₦airaland Forum

Homeboiy:
Me wey de attend catholic na just for show


I was baptized in Anglican n changed to Catholic

I was told that I need to be re baptized in Catholic _I said no


Well...Na only 3times I don go church since this year

They r always preaching about money always

I bet to disagree. The Catholic church recognises the baptism done in the Anglican church & once you are baptised, you are baptised forever. The Catholic church knows this that if a baptism is done for u again, the second one is just drama

1.
John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Op, this part you quoted says the Comforter will abide with you FOREVER, and I want to ask you if you understood the meaning of forever? Is Mohammed living with us forever? Didn't he died hundreds of years ago? This shows you that Jesus Christ was not referring to Mohammed a mere mortal but the Holy Spirit.
Also, that same gospel of John chapter 14, Jesus told the disciples not to leave Jerusalem until the Comforter is sent to them. Do you know that Islam started about 800 years after the death of Christ? So, you want to tell us that the disciples stayed in the upper room in Jerusalem for almost a thousand years before the 'comforter' in form of Mohammed came? pls stop spreading falsehood. The promise of Jesus about the coming of the Comforter came to pass 10 days after the ascension of Christ in Acts 2: 1-13 on the day of Pentecost.

Alexandro15:
He visited a catholic church

Actually, that place is a Catholic church. The sepulchre has been used as a place of worship by the early Christians and it has always being in the traditional catholic way of worship. But non Catholics going on pilgrimage to Jerusalem won't come back to tell the truth that it's the Catholic faith they practice there since the days of early Christianity.
Also, did u notice the image of Mary in that church? And yet, many protestant pastors and worshippers have entered there to pray but will condemn the Catholic church when they return to Nigeria

preccy69:
justify?? pls read it again

I understand u very well but I'm telling u that even if she had the intention of putting the baby there in the bush so that someone can pick him/her up is a stupid thing to do & murderous. What she should have done is to present herself and the baby at an orphanage home and put him/her up for adoption. In thàt way, the load is taken off her head and she can still claim back the child when he/she has fulfilled his/her dreams in life. You see how simple life would have been for all women who abandon their baby in the cold?

preccy69:
not all ladies,plus am still very much alive,we shud b talking about d idiot dat got her pregnant, u think dumping. a baby is easyyour babyits very wrong but d mother was either left to cope with being a single mother, wen she had no means nd couldn't watch d poor thing die of starvation or an ailment, she probably left d baby there hoping in her heart dat d baby myt b picked up,she didn't abort,kill,or flush it down d toilet,always c things d other way it myt nt b d way we c it or think it is

Pls don't justify crime. The mother has just committed murder. The wise thing she should have done is to take the baby to an orphanage home telling them she can't take care of the baby and they will put the baby up for adoption. This is better because she can track the whereabout of the baby and watch from a distance how the baby grows without spending a dine for the upkeeps

Ken4Christ:
An excerpt from my ebook, The Woman Question will help.

CHAPTER 2
Does The Bible Forbid It?

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5).

Perhaps this is the strongest and seemingly scriptural proof forbidding women from men's wears. This claim however that this scripture forbids women from putting on trouser is weakened by the following arguments.

1. Trousers Are Not Necessarily Men's Wear.
Men did not put on trousers in the Bible days. Both men and women wore flowing gowns and skirts in the Bible days. Trouser wear is man's innovation. Just as men's garments were sewn differently from women's garments, so also are men's trousers sewn differently from women's trousers. A man for instance can't put on a trouser designed for a woman. So, men have their kind of trousers and women theirs too. Trying to say trousers are limited to men is as good as saying that wrappers are restricted to women. But we do know that men also tie wrappers in this part of the world but not the same way as the women tie theirs. The fact that wrappers are mostly common with the women and trousers mostly common with the men doesn't make these styles restrictive to either sex. Moreover, traditionally, trouser wears are not even men's wear in this part of the world. None of our fore fathers wore trousers until the white men came to colonize them.

2. Deuteronomy 22:5 Is Not For The New Testament Saints.

This verse which is one of the laws of Moses was addressed only to the Jews under the Old Covenant. Before Jesus came, you were either a Jew or a Gentile (without God). Under the Old Covenant, the Gentiles weren't included.

“That at that time ye (Gentiles) were without Christ being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

So, Deut. 22:5 has nothing to do with the New Testament Saints.
“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them (Jews) who were under the law…” (Rom. 3:19)
Exodus 34:27 further confirms this truth. “And the Lord said unto Moses, write down these words for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.” No mention was made of the Gentile nations here. Using Deut. 22:5 to judge the Christian women is like asking Nigerians to keep American laws and make us feel guilty for not keeping it. (Additional ref: Rom. 2:14, 3:2, 9:4).

3. God's Covenant Was Never Intended To Be Established By the Law of Moses

“For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect”. “And this I say that the covenant (Abrahamic covenant), that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law (law of Moses) which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Rom. 4:13-14, Gal. 3:17-18).

The scripture above says that God's promise to Abraham was unconditional. Dos and don'ts (law) were not attached to it. Abraham was declared righteous not because he obeyed any codes of conduct but because he believed God (Rom.4:3, Gal. 3:6). For instance, if you were promised an amount of money by your uncle, and when you get to him to receive the promise, he now demands you must do this or that before he gives you the money, he has invariably nullified his promise. What you get then is no longer a favour but what you worked for. In the same way if God demanded that obeying the laws of Moses was a necessary prerequisite to be blessed, then He lied to Abraham. This is what Paul the Apostle stressed in the scripture just quoted above. How many of us will love to have an earthly father who spells out some dos and don'ts for us without which we cannot receive anything from him? Our God is a loving God and not a Soldier. We gain approval before Him not because we're trying to keep a particular law but because we believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (Rom. 4:24). Besides, 1 Tim. 1:9 remarks that, “…..the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient………” It therefore means that we that have been declared righteous don't need the laws of Moses to live by.

4. Even The Jews That Were Given The Law Are No Longer Under Obligation To Keep It. They Have Been Delivered From The Law.

The Jews that were given the law are no longer under obligation to keep it because Christ has redeemed them from the law;
“Christ HATH REDEEMED US FROM THE CURSE OF THE LAW being made a curse for us (Jews), for it is written, cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree. That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise OF THE SPIRIT THROUGH FAITH HAVING ABOLISHED in His flesh the enmity EVEN THE LAW OF COMMANDMENT contained in ordinances for to make in Himself of twain, one new man, so making peace. BLOTTING OUT THE HANDWRITING OF ORDINANCES (LAW) that was against us which was contrary to us nailing it to the cross. FOR CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW for righteousness to everyone that believeth. FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST. BUT NOW WE (JEWS) ARE DELIVERED FROM THE LAW that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter (law). Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free and BE NOT ENTANGLED AGAIN WITH THE YOKE OF BONDAGE (LAW). For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye (the New Creation) are NOT UNDER THE LAW but under grace” For there is verily A DISANNULLING (CANCELLATION) OF THE COMMANDMENT going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. And for this cause, he is the mediator of a New Testament that by means of death, for the REDEMPTION OF THE TRANSGRESSORS THAT WERE UNDER THE FIRST TESTAMENT, they which are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance. Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. HE TAKETH AWAY THE FIRST (LAW OF MOSES) that he may establish the second. For the priesthood being changed, there is made a necessity a change also of the law” (Gal. 3:13-14, Eph. 2:15, Rom.10:4, John 1:17, Rom. 7:6, Gal. 5:1, Rom. 6:14, Heb. 7:18, 9:15, 10:9, 7:12).

These references testifying to the end of the Law of Moses (including Deut. 22:5) are too numerous to be ignored.

In spite of these clouds of witnesses, some Christians will still want to insist that Deut. 22:5 must be obeyed by Christian Women. This was also the case in the times of the early Apostles. They insisted that the Gentiles and likewise the Jews must keep the law of circumcision that Moses commanded. Paul the Apostle was vehemently persecuted for teaching otherwise. Even today, so many religious leaders are doing the same persecuting brethren and churches teaching that the New Testament Saints do not live by the laws of Moses as the scripture emphatically teaches. If the Jews that were under the law have been delivered from it, why then are we (formerly called Gentiles) trying to bear the burden the Jews could not bear?

Paul says he's afraid of those who are still trying to keep the Law of Moses. “Ye observe days, and months and times and years. I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain” (Gal. 4:10-11).

This is just an excerpt from Chapter Two of the ebook, The Woman Question. You can place order for the complete book. If you are in UK or US, you can order it from Amazon Kindle.

Hear is the link, http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F0WX4RO.


ABOUT THE BOOK
This timely book addresses the following questions;
Should Christian Women put on trousers even to church?

Should they pray with their head uncovered?

Should they make up or put on jewelry?

Should they fix their hair or wear attachment of any kind?

Are they permitted to preach or teach in Church?

Are they subject to men in general?

Should they obey their husband in all things?

As much as it is imperative for all women professing to be Christians to dress decently, does this act of decency has to do with a particular style of dress? Is there any prescribed Biblical manner Christian Women should dress? Diverse belief on this subject is a major cause of disunity in the body of Christ today. Can the church be brought to a unity of faith on this subject? The answer is yes because the ultimate goal of the role of ministry is, “….For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: (Ephesians 4:12-13)

What about the issue of head covering, make-up and the putting on of jewelry? This book will guide you through critical scriptural analysis of all these questions.

The argument presented in this book is substantiated by about 300 scripture references and it is therefore not the author’s personal opinion but an exposition of divine revelation.

The book is divided into two parts, Part One and Part Two. Part one exclusively deals with the issue of trousers while part two is devoted to the other questions highlighted above.

In as much as Deut 22:5 is Mosaic's law, for the fact that the issue of dressing came up again in 1Timothy 2:9 shows that the culture of dressing is relevant to the Christian's way of life- as this can make or mar a Christian's entry into heaven. Therefore, the topic of discuss can not be put away but most be properly understood

NothingDoMe:
How many wars have you witnessed?

The funny thing is that the Arewa youths are going to help Kickstart the war. You westerners should get ready because when the hand fights the head, the leg will be affected.

I guess u have not experienced war before that's why u make statements like this. Go ask your elders who are above 55 to tell u a glimpse of their war experience, I bet u, u will never pray to experience one. U can only know how & when a war will start but u may never know how & when it will end because u may never live to tell the story

The threat made by Arewa youths is capable of causing a civil war and thus, be taken as treason. By now those boys should have been arrested but I'm surprised they are still walking freely and holding meetings despite their house addresses are well known to the security agencies. Fulani herdsmen are walking freely despite the hundreds of innocent Nigerians they have massacred across Nigeria yet, not a single one has been arrested and someone wants me to believe that the Northern leaders are not behind these.
If by 72hours from now no arrest of these Arewa youths has been made, know that Northern governors and spiritual leaders are behind these threats.

Ehinmola:
. What a wicked man! Medically can the little girl be cured? . Nigerians let us rally round the poor girl so that she can be alive. HIV drugs are very expensive. She needs help now

HIV drugs are free; testing & treatment are free in all govt hospitals including military hospitals in Nigeria

They are 8 Nigerians on the list. The op omitted Dr Akinwunmi Adeshina former minister of Agriculture & current Africa Development Bank president. He is number 3 on the list

whitebeard:
I later read every thing and said nice write up op

Ok

whitebeard:
Sometimes I do feel like before Jesus comes finally, he should at least come once again to further explain somethings, cause if u ask pastors, it this same verse they would open for u and u still won't understand.


I am also confused on this matter..!!

Pls anyone that can explain pls quote me and explain



Op nice write up by the way..!

The explanation you need is what I have done in the post except you have something else you need explanation on, pls come clear

caspet:
The pastors usually use hotels for a start especially when they are new in a town but the bad thing there is that boys will always be boys..During my school days, there is this pastor that always come to my school for evangelism.He met my guy & I having our fun b/4 our basketball game, preached to us & picked interest in me maybe cos I have these calm looks.I talked to my guys & we went to the church that sunday maybe because it's venue is a hotel.After service,he gave us lik #2000 & we needed just lik #500 to take us back to school that was 2003...Due to the beauty of the hotel, we decided to chill out for some time before going back.Before you know it, we started ordering for beers.The following sunday,the service was full to the brim with my kind of guys cos after service, the pastor will give us money which we'll use to drink some bottles.At a point in time,Pastor started hiring bus to carry students to & fro which I was in charge..little money was coming out of it & groove continued till .........................

That man is not a pastor but pastorpreneur- a business man disguised as a pastor

sinaj:
I think dat passage is talking about tomboys nd tomgirls

That inclusive

I have heard many argue for and against wearing of a pair of trousers by women with different interpretations of Deuteronomy 22:5 which says: “a woman must not dress like a man, nor a man like a woman; anyone who does this is detestable to Yahweh your God.” This can best be understood if we understand the culture of the Jews pertaining to their dress culture. Every culture has particular clothing meant for men that define their masculinity so also, are clothing meant for women that defines their feminine nature. This is not different from the Jewish culture. Those days, during the time of Moses when the laws in Deut 22 were being practised (even to the time of the early Christians), both men and women wore garments and cloaks. These days, garments are worn by women and are no longer fashionable by men. Therefore, we all see it as women’s dress these days. This means that, Deut 22:5 puts into perspective the culture of the place and specifically, the kind of dress which must define the sex of the person. So, the question should be what kind of dress was Moses referring to since both men and women of his time were wearing garments? In the Jewish culture (and also found among other adjourning kingdoms of the old), men garments are sown in a particular pattern and style different from that of the women (Picture below).
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ee/b8/41/eeb841705b60d7198fbbc8a37dcf1684.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/79/53/25/795325c3cf9350fad82874143404eed2.jpg
Though, both men and women wore flowing gowns but their sowing styles were different which could easily be identified. This was why a man who wore a woman’s garment or a woman who wore a man’s garment could cause gender identification ambiguity which is detestable to God.
More so, it is good to note that when that law was enacted, there was not in existence a pair of tights, suits, a pair of leggings or a pair of jean trousers. So, should we say we should still dress like the time of Moses? That is why what is acceptable to a culture one finds himself should be adhered to as long as it is modest. For example, if a man decides to wear a garment worn those days by Moses to a market in Nigeria today, he would be looked at as a mad man or homosexual because, it is not culturally acceptable these days as such clothing is seen as females’. Times have changed, so also fashion. Culturally, an Indian woman wears a pair of trousers under a colourful flowing gown, and it’s acceptable. A Scottish man wears a shirt and jacket on a skirt- his culture and it’s acceptable. An Urhobo man from Niger Delta ties wrapper under a flowing colourful George shirt with a hat to complement- that’s his culture and it’s acceptable. Pairs of leggings and tights are female dresses even though they are pairs of short or trousers which cannot be worn by men because they are not designed or patterned for men. If you see a man wearing leggings would he not be termed mad or homosexual? Some women wear tight or nicker under their skirt but condemn those that wear same outside. Is it the wearing of a pair of trousers/tights/nickers by women that is a sin or wearing it outside for others to see that is a sin? If you can wear a pair of tights or nickers/boxer’s short under your skirt because people don’t see it but condemns wearing of a pair of trousers/ nickers by others as sin, then you are an hypocrite! If a man condemns you for wearing a pair of trousers as a woman, buy him a pair of leggings to wear to his office and let him come back to tell us how he was treated.
1 Timothy 2:9 teaches us how modest our women (likewise men) should dress. Therefore, whatever you put on must be modest and must not expose parts of your body that defines your sexuality or must not lure people around you to have sinful thoughts. If you are a man, dress like a man, and if you are a woman, dress like one.
Therefore, the meaning of Deut 22:5 is not forbidding women from wearing trousers but admonishes women who dress in a masculine manner with their feminine identity mistaken as man and also forbids men to dress in women's clothing and cosmetics. The scripture is clear and simple.

raker300:
She looks cute..

Hope she knows Jesus Christ hated lawyers

Jesus never & will never hate anybody. For God so love the world that He gave His only begotten son (Jn 3:16)...God is love. For your info, Paul (formally Saul) was a lawyer & he wrote many of the books in the New Testament. Jesus so much love him

Izonpikin:
now let's go into logic since you guys won't leave mary alone...what if the siblings of Mary were half siblings there's more than enough reason why they both can answer mary..apart from the fact that even siblings today answer name from an outsider point of view..abi na only mary her papa born..

You are just running around trying to find a reason to justify your assumption. There is no need to assume anything when facts are available. If you understood Greek or Hebrew, try read the bible from which the English bible was translated from, you will see that relatives are called brothers or sisters e.g. Lot was called Abraham's brother despite they were cousins. Also, there will be no need to think that Mary the mother of Jesus had a half sister since her parent, Joachim and Hannah, had no child outside their marriage. It is not written anywhere or through the testimony passed down by the apostles that this couple had child outside marriage. We are told of their piety and faithfulness to God

Izonpikin:
may I inform you that if outsiders had to come to my house to look for my sisters they called them by their base names because of course they don't know about the suffix and prefix..they come and they say I am looking for Tare...same with when a father and son answer name but one senior and the other junior...outsiders would only identify them by their base names...

Besides you guys have only been jumping here and there..

Jesus specifically differentiated his earthly siblings and Mum from his spiritual siblings like I quoted earlier..who selectively picks out Mary as exclusive whilst the others end up relatives must have an idolatrous motive...there was never a time Mary was separated from her other kids when ever the family was looking for Jesus...

It seems you don't just get it! This is not about one bearing Ebimary & the other Ebitina, NO! It's two biological sisters named Mary. For example, Mr Joseph has two daughters, he named the 1st Mary Joseph and the other Mary Joseph. When Mr Joseph wants the attention of one of his daughters and he has a particular one in mind and calls out "Mary", who do you think should answer his call?

Izonpikin:
and you had better move off from your ignorance and travel out to understand that no name is exclusive to a single person even from the same family. ..please travel down to bayelsa and observe how siblings are named...you guys ignorance is out of this world.. .

There are families where almost all the siblings have EBI as a base name for all of them. .Mary is just a name and nothing more ..her name isn't one that is sacred to her alone...mtsheew

You mentioned base name which I suppose is a prefix eg Olawale (Wale), Olakunle (Kunle), despite they both have "Ola" as their prefix, they will be called by their main names but in this case, MARY as a name, is a full name & not a prefix neither does it has a prefix nor suffix. So tell me which nuclear family will give two biological sisters "Mary?" May be you need to know that NAME is a unique identity for easy identification

Izonpikin:
oboy what escapism is this. in my house i have two tares and tonyes but with different prefixes and suffixes.. what the hell are you guys about with the impossibility of two siblings answering same name??..was marys name exclusive to her alone rubbish...

Jesus even distinguished between his earthly mother and siblings in front of many and yet you guys jump about..

there is a distinguished greek word between blood siblings and relatives..read up man...

Interesting! This is my first time hearing there is a nuclear family where two biological siblings are given same name. So, when your father calls one (eg Mary), who answers his call?
Pls stop lying to discredit the truth

Izonpikin:
but that scripture explicitly shows the indigenes knew of the siblings of Jesus Christ.

ok here is a reference to the scriptures i quoted

galatians 1: 14-19

Galatians 1:14-19New International Version (NIV)

14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.



verse 19 once again specifically singles out james as Jesus' brother(sibling).

evidences everywhere mary slept with her God ordained husband and gave birth to other children.


even paul knew Jesus had half siblings...

esaymancfc has explained it here "From Galatians.. Paul says James the Lords brother is an apostle, there are only two James in the list of the apostles...
James the son of Zebedee and James the Son of alphaeus or James the lesser, He is the Son of alphaeus not Joseph.. unless you think Mary committed adultery or had another husband
Luke 6: 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and JAMES THE SON of ALPHAEUS , and Simon who was called the Zealot"
...And to add to that, if James were Jesus' biological brother, he wouldn't have been called James the son of Alphaeus. The problem here is that you and your likes don't know that the English bible was translated from the Greek and Greek from Hebrew. In Greek as well as in Hebrew, there is no word for cousin, nephew, uncle or aunty, once they are genealogically related (related by blood) they are called brothers or sisters as the case may be. John 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, Mary and His mother's sister, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." Note that Jesus' mother's sister is also called Mary in this passage but can two biological sisters called the same name within a nuclear family? That proves that Mary the wife of Clopas is not the biological sister of Mary mother of Jesus but a relative.

iyke2k4:
this is like cult....

Get behind me Satan! Everything about the Catholic church is open, nothing secret, nothing hidden.

Splinz:
Smart, but not impressive. Point of correction: God said, not I. “Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not?” (Lamentations 3:37).

Who is he that decreed the bowing down and worship of an idol of 'a' Mary or Jesus?

You make laugh at the way you interpret the bible. God will NEVER ask you to commit a sin He has asked you never to commit. God is not a confusing God. God can not tell Moses to make a bronze serpent; God can not abide in a temple made by Solomon where images of Cherubim & Seraphim are kept on the alter if He condemned making of images. Same way, God can not ask you to sleep with your neighbour's wife when He has asked you not to commit adultery. Making of images is not a sin, worshiping it is a sin. After all, we all have we images of our loved ones in our homes (that's our pictures), do we worship them?

LaClicKLaBenDin:
Lol...this is laughable, really! A dead rich man in hell right, and being a soul, made a request to another dead saint- The dead talking to the dead!

Now, please tell me, how does this explain and validate the living asking the dead to intercede on their behalf? Please use another Bible passage to confirm your statement.

It seems you don't even understand yourself, how would you understand others? You asked me to show you where the "dead" intercedes and I've shown you in the scriptures the conversation between Abraham and the rich man and yet (as confusing as usual as you are) you changed it to two "dead" people conversing. I think you are confused whether to accept the obvious that is staring at you from the scriptures or you continue to believe the unbiblical falsehood that you have been thought for many years. I can understand, it's not easy to change mindset even when the truth stares at you

*FYI, Abraham is NOT dead. He is living and in the presence of God, that's why till tomorrow, God will always be the God of Abraham. God is not a God of the dead but of the living Matt 22:32

Teespice:
purple is also worn during lent.

Yes! Thanks for that. Purple vestment is also used during Lent to celebrate the passion of Christ- the crucifixion of the King of kings- and for the preparation of Easter.

Pato23:
LogicStatement you shouldnt have posted this...
They will never understand it......

I believe it is better as I've written it, the truth needs to be told either it is accepted or not. If I should decide not to write it going by the reason u gave, it's just like saying the gospel should not be preached to the Arabs since they say "how can God have a son when he had no wife & He's not man that can mate?"
The truth needs to be told even if they won't believe.

LaClicKLaBenDin:
Uncle, please stop twisting the scriptures!
All the people you mentioned who made intercession according to you, were all living. No dead saint can help you, only Christ can!
For there is only one mediator between man and God, and He is Jesus Christ!
I repeat, no dead saint can help you!

I wanted to respond to your ignorance then I saw this answer below that spoke just my intension. A perfect answer to your unbelieve.

modestdude:
You cannot claim an overall knowledge of the scriptures. So be humble and not obstinate in your search for the truth.

The rich man who neglected the poor Lazarus on earth interceded to Abraham from Hades for a finger drop of water to cool off his burning tongue. He requested again for Abraham to intercede for him that a prophet be sent to his brothers to warn them not to come to that place of everlasting torment. None of these request was interceded for on his behalf because he is unrighteous and a deep gulf exist between heaven and Hades.

LaClicKLaBenDin, pls read it up in Luke 16:19-31

LaClicKLaBenDin:
Uncle, please stop twisting the scriptures!
All the people you mentioned who made intercession according to you, were all living. No dead saint can help you, only Christ can!
For there is only one mediator between man and God, and He is Jesus Christ!
I repeat, no dead saint can help you!

I wanted to respond to your ignorance then I saw this answer who spoke just my intension. A perfect answer to your unbelieve.

modestdude:
You cannot claim an overall knowledge of the scriptures. So be humble and not obstinate in your search for the truth.

The rich man who neglected the poor Lazarus on earth interceded to Abraham from Hades for a finger drop of water to cool off his burning tongue. He requested again for Abraham to intercede for him that a prophet be sent to his brothers to warn them not to come to that place of everlasting torment. None of these request was interceded for on his behalf because he is unrighteous and a deep gulf exist between heaven and Hades.

Bro, read it up in Luke 16:19-31

Ajejeje:
1 timothy 2:5 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; I think the chapter of praying to saint is close now

Yes Jesus is the only mediator between God and man yet you ask your pastor to pray for you mediating on your behalf. Pls stop the hypocrisy! May be you do not understand the meaning of intercession.

EmpresFIDEL:
thank you. am a Catholic but I don't knw much of these

You are most welcome. This is one of the reasons I decided to write this article because I noticed that many Catholics do not have deep knowledge about the faith and how traceable these practices are in the holy scriptures. Catholics do not do anything different from what the bible teaches & the tradition of the Apostles.

JuneOctober:
Op, Nice write up even though I'm not a catholic. You said Jesus never had siblings? Ithought he did and is Mary still a virgin, cos people still say "Virgin Mary" around me. Enlighten me please.
Thanks

Jesus was the only child of Mary as I've explained in my writeup in Q5, pls read it. The English bible was translated from the Greeks. The Greek grammar (also in Hebrew) does not have a word for cousins or other relatives, once they are related the word "adelphios" is used literally meaning "brothers" just like in Yoruba language, the word "aburo" or "egbon" can be used for any of one's sibling or relative.

Mary's perpetual virginity: Mary is a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):
"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.
For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.
“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.
“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.
“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."
Of course, most Christians today still believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary (think Catholics and Orthodox). The practice of most Protestants today of denying the perpetual virginity of Mary is a fairly recent innovation – a peculiar historical aberration, particularly since certain Protestants, such as evangelicals, would consider themselves to be conservative Christians – that can't even find historical precedent among the primary magisterial Reformers; for that, one can only look to a hand-full of 4th century teachers who were otherwise universally rejected as heretics.
Catholics, on the other hand, have maintained the 2000 year tradition that our blessed and holy mother Mary was indeed not only a virgin before Jesus' birth but also perpetually a virgin thereafter.
Some early Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther supported the doctrine, and founding figures of Anglicanism such as Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer "followed the tradition that they had inherited by accepting Mary as 'ever virgin'". Reformed teaching, however, largely abandoned it. The doctrine of perpetual virginity is currently maintained by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians. In addition, John Wesley , the founder of the Methodist Church , affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary.

easymancfc:
Gotquestion.com is owned by a Calvinist heretic called Michael Houdmann so that influences all his "Answers". His OSAS corrupts all of his theology.. So I would not trust anything on that site. even fellow evangelicals disagree with his scriptural interpretations... Besides gotquestions is not the infallible interpreter of scripture

Don't mind her. Gotquestion that has been disapproved by many theologians to contain heretics, no wonder she's twisting straightforward scriptures like him. When Christians don't have a mind of their own, they resort to "my pastor says" while their pastorpreneur buy private jets