₦airaland Forum

tunshe: Italo,I could also quote many biblical verses out of context.

The verses you quoted out of context were during the persecution of the Muslims.Verses in the Holy Quran were revealed based on the current situation.

Research Freemasonry,Crusaders,Knights Templar,Conflicts between Protestants and Catholic,......then,we will discuss!

Very poor explanation. You are trying to justify these murderous teaching by citing freemasonry, knights, Catholic - Protestant conflicts etc...

In other words, it is okay that Muslims are known for killing people of other creeds unjustly, because Christians also fight... Is that it?

In other words, you are saying that a born-again Christian can go to hell, like Judas.

OLAADEGBU: Yes. When they were called and they responded, they forsook all and followed Him.

Amalaaba: With these unfair and illogical conclusions by so many Nigerian youths, i am getting prepared for an eventual GENOCIDE on Muslims in Nigeria. I won't be surprised if we already have several thousands Islam/Muslim haters in Nigeria like Brievik of Norway, who out of is extreme hatred for Muslims, killed 77 people and sent several to hospital. Many of you are just extremist who do not want to think back and feel the pulse of the others.

MY APPEAL: Find time to put yourselves in our shoes realizing that God knows best why there are only 2.3Billion Christians and 1.5 Billion Muslims (: http://www.aboutmissions.org/statistics.html). When you wish us so much evil, you are invariably questioning your God who created us to be Muslims.

You pretend that you don't know who the real satanic murderers on our planet are...

You are afraid of genocide on Muslims while Muslims are killing Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iraq, Egypt etc...all for NO reason.

You talk gently about God then you kill his his most beloved creature and chant "Allahu Akbar!"

You go to the Mosque on Fridays, we go to the MORGUE on Sundays and you are acting the victim...

Hypocrite!

There are dozens more (seemingly) satanic verses that you left out in your essay, but let me make it easier for you to explain.

So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward.--Quran 4:74

These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.  Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Right or wrong?

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.--Quran 3:151

Quran 2:216: "Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not".

This verse contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Right or wrong?

I dislike 99% of Nigerian artistes. Retards!

OLAADEGBU: Thanks for the good examples you gave up there. It is those who teach and preach the "WOF" doctrines that seem to believe otherwise. They teach that it was only after Jesus became born again after His resurrection that His disciples became born again. They claim that they were not saved before then, which I don't agree with.

BTW. What happened to the thread that someone opened on how to be free from por.no.grapy? Is it deleted, transferred or just hidden? And why?

Are you saying that the disciples were born-again before the resurrection? At what point then, did they become born-again and how?

We refuse to be fools!

Ubenedictus: you are alledging that im implying, if you are not in my mind you cant know. Even then, the fact that i said God inspires harmony doesnt imply that all agreements are Godly. Your logic is very defective. I inspire laughter in people, but that doesnt mean im responsible for all laughter.

As in...very very defective logic.

That Someone says that God is not the author of division, another understands it to mean that God is the source of ALL unity.

Pathetic!

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My friend, let me use your Maths teacher analogy.

Now assumming I don't know maths and my math teacher gives me a maths textbook that says 1+1=2 but then my maths teacher starts teaching me that 1+1=3. I have every right to ask him to explain himself. Now instead of correcting himself he starts shouting "do you know maths?" "how dare you question my authority!" then it means that he doesn't really know the maths he is teaching and he is too arrogant to admit it.[/quote]Good! You are picking up. So since we are comparing the Church and Scripture to your Maths teacher and the textbook, we can then assume that your Maths teacher wrote the textbook just as the Church wrote the new testament and compiled the entirely Bible. So if you question the authenticity of what your Maths teacher teaches you, you should also question his textbook. But YOU are not questioning scripture, you affirm that scripture is true and you only question Church teaching. How do you know that the Church teaches error by tradition but only teaches truth in letter?
If the Church teaches error by tradition, then there every possibility that it taught error in scripture, and that would mean that you who hold scripture to be truth might well be doomed.

Then, if you have 1 + 1 = 2 in the text book, then 1 + 1 = 3 would be something contrary to what you have in the textbook. That is a wrong analogy to use BECAUSE the immaculate conception is not contrary to any part of scripture, only, it isn't explicitly taught, just like the canon of scripture wasn't explicitly taught. Now a good analogy would be, your teacher teaching you that the square-root of 4 is 2, when your textbook doesn't explicitly teach that probably because the textbook is for a certain class and squares and square roots are advanced for that class. The fact that it cannot be found in your text book does not make it false. In that case, it would not be up to you to decide the method for proving wether it is true or false, and it would be foolish to scrutinise your teacher against that one text book he wrote, especially when that text book doesn't explicitly teach squares and square roots but he has other text books tha teach squares and square roots. Will you let him teach you from those?

So you see, the teacher doesn't need to correct himself after all, and there is no shouting or arrogance anywhere, you just need to sit down, humble yourself and be taught by your teacher.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I don't have to question what is scripture and what is not. Your church compiled scripture and I accept it. All I am asking now is that we examine your church against the bible that it claims to preach. How hard is that?[/quote]We have been examining the Church for ages but let us continue, as long as the topic of examination is treated in the Bible it compiled and we can refer to its other "textbooks" when the topic isn't explicitly treated in the Bible. Also, if you will let us examine your Church side by side.

Please also answer my question: at what point in time did Christ's Church get corrupted?

Honesty, remember.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]You commiting the fallacy of making "I could be wrong" sound like "I know absolutely nothing". The scripture is quite clear[/quote]I don't say that you know absolutely nothing for sure. But if you say you can be wrong in your understanding or interpretation of God's teaching using Scripture and Tradition, then I believe that cuts across. In what aspect then can I trust you to be inerrant. If you can be wrong in one part of God's teaching, then you can easily be wrong in any other part, that's only logical and easy to figure out, isn't it? So I can infer that you can not be certain about anything in God's teaching.

Saying the scripture is quite clear counts for nothing because you are not even certain about what is scripture and what is not, or are you just taking the Catholic Church's word for it when they say the new testament scripture is exactly the 27 books we know today? So if you are not certain what is scripture and what is not, how can you know if scripture is clear or unclear?
[quote author=Mr_Anony]Because the scripture will make it obvious. the bible says that by their fruits you shall know them[/quote]Like I said above, you don't know for sure what is scripture and what is not, so you cannot know whether the scripture will make anything obvious or not. Besides, when the Bible says "by their fruits, you shall know them", it does not have the same meaning as "scripture will make it obvious"' so stop trying to force the Bible to say what you want it to say.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]The contest isn't about who exactly wrote scripture but whether the scripture is true.[/quote]How can you know whether it is truly scripture when you dont even know who wrote it, it's origin and whether the person was inspired by the Holy Spirit or not?
[quote author=Mr_Anony]I could be wrong about the color of boots Wayne Rooney wore today when he played for England. Does that automatically mean I didn't watch the match? (the only way I can be corrected is by watching the match again and not shouting a counter claim)[/quote]It could also be that you didn't watch the match. So the only way I can know for sure that you watched the match is if you give me concrete proof that you did. In the same way, I ask for concrete proof that you know for sure what is scripture and what is not. E.g by telling me the origin, author and inspiration of the books of Mark and Luke.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]The fact that I didn't respond doesn't mean I agreed, it only means I didn't think it necessary. Now about calling people father, rabbi or teacher Jesus was preaching about humility and against hierarchy in church and this was what I was pointing to (Matthew 23:8-12). The example you gave as one of God's not-so-clear miracles was Jesus Christ Himself this is a bad example considering the fact that Christ did so many miracles and also resurrected from death. How much more clarity do you need? but that's by the way.[/quote]You will be well advised to keep quiet rather than arrogantly exposing the pathetic level of your deficiency in the knowledge of Christian doctrine. Is there no Heirarchy in you Hillsong Shop? Do you not have pastors?

The example I gave is not a bad example. It is the same thing: Even the bread is Jesus himself. At let us determine whether you were wrong when you said "when God performs a miracle, it is ALWAYS clear for all to see". I gave you an example that wasn't clear for all to see, so do you agree that when God became man, it was a miracle and it wasn't clear for all to see? Yes or no! Even his disciples and the religious leaders didn't know that he was God.

Here's biblical proof that The Church is Hierarchical

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests ("presbyteroi" and the bishops ("episkopoi" of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi" who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi" who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi". Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

You just keep jumping from fallacy to fallacy, lie to lie, heresy to heresy.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]Some things appear so obvious to me that when I see your reply, I wonder whether you are just purposely misunderstanding me so I decline from arguing over it.[/quote]How is it possible to misunderstand rubbish? It doesn't make sense, period! It cannot be misunderstood.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]The point is not what you call the man but the form of power you attribute to the title[/quote]My God! Why are you making a mockery of yourself this way?

You talk about power? Then read this:

Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

In Acts 5, when Ananais and his wife lied to Peter and the apostles, Peter said they had lied to the Holy Spirit and they fell and died. Talk about attributing power to a man... It is not Catholics that do it, it is Christ who does it.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]If a miracle is not clear enough to see, how can we honestly call it a miracle? You are yet to show me a biblical miracle that wasn't clear to see. Jesus life was full of signs and wonders plus he rose from the dead, these were clear enough. Please show me one miracle performed in the bible like the one you are claiming i.e. where the sick are healed but remain sick or where the dead are raised but remain dead or where water turns to wine but still looks and tastes like water.[/quote]John 1: 14: "and the word became flesh and lived among us"... John 1: 10: "he was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.

Inference: God made the word become flesh (miracle), but the world did not know him (it wasn't clear for all to see). Thank you very much.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]Here again you have asked leading questions hoping to lead me into the answer that you want even accusing me of deception for effect. I laugh in Swahili

Are you sure it is honesty you want?[/quote]You cannot decide how I'll ask my questions. It is either you answer or you don't. And if you answer, it is either you answer honestly or you answer in your normal fashion. If you answer honestly, you will disprove you position yourself, but if you answer dishonestly, you will keep making a fool of yourself. But whichever way you go, no one will kill you on nairaland for it, so feel free.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am sorry my friend, I have answered your question clearly enough. What you want is a soundbite that you can jump on and I refuse to give that to you.

Perhaps this is a veiled attempt at shying away from the challenges I have put forward.

Stop being dubious and come clean. If your church's doctrine and popes are infallible, let us test it. Or are they infallible just because you say so?[/quote]Since you say you can be wrong in your interpretation or understanding of God's teaching using Scripture and Tradition, how can you then be in the position to determine the method for knowing what is truth and what is error?

A teacher can and should be tested, but only by the authorities, never by the student. And the only authority the Catholic Church is subject to is God, not Mr_Anony.

When you were in secondary or high school, were you the one that tested your Maths teacher? There mere fact that he was your teacher shows that he knew and you didn't. So if you don't know 1+ 1, how can you test your Maths teacher?

Likewise, you do not even know what is or is not scripture, so how can you test God's Church?

But just to let you make a fool of yourself, let us then scrutinizeThe Catholic Church against Scripture like you crave.

But first, you will agree with me that we have to determine what Scripture is, right?

So what is Scripture?

How do we know the origin, authors and the source of inspiration of all the books of the new testament, especially Mark and Luke?

You implied earlier that the Church that Christ built was corrupted at some point. At what point did this happen?

Note: I am expecting questions to my answers in this scrutiny.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Why do you just want me to give you answer you can quote out of context?

I am human, I am not infallible,
no human being - including the pope - is infallible,
The Holy Spirit is right. Scripture is right.
Yes I can be wrong, Italo can also be wrong, the pope can be wrong,
whoever claims to be right must show me that his/her teaching is according to the bible else the person is wrong.
To prove me wrong, you must disprove me biblically.
I submit everything I have said to the scrutiny of scripture.

Now that I have answered you, Here are my questions:

Are your popes infallible?

Is the description of your church the same as the one described in the book of Acts?

Is your doctrine the same as the one preached by Jesus Christ and the apostles?[/quote]Why don't you just answer for yourself rather than answering for the popes.

I don't see the reason for going around in circles and asking questions I have already answered clearly.

Yes to all your questions.

So if you admit that you can be wrong in interpreting or understanding God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition, how can you then be in the position to tell me the method to determine what is truth and what is error?

How can you know for sure if the popes are fallible or not?

How can you know if scripture is right, when you are not even sure what is scripture and what is not (remember I asked you how did you know that the books of Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and you had nothing meaningful to say)?

You could be wrong in all these things after all, as you admit.

Lastly, when you say you submit everything to the scrutiny of scripture, I have already found you to be saying something contrary to what is in the Bible on a number of occasions. E.g, you erroneously implied that we are wrong in calling Priests "father", but I showed you where Jesus, Paul and Steven called men "father". You also said miracles are always clear to see, but I showed you evidence to the contrary.

But anytime I do so, you just pretend not to see my response and come up with other flimsy accusations for me to debunk.

Do you now agree that there is nothing wrong in calling men "father?"

And do you now agree that miracles are not always clear for all to see?

Or do you still maintain your position out of pride - not wanting to concede defeat even though it takes as much deception as possible?

I hope my six questions are not too difficult to answer...and remember...honesty pays.

How can we discuss when I don't even know what you stand for. 1st you are here, then you are there. You accept the authority of the church in canonising the new testament without seeking biblical scrutiny, then now you want biblical scrutiny on the issues you don't believe in. You said you could be wrong which means that you don't know if you are right or wrong then now you wanna switch to say that you cannot be wrong.

Again I ask:

Is there a possibility that you can be wrong in your interpretation or understanding of God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition?

Yes, no or I don't know.

Nobody will kill you on nairaland for being transparent.

Okay, first you said you could be wrong, then I put it to you that that implies that you don't know and one who doesn't know should not teach one who at least says that he knows. All of a sudden you are sounding like you are saying the opposite - that you cannot be wrong. I don't even know who I am dealing with anymore, so how can I have a honest discussion with you.

I ask you again:

Is there a possibility that you, Mr_Anony, can be wrong in your interpretation or understanding of God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition?

Just answer honestly. You won't die if you do.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Again here we go with your dubious logic and poor attempts at insults. Claiming that you cannot be wrong doesn't automatically make you right. It is funny you would pounce on a soundbite and quote out of context so that it reads as something else. It doesn't still make you right.

I am not trying to teach you anything. I am only asking you to compare you "church" to the truth. If it passes then it is a true church. if it does not, then it is another 'shop'

Why are you getting so defensive? If your church is as true as you claim, then submit it for scrutiny.

So shall we proceed to scrutinize your "church" or are you afraid?[/quote]Na wa o. When I ask you questions and bring up issues, you evade them and call them "trick questions", now again, you are say I am being defensive. What approach do you want me to take. Do you want to be the one to determine the things you say and also the things I say?

I have been comparingand continue to compare my Church to the truth and I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind and I have been telling and continue to tell you that all these have revealed to me that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ built to teach all truth to all men. What else do you want me to do?

I'm sorry for the way I addressed you but if you want me to be civil you should also be careful about the way you talk about Popes, Priests, The Church...these are things that I hold sacred. Every man has a beast in him.

I say that I am right; you say that you don't know if you are right or wrong. If you don't know whether you are right or wrong, then you cannot know if I am right or wrong.

So if you don't know (since you are not sure if you are right or wrong) why are you trying to teach me what you don't know which may be wrong and be the road to hell, especially when I am certain about my position?

And to say that you didn't try to teach me anything, with due respect, is a big lie.

You tried to teach me how to determine the true Church in this thread; You tried to teach me how to determine whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively; you tried to teach me that baptism is only symbolic and not salvific; you tried to teach me the Characteristics of God's miracles (wrongly implying that it is always clear for humans to see); you tried to teach me the way to arrive at the truth (telling me to "forget popes, priests, the Church"..in the other thread... You tried to teach me many things that you yourself DON'T KNOW.

So I ask my questions again: why are you trying to teach us what you don't even know, which could very well be wrong and the way to hell?

Who should be the one to teach, is it the one who knows that should teach the one who doesn't know or the other way round?

You refuse to submit yourself for scrutiny - dodging questions that are asked you, but you want God's Church to be submitted to you for scrutiny. How hypocritical!

@ Mr_Anony,

I have been examining and continue to examine my Church against Christ's teachings, and I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind and I have been telling and continue to tell you that all these have revealed to me that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ built to teach all truth to all men. What else do you want from me?

I'm sorry for the way I addressed you but if you want me to be civil you should also be careful about the way you talk about Popes, Priests, The Church...these are things that I hold sacred. Every man has a beast in him.

I never said that your saying that you were wrong is the basis for saying I am definitely right. I said and still say that I am definitely right because I am telling you the teachings of the Catholic Church. You saw that and you probably ignored it, yet you call me dubious.

I said since you say that you may be wrong (or right - which means that you are not sure - which in-turn means that you don't know), it then means that YOU ADMIT that I might be right.

So I can infer that you say that I might be right, but I SAY that I am definitely right.

So if you don't know (since you are not sure if you are right or wrong) why are you trying to teach me what you don't know which may be wrong and be the road to hell, especially when I am certain about my position?

And don't say again that you didn't try to teach me anything. With due respect, that is a big lie.

You tried to teach me how to determine whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively; you tried to teach me that baptism is only symbolic and not salvific; you tried to teach me the Characteristics of God's miracles (wrongly implying that it is always clear for humans to see); you tried to teach me the way to arrive at the truth (telling me to "forget popes, priests, the Church"... You tried to teach me many things that you yourself DON'T KNOW.

I am not saying that I am superior to you in anyway and you know that. Even Pope Benedict XVI wouldn't say that. What I am saying is that the doctrine that I preach is the True doctrine and is hence superior to every other doctrine (which are, of course, false). It is not by human power that the Church is infallible, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit which Christ has given to his Church.

Is that the answer to my questions?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yes I agree, ONE DOCTRINE! ONE FAITH! ONE TRUTH! ONE CHURCH! but if you agree that the truth remains the same and never changes, then the doctrine must remain the same and never change, The faith must also be unshakable likewise the Church must remain true to the same faith, the same doctrine and the same truth.The one true church is not pentecostal, baptist, catholic, jehovah's witness, methodist e.t.c.

The one true church is the church that holds steadfastly to the truth which is Christ or else it is one of 35,000 shops.

The question now is; Is your church holding steadfastly to the truth which is Christ. Does your church resemble Christ?[/quote]Yes! The one true Church is the Catholic Church.

Now since I have answered your own question, now my own questions are:

Since you have admitted in the other thread that you are not sure of what you are preaching (it could be wrong) and we Catholics say we are sure of what we are preaching (it cannot be wrong), why are you trying to teach us, when you could be teaching us the wrong thing (which would be the way to hell)?

Who should be teaching who, is it the one who knows (about a subject) that should teach the ignoramus (on that subject) or the ignoramus should teach the one who knows?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@Italo

You see even here your "catholic church" fails because many of the first christians came to Christ as married couples and the apostles neither dissolved their marriages nor remarried them under "the church". Who brought this strange doctrine?[/quote]You didn't tell me what makes people married in your shop.

We are not crazy! We know better than to dissolve a marriage that occurred even before the advent of Christianity (in some cases). Even today, the Church does not dissolve the Marriages of non-Catholics who convert to Catholicism as long as they have been wedded in the name of Christ, but for a Catholic who marries outside the Church without the supervision of the Church, he cuts himself out of the body of Christ.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]Wrong, outrage is not evidence of literal or figurative speech. All outrage can indicate is that they did not accept the speech[/quote]and if their outrage indicates non-acceptance, Jesus would explain himself if there was a misunderstanding, but if not, he would reiterate (like he did 4times in John 6) or be quiet or sarcastic if he sensed sarcasm on the part of his audience. The case in John 6 was not one of sarcasm, Jesus would have explained to his disciples what he meant, he would leave them misinformed.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]And this is what Jesus, the head of the Church says: "....But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers. And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant." Matthew 23:8-11.
Think carefully about this and answer to yourself in honesty if your church fits this description especially with it's system of heirarchy.[/quote]I obviously thought too highly of you.

Matthew 23:9, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven." Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest, father, and calling the man who is married to your mother, father.
But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? Which, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them...they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation. Which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs.

If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of The Bible. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as "father" several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the "father" of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That's referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood.

In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and "fathers," as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you have a problem with Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit...they must have all gotten it wrong.

It is okay to call priests "father", just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham "father" and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders "father." As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him. And as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.

My God! I thought you knew better.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]I can go on to argue with you point for point, but it will be fruitless so i won't,[/quote]You cannot go on and argue point for point because you have already admitted that you don't know what you are talking about.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]You have said you will listen to Jesus and not me. I agree and I want you to listen to Him and not anyone else. Christ is all we are about.

I will not bother you anymore concerning how literally you take communion and baptism, it doesn't subtract anything from the power of the both. All I ask is examine carefully the church you claim is true and ask yourself

1.Does it follow Jesus teaching?

2 Does it still resemble the early church as described in the book of Acts?

After you have answered these honestly, then ask yourself again:

Is my church true no matter what it does or is my church true because it follows Jesus Christ?

In what ways is my church like Christ and in what ways is my church different from Christ?

Think about these things and judge for yourself. God bless you.[/quote]I have told you already that it is the Holy Spirit that moves me to stay within the Catholic Church - the one true Church, so what else is your problem?

And why are you still trying to force something you don't know down my throat. You are ignorant, as you admitted, yet you are adamant. What kind of thing is this?

*smiles* na d cane sef for beta pass all dis lie lie wey una dey put for our head

ijawkid: Italo u knw what's wrong and right...

Both d bible and history shows no trace of early christians praying thru mary.....

Is that not enough??

What else do we need??

Deep down italo u knw hw wrong it is....

how can we pray thru a woman??

I mean is this what christendom has turned into??

Now Jesus u worship as God is not enough,mary has to beg Jesus for all of u.....

Lol...

Yahweh dey watch ona o......

The day e go happen ona go answer why ona dey pray thru mary..

Jesus himself will ask u guys that......

Make ona ready answer for am........

Your conscience is still not clear enough to answer my questions? I keep waiting.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Here we go again with this your corner-corner questions You understand exactly what I mean but you just want me to say no so that you can jump on the soundbite;

Of course it is not love that "makes" us married though it is in a sense. It is love that made us want to get married. It is love that will keep us married. The ring tells the whole world that we are married but the ring is not what our marriage is based upon.

How many ways do you want me to say it for you to get it?[/quote]There is no way to explain something that doesn't make sense for me to agree with it. The Catholic Church says to Catholics that you will never be married in the eyes of God without going through the Sacrament of Matrimony, no matter the amount of love you both feel for each other. What do they say to you customers in your shop?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]......literally? "if you eye makes you to sin cut it off" said Jesus. please ensure that you obey him to the letter when next you look at a woman with lust [/quote]There was no complaint, outrage, disagreement, clarification or explanation. This shows that the audience understood Perfectly that Jesus was speaking figuratively there.


[quote author=Mr_Anony]To be born again, you must believe and be baptized.....and yeah baptism isn't restricted to priests every christian should be able to baptize. The great commission wasn't addressed to priests alone but to all Christians.[/quote]The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop, priest and the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]Really?! I wonder how the Catholic church preserved it for so long. and how much blood Jesus had in His body that was sufficient to be shared amongst all the churches or did y'all share it one drop each?
My guess is that your church declared wine as Jesus' blood even though it still looks and tastes like wine and you can actually get drunk if you drink enough of "Jesus' blood".[/quote]It was the head of my Church, Jesus Christ that first declared wine as his blood. We choose to follow him, not you.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]First of all Jesus wasn't in the habit of correcting Himself. sometimes He even spoke with the intention of hiding his meaning, besides you are simply assuming that they knew he was speaking figuratively perhaps it's just that cannibalism sounded more absurd to them than the promise of eternal . Read John 6 carefully the Jews asked Him to give them the bread of life then He told them that He was the bread of life and they were shocked.[/quote]Jesus could never correct himself because he was never wrong. Maybe you mean "explain". He did! John 3: 5,11 & Matt. 16: 11,12 are examples of where Jesus explained or clarified what he said when he wasn't understood in the correct sense.

And if you say "cannibalism" sounded absurd to them, that means you are admitting that they interpreted his statement literally when he said he was the bread. And he didn't correct that interpretation like he did in John 3: 16.
[quote author=Mr_Anony]Now I do not doubt the power of the Holy Spirit in any way, When God performs a miracle, it is clear for all to see. Ehen Jesus changed water to wine, it was wine people tasted it and confirmed it.
When you claim that wine and bread are the literal body and blood of Christ while they still taste, feel and like wine and bread, my friend that is a bad case of "the emperor's new clothes" It is exactly the same as what some people do when they declare someone healed and he is not. case in point Sign Fireman and Enebeli Enebuwa.[/quote]When God performs a miracle it is NOT always clear for all to see. When God became man, it was not clear for all to see that was why even his apostles did not know that he was God until much later. Even the religious leaders of his day could not believe that God could be a man. Likewise when he said he was Bread, his disciples did not understand until much later (the last supper), and many so-called religious leaders (heretics), even now do not believe that Jesus can become bread for us.

When we claimed that the man - Jesus was literally God while he still looked, walked, talked, lived like a man, my friend was that a bad case of "the emperor's new clothes?" Is it exactly the same as what some people do when they declare someone healed and he is not? Like your shop owner, Sign Fireman and your fellow customer, Enebeli Elebuwa?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My friend, I believe in the Holy Communion. I partake in the body and blood of Christ. It is biblical truth. It is something we do in remembrance of Christ. It is not literal blood and flesh. It wasn't even literal blood and flesh when Jesus broke it else the bible would have told us so.

it is the literal body and blood of Christ. You neither believe nor partake in it. Jesus "took BREAD"...but after the blessing and breaking, he said "THIS IS MY BODY!"

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Symbolism....He may as well have said dip yourselves in oil or milk or the blood of a young goat. The core of salvation is not an external phenomenon[/quote]Except a man is born of water and spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. I will listen to Jesus not you.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Yes I can be wrong and so can your pope and your priests and my pastors... All I ask is that you read the bible by yourself for yourself with an open mind. Forget every priest, forget every pastor, don't take my word for it. Just study your bible and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.

He will show you the truth.[/quote]Since you admit that you can be wrong, that means you admit that I could be right. I affirm that I cannot be wrong because I am telling you the teachings of the Catholic Church which if infallible in matters of faith and morals.

I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind. I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and He has been telling and continues to tell me to obey the Catholic Church which is the Church that Christ founded and gave The Holy Spirit to lead it to all truth and inspire it to teach that truth which is the one truth and doctrine of Christ to all men. He says any other doctrine is a false doctrine.

So if you admit that you could be wrong, why are you trying to teach me what you are not even sure about, especially when I am sure of my own position?

Why try to teach something that you don't even know - according to your own admission?

Paul disagreed with Peter, he never left the Church. He made his reservations known and the issue was resolved within the Church. He could never dare break off from the body of Christ. Even when he had preached to the Gentiles for years, he still went back to the Church in Jerusalem to confirm from them if he was preaching the right thing. ONE DOCTRINE! ONE FAITH! ONE TRUTH! ONE CHURCH! Not 35000 shops.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol, shouldn't the priority be truth rather than agreement?[/quote]But there is only ONE truth. In that, ubenedictus and I agree.

@ Mr_Anony,

I second everything ubenedictus said.

Thats the beauty of the Catholic faith. ONE GOD, ONE CHURCH, ONE DOCTRINE, ONE FAITH.

[quote author=mcstan_18]Just on point. Mind u guys, there's no such thing as mother in heaven. Mary has no authority in heaven whatsoever, even the angels don't- all power and authority belongs to God.[/quote]Nobody is arguing that Mary has authority in heaven. Did anyone tell you that?

If you say there is no such thing as mother in heaven, then where is Mary? Hell?

[quote author=mcstan_18]In Rev22:8, d angel commanded John not to bow b4 him but to God alone(a celestial being that has been there with God even b4 creation) and then u guys accord such worship in oblivion to Mary when she recognized Jesus as her saviour(my soul doth magnifies the Lord, and my spirit shall rejoice in God my saviour).[/quote]Does that mean that all yorubas who prostate to their elders are worshipping them?

[quote author=mcstan_18]Understand this one fact, if Mary hadn't lived a holy life on earth, she'ld have been in hell today because God is no respecter of persons. You ignorantly worship the queen of heaven. I rest my case.[/quote]So you do admit that she lived a holy life and she is in heaven afterall. How do you know she is in heaven, is that written in the Bible?

We honour and rever the queen of heaven. No apologies about that.

proo212: Stepping in into the discussion, Mr Italo, we have had this, countless number of times with Plappville. If the disciples and apostles prayed through Mary, you bet someone like Luke or even Peter or Paul would have recorded it. I also remember trying to explain that the grave of Apostle Peter is not in Rome because he never set foot in Rome. His grave is in Israel and quick search will establish that. This you know but you choose to ignore.

In John Chapter 2, Mary prayed on behalf of the celebrants to Jesus and even though he wasnt ready to reveal his glory, he performed the Miracle; only because his Mother asked him to.

You were "trying" to explain but you didnt explain reasonably nor successfully. I dont ignore anything because you havent shown me where the Bible says that St. Peter never set foot in Rome or that his grave is in Israel. Please do that now.

proo212: Remember before Christ ascended, He promised the comforter, advocate, the Spirit of truth who would bring to the remembrance of the disciples what Christ taught.

The apostles would have been directed to pray through Mary by the leading of the Spirit. As someone rightly pointed out, the last time Mary was mentioned was in the book of Acts.

Is there any where the Bible says that "apostles were directed not to pray through Mary?" Show me.

And was everything that happened in the time of the Apostles written down in the Bible?

If the last time Mary was spoken of was in the book of Acts, what does that prove?

att. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31 – deceased Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration to converse with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John (these may be the two “witnesses” John refers to in Rev. 11:3). Nothing in Scripture ever suggests that God abhors or cuts off communication between the living in heaven and the living on earth. To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints. Moses and Elijah’s appearance on earth also teach us that the saints in heaven have capabilities that far surpass our limitations on earth.

Matt. 26:53 – Jesus says He can call upon the assistance of twelve legions of angels. If Jesus said He could ask for the assistance of angel saints, then so can we, who are called to imitate Jesus in word and in deed. And, in Matt. 22:30, Jesus says we will be “like angels in heaven.” This means human saints (like the angel saints) can be called upon to assist people on earth. God allows and encourages this interaction between his family members.

Matt. 27:47,49; Mark 15:35-36 – the people believe that Jesus calls on Elijah for his intercession, and waits to see if Elijah would come to save Jesus on the cross.

Matt. 27:52-53 - at Jesus' passion, many saints were raised and went into the city to appear and presumably interact with the people, just as Jesus did after His resurrection.

John 2:3 - Jesus knew the wine was gone, but invites and responds to Mary's intercession. God desires our lesser mediation and responds to it because He is a living and loving God.

John 2:5 - Mary intercedes on behalf of those at the wedding feast and tells them to do whatever Jesus tells them. Because Mary is our perfect model of faith, we too intercede on behalf of our brothers and sisters.

John 2:11 - in fact, it was Mary's intercession that started Jesus' ministry. His hour had not yet come, yet Jesus responds to Mary's intercession. Even though He could do it all by Himself, God wants to work with His children.

Rom. 15:30 - Paul commands the family of God to pray for him. If we are united together in the one body of Christ, we can help each other.

2 Cor. 1:11 - Paul even suggests that the more prayers and the more people who pray, the merrier! Prayer is even more effective when united with other's prayers.

2 Cor. 9:14 - Paul says that the earthly saints pray for the Corinthians. They are subordinate mediators in Christ.

2 Cor. 13:7,9 - Paul says the elders pray that the Corinthians may do right and improve. They participate in Christ's mediation

Eph. 6:18 - Paul commands the family of God to pray for each other.

Eph. 6:19 - Paul commands that the Ephesians pray for him. If there is only one mediator, why would Paul ask for their prayers?

Phil. 1:19 - Paul acknowledges power of Philippians' earthly intercession. He will be delivered by their prayers and the Holy Spirit.

Col. 1:3 - Paul says that he and the elders pray for the Colossians. They are subordinate mediators in the body of Christ.

Col. 1:9 - Paul says that he and the elders have not ceased to pray for the Colossians, and that, by interceding, they may gain wisdom.

Col. 4:4 - Paul commands the Colossians to pray for the elders of the Church so that God may open a door for the word. Why doesn't Paul just leave it up to God? Because subordinate mediation is acceptable and pleasing to God, and brings about change in the world. This is as mysterious as the Incarnation, but it is true.

1 Thess. 5:25 - Paul commands the family of God to pray for the elders of the Church. He desires our subordinate mediation.

2 Thess. 1:11 - Paul tells the family of God that he prays for us. We participate in Christ's mediation because Christ desires this.

2 Thess. 3:1 - Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for Him, Silvanus and Timothy so that they may be delivered.

1 Tim. 2:1-3 - Paul commands us to pray for all. Paul also states that these prayers are acceptable in the sight of God.

2 Tim. 1:3 – Paul says “I remember you constantly in my prayers.”

Philemon 22 - Paul is hoping through Philemon's intercession that he may be able to be with Philemon.

Hebrews 13:18-19 - the author strongly urges the Hebrews to pray for the elders so that they act desirably in all things.

James 5:14-15- James says the prayer of the priests over the sick man will save the sick man and forgive his sins. This is a powerful example of men forgiving sins and bringing a person to salvation with the sacrament of the sick.

James 5:16 - James instructs us to confess our sins to one another and pray for one another so that we may be healed.

James 5:17-18 - James refers to God's response to Elijah's fervent prayer for no rain. He is teaching us about the effectiveness of our earthly mediation.

3 John 2 - John prays for Gaius' health and thus acts as a subordinate mediator.

Rev. 1:4 – this verse shows that angels (here, the seven spirits) give grace and peace. Because grace and peace only come from God, the angels are acting as mediators for God.

Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God by the angels and saints in heaven. This shows that the saints intercede on our behalf before God, and it also demonstrates that our prayers on earth are united with their prayers in heaven. (The “24 elders” are said to refer to the people of God – perhaps the 12 tribes and 12 apostles - and the “four living creatures” are said to refer to the angels.)

Rev. 6:9-11 – the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood “on those who dwell upon the earth.” These are “imprecatory prayers,” which are pleas for God’s judgment (see similar prayers in Psalm 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19; Jer. 11:20; 15:15; 18:19; Zech.1:12-13). This means that the saints in heaven are praying for those on earth, and God answers their prayers (Rev. 8:1-5). We, therefore, ask for their intercession and protection.

Rev. 8:3-4 – in heaven an angel mingles incense with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne of God, and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. These prayers “rise up” before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity. God responds to his children’s requests, whether made by his children on earth or in heaven.

ijawkid: Oboy all d basics and fundamentals. Of christianity were recorded....especially when it involves worship..

Italo this ya mentality is not correct...

U can't run away from a major dogma u guys hold on to with d ""not everytin was recorded in d bible""

I mean why then do we have d bible if we can just worship God the way we like??

We have a blue print already provided,why don't we jus follow it closely...

Now ur asking me how am I sure if d apostles didn't pray thru mary......

Soon I might start praying thru micheal Jackson to get to God since we can't tell if d apostles did pray thru prominent persons @ dat time...

Change this ur mentality o.....

Why are all of you always dodging my questions? I repeat:

How do you know the early Christians didn't pray through Mary? Does the Bible have records of everything the early Christians did?

And why are you a Bible student when the early Christians didn't have the Bible.



It is not "if I say." Could everything the apostles did be contained in the Bible? Answer! Yes or no.

And if you take the word of historians, that means you are affirming that we can refer to extra-biblical sources on matters of faith. Agreed?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Ok fine, I'll play your game with you a bit for the sake of this debate let us agree that the "bible" isn't final authority (even though this is not a belief I hold)
Now, on what authority is "Mary's immaculate conception" Do you just want me to take your word for it because you and some priest say so?[/quote]I have already answered this question in my last post. Of course you are free to believe what you like but it is only a hypocrite that would accept the authority of the Church when it suits his point of view and reject it when it doesnt. I want you to take the word of those whose word you took when you believed that the canon of new testament scriptures contained 27books.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]The problem with "word of mouth" authority is that I can make up anything and claim it is Christian tradition and once I am challenged I can always claim it was passed down by word of mouth.
For instance there are those who claim that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were lovers.............word of mouth tradition?

Jesus when He was a kid gave life to clay birds and was accused of killing another child whom He raised back to life to attest to His innocence...........word of mouth Tradition?

I can even make stuff up and bribe the pope to proclaim it as "word of mouth tradition" (and please don't tell me your popes are incorruptible)[/quote]You should then take up your issues with the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul and the Church to teach by word of mouth, not me. Paul didnt say "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that anyone teaches you by word of mouth or letter, he said "taught by us (the Church). And if you have a problem with word of mouth because anyone can say anything, then you should also have a problem with letters because there was the gospel of Judas, the gospel of barnabas, the book of Enoch, acts of Peter, acts of Paul and it was the Catholic Church that decided to not include them in the Sacred Sriptures because they deemed them NOT INSPIRED. You accept the letters they accept, and reject the letters they reject; but you accept some traditions they reject and reject some traditions they accept. Hypocrisy. You claim to fear that the pope can be bribed to proclaim a false tradition but you dont fear the pope was bribed to proclaim a false letter as scripture.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Trinity isn't the topic of discussion but since you insist on proof from scriptures, here you go:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 1John 5:7 (.......and in case you are wondering who the Word is, read John chapter 1)[/quote]Well, if thats all you believe about the Trinity, I have to leave it at that. Many Protestants believe much more about the Trinity and much of the belief is actually from Tradition, not Scripture.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Of course I cannot prove from scripture that [b]all the books [/b]in the bible are scripture that will be pitting scripture against each other as every book will not only have to claim it is scripture but must name another book thus. THE BOOKS DO NOT KNOW OF EACH OTHER SO THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY MAKE THAT CLAIM!!! Much like asking you to prove from scripture that Peter was the first pope or that the papacy is scripturally valid (of course you will say "word of mouth tradition)
Ok fine since you want to keep reasoning in this manner, I have now agreed to play your game according to your rules fro the time being. Your corner-corner questions won't help you anymore[/quote]The only way you can prove that all the books in the Bible are Scripture is to refer to tradition and that is a road you dont wanna go. Stop beating around the bush. There is no game anywhere, dont use that as an excuse. I answer your questions openly and with reason, you evade mine under the pretext of playing games because you know the only reasonable answer will disprove your claims.

The Papacy can easily be inferred from scripture, apart from tradition.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Doesn't it bother you that the Catholic church still left out all references to Mary's conception? Surely someone's writing must have at least vaguely referred to it or was it strictly a word of mouth tradition never to be written about?

Origen calls her worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, most complete sanctity, perfect justice, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected with his poisonous breathings ("Hom. i in diversa"

[quote author=Mr_Anony]How come that in all the books the Catholic church allowed, except for the part where she is simply the mother of Jesus Christ, Mary isn't given nearly half as much reverence as the Catholic Church gives her today? No statues,chaplets,hail Mary prayers nothing?[/quote]Mary is given as much reverence in the Bible.

The Angel brought a message from the most high God, saying: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women." These greeting was so profound that she was troubled.

Elizabeth, her kinswoman, who was much older than her was filled with the Holy Ghost and she cried out with a loud voice and said: Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold as soon as the voice of your salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed are you that have believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to you by the Lord.


[quote author=Mr_Anony]I totally agree that there is no such thing as "Christian sects" It is either you are a Christian or you are not. Christ built His church (and it wasn't on Peter but that's a debate for another day).
Concerning the letters in bold: If the apostles sinned will they still be apostles? Is Judas Iscariot still an apostle that Christ entrusted his Church to? If any of the apostles died in sin they would have gone to hell. Did Paul not rebuke Peter when he was being hypocritical?

Oga I didnt say they died in their sins o, before you misquote me. I was tryna say that they were sinners, as all of us are. Peter denied Jesus, all the apostles were interested in jostling for positions, peter discriminated against the gentiles, all the apostles doubted his ressurrection etc. If they were not sinners, when they asked Jesus to teach them to pray, Jesus would not have said "forgive us our sins"

[quote author=Mr_Anony]There is no sacred cow before God. The sanctity of church leaders matter because they can lead people to hell with false doctrine.
The true Church of Christ are believers that keep Christ's teachings and not a system of clergy and laity. Thank God the bible is there for everyone to read for themselves.[/quote]The human leaders can sin but the Church cannot teach false doctrine. How can you keep Christ's teachings when you dont even know it? The true Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. All others are shops of men. Thank God and The Catholic Church the Bible is there for you to read.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I cannot validate my claim because the parameters you want to accept are unreasonable so I have decided (because you have bullied me) to agree with you for this debate.[/quote]It is impossible for you to validate your claim! Period.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Immaculate conception and the Canon are two different things entirely. Immaculate conception is an event The Bible is a compilation of books.

E.g Let us say we wanted to compile a book called The History of Nigeria. Many authors have written about Nigeria in the past so we gather all their writings and choose which ones truly represent Nigeria's history as we know it.
About 500 years pass and during this time people have come to accept our book as what really happened. Suddenly, someone shows up and claims that Nnamdi Azikiwe's father was actually a white man and he was one of the main fighters for independence. This is not recorded any where in our History book or in any writings before or during the writing of the history book. We have no way of verifying the claim and He says it was "word of mouth tradition". Now if he stopped there it would be fine, we can write it of as an inconclusive event that isn't of any real importance. But no he wants statues of Nnamdi's white father built at the gate of the national assembly. Now what would you say to this man?[/quote]If it is the same body or council that wrote and compiled the book that now came up and said Azikiwe's father is white, we would take them seriously and if they want the statue at the national assembly and those that dont believe the story are against it, they can erect the statue in Anambra state (assuming people from his state believe the story) and there would be no problem. That is what The Catholic Church is doing. Have we come to put a Marian statue in your shop before? No. We only put it in our Churches. so what's your problem?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Now my question please give me something concrete that is proof that your immaculate conception was definitely not an afterthought but must have been Church tradition? Justify the importance your church places on Mary.[/quote]Mary is the Mother of God. What other justification do you need?