₦airaland Forum

^^^ "Personal issue", my leg!

It's just a matter of observation ----- which many others have pointed out to you.

All I am saying is that many people see through your fraud generally --- and today, with particular added hypocrisy in your accusation against benalvino.

Simples.

frosbel: ^^^^

Old Man, I trust you know there was no denial on my part, I owned up .


......carry on with your 'intellectual' confusion otherwise.

You really have no shame. The questions you were asked on your own thread are still pending after several months and your worthless promise to answer it later in the evening saying "Okay , I promise to respond late this evening. Trust me I am not like those dodgers who refuse to answer questions, and I do not mean you"

And of course when you could not answer the question, you logged in fraudulently under your other username of "tidytim" to give yourself an impression of support.

And you call yourself a "Christian"!

Total disgrace! No wonder even non-Christians were making fun of your fraud with the tidytim moniker on other threads.

Pathetic.

frosbel: Stop being a Fraud, you did this in the other article and I let you off, Always quote your sources, in this case :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord

So you see LORD has a variety of meanings, oh btw , you missed the part where it stated '.. a person or...'

So says the very fraud who did this https://www.nairaland.com/1064416/put-hard-questions-trinitarian-theologians#12410335

and also this https://www.nairaland.com/1064416/put-hard-questions-trinitarian-theologians#12460922

And when his fraud was exposed he said: "Lol, I am sure you have heard of the phrase ' do not re-invent the wheel ' , these are simple questions and therefore irrespective of the source they deserve answers from our trinitarian 'theologians'." https://www.nairaland.com/1064416/put-hard-questions-trinitarian-theologians#12496396

Common fraudulent hypocrite!

I'm in the mood a little today.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

Argument: that passage clearly calls Jesus "Man"

Pretty obvious counter: By calling Jesus "Christ", it also refers to Him as God

Biblical Revelation: Christ = Messiah = Mighty God (inter alia)

Conclusion: Jesus must be God-man!

A little fun in the interregnum of waiting for the protagonists.

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus

Argument: because Jesus is a "mediator" between God and men, then he himself cannot be "God".

Pretty obvious counter: On above argument, if Jesus is mediator between God and men, then he himself cannot be "man".

Biblical revelation: Jesus is God eternally; Jesus incarnated as man.

Conclusion: Jesus is God-man, therefore he is most apposite to mediate between God and man.

Here is something interesting.

The Jehovah's Witnesses at least go better than those who say Jesus did not preexist or that Jesus is a man.

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus is "a god".

But of course they then promptly say that Jesus is a false god.

Let us consider two passages from the Jehovah Witnesses' own version of the Bible.

John 1:1
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

1 Corinthians 8
4 Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,”6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.


It seems to me the implications of these two passages are clear.

The latter suggests that anyone or thing called "god" whether in heaven or earth is not really god.

Jesus is called "a god" (whether in earth or heaven); Jesus is not really "god"; let alone, God!


And if we continue looking in the Jehovah's Witness Bible we see the following:

Isaiah 46:9
Remember the first things of a long time ago, that I am the Divine One and there is no other God, nor anyone like me.


And in that we see another contradiction: there is no other God, so Jesus cannot be "a god"; and according to that passage, in effect he can not also be divine.

But let us look at one more place in the Jehovah Witness' Bible.

Deuteronomy 4:39
And you well know today, and you must call back to your heart that Jehovah is the [true] God in the heavens above and on the earth beneath. There is no other.


So there can be no other "God"; thus calling Jesus "a god" is making him a false god.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have deliberately focused on the JW's thinking and of those who say Jesus is "a god" because the other argument that Jesus did not preexist or is only a human is so bereft of intellectual soundness or understanding of straightforward Bible passages that it should be seen as nothing more than the argument of ignorant dunces.

However, as for the somewhat more attractive 'Jesus is "a god" argument', the purpose is to show that it is readily self-contradictory and self-defeating because, inevitably, its conclusion is that Jesus is a false God.

belabela: .... Listen to what Peter said and Jesus' response in Matthew 16

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I 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 bee loosed in heaven.”

The Apostle was not referring to Jesus to be like one of the prophets God had sent.....

Compare from here https://www.nairaland.com/813596/how-know-jesus-son-god/5#9684139

First of all I'm sure you are aware that Jesus called God His Father several times!

Now let's do a little exercise in logic and comprehension. Here:

Matthew 16:13-17

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'

'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.'

In summary this is what the blue words reveal Jesus as saying: . . . the Son of Man is . . . the Son of the Living God . . . revealed . . . by my Father in heaven.

Enigma: The Nicene Creed was formulated by people who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics.

When the Nicene Creed refers to "the Catholic Church", it is NOT referring to the Roman Catholic Church!

Rather it is referring to the universal Church; to the entirety of the body of Christ; to the ONE Church; to the Christian Church.

Oh, by the way, Nicene "Trinitarianism" is essentially what many of us Trinitarians have always argued for --- here on Nairaland and elsewhere.

In addition, I have often recommended to those who do not or have never really understood the Trinity doctrine (and would describe it as "polytheism" in quite intellectually lazy fashion) to read up on ------ "consubstantialism".

Indeed! Indeed!

God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,

as quoted by belabela

Oh by the way, for the benefit of those who need or want to learn what Christians including Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans and even some Pentecostals mean when they say "we believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church", see this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church and more specifically this post https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church#11979108

The Nicene Creed was formulated by people who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics.

When the Nicene Creed refers to "the Catholic Church", it is NOT referring to the Roman Catholic Church!

Rather it is referring to the universal Church; to the entirety of the body of Christ; to the ONE Church; to the Christian Church.

Oh, by the way, Nicene "Trinitarianism" is essentially what many of us Trinitarians have always argued for --- here on Nairaland and elsewhere.

Jesus was also the Word and the Word was God!

So, Jesus is God.

Zikkyy: ...... i'll stick to criticizing fraudulent teachings like tithing it's much easier.

lol

Dat one kuku betta pass, sef!

debosky: I share many aspects of this view - the Catholic association as it were with the Nicene Creed which 'established' the trinity (in Frosbel's view) is at the root of his opposition. Unfortunately, the opposition is such that it requires you to discard scripture such as John's gospel in order to be valid.

Also interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox (rather than Roman Catholics) were more responsible for the formal formulation of the Trinity doctrine. For example, the Roman Catholics were hardly represented at Nicea where the issues were thrashed out. They were barely there and barely involved in that debate!

@zikky

Ah, this gives me a chance to post something that is relevant but which I am posting mainly because I find some parts of it funny.

This claim [addendum: by Roman Catholics] to primacy may have worked in Italy, but not so in the rest of the West. General upheaval hampered efforts in Gaul, Spain, and North Africa. However, the bishops of Rome did send letters during this period, though largely ineffectual, but which provided the historical precedent which could be used by later supporters of papal primacy. ....

As for establishing primacy over the east, it was largely unsuccessful for two reasons: one, except for Leo I, Roman bishops were theologically unsophisticated compared to their eastern counterparts; and two, major decisions were made at councils at which Rome had little or no representation. It was the emphasis on apostolic succession, argued since the mid-fourth century, which had a profound impact on the relationship between East and West. On the one hand, there was the tradition of Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Cities in the east could also claim their own Petrine tradition—Antioch had been established by Peter and Alexandria by his pupil Mark. On the other hand, however, no city in the East could lay claim to Peter’s grave, something which according to established tradition Rome could do. Also, the Eastern patriarchs acknowledged that Rome held a higher rank but like those before them, they understood that this entitled the Bishop of Rome to a dignity of rank but not to higher authority in doctrine and dogma. In fact, they considered themselves just as important in their own spheres. If they had, on occasion, appealed to Rome, it was for support or as a disinterested judge in a dispute, not because of preeminence.

[url=http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/medieval%20papacy/pucciarellipaperone.html]Source[/url]

If a person sees the below and still says that Jesus did not preexist .....

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

then ...

Zikkyy: Okay. No wahala. I leave this to my brothers to respond, if they are in the mood spirit.



Hope these questions not meant for zikkyy cos you will be asking the wrong person. my reading never reach that level. Maybe if you made it multiple choice questions



I have one question sha. are saying the "Church of Rome" is not the same as the "Roman Catholic Church"?

Bros, I am deliberately choosing my choice of appellation for the Roman Catholic Church!

One reason: if you notice, the Roman Catholics are using style to drop the word "Roman" simply because its use will, to the knowledgeable, expose the falsehood of their argument. Now they try to call themselves the "Catholic Church" or just "the Church". They even go so far as to say that others like Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists etc are not Churches ----- before we even talk of the 'Pentecostals' etc!

Now when they say "the Catholic Church" did this, that, or the other they are often arrogating to themselves what others i.e. non Roman Catholics did. Take for example, the decision on the status of Christ: the Roman Catholics will say that "the Catholic Church" did or decided it. They will hide the fact that the Church of Rome was hardly involved: it was people from Alexandria etc that did most of those. Yet today, the Roman Catholics will say those people are not Catholics --- people like Athanasius etc etc.

Now to your question: in truth a distinction can be made between the historic Church of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, because one is a 'successor' or continuation of the other I am willing to accept and refer to both as the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, let me flip the question:

Will you say that the Anglican Church today, the Baptists, the Methodists (to take specific less controversial examples) are not part of "the Church"?

Are they not part of the "Church" that "came into existence" on the day of Pentecost of Acts chapter 2?

Tgirl4real: And that is polytheism.

Simples.

Sure. And that is partly why I believe Jesus is God ---- as the Bible teaches.

Tgirl4real: lol.

Thanks for the scripture and I believe I believe Jesus came in the flesh too.

It says, 'he has come as a human', does it say he hasn't pre-existed before then?

The problem here is that, you can ignoring scriptures that points to his divinity cos you know if you accept it, then you would be saying Jesus is God and then u would have to explain if he is a lesser god or one and same with the almighty God.

And any other "god" that is not God is a false god. Therefore if Jesus is "a god", then he is a false god.

Simples.

zikky bros

The decision on the selection of the books of the New Testament or even of the whole Bible (including the Old Testament) was NOT made under the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church and not even under the "leadership" of the historic Church of Rome.

That claim is a falsehood, well a lie, that some people are spreading.

The Roman Catholic Church itself did not finalise its own canon of the Bible until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

Alternatively, Roman Catholics like to point to regional synods of Hippo and Carthage which were African affairs and were not subject to the authority of the Church of Rome --- granted in the spirit of that age they essentially informed the Church of Rome of their decision for "consultation" NOT ratification.

In any event even that was predated by the canon identified by Athanasius (of Alexandria) without any involvement of the Church of Rome ---- several years before.

On top of which Athanasius said that this was a canon that had been handed down.

As I said, we can trace even much earlier canons down to Origen (and even earlier than that).

Let me ask a series of questions:

A.
Was it the Church of Jerusalem that "compiled" the Bible?
Did the Church of Jerusalem "predate" the Bible?
Was the Church of Jerusalem subject to the "authority" of the Church of Rome let alone the Roman Catholic Church?


B.
Was it the Church at Alexandria that "compiled" the Bible?
Did the Church at Alexandria "predate" the Bible?
Was the Church at Alexandria subject to the "authority" of the Church of Rome let alone the Roman Catholic Church?


C.
Was it the Church at Antioch that "compiled" the Bible?
Did the Church at Antioch "predate" the Bible?
Was the Church at Antioch subject to the "authority" of the Church of Rome let alone the Roman Catholic Church?


D.
Was it the Church at Smyrna that "compiled" the Bible?
Did the Church at Smyrna "predate" the Bible?
Was the Church at Smyrna subject to the "authority" of the Church of Rome let alone the Roman Catholic Church?


Finally, I should point out that the people of these other Churches were the most active in "compiling" the Bible (if we can use that language), in the Christological and Trinity debates (the Church of Rome was very peripheral or even barely active in those debates), in setting the historical creeds etc.

@zikky

I am only replying because it is you; otherwise I only intend to make declaratory statements on this thread anyone who has a different view can express them. Otherwise, I have already provided extended arguments and facts on this matter on several threads.

Regarding your post I make a short response.

Consider which church predates the Old Testament.

Ask where the Roman Catholic Church was on the day of Pentecost.

Ask where the Roman Catholic Church was when Peter spoke of the apostle Paul's letters.

Ask where the Roman Catholic Church was when the apostle Paul was asking various Churches to circulate his letters among themselves.

Ask whether the Roman Catholic Church was involved when Origen of Alexandria (later declared a 'heretic' by Roman Catholics) was "compiling" the books of the Bible.

nnatom: even when u are given fact yet u argue blindly with no fact to back ur claims just ur taught, thats poor. Pls i need facts

Re the bolded bit (only part I can be bothered with as the rest suggest you are ignorant in addition to being rude), start from the two links below that I mentioned earlier.


https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

shdemidemi: Yes bro

@shdemidemi

Ah, I am sorry I missed this post earlier; I've only just seen it. I think I was rather too pissed off about that "Judaizer" term.

In light of your answer, I will say I used to know Mr S senior ---- and chemist and all that.

Small world, eh?

JesusisLord85: Yawn. What do you know about Acts 15?

The key is here: "19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

In those days, as is now, it takes over a year to fully convert to the religion. The so-called Judaizers, or the group Paul called the circumcision group were telling the converts they had to follow the whole law first in order to be saved. But faith must come first.

Paul is saying, they should observe those three things as a matter of urgency before going any further, because they will learn the rest as they fellowship in the synagogue where the law is read every Sabbath. Hence verse 21.

Also notice the things he told them to abstain from immediately - they are of the Torah my friend. Of those 3 things there, does the church today even observe these? I see churches here in England serving rare steak, with blood still inside.

Acts 13: And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

You can see how this sets the context. Funny that they were hearing the law, and told to continue in grace. But you and your lawless friends here teach that the law and grace are mutually exclusive. Scripture suggests you do err.
Nobody came to do away with the religion of the Jews my friend.

As I said before, people who shout "Judaizer" in that way are really ignorant and themselves almost invariably abusers of "grace".

Even the apostle Paul that they rely upon ---- did he not circumcise Timothy (or have him circumcised)?

People running "mouth" shouting "Judaizer". Nonsense!

@Goshen360

You are a very good guy and I have always had a soft spot for you. I am also very appreciative of your generous responses to me on this thread (and always in the past).

I just have a duty to warn you as a brother to tread carefully ---- I think you do need much better balance on some matters. Specifically, for this thread I must reiterate that Jesus Christ Himself and the apostles including the apostle Paul taught (and still teach) us: (1) to keep the flesh under subjection, and (2) to pray for forgiveness for our shortcomings.

Any Christian who says he does not need to pray for forgiveness is in error and almost certainly guilty of the sin of pride.

One more thing: I pray and hope you never fall for the abhorrent and ludicrous nonsense that there is more than one gospel!

Takia Bros .

[quote author=St.Ola]I believe the below bolded texts from my earlier comments should answer your claims.


The Bible as an addition to Jewish scripture is the validation as scripture of the literature of church fathers like Peter, Paul, John, Mark and Luke by the church under the direction of the Roman see. This same church determined what is a bible, what its contents will be.


]The church was already termed Catholic(universal) before there was even a bible and evangelisation went on without it too.

So, Yes the authors of the New Testament were catholic(as no alternative Christian sect existed), and the bible as a compiled book was produced under the authority of the church that is shepherd from Rome.[/quote]The Roman Catholic Church did NOT and does NOT predate the Bible.

The Bible was already written and/or in "compilation" before the word "catholic" was used in relation to the Church.

It is the Christian Church (NOT the Roman Catholic Church) that can be said to predate some parts of the Bible i.e. the New Testament.

At the worst, the Christian Church began to exist c. 33AD i.e. the day of Pentecost.

Shortly afterwards, the books of the New Testament of the Bible began to be written by the various authors.

The word "catholic" was first used in relation to the Christian Church c. 110AD i.e. about 80 years after the "birth day" of the Church on Pentecost.

Even then, the word "catholic" did NOT mean or refer to the Roman Catholic Church. It was used to refer, quite simply, to the "universal" Church.

In other words "catholic" as used then and as used by many Christians even today simply means the "universal" Church.

By 110AD when the word "catholic" was first used in relation to the Christian Church, most of the books of the Bible had already been written.

I repeat that it is a falsehood, indeed a lie to say that the Roman Catholic Church predates and/or "compiled" the Bible.

Bidam: This guy you funny die.Goshen said John is not a legalist, you said he is.Now who are we to believe is right in interpreting that scripture? so many contradictions here abeg.For your info Paul made so many statements about putting to death the deeds of the flesh which also takes a conscious effort in the part of man submitting himself to God's law in his heart which is perfectly in line with John statement that a person born of God cannot sin.

Excellent! This is a most important point that our friends are missing. And in that place you also find the balance that our friends are missing. Again, it was not only the apostle Paul who made that teaching. Instead Paul was agreeing with others who taught the same thing.

Others like the Lord Jesus Christ, like the apostle Peter, like the apostle John etc.

And if these people along with Paul are "Judaizers" for teaching the need to mortify the flesh and to pray for forgiveness when we fail, so let those of us who believe in the teachings of these people, i.e to mortify flesh and to ask for forgiveness for shortcomings, also happily accept being called "Judaizers".

@ Goshen360

1. I'm afraid you also do not understand my statements about balance; read them again.

2. For the moment, I have not spoken about balance of "law" and "grace". When necessary, I will do that.

3. What I have been speaking of so far is balance of scriptures, balance of scripture passages!

4. This balance was taught by Jesus, Peter, John and of course the apostle Paul and others.

5. And this balance now involves try letting you people calling others "Judaizers" (while yourselves misusing and abusing grace) know that you do still sin presently and you will still sin. In fact, I venture to say that you all do sin daily!

6. This is why you are required to pray for forgiveness. If you people say that you are so full of grace that you don't need to pray for forgiveness I will not quarrel or argue with you. However, you will be confirming to me that you are full of sin; you are full of the sin of pride and you are abusers of grace and worse than the people you call "Judaizers".

Remember the chap who simply prayed "Have mercy upon me, a poor sinner" who was more blessed than the other puffed up guy? Well, the abusers of grace are no better than the puffed up guy ---- a pharisee!

7. Since Jesus, Peter, Paul John etc taught the balance that I am advocating, I personally will continue to follow that balance and I personally will be happy to be referred to as a Judaizer for following that balance. Afterall shdemidemi effectively called the apostle John also a Judaizer; since I believe in the doctrine of the apostle John, I am also happy to be a "Judaizer" -------- along with Jesus, Peter and the apostle Paul who all taught the same doctrine.

shdemidemi: Paul did not teach balance of the law and grace sir. Please check properly

Look, you do not even understand what I'm talking about. Better read my posts again .... carefully.

By the way (off topic), does Mr Surakatu have a connection to Lawanson/Surulere?

Bidam: Could you also tell us what John was thinking when he said this? We know that whoever is born of God doesn't sin, but he who was born of God keeps himself, and the evil one doesn't touch him.. Since you believe he is stuck with the Jewish ways of doing things ( their traditions, the rituals and legalism) .

The balance, yes I repeat balance, between that passage quoted above and the one I quoted earlier (repeated below) is lost to the people calling others "Judaizers"! Actually, even the apostle Paul taught that very balance.

And when people scream "Judaizer" in ignorance of scriptures and of the necessary balance, they are themselves, at least potentially, abusers of grace.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

It is a falsehood, well it is a lie, to say that the Roman Catholic Church predated and/or "compiled" the Bible.

Rather it is the Christian Church or the catholic Church that predated and/or "compiled" the Bible. Most of the people that were most active in that Christian or catholic Church including the "compilation" of the Bible were NOT Roman Catholics.

This point has been discussed on various/several threads but I'd like to point to two for now.

https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

There is only ONE gospel!

The same gospel foretold from of old and that was ushered in by Jesus. God in Jesus resurrecting reconciling man to Himself.

This ONE gospel is what Jesus asked all his disciples (including all the apostles) to preach.

This ONE gospel is what was preached by Peter, Phillips, James and, quite prominently, Paul. This ONE gospel is what all true disciples of Christ have always preached.

There is no different gospel to Jew or Gentile. There is ONE gospel to Jew, Gentile or whosoever.

In Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile ....."

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.