₦airaland Forum

Matt Slick gets schooled on his own show by a catholic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvbTmQ0Gu5o

OLAADEGBU:
1. The Catholic church is the one true church CCC 2105

"The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is 'the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ.' By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them 'to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live.' The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies."

Is this true or not?

True.

Please let us know what other church makes the claim to be the one true church and can trace it's origin to the beginning of Christianity.

menesheh:


Catholic Church is always at the forefront of accepting stuffs that apparently poses a threat to Christian believes and values.

They accepted the concept of evolution as scientific fact, then inversely looking for escape route to interprete the bible verses to suit their plight. Now homosexuality. It ain't gonna work that way as many people are discovering the flaws and hidden secret behind the whole issues.

The objectivity of homosexuality is overwhelming and convincing to the extent of them conceding to it.

Nice one.

please get your facts right.the catholic church teaches and stands by truth even in the face of political pressure e.g . against abortion, against contraception, against gay marriage,homosexuality acts are sinful.etc
this article refers to one sinful priest not the whole CC.

re. Evolution, the CC says that even if it were proven by science, it will be God behind the process unlike atheists who believe that evolution started by itself. In essence, God is the creator of everything,the exact process of creation has not been revealed to us.

brocab:
Read the bible.

Ive just stated that sola scriptura doesn't work. isn't that what you do but come up with contradictory doctrines to your protestant oga- Martin Luther? E.g.Lutherans carry out infant baptism.

From the last 2 pages,you see an example of how sola scriptura doesn't work.one person says baptism is important and saves,others say water baptism is obsolete.!How do we know the truth?

brocab:
Galatians 1:3-6-Grace to you and peace from God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age.
Vs 6-I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel.

As you can see, the Catholic's have turned their backs from Christ, only to listen to another gospel.

And the new testament was heard around the fourth century.

Genesis 17:10 -"This is My covenant that you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised.
So the ordinance of circumcision was an outward physical sign of one's willingness to obey God, and be one of God's chosen people.
But under the new covenant God is calling a Spiritual nation composed of individuals converted and regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

God's people are now to be circumcised Spiritually.
Physical circumcision is no longer necessary for religious purposes.{Only the Catholic's}

Back then it was a starting point of what God really wanted' circumcision of the heart.
Deuteronomy 10:16-"Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff necked no-longer.
Romans 2:25-29-For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
Paul told Rome that physical circumcision is of no Spiritual benefit.

Colossians 2:10-11-And you are complete in Him, who is the head of the principality and power.
Vs 11-In Him you were circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.

Any parent can make decisions for their kids, but will it be the right decision? Either way as the kids grow, we will see the fruit of that decision. with God or without.

Your teachings differs from majority of Christianity,even your protestant pioneers practice infant baptism.
So on what authority do you base your novel interpretations? And why should I believe brocab's version because that all you've stated,your version.not what has always been taught through antiquity.

brocab:
As we all know many millions of Catholic's believe in baby baptism-many haven't reached the true baptism of Christ.

John 3:3-5- Jesus said to him "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mothers womb and be born?"
Jesus answered, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Jesus had said clearly' one must make a choice.

But it seems you Catholic's have a different idea about baptism, none have made a choice, instead you have allowed your parents, to make that choice for you. You all seem to believe your parents made the right decision's, baptising you into the Catholic Church from birth.

So your baptism and the scriptures baptism are totally different.

John 3:3-5-John 3:16-Jesus said: one must believe? And be born again before he can enter the kingdom of heaven.

What would you say about Jewish parents who circumcised their babies,weren't they making the choice for the babies to make them part of God's people?
In the NT -Gal 3:28 & others,doesn't it say there is neither gentile nor jew for all are one in Jesus Christ? What then stops Christians for making the choice for their kids to be part of Jesus.
You guys seem to think Christianity only started in 2015 with all these weird exegesis.

[b][/b]

Scholar8200:
Pls vouchsafe me Bible references as regards the highlighted!

Let's start here

Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(He that does not believe need not be baptized; a baby/ toddler cannot profess saving faith)

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
(Only those who received the Gospel meaning they heard, were pricked in their hearts as regards their need for salvation, repented and were baptised. See Acts 2:36,37. Only a child who has reached the age of accountability/and those older can do all these! )

Acts 8:36-38

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

(The baptism could only commence after the man had professed saving faith by surrendering to Jesus; Rom 10:9 tells us it is at that time salvation occurs) Note that believing is not mental assent. Rom 10:10 reveals true believing as a heart procedure.

Acts 9:17,18
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Paul had become a member of the family of God hence the title brother. If you read Acts 9:15, The Lord made it clear that he was a chosen vessel meaning old things had passed away.

Acts 16:30-34
30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Notice the reply and notice the cause of the joy. Believing that brought salvation always preceded baptism in water. They had to be able to genuinely believe before baptism was brought up. The call to believe was preceded by a deep sense of need. (Believing is more than a mental assent or intellectual acquiescence). It is a heart issue and the heart controls the man.

Acts 20:21
testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Shows the key ingredients both of which cannot be effectively communicated to babies or amoral toddlers

Some of the verses you quoted will apply to adults who can definitely make that profession of faith.
You have however missed out a number of other verses:

Paul in Col. 2:11–12 in effect states that baptism has replaced circumcision. We know that circumcision was done for babies in the OT in anticipation of being raised in a Jewish famly. Would he have used the word ‘circumcision’ that was mainly linked to babies if he thought baptism wasn’t for babies? ( I do know some adults were circumcised). Baptism also then applies to babies in anticipation of being raised in a christian family. See Lydia in Acts 16:15 who was baptised with her household, read further to v33 where the jailer and his family were baptised.
Also note that Jesus comments about children in Matt 19:13-14

The best way to understand early christiantiny is by looking at how it was practised in the first few centuries. See these writings from some early church fathers:

Irenaeus in AD 189 -"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus in AD 215
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Augustine in AD 400 - "What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

Scholar8200:
Who then inspired the ones quoted which you said you also believed? What else do they say?But they sure say we are saved by our faith in the redemption in Christ's blood.

Do you believe that the Lord's supper can be taken unworthily?

In the Bible, none was baptised before they truly believed! And Romans 10:10 tells us salvation is by faith.

I am not saying a person should not be baptised but not before he genuinely repents and surrenders to Christ and his faith is attested to by a newness of life.

@bolded,where do we find this teaching in early christianity. I'm assuming you're excluding baptism for babies and children.

herald9:
What truth?

Maybe you should know it's not everyone that is searching for the truth through religion...

So becoming a catholic or protestant is out of the question.

Amen.

All well and good.Just know that even atheists do convert.see link.
http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/conversion-stories/atheist-converts

I only responsed to you because you stated boldly that you could never become catholic. All the best

herald9:
I've never been a catholic and will never be...

You'll be surprised at how many people(especially pastors) have said this but ended up becoming catholic after learning the fullness of truth. E.g.Scott Hahn, Tim Staples.
please check out this link: http://chnetwork.org/category/conversion-stories/by-name/

God bless

Clutching at tiny straws to downplay the role of the Blessed virgin Mary!!As Truth24 said,you no get work.

Happy Sunday all, God bless.

Barnabaseloka:
Yes, everyone needs to go to the church that will guide him/her through the scriptures, and not through philosophies of men. Yet, the greatest guide is the Holy Spirit, and He cannot contradict the scriptures while doing His work.

If we do not study that which we have got in the bible, we surely will be easily deceived. I say agin that whatever one is taught in any church that contradicts what is written in the Scriptures should be thrown away, no matter how good and logical such teaching or practice may look.

The question about bread is not related to the issue at hand. Sincerely, I should have replied you but it will really take my time.

Yes the greatest guide is the Holy spirit who was given to the church otherwise every individual will think their interpretation of the scripture is the correct one.
I accept that my question on bread was not related, however, i was just trying to prove that you'll probably come up with a different interpretation from what majority of christianity teaches. so relating back to the issue of Mary being the mother of God or not - who do we believe? You or historical christianity?

johnw74:
@bold, Try quoting me correctly

I say again, Jesus was talking to the Apostles, He wasn't talking to false teachers-priests,
who after wrongly thinking they have forgiven sins, might then say, "now go and pray six hail marys".

When Jesus forgave sins He didn't say, now go and pray to my Mother Mary,
He said: now go and sin no more.

So who are the true teachers-priests that can forgive or retain sins today? Where are they?

During confession,a priest forgives sins with the following words (God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of your son, you have reconciled the world to yourself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Through the ministry of the church, may God grant you pardon and peace. And I absolve you of your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.)
Any prayers (not limited to Hail Marys) or other actions the priests asks the person confesing to perform is as a form of penance ( Please see below for an explanation - culled from catholic cathecism)


1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

1460 The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."63


The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ . . . in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.

Barnabaseloka:
Why do you quote from the same scriptures that is said to be error-prone? How do I know that what you have quoted is right?

I never said it was error prone. The only way we know the scriptures are error free is because the church told us so. St Augustine 4th Cent. even attests to this in his writings (For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5, 6; NPNF 1, Vol. IV, 131)

And the church got its authority directly from Jesus according to Tradition and as recorded in the scriptures.

Do remember that the church already existed while the NT scriptures where being written. In fact, Paul wrote to a number of them. The only way to understand the scriptures correctly is to see it within the tradition of the church that already existed.

Barnabaseloka:
Noted. What you need to do is to quote from your bible, while others compare it from their own bibles, alongside other passages to get balanced understanding of a matter.

Actually, you'll find that sola scriptura which you're alluding to here is what has led to countless denominations with different interpretations/teachings. This is why sola scriptura can never work - you need a guiding church. The issue at hand is what is the correct teaching. I bet you and your fellow protestants have differing on big issues such as trinity,baptism etc.

I'll ask you a simple question on a different note - what is the correct teaching on the bread Jesus talked about in John 6 and the last supper? And let us know when this teaching was accepted in the church.

Barnabaseloka:
So, how do people verify the authenticity of your belief? I can't argue with you on this issue. Go with your claims and let me obey that which are written in the bible I have. After questioning its authenticity, you will still go ahead to quote from it to validate your point. Good luck!

you verify the authencity of belief by going to the church established by Jesus. Paul did it this in Galatians 1 and 2 as well as acts 15..we are also asked to go to the church in Matt 18 15.also it is the church that is the bulwark and pillar of truth 1tim3 15

Barnabaseloka:
Luke 1:1-3
1. Inasmuchas many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us,
2. just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, delivered them to us.
3. It seems good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus,
4. that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Do you want me to believe that there are mistakes made in the Scriptures?
Ps.12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words. Like silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times.
I will not argue with you on this again. If you believe that there are mistakes in the Scriptures, so be it to you. It also means that what we believe contains mistakes and our faith in Christ has error. For me; God's word is error-free. Any error seen is as a result of misinterpretation.

This doesn't tell us that Luke wrote that book . How do we know he did?

johnw74:
Of course they would have, I also will wipe my feet off you soon.



You call that an explanation?




And you think that is saying it's literally Jesus flesh and blood?
We meet and eat with fellow Christians in memory of Christ.
We do not go into a building to receive a wafer of bread on our tongue and think that is supping with fellow believers in memory of Christ.



I know that decades ago rc were taught that the pope was infallable at all times, and that priests were infallable when saying the mass.
And that verse is not talking off the Harlot of Babylon, but to Jesus true followers.



Jesus said that to the Apostles, "whatever you forgive on Earth will be forgiven in Heaven" He did not say that to the priests of the false church who might then say, now go and pray six hail mary's.

Do you think the bible suddenly appeared in 2015? Do you realise there has been 2 millenia of Christianity before this time.when was your teaching accepted and thought by the church?
Why do we have to believe in your interpretations?

If you say forgiving sins only applied to the apostles,this same must apply to baptism and preaching good news.the church must have ended with the Apostles.?!!! Why do we even bother with christianity?Please lets think critically here.

You don't have to accept guidance. This is just sowing a seed. just mind it growing over the years.

Barnabaseloka:
Then, the early apostles said things as were directed by the Holy Spirit and told the believers to hold unto them so that they would not be deceived by false teachings or doctrines. Then, the words they spoke were not compiled together. But now, the words they spoke and the letters they wrote to believers have been compiled to make it easy for believers to read and understand. Any other teaching anywhere that is not based on the ones compiled in the bible as directed by the Holy Spirit need to be discarded.

This is all made up!!! Early christianity never taught this!! Please let us know when we were asked not to follow the teachings by word or letter.What council decided this,which year? You'll find other teachings laid out clearly in 1 council or another.
The written scriptures could never contain all of christian faith,this is why Jesus left a church(Paul even talks about this in 1Tim3:15 among other scriptures)

Please also read the context of the (All scripture is God breathed. .....)you can't pluck scripture from its Context.

Barnabaseloka:
Sorry that I do not need going into theology or history. The bible contains the complete compilation of everything God wants us to know, whether handed to us by the catholic church or not.
2 Tim.3:16-17
16. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction in righteousness,
17. That the man of God may be COMPLETE thoroughly equipped for every goo work.
Therefore the bible you have is complete and more than enough to give you all the truth you need to know on anything. Any other story you get is secondary. If you cannot base your claims on the Scriptures, how shall we believe it as true and live by it?

I'm sorry but this doesn't prove sola scriptura . You're quoting out of context. Paul was only talking about the OT here and please read the context,he mentioned going back to those whom he had learned from (v14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it v15 and how from childhood.....)

Also,going by your logic all we need is steadfastness according to James 1:4 -And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

Looking further you'll find 2thess2:15 -So then, brothers, stand firm, and cling to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

johnw74:
And the devil can have you pray to a dead saint
the devil can make you believe the communion wafer is the actual body of Christ
the devil can have you pray before statues
the devil can have you believe the pope (a man) is infallable
the devil can have you believe that priests can forgive your sins
the devil can have you believe repeatedly praying to a dead saint is not a sign of a heathen

plus so much more.


A person who believes and does those things, could be considered a fool.

So I take it you're 2015's CC attacker . others came before but have largely given up.
I'll recommend that you please study the CC teachings Well before you post.
- I've explained in my previous post about praying to saints.
- Christianity from inception has believed the consecrated bread to be the body of Jesus Christ. Please see 1cor 10:16 (The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?)

-what is your understanding of the pope being infallible?as CC teaches that pope is only infallible when teaching faith and morals to the whole church in defined circumstances. (Pls see matt 16:19[i] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." [/i]
-on priests forgiving sins (please see John 20:22)

God bless

johnw74:
You take one or two scriptures and think that proves Mary gave birth to God
even when God Himself said This is my beloved Son
and when the Angel said to Mary He shall be called the Son of God.

I anyway, don't pray to dead saints, but directly to God in me
there is no need for anyone to intercede on my behalf
the prayers of those who pray to Mary are not heard.

Mat 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

I notice how you conveniently avoided addressing the verses but state that I've based the teaching one or two verses. Firstly,How many verses will do?Secondly, the teaching is based on more than those verses.
It's up to you if you don't pray to saints,it's not compulsory within the CC anyway, it is however encouraged that we pray for one another - see 1tim2:1
Saints are more alive than you or I are,how else could they offer our prayers in Rev 5:8?

Vain repetition is not about repeating same words but not praying from the heart. While it's possible to pray the rosary vainly,(or any protestant prayer for that matter),it's meant to be prayed meditating on the mysteries of Christ .we see several examples of repetitions in the scriptures - e.g.plasm 136, Rev 4:8.

I've stated before that you require guidance to understand the scriptures, so that you see things in proper historical context not some novel interpretations.

johnw74:
The rc prayer Hail Mary is wrong where it says "Holy Mary Mother of God"

God is the Father of Jesus Christ
and so lodgically Jesus Christ is God's son
accordingly Mary gave birth to the Son of God,
just like the scriptures say,
syn does not believe those scriptures and unlike the Bible writers
syn say's Mary gave birth to God, and he is blind to the truth.

Syn is a good name for you, sounds like you.

On sighting Mary,Elizabeth said in Luke 1:43 -Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?’
And look at 1 Corinthians 8:5 - Yet to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist

These refute your claim that the Hail Mary prayer is wrong on Mary being mother of God..

Once again please read the council of Ephesus declarations,this issue has been long addressed.

johnw74:
I don't say Jesus is two persons, RC apparently have trouble understanding.



without the RCC guidance, now that is funny,
scriptures are not only easy to quote, they are easy to believe,
the RCC is one of the last places I would go to get enlightenment on scriptures.

As stated before, the issue of Mary being the Mother of God was put to bed 1600 years ago. Whether you believe the council/church or not is up to you.I do wonder where you get your own authority because the majority of Christianity teaches a different Doctrine to yours. Who do we believe?The personal interpretation of Johnw74 or historical christianity?
Scriptures are easy to believe but you don't think it requires guidance? One just wonders why there are so many different teachings from the multitude of sola scriptura adherents!

johnw74:
That makes Mary the Mother of the Son of God, just like the scriptures say
God was never born.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word became flesh ...

God Fathered Jesus, that makes Jesus the Son of God
Mary gave birth to the son of God just as scriptures say.

You cannot understand how Jesus can be God, and the Son of God,
hint: it's something to do with the diffrence between Spirit and flesh,
Word of God = Spirit
Son of God = flesh.
Mary didn't give birth to the Word of God did she.

Brother,this heresy was addressed way back in 431AD at the council of Ephesus. Please check wiki link - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus.
The Nestorian heresy was trying to state that Jesus was 2 persons as you're inadvertently doing. In essence,this was why Mary was defined as Mother of God(Jesus being 1 person both fully God and fully Man)
It's easy to quote scriptures but some mysteries are hard to understand without the church's guidance.

chukwudi44:
A Catholic priest Fr Godwin of our Lady of Nigeria Catholic church Clegg Surulere was shot dead by armed robbers alongside his brother. He funeral mass comes up next Friday at St Patrick's cathedral Awka by 10am

To both of them and all those killed in such dreadful circumstances - Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, 
and let perpetual light shine upon them. 
May they rest in peace. Amen

An2elect2:
Lol. Actually you have a wrong understanding of what the church is. Firstly, the church is not a corporate body that is area-bound but a group of persons. An assembly. A community of individuals is what makes up a church. When two or three of this people come together, we have a church.

They bible defines church as THEY not IT.

For examples,

Acts 5:11 , So great fear came upon all
the church and upon all who heard these
things.
Acts 8:1 , ...At that time a great
persecution arose against the church
which was at Jerusalem; and they were all
scattered...
Acts 8:3 , As for Saul, he made havoc of
the church, entering every house, and
dragging off men and women, committing
them to prison.
Acts 11:22 , Then news of these things
came to the ears of the church in
Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to
go as far as Antioch.


Yes there are "churches" today founded by men but they do not believe like the early Christians, the early church and the few believers around today. They are man-made and hence operate like one. You don't expect otherwise, do you?

You can't see the church am talking about, doesn't mean (they) are not out there. These people are not extra ordinary people. They feel everything you feel, they don't have physical marks on them, they cry, they laugh, they fall sick, they lack, they abound, they die too. The only thing that sets them apart is Christ in them. Though dwelling in this world like every other person, they see themselves as foreigners because of the one in them. They are the church. They are the salt and the light of the world. The body of Christ. They don't usurp authority over one another, even though they have elders, pastors, teachers, they are still equal and see themselves as such.

This is the church Christ died for and promised to be with till the end of time.

I don't know why you asking me that, but there are some great Christian scholars made by God's grace. A few come to mind Charles Spurgeon, A.W Pink, Martin Lurther king (snr). What they taught and what they wrote had and is still having great positive influence in the Christian church today.

OK,please inform us what the true teaching is on baptism and confirm that this is accepted by all these churches. at least we've got to know what to believe in.

My oh my!The guy in brown by the pillar needs some exercise. Him belle no be small thing.

We'll have to check his marks in the following areas on his last day as president:
Security - <5/10
Economy - <5/10
Power- <5/10
Health-<5/10
Education <5/10
Transportation <5/10
Sports development <5/10
International perception <5/10
Tourism <5/10

Finally,are most people better off today than the day Jonathan came to power? I doubt!!

Except someone can inform me otherwise,the Jonathan years were full of misplaced priorities,massive underachievement, corruption galore. Unfortunately,any good accomplishment within his years is outweighed by the dreadful.

Thanks for all your prayers. Have a blessed week.