₦airaland Forum

dolphinheart:
I would have preffered if jusmudi provided the scriptures himself, cus what he said and the scripture you provided do not correspond.

Bros my broda just gave U d verse wat do u want me to do

[quote author=swizmony post=44092124]God bless you for this[/quote
Tanks a lot

Proudlyngwa:
My good Friend, how you day,
How do we realign the mindset of Nigerian Youths to become intellectualy richer

Am fine sir , I ll answer ur question 2mrw because am tired

Very 4ni

[quote author=dolphinheart post=44076124][/quote]I bow my head in respect nd speak ntnin bt truth.,... My Bros do u remember when Jesus said in book of john , just as d copper snake is lifted up so ll d son of man b lifted up dt any1 wu look @him ll b saved.. So my Bros Jesus is sayin d use of symbols by using d cross 2 illustrate his death on d cross nd 2day we hv cross either @home or church or even ur pastor use to bless u in d church by sayin ''''' I bless in d name of father, son, nd d holy spirit '''''' which is also d cross. So U c dt d use of symbols or images ar nt only done by catholics bt everybody.. Which even our Lord Jesus illustrated

dolphinheart:
My explanation did not mean they where not invited, its to show you they where not mere invitees.

Nd u ll agree wit me dt anybody dt is invited ar nt mere invitees. For u 2 b invited makes U special

darkenedrebel:
...dominus sit cum omnibus vobis...

...were/are you a seminarian, sir?...

Smiling

sabi99:
seminarians in d house

Smiling

[quote author=dolphinheart post=4406


Bros i marry my hands 4 u. Bt on d oda hand, GOD gave us fOOD bt did he mention EbA? Since God has permitted d use of images, Hw do U still want God to repeat xam word by sayin ''' go nd hv d image of Mary nd JESUS''' ?? Bros its sounds 4ni u know.................... Bt i must commend ur effort in trying 2 learn.................... Kudos to u

[quote author=dolphinheart post=44064036]Bros i marry my hands 4 u. Bt on d oda hand, GOD gave us fOOD bt did he mention EbA? Since God has permitted d use of images, Hw do U still want God to repeat xam word by sayin ''' go nd hv d image of Mary nd JESUS''' ?? Bros its sounds 4ni u know.................... Bt i must commend ur effort in trying 2 learn.................... Kudos to u

[quote author=dolphinheart post=44064036]Bro, God did not forbid the use of images, king Solomon had images in his house na. God did not forbid the use of images for religious purposes, as there are images in the temple. what God forbids is the use or creation of images by oneself for any religious purpose. All images used for religious purpose must come from God.
God did not say "do not make images", he said, " do not make for yourselves".
God has been specific on these, the maker, the purpose, the structure and the location have been specified by God prior to the making of such images for religious purpose.
If someone else makes it, Who is not the same person as the person God said should make it, God will not accept it. If the person who God said should make it, makes it, but does not follow gods direct instruction on its details, God will not accept it. so you can see how strict these issue is.

For everyone to be certain that these is a divine intruction, and for everyone to see that such instructions where followed in detail, God had it recorded and preserved.

to now even protect the people from wrong use of these images, God had them placed in a location where less than 1% of the isrealites could see it.

It is wrong to say that since God approved that images could be made for religious purpose then, one can also do so now. even those who God gave command to make images did not make any other image apart from the one God commanded.

so it is important that those who make the image of Mary and Jesus for religious purpose must first tell
1. who gave them the command to do so
2. details about the command
3. who the command was given to(who was told to make the image)
4. and why it's put in a public place instead of somewhere private.

If this can't be provided, then the image is false, and you have no right to blame someone who makes an image of Jesus and put two horns on his head, or an image of Mary with very big nose.[/quote
Bros i marry my hands 4 u. Bt on d oda hand, GOD gave us fOOD bt did he mention EbA? Since God has permitted d use of images, Hw do U still want God to repeat xam word by sayin ''' go nd hv d image of Mary nd JESUS''' ?? Bros its sounds 4ni u know.................... Bt i must commend ur effort in trying 2 learn.................... Kudos to u

dolphinheart:
you are right to a very large extent,but I personally feel that they are more than just invitees these are my reasons.
1. The influence Mary and Jesus had at the wedding. Mary told them to do whatever jesus commands, and Jesus told the servants at the wedding to fill large jars with water. These commands would not have been possible without influence, mere invited guests cannot do that.
2. second personal reason is that I believe Jesus went to the wedding with his family members, both mother and brothers, such kind of invitation can only occur if those getting married are family(extended) to jesus' family, or if they are friends to jesus family.

taking those two into account ,adding jesus age and the probability of being the head of his family, I think I'm right to say that Mary went to jesus, not for a miracle, but for something to be done about the wine situation.

yes, mary knew who Jesus is from birth, but she was not aware of the fact that Jesus could perform miracles. she did not tell jesus what to do, but she just informed jesus that there is no more wine, and as head of the family, he should do something about it.
Even when Jesus answered her, her next statement shows she did not know how jesus will handle the situation, unless you want to say she is aware of the process by which the miracle will be performed, and that she wanted jesus to turn water into wine.

Sir no mara ur relationship wit sm1, he or she must invite u. Bros sorry 2 say dt base on dis ur point, ur argument lacks base

dolphinheart:
op, you have shown us where God commanded the making of certain images, you have even shown us where it is recorded. but you have not shown us where God commanded the making of the image of Mary or of Jesus, neither have you shown where such commands where recorded.

gods command: " do not make for yourself". my view of the command: do not make for yourself unless I command you to make it.!

Oga if God commanded dem 2 mak images like ark of d covenant, d copper snake etc, he did nt nd ll nt 4bid d use of images bt he ll nt b api if pipo worship dos images. It bcoms an insult 2 God.................... If God does nt allow d use of images dt means we hvin d picture of our love ones,@home is nw a sin

dolphinheart:
sir, the wedding organizers did not ask her to intervene

Ar u tellin me mary ll just stand nd meet his child plz dia wine is finished when no-body approached her so dt she ll tel d world dt Jesus is her son nd he is very powerful? Bros reason d mara na, dey approached her dt ws y she called her son

Nairaland111:
Dominus sit cum omnibus vobis

Scilicet et spiritum tuum

Nairaland111:
beatum pascha

Etiam Tibi

Peritus:
No sir. They were mere invitees just like others. It has nothing to do with their family. Remember, this wedding took place in Cana (Galilee). There was no obligation on them to provide wine or take care of entertainments. Mary knew who Christ was, right from conception. Note that Jesus asked her if she did not know that his time hasn't come. Meaning that she ought to have known.

2likes for u

dolphinheart:
that is not true!

Bros read am again na

Holy Thursday, Footwashing, and the Institution of the Priesthood
Interpreting Scripture for its moral import alone, while common and understandable, can cause us to miss the deeper meaning of Christ's actions
Dr. Leroy Huizenga





Detail from "Washing of feet" (1308-11) by Duccio di Buoninsegna
In many Catholic parishes on Holy Thursday, a footwashing ritual is incorporated into Mass. Although optional, most parishes choose to do it, for it is a most powerful symbol in the present day, just as it is a powerful symbol at its Scriptural roots in the thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John, when Jesus himself washes his disciples’feet.
But a symbol of what? The most obvious answer is that the footwashing ritual is a symbol of humble service, given the extreme indignity involved in washing feet in the ancient world, a task usually reserved for the lowest slave of the house. Indeed, Jesus’own explicit words seem to present it as such:“If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you”(Jn. 13:14-15).
However, some see the footwashing ritual not as a symbol of service but a symbol of exclusion serving to reinforce patriarchy, for when done according to the Church’s rubrics, only the feet of males are to be washed. The question, then, concerns why the rubrics for the ritual command that viri selecti and not women.
Basis for Holy Orders
The answer is that the footwashing scene in the Gospel of John is not only meant to be an example of humble service, but primarily a record of the institution of the Christian priesthood and thus the Scriptural root of the sacrament of holy orders.
Interpreting Scripture for its moral import is the default approach for most novice readers and many professional interpreters of Scripture, as it’s the easiest way to read the Bible and seems to make the Bible relevant. Many readers ask what a particular passage might mean regarding how they are to live in the present. So, when encountering important figures in the Bible, the first instinct of many is to ask: How am I like Herod? Abraham? Mary? How should I emulate the good guys? How should I imitate Christ? What would Jesus do?
Reading the Gospels this way can reduce the disciples to positive examples or (more often, given the honest portrayal of their failings) negative foils. What is often overlooked is that the apostles are a special class unto themselves. They are not just disciples like all Christians are disciples; they are unique. Jesus chooses twelve of them for a reason, to suggest that the Church they will lead will continue the redemptive work of Israel’s twelve tribes in the world. In Catholic (and Orthodox) understanding, the disciples are the first priests and bishops, and thus what Jesus says to them and does with them may not be of direct exemplary relevance for all Christians. For instance, when Jesus gives Peter alone the keys to the kingdom in Matthew 16, it does not mean that every Christian has the keys to the kingdom and the power to bind and loose.
Something more than mere exemplarism is going on in John 13. Jesus’washing of the disciples’feet has sacerdotal significance; Jesus institutes the priesthood. In John 13:3-8 we read:
Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, rose from supper, laid aside his garments, and girded himself with a towel. Then he poured water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him,“Lord, do you wash my feet?”Jesus answered him,“What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand.”Peter said to him,“You shall never wash my feet.”Jesus answered him,“Unless ( me.”
Jesus’reply to Peter,“What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand”, suggests that more is going on than just a moral example, for the ritual can only be understood“afterward.”After what? His glorification, as made clear in John 13:1-2 , as well as beforehand in John 12:16:“At first the disciples did not understand these things; but when Jesus had been glorified, then they recalled that it was precisely these things that had been written about him and these things they had done to him.”
Fr. Jerome Neyrey, SJ, longtime professor of New Testament at Notre Dame, in John 13 is a“status transformation ritual”in which the disciples are made priests of the new covenant. Peter at first refuses to let Jesus wash his feet, but Jesus’response that Peter can have no“part”in Jesus (Jn. 13:8b) unless Peter submits to the ritual reveals its gravity and indicates that sacerdotal sharing in Christ is involved. Important is the observation that the phrase ean mē (“unless”) indicates real transformation elsewhere in the Gospel of John:
Unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. (3:3)
Unless one is born of water and the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. (3:5)
Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. (6:53)
Unless you believe that‘I AM,’you will die in your sins. (8:24)
Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone. (12:24)
Unless I wash you, you have no part in me. (13:
As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. (15:4)
In John 13 we find evidence that real ontological transformation is in view. But transformation into what? Into priests, as in John 13 we also find parallels to Leviticus 16, which concerns the priestly Day of Atonement ritual:
Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there; and he shall bathe his body in water in a holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, and make atonement for himself and for the people. (Lev. 16:23-24)
Observe the pattern: The high priest undresses, bathes, dresses, and offers sacrifice. It’s the same pattern found in John 13: Jesus undresses (v. 4), washes the disciples’feet (v. 5-11), dresses (v. 12), and will soon offer himself in sacrifice. Whereas in Leviticus the high priest washes all of himself, in John, Jesus washes the feet of the disciples. Jesus is sharing his high priesthood with the disciples; he must wash them—that is, ordain them as priests—lest they have“no part”in his own priesthood.
Indeed, washing is part of priestly ordination elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the midst of the“consecration”of Aaron and his sons, Moses“washed them with water”(Lev. 8:6-10). We also see Aaron and his sons being washed in Exodus 40:
Then you shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and shall wash them with water. (v. 12) […] And he set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar, and put water in it for washing, with which Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet; when they went into the tent of meeting, and when they approached the altar, they washed; as the LORD commanded Moses. (Ex. 40:30-32)
Furthermore, the mention of having a“part”( meros ) in John 13:8 recalls the priestly Levites having their portion ( meris ) in the LORD (Num. 18:20 and Deut. 10:9, LXX).
In short, in John 13 we have the disciples receiving a new status, the status of priests, as made clear by the substantial parallels to passages about priesthood in the Old Testament. If modern men and women wonder why Catholics have an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers the sacrifice of the Eucharist in churches that resemble temples, it's because the Old Testament had an all-male priesthood that wears vestments and offers sacrifices in the tabernacle and temples.
Christ's Countercultural Teaching
Since, therefore, in Catholic thinking, Jesus’ritual washing the disciples’feet on Holy Thursday is the institution of priestly ordination, and since in Catholic tradition priests are males, Thursday is restricted to males , viri selecti . This teaching about the ordination of men only is difficult for some in our radically egalitarian age, but it is authoritative. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
The reasons given in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis come directly from a 1975 letter of Pope Paul VI to Dr. F. D. Coggan, then Archbishop of Canterbury:
She [the Church] holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church.
In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis , John Paul also quotes an address of Paul VI from 1977:“The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology—thereafter always followed by the Church's Tradition—Christ established things in this way.”(For further reading, see Sr. Sara Butler’s and Women: A Guide to the Teaching of the Church. )
This is a countercultural teaching today. Indeed, Jesus’ordination of males alone as priests was countercultural in the ancient world as well, since the ancient pagan world was well acquainted with priestesses. John Paul writes in Sacerdotalis that the document (Declaration Inter Insigniores on the question of the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood"(October 15, 1976: AAS 69 [1977], 98-116, p. 100) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"shows clearly that Christ's way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time."Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger also observed this historical fact :
To many, this demand for the ordination of women, this possibility of having Catholic priestesses, appears not only justified but obvious: a simple and inevitable adaptation of the Church to a new social situation that has come into being.
In reality this kind of"emancipation"of woman is in no way new. One forgets that in the ancient world all the religions also had priestesses. All except one: the Jewish. Christianity, here too following the"scandalous"original example of Jesus, opens a new situation to women; it accords them a position that represents a novelty with respect to Judaism. But of the latter he preserves the exclusively male priesthood. Evidently, Christian intuition understood that the question was not secondary, that to defend Scripture (which in neither the Old nor the New Testament knows women priests) signified once more to defend the human person, especially those of the female sex.
The teaching is clear and historic. How, then, should Catholics present it?
Ignoring or downplaying the issue isn’t much of a strategy, as doing so would involve missing an opportunity to teach upon one of the most misunderstood but crucial aspects of Catholic faith—the priesthood and, more broadly, Catholic ecclesiology. Indeed, the idea of a visible Church with a given structure willed by Christ and bringing Christ himself into the world cuts directly against contemporary Moral Therapeutic Deism
It is true that much of what Catholicism has to say is perceived as a resounding"No!"But any"no"is a reflex of saying"yes"to something good, true, and beautiful about God, man, and nature, whether a matter of reason or revelation. If the world perceives a"no,"it's because the world's loves are so very disordered that it says"yes"to darkness and death, seeking the water of life without knowing it's ingesting a counterfeit poison instead. Thus, Catholics would do well to present teaching about the priesthood positively, to present the priesthood as the great gift that it is, that institution which serves us by bringing us the risen Christ in the sacraments.
It's also important to point out that talk of the Catholic"hierarchy"is ultimately inadequate. For exercising one's ministry as a priest or a bishop isn't a matter of raw power, as if a priest or bishop were merely a prince or potentate. No, serving as a priest or bishop involves serving after the manner of Jesus Christ who"emptied himself and took on the form of a slave"(Phil. 2:7), the same Christ who taught his first priests and bishops, the Twelve, that"whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all"(Mk. 10:43-44), the same Christ who in washing the disciples' feet as an"example"to them directly linked priestly and episcopal service with humility
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3074/holy_thursday_footwashing_and_the_institution_of_the_priesthood.aspx

ShyNeptune:
I seem to disagree on this.
What's your own definition of holy?
And who did Mary give birth to?

Tanks 4 trying 2 mak him understand wat is hidden

ShyNeptune:
Okay. Cool

Tanks bros 4 ur understanding

ShyNeptune:
What makes the hall empty? The absence of the blessed sacrament?
Does that not sound funny to you sir?

Nt like dt bros like catholic church uu can nt eat in presence of blessed sacrament bt in oda churches u can eat anywere

omartins:
Can't deduce what you mean.

Dos wu condemn catholics yet dey kneel nd pray in empty church

Na so dis life b, dem praise u 2day 2mrw dem go kill uu- NIGERIAN POLITICIAN

ShyNeptune:
Really, I do not understand this.

modified

omartins:
Op, many will say you're quoting old testament and they forget that tithe and first fruit is also in old testament.
Those running to altar before or after service kneeling, bowing and or rolling to pray where their pastor just left don't see anything idolatry in it.

u ar very correct

4reala:
I think so

Dis is nt an Ansa, bt tanks 4 commenting

"Catholics worship statues!" People still make this ridiculous claim. Because Catholics have statues in their churches, goes the accusation, they are violating God’s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4–5); "Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold" (Ex. 32:31).
It is right to warn people against the sin of idolatry when they are committing it. But calling Catholics idolaters because they have images of Christ and the saints is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of what the Bible says about the purpose and uses (both good and bad) of statues.
Anti-Catholic writer Loraine Boettner, in his book Roman Catholicism, makes the blanket statement, "God has forbidden the use of images in worship" (281). Yet if people were to "search the scriptures" (cf. John 5:39), they would find the opposite is true. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually commanded their use in religious contexts!
God Said To Make Them
People who oppose religious statuary forget about the many passages where the Lord commands the making of statues. For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20).
David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels.
Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."
The Religious Uses of Images
During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).
One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.
Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan", the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4). What About Bowing?
Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.
Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues
lalasticlala, OAM4J,, dominique, Mynd44 abeg push am go front small

C dia bad English wen dem use, Omeruo knocked out of Nigeria's double assault against Egypt. So 4 Arsenal against Barcelona, e go b " Arsenal has been pursued 4rm championleague by barcelona" just joking though

Na Ghana corn b dis? Oghene

Hmmmmmmm NIGERIA our flag done dey fall small small.. Oghene biko ooo
Rip to dose wen change address