, as like above and at this point and right here, to say that, legendarymega is right, in what and where, he typed that the catholic started Christianity, this so, because the Roman Catholic Church was formed, after shady deal(s) and/or sell-out to the State by the "Church", as it was the Roman Emperors Constantine's and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all, as in, this was a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and so paved the way for Christianity to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire too.

The introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences was a tragic compromise by the early believers, as this resulted in the Romanization and paganization of the early believers' faith and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs as we not just know but celebrate then and celebrate even up until now.

Anyway, the Roman Empire, adopted the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC) as "official" church during Roman Emperor Constantine's reign, and it's worth noting, that, the supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy or pope) was set up, put into place, aided and abetted through the support of the Roman Emperors (i.e. notably Constantine and his successors)

Recall that I earlier mentioned the Edict of Milan in AD 313, which was a letter signed by the Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius, that proclaimed religious toleration in the Roman Empire, well, in AD 325, Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose, like for example Arianism, all about doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D and so Constantine presided over this first ecumenical church council

So quick recap, by the 1st century AD, ekklēsia birthed on the teachings of Jesus Christ and later founded on the day of Pentecost in the upper room with a bunch of 120 believers.

By the 2nd century AD - believers already denouncing teachings, seen as heresies, such as Gnosticism, Montanism etcetera.

In the 4th century AD - ekklēsia was transformed, emerged Christians, an evolved "church", finally gets legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I, as the state church, of the Roman Empire and so yes also that, legendarymega is right, that the Catholics, are the original owner of your bible, because truly, the RCC are the original owner of your bible version(s), because incidentally and truly, those versions were made off the back of "The Vulgate", which was an accepted Latin translation of the original Old and New Testament texts.

Some even called, "The Vulgate", the "The Vulgar" bible. Anyway, Jerome, of RCC, was the person, who translated the original Old and New Testament texts and compiled them into a single volume of the 66 books we enjoy today

The word Christian was first used in Acts 11:26


"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (AV, Acts 11:26)

Then Acts 26:28


"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (AV, Acts 26:28)


And then 1 Peter 4:16


"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; [16] but let him glorify God on this behalf." (AV, 1 Peter 4:16)

Before the Catholic Church , Christians were already existing. Christianity is what Christ introduced us to and first propagated by his first Apostles.

Constantine is not in the scripture but continued the persecution already captured by the scripture. Saul/Paul was doing exactly what their emperor before Constantine came on the scene, was doing...fighting and killing the early Christians. ...

"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that [16] beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and [17] wasted it:" (AV, Galatians 1:13)


Christian were already existing and been killed. Constantine only changed the strategy by joining them and then asking for some right and privileges.... That was the beginning of Catholicism not Christianity... Inquisition was not against fellow Catholics or idol worshippers or unbelievers but Christians who refused the new order

MuttleyLaff:


Nwanne you brought me over here by your spamming chronic appeal plastered all over the Religion forum, urging all and sundry, to come visit this thread.

Hmm, defective and elementary you typed? Those that leave in glass houses, shouldnt be throwing stones. Nwanne, Christianity, never started in any upper room on any day of Pentencost. Christianity, as in, Constantine Christianity, in cahoot with the "church" started in Rome.

"I was circumcised when I was eight days old.
I am a pure-blooded citizen of Israel and a member of the tribe of Benjamin
—a real Hebrew if there ever was one! I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law."
- Philippians 3:5

"Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,"
- Acts 13:9

Also Paul, was not as you put it, formerly Saul, this is because Saul and Paul were both already existing names is was known by. As a matter of fact, Saul was his Hebrew name, whilst Paul was his Roman name.

Paul had dual citizenship, he was both Roman and Jewish. He after the Acts 13:9 experience, stuck to using his Roman Paul name, for obvious reasons of the the work ahead and terrain he will be working

I am currently at page 6 since steadily reading from the beginning, but needed to interrupt my reading, in order to quickly interject immediately, as like above and at this point and right here, to say that, legendarymega is right, in what and where, he typed that the catholic started Christianity, this so, because the Roman Catholic Church was formed, after shady deal(s) and/or sell-out to the State by the "Church", as it was the Roman Emperors Constantine's and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all, as in, this was a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and so paved the way for Christianity to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire too.

The introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences was a tragic compromise by the early believers, as this resulted in the Romanization and paganization of the early believers' faith and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs as we not just know but celebrate then and celebrate even up until now.

Anyway, the Roman Empire, adopted the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC) as "official" church during Roman Emperor Constantine's reign, and it's worth noting, that, the supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy or pope) was set up, put into place, aided and abetted through the support of the Roman Emperors (i.e. notably Constantine and his successors)

Recall that I earlier mentioned the Edict of Milan in AD 313, which was a letter signed by the Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius, that proclaimed religious toleration in the Roman Empire, well, in AD 325, Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose, like for example Arianism, all about doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D and so Constantine presided over this first ecumenical church council

So quick recap, by the 1st century AD, ekklēsia birthed on the teachings of Jesus Christ and later founded on the day of Pentecost in the upper room with a bunch of 120 believers.

By the 2nd century AD - believers already denouncing teachings, seen as heresies, such as Gnosticism, Montanism etcetera.

In the 4th century AD - ekklēsia was transformed, emerged Christians, an evolved "church", finally gets legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I, as the state church, of the Roman Empire and so yes also that, legendarymega is right, that the Catholics, are the original owner of your bible, because truly, the RCC are the original owner of your bible version(s), because incidentally and truly, those versions were made off the back of "The Vulgate", which was an accepted Latin translation of the original Old and New Testament texts.

Some even called, "The Vulgate", the "The Vulgar" bible. Anyway, Jerome, of RCC, was the person, who translated the original Old and New Testament texts and compiled them into a single volume of the 66 books we enjoy today

Nodogragra4me:
The word Christian was first used in Acts 11:26

"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (AV, Acts 11:26)

Then Acts 26:28

and so? What are you trying to say by referrring to and/or quoting Acts 11:26 huh?

Jesus asked the disciples: ''Who do people say I am?''
After the disciples gave all manner of answers, He zeroed in.
''But what about you?'' He asked. ''Who do you say I am?''

You are not defined by what others call you, and so, believers too, are not defined by what the people of Antioch called us. What the people of Antioch, said about the believers is not a reflection of believers but a reflection of the people of Antioch, known for their penchant of giving out nicknames, especially with bad meaning, to others. You could see in your King Agrippa bible verse how the king sneered at the word "Christian"

Nodogragra4me:
"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (AV, Acts 26:28)

And then 1 Peter 4:16

There you go again, do you at all, not understand or feel the gravity of King Agrippa made that statement in disdain, hmm?

Think carefully over the following below Nodogragra4me:
1/ Why was King Agrippa particularly horrified at the prospect of being labelled a Christian
2/ Did you notice Paul's response to Aggrippa?
3/ Did you notice that Paul, stopped short of using Aggrippa's "Christian" adjective and/or label, that he instead, opted to use "I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am"?

Nodogragra4me:
Acts 11:26 "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; [16] but let him glorify God on this behalf." (AV, 1 Peter 4:16)

It is good that we both know, that the word, Christian, occurs only, 3 times in the bible
but it will be a tragic mistake, if you plan to improperly lean on to those 3 verses, Act 11:26, Act 26:28 and especially 1 Peter 4:16 as acceptance or validation

Peter telling not to be ashamed, if you suffer as a Christian, isnt calling you a christian nor saying you are a christian. All Peter said, is peradventure, if it so happens, you are treated as a Christian, then dont be ashamed that you've been, but instead, glorify God for getting treated that way

Nodogragra4me, many believers count themselves worthy to be dishonoured for Christ's sake, but they dont go about calling themselves nigger.

Nodogragra4me, are you happy, pleased and be OK, if from henceforth I start to address and call you nigger Nodogragra4me? Please reply and advice

Nodogragra4me:
Before the Catholic Church, Christians were already existing. Christianity is what Christ introduced us to and first propagated by his first Apostles.

There are over 280 words that believers used for each other, addressed each other as, greeted each other with, the word Christian is not among or in that number

Before Antioch and its bad meaning Christian word, before the Catholic Church, believers were already existing. Jesus never introduced Christianity. Christianity was never propagated by the first Apostles

In the 4th century AD - ekklēsia was transformed, emerged Christians, an evolved "church", finally gets legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I, as the state church, of the Roman Empire and so yes also that, legendarymega is right, that the Catholics, are the original owner of your bible, because truly, the RCC are the original owner of your bible version(s), because incidentally and truly, those versions were made off the back of "The Vulgate", which was an accepted Latin translation of the original Old and New Testament texts.

Nodogragra4me:
Constantine is not in the scripture but continued the persecution already captured by the scripture. Saul/Paul was doing exactly what their Emperor before Constantine came on the scene, was doing...fighting and killing the early Christians. ...

"For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that [16] beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and [17] wasted it:" (AV, Galatians 1:13)

The word Christianity too, is not in the scripture and/or not mentioned in the bible

Where did you find the word Christian to read in Galatians 1:13, that Paul said he was persecuting, hmm?

Nodogragra4me:
Christian were already existing and been killed. Constantine only changed the strategy by joining them and then asking for some right and privileges.... That was the beginning of Catholicism not Christianity... Inquisition was not against fellow Catholics or idol worshippers or unbelievers but Christians who refused the new order

No sire, ekklēsia was birthed on the teachings of Jesus Christ and later founded on the day of Pentecost in the upper room with a bunch of 120 believers.

In the 4th century AD - ekklēsia was transformed, emerged Christianity, an evolved "church", finally gets legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I, as the state church, of the Roman Empire.

The introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences was a tragic compromise by the early believers, as this resulted in the Romanization and paganization of the early believers' faith and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs as we not just know, but celebrate then and celebrate even up until now. Emerged Christianity, and the rest is history.

MuttleyLaff:
and so? What are you trying to say by referrring to and/or quoting Acts 11:26 huh?

Jesus asked the disciples: ''Who do people say I am?''
After the disciples gave all manner of answers, He zeroed in.
''But what about you?'' He asked. ''Who do you say I am?''

You are not defined by what others call you, and so, believers too, are not defined by what the people of Antioch called us. What the people of Antioch, said about the believers is not a reflection of believers but a reflection of the people of Antioch, known for their penchant of giving out nicknames, especially with bad meaning, to others. You could see in your King Agrippa bible verse how the king sneered at the word "Christian"

The best way to have approached some of the weighty declarations you made in this your submission would have been to cite instances. An example of one such submission needing an instance is your Alignment with the school of thought that says the name Christian mentioned in this Acts 11:26 was derogatory with your reason for that being the people of Antioch were famous for giving out nicknames. The Bible says in the mouth of two or three is a thing confirmed so provide examples of their previous exploit in this business of nickname generation.

To the name proper , I do not know how you came to the conclusion that the name Christian, used to distinguish or identify the believers in Christ including the Apostles here was derisive and a product of the prowess of the people of Antioch in inventing nicknames. Names known to have been given to some Christian sect as a result of their extreme or seemingly extreme proclivity for certain aspect of the scripture includes puritan, Methodist and in today's Christendom, prosperity church.

Judging from the very chapter , there is no indication that the name came out of the mouth of a comedian of Antioch origin unless you can off course, point out a verse in that chapter that gave this your indication. I will help with the chapter here:

The first part of the chapter was Peter accounting for his actions. The second part that has to do with the name is reproduced here as extract so you can point out where you got the idea from.

"Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." (AV, Acts 11:19).........This is Inquisition in the scripture even before Rome and Constantine came into the scene.


"And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, [ Not just the original 12 anymore because the company of believers had grown very large amongst the Jews and outside them] which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto [17] the Grecians, [18] preaching the Lord Jesus." (AV, Acts 11:20)

"And [20] the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and [19] turned unto the Lord." (AV, Acts 11:21)..... The hand of the lord was evident in their midst therefore a GREAT NUMBER believed the evidence before ethem

"Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth [21] Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch." (AV, Acts 11:22).... More hand was sent from headquarters to help in Antioch


"Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and [23] exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would [22] cleave unto the Lord." (AV, Acts 11:23)..... He didn't notice derision but saw the grace of God to remain faithful to the faith

"For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: [24] and much people was added unto the Lord." (AV, Acts 11:24).... More people were added ...not jokers or comedians but people of Antioch


"Then departed Barnabas to [25] Tarsus, for to seek Saul:" (AV, Acts 11:25).... No ugly untoward incident before his departure

"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (AV, Acts 11:26)..... A whole year they taught MUCH people about Christ not how to be a comedian or joker per excellent but good Christian. Then they were called Christians first here in Antioch … Take note that they taught not the doctrine of man but Christ for a whole year under than hand of the Mighty Holy Spirit… Then the learned , those who have been under tutelage have them a name , Christian . Certainly if we are to believe the works of Peter in the first part of this chapter where as yet he taught the spirit fell upon all them that heard , we can draw similar conclusion that the name came from the student under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not a comedy thing. You can't be under discipleship for a year and not come under the disciple lifestyle. They taught and impartation followed and the next things was the spirit inspired outburst, Christians!

There is no elements of joke in the name. Nothing dishonouring about it. Nothing controversial about it like prosperity CHURCH and all the misinformation out there against them. Christin , doing the Christ way. Through uncommon wisdom, practical demonstration of the power of the world to come … What is derisive about that?

As imperfect as Buhari is, to be called a Buharideen in the right circle like in the villa, government houses across Nigeria and the media like NTA carries weight not dishonour. “To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah” . Reproach is when you called them followers of a sectional like like Jesus of Nazareth like , sorry, calling a knowledgeable Tinubu loyalist a follower of the leader of APC in Lagos state or southwest and not Nigeria. It is derogatory.


"And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?" (AV, Acts 2:7)

"[4]For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:" (AV, Acts 24:5)


You don't a derogatory name from believers who have harboured you and listened to you for a whole year. . It always comes from outsiders like the one condemning prosperity churches without ever entering any to find out what they actually preach.

Will continue with the other parts of your work later. I am at home and my boy is not letting me have any rest today .


NB: this is for Ubenedictus and 9inches. An angel could not save a soul even though soul winning is the core of the great commission. He had to instruct the man to send for Peter .. he didn't try to do the works of human being and your church believe that a being that can't save can intercede for other issues of life ... Crazy bunch of lunatics.

Nodogragra4me:




Scriptural relativism blah blah.... I ask you and Ube to open the scripture and point to the verse.... Nothing even now... Just trying to sell your idea of what ought to be... Because your church follows a ritual to declare somebody a saint doesn't mean they are correct.

Saint means a believer in God through Christ. You need not call somebody in heaven a saint for if he is not he won't be there... Saint is a distinguishing title for Gods people here on the earth.


It is not even so serious a title. It wasn't even used for any of the apostles in the scripture. If you know the meaning of relativism as you have used it you would have discovered that the title is actually for the general body of upcoming believers...thise still maturing in the faith and not the elders.....pray for the saints at..... The saints.... The needs of the saints....all these statement were directed at those under authority of the apostles and not the apostles

Scriptural relativism is what you and other protestants are doing. It's borne out of lack of knowledge of the bible, and also due to egotism.

The reason you have not gotten a single verse to support your submission is this and I hope you will take it to heart and make amend: there are gifts and the Holy Spirit is the distributor of the gifts according as he will.

No man anywhere holds god's truth . If there be any sucj a man he will be equal to the alimghty .

What every gets is a gift of either the gift of the word of wisdom or knowledge. God never gives a single man words but a gift of the word of wisdom or knowledge... They are different. The Bible is a product of the gift of wisdom from above and it answers to every todays issue and even that of the world to come. .... Because it is a product of the hidden truth of God... If you disparage it and says it is just one of the tools, then you will never get answers out of it

The journey to any of those gift starts with your ’yielddedness’. The more yielded you are to God and his word the more he is willing to let you know more.

You do not believe the Bible and therefore, the spirit can't let you have anything from it. The Bible is not a subset of the tools.. It is the only tool for Christian living... Most of the things I have written in my conversation with you and the other guy I never knew... Some I ask directly while some came as I was writing


I am not a pastor. Doesn't have the ambition or the calling but I love to talk about God

9inches:
Scriptural relativism is what you and other protestants are doing. It's borne out of lack of knowledge of the bible, and also due to egotism.

MuttleyLaff:
and so? What are you trying to say by referrring to and/or quoting Acts 11:26 huh?

Jesus asked the disciples: ''Who do people say I am?''
After the disciples gave all manner of answers, He zeroed in.
''But what about you?'' He asked. ''Who do you say I am?''

Jesus did not reject the name that Peter called him. Why? Because it was revealed by the father…. Matt 16:17
Jabez was defined by the name until he begged God for a change of name.

MuttleyLaff:



There you go again, do you at all, not understand or feel the gravity of King Agrippa made that statement in disdain, hmm?

Think carefully over the following below Nodogragra4me:
1/ Why was King Agrippa particularly horrified at the prospect of being labelled a Christian
2/ Did you notice Paul's response to Aggrippa?
3/ Did you notice that Paul, stopped short of using Aggrippa's "Christian" adjective and/or label, that he instead, opted to use "I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am"?

A reproduction of some verse of ACTS 26
Paul is constructed to defend himself by King Agrippa


"And now I stand and am judged for the hope of [3] the promise made of God unto our fathers:" (AV, Acts 26:6).... From the old testament… A messiah shall be born. He shall have dominion and rule over his people.


"Unto which promise [5] our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, [4] hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." (AV, Acts 26:7).... For the same hope he is accused by the jews of being in th wrong


"[11]Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests," (AV, Acts 26:12……. But before now I have always been in the forefront of those hunting down the believers until


"At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me." (AV, Acts 26:13)............ I saw the light and even the voice


"And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, [2] thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad." (AV, Acts 26:24).....

Festus thought the wisdom was too much that he believed it is a product of madness and much learning…. The testimony was supernatural beyond what fetus intelligence could envisaged or accommodate


"For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner." (AV, Acts 26:26)

King you already know about all the prophecy concerning this matter from our fathers of the time past.

"King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest." (AV, Acts 26:27)............. Or you don't believe those prophets? Agrippa didn't argue because he believed the prophets...and most likely sighed and replied…

"Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (AV, Acts 26:28)....... Your testimony has prophetic support and I am persuaded but for some reason to be like you



"And Paul said, [3] I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds." (AV, Acts 26:29)........

I wish to God that you not only become even as I am but even those here with us deciding this matter minus this police bangle...handcuff… Paul didn't reject the appellation. He said I wish to God that you become.


"And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, [4] This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds." (AV, Acts 26:31)..... Then they agree he is done nothing wrong to merit the handcuff


Now, where did you get the impression from the above scripture that there was disdain for paul or the name when paul had not made use of it in describing himself all through his defence what can easily be deducted from the encounter is that Agrippa was impressed to the point of attributing the wisdom to only a Christ like person. …. By your wisdom, you have almost made me to follow you to have this some experience

Clearly you use word without knowing the meaning even contextual meaning of it. Paul didn't suggest Agrippa become a Christian therefore there is no opportunity for him to be horrified at any prospect of being labelled a Christian. He made the statement not paul. And paul never ask him to become one.

Paul is not a loquacious character and is not given to bain repetition. He said, I would that you become one. And not just you but even this persons here, just as I am now but without this your handcuff sha


Note that for the king to even bring up the name means it was already popular amongst the people for dustinguisng Christ followers

You should paste the very verse that gave you those impressions you are promoting since I might have missed it or them .

MuttleyLaff:


if you plan to improperly lean on to those 3 verses, Act 11:26, Act 26:28 and especially 1 Peter 4:16 as acceptance or validation

Peter telling not to be ashamed, if you suffer as a Christian, isnt calling you a christian nor saying you are a christian. All Peter said, is peradventure, if it so happens, you are treated as a Christian, then dont be ashamed that you've been, but instead, glorify God for getting treated that way

1 Peter 4

"Yet if any man suffer as a CHRISTIAN, let him not be ashamed; [16] but let him glorify God on this BEHALF." (AV, 1 Peter 4:16)


"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it FIRST BEGIN AT US, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (AV, 1 Peter 4:17)


I just hope this need no further clarification with the capitalized.. …… begin at us being called this name , christian ….. Not just at the house but at us called this name Christian...used to distinguished them from other sects within the house of God like Pharisees and Sadducees. .....The , AND .... Gives the idea of different sect within the house of God... Every synagogue has those two prominent sect back then, Pharisees and Sadducees. General judgement for the house of God's house but special and more severe one for those called or identified as Christian ....doing things like Jesus Christ.....Following his ways and means and generating the waves as he did


Note that this Peter message makes it clear that everyone is a believer who believes in God. But all all who believe in God not is a Christian . The synagogue is a place for believers . ..everyone ...that is why it was the custom of Paul to always go there to debate the scripture with them .

Christian on the other hand , are believers who are following Christ methodology or teachings and examples in approaching God. Any deviation and you are a believer and not a Christian ... Muslims are believers but not Christians , Catholics are believers but not Christians , Hindus are believers but not Christians


There is an easy to read version of the Bible ...get it ... That is what you need...KJV is beyond your level of development, mental and spiritual.


I will continue with the other parts of your work if they have biblical input but if it is about history please forget it ... My reason is well documented in this same thread. ... Hope you have read beyond page 6, by now

Ubenedictus and 9inches come and carry this your disciple.

Nodogragra4me:



1 Peter 4

"Yet if any man suffer as a CHRISTIAN, let him not be ashamed; [16] but let him glorify God on this BEHALF." (AV, 1 Peter 4:16)


"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it FIRST BEGIN AT US, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (AV, 1 Peter 4:17)


I just hope this need no further clarification with the capitalized.. …… begin at us being called this name , christian ….. Not just at the house but at us called this name Christian...used to distinguished them from other sects within the house of God like Pharisees and Sadducees. .....The , AND .... Gives the idea of different sect within the house of God... Every synagogue has those two prominent sect back then, Pharisees and Sadducees. General judgement for the house of God's house but special and more severe one for those called or identified as Christian ....doing things like Jesus Christ.....Following his ways and means and generating the waves as he did


Note that this Peter message makes it clear that everyone is a believer who believes in God. But all all who believe in God not is a Christian . The synagogue is a place for believers . ..everyone ...that is why it was the custom of Paul to always go there to debate the scripture with them .

Christian on the other hand , are believers who are following Christ methodology or teachings and examples in approaching God. Any deviation and you are a believer and not a Christian ... Muslims are believers but not Christians , Catholics are believers but not Christians , Hindus are believers but not Christians


There is an easy to read version of the Bible ...get it ... That is what you need


I will continue with the other parts of your work if they have biblical input but if it is about history please forget it ... My reason is well documented in this same thread. ... Hope you have read beyond page 6, by now

Ubenedictus and 9inches come and carry this your disciple.

And you think you are making sense?

If Catholics aren't Christian then there are no Christian in the world, there were never Christians in the world, there will never be Christians in the world.


In case you don't know, Protestantism began just 500 years ago, for the first 1500 years after Jesus' resurrection there were no protestants, all that existed for the first 1000 years were forms of Catholicism. So suddenly you think Christianity began 500 years ago with protestants abi?



Or it was only in the first century and then it jumped and began again in the 15th century?

MuttleyLaff:


Nwanne you brought me over here by your spamming chronic appeal plastered all over the Religion forum, urging all and sundry, to come visit this thread.

Hmm, defective and elementary you typed? Those that leave in glass houses, shouldnt be throwing stones. Nwanne, Christianity, never started in any upper room on any day of Pentencost. Christianity, as in, Constantine Christianity, in cahoot with the "church" started in Rome.

"I was circumcised when I was eight days old.
I am a pure-blooded citizen of Israel and a member of the tribe of Benjamin
—a real Hebrew if there ever was one! I was a member of the Pharisees, who demand the strictest obedience to the Jewish law."
- Philippians 3:5

"Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said,"
- Acts 13:9

Also Paul, was not as you put it, formerly Saul, this is because Saul and Paul were both already existing names is was known by. As a matter of fact, Saul was his Hebrew name, whilst Paul was his Roman name.

Paul had dual citizenship, he was both Roman and Jewish. He after the Acts 13:9 experience, stuck to using his Roman Paul name, for obvious reasons of the the work ahead and terrain he will be working

I am currently at page 6 since steadily reading from the beginning, but needed to interrupt my reading, in order to quickly interject immediately, as like above and at this point and right here, to say that, legendarymega is right, in what and where, he typed that the catholic started Christianity, this so, because the Roman Catholic Church was formed, after shady deal(s) and/or sell-out to the State by the "Church", as it was the Roman Emperors Constantine's and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all, as in, this was a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire, and so paved the way for Christianity to be the official religion of the entire Roman Empire too.

The introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences was a tragic compromise by the early believers, as this resulted in the Romanization and paganization of the early believers' faith and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs as we not just know but celebrate then and celebrate even up until now.

Anyway, the Roman Empire, adopted the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC) as "official" church during Roman Emperor Constantine's reign, and it's worth noting, that, the supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy or pope) was set up, put into place, aided and abetted through the support of the Roman Emperors (i.e. notably Constantine and his successors)

Recall that I earlier mentioned the Edict of Milan in AD 313, which was a letter signed by the Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius, that proclaimed religious toleration in the Roman Empire, well, in AD 325, Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose, like for example Arianism, all about doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D and so Constantine presided over this first ecumenical church council

So quick recap, by the 1st century AD, ekklēsia birthed on the teachings of Jesus Christ and later founded on the day of Pentecost in the upper room with a bunch of 120 believers.

By the 2nd century AD - believers already denouncing teachings, seen as heresies, such as Gnosticism, Montanism etcetera.

In the 4th century AD - ekklēsia was transformed, emerged Christians, an evolved "church", finally gets legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I, as the state church, of the Roman Empire and so yes also that, legendarymega is right, that the Catholics, are the original owner of your bible, because truly, the RCC are the original owner of your bible version(s), because incidentally and truly, those versions were made off the back of "The Vulgate", which was an accepted Latin translation of the original Old and New Testament texts.

Some even called, "The Vulgate", the "The Vulgar" bible. Anyway, Jerome, of RCC, was the person, who translated the original Old and New Testament texts and compiled them into a single volume of the 66 books we enjoy today

his understanding of Christianity is as defective as your understanding of church history.

Christian do it Christ way. Follows his instructions. ... I am the way , the truth and the life .... But you declare that you and your church is the truth and the way ...ground of it. You have many agents in the heavens as your intercessors and honours Mary much more than you worship God ... Those are deviation from the Christ way.


By the way , this your disciple , yet to know his name says there was no Christianity until Constantine gave us one and this guy is one of you. Is his submission a doctrine in the Catholic church?

How do you reconcile that ?

Ubenedictus:



And you think you are making sense?

If Catholics aren't Christian then there are no Christian in the world, there were never Christians in the world, there will never be Christians in the world.


In case you don't know, Protestantism began just 500 years ago, for the first 1500 years after Jesus' resurrection there were no protestants, all that existed for the first 1000 years were forms of Catholicism. So suddenly you think Christianity began 500 years ago with protestants abi?



Or it was only in the first century and then it jumped and began again in the 15th century?

I rarely discuss Church history when it has to do with the scriptures. The reason being that every thing about the scripture is inside the scripture. The authorship is explained inside the scripture... Like this catholic guy claim that about Christian and origin. .... Having explained the three scripture on Christian he has ran away because suddenly a new light has entered his soul.

Everything is inside the bible but firmly locked against believers. Only Christians believers can access the spirit of the Bible... Christian believer are those who absolutely beloved in Christ. Not those who partially believe, not those who adds their own principles added to his to make it complete like purgatory, praying to some dead crew or Mary Or those who proclaim the Bible as just one of the tool

To all such the Bible is padlocked... They think and imagine they j ow what is inside but they don't.... The spirit has never revealed anything to them.

Ubenedictus:
his understanding of Christianity is as defective as your understanding of church history.

Nodogragra4me:
Christian do it Christ way. Follows his instructions. ... I am the way , the truth and the life .... But you declare that you and your church is the truth and the way ...ground of it. You have many agents in the heavens as your intercessors and honours Mary much more than you worship God ... Those are deviation from the Christ way.


By the way , this your disciple , yet to know his name says there was no Christianity until Constantine gave us one and this guy is one of you. Is his submission a doctrine in the Catholic church?

How do you reconcile that ?

Catholics are Christians in fact the original Christian faith and we do it the Jesus' way, he says he is the way the truth and the life and we believe, he inspired the Holy Spirit to teach us that his Church, the Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth and we also believe. We also remember with honor those who handed the faith to us, the apostles and evangelists and as they are the same body with us we ask their prayers and emulate their lives.

That is no deviation from the Christ way, that is the Christ way.

Multtylaff certainly isn't my disciple, from what I can tell his views lies close to Anglicanism a heresy akin to Protestantism. As you must have noticed, he is a grown man with a mind of his own. So enjoy him and consider his post as his, if you are brilliant maybe you will have an answer for some of his stuff because he tend to read wider than the average protestant.

Ubenedictus:



And you think you are making sense?

If Catholics aren't Christian then there are no Christian in the world, there were never Christians in the world, there will never be Christians in the world.


In case you don't know, Protestantism began just 500 years ago, for the first 1500 years after Jesus' resurrection there were no protestants, all that existed for the first 1000 years were forms of Catholicism. So suddenly you think Christianity began 500 years ago with protestants abi?



Or it was only in the first century and then it jumped and began again in the 15th century?

nodogragra4me, care to tell me how you reconcile the above?

Nodogragra4me:
I rarely discuss Church history when it has to do with the scriptures. The reason being that every thing about the scripture is inside the scripture. The authorship is explained inside the scripture... Like this catholic guy claim that about Christian and origin. .... Having explained the three scripture on Christian he has ran away because suddenly a new light has entered his soul.

so since it is all explained in the Bible, please show me the verse that says John wrote the gospel of John or Matthew wrote that the church ascribed to matthew or that Mark wrote the book the church ascribed to him?

Everything is inside the bible but firmly locked against believers. Only Christians believers can access the spirit of the Bible... Christian believer are those who absolutely beloved in Christ. Not those who partially believe, not those who adds their own principles added to his to make it complete like purgatory, praying to some dead crew or Mary Or those who proclaim the Bible as just one of the tool

To all such the Bible is padlocked... They think and imagine they j ow what is inside but they don't.... The spirit has never revealed anything to them.

so this is what your pastor told you to confuse you?


Do you even know how many books the early Christians were reading as scriptures? For your information it wasn't 66 �

Nodogragra4me:


I have told you that I do not intend to continue with a back and forth argument on something you are yet to provide scriptural proof for.



If you find it in that very scripture, then you also find the moon and waters and fires asked to pray for you or you mean to claim it is only the angels that was mentioned in your own version of the Bible. When meanings are not clear, start from the beginning and go beyond your focus... The summary of psalm 148 is this: let the heavens...heavens not heaven and the earth and all that is in it praise the Lord. Here is the complete verse since yours is not complete... Show me where the angles were ask to pray with us or for us, in the entire chapter


"1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise ye the LORD from the heavens: praise him in the heights. 2 Praise ye him, all his [1] angels: praise ye him, all his hosts. 3 Praise ye him, sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. 4 Praise him, [2] ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. 5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for [3] he commanded, and they were created. 6 [4]He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass. 7 Praise the LORD from the earth, [5] ye dragons, and all deeps: 8 Fire, and hail; snow, and vapour; stormy wind fulfilling his word: 9 [6]Mountains, and all hills; fruitful trees, and all cedars: 10 Beasts, and all cattle; creeping things, and flying fowl: 11 Kings of the earth, and all people; princes, and [7] all judges of the earth: 12 Both young men, and maidens; old men, and children: 13 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for [8] his name alone is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven. 14 He also exalteth the horn of his people, the praise of all his saints; even of the children of Israel, [9] a people near unto him. Praise ye the LORD." (AV, Psalms 148:1-14)

hope you didn't go blind because the bolder clearly shows that the psalmist asked the ANGELS as well as all of creation to join in his prayer of praise.

adding your opinion everywhere won't give it credibility...Go and read the scriptures again but slowly. It didn't indicate that any angle do prsy for you... The very one you have picked out never said they pray for you.. There are ministering angels for little babies... God expects you to grow hence the scripture that says you should desire the sincere milk of the word so you can grow thereby

And the ministering spirits always see the face of God.

YOU are not a smart person and I doubt if you have core understanding... Your very scripture says HE WAS GIVEN INCENSE TO MINGLE WITH THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.... THE PRAYERS OF THE SAINTS.... AT WHAT point did he start praying for you in that very verse, point out where he assumed the praying...... He was given to perform the protocol established in heaven... He was given.. He didn't pray.... He was given and he was considering according to instruction....angles are servants..they are ministers of God instruction. You are yet to find an escape... You are dull in reasoning out the scripture because you are trying to do it like the Ethiopian eunuch...with the intellect

now you see you are the not so smart guy lacking understanding.



What do you understand by the fact that someone is offering up other people's prayers to God.?

When you offers somebody's prayers to God, what are you doing?

What you have posted from the scripture never alluded to anyone cheering you in your race.

See your closing remark.. A personal opinion of what you think is in the scripture not really what is in the scripture... Interecessor are fellow saints..saints here...fellow Christians not a make believe Mary, or angel Gabriel or saints in heaven

since intercessors are fellow Saints then they include the saints in heaven


Colossians 1:12 New King James Version (NKJV)
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.


If the saints on earth can intercede then those in Light also do same

I have told you he didn't asked them to join him. It was a command .... It is praise ye not o come ye faithful.... It is .. praise ye and the reason he commanded them so is in chapter 5. .... There is no collaboration or featuring. It is a command to both the valleys.... You can't single out the angels while leaving out the others like fire , valleys , moon. ... If you declare that he asked anggels to join him and therefore extrapolate it to means that the angels can as well pray for him then the same applies to valleys and moon and fire ... They all must be answering your prayer in your heavenly



Why won't a ministering spirit see the face of God ... From whom do they take their orders? Didn't you read what the angel told Daniel, from the first day you prayed , you were heard and I was dispatched with your package.... Is that not in your won Bible .... Do you imagine if God had the role you have delegated to angels and you saints , it won't be expressly described in the scripture?

Prayer is the work of human beings not spirits. It is the prayer of the saints that shapes god's policy towards the earth.... The angles in revelation was given incense which he mixed with the prayers of the saints


And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand..... You don't know the meaning or difference between interceding and performing obligation .... The prayer was offered by the saints here on earth ...it was not offered by any other being but the saints ... It was then mixed with incense ... If you have not prayed into heaven by yourself , yours won't be there


King James Bible
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.


What are the inheritance for the saints?

"Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." (AV, Revelation 5:12)... All these are for earthly beings because

"[16]And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (AV, Revelation 5:10)


As for the light, don't confuse yourself , it is the entrance of the word that gives light .... Those saints are not in heaven but here but have received the light ahead of them

Ubenedictus:
hope you didn't go blind because the bolder clearly shows that the psalmist asked the ANGELS as well as all of creation to join in his prayer of praise.






And the ministering spirits always see the face of God.





now you see you are the not so smart guy lacking understanding.



What do you understand by the fact that someone is offering up other people's prayers to God.?

When you offers somebody's prayers to God, what are you doing?



since intercessors are fellow Saints then they include the saints in heaven


Colossians 1:12 New King James Version (NKJV)
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.


If the saints on earth can intercede then those in Light also do same

Right frommthe Bible , you find the word Christian. Peter said, if you are persecuted for being a Christian, count it glory. Agrippa says, you almost persuaded me by your wisdom into becoming a Christian.... The apostle were first called Christians in Antioch.

Inquisition less by your church was against Christians.... Inquisition wasn't against Pharisee and Sadducees. It was against those identified as doing or going snout their practice the ways Christ and the apostles had done and taught


Jesus gave the holy spirit to teach us... Your church says it knows all the truth and therefor, it is the ground and pillar of the truth

Your church says there is a purgatory it has designed for her members... Neither Jesus not any of the apostles including Peter you guys referred to as your First pope knew about this...a pope many years after the apostles left this Earth came up with that idea

Your church prays to God through intermediaries including your Mary... Jesus never taught this nor the apostles... Jesus ask us to pray to the father in his name.... God himself operates, ask of me.... Not through third parties

Your church practices infant baptism introduced by a pope not the apostles

So many practices of your church has no link to Jesus Christ and his teachings.... But your church believes in reality in God but lukewarm about Jesus... Mary has more role in your church than Jesus... The holy spirit is not even reckon with in the actual operations of your church.... Your pope is your holy spirit


Protestantism is an internal disagreement within your church... Somebody saw the scripture and noticed many contradiction between your practice and what is written. He decided to fight in fa out if it is written like Jesus did. We are Pentecostals... Born on the day of Pentecost. Catholic Church was born and funded by the USA of that era, Rome.... The new mttleylaff guy has mentioned the formation

Ubenedictus:
nodogragra4me, care to tell me how you reconcile the above?

Ubenedictus:
so since it is all explained in the Bible, please show me the verse that says John wrote the gospel of John or Matthew wrote that the church ascribed to matthew or that Mark wrote the book the church ascribed to him?

so this is what your pastor told you to confuse you?


Do you even know how many books the early Christians were reading as scriptures? For your information it wasn't 66 �

The numbers of nooks is neither here nor there... The sixty six before you is proving very complex because you won't allow the owners teach you what is inside..... You left your debate about angels praying for you to argue praying with you...it is no longer prsy for us but prsy with us and even that you are yet to find a verse where this happened... You scan and ended with psalm 148.... Tried to force angels praying with you into it.... Even a newly born again Christian won't interested that verse the way you have done but then it talkies with your character...somebody alsrwadh states that you have an infamous reputation for twisting the scripture... And I remember his you did exactly what with your defensive of bazaar that it is akin to buyback of first born


Point out just a verse of the scripture of somebody in heaven praying for us... Just one verse of angel or Mary or your saint praying. E erywhere you have tried to inject meaning into the Bible.... If they asked to praise therefore they can be asked to pray... We are saint in body and the one in heaven being formerly in nosy can pray for us... Not one of your inference has scriptural support...

When I called him your disciples it is actually because he has the same funny interpretation of the scripture as yourself...somebody who can take the bible and declare that the Christian the apostles were called in Antioch was derisive and not honourable...that Agrippa was horrified at being called a Christian even though he was the one that used the word.... He twist the Bible like yourself


I have recommended easy to read for him since he knows nothing of what is written in the scripture... It is locked against him, also.

Ubenedictus:


Catholics are Christians in fact the original Christian faith and we do it the Jesus' way, he says he is the way the truth and the life and we believe, he inspired the Holy Spirit to teach us that his Church, the Catholic Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth and we also believe. We also remember with honor those who handed the faith to us, the apostles and evangelists and as they are the same body with us we ask their prayers and emulate their lives.

That is no deviation from the Christ way, that is the Christ way.

Multtylaff certainly isn't my disciple, from what I can tell his views lies close to Anglicanism a heresy akin to Protestantism. As you must have noticed, he is a grown man with a mind of his own. So enjoy him and consider his post as his, if you are brilliant maybe you will have an answer for some of his stuff because he tend to read wider than the average protestant.

Nodogragra4me:
When I called him your disciples it is actually because he has the same funny interpretation of the scripture as yourself...somebody who can take the bible and declare that the Christian the apostles were called in Antioch was derisive and not honourable...that Agrippa was horrified at being called a Christian even though he was the one that used the word.... He twist the Bible like yourself


I have recommended easy to read for him since he knows nothing of what is written in the scripture... It is locked against him, also.

sorry dear, you are the person who seem ignorant.

The name Christians was given by unbelievers and it is actually derisive not honorable.

How do you think the pagans saw Jesus? He was thought of as a rabbi who became too proud and claimed a lot of things and he died like a thief. The follower of Christ is a derisive title for people who follow a dead person condemned as a criminal.

The church took it as a good thing and said it was a honor to be persecuted for been a "christian" the follower of a condemned man.


The person you are condemning is better informed than yourself and you are proud in ignorance.


It is you who have locked the scriptures against yourself with your great ignorance, your unteachable spirit and tunnel vision. It must be one of the results of fanatical Protestantism.

Nodogragra4me:



The numbers of nooks is neither here nor there... The sixty six before you is proving very complex because you won't allow the owners teach you what is inside..... You left your debate about angels praying for you to argue praying with you...it is no longer prsy for us but prsy with us and even that you are yet to find a verse where this happened... You scan and ended with psalm 148.... Tried to force angels praying with you into it.... Even a newly born again Christian won't interested that verse the way you have done but then it talkies with your character...somebody alsrwadh states that you have an infamous reputation for twisting the scripture... And I remember his you did exactly what with your defensive of bazaar that it is akin to buyback of first born


Point out just a verse of the scripture of somebody in heaven praying for us... Just one verse of angel or Mary or your saint praying. E erywhere you have tried to inject meaning into the Bible.... If they asked to praise therefore they can be asked to pray... We are saint in body and the one in heaven being formerly in nosy can pray for us... Not one of your inference has scriptural support...

so you don't even know the history of the Bible you have and the number of books the early church used yet you lied that all Bible history is found in the Bible?


Why the lies?

Nodogragra4me:
I have told you he didn't asked them to join him. It was a command .... It is praise ye not o come ye faithful.... It is .. praise ye and the reason he commanded them so is in chapter 5. .... There is no collaboration or featuring. It is a command to both the valleys.... You can't single out the angels while leaving out the others like fire , valleys , moon. ... If you declare that he asked angels to join him and therefore extrapolate it to means that the angels can as well pray for him then the same applies to valleys and moon and fire ... They all must be answering your prayer in your heavenly

That is why it is not good to read funny translation done in old English, praise ye, simply says praise you, it isn't a command in any sense and if you insist that you King James is a command then I present the original Hebrew that says


הַ֥לְלוּ יָ֨הּ which is pronounced as hal-lu Yah which simply means be boastful of or praise Yahweh, it isn't a command. It simply asks the whole of creation to praise God with him.

Why won't a ministering spirit see the face of God ... From whom do they take their orders? Didn't you read what the angel told Daniel, from the first day you prayed , you were heard and I was dispatched with your package.... Is that not in your won Bible .... Do you imagine if God had the role you have delegated to angels and you saints , it won't be expressly described in the scripture?

the angels are not only dispatched with the necessary package, the Bible show that they and the saints offer to God the prayer of the saints on earth in the form of incense.... They offer to God our petitions. If that fact is somehow lost to you then it must be because you have locked yourself out of the truth with your ignorance.

I know right now that in accordance with the word of God in rev 5:8 angels and saints are right now offering my petitions before God as sweet incense and that an angel is been dispatched to my help as I speak.

That you can't accept the word of God on that issue because it is against what your church says us your loss.

Prayer is the work of human beings not spirits. It is the prayer of the saints that shapes god's policy towards the earth.... The angles in revelation was given incense which he mixed with the prayers of the saints


And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand..... You don't know the meaning or difference between interceding and performing obligation .... The prayer was offered by the saints here on earth ...it was not offered by any other being but the saints ... It was then mixed with incense ... If you have not prayed into heaven by yourself , yours won't be there


King James Bible
And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.


What are the inheritance for the saints?

"Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing." (AV, Revelation 5:12)... All these are for earthly beings because

"[16]And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth." (AV, Revelation 5:10)


As for the light, don't confuse yourself , it is the entrance of the word that gives light .... Those saints are not in heaven but here but have received the light ahead of them

see how you have used your bias as an excuse to reinterpret the scriptures. So the saints in the kingdom of light who we are privileged to share inheritance with are those on earth? So what was the need to differentiate them as saints in Light whom the saints in the church are sharing with?

Sorry dear. I'll pray for you.

Nodogragra4me:
Right frommthe Bible , you find the word Christian. Peter said, if you are persecuted for being a Christian, count it glory. Agrippa says, you almost persuaded me by your wisdom into becoming a Christian.... The apostle were first called Christians in Antioch.

Inquisition less by your church was against Christians.... Inquisition wasn't against Pharisee and Sadducees. It was against those identified as doing or going snout their practice the ways Christ and the apostles had done and taught


Jesus gave the holy spirit to teach us... Your church says it knows all the truth and therefor, it is the ground and pillar of the truth

Your church says there is a purgatory it has designed for her members... Neither Jesus not any of the apostles including Peter you guys referred to as your First pope knew about this...a pope many years after the apostles left this Earth came up with that idea

Your church prays to God through intermediaries including your Mary... Jesus never taught this nor the apostles... Jesus ask us to pray to the father in his name.... God himself operates, ask of me.... Not through third parties

Your church practices infant baptism introduced by a pope not the apostles

So many practices of your church has no link to Jesus Christ and his teachings.... But your church believes in reality in God but lukewarm about Jesus... Mary has more role in your church than Jesus... The holy spirit is not even reckon with in the actual operations of your church.... Your pope is your holy spirit


Protestantism is an internal disagreement within your church... Somebody saw the scripture and noticed many contradiction between your practice and what is written. He decided to fight in fa out if it is written like Jesus did. We are Pentecostals... Born on the day of Pentecost. Catholic Church was born and funded by the USA of that era, Rome.... The new mttleylaff guy has mentioned the formation

lol.

Another ignorance on display.


So after the church in the first century, it finally jumped by 1000 years to the church of the inquisition period then it finally jumped 500 years again to the church of the protestants?


Do you even know the people the inquisition was against?
The carthar heresy in Europe, the Muslim's who were practicing two religions because of taqia or the Catholics who fell into heresy, which of them Is the so-called real church? Since you think the inquisition was after real Christian. Even the founders of Protestantism were Catholics.... So who were the real Christian that weren't Catholics?

Nodogragra4me:
Your church practices infant baptism introduced by a pope not the apostles

Exactly which pope did this?

RandomGuy48:
Exactly which pope did this?

lol.

Let me await his response

Nodogragra4me:



Jesus gave the holy spirit to teach us... Your church says it knows all the truth and therefor, it is the ground and pillar of the truth

my church actually says she is led into all truth by the Holy Spirit and that the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth just as the Bible says she is.




1 Timothy 3:15
New International Version
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So yes my church is the pillar and bulwark of truth.

Your church says there is a purgatory it has designed for her members... Neither Jesus not any of the apostles including Peter you guys referred to as your First pope knew about this...a pope many years after the apostles left this Earth came up with that idea

read up 1 cor 3:15

Your church prays to God through intermediaries including your Mary... Jesus never taught this nor the apostles... Jesus ask us to pray to the father in his name.... God himself operates, ask of me.... Not through third parties

not true.

We pray to the Father through his son Jesus Christ in the company of the Holy Spirit and in the company of the angels and saints.

Your church practices infant baptism introduced by a pope not the apostles

So many practices of your church has no link to Jesus Christ and his teachings.... But your church believes in reality in God but lukewarm about Jesus... Mary has more role in your church than Jesus... The holy spirit is not even reckon with in the actual operations of your church.... Your pope is your holy spirit

lie lie.
Which pope started infant baptism?
All practice in my church is linked to Jesus either through scriptures, Apostolic tradition or in consonance with the power Jesus gave to the church.

Protestantism is an internal disagreement within your church... Somebody saw the scripture and noticed many contradiction between your practice and what is written. He decided to fight in fa out if it is written like Jesus did. We are Pentecostals... Born on the day of Pentecost. Catholic Church was born and funded by the USA of that era, Rome.... The new mttleylaff guy has mentioned the formation

Lol


Protestantism is in internal disagreement with itself, over 2000 different denominations who can't agree, each of them in disagreement and anarchy and confusion.

Since you don't even know how your Protestantism was formed let me inform you.
A Catholic monk called Luther was always feeling guilty about his sins even though he was told that once he repents God is ready to forgive... So he decided to beat himself up about it and when he wasn't satisfied he decided to look up the Bible and there he found a passage in Romans that say "the just shall live by faith", he decided to change the passage and write "the just shall live by faith ALONE" and he used this to justify himself that so far he believes in God all his sins do not matter. He was condemned for adding to the Bible and teaching heresy so he formed his so church to protest against the Catholic Church, that is the beginning of Protestantism.

Pentecostalism is even more recent it was formed less than 200 years ago in USA in the azuza street revival. It has no historical link to the historical Pentecost

Ubenedictus:
sorry dear, you are the person who seem ignorant.

The name Christians was given by unbelievers and it is actually derisive not honorable.

How do you think the pagans saw Jesus? He was thought of as a rabbi who became too proud and claimed a lot of things and he died like a thief. The follower of Christ is a derisive title for people who follow a dead person condemned as a criminal.

The church took it as a good thing and said it was a honor to be persecuted for been a "christian" the follower of a condemned man.


The person you are condemning is better informed than yourself and you are proud in ignorance.


It is you who have locked the scriptures against yourself with your great ignorance, your unteachable spirit and tunnel vision. It must be one of the results of fanatical Protestantism.

Mr. The first time, according to the scripture, that the disciples were first called Christian was in Antioch. This is the historical account of the name as kept by the only recognized divine records. This you can find in Acts 11:26

From this same divine record, this was not a jeering occasion. It was not an occasion for jokes and jokers. I won't want to go over the account since I have done that before.

The second time the name was used in the divine record is in Acts Acts 26:28.... Agrippa used it... He was a believer but not of the Christian sect. Paul's defence of his believe so enamoured him that in response he said, you almost made me to become a Christian.

The third and last time you find the name in the scripture is in 1 Peter 4:16.... This I have also expounded here.

Then the footnote on Jesus statement or instruction in Matthew 28:19.... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, and the son, and of the Holy Ghost:..... The notes read thus : teach: or, make disciples, or Christian of all nation


If you are sure that you are a Bible believing Christian, point out from the records were you got your idea that it was a name given by pagans then sanctified by God for use amongst his people


I don't want anything to do with history if is not aligned to what is written in the divine record for God first speak to you through the written word. He says the books is complete for training in godliness, for correction and for righteousness

If is complete then every other idea must either align or be rejected

Before now, you and the other inches guy claimed that the scripture was written by your church. I states that that information wasn't true. And I gave many instances from the divine record to support my position; chief of them being that Jesus Christ himself quoted the old testament extensively when he expounded from ALL scripture ALL that was written concerning him by ALL the prophets.

I declared that every where you find it is written it means it is actually written not a manner of speaking, by those involved. I said the records shows that Timothy learnt the scripture at home from his mother and grandmother..... They couldn't have memorized it all. They have to have the scripture to teach it. I stated that Daniel read the book of Jeremiah while in captivity.

After all this, you or the other guy asked me about the new testament and I stated that they are actually personal notes, diary records and letters of the actual disciples of Jesus Christ... When you read the new testament you won't fail to notice that sometimes it becomes personal with phrases like, we then journeyed into.

As I stated then so am I restating now that everything about the scripture is in the scripture. It was written to defend it self for eternity against misrepresentation and misinformation.

If you translate the Bible as it is still happening today, from one language to another, it does not in any way make you the author. You only translated it into the English Language of that era to give it a wider reach, nothing more.

I will continue with the rest of your post as time permits

Ubenedictus:
so you don't even know the history of the Bible you have and the number of books the early church used yet you lied that all Bible history is found in the Bible?


Why the lies?

Nodogragra4me:
Before now, you and the other inches guy claimed that the scripture was written by your church. I states that that information wasn't true. And I gave many instances from the divine record to support my position; chief of them being that Jesus Christ himself quoted the old testament extensively when he expounded from ALL scripture ALL that was written concerning him by ALL the prophets.

I declared that every where you find it is written it means it is actually written not a manner of speaking, by those involved. I said the records shows that Timothy learnt the scripture at home from his mother and grandmother..... They couldn't have memorized it all. They have to have the scripture to teach it. I stated that Daniel read the book of Jeremiah while in captivity.

After all this, you or the other guy asked me about the new testament and I stated that they are actually personal notes, diary records and letters of the actual disciples of Jesus Christ... When you read the new testament you won't fail to notice that sometimes it becomes personal with phrases like, we then journeyed into.

As I stated then so am I restating now that everything about the scripture is in the scripture. It was written to defend it self for eternity against misrepresentation and misinformation.

If you translate the Bible as it is still happening today, from one language to another, it does not in any way make you the author. You only translated it into the English Language of that era to give it a wider reach, nothing more.

I will continue with the rest of your post as time permits

where did I claim any of the above?

Nodogragra4me:



Mr. The first time, according to the scripture, that the disciples were first called Christian was in Antioch. This is the historical account of the name as kept by the only recognized divine records. This you can find in Acts 11:26

From this same divine record, this was not a jeering occasion. It was not an occasion for jokes and jokers. I won't want to go over the account since I have done that before.

The second time the name was used in the divine record is in Acts Acts 26:28.... Agrippa used it... He was a believer but not of the Christian sect. Paul's defence of his believe so enamoured him that in response he said, you almost made me to become a Christian.

The third and last time you find the name in the scripture is in 1 Peter 4:16.... This I have also expounded here.

Then the footnote on Jesus statement or instruction in Matthew 28:19.... Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the father, and the son, and of the Holy Ghost:..... The notes read thus : teach: or, make disciples, or Christian of all nation


If you are sure that you are a Bible believing Christian, point out from the records were you got your idea that it was a name given by pagans then sanctified by God for use amongst his people


I don't want anything to do with history if is not aligned to what is written in the divine record for God first speak to you through the written word. He says the books is complete for training in godliness, for correction and for righteousness

If is complete then every other idea must either align or be rejected

Lol,

Can't u read


The bible says

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

They were called christians by who?

It didn't say at Antioch the disciples first called themselves Christians no! It say they were called Christians or better they got the name. Meaning others bestowed the name on them.

Maybe commentaries will help you.

MacLaren's Expositions
Acts

A NICKNAME ACCEPTED

Acts 11:26.

Nations and parties, both political and religious, very often call themselves by one name, and are known to the outside world by another. These outside names are generally given in contempt; and yet they sometimes manage to hit the very centre of the characteristics of the people on whom they are bestowed, and so by degrees get to be adopted by them, and worn as an honour.

So it has been with the name ‘Christian.’ It was given at the first by the inhabitants of the Syrian city of Antioch, to a new sort of people that had sprung up amongst them, and whom they could not quite make out. They would not fit into any of their categories, and so they had to invent a new name for them. It is never used in the New Testament by Christians about themselves. It occurs here in this text; it occurs in Agrippa’s half-contemptuous exclamation: ‘You seem to think it is a very small matter to make me-me, a king!-a Christian, one of those despised people!’ And it occurs once more, where the Apostle Peter is specifying the charges brought against them: ‘If any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf {1 Peter 4:16}. That sounds like the beginning of the process which has gone on ever since, by which the nickname, flung by the sarcastic men of Antioch, has been turned into the designation by which, all over the world, the followers of Jesus Christ have been proud to call themselves.

Now in this text there are the outside name by which the world calls the followers of Jesus Christ, and one of the many interior names by which the Church called itself. I have thought it might be profitable now to put all the New Testament names for Christ’s followers together, and think about them.