₦airaland Forum

Shame on you. Her education would not in anyway be affected. If you really wantIt depends on you and your understanding. Look I'm currently in the nothern part of Nigeria (Adamawa State) and its the practice here. Infact I love it so much. Go to their universities, more than 70% of their 100 level students are married. Some of tnem have kid(s) and are still attending school. Another question for you is don't you think your daughter standa a berra chance of not engaging in fornication is she be married at that age. There are many instances where students have been impregnated while in school. There also many instances where gals are used and dumped in this same schools, engaging in abortions and all sorts. Man, look here, if you are sincere with yourself, you know the best way to prevent evil is to block all its openings.

There are people who got married at 16, even 15 years and are graduates now. If you don't believe, come to the north and see them. Educated girls who can stand their conterparts who have gone through series of abortions, fornications and all that.

Stop being myopic. I know its the society you live that formed ur orientation. Not xtianity. Not Islam. Its ur society and maybe the kind of life u live yourself.

Answer this:

Early marriage is bad, but early motherhood from unknowns would surely be applauded by you right?

Its berra for my daughter to get married to her husband at 15 and have a baby for him, than for some opportunists who just want to hit and run.

Finally, its a shame on you that you didnt define who a child is, and tell the world whem someone seizes to be a child. olodo oshi

Excuse me but a 15 year old girl is still a child, she isn't fully developed enough to handle such things, and she should not be put in this situation. SHE ISN'T ALLOWED TO BE A CHILD. Instead of deciding for your child, let her decide for herself. There are plenty of girls who are virgins at the age of 21. Teach your child discipline and equip her with independence so that she can think for herself, instead of let herself be used by boys.
I fyou daughter cannot say no to men and value her sexuality, it is your fault as a parent for not teaching her. Marrying her off won't protect her chastity, chastity is still demanded in a marriage. She can easily open her legs to other men even while married. It is the girl's character that matters and not her status as a married woman.

I am 23 years old, unmarried and I don't open my legs to anyone, I make decisions on my own, my mother raised me to be a woman of character. She didn't have to get me hitched in order for my chastity to be preserved.

If your daughter is a slut as a single girl, she will be a slut when married. Plain and simple, raise your child to have character.

There are plenty of muslim women who still have their chastity. My friend is my age and she is getting married this december, but guess what, she is marrying a man of her choice and she is out of school, independent and still chaste. SO believe me it is not about what age you marry but about your character and values.

what's the difference between his books and those by other pentecostal pastors? I mean what gives it "authenticity"?

Simple, the keys to the kingdom of heaven. You can whine about it if you want. But anyway it is not only the Pope that can be the doctor of the Church. Anyone can. Pentecostal pastors don't exactly count as Catholics.
Only Catholics can be doctors of the Church. Afterall the power to bind and loose were given to us. You can whine about that too if you want, you never fail to.

You can convice yourself to believe that Christ didn't give the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN to Peter if you want, it doesn't change that he did, infact it is very evident. You can cry all you want, and you can fill yourself with hatred, that is entirely up to you.

Peaece.

Na wa oh oga david, I thought the real authors of the gospels were unknown?

The real authors of the Gospels are definitely known, for someone who used to be Catholic you should know this, but then again, maybe you didn't and that led to you leaving the faith.
The only way that any Christian knows that the books of the Bible in the New Testament were written by the apostles is because the Catholic Church preserved them and defined them as scripture. SO they can keep on deceiving themselves, it is what it is.

I don't know if David told you that the real authors of the gospels were unknown. Did he?

My dear friend, there are some truth u really need to agree with. Fine, Notice once again that the personalities Jesus went to preach to were angels NOT HUMAN BEINGS. I have PROOFS for that. To give you these proofs i demand that u are ready to know the truth, stop holding on what you are being taught somewhere, sometime. please reply and indicate your interest to really get the understand in the word of God. Search the scriptures. I don't have much time to waste with somebody that doesnot want to know the truth but just to argue unscripturally ( I don't mean to insult U, but if i have done that, please am really sorry). God bless u.

Oga abeg, the Bible talks about those who were freed from prison were from Noah's day, they died in the flood. Was it angels that died in the flood?

Please before you bring you "truth" explain to me how the eight that were saved from Noah's time were angels.

Take you confusion and keep it to yourself. I know the truth. I read the Bible, i get it.

Your response is just a mish-mash of false starts and misdirected talk. Especially the parts i put in bold. Maybe you should read my last post again and modify your response. You don't quite seem to be responding to my post.

I see you're even confused about your own posting. I am done with you.

Hi Carl,
thank you so much for posting the readings.

@ all

I am leaving for the thanksgiving break, so I may not be present here for a while, but I will try my best to log on.
Jesus loves you, Mary loves you, I love you

You seem to be getting to understand me in your own slow way. When i read that your "lukewarm" sh*t. I laughed. I laughed because you don't even know me and you didn't have an idea about my beliefs. I've been screaming on top of my lungs, telling you that I stick to what Christ did and what He said. That's what "Christ-like" means.

I speak from the discussions on this board.

Sorry to disappoint you but Paul has no place in my faith. We were never told about him as an "Apostle to the Gentiles" by Christ before he appeared on the scene with his set of doctrines which went quite contraary to most of what Christ preached. If you want to follow Paul, say so outrightly. Christ said the servant is not greater than His master, (if indeed, Paul is as much as a servant) so when in doubt, i default to Christ. simple. I choose to follow Him. You don't have to do that. It's my choice. Get it? Why say you are a "Christian" and be more willing to be a Paulian and attach labels coined by non-"christians" to yourself? What stopped Christ, in His divine wisdom from coining the term? Why didn't He tell us to be sure to follow Paul, as influential to your faith as Paul is today

Ok, so why do you believe in Christ, if you don't believe in anything he says or does, because you do not. DOn't fool yourself to think that you do. Christ gave power to men, and you don't believe in the exercise of this power, so why follow him if you don't believe in what he has done?
Also, if you won't take what the apostles say as truth and won't hae regards for them, how can you take the stories of the Gospel true? The apostles wrote them, how do you know that Christ truly did and say what they say he did and say. How can you have regards towards what Christ did or say, when you don't have regards for those who wrote down what he did or said. They could have easily made it up.

It's like the muslims belief system. One day I was talking to Olabowale and he told me that Allah said if you are about to die and the killers ask you if you are a muslim that it is alright to say that you are not, if you're afraid to die. So I asked and said isn't that lying? He siad no, as long as Allah said it. So I asked someone else (another muslim) and the person said that the problem with muslims is that they take a man's word seriously and mistake it as Allah's word. He said that that statement was made by muhammad. So I asked him how can you then believe that the words in the quran truly are Allah's word if you can't take the word of muhammad to be true. The only reason Allah exists is because muhammad said so, and the quran is the word of Allah becuse muhammad said so. If what he says isn't to b held in regards, why hold that what he said about Allah in regard.
Do you get what I'm saying?

I am saying if you do not hold in regard these people who penned down what Christ said, how can you truly believe that what they said about Christ is true. How can you believe that what Christ said is truly what Christ said?

Do yourself a favour, make a list of everything that constitutes your Christian faith today - doctrines, principles and all. Then make a table with two columns. One for Christ and the other for Paul. At the end of the exercise, decide whose follower you are.

This blind dependence on the "Holy Spirit" is what has thrown your Christianity into the big, black hole it's in today. I am free to act like a total slowpoke and attribute my actions to the "Holy Spirit". Your Paul found that out 2,000 years ago. It is only catching on in Nigeria now. so pitiable.

You, my ~Lady~, are the one who really needs to find herself. I found true freedom when i did. If Christ didn't endorse it, it's not for me. Sorry.

O wow, so dependence on the Holy Spirit too is also wrong? Hm well you truly aren't a Christian. Please abeg leave Christ out of your mouth, you are not a follower of his. You are against his teachings.

Incase you haven't realised God wants us to be completely and totally dependent on him and for us to be completely directed by him, rather than on ourselves. Now those people who do atrocious things and say it's because of the holy spirit are wrong, the holy spirit won't lead you to do wrong.
But I don't get the whole Paul statement in that. What did Paul do that was atrocious and that he put on the holy spirit.

@ poster

the church is not the building or place of worship but THE BODY OF CHRIST! Idolatry is worshiping creatures rather than the Creator, who is God.
I have observed the Roman Catholics carefully and am bold to say "WHAT THEY CALL CHRISTIANITY IS DEVILISH". Thank God for the scriptures and for his Holyspirit who teaches us all things.

Roman Catholics are not only the guilty ones, U cud also be one of them who practise Idolatry! It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of God's judgement.
Examine ur ways and desist from evil!

You haven't examined anything. If the Church is devilish, then so is the Bible, and the Trinity, and your beliefs. Everything you know about Christianity today is dependent on the Church. If we did not keep safe Christianity, it wouldn't be here today, so don't be foolish and back up your claim if you can.

- It is clear the disciples did not give themselves that name if not it would have read - and the disciples refered to themselves as christians first in antioch.

Actually no, we will never really know but only assume. Two conclusions can be derived from the sentence in the Bible. No, you can't make up stuff David. You don't know that it would have read that if the apostles gave themselves the name. Don't forget there were plenty of apostles at this point, so really anyone could have said it.

Guys, are we saying he does not deserve the jet after years of meritorious service in the Lord's vineyard?

Can't we at least be happy for him?

Christ said that they should give up the world and follow him. Acquiring worldly things, is not giving up the world and following Christ.

Sheesh even the Pope flies in commercial planes. No private Jet there.

the term "christian" is a mere label that means nothing. It is the heart that matters and not the label. Notice that the label was coined NOT by the church but by those outside who thought they acted just like Jesus.

First of all the Bible doesn't say that the Christians were called Christians by others, it only states that at Antioch the apostles were first called Christians. We only assume that it wasn't the apostles that coined the term Christian. But even at that Christian is a term that means follower of Christ. Now unless you and Carmelily are trying to say that "follower of Christ" is irrelevant or means nothing.

what do these mean?

A doctor of the Church is one who writes about Christ and Christ's teachings all the time, with authenticity. You can pick up one of his books, Jesus of Nazareth, I am loving it, I have it right now.

Lipuka I hope you are not one of the deluded people that thinks that a black whatever would always be better.

I am hoping he isn't, but I'm afraid i might be wrong.

Black pope is a so bad idea. It did not look nice please no

Rubbish,

this one here probably thinks that black anything is bad.

inferiority complex

We know that Paul defered to the authority of the Holy Spirit at every moment. So in no way was Paul greater than his master even though he wrote so many epistles.

And rightly so should it be that because Paul was acting on the authority of the Holy Spirit that what he says rightfully stands. He isn't greater than Jesus, but just because Jesus didn't speak those words does not make them irrelevant. Carmelily is making the word Christian irrelevant because it wasn't spoke by Christ. In so doing she marks the Holy Spirit as irrelevant, because all that was done by the apostles and disciples and everyone, is by the Holy Spirit. If they're words are irrelevant, then so is the Holy Spirit.

Also there may be 20 African Cardinals but we know that black people do not only reside in Africa, there are black cardinals elsewhere

It is said that there has been one black Pope before. But this, in my opinion should not be a matter of debate. It is not a secret that black people inhabited the Middle East some 2,000 years ago. This in effect means Jesus was black. Forget about the pictures you see

Jesus wasn't black and neither was he white.

In Christianity, most especially in the Catholic Church it is not about black or white, it is about following Christ. We almost had a black Pope and yes he is Nigerian. Cardinal Arinze, everyone was cheering for him, but it wasn't meant to be. Now we have a great Pope whom I believe will one day be a doctor of the Chruch, the man is brilliant. I am happy he is Pope.

enh enh? is that so?

Yes, it is so.

And the servant is greater than his master?

SO we shouldn't listen to the apostles, if that is the case then you shouldn't have any regards for St. Paul's writings, infact you should toss it out of your Bible because the words were not spoken byChrist. Also you shoud toss out some parts of the Gospel because all the words spoken there are not Jesus.

And so are muslims too? They also believe Jesus is Lord.

If muslims believe that Jesus is Lord, then they are not muslims, they are Christians. Muslims absolutely do not believe that Jesus is Lord.

But muslims are also a sect, they have their own same beliefs.

Look girl, you need to stop running away from yourself. You are afraid to stand for anything, wanting to be by yourself and be lukewarm, God already said he will spit out those who are lukewarm.
You don't want to be Christian, you don't want to be anything. Stop being afraid. STOP RUNNING FROM YOURSELF.

Speaking in tongues does work. When you receive the impartation of the Holy Spirit you must surely speak in true tongues

Not for everyone.

If you backslide, the Holy Spirit will disappear from you, and satan will deposit more demons inside of you

Not true, Peter backslided and he was still an apostle. If this is the case, then no one has the holy spirit.

She's not speaking in tongues, rather blasphemy (satan quoted the scripture for Jesus Christ). They are not born again if your findings were truth, rather 'born in sin'

Do not judge her

You were not forced to. You were led to, but your interest is not there. Believe in Holy Ghost Baptism and you will receive, then you'll come back to confess it

Rubbish. Not everyone who believes will receive the gift of tongues. there are plenty of gifts and God will give whichever he thinks is best for you.

Do people interpret tongues in Nigeria? I am yet to witness that

Anyone can open their mouth and spew "sounds' it doesn't make it tongues. People assume that if tongues is a strange language it wouldn't sound like anything close to a language. Infact it should be a legible language. When the disciples were speaking in tongues they were speaking legible languages, because others could understand them. They spoke arabic, syriac and more. So you see shamananananana is not a legible language and therefore isn't tongues.

People are speaking shamdahfkdfsls that's why you don't have interpreters. They're not real.

So its allowed because grace will abound the more?

No sinning is not allowed because grace abounds the more, i am saying it is not up to you to determine who God will use. Grace is a gift and he can give it to anyone he wishes to. So be careful don't judge her.

I've never seen anybody interpreting what another is speaking when it comes to strange tongues. I think it's a private thing and musn't be interpreted for it to be real. Again, why should she be speaking false tongues when she is praying in private?  She can't be fooling herself, can she?

Speaking in tongues is not so mush a private thing. There has to be an interpreter, so just because someone opens their mouth and start spewing "sounds" does not mean it is speaking in tongues.
And yes she canfool herself, infact people who are so eager to speak in tongues and measure their holiness by it are usally fooling themselves, and those who do not know about the gift of tongues are easily fooled by it.

I saw that Gamine wrote that she was forced to speak in tongues. When I was a pentecostal, I was forced to speak in tongues, and many times I was criticised for not jumping up and "catching" the Spirit.
I usually repeat what they say so that they will leave me alone.

Let me give you an expample of the Spirit working. An Italian lady that I know is a public speaker and she travels speaking about Christ. She grew up in New York, and she doesn't speak spanish. She traveled to Mexico to speak to some teens, and of course she had an interpreter. When she speaks in English the person is supposed to interpret in spanish. sShe was worried about communicating well with the youth. So she prayed and she went up to the stage and as she as speaking she noticed that the interpreter wasn't saying anything, she stopped and asked her to speak, but the interpreter told her that she didn't have to that the woman was speaking perfect spanish.
The woman thought it was a joke, so she got someone else to interpret and the person said the same thing.
This woman thought she was speaking english, when infact her words were spanish.

This is an example of speaking n tongues.

Now it doesn't always happen that way, but the point is, if you speak in tongues, there should be an interpreter.

Catholic and loving it

Welcome, how r u?

hello lady, how u doing and how's work coming?

don't pay too much attention to s4d, i know he means well. frankly i think the meaning of the word nigga in naija
is far different from the usa. so i don't really mind. thanks all the same.

how are your God children doing? kiss them for me

I don't understand how th eword nigga could mean anything from what it was meant to be. Even in the U.S. the blacks call each other nigaas saying that they are taking a negative word and owning it. It's like a girl taking the word bitch and owning it. How ridiculous could that be?
But if a white man uses the word even in the context that blacks do they want to kill him. Why? If the word is no longer derogatory then a white man should be able to use it. Plain and simple. No matter how much it is suga coated it is ridiculous.
Nigeria needs to stop copying America, our ancestors were never niggers.

In any situation a word that is meant to be derogatory should never be used.

I get to see my God son this week so I wil def give him a kiss for you. The Godfather of my God daughter is also Catholic and we're trying to get her parents into the Catholic Church and get her baptised.

What is this thing that you call FAITH and why and how is it important to you? Look like you are making some breakthroughs in your thinking, a very much commendable thing. Let me give you a few more ideas which you may want to discuss with your pastors;

Be careful dear because you too cling to your FAITH (belief). It is your FAITH that God deosn't exist, it is your FAITH that science is the answer to everything. It is your FAITH that scientific data are the only things to be believed.
So dear you too have FAITH.

1) Should the Genesis accounts (Creation, Adam&Eve, Garden of Eden, Noah and his boat, etc) be read literally or allegorically. If read literally, then how do you explain things that are much much older than Genesis suggests? If read allegorically, then how do you know which parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which parts allegorically?

No they should not be taken literal. It is really simple to know what is literal and what is allegorical, just as it is simple for me to tell when you are using a figure of speech. Simply read within the context, and also knowing the history of the book being read in the Bible. Not all the books are written in the same time, to the same people and in the same style. There are different styles of writing in the Bible, especially since they are written by different people with different personalities and different languages.
This is why not anyone can simply pick up the Bible and start interpreting it, as some people on this board think.
And finally the Ultimate way of understanding the Bible is with the help of the holy spirit.

2) I have made a case for why I think the commandments give in Exodus 34 should take precedence over those give in Exodus 20. Do you ever hear this discussed in your church? You don't you ask your pastor for his opinion?
See this link

The Exodus 34 commandments are not different from the commandments from 20. Verse 1 says " The Lord said to Moses, "Cut two stone tablets like the former that I may write on them the Commandments which were on the former tables that you broke. they were not different. The 'commandments" you read still covered under the original commandments, you may look at them as example.

3) When was Jesus born? Was Jesus born on or before 4CE as implied in Matthew or around 6BCE as implied by Luke?

You may want to show us where they are implied.

4) Was Jesus related (ie, same bloodline) to David and how was he related to David? Was Jesus related to David through his mother Mary or through his Father Joseph? Why are the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke so much at variance with each other?

He was related to David through the bloodline of his foster father, he was known as the son of Joseph and Mary, and that was the reason why some people did not believe him.
i can't give you an answer to the last question, but I'm prety sure it had something to do with the way in which they recorded genealogies at that time.

5) Why are few of Jesus "moral" message relevant today? Such injunctions as leave you family to follow him, to not plan for tomorrow, turn the other cheek and not resist violent attack, cut off bodily parts that cause you to sin. Why is he so disposed to violence, saying that he did not come to bring peace but a sword

All of Jesus moral laws are relvenat today, people may not practice them but it doesn't make them any less relevant, actually it makes them even more relevant.
When he speaks of leaving family to folow him, he means don't let you family be a hindrance to your belief. Also Priests do leave their families and follow him, he was directly talking to those who wish to be his apostles, or those sent out to preach the gospel.
To not plan for tomorrow he means keep in mind that you may die tonight, therefore don't starve yourself only to not wake up tomorrow. Not properly planning for the future, isn't wrong, but simply refusing to live today is.
Turn the other cheek is very relevant, i like the quote of if everyone did an eye for an eye the whole world would be blind. It is relevant, some people just don't put it in practice. Also turn the other cheek could very well mean being the bigger person in a negative situation.
he did not literally mean cut off your body part but to not give it more power, basically correct the wrong in it. The sword he speaks of is not physical. And what he means is that he has come to set apart his own from others. He uses the sword as a symbol, and the peace he mentions is a false peace. the peace is when people follow the bandwagon isntead of taking a stance on the right thing. people are afraid and in today's terms want to be politically correct, that is what Christ was talking about peace, he didn't come to be politically correct.

hope that helps.

Do church and christianity have the same meaning in your book?

Did Christ ever use the word "christianity"?

Does "church" mean sect or religion?



Your confusion is so TOTAL.

Your logic (picking directly from your 2 quotes above) produces only one useful idea based on these premises/syllogism:

a. Christianity is a sect
b. Christ instituted the Church
c. Christ did not institute Christianity

Chrisitianity is the name of the belief of the people who are in the Church.
Christ did not ever use the word Christian either, but the apostles did. English language is not that hard. You may not understand it.
You're no longer speaking of the Catholic Church or christianity, you are now trying to defy the english language.

Well you may not know the meaning of sect but let me provide it for you.

SECT:
1. a body of persons adhering to a particular religious faith; a religious denomination.
2. a group regarded as heretical or as deviating from a generally accepted religious tradition.
3. (in the sociology of religion) a Christian denomination characterized by insistence on strict qualifications for membership, as distinguished from the more inclusive groups called churches.
4. any group, party, or faction united by a specific doctrine or under a doctrinal leader.

Now if Christians have one belief, then that would make them a sect, just as Islam is a sect, and atheism is very much a sect too.
In everything we have in this life, there is a sect to it. If you have a common belief or traditions or faith with someone else, you are a sect. Even if you are not defined, you are still a sect.
Even you are a part of the sect. If you have the belief that Jesus is Lord, then you are in the sect.

please have u heard about the blessed anne catherine emmerich,if so what do you think of her visions.I consider her the greatest visionary that has ever lived

no i haven't, i will look her up.

Lady~ (f)

listen, we are not here for sentiment, but for clerification.

in islam, no body assume jesus is second to mohammed.

he prophet mohammed is the last prophet but the leader of the messenger.

ok i want you guys to answer this question.

does jesus himself no about christianity?

who created christianity?

its not about sentiment but about understanding.


ok

Jesus himself does know about Christianity. Christian is to follow Christ, Jesus is the Christ even Islam acknowledges that, and he asked us to do as he did. Therefore all we do is his command, so yes he knows about it, he is the core of it.
Christ created Christianity.

It is about understanding, and time and time again it has been proving that Islam is not the same as Christianity and that your beliefs of Christ are different.

If Islam knows what Christ truly means and what messiah truly means, it would not be what it is today. You can't just take a word and give another meaning and say it is authentic. It originated from the Jews and they have the authentic meaning not arabic. plain and simple.

Regarding this passage, please join me to the book of 2 pet 2:4 - I read, 'For  if God did not spare the angels that sinned, but cast them down to HELL,,   '
The HELL here is derived from Tartarus (greek) and Tartaros (Latin) meaning a place of punishment and confinement for angels until the judgement. The fallen Angels sinned (cons. Gen 6:1-2) and they were confined to Hell (Tartarus)
It might interest u to  note that there are five compactments in the under world of which TARTARUS is one of them. Today people call this Tartarus Purgatory. But the fact is that Tartarus is not meant for we human beings , it is only meant for Fallen angels that rebelled against God.

Comparing angels and humans is comparing oranges and apples. Angels don't have slavation, humans do.

If you know anything about the language used in writing the Bible you will know that all i=during that time also believed in purgatory. Where then did Jesus go to when he freed those imprisoned. If there exists only heaven and hell, why then were people released from "prison"

Please interpret the passages presented before you rather than bringing another passage thet would seem to contradict the passage I presented.

After Jesus died his body was in the grave but He went (quickened by the spirit of God) to preach to spirits in Prison- this means that He went to Tartarus to let the fallen angels know the plans of God.

last time I checked it wasn't angels that he saved. He went to save the humans who were already dead. Now you may not know it but in the Bible it was noted that it was humans not angels that he saved.

Now maybe the mistake I made was not actually typing out the passage I provided. so here it is.

1 Peter 3:19-20

19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

So you see the souls saved in prison were humans. Yes I do know about Tartarus.

I find your argument for the existence of purgatory,well,unconvincing. Perhaps it exists and perhaps it doesn't,but the verses you quote doesn't tell one it does exist. And why would the Bible want to imply anything? It mostly doesn't imply, it just says what a thing is. Sin, hell,homosexuality,adultery,murder,wrath,heaven,angel,war, and on and on and on.Lotsa delicious nouns and adjectives. If there is a purgatory, why aren't there verses that explicitly say so? If there are dozens of verses on Hell,an infinitely more terrible place than purgatory,why would the bible tiptoe around purgatory and not come right out and teach its existence?

The Bible does impy a lot, and not everything is in black and white that's why the holy spirit is needed to understand it. If not then the atheists and muslims and others would simply understand it. The trinity is implied also in the Bible, it is not simply stated as trinity, but implied as the father, son, and holy spirit.

If those verses are not touching on purgatory then can you please at least tell me what they are talking about?
The Bible teaches the ecistence of prugatory, over the ages it has been rightfully thought so. It is only in the past few decades that purgatory was questioned, but even from the Jews purgatory has always been known. There is land of the dead, but it isn't hell.

The Bible is not a mere novel that anybody can just read and understand. You need to bury your spirit in it so as to have an understanding from God. From your quotations, they are all in the reverse (please read from the beginning and pray for understanding before you start reading).

I equally agree and I could simply ask you to do the same thing, did it ever occur to you that maybe you are the onelacking in understanding? Did it ever occur to you that maybe you simply don't understand because you haven't even tried to understand what purgatory means.

But really, if the passages I posted arenot hinting on purgatory then can you who know the truth interpret them properly for me. It would only be the Christian thing to do.

1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Else what shall they do which are baptised  for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? what are they then baptised for the dead? (30) and why we stand in jeopardy every hour

Acutally this one here hints at purgatory too. The question is why baptise for the dead. If there is no purgatory then there is no way of salvation after death, so why then baptise for the dead. Baptism leads to salvation, if there is no way of praying for the dead to be saved, why can you then baptise for the dead? There is no point to it then. It would only mean that Paul didn't know what he was talking about. If it really just ends at the death of a person and one cannot pray for their slavation, then why did Paul speak for the baptism of the dead. After all they are already dead and there is no purgatory. The baptism would be a waste.

Purgatory exists in the dictionary but in spiritual affairs. when one dies, next is judgement. Jesus Christ has died and made atonement for our sins. Whoever that refuses to repent and wait for final purification after death is on his own. NOT God's principle

If this is true and that death is death and final, then why baptise for the dead? It is already final, why an attempt for their slavation?
Don't forget you posted the verse.

please the people apostle paul mentioned in 2cor 15:29-30,if they are in hell why do they need baptism and if they are in heaven why do they need baptism

I would really like to know why the dead need baptism if it goes from death to judgment. I agree there is judgement after death, but why then the baptism. If it is either hell or heaven, then there would be no point of baptism (salvation), because if it is heaven, the person has already been saved and needs no baptism. If it is hell, there is no way of salvation, so why then is there baptism for the dead?

And can someone please interpret this particular passage for me?

1 Corinthians 3: 13-15
13 Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire


How come the second person is saved, when he has already gone through judgement?

But she speaks in tongues.

there is a false speaking in tongues. Can anyone understand her or interpret what she says. Simply opening ones mouth and screaming shamahnahdshsjaks, does not mean they speak in tongues.

As for her sinning, where sins abounds grace abounds the more. Make sure you do not judge her. God uses sinners.

so everyone come and give report.
oby, viee, pam dearie , lindiwe (your jist don stale now ), lawyer (shey him still dey this planet? ), lady!!! i trust you 10000%
s4d, thetruth90, maykelly, in short everybody report now

there was no procession, but ofcourse, mass is always special

I love my weaves, got one on right now. The only thing I agree with is the perming of the hair. I don't like the use of chemicals on my hair, but that's just for me.

But seriously poster, this ridiculous, there are other important things to talk about that.

please I want to know the official position of the catholic church on tithes

Tithes are encouraged and not mandatory. The church asks that you please contribute 5% to the Church, and 5% to charities.

you make no sense either. If the apostles of 2000 years lived as if the season was tomorrow, why shld we refuse to do otherwise?
Can you reason at all?
What do you understand by the bible's admonition to "watch and pray"?

I have no problem with watch and pray, I only have a problem with you using that as cause to judge the Church as if you know the precise day, hour, minute, and second of the end. That is the context you used it.

[You still havent told us how purgatory came about.
/quote]

Oh sir, I have many times, but you just are too blind to see. You still haven't "interpreted" the Bible verses that were posted to you. Simply posting another verse to state what your position is does not refute the Bible verses that have been quoted to you.
I would really like for you to interpret the verses posted for you.

. Read that verse again - the "living God" is the "pillar and ground of the truth" not the church.

Ok, let me post it for you plainly to see.

<<15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

I bolded Church for you to see, hope you can see clearly. The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. As in THE CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not the "living God" but the living God's CHURCH. The Church belongs to no one else but God, so yes sir it is the Church.

2. We know what the church means - the body of Christ . . . and where 2 or 3 are gathered together in his name . . . a church is already formed. 1 Tim3:15 wasnt talking about the ecumenical church system of this world.

The church is one body and mind, in one belief, united in ONE BELIEF. Having a belief of your own excludes you from the Church. The Church is a body, and a body has one head, and one blood type. The head will be Christ. The blood will be the belief. How can a body function when the leg wants to have a different blood system than the rest of the body?

My leg cannot be attached to David, and I can still call it mine. Your leg is your leg, in union with your body and mine is mine in union with my body. If the Church is a body it really will have One Belief. That is why I say that there are different bodies of Christ.
Now God says where two or three are gathered he is there in their midst, but he didn't say that where two or three are gathered a church is formed.

no comment.

What? You lack basic comprehension? Simply say so.

If the Bible is infallible and the Church defined the Bible, wouldn't that make the Church infallible? But forget that the Bible already called the Church the pillar and foundation of truth, truth is infallible.

2 Peter 1:20 says nothing of the sort. Rather verse 21 explains verse 20, prophecies in the scriptures did not originate from man but through the Holy Spirit moving on Holy men. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the only one who can interprete such prophecies.

2 Peter 1 says absolutely nothing about an organised religion interpreting prophecy

Let me post it for you to see.

<<<20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation.

As in you cannot interpret it just for yourself as you David are doing.

Prophecy and interpretation is given by the inspiration of the holy Ghost. Verse 30 is clear . . . interpretation is given ONLY to whom the prophecy is revealed by the Holy Ghost NOT the church.

Sorry, you've been deluded too long but as the Lord liveth we wont sit by and watch you delude others too.

Lol, I love my delusions, and many others are deluded with me, sorry but you stand alone.

I agree with you.
Albino is a result of the lack of Melanin Pigmentation.White people are merely mutated inbred albinos. No "White person" cannot never produce any of the "races" in this Universe. Its a Scientific Law of Genetics. Rooted in Western Science from Mendel law. That No Recessive gene cannot never produce any Dominant Gene. Dark Eyes and Hair. They Cannot produce a Black child. But an African,Nubian (Black) Couple can produce a White person. This is not racist. these are The Truth and Facts. To counter the Malicious Lies of Racism Itself.



leukoderma is a chronic skin condition that causes loss of pigment, resulting in irregular pale patches of skin. The precise cause of vitiligo is complex and not fully understood. There is some evidence suggesting it is caused by a combination of auto-immune, genetic, and environmental factors.

And you people were saying that Michael Jackson was bleaching his skin. Make una leave my Michael alone o. See the explanation here.
I already knew this by the way.