₦airaland Forum

ichuka:
Why, in God’s plan of redemption, must Christ be both God and man at the same time?

Auki:
That is blasphemy. A statement of had known before the Lord of the Throne. [s]Illogical statements if only u can use ur brain[/s].

Your God is One God, Jesus is not your God nor is partner to God but a righteous slave of God.

Ihedinobi3:
Hello MuttleyLaff.

When I said, "So, for example, you don't pretend, as someone with no respect for the Bible would, and has right here, that when the Bible says that Noah discovered what his youngest son had done to him, that it must mean Canaan," it was you that I meant.

So, you and I will not be discussing anything here or anywhere else, unless and until I see that you will actually quit presuming to put words in God's Mouth. We do have history, you remember. I see no reason to believe that anything important has changed since the last time we discussed the Bible.

missjo:
... the Father is the authority over all that was, is, and is to come, the Son is the manifestation of his word...

God died for us through Jesus the son, by the power of the holy spirit.
It does not in any way imply that God the father himself did the dying.

missjo:
Please rephrase your question, i am finding it difficult understanding what you're trying to find out.

1StopRudeness:
You have left me more confused or should I say, uve not technically answered the question based on my scripture reference...
although u tried to ask me questions to answer the question...and the answer is of course, God is able to do all things, God is able to be in all place at the same time.....this is a convenient and default answer and technically not scriptural because u and I know God doesn’t just do anything.
because If he does anything..he would have just snapped his fingers and make the devil and his demons and principalities go away, or just make all the evil in the world disappear.....he CAN do anything but he WILL not just do anything...he operates with principles...
Ive noticed that When we are explaining God in the context of why he did something in a particular way and not just do it easily after all he’s almighty..... we say he’s got principles meaning he’s confined in some ways like Paul said “ the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of man”......for example, God cannot forgive u if u won’t come to him and believe despite he has the capability to and has made provisions for forgiving you.
On the other hand when we find it hard to explain him or to fit him into a narrative, we say he’s God and he can do anything.. don’t get me wrong I’m not saying he doesn’t have the power to do anything


In addition you ddnt explain what Jesus said on the cross you just said I should accept that’s not what he said...one of the reasons I accepted the Bible over other relegious books is that it’s technically not a single human author( though its spiritually a single author) ...from genesis to Malachi, Each author keeps validating what the previous author has said, they keep pointing to Jesus...
Now, 4versions of the gospel was recorded and all gave the account of the cross as the same “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” : you said Jesus ddnt say “forsaken me” so what exactly did he say.??.

Let assume that’s not what Jesus said, what was Paul saying in In 1cor 15v27...

Permit me to say u ddnt do justice at all to
1 John 5v7 or perhaps I’m the one not catching ur drift

missjo:
About having some knowledge in this area, i just do what i can to gain understanding and always happy to share. Thanks tho

Regarding your questions:
There are three different entities in one God-head, NOT three separate God-heads.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are distinct in their functions such that while the Father is the authority over all that was, is, and is to come, the Son is the manifestation of his word. The Holy Spirit is the purpose through which the authority of the father's word is fulfilled.
These three are in communion and fellowship with one another constantly. They have always existed together and will always do.

God died for us through Jesus the son, by the power of the holy spirit.
It does not in any way imply that God the father himself did the dying.

Ihedinobi3:
I have a few things to say both about the link and about Bible interpretation in general:

1. About the link, it is of very little value. It does excellently in showing that what happened did not involve sex of any kind, as some crazy people like to claim. Ham only saw his father näked and thought it was something funny to talk about.

Ihedinobi3:
That brought a very specific prophetic curse on his own son, not directly on himself

Ihedinobi3:
although we must be aware that there is such a thing as "cursing by association" as much as there is "blessing by association," the first of which is exemplified by God's cursing of the earth in association with Adam's disobedience and the other of which is exemplified by His blessing of the world in association with Abraham's obedience.

Ihedinobi3:
Another example is God's killing of David's first son by Bathsheba for David's double sin of adultery and murder. We may consider such things as unjust of God, but we are not qualified to judge God. However, it is clear that it is still judgment upon the sinner when God strikes something that is dear or necessary to them - the earth, in the case of Adam, and David's child, in David's case. So, the curse that came upon Canaan was still punishment for Ham. Additionally, although Canaan was an infant at the time, the Lord knew that the sort of thing that his father Ham did would come to characterize him and his own descendants, which is why eventually God destroyed all Canaanites. Compare God's rejection of Esau ("Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" ) in this matter.

Ihedinobi3:
So, the curse that came upon Canaan was still punishment for Ham. Additionally, although Canaan was an infant at the time, the Lord knew that the sort of thing that his father Ham did would come to characterize him and his own descendants, which is why eventually God destroyed all Canaanites. Compare God's rejection of Esau ("Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated" ) in this matter.

Ihedinobi3:
The rest of the article focuses on issues of race. That is really of no value whatsoever. It is true that some misguided people take the curse on Ham's son to mean that God cursed all Africans. That is obviously false, since the curse was specifically meant for Canaan and his descendants. That is another thing that the article got right, but as for who was black and who wasn't, that was a waste of print in the article.

Still, the article got the important things right. It only subsumed those important things in a rather useless context.

Ihedinobi3:
2. About general interpretation, I have suggested before to you that the right thing to do is to stick with what the Bible actually says. It is always a bad idea to extrapolate, especially when you can't pin your extrapolations to anything actually written in the Bible. So, for example, you don't pretend, as someone with no respect for the Bible would, and has right here, that when the Bible says that Noah discovered what his youngest son had done to him, that it must mean Canaan. Obviously, Canaan was not even Noah's son, much less, his youngest. Additionally, the word was "youngest," not "younger." Even more importantly, it couldn't have referred to an infant, especially when the Bible had been talking about the adult Ham up to that point. That is all treating the Bible very disrespectfully. The Bible says what it says and means what it means. You can take it or leave it, you may not change it to suit your own whims, however noble they may seem to you.

Ihedinobi3:
3. Not everyone who handles the Bible and talks about it has any right whatsoever to teach it. Many people who aren't even believers pretend to the authority to interpret the Bible. Sometimes, they are even ridiculously vehement about their supposed authority. It would be incredibly foolish to pay such people any mind. Then there are those who may be believers but who are woefully immature because they have never taken the time to learn the Bible from a gifted and prepared Bible teacher, yet such people presume to teach the Bible to others. Timothy was warned by Paul not to give teaching authority to such people (1 Timothy 3:6). Such people often carry a wild mixture of truths and falsehoods that leave their listeners blowing in the wind with no firm foundation under their feet.

I have listened to both kinds of people in my past, and I have been the latter too. I assure you that it is an incredibly bad idea to listen to such teachers. It endangers your salvation, if you are saved at all. If you are not, it almost certainly makes your ever being saved impossible.

Ihedinobi3:
4. All I can do is offer these helps, warnings, and corrections, if you are even open to them. I cannot protect you from your own choices. It is entirely up to you what you choose to believe and do with yourself. As I said, I will keep praying for you, and I will also continue to take every opportunity available to me to help you come into the Truth, if you are at all open to my help. But that's all I can do.

Grace be with you.

jamesid29:
These are very wrong connections to make

Ihedinobi3:
I'm quite sure that you are free to reject any interpretation as you please. On the other hand, I'm quite confident that the connections are correct.

jamesid29:
You also talked about how Noah's family was saved because of Noah's righteousness and purity of their origins but that is also adding things to the scriptures.
The bible only says was righteousness and blameless man and he found grace in the eyes of God. The bible doesn't talk about the purity of Noah's wife, his sons and his daughter in-laws. Again that's adding things to the scriptures.

But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord . These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.
Genesis 6:8‭-‬9 ESV

Then the Lord said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.
Genesis 7:1 ESV

We all have to be cautious and mindful as we run this race. Enjoy the rest of your day sir.

Ihedinobi3:
I obviously did not claim that Noah's wife, sons, and sons' wives were necessarily of the same moral character as himself. I only said that they too were purely human just as he was. It is true that the Bible testifies to both Noah's righteousness and to his full humanity, and that it says nothing about his family, but it is not "adding things to the Scriptures," because if his family had been Nephilim, they would not have gone into the Ark with him - they were all adults, after all, and one can see that they could have acted just as Lot's family later did. Also, because Noah was righteous, he would not have married a Nephiyl, assuming there were any female Nephilim. Could his sons' wives have been Nephilim? Indeed, but if they were, they too would not have got in the Ark with them. Why would they not have? Because the Nephilim were inveterate rebels against God (Genesis 6:5), so they would never have accepted His Mercy in the form of that Ark.

You are exactly right that we have to be cautious and mindful as we run this race. I've been trying to be like that my whole life. I'm not without failure in this and other regard, but I certainly have put in the effort. I don't envy other people their own experiences and journeys, and I don't pretend to be anyone's judge. But I am never going to be shy either of standing for the Bible or of protecting any believer who will accept my protection, not even if my doing so makes me look arrogant to other people.

missjo:
Done

1StopRudeness:
U seem to have some knowledge in this area...I would like to know ur view on Trinity....

1) Is God one entity operating in three different dispensation as the father, the son and the Holy Spirit i.e. God himself died for humanity...like the OP said... the forgiver bears the damage of the wrong, so for God to bear the damage of our sins, he has to make the atonement himself not anyone else...making God the Father=Jesus
If this is correct...how come there are so many scriptures that faults this idea. e.g
a) Father why have thou forsaken me (on the cross) Matt 27v45
b) Paul clearly said in 1 Cor 15v27: For the Scriptures say, “God has put all things under Jesus ” Of course, when it says “all things are under his authority,” that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.....

1StopRudeness:
OR
2) There are 3 separate God-head with one aim, one purpose as said by John in 1 John 5:7 reads:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost..

If this is the case, is Jesus still a “God” ?....if he is....doesn’t that negate what the Bible clearly says that there’s only one God making point number one above a more valid idea

ichuka:
Hi bro
Pls let's do these tommorow not today oo,
Still very busy
My bday is even today so most likely I won't be on till tommorow

kkins25:
@bolded, arent you contradicting yourself with respect to all your epistles on the thread

kkins25:
@"why was the book of Enoch removed from the bible"?

Enoch Chapter 1 v 9;

And behold! He comes with ten thousand of His holy ones (saints) in order to execute judgment on all, to destroy all the ungodly (wicked ones), and to convict all flesh of their works of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Jude 1 v 14 - 15;
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

kkins25:
@even spiritually, sins cannot be passed down from father to son

missjo:
Lol, Mutt Mutt, I like you.

missjo:
Okay, so the original Hebrew word used in that verse is kĕthoneth. The direct translation for this in English is 'Tunic' or 'Garments' or 'robe'. The hebrew word owr interpreted as skins should have been interpreted as leather, hide, this is the direct English translation.
Kĕthoneth is also used in Exodus 28:4 & 39-40 regarding the priestly law for dressing given by God to Moses.

Make no mistake about it Muttley, Genesis 3:21 is talking about Garments of animal skin used to cloth (Hebrew: Labash) Adam & Eve.

This is how a direct translation from the original hebrew should read:

Genesis 3:21
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make garments/robes of leather/hide, and clothed them.

Leather/hide is animal skin, I am certain you are aware of this.

missjo:
Lol, I am still looking into it. 'Younger son' could very well mean it was Canaan being referred to and not Ham.
After all the verse did say, cursed be Canaan and not cursed be Ham.

missjo:
I think i will sum up your three questions into one and provide a substantive answer.

Adam & Eve disobeyed and caused themselves to acknowledge their own unclothedness because the glory of God was departed from them. They tried to cover themselves up with leaves BUT God deemed this insufficient covering so Jehovah did this:

Genesis 3:21 King James Version (KJV)
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

To make a coat of skins, animals had to provide the raw material. And for this to happen, the animal gave its life and had to be killed, its blood shed.
This was the very first sacrificial rite performed by God himself. There was shedding of blood to cover the unclothedness of Adam & Eve.

missjo:
In essence, sin does expose us to spiritual unclothedness and God cannot look upon us without a sort of covering over us. Blood became a necessity, and only animals could be used for this purpose during the age of humans after Adam & Eve since it is abominable to spill the blood of a human (See Cain and Abel). Jesus was not all human, His blood had the God-characteristics, it is not just any blood.
His sacrificial offering on the cross is the final blood sacrifice.

missjo:
Done

missjo:
Okay this i cannot fault

missjo:
Here is something i just came across regarding this. Tell me what you think, it's new to me especially the Canaan part.

http://www.blackhistoryinthebible.com/the-hamites/ham-the-father-of-africans/

MuttleyLaff:
"We even saw the Nephilim there—the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim!
We seemed like grasshoppers in our own sight, and we must have seemed the same to them!”"
- Numbers 13:33

missjojo, the bible verse Numbers 13:33 above disagrees with you that the giants after the flood were not Nephilim. Numbers 13:33 even has it saying in black and white that, the descendants of Anak that come from the Nephilim. Now if you had earlier sussed out that the Nephilim gene survived through being dormant in one of the wives of Noah's son, then by deductive reasoning and knowing how good you are at this, we know who this son is, wink, wink

Goliath was abnormally sized and so a giant

Nephilim, Rephaim, Anakims and other terms are names that giants are/were known as and interchangeably used to describe them. The Nephilims and/or Rephaims and whatnot, definitely werent angel hybrids stock (i.e. they certainly weren't part-angel part human at all)

"Now I am claiming as my own sons these two boys of yours, Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born here in the land of Egypt before I arrived.
They will be my sons, just as Reuben and Simeon are. "
- Genesis 48:5

The misunderstanding comes from connecting and joining the wrong dots, hence getting an outlined wrong picture. The explanation regarding this is, it is Canaan in that narrative that is referred to as the youngest in Genesis 9:24. I am sure Genesis 48:5 above, will help in getting an understanding of this

missjojo and Ihedinobi3 dont be in the habit of reading bible verses in isolation or just by themselves. Read contextually up on to the "interested-in" verse, and the surrounding after the "interested-in" verse in order to get a proper handle and way of understanding what is really going on in the narrative.

Bodydialect57:
Thank you for clearing the air.

ichuka:
Hi bro
Will come back to these later.
Busy now
Thanks

ichuka:
He' sound like an eckist

ichuka:
Hmmm, are you a Christain?

BetterChurch:
mmmHhhh Are you?

ornicus:
i sha hope OP is not fornicating. with a handle like Riyagoddess. the bible also has a lot to say about that. let it nt be the log in my eye versus the speck in the eyes of those accursed homosexuals

RiyaGoddess:
By the Grace of God in me, I do not indulge in any sexual sins of any kinds. I DO NOT FORNICATE. Thank you...

ornicus:
You are the one using sexually charged monikers na.

RiyaGoddess:
You are the one seeing it that way. Riyadh is in a country. It has nothing to do with sex sir.

ornicus:
Riya is not riyadh
I know exactly where Riyadh is.
Goddess is a term used to describe sexy fkable women.
No need to say more

Iampapito:
So does god describe Handsome men.
what she decides to is as her username is none of our business to judge. Some things dont join St mean what they mean, they don't have some sort of deeper meaning or hidden truth, they just mean what they mean. No offense

ornicus:
I suggest you spend some time off this forum, reading. A lot of people here unfortunately know only theost rudimentary English and use terms and phrases they do not fully understand

Iampapito:
If that's the case then I think you should take your own advice. Everyone knows what a goddess means and even if she uses arbitrary names it should be of no concern to anyone but herself. Like I said before, No offense

daddymummy:
In the bible college which i am currently studying to become a pastor, a lot has been taught us in the courses called 'Church history 1' and 'Church history 2'.

We have been taught how emperor Constantine converted to christianity, how he stopped the persecution of christians, and how he subsequently made christianity the official religion of the Roman emperor.

Emperor Constantine started ruling in 288 AD. But according to the lecturer, the conversion of the emperor to christianity lead to a fall in some christian principles. One of the fallout of emperor Constantine conversion was the coming of catholism.

The lecturer gave the impression that the conversion was not good for christianity. He then gave this assignment:

Was the conversion of emperor Constantine to christianity a blessing or a curse? Discus.

If you have any idea on this issue, please feel free to express it

MuttleyLaff:
But if I tarry long,
that thou may know how it is expedient to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} of the living God,
the pillar and base of the truth.
- 1 Timothy 3:15 Jubilee Bible 2000

For all it's worth, it's necessary and important to be familiar with this word "church"
because as we start to read about or know things done in the past,
we can begin to learn from them, learn a thing or two, would have become wiser and wise enough to make re-adjustments, where if applicable, to our theology

To start with and as a matter of fact, "ekklesia" is the proper and correct noun word for believers called out and/or gathering together, which the word "church", as it is, presently or currently represents.

"Ekklesia" actually, is a Greek word, which in Athens and in most Greek poleis (i.e. Greek cities or states) means an assembly of demo (i.e. yes, demo, is Greek for people, as like the demo in democracy)

"Ekklesia" is an assembly of summoned free people or gathering of those summoned. The word is derived from “ekkletos” meaning summoned and “ekkaleom” meaning to summon or call out.

"Ekklesia" in Strong's Greek Concordance, is defined as "an assembly, congregation, the whole body of Christian believers"
and says it’s formed from a compound of "ek" which means "out of or out from and to" and a derivative of "kaleo" which means "to call or a calling"

"Ekkletoi" refers to the called-out inhabitants or citizens of Athens or any of the Greek poleis, assembled together, as a result of a call out request done by a herald, announcer or town crier.

"Ekklesia" appears 114 times in the NT. It first appeared in Matthew 16:18, and that's where it was first mentioned and first used by none other than Jesus

Now here's a sense of biblical déjà vu repeating itself , Eve out of Adam, Israelites out of Egypt etc and this is, God, again, in the person of Jesus Christ doing a "call out from... and to assembly"

"Ekklesia" as far back in the Old Testament wilderness, has always been an assembly or congregation of called-out people (i.e. Acts 7:38 is referring to the congregation in Deuteronomy 9:10) and it's no different in the original Greek New Testament whether in non-secular and secular capacities (i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 7:38 non-secular and Acts 19:32, 39 and 41 for secular) Notice in Acts 19:32, 39 and 41, that "ekklesia" is used three times, for people not connected with religious or christian matters, assembling or gathering together.

This so far, is showing that, "ekklesia" represents something totally different to what we've commonly perceived what "church" is.

Also, the true meaning, import or connotation of "ekklesia" is lost or eroded when it is used or translated to/as "church"

"Ekklesia" isn't about physical structures, and the Greeks; originators of the word, never referred it, to be a building or place of worship, so at least Freeze got something right

At this juncture, some might say, all this etymology stuff is bunkum and time wasting, it's nitpicking over minute details, and that it's pedantic fault-finding or say church or ekklesia, whatever the noun used, it doesn't matter. Others like damọsky12, delighting in their ignorance(s), could say, church or ekklesia, it makes no difference,
it's much ado about nothing and so what's the big deal.

Well, fyi, in 1526 AD, William Tyndale's New Testament, was the first New Testament printed in the English Language and the fact about this translation, is that, not a single occurrence of the word "church" is found used for congregation in it.

William Tyndale did however, use the word "church" twice in Acts 14:13 and Acts 19:37 for something else. It was in reference to pagan Temples; "ekklesia" wasn't used in either of those verses mentioned.

Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people
- Acts 14:13 William Tyndale.

Zeus' temple was at the entrance to the city. The priest of the god Zeus brought bulls with flowery wreaths around their necks to the temple gates. The priest and the crowd wanted to offer a sacrifice [to Paul and Barnabas].
- Acts 14:13 GOD'S WORD® Translation.

For you have brought here these men, who are neither robbers of temples, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
- Acts 19:37 King James 2000 Bible

For ye have brought hyther these me whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes.
- Acts 19:37 William Tyndale.

Tyndale recognised, "ecclesia or ekklesia" to be congregacion or congregation of "called out people" who are believers
and that churches were buildings for religious practices or purposes, and this includes Jewish or pagan temples.

So, in this first English New Testament translation print, congregation originally was in the place where "church" is presently or currently found in most English translations.

In the beginning, building(s) was what "church" was original identified as, but now, it's obvious and no denying that, "church" is prevalently also called or known as the body of Christ.

Examples of other churches, we have, as of today are:
The Church of Scientology, Church of Wicca, The National Church of Bey (i.e. Beyonce), Church of Satan,
The Sunday Assembly (i.e. an atheist church), The Church of Humanity etcetera.

1557 AD was the first time "ekklesia" was translated as "church" by William Whittingham in the Geneva New Testament produced, subsequent bible translations, KJV included, began having "church" used to describe people and their place of congregation or place of meetings too. From then to the present, the norm now is, "church" erroneously is the physical structure and people assembling together (i.e. Matthew 16:18, Acts 14:23, James 5:14)

In the New Testament, we are used to knowing synagogue also to be an equivalent name of the building used for assembling in or congregating in, but the Greek word "sunagogé" means "coming together" and could imply a meeting (i.e. gathering together) rather than a building (i.e. Acts 13:43, James 2:2); so synagogues were simply gatherings that took place outdoors or in people’s houses or courtyards (i.e. refer to 2 Thessalonians 2:1 or Hebrews 10:25 Greek Text Analysis for more details) TB Joshua’s set-up, calls itself synagogue, but then for good measure, appends the word "church", making it: The Synagogue, Church Of All Nations (i.e. SCOAN)

The English word "church" on it's self, actually has pagan origins. It's a derivation from the Old English word cir(i)ce, cyr(i)ce, related to the Anglo Saxon circay, kirk in Scottish, the Latin circus/circulous, Dutch kerk, or German Kirche. These words all have associations with "gathering in circles" and researches showed that most pagan religions meetings have worshippers/attendees gathered together round in prayer circles.

This information gives some insight into Tyndales' understanding and the reason why he selected the word "Church" to refer to buildings; pagan temple(s) included and used congregacion (i.e. congregation) to mean "ekklesia"

Why was a totally unrelated word to ekklesia, substituted for ekklesia? (i.e. like in Job 14:4)

As so far noticed, the word "Church" has varied origins and different meanings to what we're accustomed to, but the word in Latin for ekklesia is also ekklesia, so, if Latin in the absence of a proper word, managed to retain the word ekklesia, why couldn't the "called out ones" who translated, retain it too?

In light of all these information, why the word "church", is falsely used in place of Christ's ekklesia leaves one literally open-mouthed. No doubt, there are strong indications of foul-play somewhere down the history lanes of church, as "church" DOESN'T COME from the original Koine Greek word ekklesia.

As regards the chequered and real truth about ""Church"; where did it come from and where is it headed?”, lack of space and time doesn't permit elaborating, hence these following bullet points:

• Adam & Eve in Eden fast forward to Matthew 16:18 and Acts 2:41
• Roman Emperors Constantine and Licinius' Edict of Milan in AD 313 which established a policy of religious freedom for all.
(i.e. a proclamation that permanently legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire)
• Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire.
• the sell-out and/or shady deal(s)(e.g. "Church" and State collaboration under Constantine)
• The regularisation and formation of the Roman Catholic Church (i.e. RCC)
• Roman Empire's adoption of RCC as "official" church during Constantine's reign
• The supremacy of the Roman bishop (i.e. the papacy) created/aided with the support of the Roman emperors (i.e. Constantine and his successors)
• Constantine calling the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, in an attempt to unify Christianity when doctrinal disputes arose
(e.g. Arianism, doctrines named after Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D) and presiding over this first ecumenical church council
• the exploits of the apostles, all charged up in their faith, preaching the Gospel and like Jesus willing to die horrible deaths because of it.
• The apostolic period (i.e. including The "patristic writings'') - about contemporaries of the apostles like Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and who became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred
• the ante-Nicene (i.e. before Nicaea) period - about the likes of Ignatius and his "ekklesia katholicos" phrase, he was a disciple of the apostle John
• the post-Nicene "church" period - about the likes of Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine
• The term "Roman Catholic" defined by Emperor Theodosius on February 27th, 380 in the Theodosian Code.
In that document, he referred to those who hold to the "religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter"
as "Roman Catholic Christians" and gave them the official sanction of the empire
• the first canon (i.e. Muratorian Canon), the progressive acceptance of other books as canonical and have them make up the 66 books of the bible
• The fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476 and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church
• the Pontifex Maximus; the highest office in the state religion of ancient Rome and at the collapse of the Roman Empire, RCC popes taking on this title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors
• the tragic compromise of believers with the introduction of pagan religions and assimilation of paganism influences
(i.e. the Romanization and paganization of Christianity and the "Christianization" of pagan beliefs)
• Apostolic succession and Pope Gregory in AD 590, upon assuming office denying any responsibility or support for any ambition to the throne of Peter
• "Church" and State fully merged as the Holy Roman Empire
• Subsequent popes exercising authority over kings and emperors, taking on imperial powers along with ecclesiastical authority (e.g. St Leo III)
• the Filioque clause/Filioque controversy and/or The Great Schism
• John Wycliffe of England, John Huss of Czechoslovakia, and John of Wessel in Germany
• Protestant Reformation; division between the Catholic Church and Protestantism over interpretation of Biblical Testaments.
• The Edict of Worms (i.e. the Holy Roman Empire, Charles V and the Pope banning all writings of Martin Luther and labelling him a heretic and enemy of the state) etc
• Calvinism (i.e. named after French reformer and theologian John Calvin, he was Martin Luther's successor during the Protestant Reformation)
• The Edict of Nantes, The Edict of Restitution.
• King Henry VIII taking over jurisdiction of the Church, after kicking RCC out of England.
• Various political and ulterior motives
(e.g. translators forbidden by King James' official order from replacing the Greek word "ekklesia" with "congregation" (i.e. the true interpretation)
Compare Psalms 22:22 with Hebrews 2:12 for more details on this, bibles translated to fit the politics or traditions of men etc)
• Evangelicalism, Revivalism, Pentecostalism, Christian science, the Charismatic Movement, Mormonism/the Latter Day Saint movement, Word of Faith movement etc
• Institutional/organised church(es); licensed or incorporated as businesses/charities etc (i.e. to gain non-profit tax-exempt status)
• Church(es) under the jurisdiction of man (e.g. unincorporated charities/church(es), unregistered/registered church(es) etc)
• details of corrupted teachings or doctrines.
• Etcetera, etcetera


As for, "Church" where did the word come from and where is it heading? Proper?
Well the word "Church", in letter and/or substance, clearly metamorphosed from "ekklesia" and as it currently stands, those/anyone called "Church" today are seemingly apostate(s) heading towards just deserts.
"Church" will be getting its divine comeuppance some point at the end.

---

1st century AD - ekklēsia founded on the teachings of Jesus
2nd century AD - Christians already denouncing teachings seen as heresies, e.g Gnosticism, Montanism etc
4th century AD - ekklēsia transformed, church evolves, finally legalized and then promoted by Emperors Constantine and Theodosius I as the state church of the Roman Empire
11th century AD - Church within the Roman Empire excommunicated each other - West (i.e. Rome) and the East (i.e. Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria) officially excluded each other
16th century AD - Lutheran Church was founded by Martin Luther
16th century AD - Protestant Reformation
16th century AD - The Presbyterian denomination began by John Knox who was dissatisfied with Anglicanism
16th century AD - Anglicanism (i.e. Church of England) founded by King Henry VIII
17th century AD - The Baptist church launched by John Smyth in Amsterdam, Holland.
18th century AD - The Methodist church launched by John and Charles Wesley in England
18th century AD - The Salvation Army launched by William Booth, who quit the Anglicans, and then the Methodists to set up his own version of Christianity.
19th century AD - The Jehovah's Witness Church developed by Charles Russell.
19th century AD - The Christian Scientist religion began by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy, centered around an outright denial of Original Sin and its effects
19th century AD - Ballinger Booth, the son of William Booth, quit The Salvation Army and started his own church
19th century AD to date - The Seventh-Day Adventists, Apostolic Faith, Foursquare Apostolic Church, K&C, CAC, CCC, RCCG, MFM, Winners Chapel, KICC, BLW/Christ Embassy, SCOAN,
and various other Pentecostal Churches etc are among the hundreds of new churches founded by men within the past 200 years or so.

tartar9:
Without him, Christianity would still be a minority faith or probably even be extinct.

daddymummy:
Ok.
But i also believe that God could have ended the persecution in another just as He arrested Paul and stopped Paul's persecution of christians

ichuka:
Why, in God’s plan of redemption, must Christ be both God and man at the same time?

missjo:
Ihedinobi3, perhaps my use of the term redeemed gave another interpretation but you should see my point in that comment nonetheless.
The sacrifice, the blood.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s3/images/dontGiveAshit.gif[/img]
Who wan price shiit market?
To rise prick nobi by force nau
mister man abeg

MuttleyLaff:
Talk to the hand

MuttleyLaff:
Smh.

missjo:
The giants after the flood were not Nephilim, I explicitly stated they were known as the sons of Anak descended from Ham, not Nephilim.
Certainly you can't disagree that there were in fact giants after the flood. Would you say Goliath was just abnormally sized and not a giant?

missjo:
Certainly you can't disagree that there were in fact giants after the flood. Would you say Goliath was just abnormally sized and not a giant

missjo:
What about the king mentioned in Deuteronomy 3:11?

missjo:
About Ham's position, well i suppose the term 'younger' is what gives the impression he is not the middle child. But then, Moses wrote those books and every time he listed children, it was always hierarchal top to bottom, why would Noah's be different?

Younger does not mean youngest.

I'm open for some explanation regarding the above

Ihedinobi3:
As for Ham, I did think that he was the middle child too, but Genesis 9:24 seems to me to settle the matter, unless it was a matter of translation. I will try to confirm about that, but in two of the best translations I know, the verse calls him the youngest.

Maamin:
Lol..I am not a woman Mr. Truth is clear and separate from falsehood. You can deny and reject all you want but be rest assure that will not change a thing.

Ihedinobi3:
Hi.

Ihedinobi3:
For what it's worth, no Nephilim of any kind survived the Flood. I understand that because the cowardly spies in Numbers claimed to see Nephilim in Canaan, and because some translations appear to make the Rephaim and the Nephilim one and the same by using the word "giants" for both, it is often argued that they did, but that is not true.

Ihedinobi3:
There have been no Nephilim until very recently with the birth of the Antichrist.

Ihedinobi3:
There were no Nephilim in Canaan. The cowardly spies used that false story to try to prevent Israel going to war in Canaan. They lied out of their unbelief.

As for the Rephaim, they were abnormally sized human beings, but they certainly were not part-angel at all. That was an unfortunate mishap of translation.

Ihedinobi3:
As far as the Bible goes, Noah and his family were saved both for Noah's righteousness and for the purity of their origins. They were all fully human. All Nephilim were destroyed in the Flood.

Ihedinobi3:
Only with the birth of the Antichrist and the ten kings that will rule Tribulational Rome with him have there been any new Nephilim since then.

Ihedinobi3:
Finally, Ham was Noah's youngest son, not his second son.
Cheers.

missjo:
1. In the book of Genesis, sons of God refer to fallen angels.

missjo:
The Nephilim are the offsprings of the sons of God.

missjo:
2. This is a tricky one, something I myself have had to question, but I was able to gain an understanding:

Since no humankind but Noah, his wife, the three sons and their wives survived the flood, then it made sense that the genetic code of the Nephilim survived through one of the wives of his sons.

missjo:
The giants who existed after the flood were called the sons of Anak, not the Nephilim.

missjo:
Take note
Anak is a descendant of Ham, second son of Noah, and also the bearer of the curse of his father after seeing his näkedness.

kkins25:
i was riding smoothly on this reply of yours until i entered a pothole, and a very deep one.

kkins25:
the superior celestial being you speak of didn't appear in human form but became human

kkins25:
how He was able to manipulate His mothers ovum to under go meiosis still baffles me.

kkins25:
Where did the other 23 chromosome come chrome from?

kkins25:
they can't engage in rigorous sex but they can ingest delicious food? yet you say they are not humans? haba muttley!!

kkins25:
been able to eat suggests that they were not a mirage or a mere reflection of human form but are actually flesh and bone.

kkins25:
if they could eat, why couldn't they have sex? common mehn!!

kkins25:
are you saying they are impotent?

kkins25:
or they don't have reproductive organs?

Magnoliaa:
But you know if you actually focus on God, you are focusing on yourself,
inward.

The Bible reveals things about man (you), so when you read more of it, study it more - it changes you. You become better. See yourself in a new light. See yourself as a child of God and your sense of self-worth and -esteem will be so 'high,' unshakable.

MuttleyLaff:
You're a very graceful person.

Dont be surprised that you'll find that graceful people, someone like you, usually and/or actually come out with very interesting comments like yours above, and that about us humans, being the image of God and/or the Godhead, on the journey of becoming that exact likeness of God and the Godhood, through inward seeing self, in a new light, the Light of the world Himself.

Shepherd00:
I seriously doubt if you know what the Bible means by 'SELF'

Magnoliaa:
What the Bible means by 'self' or what you mean by 'self?'

Oya, explain it to me.

Shepherd00:
No. Without the Bible I wouldn't even know what Self is and wouldn't know it's a god

Shepherd00:
So, you shd be the one explaining to me how Worshiping God is self.

jesusjnr:
So there are numerous other evidences which supports this position, some of which you've posited and others which you've not even touched to show that this position is overwhelmingly scriptural.

God gave John, the brother of James, a rare revelation which no other apostle in the Bible had, which was that Jesus was the Word of God which was in the beginning. And that it was that Word that was made flesh. {John 1:1,14}

And if you go to the beginning, you'd see that He was the Word which proceeded from God's mouth, which God used in the process of creation. And the Spirit of God which also proceeded from God was the One which performed the Word which emanated from God's mouth.
So both the Word of God and the Spirit of God proceeded from God, for they belong to Him, therefore they can be cannot be the equal of God Almighty who they proceeded from.

But since they proceeded from God, they also have the "God" attribute in them which makes them to also be God, as in God the Word/Son, God the Spirit.

But They are not God Almighty, who is also the Father, neither are they equal to Him, even though they are One.

God bless.

shadeyinka:
It's ok Sir.
You should let him heal rather than reopen his wounds.

Gal 6:1-2:
"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such a one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ."

shadeyinka:
Dear Michellekabod2 and Anas09

I present my Olive Leaf to you both that's because you aren't enemies of each other and even true believers can differ in both experience, knowledge and faith.

Jesusjnr's experiences became his doctrine. He has corrected his mistake. The written word of God should supercede our experiences even though such experience may be real and extremely vivid. For even satan sometimes camouflage himself as an angel of light