₦airaland Forum

accountable:
I am finding your lack of sincerity and mutilation of scripture very appalling.

Coming from the one who is running away from my simple questions.

Which verse of scripture did I mutilate. Post the verse and show how I mutilated it!

accountable:
I only visited the catholic commentary page because I was so sure that even they would identify the entity as such; sincerely even the worst of commentaries would actually. I have never used any Catholic commentary Catholic commentary . moreover I was sure u would not argue against 'your own' even if they are wrong. Lo and behold, you played the only card left to you, pretended not to see.

After reading more of St. Jerome's commentary. It seems clear to me that he thinks it's an Angel that spoke to Daniel.

However, that hardly changes anything because, God, it seems, is sometimes called "Angel" in the Bible.

E.g: Gen 31:11 Then the angel of God said to me in the dream, ‘Jacob,’ and I said, ‘Here I am!’ 12 And he said, ‘Look up and see that all the goats that leap on the flock are striped, speckled, and mottled; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. 13 I am the God of Bethel,

Secondly, you haven't told me whether Catholic commentators are infallible and if I too can use any Catholic commentary to prove that Mary is everywhere.

Thirdly, you are still dubiously dodging all my questions in previous posts...because they expose your grave error.

accountable:
@italo
You are so carried away by your desire to win an argument!
I can see that is all u are after to be right even when u are wrong
[b][/b]

Wrong about what?

JimiCoker:
This picture is so wrong, its absurd. The man should be on the right side, so that he can become roadkill for any oncoming vehicle, while the babe moves on to date his friends and relatives. Seems harsh, but hey, vultures' gotta eat too right?



The guy is her protector, shield, keeper and what not, while the lady is what exactly






Sweetheart, if you can't cook, clean, run errands for me, fucķ me, please me and obey my every command, and you expect me to stand on the path of looming death in the name of love, may Amadioha, Sango, Esu, Ogun, Osun, Hades, Zeus, Apollo, Aries, Saturn, Jupiter and all the gods of the earth (old and new) come together to deliberate on how to settle your case

I concur!

Missonas:
Yes.better him than her.He is her keeper, protector and shield na lol after God that is

1. So a man is the protector, keeper and shield of every woman who walks beside him (the picture doesn't tell of any special relationship between them)?

2. Can the protector, shield and keeper also tell the woman: "don't go there, stay in the house and prepare food;" "I don't like this friend or that party, don't go there?"

Missonas:
The lady should be walking by his left

Why?

So that a stray driving would be more likely to hit him?

seoxpert:
The man is not protective of his woman. He should be where the woman is and the woman should have been between the wall and him for security reasons.

Maybe he was trying to protect her from the wall...in case it collapses.

parisbookaddict:
A gentleman will never allow a woman walk next to the road..

Why should I be the one to risk my life when women are fighting for "gender equality?"

Ichiato:
are you saying Christians who have God in them are ominipresent?

The Bible and I are saying 'Christians who (have God dwelling fully in them - Eph 3:17,19) are '(sharing/partaking in God's omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence --2Pet1:4)'

That is why when I kneel and pray in St. Dominic, Yaba, the Holy Spirit says:

Heb12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...

PastorAIO:
All that is not half as interesting as considering what the psychological motivations for such behaviour would be.

I find it so fascinating. Is it compensation for a deep inner feelings of inadequacy? Feelings of inadequacy assuaged by pointing out someone else that can be seen to be even less adequate.

Is it a deep inner feeling of (self) hatred and (self) revulsion that needs to be projected outwards? And when he reads some tracts that offer the Roman Catholic Church as an hate object he jumps at the opportunity and is grateful from the relief he feels from finding something to hate.

A combination of both and more, I think.

Jusmudi:
since omnipresent is everywhere, u ll also agree wit me dt heaven is everywhere nd dose in heaven are everywhere since heaven is everywhere

And since God is everywhere, Christians who have God in them are everywhere...especially the Saints who have God in them even more fully.

Jolliano:
1. UNIVERSAL BISHOP?

DURING THE REIGN OF GREGORY THE FIRST, THE BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE TAUGHT THAT THE WAS THE UNIVERSAL BISHOP which means that all other bishops are bishops in name only and only Him had the authority over all the Church.
Pope Gregory I excommunicated him and stated that all bishops were truly bishops and had authority and that the pope was the head of all bishops. So Gregory I said in response to That bishop (Bishop John the faster), "Anyone who claims to be UNIVERSAL BISHOP is a precursor to the AntiChrist."

Pope Boniface III due to claims being made by another bishop (patriarch Cyracius) of Constantinople got a decree that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches".

The decree never made mention of Boniface III being universal bishop. People just assume that that's what it said.

2.DUELING? Seriously, DUELING?
A)
That's more political than anything else. If one pope forbade billiards, and another did not, I'll bet these people would say the same thing!
Two popes can reform the rules on any type of recreation they want, if they have the political sway to do so; it has nothing to do with defining doctrines.
If one Pope says people should not play football and years later another Pope says people can if they want, does that mean they contradict each other? Sport and faith are not the same thing o. Neither are discipline and doctrine the same thing.
When Jesus fasted, does it mean he declared food to be evil?
When he ate, does it mean he declared fasting to be evil?

"Whatever you bind and whatever you lose". Bound things can be loosed and loosed things can be bound. There is no contradiction here.

B) A is not really relevant here. In a letter to Charles the
Bald, Nicolas I (858-67) condemned duelling (monomachia) as a tempting of God. In the same century his example was followed by Stephen VI, later by Alexander II and Alexander III, Celestine III, Innocent III and Innocent IV, Julius II, and many others.

Show a document from any pope authorizing Duels.


3. Pope Martin V called the council and put Caesarini in charge and died the same year. Eugenius IV became the pope in that same year and confirmed Caesarini as the Person in charge.
The Council had a lot of arguments but what concerns your accusation is the fact that in 1436, people from Bohemia were given permission to allow both lay and clergy drink from the Chalice at Mass.
Due to excesses and the heresy that arose from Bohemia where people were teaching that The Bread does not contain Jesus fully and The Chalice(Blood) does not contain when the Church has always taught that
the Bread or Blood,whichever is received, contains Jesus fully.
Pope Pius II in 1458 cancelled the permission and stopped the lay people from drinking from the cup.

4. All marriages are valid in the eyes of the Church until proven otherwise. Civil marriage at a time when Church and State were fully together(when Civil law was Church law) was permitted. Catholic Weddings are valid because a Priest is there as a witness representing Christ. "What God has joined ....."

Now that The Church is fully seperated from the State, the Courts do not have priests working in them. So any marriage in Court (due to the absence of the Priests) is invalid.

How is that a contradiction?

Whoever came up with this list clearly does not understand what we even MEAN when we say the pope is infallible; so why would we trust that he has proven a contradiction?

The worst part is that he can not provide any document to prove all his claims. And yes, I have read the full list of arguments from the original source and there is no proof or document for any of them.

Jehovah's Witnesses like JMAN05 scour the internet looking for any allegation against the Catholic Church. When they find them, they just swallow them without even using their brains to analyze them.

Surprisingly, he doesn't see all the lies, false doctrines and failed prophecies that the Jehovah's Witnesses have made.

I am not aware of a time when Catholics were discouraged from reading the bible. Can you provide evidence of that claim?

I know that the Catholic Church encourages Catholics to read the Bible with the guidance/mind of the Church.

Secondly, it's obvious that the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a huge error.

That's why their "Churches" are teaching their congregation to eat snakes, drink petrol and perform mouth-action on their "pastors" to such "anointed milk."

...and these protestants are deriving these doctrines from their "Holy Spirit" inspired interpretations.

JMAN05:
Gregory I (785-90) calls anyone Antichrist who takes the name of universal bishop, and contrariwise Boniface III (607- made the parricide Emperor Phocas confer that title upon him. Paschal II (1088-99) and Eugenius III (1145-53) authorized duelling; Julius II (1509) and Pius IV (1560) forbade it. Eugenius IV (1431-39) approved of the Council of Basle and the restitution of the chalice to the church of Bohemia; Pius II (1458) revoked the concession. Hadrian II (867-872) declared civil marriages to be valid; Pius VII (1800-23) condemned them. To mention but a few.

So, which of the Popes had the true spirit, and which has the false?

Please start one by one, to show where each of those Popes made the pronouncements and show whether they were speaking infallible or just stating their opinions.

semasir:
Sir, may I ask you if there was any church before the Catholic Church?

No.

Do you know of any?

Give me the name and/or show me where I can find it today.

semasir:
The truth don't actually cost anything and that's exactly what you just said. The Catholic Church is a denominational setup that really have got a bigger share if not the biggest to deceiving many.

Their doctrine are purely man-made placing their opinions over Biblical standards. Please search thru the Bible very and you'll know what is right even more.

1. The Catholic Church is the only Church. There is nothing like "denominations."

2. If Catholic doctrine is man made then the bible is man made because it is Catholic doctrine that compiled and canonized the bible.

Accountable,

You have still not answered my queries in the pics.

accountable:
@italo

Verse 13. "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me for twenty-one days." In my opinion this was the angel to whose charge Persia was committed, in accordance with what we read in Deuteronomy: "When the Most High divided the nations and distributed the children of Adam abroad, then He established the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God" (Deut. 32:. [See note at VII: 2, Migne p. 528.] These are the princes of whom Paul also says: "We speak forth among the perfect a wisdom which none of the princes of this world knew. For if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of Glory" (I Cor. 2:6). And so the prince or angel of the Persians offered resistance, acting on behalf of the province entrusted to him, in order that (p. 556) the entire captive nation might not be released. And it may well be that although the prophet was graciously heard by God from the day when he set his heart to understand, the angel was nevertheless not sent to proclaim to him God's gracious decision, for the reason that the prince of Persia opposed him for twenty-one days, enumerating the sins of the Jewish people as a ground for their justly being kept in captivity and as proof that they ought not to be released.( jerome's commentary on the book of Daniel)

1. I don't find it clear that Jerome said that it was an Angel speaking.

2. I notice you have started using Catholic commentaries (not the bible) to prove your point. Are you implying that Catholic commentaries are infallible? If they are, can I also use the to prove how Mary is present everywhere? Or is the luxury yours alone?

accountable:
Ver. 13. The prince, &c. That is, the angel guardian of Persia: who, according to his office, seeking the spiritual good of the Persians, was desirous that many of the Jews should remain among them. (Challoner) --- St. Jerome, &c. explain it of the angel guardian. (Worthington) --- Each country has an archangel over it, as individuals have an angel. Others assert that this was an evil angel; for how could a good one oppose so long the will of God? Yet this argument may be retorted, as evil spirits themselves must comply. It seems, therefore, that Cyrus was exhorted by the good angels to invade the Chaldeans, and thus to liberate God's people. He was afraid of the hazardous attempt, and free-will may resist the inspirations of God. --- One, or "prince." (Calmet) --- Michael, and the guardian of Daniel, joined their prayers for the liberation of the Jews, ver. 20. (Worthington) Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

although this catholic commentary above read so much into the text, it still identified the entity as the guardian of Daniel.
i only put it here so that we can leave the issue of whether he is an angel or not

I don't see anywhere where the text said the entity who spoke to Daniel was his guardian...or an angel. Please put it in bold.

mauriceju2:
the bible make it very clear that only God is omnipresent, mary cannot be omnipresent, she cannot possess billions of idol all over the world at the same time, what you people are doing is wrong, mary die and went to heaven and a death person has nothing to do with you, God said we should not consult the death

When your pastor claims to see/know things that ordinary people cannot see or no...

Is he omniscient or is he sharing in God's omniscience?

accountable:
the bible teaches that God dwells in us, and in all his fullness. what a wonder and what a mighty God. indwelling each and every believer at the same time and yet retains all his fullness. That is my God! able to manifest the fullness of his power through each believer and at all time!

I told you that we share in God's omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

You refused. You said God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence cannot dwell in us because it's too big for us.

Then I showed you from the Bible that we share in God himself, in all his fullness. In fact, we don't just share, he actually dwells in us.

Suddenly you remembered that your God dwells in us.

Now does God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence dwell with God in us...or does God leave it out before coming to dwell in us?

In other words, are we partakers of God (without his '3 omnis' or are we partakers of God (without his '3 omnis)?

accountable:
but God indwelling us does not make us God. it does not make us omnipotent, omniscient or omnipotent. or are you omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent?

This is just a dubious distraction...because I never claimed the bold. Face your inconsistent errors and stop manufacturing claims for me which I never made.

accountable:
i will respond, by God's grace, to all ur posts now; im freeer now.
the verse you quoted are true but this is why:
Heb 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

dont forget who Jesus is

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Jesus is God

he was made lower than the angels when he was made flesh and dwelt among us.
i must confess that you have concentrated so long on that which cannot save that you have lost sight of the glory of ur lord.

Phil 2:5-10
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

as at the days of daniel, Jesus was not yet made flesh, he was in the form of god [heb 2;6]

Please read and digest these verses:

Jer 1:9 Then the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth; and the Lord said to me,

Gen 32:24 Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he struck him on the hip socket; and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” 27 So he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” 28 Then the man said, “You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.”

Compare the next two passages (paying attention to the bold):

Dan 10:6 His body was like beryl, his face like lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the roar of a multitude. 7 I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; the people who were with me did not see the vision, though a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled and hid themselves. 8 So I was left alone to see this great vision. My strength left me, and my complexion grew deathly pale, and I retained no strength. 9 Then I heard the sound of his words; and when I heard the sound of his words, I fell into a trance, face to the ground.
10 But then a hand touched me and roused me to my hands and knees. 11 He said to me, “Daniel, greatly beloved, pay attention to the words that I am going to speak to you. Stand on your feet, for I have now been sent to you.” So while he was speaking this word to me, I stood up trembling. 12 He said to me, “Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words.

Rev1:13 and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force.
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he placed his right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,

Now please answer these:

1. You say it couldn't have been Jesus that was held down in Persia because Jesus had not come in the flesh. Who then was held down by Jacob? Jesus or an Angel?

2. Who touched Jeremiah's lips? Jesus or an Angel?

3. You say at the time of Daniel, Jesus hadn't come in flesh. Are you aware that Daniel was being told about future events?

3. After reading Daniel 10 and Rev 1, do you still insist that it wasn't Jesus but an Angel that spoke in Daniel 10?

accountable:
so sorry, i've had an extremely busy day.only 'stole' some time off work to reply when i did.
now to ur post......
its either u are been insincere or u have some difficullty recognising truth. the text is so clear.

an angel could have rescued Jesus? from whom? i feel guilty; hope i'm not pushing u to blasphemy.
Matt 28:18

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
matt 28:18. jesu cannot be arrested let alone need to be resued. he is omnipotent.

that said.........

The text never said "Angel." You inserted that.

Jesus was arrested and crucified.

Luke22:43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him

accountable:
Sorry, I did not border to show you cos I though that the passage was clear.
This spirit entity was sent in answer to Daniel's prayers. He was arrested for 21 days by the prince of Persia until archangel michael came to his rescue.
So, a spirit entity who is a messenger of God, sent from heaven and is less in power than archangel michael=

Stop making up stories.

If you want to stick to the Bible, stick to it.

It could be anything. Bible never said angel...and that Michael rescued him/it doesn't mean Michael is more powerful. angels can rescue even Jesus.

Now please answer my last four posts...

Or admit that you erred.

Thanks.

accountable:
*[[Dan 10:11-14 And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling. 12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. 13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. 14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

You still haven't shown me which verse said it was an angel that was speaking. V11, v12, v13 or v14?

accountable:
No they do not share in God's omnipresence or omnipotence because they cannot. It is too big for them to contain.
A prophet never shares in God's omniscience:

*[[1Co 13:9]] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
You see? A prophet only prophesies IN PART; He can only know as much as is revealed to him. He cannot contain omniscience because it is too big for him.

Now I see why you left the Legion. You pretend to know things that you're ignorant of.

1. Where did the bible say the bold?

2. 2Pet1:4
By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world.

Eph3:17 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love. 18 I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Galatians 2:20: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

The Bible says God is in us, with the fullness of his divine nature, yet you ignorantly claim God left his omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence behind before he entered us.

jnichole:
Are you catholic?

Yes.

Are you?

Pekkelly:
I have always wondered about this. The bible expressly states that killing is a sin. Thou shall not kill. Even in the new testament, I've never found a verse that supports killing. I am a christian and I strictly believe in living by the Holy Book, But I sometimes wonder, what if a christian is faced with a 'kill me or I kill you situation'? Will it be justified to kill the other person? What if the situation involves one where the lives of loved ones are threatened and killing the attacker is the only way out, will it be justified to kill the attacker and save them? What do you think will be the right thing for a christian to do in these situations?

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Killing in self defense is not a sin.

accountable:
Please educate us. But don't speak outside the scriptures.

Why not?

Did the early Christians not speak outside scriptures?

accountable:
COMPREHENSION LESSON 1:
Read the following passage and answer the question that follows

*[[Joh 4:42]] And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
*[[1Jn 4:14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

Question: who is the saviour of the world?

Jesus...and all Christians, especially Mary.

We are all co-workers with Jesus for the salvation of the world.

oyb:
It's just an old woman without makeup and hair extensions

My thoughts too.

Phame:
If you don't blame the sponsors and creators of these terrorists from the west (eg US, UK, mossad , france , etc) but blame islam and innocent muslims at every attack, then you are a bigger terrorist that must not see heaven.

Bros, most of the sponsors are likely to be Muslims, whether in the west or in the middle east/gulf.