₦airaland Forum

easymancfc:
That's not Lording it over because Jesus Christ gave all 11 apostles not just Peter (john 20:20-23) the Power to forgive sin, in Catholicism, all ordained ministers (presbyters and bishops) have that power not just the Pope,
on the issue of indulgences, granted the Church itself accepts the fact that it was abused as for impersonating the chief shepherd, historical that can be proven and scripturally too (John 21:15-17)...

Peter was never the chief Shepherd, neither was he in any way the overall leader of the church. It was not even recorded that Peter went to Rome, not to talk of being the Bishop there. In Jn. 21:15-17, Jesus simply reversed the denial by Peter. Peter denied Jesus thrice, and thrice did Jesus elicit the confession of faith in Himself from Peter.

Jesus did not give the apostles power to forgive sins(which belongs to GOD alone). He simply told them that they could declare people forgiven of GOD based on how they respond to the message

easymancfc:
That verse doesn't rebuke Roman Catholicism but rebukes anyone who as a Shepherd, Lord it over his flock, which a lot of protestant, pentecostal and evangelical leaders as well as some popes are guilty of....

Maybe you don't know this
one of the title of the Pope is :SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD

What does it mean to lord it over the people if it's not claim that you have power to forgive sins, or to impersonate the chief Shepherd, or to ask them to bring indulgences for them to gain salvation?

1 Peter 5:1-4 ...'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.'

A rebuke to Roman Catholicism from the very man they believe to be their leader and first pope!

Ubenedictus:
So jesus said you are peter to peter also on this rock i will build my church... to himself also will give u d keys... to peter

Does that sound coherent to you, how can some jump from talk to somebody then change it to himself and then go back to the other person while linking the statement with 'kai' meaning also, and... Without indicating the change in speech, infact all thru Jesus used the 2nd person singular 'you' not d 1st person, is dat coherent to u?

Wht are you peddling lies?

1 Cor. 10:4; Rom. 9:33; Isa. 28:16 all identify the Rock Christ was talking about.

Even Peter himself knew that he was not the Rock which Christ was talking about(1 Pet. 2:6).

Now, we all know that Peter was not the Rock which Christ was talking about. But then, even if he was, was Peter a Pope? Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

The answer is "NO!" Therefore, Roman Catholicism is built on lies.

hopefulLandlord:
life is meaningless even with a god; everyone has to make their own meaning

and there's a problem with theists saying since life without a god has no "eternal" meaning, then it has no meaning at all

I find a lot of intentional dishonesty in how they move from "no eternal meaning" to "no meaning"

Your life has every reason to be meaningless, since you have never encountered the Creator of your life, neither have felt the meaning He gives to life. You don't generalize your own meaningless life. This is the OP's heart yearning for something which no mortal can give. Can you claim he has not tried to give his life a meaning and everything still is meaningless to him?

I find a lot of confusion in how you twist my words from "no meaning" to "no eternal meaning".

Life is meaningless indeed and not worth living when the Giver of life is taken out of the equation.

OP, why don't you pick up a copy of the Bible to find out what(beautiful) plans GOD has for you? Disparity, lack and suffering exist today because man neglects GOD's laws, which, if obeyed, would ensure peace and comfort. Good news is that these things won't always be. The saints are gonna live on the new earth, where hunger and lack won't exist.

opeyemix:
Both are great phones....if u are going for price oukitel has the best price for now. But if u are going for lighter and wider phone with loud speaker.....just follow the crowed (Leagoo m8 pro). Both phones have good cameras dou.

But if you have more bucks with you and you are looking for bad graphics,great cameras with front flash, clear and loud speaker and solid hardware....... follow the doogee Y6 team $98 only approximately 31,700naira

Thanks a lot.

Having a hard time making a choice between Leagoo M8 Pro and Oukitel U20 Plus.
Anyone using Leagoo M8 Pro? Is it true that it has network/connectivity issues?

khalling2008:
Mr man, you are mature enough to prove yourself now, if you can't bring verses from Bible to support you claim,just keep quiet and enrol for Bible school

I think the only claim I made which needs a Bible verse as proof is "Abraham was called a Hebrew in the Bible."

So check Genesis 14:13.

khalling2008:
prove yourself then? Hebrew was a language of jew

Abraham was called a Hebrew in the Bible. Common sense should tell you that Abraham was not called a language.

Browse about the first Hebrew.

khalling2008:
Can you prove how Abraham was a Hebrew? Because Hebrew was a language not tribe or religion

Abraham was a Hebrew because he was a descendent of Eber, and also because he crossed to the other side(Ever) of Euphrates.

Read up on it.

Khalling2008,

Moses gave the total number of the years of the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt as 430 years. Counting from the year of Exodus backwards, this 430-year period includes the Abraham sojourn in Canaan (which was under Egypt then). Moses, thus, subtly implied that the nation of Israel began with Abraham, and not Jacob.

That said, Abraham was a Hebrew.

The OP has posted this same ignorant article countless times, each time with different words.

Apart from the fact I'm confused as to how GOD is "vane", the OP is yet to prove to me that his understanding of what a "perfect GOD" should be is the reality.

The OP said that a perfect GOD "needs nothing." And I say yes: GOD really needs nothing from anybody. He is worshipped by those who have realised that worship is due to Him simply because He is the Creator. But what can be more just for the Creator to do than to destroy out of existence those creatures who have chosen to remain a nuisance to creation by continuing to disobey the laws which the Creator has put in place to govern creation?

4kings,

Historians see Gilgamesh as a historical figure "because inscriptions have been seen which confirm the existence of other characters associated with him in the epic." Moreover, if Gilgamesh existed at all, the period of his rule is known with only as much certainty as can be ascribed to the word "probably".

Yes. I firmly believe that the flood happened as the Bible narrated it.

4kings:
There is no shift in opinion in the link you posted.
Read it carefully, it talks about Thutmoses ruling along side his aunt for 22 years and then 32 years by himself.
Which makes it a total of 54 years of reign.
Issues about his age was not mentioned in the link you posted. Check it carefully, again.

The site gives a different date of death for Tutmoses III from what is found on wikipedia. And that site actually gave the correct date.

Moreover, the site says Tutmoses III was born in 1530 BC. This means that he was at least 80 years old at death, and that he began to rule(as a coregent) at the age of 26, contrary to your claim that he was an infant when he began to rule.

I simply wanted you to see how illogical your claim that the epic of gilgamesh was written "years before 3000 BC" is, given that the oldest copy of the epic is dated only about 2000 BC. You cannot prove that the sumerians recorded the epic around 3000 BC. If you don't get it by now, ugh!

McBeal10,

Indeed GOD is impartial. You can be sure nobody is burning in hell right now. GOD will burn Satan and sinners in His fire of vengeance on the last day(Matt. 13:40).

Every dead person is in the grave right now. Their fate is sealed. The only thing that awaits them is judgment, which is simply to show them that whatever reward they are about to get from GOD is just and that they fully deserve it.

ElsonMorali:
yeah, right. The truth by whose standard? Who determines the truth.

Other Churches also claim to teach the truth with good and solid arguments.

The truth by the standard of the Bible alone!

"To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line..." Isa. 28:10

ElsonMorali:
what's the difference? They are all the same except that maybe you guys worship on saturday and not sunday.

No, they are not the same by any means. The Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches the truth of the Bible as it is, and does not teach the commandments/traditions of men as doctrine(Matt. 15:9).

cloudgoddess:
Your church will agree on anything that protects and defends the religion, duh.

When science blatantly disproves biblical claims (like the earth standing on 4 pillars, or women not being permitted to speak above men), those claims are dubbed "biased translations" or "metaphors" by the church so the church can keep going and continue bamboozling people. It's ironic that you can't see that THAT is actually the most blatant display of bias. Heck, I'd even call it deception.

Why do you atheists love to lie? Do you folks not value integrity?

Where does the Bible say that the earth hangs on "4 pillars"?

If you're talking about 1 Sam. 2:8, then the word "four" is not located there. Moreover, men of GOD throughout the ages knew, through the wisdom of GOD in them, that the earth rests upon nothing(Job 26:7). Hannah's words in 1 Sam. 2:8 are poetic, and although the earth literally hangs on nothing, GOD is the one who firmly holds the earth in its orbit.

cloudgoddess:
That's because many bible verses are in direct contradiction with reality. Trying to answer smart, deep questions with the bible is like trying to do physics using the Greek Mythologies as a guide. It just doesn't work. And trying to make it work makes people look foolish.

And that's why Christians continue to get their proverbial asses handed to them in arguments, not only on these forums but across the internet and slowly across the world. Because they are wrong. They're following a book of mythologies that's full of blatant inconsistencies and falsehoods.

Give me just one part of the Bible(KJV) that is in direct contradiction with reality.

diybay

Who brought the universe into existence? Bear in mind that the Cause must necessarily precede, exist without, and be able to totally able to bring into existence, its effect.

The universe is the sum total of all that exists minus its Cause. If the universe is a fraction of GOD, then you contradict yourself when you claim that GOD is the totality of all that exists.

Moreover, your version of GOD is by no means constant. What if a nuclear bomb wipes out every trace of life on this planet? Is your "GOD" still the same?

introvertme:
I'll rather visit their fellowship at the university at least there are young people like me there.

Okay. Please do.

I'm glad you're concerned about the true teachings of the Bible.

Why not make out time one Saturday morning to worship with any Seventh-day Adventist Church around you, introvertme?

I'm glad to know you enjoyed worshipping in a Seventh-day Adventist Church. Please stay. It's the right place to be.

diybay,

What would you call this view of yours?

According to your philosophy:

1. Is GOD alive or non-living? Is he/it intelligent?

2. Which is true: no universe without GOD or no GOD without universe?

3. Does GOD change with time?

4. Did GOD create life? How?

Well, this is heading nowhere. With [url=ancientegyptia.tripod.com/id11.html]different opinions on the biography of Tutmoses III,[/url] I guess anyone can find whatever suits what he/she wants to believe. Moreover, what can you do if one refuses to accept the possibility of the fact that the Patriarchs walked this earth?

4kings, your conclusion that the flood in the epic of gilgamesh happened years before 3000 B.C. is illogical given the fact that the oldest copy of the epic is dated only about 2000 B.C. Or are you going to make the daring claim that the Sumerians recorded the epic the same day they "invented" writing?

4kings, below is a piece I found on the Ubaid civilization.

[url]watchmeasidream..com/2012/03/sumerian-problem.html[/url]

4kings:
tutmosesIII started ruling at an infant age...

Prove this.

4kings,

How did you conclude that humans started writing about 3100 B.C? Can you prove that man did not write before 3100 B.C.?

How were you able to pin the date of the event contained in the epic of gilgamesh? How are you sure that the epic of gilgamesh actually happened?

Where is the proof of your claim that the Bible plagiarized the epic of gilgamesh?

What do you have to say about the fact that the oldest fragments of stones containing the epic of gilgamesh are date only about 2000 B.C.?

4kings, don't let me conclude that you're in the same category with akintom when it comes to comprehension.

First, Moses put down the account of Creation, and all the other events that occurred up until his time in writing. Before he did this, Patriarchs like Adam, Seth, Enoch, etc. have been passing these stories down orally. It is also not improbable that these Patriarchs may have put these events down in writing, but the writings were all lost.

It is not a thing of surprise if the pagan Sumerians hear this story from these Patriarchs(as they were spreading the knowledge of the true GOD), and then twist it with their own fables and put it down in writing.

I put it to you, 4kings, that you did not even read the article about Egypt on amazingdiscoveries. Why did you not comment on the fact that the mummy which the Egyptians claimed was of the Pharoah that the Bible claims was drowned, on analysis, proved to be that of a young man, where as the Pharoah in question was nothing less than 80 years at his death?

Moreover, it was Tutmoses III who was drowned in the red sea, and not Rameses.

It's really tiring arguing with people who don't even have a correct knowledge of history, not to talk of having a knowledge of the Bible and its teachings.

How can someone be confusing the Patriarchs like Adam, Seth, Enoch, Abraham with Israelites?