₦airaland Forum

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=199865.msg3142336#msg3142336 date=1227722252]Simple, the keys to the kingdom of heaven. You can whine about it if you want. But anyway it is not only the Pope that can be the doctor of the Church. Anyone can. Pentecostal pastors don't exactly count as Catholics.
Only Catholics can be doctors of the Church. Afterall the power to bind and loose were given to us. You can whine about that too if you want, you never fail to.

You can convice yourself to believe that Christ didn't give the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN to Peter if you want, it doesn't change that he did, infact it is very evident. You can cry all you want, and you can fill yourself with hatred, that is entirely up to you.

Peaece.[/quote]i asked a simple question, you went around foaming in the mouth, writing unrelated stuff about "keys" or "kingdoms" and then veered to talking about hate . . . then hypocritically ended your tirade with the word "peace".

Are you mentally ok?

Chrisbenogor:
Bros david take it easy, the authorship of those books is not known with certainty especially mark and john.
It was in the 2nd century Ad that the gospel according to mark was called that way.
I am not thrashing anything but just for us to ascertain what facts are.
Oh by the way I mentioned document Q and the synoptic problem because I was trying to ascertain if she had an idea about those. No where did I allude it was connected with the authorship being unknown neither did I say document Q existed was a fact I fully know well that it is a hypothesis.
Why don't you ask questions next time you do not understand like
Are you saying the synoptic problem and document Q are connected with the authorship of the books if so why?
Not for my good or yours but for people reading this.

1. the authorship of the gospels are well known. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

2. The same reasons adduced for doubting the authorship of the gospels would also question authorship of several historical documents whose authorship is never put to debate.

3. You brought up the issues of synoptic problems in the gospels and document Q in a discussion where you question the authorship of the gospels. You therefore must understand why i assumed you meant they were related.

4. eusebius quotes Papias (born around AD 70, about the time the gospels were being written) to have said this about Mark and Matthew -

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.

5. It would be pointless to "ask questions" as you posit i shld have done because i know your mindset already. It is not one interested in a genuine thirst for knowledge about the bible than one more interested in using any poorly understood hypothesis to delegitimize the bible.

Not incest but its not right. If i were the brother, i'd be very suspicious of that "brother" with my own wife. If he can do it with her sister then there's nothing he cant do.

suricattca:
"When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible." said Jomo Kenyatta.
What do u think? Do u agree with him words?

And it came to pass that the missionaries did produce pastors, evangelists, prophets and teachers. These taught us how to live with our eyes closed. When we ever get to open them, they would have had our land, our money and our souls. Unfortunately neither they nor us have the bible

Chrisbenogor:
Lady these are the things I say christians ought to know. I suppose you do not know about the document Q either and the synoptic problem of the gospels.
The catholic church as usual just ascribed the names to those people. In summary we do not really know who they were.

No we do. It is pretty well established that the authors of the gospels are known. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

this false idea that "we do not really know who they were" is nothing but an attempt to delegitimise the bible itself.

you talk about "document Q" and the problem with the synoptic gospels. Experience tells us that you dont really know anything about these issues, they are just convenient for you to appropriate as one more excuse to thrash the bible.

1. The "synoptic problem of the gospels" has nothing to do with authorship. Rather it is an issue dealing with which gospel was written first and who used what gospel as a source.

2. Document Q does not exist. It is hypothesised as a possible solution to the problem talked about above. i.e. scholars postulate there must have been a document containing all the words of Jesus that the gospel authors then used as a template for their work.
No such document exists.

You and your cohorts have the habit of producing "mysterious" problems with the bible that you dont properly explain. The aim being to confuse those who wont bother to go and verify them.

carmelily:
Lol. Didn't say you were. Read again. My point is, your way isn't logical to me. Mine doesn't necessarily have to be logical to you either. That was what i told Lady when she implied her way was THE WAY. We are all "pointing out inconsistencies" here. Just saying as long as it stops there, COOL.

no problem. But as long as you claim to "believe in Christ", it would be important to go back to the bible to see what He says vis a vis what you claim He stands for.

The disregard for the Pauline doctrine seems to be more about islamic insecurity than fact. Cool.

carmelily:
Look, you say it's my "concocted" belief, right? so it doesn't have to be rational to you, does it? Works for me just fine. You can believe whatever you want to as long as you don't try to force it down my throat, alright with me, dude.

no one is "forcing" anything down your throat. I'm doing exactly the same thing u've been doing to Lady for the last 5-6 pages . . . showing you and others the inconsistencies in your posts.

carmelily:
This blind dependence on the "Holy Spirit" is what has thrown your Christianity into the big, black hole it's in today. I am free to act like a total slowpoke and attribute my actions to the "Holy Spirit". Your Paul found that out 2,000 years ago. It is only catching on in Nigeria now. so pitiable.

I'm not sure u're truly a follower of Christ at all because Christ Himself advocated "blind dependence" on the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you [size=18pt]all[/size] things, and bring [size=18pt]all[/size] things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Or perhaps you don't read St. John too?

I wont be surprised if you're muslim . . . the picture of Cat Stevens in your profile is an almost dead give-away. So many muslims crying about "believing in Christ" today . . . forgetting the true meaning of the name "Christ".

carmelily:
Ah ha! at least you get the point that i read (or follow, rather) the Bible with my brains, i.e., selectively

I get the point that you read the bible "selectively" . . . i.e. those parts that agree with your own concocted belief.

I dont get how that makes you read the bible "with your brains" though.

If you think Paul was a heretic then you'd also agree that so was Peter (one of those who ordained Paul), timothy, John, James, Jude and Philemon. In short you dont read the new testament beyond the gospels at all.

Luke was one of Paul's proteges . . . so you must disregard the gospel of Luke too i suppose . . .

carmelily:
Sorry to disappoint you but Paul has no place in my faith. We were never told about him as an "Apostle to the Gentiles" by Christ before he appeared on the scene with his set of doctrines which went quite contraary to most of what Christ preached. If you want to follow Paul, say so outrightly. Christ said the servant is not greater than His master, (if indeed, Paul is as much as a servant) so when in doubt, i default to Christ. simple. I choose to follow Him. You don't have to do that. It's my choice. Get it? Why say you are a "Christian" and be more willing to be a Paulian and attach labels coined by non-"christians" to yourself? What stopped Christ, in His divine wisdom from coining the term? Why didn't He tell us to be sure to follow Paul, as influential to your faith as Paul is today?

this is most absurd. Did you stop reading the bible after St. John?

Africankel:
Haven gone through your first post I must first disagree that you where never a member of Christ Embassy and that you've not been under the tutelage of Pastor Oyaks! You don't talk like one of us,

Paul wasnt a disciple, timothy was a gentile . . . yet they were ALL UNITED with the original 11 disciples under the salvation of Jesus Christ.

What do you mean by "you dont talk like one of us"?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=196936.msg3137456#msg3137456 date=1227642329]Christ said that they should give up the world and follow him. Acquiring worldly things, is not giving up the world and following Christ.

Sheesh even the Pope flies in commercial planes. No private Jet there.[/quote]lol the pope is an even worse offender. How has he "given up the world" to follow Christ? By living in a virtual country of its own, having men bow and kiss his feet and refering to himself as Christ's vice-regent on earth?

All these idolatrous worshippers of men.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=74061.msg3137432#msg3137432 date=1227642064]First of all the Bible doesn't say that the Christians were called Christians by others, it only states that at Antioch the apostles were first called Christians. We only assume that it wasn't the apostles that coined the term Christian. But even at that Christian is a term that means follower of Christ. Now unless you and Carmelily are trying to say that "follower of Christ" is irrelevant or means nothing.[/quote]- It is clear the disciples did not give themselves that name if not it would have read - and the disciples refered to themselves as christians first in antioch.

- The term christian means Christ-like not just a "follower". you can be a follower and not a doer.

- I regard the term "christian" (as used today) as entirely misleading because it trivializes the spiritual import of that name. Not everyone who regards himself as a "christian" is actually Christlike, infact the vast majority are not.

- Whether you think my point makes "follower of Christ" irrelevant or not is of no consequence. Christ is not interested in what label you use. It is the state of your heart that matters to Him.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=199865.msg3137418#msg3137418 date=1227641909]A doctor of the Church is one who writes about Christ and Christ's teachings all the time, with authenticity. You can pick up one of his books, Jesus of Nazareth, I am loving it, I have it right now.[/quote]what's the difference between his books and those by other pentecostal pastors? I mean what gives it "authenticity"?

Not every christian will speak in tongues. It is a gift not an automatic right, you can seek it however.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=74061.msg3137399#msg3137399 date=1227641689]And rightly so should it be that because Paul was acting on the authority of the Holy Spirit that what he says rightfully stands. He isn't greater than Jesus, but just because Jesus didn't speak those words does not make them irrelevant. Carmelily is making the word Christian irrelevant because it wasn't spoke by Christ. In so doing she marks the Holy Spirit as irrelevant, because all that was done by the apostles and disciples and everyone, is by the Holy Spirit. If they're words are irrelevant, then so is the Holy Spirit.[/quote]the term "christian" is a mere label that means nothing. It is the heart that matters and not the label. Notice that the label was coined NOT by the church but by those outside who thought they acted just like Jesus.

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=199865.msg3137383#msg3137383 date=1227641450]Jesus wasn't black and neither was he white.

In Christianity, most especially in the Catholic Church it is not about black or white, it is about following Christ. We almost had a black Pope and yes he is Nigerian. Cardinal Arinze, everyone was cheering for him, but it wasn't meant to be. Now we have a great Pope whom I believe will one day be a doctor of the Chruch, the man is brilliant. I am happy he is Pope.[/quote]what do these mean?

[quote author=~Lady~ link=topic=74061.msg3137364#msg3137364 date=1227641237]SO we shouldn't listen to the apostles, if that is the case then you shouldn't have any regards for St. Paul's writings, infact you should toss it out of your Bible because the words were not spoken byChrist. Also you shoud toss out some parts of the Gospel because all the words spoken there are not Jesus.[/quote]We know that Paul defered to the authority of the Holy Spirit at every moment. So in no way was Paul greater than his master even though he wrote so many epistles.

How did Alhaji Abdulahi do on the test?

Those teachers shld be ashamed of themselves.

dayokanu:
David,

How did you narrate it when JT was rock hard in my shorts and I was trying to pocket to cover it but the teacher said I should remove by hand from my pocket

I never got caught.  I guess i hid it well. Best way to do it was remove the cover and conceal it with a textbook or newspaper.

JT wasnt responding at that age then so it was easy to get away with it.