₦airaland Forum

CoronaVirusPro:
Ritual!

Catholic are very shady. The more you look, the less you see.

The sect is a mix of Christianity and Demons

No it isn't shady or demonic. If you don't understand the Jewish roots of Christianity and the symbolisms of all that is happening, it's best you study this. There is a reason for absolutely every action. The church is 2000 years old.

You may also want to learn about the catholic exorcists that expel demons from the possessed and obsessed regularly e.g vincent lampert, also check out exorcists files on YouTube or podcasts

3nity7:
your post is reeks of ignorance. Pentecostal churches didn't break or originate from Catholic Church. Catholic Church and her idolatrous practices is not recognized in the Bible. Go and read church history then you will appreciate the role of protestants in the early church

Please could you clarify exactly what you mean by early church, as church history has this down as the 1st 4 centuries of Christianity. Where exactly were protestants found during this period? Or are you referring to the Gnostics of the time who were classed as heretics by the church? You do realise there was no canonised bible during early Christianity as we know it today, talk less of the unbiblical sola scriptura.

According to Church history, protestants came 1500 years after the event with it's own novel and contradictory teachings.

jossyx1:
the this can't happened in sine country. imagine a whole Heathrow airport shutting down for a whole day.

if nah our country the whole of the internet would have been on fire saying Nigeria is the worst country

Major incidents also happen in developed countries, the difference is that these don't occur frequently and they ensure they learn lessons/put steps in place to reduce the probability of reoccurrence.

Now let's look at the issue of fuel tanker explosions in Nigeria, this would ordinarily be major incidents but this still occurs frequently in Nigeria. Same with grid collapse etc

btoks:
Generators sha for an airport that massive. Handles more than 15 times our own MMIA. I doubt dem fit rely on generators.
Major impact if the power station /supply can't be fixed soon. Chai

Re Back up system


Heathrow has now responded to earlier criticism, including from IATA, on its back-up energy systems, saying they worked “as expected” when the substation fire started.

In a statement quoted by PA, it said:

“We have multiple sources of energy into Heathrow.

But when a source is interrupted, we have back-up diesel generators and uninterruptable power supplies in place, and they all operated as expected.

Our back-up systems are safety systems which allow us to land aircraft and evacuate passengers safely, but they are not designed to allow us to run a full operation.

As the busiest airport in Europe, Heathrow uses as much energy as a small city, therefore it’s not possible to have back-up for all of the energy we need to run our operation safely.

“We are implementing a process which will allow us to redirect power to the affected areas, but this is a safety critical process which takes time, and maintaining safety remains our priority, so we have taken the decision to close the airport for today.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2025/mar/21/hayes-substation-fire-heathrow-airport-live-updates-power-cut-outage?page=with:block-67dd66588f082b11186cfecc

SIRKAY98:
Serious o, hope they have alternatives to electric power? they can use generators, i hope my fellow Nigerians have not went to plug heavy duty equipment into there socket like this

Generators sha for an airport that massive. Handles more than 15 times our own MMIA. I doubt dem fit rely on generators.
Major impact if the power station /supply can't be fixed soon. Chai

[quote author=Princejuddy post=134260633][/quote]He has never supported gay marriage and even opposed this as Archbishop in Argentina before gay marriage was legalised in the country. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/15/argentina-gay-lesbian-marriage-legalisation
Just so you know, his take on matters does not equal an ex cathedra statement nor does it mean it is church teaching.
This wiki article summarises his views on lgbt topics - no where would you see a suppoirt for gay marriage.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis_and_LGBTQ_topics#:~:text=While%20he%20has%20reiterated%20traditional,protections%20for%20same%2Dsex%20couples.[/url]

LordReed:
So the god's representative can not get healing from him? LoLz.

Sounds like those who asked Jesus himself to save himself from the cross if he could others!! All 12 apostles + Paul were martyred except John.

Of course the pope like most would pray to God and if it be God's will he'll be healed miraculously or through the miracle of healthcare.

Princejuddy:
He doesn't allow ppl to kiss his ring as required as a pope , He accepted gay marriage , Wears a different kind of cross ,hmm make I no just judge sha

SMH, false claims on the thread. Pope never accepted 'gay marriage'. Catholic church does not support this. Did you actually read what the church clarified?

JuanDeDios:
Really? He will slap tariffs on the UK for this. 50%

😄😄I doubt he would want to upset his mother's side. He's of British descent afterall.

Name change is only within the US context and won't apply internationally.
UK won't recognise name change as per article.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-gulf-mexico-america-uk-b2685587.html

Psoul:
Thanks bro. Your responses are very smart and clear.
Are u into insurance business?

No,not directly. Got some knowledge from discussing insurance topics with some friends regularly.

Psoul:
What if what happened to the client also affected his Insurance company and the insurer of the insurance company simultaneously?

I suppose this is why they employ actuaries. They would have assessed the risk of insurance and reinsurance. The probably of impact on insurance and reinsurance companies simultaneously is low but not impossible. I suspect they diversify their investments accordingly.

Psoul:
My question is this.

There are many that have their property insured. Their property are ruined by the fire.
The insurance companies are also ruined with all their resources.

How will they make claim and how are they going to be compensated?

As far as I know, Insurance companies are also insured - reinsurance. They'll start from there.

motionarena:
Ordinary Fire
Dem no fit quench

Wild Fire burning the equivalent of a local government area in Nigeria. This was no ordinary fire, certainly not with the dangerous winds. Do you think we would have handled this better in Nigeria?

can you point historically were the church where Mary was venerated? It shouldn't be hard give me evidence.
When did this church tradition start before or after the apostles?

You need to do your own research in reading the church fathers, you can start from here: [url]https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-full-of-grace [/url] Also check out St. Athanasius' writings on Mary.

Are you saying the saints are not dead? If they are not dead who is christ coming to raise at his coming?
1 Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

In 1 cori 12:52 who did Paul call "the dead"?

Are you trying to pit Paul against Our Lord Jesus? You need to read what Jesus said about the dead again here Luke 20: 37 - 38, as per previous post. You can't pluck verses here and there without a wider context. Do you really think the dead are still waiting for their individual judgement before going to Heaven or hell?

There is no evidence that the early church during the apostles venerated saints, it was introduced after the death of the apostles.

This would be like me saying there is no evidence during the apostles taught God as Trinity. This is why you need the authority of the church to decide what the correct doctrine is based on scripture and tradition. You need to read the church fathers that lived in the time after the apostles.

The apostles and Jesus himself were very strict in following the scriptures, Jesus even said the scriptures cannot be broken,
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
The scripture takes preeminence above traditions, you cannot set aside scriptures by tradition, which Roman Catholicism does.

Who says the catholic church is not strict in following scriptures. Sacred tradition complements scripture as scripture was written to the existing church. how exactly do you think they knew which scriptures to canonise and how to interpret if that's what you mistake for setting aside.
Who determines what the interpretation of scripture is? What is your interpretation of bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ after consecration going by your sola scriptura. Was your interpretation taught by the apostles?
Within the same NT scriptures, what is the pillar and foundation of truth (Where is it today?)

So how do you know that Jesus is the christ if not through the old testament written by the jews, without the jews the old testament could have not be written, which means you won't know who Jesus is. Now using your own logic we should agree with the jews even though they contradict the scriptures they put together.

I can say same with the jews because according to your own logic Roman Catholicism is unquestionable because they put the bible together, so following your own logic the jews are unquestionable because they wrote the old testament and put it together, can't you see the flaw in that line of thought.
Roman Catholicism contradicts scriptures in almost all doctrinal issues.

Wrong, you can't conflate the two. Jews rejected Jesus teaching and his claim to be Son of God. Jesus established a church with authority to bind and loose. This church has carried on for 2 millennia but you want me to believe your own opinions 2000 years later!

you have no proof to show only what has being fed to you without questioning. Roman Catholicism hate questioning, it is like a blasphemy, she is just like Islam.

Oh, you can certainly question the Catholic church but once a matter is decided by those given authority, matter is closed. See Act 15, Luke 10:16.
Now where has all the questioning and individual protestant popes led you? Which do you believe -
-Infant baptism or not
-Baptism saves or not
-Baptism is for the forgiveness of sin or not
-Bread and Wine becomes actual body and blood or not
-God is Trinity or Not
- Jesus has 2 natures but 1 person or human Jesus is separate from God the Son
- Marriage is a sacrament or not
- Divorce is allowed or not
- Justified by faith alone or not
- Once saved always saved or not
-Rapture or not
- Mary is perpertual virgin or not
And so many other differing beliefs within the different protestant denominations

Are speaking of traditions that were handed down by the apostles? Gnosticsms, Arians, nestorians are heretics because the contradict scripture and the traditions handed down by the apostles and you know what so is veneration of Mary and the saints, and a host of false teachings of the Roman catholic church.

Do you have any idea who named these groups heretics? You are aware these groups justified their views using scriptures, right? Are you aware of the early church schisms after church councils? I don't see where the catholic church split from early christianity due to false teaching. Could this be because it had/ has the orthodox teaching. How come it was others that split from the Catholic Church.
This leads to to the question you ignored - it is the year 320AD , what church would you have attended with your current sola scriptura views?

Paul and the other apostles never taught veneration of Mary, praying through Mary and deceased saints etc they werr ever part of the traditions handed over by the apostles, all these were added.

At least I can point to early church tradition and magisterium as evidenced throughout the centuries and within early councils. I gave you a seed form of veneration of Mary within the bible already. Interesting you state deceased saints, when we see in Luke 20: 37 - 38 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to him.” - Catholics believe this.
It is clear you adhere to sola scriptura but this protestant doctrine was never taught by Paul and other apostles. All apostolic churches before the schism affirm veneration of saints.

same can be said of the jews, how could you disagree with them yet they gave you the scripture.
Those other scriptures were not written by the apostles and prophets,historically the books that were canon by the jews were the books of the law and the prophets. While the church followed the teachings of the prophets and apostles anything outside of these were not scriptures.

I don't quite get your point here - I asked how you determine the scripture but you state that we disagree with the Jews>>. I think you'd find that the the Jews opposed Jesus and his teachings, ultimately leading to crucifixion. Yes, we disagree with the Jews' views on Jesus but not the scripture (OT) already written. Jesus had authority, he gave authority to his apostles who in turn ordained bishops/ priests of the early church. These same guys canonised the books of the bible as we have it today.

Sola scriptural does not mean church tradition is not neccesary provided such traditions truly came from the apostles not fraudulently added which the Roman catholic church is notorious of doing.
Heck the Roman church goes against the bible.

The Catholic Church does not go against the bible, all teachings are implicitly or explicitly found there. The bible does not contain every Christian practice. Would you say the following are false as we know some protestant churches don't believe these - 1. Consecrated bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ 2.God is a Trinity.
Another question for you - it is the year 320AD , what church would you have attended with your current sola scriptura views? Mind you, the following books were still disputed even at this stage - James, Jude, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2,3 John, Revelations, shephard of Hermas etc; a common man would most likely have being unable to read; Bible books wouldn't have been bound together or as easily accessible as today.

can you show me proof that the apostles venerated Mary, or prayed to Mary not church fathers. By the way you seem to take authority from church fathers, are their writings considered as scripture? Why? What is the difference between scripture and non scripture?

I don't need to show you any proof based on your own erroneous standard of sola scriptura. Within Church tradition and the Church magisterium veneration of saints is very clear. Veneration of saints is also implicit within the bible.

Church fathers give an idea of what the church tradition is e.g. list of bishops, accepted teachings etc. Historically you had to be part of the one church founded by Jesus or you were considered a heretic. E.g, the Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians who used the same scriptures to give their novel interpretation of who Jesus was and other doctrines.

Steep:
when it comes to doctrine scripture alone is the authority.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Catholic choice passed down traditions that didn't originate from the apostles and the early church such as veneration of Mary ,Roman Catholicism go against the apostles by teaching what they didn't teach.


veneration of Mary was never taught by the Apostles. Elisabeth conversation with Mary was never taken as a doctrine for the church, neither is praying through Mary, they were all imported after the death of the apostles.

The verse quoted does not say scripture alone, also it says all scripture is 'profitable' or useful as per other translations - it doesn't mean that is all that's needed. In fact you'll need to read the verse 14 for further insight:
But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
2ndly, what scripture was Paul referring to here? The pharisee, saducee or Essen OT canon? Surely even the NT hadn't been completed nor deemed scripture at this point. Could hindu scriptures count here?
How do you trust that the church got its determination of scripture right if you believe that it has passed down incorrect tradition?

Sola scriptura was first introduced to Christianity 1500 years after the event by Martin Luther as part of his protestant reformation solas. A full 1100 years after the 431AD Theotokus declaration,but you posit that sola scriptura is the only authority on doctrine! It'll be interesting to see which church council attested to sola scriptura.

Re Mary- I wonder how you know what the apostles did/didn't teach, especially with no canonical writings from half the apostles.
Are you now going to ignore an entire half chapter on Mary's visit to Elizabeth, would you ignore the verse where Mary said "all generations will call me blessed" ,as no other Apostle taught this? As I stated befor, the bible was not put together as an instruction manual- it stands together with sacred tradition and the magesterium teaching of the church.
Please see the early church father writings from the 2nd century e.g irenaeus, justin martyr for further info. You may also find that there's a prayer to Mary dated to about 250AD .

Steep:
The jews can also claim the same. Without them, you won't have the bible.

The good thing is a lot of Jews did become Christians. With regard to those practicing Judaism, they obviously reject Jesus as the Messiah as thus reject all of the NT as scripture. Mind you, there were 3 or 4 Jewish sects with different OT canons.
The crux is that Jesus gave authority to the apostles to bind and loose. The successors of the apostles- ordained Bishops carried on this process which included canonising the bible.

Steep:
whatever, doctrine that contradict scripture must be rejected.
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. The apostles never taught veneration of Mary.


The jews can also claim the same. Without them, you won't have the bible.

It is the authority to make non doctrinal decisions and the authority.

Bible has to be read as a whole and it is not an instruction manual of all doctrine from 1st page to last. You do realise the church already existed and the scriptures were written to the church decades after the event? There was also word of God via sacred Tradition which the Catholic church has passed down and clarified via councils where required. In fact, it is the protestant doctrine of sola scriptura that is to be rejected has this was never taught by the Apostles by letter or tradition. You will need to decide how it is you believe in a biblical canon and sola scriptura where these are clearly not within the bible.

We see seeds of veneration of Mary, when she visited Elizabeth - Luke 1: 43 - 44 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

Veneration is honour given to all saints , worship (Latria) is given to the Trinity alone. All made clear via tradition/magisterium. - Read the Apostles Creed from latest 4th century to see the mention of the 'communion of saints'. Please read other documents and letters from the early church fathers to get a feel for how christianity was practised. Every Christian practice was never detailed in the bible.

Steep:
I want to ask you a question, The fact that the Jewish nation gave birth to christ, does that mean that whatever the Jewish believe in or teaches is true?
How come Jesus challenges the leaders of the jews even though they kept the kept and preserved the old testament?

You stated that 431AD was too long after the death of the apostles to accept the declaration of Mary as Theotokus plus veneration.

I gave you a couple of other mattters of faith that were declared around the same period as above but your response was to ask whether we should follow all Jewish beliefs. Now, the question is - how do you determine what to accept from the early church and its various councils, including whether the bible itself is correct? The bible does not even list which book constitutes it.

I think at some point you'll have to believe that there is an authority that makes decisions (binding and loosing). What is this authority?

Steep:
431 AD is a very long time after the death of the apostles, during their time such abomination called veneration of Mary was never practice, it is obvious these heresies were brought in.
The apostles has already prophecies that such heresies would enter.2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

In response to this part - with your logic, wouldn't you say the canonisation of the bible itself, occurred a very long time after the death of the apostles? The earliest council to affirm the current 73 book bible was the council of Rome in 382 AD! Why do you believe the bible as we have it today with 27 NT books is correct. Could these also have been brought in going by your logic?

How about the decision on the deity of Christ at Nicea in 325 AD against the Arian Heresy

femi4:
So dumb
Does this man look 104

Can't you respond without abuse?!! Did I state that your comment was dumb. Smh!
One of the reasons I've limited my engagements on the forum.

FitCorper:
Indeed he lived a good life to live that old. But I can’t understand why someone will come to this earth and intentionally not to continue his lineage? I mean for everyone who continues his lineage there is hope the ancestors will lead one of his descendants to heaven thus preserving that family name for ages to come. Like proverb said “the righteous shall dwell in the land forever but the we wicked shall be cut off”.

Hmm this Bible verse just made sense to me right now. Indeed God is great. Take the issue of eternal life seriously like pastor righteousness will encourage you to.

Sone choose to do so for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Our Lord Jesus himself said so - Matt 19: 11 - 12

femi4:
And someone says nobody could live up to 100yrs in today's Nigeria just to discredit late Charles Olumo's age

Agbako didn't look 101 though. He looked about 90, I doubt he was older than 94.

This priest definitely looks 100 at least.Likely has better records as well due to baptism, ordination etc

Captain4Jehovah:
Non emphasis on the word "fall" makes my point INVALID AS TO THE POINT RAISED IN RELATION TO THE CHURCH STATUS. Islam took advantage of this while the church leaders were busying sanitizing the house. It was more than arguing alone, rifts also ensued. It should be NOTED that the Church lacked the WILL or I should simply say, the CHANCE TO WITNESS Christ as against the early apostles' grace. It's in the sake to restore sanity and establish sound doctrines that brought about these councils. I equally add: we know in part! However, the Church can't be overthrown!

There was obviously evangelisation along with the councils ( not every bishop, priest or layman attended the councils). The fact is even in the time of the Apostles there was infighting and dissention among people about the subject of circumcision of Gentiles - This led to the council of Jerusalem where a decision had to be made. This effectively carried on although there was a lull in the 1st 3 centuries due to the persecution of Christians. Church had to get its own house in order before worrying about external attacks. I really don't know how you think the Church would have been better off not holding councils!

Captain4Jehovah:
Do we want to go the way of the council of Nicaea and the likes arguing on the person of Jesus(Christology), the study of God, I mean the trinity and esteeming Mary as the mother of God because she bore Jesus and therefore, making her cult more important and valuable in substance in obtaining salvation rather than evangelizing the world? It was these endless and unprofitable arguments that led to the fall of the Church and gave Islam power to rise in the 7th century. It is even written boldly within the pages of Quran where it is stated that

And from those who say, "We are Christians" We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.
English - Sahih International Quran 5:14

My point is that doing the will of Jesus Christ is the criterion which guarantees one salvation ultimately. The Roman Catholic Church, Protestant Church, Puritan Church, Pentecostal Church or whatever the name of the church have nothing to proof before Jesus regarding our aspirations and salvation in Him.

The church didn't fall in the 7th century and would never fall as Jesus himself said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Regarding church councils, this is how church has always functioned even from the early days(e.g Act 15) . It's always been required to settle disputes and clarify/come to a consensus on church teachings. Ironically, the canon of the bible was also confirmed via church councils.

The arguments about the person of Christ has always been fundamental to the Christian faith, therefore when certain heretics (Arianism) taught a different teaching to what was orthodox,this had to be brought up at the council of Nicaea.

The teaching about Mary as (Theotokus) Mother of God is all to do with Jesus. It is to confirm that Jesus is both God and Man and there was never a separation while Jesus was on earth ( against the Nestorian schism). Basically, who was the Jesus that Mary gave birth to and what did that make her.

These issues and many others were not clear from reading scriptures alone and thus had to be decided by the church. It's no use stating that it's not profitable as this is how the faith as been defined. It is very convenient to take things for granted many centuries after the event.

There will be new issues and the church will reconvene to address these. Shikena

paxonel:
Ok, do you have any scripture in the bible to verify this your catholic fundamentals?

Because, protestants and other Christians solely depend on biblical records one of which is John 3:16

John 3:16 ... That whosever believeth in him should not perish but have Everlasting life

Whosever implies whether you are catholic or Presbyterian or Methodist or Anglican or whatever pentecostalist.

If there is any record in the bible that specifically mention catholic as the sole authority to claim Christianity you can post it here.

Or...

By this reasoning, what biblical record has been used to determine what is scripture?
How would Christians in a remote village in say 40 to 80AD have known about John 3:16 that likely hadn't been written or received for decades?
At what point did Christianity become solely of the book? Which church council approved this?
What do you think the original church as opposed to the heretics in the 1st 4 centuries was called?
Would you dimiss God as 'Trinity ' as this word isn't in the bible and not defined for centuries.?

This vid is more than a year old, would have been good to get an update on his status. I wonder whether he managed to get his visa extended.

LegendHero:
Guy wake up. Ethnicity will always matter in every election in Nigeria.

Even in USA, most black people vote democrats and you’ll see politicians pitching it to them that blacks need to vote blue to preserve their dignity.

If you put over 200 ethnicity in same country, ethnicity will matter

Guy, who says I'm not awake! Can't you respond without the snarky comment.

Nobody is saying people wouldn't vote for whom they wish to for - even in the UK, you have naturally Labour and Tory areas- the blacks would generally vote Labour as well.
My point is even in the US system that you mentioned, a black person has emerged president in the past, there have also been several ethnic minority governors and mayors over the years.
Regarding Nigeria, my hope is we have a more developed democracy that anyone has the chance to become a leader. Our current way of doing things will never move us forward. We know there's something wrong with Nigeria's 'structure' of multiple ethnicities- well that's a massive issue that needs to be addressed one way or another. Finito

nairalanda1:
The problem with this your comment is that when people like you say that we get to a point where ethnicity does not matter...you either mean your tribe gets into power, or the Hausas don't get into power.

And one thing that annoys me about Southern bid for powers is the marked disunity and infighting that results with every bid. PDP should have had an Igbo candidate for President last time out, but as you know, pull him down syndrome resulted in Atiku taking over again.

Also, an annoying thing about nairaland is that most of you (not all) bashing APC are doing so because APC is in power. Once your side gets into power, una go turn defender of government. And the agbado people will suddenly become expert government critics.

Many of you are not ready for good government because you all view government and development as how we can chop money.

A classic example is the former nairalander Omenka. When GEJ was in power, everything bad, then when Buhari took power, suddenly praises and singing started.

You're absolutely wrong with your assertion in 1st paragraph. Read deeply, I'm simply hoping for a time our politics and country ( in whatever form) becomes more developed that people's votes count and anyone could become leader- that's all. Not interested in the stuff you've mentioned in subsequent paragraphs!!!

Let's hope we can get to a point where ethnicity doesn't matter in selecting Leaders in Nigeria.

Congratulations to Kemi, not sure what to think though given some of her views. All the best to her

You already know that Truth is what remains after every reasonable doubt is cleared until we reach the point where there is no reasonable doubt which is why it is said

Once you eliminate all the impossible, then whatever remains, however unpleasant, must be the Truth. Arthur Conan Doyle

So where is this so-called 'truth' about Mary having other children taught in antiquity? Which church fathers agree with this?

I've mentioned that Matt 13 doesn't even prove the brothers are Mary's children

virginity is based on the fact that nothing has entered the vagina and womb nor has a baby exited.

And disvirginity occurs once a vagina is penetrated even if no child is in the womb.

So, also it stands to good reason that disvirginty will also occur once a baby comes out of the vagina and womb, even if nothing penetrated it.

Biology or good reason doesn't explain how Mary conceived our Lord Jesus. No point bringing it to his birth.
The scriptures also say nothing about Mary losing her virginity .