₦airaland Forum

Acidosis:

Its never too late to accept the truth..

My grandmom served 'Religion' for over 70years... at 80+, she gave her life to Jesus.

Pls watch out for my next thread. (Do not take offence; I'm only opening your eyes to the truth so many Catholics do not know. The same truth that dwell in Rome, the same truth some of you here are scared to tell your Nigerian faithfuls..

I'm very sure of the fact that; some of those Catholics who read my recent threads were shocked..

It is better to tell the truth once and for all.. than pretend as though we serve the same God.

It is well with you bro.

amyg: @lacum,thank u 4 telling d truth.so how much is d fee 4 ordination?

amyg: Go 2 Imo state,Orlu dioceses.I won't b specific 4 anonimousity sake.also go 2 Enugu.

amyg: All ur emphasis is on the choir,am a choirster and choir does not get more than 10k as substitute 4 their food nd drinks.why would the village parish charge up to 10k just 2 announce the bann whereas the wedding will not be held there?my dear,pple clearly opt 4 court marriage 2 avoid all these shit.

mavister: @italo. If ur a true catholic and u feel what u believe in is the 'right' fin. Answer the questions below. Others are welcomed

1.If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
2.If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
3.If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
4.If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
5.Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
6.Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
7.If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
8.Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
9.Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
10.Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
11.If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
12.Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
13.How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
14.If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
15.If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

arithcom: This email address look SUSPICIOUS. Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs using gmail. Source pls.

Symphony007: This is the beginning of the end for the catholic church.....at this rate i see it going the way of the anglican church. Divided between liberals and conservatives in differnt parts of the world.

Enigma: Some interesting questions arising from a Roman Catholic song/hymn!

1. Does Mary dispense (i.e. grant or distribute) heaven's blessings?
2. Do "all our graces flow through" Mary?

(From the Roman Catholic song 'Daily Daily Sing to Mary')

Advocate and loving mother,
Mediatrix of all grace:
Heaven's blessings she dispenses
On our sinful human race.

All our graces flow through Mary;
All then join her praise to sing:
Fairest work of all creation,
Mother of creation's King.

chuqudy: There is nothing wrong with the topic. If someone needs deliverance and is looking for a Catholic priest for deliverance, will you refer the person to Rev. Alaba Job, Cardinal Okogie? They are great priests and have their own gifts but when it comes to power to cast out demons the top ten I listed was not an error ok.

boarnerges: hello mr pasino26. Good one here but let me assert that we aint here to counter motions, everyone is just dropping His or her idea on this subject matter and all i did was to drop mine too.
The scripture you quoted on 'in the beginning God said, let us make man in our image...our here could imply two, three, thousands and even billions. Remember satan was part of that 'our'. Why dont you undertake a study of the book of reveltions, read between the lines and see where God reveals Himself.
I love you my brother.

JMAN05: I know your position on this, but which mediator does God provide to approach Him?

Does the bible support prayer to God thru saints, then saints to Jesus, then Jesus to God? Did the apostles do this?

Did they even use any sculptured image as an aid?

JMAN05: Of course in defining xtian worship, what you give to Mary shouldnt be termed worship cos this goes contra to the bible. Worship goes to God alone. No degrees as if you are sharing the worship.

Why are you vibrating, habah! the word has many meaningssssssss, "worship" is just ONE of them, not ALL of them. and it goes to God alone with that meaning, in TRUE xtian worship. He is the invisible Spirit person the living pray to. If the word refers to an act to a god, it can have the thought of worship but we know it is a false one.

Their are many hebrew/greek words like that.

You that believe that the soul doesnt die, how will you interprete Ezek. 18:4? that soul written there, is it talking about the invisible part of man as you believe?

Words have many meanings, but the bible helps in determining the real meaning.

The invisible person we(THE LIVING) pray to is God through Jesus. Not to God thru Mary and Mary to Jesus and Jesus to God.

The invisible persons involved are two - God and Jesus. If you ruin this format established in the bible, it will be like having another aid apart from the ark. remember golden calf.

I dont know whether these saints can focus on more than one prayers at a time. You guys can still say they are omnipresents. Nothing is hard for you.

asamaigho: dumb as u can be only the living can praise God, paul,peter,john all prayed for the church,beside mary never played any role in the church history, she was the mother(earthly)of Jesus,even the Lord never called her mother instead He her WOMAN.

mary to help us talk to Jesus,Jesusto help us talk to God.......long story lwkm.
ma guy read your bible "....we are joint heir with christ.(rm 8:17),so we dnt need any john,peter,mary for nothing.

boarnerges: I stand on my grounds as earlier opined in one of my comments on the religious section. Modern day christaindom is the most confused of all religion, there seem to be a confusion on their deity. 'Jesus is Lord' as quoted in the bible. If Jesus is Lord, then where is the place of 'the father' because Lord means ownership and also the place of the holyghost as in the constellation of the concept of trinity. The trinity has no bases in the bible, it was a pagan doctrine that came in around 325 AD to cloud/subtitute the many gods of the then world power that seeminly adopted christianity as its official religion.
God is one, from the beginning; He came as mechiezedek, as the burning bush, He appeared to abraham in the planes of mamre, He came as fire by night and cloud by day to lead the isrealite, he came in different forms on earth but was still in heaven displaying His ominipotency. To redeem mankind, He came as Jesus christ (JESUS CHRIST MEANS; the self becoming God has become our saviour) . He was both man and God clothed in flesh (son) hence the dictum 'son of God' meaning temple or body of God.thats why He said in One scripture 'destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it up'(talking about his body).
In the book of revelation, the bible talks of one throne in heaven, the same lamb of God becoming the Lion of the tribe of Judah.
JESUS IS LORD, THE FIRST AND THE LAST, HE WHO WAS(SON:dEAD AND WAS RAISED), WHO IS (holyghost, God invisible) AND WHO IS TO COME(the coming judge and king)

hard truth.

tpacalipse: Where is the picture?

vickyO: Catholics are just so tough to convince, they believe their mode of worship is impeccable which is not. I believe they're operating on a faulty doctrinal foundation. When Jesus taught the disciples how to pray, He never mentioned Mary or the prophets or the saints. no where under the new covenant are we asked to use aids or carve images or worship dead creatures. Given the example of Joshua, that was in the OT, the old covenant, you better drop it an embrace the new cause they are totally different. you cant pour new wine into an old wine skin and vice versa, the result you all know. Some say the rosary causes miracles to happen, I had a friend who said, "you don't know how many times the rosary has saved me", such heretical belief causes me to wonder. they also claim Mary helps deliver their messages to Jesus, deceit at its peak. and when pastors pray for us, they intercede which is fully backed by the Bible. And the images they make is just out of it, what then makes Christians different from idolatrous heathens?

garripack: i asked because i wanted to know if there was a backyard preaching before or after the mass simple!!!!!!!!!

Syncan: Depends on when you joined in the Mass, if that is what you attended. The Catholic mass is same all over, it is broadcasted on TV some times, you can verify your claims from any of them. However, since you've made your conclusion; why do you ask the question?

Enigma: Even Roman Catholic "popes" admit that the "popes" can and do teach errors.

In fact one "pope" went as far as to say effectively that the idea of 'papal infallibility' is not tenable --- in other words that papal infallibility is hogwash!

See the 'Bull' Quia Quorundam by "pope" John Paul XXII.

In fact some Roman Catholics consider that "pope" to be a heretic.

Enigma: ^^ Yep, even the Roman Catholics formally declared one of their own "popes" a heretic; a number of other popes are considered by some Roman Catholics to be heretics.

In any event, many of the Roman Catholic "popes" were worse than perverse and worse than "false prophets". This is a well known historical fact. Even Roman Catholics admit it, Even their Roman Catholic encyclopedia which generally tries to spin and stylishly cover up these things could not deny the perversion of some of the really terrible popes.

It is the province of the brainwashed to think or suggest that only one denomination or organisation does not have "false prophets" especially when undeniable history suggests otherwise, Is a "pope" who was engaging in simony by buying, selling, and re-buying the position of "pope" not a false prophet.

Is a "pope" involved or complicit in the murder of the previous "pope" not a "false prophet"?