AKO1's Posts
Nairaland Forum › AKO1's Profile › AKO1's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 (of 68 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: The Missing Second Commandment: by AKO1(m): 9:16pm On Apr 23, 2008 |
How does eating ordinary bread and drinking wine lead to judgment, weakness, sickness and deathI think its clearly written here: 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord [color=#770077]in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body. 30 For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few are dead. [/color] Which cause? vs 27-29. Peace. |
| Phones › Re: ::: Your Apps Thread ::: by AKO1(m): 11:40am On Apr 23, 2008 |
Hayprof, FlySX390. I actually got an MP3 player that worked but it was a trial version. pls dont kiss me again. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: You Call Your Pastor/reverend Daddy? by AKO1(m): 11:45pm On Apr 22, 2008 |
OMO IBO:I actually meant what I said literarilly just to fool around. After all there are a couple of Pastor's Children around, aren't there?? But frankly I dont think there is anything wrong in referring to your Pastor/Reverend as your spiritual parent. It is when it escalates into[b] hero-worship[/b] that wahala don start. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: You Call Your Pastor/reverend Daddy? by AKO1(m): 11:35pm On Apr 22, 2008 |
If he's your earthly father nko?  |
| Phones › Re: ::: Your Apps Thread ::: by AKO1(m): 9:31pm On Apr 22, 2008 |
hayprof:No. Why is it unavailable? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Can Pastors Nationwide Ever Unite? by AKO1(m): 3:18pm On Apr 22, 2008 |
[quote author=samy-young link=topic=46811.msg1004574#msg1004574 date=1175263448]Pastors are everywhere, but truly, they have one grudge or the other against each other, can they ever come together to sit on a round table and discuss the way forward for Nigeria? Please guys, No off-topic comments.[/quote]Are PFN, CAN and co not doing this already? I dont know, not that I'm being sarcastic. Besides, it is humanly impossible for all pastors/priests to come together and discuss at the same time. Moreover, 'talk' is not the way forward, action is. We've had and heard excess talk already. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 11:13am On Apr 22, 2008 |
imhotep:Well then good luck in the 33,000 vs 1 battle. Still does not make a unified church. I seriously doubt this.Well, I have a very strong 'protestant' background. Growing up, I heard a lot about the workings of the RCC but didnt understand why it was different because I wasnt taught and I couldnt find certain things in the bible I read. So here comes nairaland with loads of catholics, use it to find out exactly whats up. By now, you should see that my disagreement is not synonymous with your idea of hatred and envy, I dont even see the need for envy. You might as well seriously doubt this, it doesnt make it any less true. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 9:37pm On Apr 21, 2008 |
imhotep:Good. And vice versa, right? note that much of what you call bashing is a genuine desire to know. |
| Phones › Re: ::: Your Apps Thread ::: by AKO1(m): 6:18pm On Apr 21, 2008 |
:::::::::::::::REQUEST::::::::::::::::::: Music (MP3) Player (java phone) |
| Phones › Re: Which Of These Pics U Fit Take Do Wallpaper 4 Ur Phone by AKO1(m): 6:13pm On Apr 21, 2008 |
posts in the wrong thread and deletes it, |
| TV/Movies › Re: Big Brother Africa 2 (II)! by AKO1(m): 4:25pm On Apr 19, 2008 |
what is the linkhttp://www.mnetafrica.com/bigbrother/article/?id=826 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 10:09pm On Apr 18, 2008 |
imhotep:Think about this: Is there really any CHURCH UNITY since in your opinion, the 33,000 sects keep bickering at each other, and the RCC is perpetually disagreed with the protestants & vice versa? Why do you see the 33,000's disagreeing with each other as disunity, but the RCC's disagreement with protestants as the RCC's unity? What puts the RCC in that special class of its own that makes it unified even though it disagrees with others, yet the protestants are disunified for the same reason  ? Please don't give me the bulahlah about the approval of the bible because we have exhaustively dealt with that.Could the beaking up of the church into 33,001 sects be seen as the RCC's (since ya'll believe in apostolic succession) utter failure to keep the church together? If Jesus built His rock/church on Peter and Peter handed down to everyone else till Benedict-da-16th, should/should not the breaking away of some members of the church to other sects be blamed on poor leadership somewhere along the line? I have said time and time again that I am personally not particular about what sectarian umbrella I am under; that the most important thing is doing what is in the bible, period. If you choose to see me as protestant just because I dont pray to Mary, etc, you are in a world of your own where I am concerned. I dont do a lot of what the RCC does because a lot of it is extra-biblical doctrine that has been approved by the leadership of the RCC but is not bible, hence is not compulsory for me to do. For clarity, I would no longer like to be referred to as 'protestant'. When next you want to generalise the 33,000, count me OUT. Your pride should not be in the fact that you belong to a '''unified''' sect, but that you are on your way to heaven and will get a good reward there. Just some food for thought. chei we don deviate from topic oh!!!  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 4:42pm On Apr 18, 2008 |
imhotep:Well, it does not because its perpetual, okay? The dictionary defines perpetual as continuing all the time without changing or stopping. Isnt that synonymous with everlasting? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 4:35pm On Apr 18, 2008 |
fyneguy:Anyway, its either one of us is checking the wrong dictionary or we are both taking the word out of context, due to our inablility to speak Greek. I went back to my Strong's Greek Dictionary just like you said. In John 3:16, what I saw as 'have' is 'echo' meaning: a primary verb; to hold such as possession; ability, contiuity, relation, or condition):--be (able, X hold, possessed with), accompany I also suggest that you check this link for the correct interpretation of 'have' in good old John 3:16 :http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/frequency.cgi?number=2192&book=joh&translation=nsn With regards to Lambano, here is a good example of the correct context in which it is used: "Until now you have asked for nothing in My name; ask and you will receive (lambano), so that your joy may be made full. Now, looking at it from your own point of view, it IS possible for a christian to be ignorant of the 'zoe' in them. But the fact that they are ignorant does not mean it isn't there, I choose to stand by that. Thanks for the discussion anyway, at least now I know the difference between lambano and echo. That's what healthy debate like this is for anyway. However, people like imhotep would only see it as 33,000 sects bickering at each other.  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 4:10pm On Apr 18, 2008 |
imhotep:I have absolutely no idea and do not care about what you are saying. How can something thats everlasting expire? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 3:53pm On Apr 18, 2008 |
cgift. The Bible also does not instruct me to "pray" or "petition" to you, but that doesn't mean that I can't. .Huney, asking me for something is very differenct from asking God. We are in two seperate realms. You could ask me to pray TO God but you cannot pray to me AS God. Thats the difference. It does instruct us to pray for one another, we pray to the saints and Mary to pray for us, there is nothing wrong in that. To us there's a relationship between the living and the dead. There's a communion of Christ of Heaven and Earth.Fine, but when you can show me that in the bible get back to me, k? And if there truly is a relationship between the living and the dead, do you pray to ex-popes, Mother Theresa and other famous catholics who in your view would qualify as Saints? Secondly, do you pray to your deceased loved ones who you believe are in heaven? To usDon't you think its important to ascertain that its the same to GOD? If you ask me, the best way to do that is to check the bible. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 3:31pm On Apr 18, 2008 |
First, your statement: ''Even the guys that receive later, how do we know that they had genuine problems before?''I insist that as a mature christian, I ensure that I am listening to preachers who are connected to the real source. So it's important that they are spiritually and medically transparent for the benefit of 'mature' and 'immature' christians alike. On ZOE, there are 2 types of christiansLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who taught you this stuff? You couldn't even quote one, one passage of scripture. NOw let me share the biblical take on zoe. Zoe is a Greek word, literarilly translated in English as life. However, like you said, this is not talking about the life that keeps us breathing because the Greek word for this (in the bible) is chay. All living creature have chay in them, e.g. Ge 1:20 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said <'amar>, Let the waters <mayim> bring forth abundantly <sharats> the moving creature <sherets> that hath <nephesh> life <chay[/b]>, and fowl <`owph> that may fly <`uwph> above <`al> the earth <'erets> in the open <paniym> firmament <raqiya`> of heaven <shamayim>. Ge 2:7 And the LORD <Y@hovah> God <'elohiym> formed <yatsar> man <'adam> of the dust <`aphar> of <min> the ground <'adamah>, and breathed <naphach> into his nostrils <'aph> [b]the breath <n@shamah> of life <chay>; and man <'adam> became a living <chay> soul <nephesh>. Above is the difference between chay and zoe. Hence what is zoe? Zoe is the life of God: Joh 1:4 In him was life <zoe>; and the life <zoe> was the light of men. Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; So we see that life is one of the characteristics of God, like love is. How then do men receive zoe? Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life <ZOE>. Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life <ZOE>. Joh 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Joh 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. From this last scripture in particular, we see that the only prerequisite for receiving and having zoe is believing on Jesus, what we call being born again. The word 'everlasting' is the word 'aionios' in Greek, meaning ; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting (literarilly). So do you agree with me that myself, yourself and all other christians have the substance called zoe in their spirits? More importantly, do you agree that scriptures cleary and directly contradict what you said: You can claim to be a christian yet you havent activated the life that has been made available to you. Hence, you still don't have zoe. Zoe is just available but you havent accepted it. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: God is worthy. by AKO1(m): 11:16pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
[quote author=N-joy link=topic=128229.msg2165914#msg2165914 date=1208469676]meaningless thread.[/quote]looooooooooooool  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 11:14pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
fyne guy this might dissapoint you but I didnt regard what you said as STRONG MEAT Let me even give you scripture Mr 11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them. We see from this scripture that receiving in the realm of the spirit is different from having in the physical realm. So I knew all you said before you said it, k? Christians with ZoeAll christians have zoe, the LIFE OF GOD in their spirits. Now as regards healing, If a pastor prayed for you as per malaria, for instance,and he said, you are healed. If you felt feverish later. It doesnt mean you are not healed. Thats the test of faith. You insist that you are healed. You reject the symptoms. Thats physical. Faith is consummated at the spiritual level. Again thats some strong meat.It is either you did not see or you ignored the fact that I focused on 'instant' miracles i.e. miracles that are physically manifested immediately. Thats what most of the pastors offer, in yourba we call it 'lesekese', you may have seen that on a handbill somewhere. When a miracle is reported like that and it is medically questionable, thats what Im talking about here. Even the guys that receive later, how do we know that they had genuine problems before? By faith? The only solution to this crisis in the church is that some of us christians and pastors need the boldness to do instant miracles, Jesus style. For example when an amputated limb grows out or when a person rises from the dead, thats what I am talking about. we aint seen that yet. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: God is worthy. by AKO1(m): 10:57pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
@Topic I think you should try and find out for yourself, even though you already sound biased. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 10:51pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
Good. So God can work with ANYBODY. But God somehow stopped working with the catholic bishops after the year 393 AD? How come the catholic bishops are so hated by protestants?I hate the fact that I am actually beginning to sound like I hate. Maybe its the passion with which I am writing. It is for that reason that I shall gradually begin to wind up on this thread after this post. 99.9% of them are self appointed, miracle-seeking, tithe-collecting institutions. They blend the bible with juju in order to HELP God do miracles. Tithing in the NT is not scriptural - yet they keep mis-quoting and mis-applying the bible - and confusing innocent people.Now you reveal what you and you alone meant by 'many'. Well at least there is a .1 out there, so I was right, right? Right! When Catholic bishops discern the inspired books, who gets the praise?God, because the bible was inspired by God, obviously meaning that the discerning process was also inspired by Him. Yet you calumniate its producers - hypocrisy.Its producer remains God thats why it is the word of God. And I already gave the examples of Abraham and David. And you still accept that God can work through them.Yes I do. But not through a catholic -- you hate catholics. Nice.Like I said it may be my passion for what I am saying that makes it sound like hate. Hence you put words in my mouth. I never said God cannot work through catholics neither do I hate them. I have quite a number of catholic friends. Disagreeing with a doctrine is different from hating the person. Yes, doctrines are not in isolation of people but I have tried as much as possible to seperate the two for the purpose of discussion on this thread. As much as I disagre with some catholic doctrines I still accept y'all as my brothers and sisters. Yes. No one has given me a satisfactory answer => How did ONE bible give birth to 33,000 mutually suspecting sects? I will never tire of asking this question.I have dealt with the issue of sect and yet you stubbornly bring it back again. I do not really know how better to put what I have said in the past. The fact that there are all kinds of extra-biblical doctrines flying around today bothers me and bothers God much more. As far as I am concerned, the only 'sect' is that which lives by the principles of the bible as stipulated in its 66 books, not in the conduct and words of the descendants of it's purported compilers. So quite frankly, I do not care about the answer to that question. Ok about the praying issue, how about we define "PRAYER". Prayer is a petition as in ask. So if I were to say I pray thee A_K_O to fetch me some water, I will not be out of line, because I am asking you, petitioning you, praying to you. So when we go to God in Prayer, we petition, we ask, and by his grace we receive.Well, the only difference between petitioning me and Mary is that I am on the earth and am functional to you and Mary is'nt. On the interpretation of prayer, this is how the dictionary defines it: Main Entry: 1prayer Pronunciation: \ˈprer\ Function: noun Usage: often attributive Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex Date: 14th century 1 a (1): an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage> (2): a set order of words used in praying b: an earnest request or wish 2: the act or practice of praying to God or a god <kneeling in prayer> 3: a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers —often used in plural 4: something prayed for 5: a slight chance <haven't got a prayer> Furthermore, the bible does not instruct us to pray to saints in heaven including Mary. If Mary has so much influence over God's decisions, why not pray to the father of God? Does Jesus love Joseph any less? After all they were in the carpentry business together. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 4:23pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
Beautiful question. So God can choose M'uslims, buddhists, hindus, pagans, ogboni etc etc.!Do you mean that all your Bishops and your Pope achieved that status by birth? Did they not have to accept the doctrine at some point in their lives? I'm sure you should be able to dig up statistics of people in the catholic church who were born christians. Haven said that, let me reaffirm that Paul was not one of the apostles. He was a murderer of the people of God. You could also see Paul as being worse than the guys in all those other religions that you mentioned because at least those guys have a set of religious laws that they obey and these laws restrict them to an extent. But Saul wielded political power with no religious restraint. And God still used Him to pen down nearly the whole of the New Testament. So if God wants to use convert the Dalai Lama and make him a preacher, what stops Him? Or is Paul's story too good to be true? Haven also said that, I would also like to repeat that it is not all 'self-appointed protestant churches' that are self-appointed. There are loads of genuine ones out there that were established by God Himself and I sure do belong to one, praise God. If you have a problem with it's being outside the catholic church, you are on your own. I also discovered that you did not adress this analogy: When Segun Adeniyi comes on air and announces one of Yar'Adua's policies that you like, who do you credit, Adeniyi or Yar' Adua? Who gets the praise? Who set out the policy? These are simple questions with honest answers that should make certain things clear to you. So, the Holy Spirit inspired the bishops to compile and approve the bible.If it was truly the Bishops, then what you said is undisputable. And just because they If they truly approved it, why do you think it has not occured to them to review it or to add some of the extra-biblical material that you guys practice as part of the bible? Much like countries approve their constitution and then ratify it from time to time? You said to 4Him that the constitution is differenct from the bible. Yes, just that you make them similar by seeing them as being compilations of men with little or no input from God. Then, the devil inpsired these same bishops in their doctrines.Why not? Just because they (supposedly) compiled the bible, does that now put them above board? Thats the same problem with the Catholic church, when someone says something derogatory about the Pope people start raining verbal hailstones as if they insulted Jesus. Jesus was the only perfect man on the earth. I can give you examles of great men in the bible who lost it at some point, from David, the man after Gods heart to Moses and even our father of faith, Abraham. So what stops the bishops from imbibing what in your own words (sarcasm or not) are devilish doctrines? Now, who inspired the 33,000 bickering protestant sects in forming 33,000 mutually contradicting doctrines about ONE ChristMuch of your defence has been based on this 33,000 phenomenon and not the bible. You make it sound as if it is one's sect that makes the difference between a christian and a non-christian. Also if you've noticed, most of the threads on Nairaland are more like '33,000 vs 1' and vice versa, not '33,000 vs each other'. Ive adressed your issue about 33,000 protestant sects before on another thread. Just because I am not a member of the catholic church, does that disqualify me as a christian? NO. Does that make my salvation any less potent? NO. Does the fact that I disagree with som of the catholic church's doctrines that I do not find in the bible make God angry with me? NO. Does it mean I will go to hell? NO. Does that make a member of the 33,000 sects? IN YOUR OPINION, YES BUT IN MINE, NO. Do I see myself as being a part of one of the 33,000 sects? NO, contrary to imhotep's beilef. I do not wish to deal with extra-biblical catholic doctrines one by one but suffice it to say that I do, and my Pastor preaches what is in the bible. If he says anything that is not in the bible, I have the sole right to throw it in the trash can. Do what the bible says, and you are on point. Do what it does not say, you are on your own. I think that is the whole essence of christianity, not arguing over sect. When I see someone say or do something that is not explicitly written in the bible (e.g. praying to someone in heaven other than a member of the Godhead), it makes me cringe. P.S. Ive always wondered what that smokey thing Bishops carry is. I'm too lazy to check online please can anyone tell me? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pastor Offered Me R10 000 To Sit In A Wheelchair: Stand Up And Walk -sowetan, by AKO1(m): 4:09pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
1. This thread already exists: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-126221.0.html 2. Why is the press barred from taking pictures at his healing services? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Scandal: Pastor Chris Oyakhilome In South African Trouble! by AKO1(m): 12:01pm On Apr 17, 2008 |
@fyne guy: I'm not sure you were addressing my post. Whatever daylight miracle means, 'Pastor Chris miracles' are done in the daylight, so thats not the issue here.This is what I said: "in broad day light and were provable." You ignored the word 'provable'. If I am believing God for a car and 1 year down the line I am still trekking, my faith for the car is still active. However, once the car comes, my faith for the car terminates because I have seen it, it is no longer 'not seen'. This now strengthens my faith for any other thing I may want to ask for in the future. Like I also said, when a 'miracle' that ought to have been performed on the spot is medically questionable, I think it is perfectly okay to doubt it's genuity. Unbelievers may need to see to believe. A Christian uses faith as the evidence.I agree with you that faith is the bedrock of christianity. I am a bit concerned however, about your interpretation of the concept of faith. I need faith to receive a particular miracle from God but ONCE IT IS PHYSICALLY MANIFESTED, I don't need faith TO BELIEVE FOR THAT PARTICULAR THING!!. An unbeliever cannot have faith to believe God for something but once they see that particular thing manifested, they do not need faith, they just believe because their eyes have seen. Hence, if a miracle is supposedly done by Pastor Chris and (for instance), someone is supposed to have been cured instantly from HIV and they go to the hospital only to find out that the virus is still there, I do not need any faith to believe that the virus had been removed. According to the Pastor, it had been removed, i.e. the miracle had been manifested. It is different if it were to be a gradual process. If it is still there, it was not removed. Period. now to Pastor chris issue, in the early days of his ministry, critics were mainly talking about arranged miraclesI do not think you bothered to read the first post of this thread. I't all about arranged miracles, pastors paying people to fake it. So you missed it on that point my brother. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 10:25pm On Apr 16, 2008 |
2. These young men were not self-appointed. As we observe in many of todays 'churches'.Paul was not one of the apostles. We all know the story of how he was stopped on the road to Damascus. What then restricts God today from apointing someone who is not in the Catholic Church to do His work? I like the fact that you used the word 'many' not all. Because not all 'protestant' churches are fake, self-appointed churches. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 10:21pm On Apr 16, 2008 |
imhotep:1. I do not think Bishops or catholics are categorically evil. I never said so. you are either referring to the wrong person or putting words in my mouth or both. I do however do not believe in some of their doctrines because they are not scriptural and I will not get off into that. 2. I have discovered that most catholics either do not understand the functions of the Holy Spirit or refuse to accept the fact that the bible was compiled by God through Him because he is the resident Lord on the earth. Yes, it was probably the Bishops that compiled the bible, simply because God is too large to grab a pen and paper and write a bible for us. Besides, thats why he gave us ten fingers and one brain to write. So I do not see why I must credit the bible to the Bishops and why rejecting some of their doctrines and practices that I do not find in the bible should be equated with seeing them as evil and as outrightly rejecting the word of God. When Segun Adeniyi comes on air and announces one of Yar'Adua's policies that you like, who do you credit, Adeniyi or Yar' Adua? Who gets the praise? Who set out the policy? These are simple questions with honest answers that should make certain things clear to you. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 10:08pm On Apr 16, 2008 |
That book of Timothy is very very interesting. Check this out ==>I have had an argument with you on this issue before. You were correct when you said that wherever the word 'scripture' is used in the New Testament, it refers to the Old Testament. I researched and found out that the word 'scripture' in the New Testament means is 'Graphe in greek meaning: holy Writ. This word is mostly used to refer to a prophesy or statement made in the Old Testament, which was then the Scrolls. However, I have received divine understanding on this issue. If the 'scriptures' in the Old Testament were authentic, their authenticity being proved in their fulfillment in the New Testament (e.g the prophesy of the birth of Jesus in the OT), why would God make the New testament less authentic? There is no answer because this is not so. If we are to look at it your way, it brings everything in the New Testament under question as being the word of God and inspired by God as we find in Galatians. Why then does the passage in galatians seemingly exclude the New Testament. the answer is very very simple. At the time, there was no New Testament to refer to. It was still being written and lived out. Paul was 'innocently' writing letters to the several churches he had spiritual leadership over. He knew that the words came from God, but didnt think they would later become as respectable as the scrolls. In short, he had no that there was going to be a New Testament because he was simply living his life. That's why he (and all others in the NT) used 'scripture' referring to the OT, because 1. That was all they had as the word of God. 2. They did not have any NT on scrolls to refer to. 3. They themselves were living out the New Testament, all of whom (except Jesus) were unaware that their lives would be a part of the bible. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Pope Is 'Deeply Ashamed' Of Pedophile Priests by AKO1(m): 9:41pm On Apr 16, 2008 |
I really don't feel like interfering with imhotep and 4Him's dialogue but I feel the need to point something out to inhotep: Christ did not write any book. If you disagree with the compilers of the bible, you MUST reject the bible they compiled.Compiling is different from writing. It's like equating a proof-reader with an author. And you should also remember that the bible is ultimately the WORD OF GOD. It's obvious that that phrase has become a cliche for many. God decided what wuld and what would not be in the bible so even if the 'protestants' did it, it would be the same bible. I totally reject the idea of crediting the catholic church for compiling the bible. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Chucrh Or C.r.k Lecture Hall by AKO1(m): 9:33pm On Apr 16, 2008 |
This is the passage in view: 1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. People that make women compulsorily cover their heads are making a mistake. That mistake is that they have translated the word 'head' literarilly, to mean the physical head. Now, inasmuch as the bible is a simple book, there are some things that cannot be translated literarilly and need the wisdom of God and sometimes the original language's literal translation to interprete. For example, where the bible says "Arise, shine for thy light is come". God does not expect us to shine light halogen light so obviously, this is one of the scriptures that requires deeper 'beyond-the-surface' interpretation. Now back to 1 Corinthians 11, we see the word 'head' used consistently in the excerpt. Now re-read it with the physical head in context. You will find verse 3 completely confusing, because if I uploaded a picture of my head on this page, you would be looking at A_K_O's head, not Christ. Now what exactly is this head? I have been taught that this head is Spiritual Covering. So re-read verse 3, replacing 'head' with 'covering' and you will see that this time, you will not be as confused. This has undoubtedly been one of the most contentious and controversial subject in the church. But like the poster said, it should not be an issue because it is not one of what Matt.23:23 lists as the weightier matters of the law. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 (of 68 pages)