₦airaland Forum

Omenuko:
No

You ought to be, because it shows that you are exalting human words above the Creator's words.
You ougth to be, because it shows that you are implementing wat is known as circular reasoning; in that you are using catholic oriented sources to justify questionable catholic statements.
You ought to be, because Logic dictates that an independent source that is guaranteed not to lie is the only means of truly finding out the truth.
you ought to be, because the Bible is that truly independent source.

Omenuko:
The Church of Christ in Rome.

Omenuko:
The Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.  Catholic means universal (roughly translated).

Omenuko:
Like I said, the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church in Rome.

1. Please wat is the difference between the "Church of Christ in Rome" and the "Catholic Church in Rome".

2. How come you do not see the contradiction between claiming something is universal and was not even the first church, considering that no where in the Bible does it say or show that there was ever a universal church in Rome.

3. Please can you please clarify your usage of the word Catholic, since you are using interchanging between the meanings "roman's universal church" or "everybody's universal church in Rome"

Omenuko:
Sorry, I don't practice 'sola scriptura'. . . .which is unbiblical by the way.

1. So what is your basis of salvation and how are u sure of your salvation.

2. How is it unbiblical if you choose not practise "sola scriptura" or are u not intending to say it is un-sola-scriptura because u do not practise sola-scriptura

Omenuko:
Oh yeah, well can you interpret the below quotes for me.  Give me you understanding of what these bishops mean when they refer to the Church of Christ as the 'Catholic Church'.  Because, the way they are using the term is the exact same way the Catholic Church uses it today.  It is not only and adjective (describing a noun) it is also used as a pronoun, as in the actual name of the their Church.

"All the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and [size=15pt]bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna[/size]. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline, one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size], But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

"[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the [size=15pt]Catholic Church[/size] possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the [size=15pt]doctrine of the Catholic Church[/size], in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

The way Ignatius uses the term 'catholic' is the exact same way the Catholic Church today uses the term.

"The Church of Christ is really present in all legitimately organized local groups of the faithful, which, in so far as they are united to their pastors, are also quite appropriately called Churches in the New Testament. . . . In them the faithful are gathered together through the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord's Supper is celebrated. . . . In these communities, though they may often be small and poor, or existing in the diaspora, Christ is present, through whose power and influence the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is constituted."  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 312.

See above quotes. . . .

Your welcome . . .I respect your opinion and understanding of what you believe the Church of Christ is, but it is not the historical (meaning 1st and 2nd century christians) understanding of what constitutes the Church of Christ.

No, the 'Catholic Church' to me is that very same Church that Jesus founded.  Just because the early christians (starting from the 1st century) began to identify that same church as the 'Catholic Church', does not mean it changed its name or a new denomination was formed.  The Catholic Church is the nomination.  All other churches are denominations.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fellowship.'  The churches that were in communion with one an other were part of the same Church.  Those that separated themselves from the Catholic Church were identified as being heterodox.  In addition to the Catholic Church being universal, it had one belief, one doctrine, and one faith.  Like I posted earlier, the Catholic Church today is comprised of many different churches and cultures.  All churches have there own adminstrative functions.  But, if ever there was any theological dispute the Pope would step in.

The Pope was Peter and he was in agreement with the decision of that council.  He is the one that gave his testimony to not forcing the gentiles to perform Jewish rites.  The Pope does not have to preside over a council.  There are many ecumenical councils that the Pope did not attend.  He does not have preside over a council for him to be in agreement.  I guess I don't understand your reasoning in the above qoute.

1. Don't you think there is a problem with your responses when not one of your responses is based on the Bible, but instead are based on questionable catholic church material.

2. Please give us your definition of the Roman Catholic Church.

3. Is there a different between the words Roman Catholic [/i]and [i]catholic

4. What is the relationship between your definition and the present day Roman Catholic church.

5. Show via the bible:
  - When the Catholic church started.
- When the Roman Catholic church started.
  - How Peter became a Pope.
  - When Peter became a Pope.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=284000.msg4076894#msg4076894 date=1245780574]@Omenuko,

Oh c'omon, Omenuko. We know that Peter was no Pope anywhere - it is the institution of the Papacy that tried to make Peter its "pope". Biblical and apostolic Christianity knows nothing of the papacy in Catholicism, and the claim that Peter was the first Pope is as false as the many unsubstantiated claims of the Vatican.

Take the example of Acts 15 for such a council - who was the "pope" there that was presiding over the meeting and had the last say?[/quote]1. The biblical time period makes it impossible for Peter to be a Pope.

2. There is no scripture showing that Peter was ever a Pope.

3. Also the biblical time period makes it impossible for Paul to be a Pope.

4. Also there is no scripture showing that Paul was ever a Pope.

5. The only evidence that Peter was claimed to be a Pope is evidences that can be traced back to the catholic church itself. its almost like asking an armed robber to submit his own statement as evidence that was he/she is saying is true. How they don't see this is really astounding for even me to comprehend.


Hence i must confess that it really worries me and tires me and perplexes me that some catholics simply do not see that their claiming that Peter or Paul were Popes is as completely false and baseless as saying Moses was the first muslim. There is absolutely no correlation or connection between Peter and the rise of the so called Papacy in the Roman Catholic Church.

@pilgrim1.

Thanks for trying your best to enlighthen them. I must confess that i can be very playful at times even to the extremes of blatant flirting and at times i can be very serious to the point of keeping people at a distance. Hence the truth is that I can't stand repititive posts that keep recycling the same questions and answers. I easily get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, hence why i sometimes go missing on the religious thread cus i don't really see myself answering the same questions without the people even acknowleding or considering a single line of the answers.
Its almost like most people already have their minds made up based on wat they have been taught rather than studying to show themselves approved.


@lady

1. Notice that i never called you an idiot hence i was suprised that you accuse me of doing so.

2. I actually decided to be friendly and build on out past interactions on this nairaland, hence to say i am suprised by your vitriol would be an understatement. I tut you and I would have come around to have an understanding of being polite and cordial. Even KAG seems to be the most cordial and polite person to discuss with on NL out of atheists, catholics and muslims, despite that we both had a little bit of brief history.

3. If you take time to notice my posts, you would notice that they are based on scriptures and have answers in the scriptures.

4. Once again let me repeat, there is no central church according to the bible. Even the Messiah Himself made this obvious wen he refered to the 7 churches in the book of revelation. He never called any of the churches by the name "catholic". No where in the bible do you find where the bible says whether or not the Messiah created a so called Catholic Church.

5. There is only one Spiritual Church (aka the bride of the Messiah aka the body of the Messiah).

6. There is no central physical church, hence why the Messiah himself refered to separate physical churches in the book of revelation.

8. The catholic church was created out of amalgamation of socio-political manenours and not from scriptures.

9. I would be grateful for you to please respond to my previous posts line by line using the Bible alone. I do not reckon with any other source apart from the bible.


Thank you.

chukwudi44:
PETER'S CONNECTION TO ROME
Connection to Rome
The New Testament says nothing directly about Peter's connection to Rome, but an early Catholic tradition supports such a connection.[2]

1. That settles it then that Peter was never a Pope, since you yourself admit that the bible says nothing about Peter's connection to Rome.

2. I would rather believe the bible than believe any man with any title.

3. Truth is obtained from the bible not from catholic church historians or other historians for that matter.

4. Catholic church historians and other historians cannot be trusted since they are either working for the catholic church or contradicting the bible.

5. Any other thing you say is just pure bullshit and earsay. What matters is what the bible says not what your catholic historians says, cus it was the same catholic people that were killing people in the name of the Messiah despite that the Messiah had explicitly pointed out that no - one should be killed.

6. Peter was not the Pope.

7. Peter was never a Pope.

8. Paul was not a Pope.

9. Paul was never a Pope.

10. Infact both Peter and Paul were killed as a result of their preaching and evangelism.

11. Paul was going about setting up separate churches.

12. As a far as I know, Paul was never the head of the churches that were being setup by Him. Hence part of the reason why He was writing letters to the different churches (in Rome, Corinthians, Ephesus, Thessalonia, Galatia etc.)

chukwudi44:
The gospel of John captures the bishopric of peter more succintly when christ officially handed over the church to him

John 21:15-17 states:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs[/b]."

He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "[b]Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

1. I am not sure whether or not you understand the verses you are quoting.


2. The Messiah telling Peter to feed His Sheep was not a letter of appointment for the position of the Pope. There was nothing like the title called Pope during the lifetime of both Peter and Paul. Instead when the Messiah said: Feed My Sheep, He was refering to the fact that members of the church needed to hear the Word (Spiritual Food) hence the need for Peter to preach the Word and feed the people spiritual food.
 
You only feed food to something. You do not feed leadership to something. You do not feed the position of Pope to something.

The Messiah was instructing Peter to feed His Sheep (i.e. the people left behind) the Word. This is because the Word was necessary for the Church to grow.

4. Tending of Sheep refers to the work of a Pastor of a church. A Pastor is not a Pope. The job description of a Pastor does not even come close to the nonsense being practised in the catholic church and most churches of nowadays.

A Pastor cannot forgive sin.
A Pastor does not make people saints.
A Pastor has no power to determine who lives and who dies.
A Pastor does not determine who goes to Heaven and who does not.
A Pastor does not disregard the bible and exolt church tradition above the bible.
A Pastor follows the Bible to the letter without compromise.

Peter was a Sheperd.
Peter was a Pastor.
Peter was Preacher.


Peter was not a Pope.

Peter was never a Pope.




The disciples went about setting up churches and evangelising, not one of them was anything close to a Pope. The churches did not belong to either of them.

None of the disciples was a representative of the Creator. The Creator did not go anywhere hence he does not need a representative. The Earth belongs to the Creator hence he does not need a representative on the Earth.

It is the Devil/Satan that has been trying since the creation to ursurp the role and position of the Creator on Earth.
It is the Devil/Satan that has been trying through the Pope to assume the position and role of the Creator on Earth.

The Pope is an ordinary man.
The Pope is a sinner Himself.
A Sinner cannot represent a sinless Creator.
The Pope is fallible.
The Pope is not a representative of the Creator on Earth.
The Pope is not the Comforter.
The Pope would live and die and either go to hell or be saved depending on his status with the Messiah.
The Pope himself needs to be saved.
The Pope is inhabited by the Devil in disguise.
The Devil is ruling the catholic world by using the Pope as a proxy.


The Creator is omnipotent and Omnipresent therefore does not need anyone to represent Him on Earth. The Holy Spirit was sent solely to provide the needed Spiritual presence after the ascension of the Messiah Himself (hence why He said He was going to send a Comforter), hence another spiritual presence in form of the devil incarnate known as the Pope was never needed and would never be needed.

The Romans were still very much against the Church at the time of Peter, Paul and John and co. Hence historical and biblical records shows that neither Paul nor Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The catholic history that you are quoting from wikipedia was written solely to lie about history. I do not trust history written by man. I would rather trust the bible.

You yourself admit that the Bible did not say anything about Peter or Paul being Popes.

This is they were never Popes hence the bible never had a reason to tell us otherwise.

STOP TRYING TO RAISE UP CATHOLIC CHURCH TRADITION ABOVE THE BIBLE.

THE BIBLE IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF THE CREATOR, IT DOES NOT LIE.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A GATHERING OF LIARS, MURDERS, IDOLTERERS HENCE I WOULD RATHER BELIEVE THE BIBLE THAN BELIEVE THE LYING CATHOLIC CHURCH HISTORIANS.


---------------------------------

The Messiah did not create the Catholic Church. The Romans created the catholic church , so please stop trying to lie and stop trying to twist the Bible to fit your heretical ways. Otherwise show me in the bible where the Messiah created anything called the Catholic Church.


Don't bother to quote or reference history written by catholics simply because i do not reckon with it. Use the Bible instead to show me proof of your statements.

Traditions of Men and Traditions of the Catholic church is worthless.

The Word of the Creator in the Bible is always true no matter what.

faakay:
lol,

Error dey that VOTE!!!

OK I wan VOTE 3 ppL wey ma eyes see wey dey the List

Spikycylinder, Smurf & Aciddrop

@OP why you no put Toyosi? hahaha    I get wetin u dey try do 

the rest rubbish!   

1. This thread was officially created to clear up a previous thread that was going off-topic and not acheiving its desired goals hence the inclusion of a poll on this thread. You would notice by my aloffness on this thread that i have tried to be an impartial observer as much as possible.

2. Nothing sinister is being done as concerns the omission of Toyosi's name or any other name for that matter, get your facts straight.

3. People are supposed to suggest names to be added to the list, up till and as far as my observation goes, no one had suggested Toyosi's name.

4. Yes I know Toyosi ought to be a part of the list, however I decided not to include her in the list because:
   
   - those on the list are not supposed to be people based on my opinion, instead they are supposed to be people based on the opinion of those visiting this thread.

   -  I have not noticed anyone on the thread making a request for her to be added to the poll list and also because I am impartial and I don't include people I consider to be friends without first getting a request for such and also without first clearing it with them whether or not they want their names to be included in the list.

5. You only vote once, no multiple votes are allowed, hence you have to choose which of the people you listed that you really want to vote for.

6. There were some people whose names were originally added to the poll, but which were later removed upon their direct requests and indirect requests via their  assertions and/or insults to the OP (since this thread is meant only for fun and not for discord, I had to give in to their requests in order to be fair).

7. Any name seen on the above list, mostly shows the people who have decided to be a play along by not yet requesting their names removed and hence have allow their names to remain part of the poll. There is nothing sinister being done or intended by this thread. People should learn to have a good sense of humour. Ladies like spikedcylinder, Starstruck and aciddrop have decided to play along and be good sports without raising hell about it whether or not the poll was being favourable to them or not.

8. Yes I also have friends that I wish to add their names, however i have to be the impartial judge, hence their names cannot be added because no-one has suggested their names and also because some of them do not want their names included in the poll.

9. Any name suggested has to be vetted first on the basis of whether or not the people involved would want their names included in the poll or not on the assumption that its possible to contact the person in question or friends of the person in question to execute the vetting process.

10. Any name included in the poll but not initially vetted is removed from the list, the moment someone else or the person herself complains that the name should be removed.

I hope this additional clarification explains a lot to others that have a twisted sense of how and why this thread is operating.

Thank you.

cabassa:
Ur ideas if believed by all would av liberated d blacks for d gruelling hands of d so called white it is d right time to tell ourselves d truth.religion is a way of enslaving our thoughts by  d "slavemasters".

- Yes religion is enslaving.

- The bible is not talking about religion.

- The Messiah did not bring religion.

- Believing in Creation has nothing to do with being a member of religion.

- I believe in the Bible but i do not believe in organised religion because the issue of salvation has nothing to do with organised religion, infact the Messiah came to destroy the concept of organised religion (of which Pharasees were a very good example during His time on the Earth).

- Beleiving in Creation only tells you that i completely believe the Bible and also that i completely believe in Salvation according to the bible.

- You do not need to be an atheist in other to be a scientist.

- Atheism has nothing to do with science.

- Atheism is just a philosophy of life that tries to explain things using the assumption that: THERE IS NO CREATOR

------------------------------------------

- Yes people make the mistake of equating salvation according to the bible to Caucasians, even when history shows that Salvation has nothing to do with Caucasians.

- Caucasians were mostly barbarians and pagans during the time of the Messiah.

- Caucasians themselves were preached to about salvation.

- Devilish and demonic Caucasians changed the message from Salvation by Grace through faith in the Messiah alone, into different heretical means of idolatory involving mary, white jesus et al. Hence that Caucasians who "claimed" to be bible believers performed some devilish atrocities in history does not mean that they are doing it in agreement with the Bible. It is written that anything can claimed by anyone to deceive anybody. It is the responsibility of each of us to crosscheck the bible for confirmation.

- Most Europeans and Caucasians are still pagans that would do anything to celebrate pagans holidays but would vehemently oppose the bible.

- You only have to live in Europe to realise that most europeans are mostly modernised pagans.

- Bible evangelism was already in Africa before the coming of the Caucasians, hence it is ignorant of people to assume that the Bible is a white man's method of enslaving.

- Those that enslave people would always find a way to enslave or demean other people (e.g. SAP, Global Warming Scam, Evolution theory)

- Atheism and Evolution is also enslaving, this is seen in the sense that anyone who opposes it either gets ridiculed or discriminated against or in extreme cases ends up losing his or her job in institutions that have majority atheists. Different accounts of this is easily obtained via the internet if you have the time to crosscheck by yourself.



--------------------------------------------


@topic


- It is stupid and illogical for anyone to claim to be an atheist and at the same time claim not to believe in Evolution. This is because there are only two possibilities:

Everything was Created in the beginning by a Creator or Everything evolved in the beginning and there is no creator.

- Hence atheists that claim not to believe in evolution are inherently contradicting themselves, because that implies that believe in creation then. Hence if they believe in creation, does that not sound stupid for them to still claim themselves to be atheists.

- The believe in evolution (i.e. non-existence of a creator) is inherent to the principle of atheism, whether or not the atheist publicly declares it or not.

- its unfortunate that most black atheists are self-loathing and ignorant enough not to realise that racism has a lot of things to do with Evolution and thus racism is inherent to the very principle of atheism automatically.

- The very concept of Evolution was developed based on assumptions which themselves gave rise to other assumptions.

- The very concept of Evolution itself was used to justify racism and genocide and discrimination and survival of the fittest concept during many periods of genocide against American Indians, Australian Aborigines, Africans, Jewish people during the WWII etc.

- The concept of genocide and slavery and murder is not restricted to religion, hence its disingenious for atheists to try to use such issues as a basis for their justification. Neither atheists nor religious fanatics are innnocent of such hideous crimes.

- A truthful scientist would tell you the Evolution is not science, but merely a string of unscientific assumptions and speculations that can never be verified by independent researchers in the scientific community.

- A truthful scientist would tell you that Caucasians are genetic degenerates when compared to Negroes i.e. even by the very concept of evolution, blacks have the superior genes., hence its even scientifically illogical for atheists to claim that Caucasians evolved from Negroes according to evolution.

- Genetic degeneracy in Caucasians is occurs a result of the loss of information pertaining to dominant genes, yet even evolution does not work when there is loss of information. Evolution requires addition of information not loss of information. Thus even the genetic degeneracy of Caucasians contradicts the very concept of racism and evolution as propagated.

- A truthful scientist would tell you that abundance of melanin (cause of blackness of skin) is directly proportional to increased intelligence.

- Hence a truthful scientist would tell you that going by the concept of genes alone, Caucasians ought to be prehistoric ones while Africans ought to be the modern ones, because Negros have the better genes that makes them adapt more to any evironment on earth, yet Caucasians have degenerate genes that make them suffer a lot under different environment conditions. So you see, even the practise of atheism, racism and evolution is contradictory. What they say does not even agree with was it observed in the laboratory and normal day to day environment.

- According to the very concept of Evolution as currently practised by Caucasians, blacks are considered the inferior race and white the superior race, yet scientific observation in the laboratory shows that this is not possible because laboratory observations shows that Blacks have the superior genes and Caucasians have the inferior genes.

- Laboratory and Provable science does not support evolution, infact it contradicts evolution

- Fossil records do not support evolution, instead they are increasingly contradicting evolution (polystrata fossils, blood in dinosaur bones, magnetic field of the earth, vestigial organ scam/fraud)

- Atheism is not possible if there exists a Creator.

- Atheism is only possible if there is no Creator.

- If there is no Creator , then it means evolution is true.

- If Evolution is true, then it means that Atheism is based on the concept of Evolution.

- Hence you cannot be an Atheist without inherently/silently/openly believing in the concept of Evolution.

- Any atheist who claims not to believe in Evolution is just being as illogical and confused as the very concept of evolution, simply because atheism is not possible without evolution.


------------------------------------------------

I feel sad for any black atheist who does not realise that he or she is being deceived again just as past africans were deceived into thinking that the Messiah was a Caucasian.

ALL HAIL DARTH LEXI

your jedi apprentice "na2day" awaits you

@whitelexi



THE FORCE IS STRONG WITH THIS ONE

-----------------------------------------

@na2day

Okay here is wat Darth Lexi recommended for the initial tutorial class:

1. We will start with the initial routine of wax on wax off

@original poster

The long and short of it is that:

1. Leave your loving non-muslim partner alone since you have a problem with realising that his love for you does not mean he loves your religion.

2. Wait and look for a loving muslim brother that would love you and love your religion.

3. Then goodluck on being shown the same love and devotion by your future muslim lover.

@lady

Longtime, how are you doing hope all is well with you. Please note that pilgrim1 is not ur enemy infact you can learn from pilgrim1 in terms of being open minded about issues so as to know the truth. Pilgrim1 based on her experience as a former muslim, knows the effects and consequences of blindly supporting a false idea/beliefs. She knows wat it means to discover that she might have been lost for eternity as a result of her former faith which she is now no longer a part of. Thus that she shares her experiences/understanding with everyone has more to do with her concern/attempt to reveal the truth she has learned over the years rather than an attempt to peddle falsehood information. She has nothing to gain by trying to falsely discredit the catholic church. She is just showing historical and biblical points that go against everything the catholic church stands for. Hence she is not out to attack you, she is out to shame and expose the lies of the devil via the catholic church.

Yes i know u are passionate about your catholic believe, but please do d favour of listening without being dogmatic. Better still get pilgrim1's email address for private discussion with her. At the end of the day you would agree that your allegiance is to only your Creator and not to the catholic church, not to your friends, not to your family, not to your fiance, not to your husband.

- Yes the bible opposes the catholic church
- Nevertheless it does not mean the bible opposes you as a person just because u are a member of the catholic church.

Hence wat pilgrim1 is trying to do is to help you see how the catholic church started, what they did, how everything comparees to history and scriptures and what everything mean in terms of salvation of the soul.

-----------------------------------------------------

@other catholics/christians on this thread:


- our goal is to get to heaven.

- our goal is to be counted amongst those considered saved.

- the bible is our manual on how to get to heaven, church program is not, church loyalty is not and church activity is not.

- the bible is our manual on what to believe and what to disbelief, church tradition is not.

- human experiences or human traditions cannot get us to heaven, because the bible makes this very clear.

- any faith that contradicts the bible and relies on human tradition is simply wrong no matter how religious such a faith looks like.

- our goal is to reveal any faith or religion that does not agree with the bible.

- our goal is not to defend a particular church/faith because our salvation is not dependent on whether or not we defend a church or not.

- our goal is not to defend the body of christ that is not our job. That job is already settled by the Messiah Himself.

- our job is to preach the gospel and say the truth in all circumstances and according to the bible and not according to a church doctrine nor according to popularity issues.

- our job to tell and reveal the truth so as to prevent other people from being deceived into serving a false god.



1. According to by bible alone, there was no central church after the ascension of the Messiah, instead wat existed where separate ancient churches located in separate geological locations (sardis, philadelphia etc) that were being graded and sustain based on their direct connection to the Messiah Himself and not on their connection to any so called central church administration. The church in Jerusalem was not controlling any other church.

Even the Messiah Himself did not refer to the 7 separate churches in revelation as branches of a single church. Instead the Messiah refered to them as separate independent churches that are not under the control of any other church - and funny enough not one of those churches was even called the catholic church. Doesn't that say something about the false claim of saying the catholic church is the mother church (mother church of wat)considering that at least we all agree that the Messiah never lied and would never lie. How come the Messiah himself did not even mention any thing called the catholic church. Does that not say that it was not in existence during the early church.


2. From the Bible, we have a single spiritual church (i.e. the Bride of the Messiah) at the same time as different and separate physically administered and de-centralised churches (e.g. galatian church, thessalonica church, roman church, corinthian church, philadelphia church, sardis church etc).



3. Paul was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).



4. Peter was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).



5. The existence and dominance of the catholic church created the first problem of mixing church and state, by creating an unbiblical/heretical idea of central administration of normally separate/independent ancient church structures. This problem was started as a result of mixing of rome's political structure into the early forbearers of the roman catholic church (readers should please note that before the mixing of politics and church, that particular church was just one of different and separate ancient churches that sprang up as a result of the evangelism of the early disciples and apostles after the ascension of the Messiah). Let's have in mind that the original ancient church structure was that the churches would be separate and only consider and have the Messiah as their central head and focus. However the catholic church replaced this structure with a human focus, with a human being as the central head and focus. This example of church structure corruption by the catholic church shows one area where the ancient biblical church structure was not in agreement with the heretical practise that the catholic church started. Unfortunately, this issue of having church branches still continues till today because the poison known has the catholic church is still in effect till today.



6. Unfortunately further research of the catholic church history only diggs up issues that shows that the catholic church achieved dominance through manipulation (e.g. worship of the idol known as Mary), spiritual permission (same as that giving to the devil to do certain things) and outright murder in certain cases (the european dark ages).



7. Yes the catholic church has been existing for thousands of years, nevertheless that still does not imply legitimacy, otherwise islam would also claim to be true if one were to assume that truth/legitimacy was dependent on lenght of time of existence.

The history of the catholic church is filled with blood shed against those that choose to follow only the bible and refuse the catholic doctrine Likewise history is also filled bloodshed carried out amongst other believers of other faith. Yet even the Messiah Himself made it clear that no one (whether catholic or not, whether christian or not) is permitted to kill in His name nor for His sake. This brings into questions the bloody history of the catholic church and how that influences our present view of them. All these then begs the question:

which is more important the Word of the Creator or the doctrine/authority of the Catholic church.

At the end of the day, it is pointless and unbiblical when we exert so much energy trying to defend the catholic church against the barrage of historical and biblical evidences against their establishment, heretical practises and idolatory. One thing is for sure


- Seperate and decentralised early churches had been existing before the catholic church even existed, hence it is complete falsehood to assume and dogmaticall state that the catholic church gave birth to all churches.

- Yet the combination of political power and church and state of the Catholic church became more pronounced as a result of the influence of the Emperor Constantine.

@sauron don't worry the glazers would sell more than ronaldo just to pay off your debt.

You people are in deep shit.

The pound is losing more value hence the your debt is increasing in value cus your pound starts to get less and less valuable enough to pay off your debt.

you have marketed you team chairs
you have marketed your everything
soon manutd players would start taking advertisements on their balls just to pay off the debt.

Now lets see how good manutd is without your show pony who has gone to spain to get laid and destroy his own career.

sirwebs:
I'm positive we will get Felipe Melo. I think Silvestre should stay. He might come in handy during during the ANC.

Wat i think u are drinking too much diet coke , hence a loss of needed calories.

Song is better than silvestre
Sell Silvestre to anybody and use the money to increase Arshavin's salary to cover the tax problem.

Keep Gallas
Keep Toure
Keep Vermealean
Buy Hangeland

Let all four of them fight for their place this coming season.  Anyone of them that falls short can be sold next season.

-------------------

Buy Melo.
Move Fabrgas back into central midfield.

-----------

Sell Adebayor to anybody and buy a proper striker that would compete with Eduardo.

oyb:
dude, you are misquoting yourself


there is little difference between the above and racism . unless of course, na parabolic interpretation 

oya tell me , your laptop is made in china, you are running windows 7 which is made by a company that was setup by an atheist   are you becoming less christian like  

small wonder all your evangelism is destructive criticism. after all. a Muslim can't be your friend, so the only way to convert him is to shoot down his religion. makes one wonder just how you guys are able to spread the gospel. i mean, shouldn't you first be friends with the guy?    


babs, Jarus, Lagosboy, oya submit picture and er statement of account for inspection 

LMAO LOL you are incorrigible .

Wat does china and windows have to do with wat i said.
How is wat i said parabolic.

I don't need to pretend to be a friend of a non-christian before i preach to him. My preaching is irrespective of whether or not am friends with the person.

By the way I am friends with muslims, however its is rare for me to be close friends with a muslim (although there has been cases where i have been and where i am currently close friend with a muslim - infact i rather not identify the muslim on NL that i am close friends with, so as to protect both my identity and also the person's identity).

Hence the muslims that i am friends with and also close friends with means that there has to be a form of change in me so as to accommodate them within my basic belief. These changes can either be subtle or obvious depending on who is involved.

My fundamental belief structure and system, makes it difficult to be close-friends with a muslim is because there is a frundamental difference between how we see life and how we see issue of life and death, day to day human interactions.

@oyb, @lagosboy @other muslims

1. Don't be ridiculous. The bible does not say Christians should never be friends with non-christians, the bible only shows that its not an ideal friendship cus there would always be an effect on each other.

2. The bible is just saying that wen Christians become friends with non-christians, then there is a consequence for that.

3. The consequence for that is that either the christian changes the non-christian so that he or she becomes more christian like or the non-christian changes the christian so that he or she becomes less christian like. Hence the bible is basically saying that the ideal friendship, relatioship and business partnership only occurs wen a christian and another christian is involved.

4. Off course christians and muslims are friends, in relationships and marriages, hence you ascertion that i said they should not be is quite childish and disingenious.

5. My analyses is in response to the original poster so that the original poster would realise that her christian boyfriend is sacrifising a lot just by falling in love with her.

oyb:
you can bring us the NT passages that condemn polygamy 

does the NT say anything at all on polygamy 

@oyb my brother from another father and mother. At least try to admit wen something has been said now. You don't always has to expose yourself for who you are.

Have you even bothered to check the previous posts. What i don't seem to get about you muslims is that you willingly and intentionally decide to ignore wat has been said and then pretend nothing has been said, despite that it is clear to a neutral that the answer to you question has been provided with references for you to even crosscheck yourself.

I would not be suprised if after this moment, you still ignore my answer and instead decide to ask another unrelated question. You people keep suprising me.


If you have bothered to chk the previous posts you would notice that I specifically said that the Messiah Himself said in the bible that:

1. Only one male and one female were created.

2. Only one man leaves his father and mother to join together to only one woman so that the two of them become husband and wife.

3. The Messiah usually quotes the OT when he was on the earth, hence if the Old Testament were different from what he said in the new testament then it means he would not have said wat he said in the new testament.

Hence it is clear from those statements alone that the NT condemns polygamy


Additionally go through the post and you would see the NT verses quoted by @osisi, incase you refuse to chk yourself then chk below from my quotation of her post

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=283952.msg4051305#msg4051305 date=1245341678]In the Bible 2 Corinthians 6:14 says:


"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?"   (KJV)


"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"  (NIV)


"Do not be teamed with those who do not love the Lord, for what do the people of God have in common with the people of sin? How can light live with darkness?"   (LB)[/quote]uneven yoked covers areas of marriage and business and friendships.


- Hence a christian who goes into business partnership with a non-christian would either end up changing them or they would end up changing him.
- Hence a christian who goes into a friendship with a non-christian would either end up changing them or they would end up changing him.
- Hence a christian who goes into a marriage with a non-christian would either end up changing them or they would end up changing him.

Notice that in the 3 cases above, the degree of change can very from total change down to stagnancy.

ikamefa:
haahhaa! yeye!  so i miss-monickered you! abeg carry pankere come flog me

oh really! puff-puff is oily?  we have to ask that spiked woman oh, na she sabi ?  "  "

you not only miss-monickered me you also miss-brandied me sef, yeye girl .

Am not sure whether you are floggable , it has to be determined first and hence i would allow spiky to investigate first.

oya spiky come tell us wether too much of the kind of puff puff that ikamefa has, dey cause oilyness

is that so ikamefa.

i heard puff puff is too oily and therefore bad for health.


By the day my name copyright so take note my name na N2A or No2Atheism and not Mr Atheism,


@spiky wetin u wan take puff puff do, considering that the word on the street is that u be most beautiful girl in nairaland and also that nigerian gave cameroun what you have instead of bakassi.

busybody and spikycylinder ,  na wa for una o

ikamefa na so u dey do,


So who wants to start confessing out of all three of una, now that this is a truth and reconciliation commission.

By the way, yep there  time for peace there is time for troublemaking.

I dey enjoy una jare oya  continue

Spiky if i did not know u to be a mod, u could almost be mistaken for female version of whitelexi, abeg forget seun and start the troublemaking jare. Wats life without drama.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=283952.msg4051305#msg4051305 date=1245341678]In the Bible 2 Corinthians 6:14 says:


"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?"   (KJV)


"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"  (NIV)


"Do not be teamed with those who do not love the Lord, for what do the people of God have in common with the people of sin? How can light live with darkness?"   (LB)[/quote]@osisi thanks for the bible quotations.

They should go a long way to show people that marriage between a christian and non-christian is a serious thing, hence why it gives the gravity of sacrifise made by christian men or christian women who choose to be in a relationship with non-christians.


-------------------------------------

@original poster

Assuming that the original poster's partner is actually a christian, then @original poster should please pay attention and try to understand the following:



- your christian partner is making a lot of sacrifises by falling in love with you (who is a non-christian).

- the bible clearly states that your christian partner should not even get involved with you who is a muslim, talkless of falling in love with you. Hence you sincerely are naive and blinded by your muslim faith not to know that he really loves you for him to have decided to go against the bible and thus decided to stick with you for the past few years. It thus not take a rocket scientist that the guy truly loves you cus he is sincerely sacrifising a lot of things that his christian faith requires him to do.

- Please do yourself a favour by leaving him alone and find yourself a so called loving muslim brother in case you are going to continue to bring this issue up with your muslim brothers.  This is because if u continue to publicise your relationship with him, then it means you would increasingly only end up putting him at physical risk of being physically harmed/attacked by a few of your angry muslim brothers, the more you keep discussing your relationship with him with your muslim brothers.

- I am not sure you deserve his love, hence please instead of giving yourself headaches about whether or not he is suitable for you because he's not a muslim, I would kindly plead with you to please leave him alone and let him go ahead and find a another lady that does not have the same issues (most preferably a christian lady)

[quote author=na2day? link=topic=73851.msg4040102#msg4040102 date=1245195850][size=20pt]thunder fire u 20 times a day![/size] na my acidrop na hin u wan use as goat meat for whitelexi?   [/quote]Back to sender an infinite number of times  


@acidrop

Don't mind na2day jare, I am basically telling you that:



- @whitelexi is the greatest, any other guy is a counterfeit.
- If u have not encountered @whitelexi you have not encountered a man.
- With @whitelexi, you sorrows are going to be taken away.
- @whitelexi is the best thing since slice bread.
- @whitelexi created grammar
- @whitelexi invented science
- @whitelexi is as good as they say

@topic

The choosen ones know themselves

@olabowale, i can see that you have not changed one bit from the person that just talks, shouts, dis-informs, mis-informs and yet does not say anything despite the volume of your spoken words.

@olabowale, i can see that you have not changed one bit from the person who is willing to dodge questions, write stories and yet avoid having to answer the main question.

@olabowale, I can see that you not changed one bit from the person who is willing to say anything (whether true or false) just to defend the indefensible.

@olabowale, keep deceiving yourself and consoling yourself that you won't committ adultery by marrying more than one wife and practising polygamy. Abraham did it (and ended up with the ignoramus descendants known as Arabs). Jacob did it and ended up creating issues for himself. Isaac had all the wealth in the world to do it, but he never did so wat your excuse is as ignorant and unintelligent as it sounds. Noah never did it. The bible never said it was right or correct for Moses to do it.

Abraham was not sinless, instead his sins due to the issue of polygamy were obviously forgiven.
Jacob was not sinless, instead his sins also due to polygamy were also obviously forgiven.

The Messiah Himself made it clear that men and women were created as one man and one woman.
The Messiah Himself made it clear that it is appointed that only one man and one woman should get married to each other forever.


The bible never claimed polygamous is right.
The bible never claimed that polygamous is right because some faithful people or prophets did it.
The bible made it very clear that it is only appointed and directed that only one man and one woman should marry and call themselves husbands and wife.
The bible made it very clear that polygamous is wrong irrespective of the kind of person practising it.


The uncontrollable libido and sexual immorality of Mohammed caused him to sanction polygamy.
The uncontrollable libido and sexual immorality of Mohammed caused him to sanction getting married and having sex with a child as young as 9yr old i.e. Aisha (despite that such things were not originally accepted in Arab culture before the birth of mohammed).


Olabowale stop trying to defend the indefensible just because you choose to do it does not make it right.  Because you cannot keep your own penis inside your trousers when it comes to other women apart from your own first wife does not mean it is right to look at another woman even after being already married to a woman.


Olabowale, because some christians practise polygamy does not mean the bible says they should do it. Stop trying to deceive yourself. Those Christians practising polygamy know that its wrong and unbiblical. Hence it is disingenious of you to want to try to use it to justify your own islam sanctioned sexual immorality.


Olabowale, because some christians have girlfriends outside marriage does not mean the bible said they should do it. Stop trying to deceive yourself into believing a lie. A lie does not become a truth no matter how many times you repeat it and no matter how many times you kill people to propagate it and no matter how many times you suppress the spread of the truth.

The truth is that polygamy is wrong.

The truth is that polygamy is sanctioned and blessed by Islam, Allah, Mohammmed and you.

The lie is that you think polygamy is right.

The lie is that you think the Messiah is wrong and Islam is right.


Olabowale, the act of looking at another woman when you are already married is itself adultery.


Olabowale stop deceiving yourself. Cus that is the only person you would ever succeed in deceiving.


Olabowale if you really want to practise your deprived religion, then go ahead and give your 9yr old daugther (if you have one) to another muslim man so that he can have sex with your daugther at that age.


Olabowale if you really want to practise your deprived religion, then go ahead and make sure your daughters (if you have them) get married to only men that already have one or more wives so that you daughters would experience your so called joy of polygamy that you are so eager to defend.


Olabowale go ahead and practise what you preach by making sure your own daughters experience what you preach.


At the end of the day, You, Mohammed, Allah and islam and are just looking for an excuse in the bible (when there is non) even when the bible clearly showed polygamy is wrong and unacceptable.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@poster

Go ahead, leave the non-muslim man that loves you and go ahead to marry a muslim man that would show his love for you by marrying more than one wife.

@poster




- You are naive for you to even expect that your christian guy is supposed to convert to islam cus of you. Yes some people have done it nevertheless don't push your luck.

- You do not love your guy cus if you did, you would not be asking for advise from your muslim brothers knowing exactly what your quran already says. Infact i would advise your guy to run as far away from you as possible considering that you have decided to bring your personal issues to your muslim brothers for a solution.

- You do not know what you have until you lose it.

- Love is difficult to find, yet you seem to be worried that you found love from a non-muslim.

- Why do you want your guy to change to a muslim if you are just concerned about love.

- Why not change to a Christian yourself if you are so concerned about love.

- Are you trying to convert your guy into a muslim out of the assumption that he loves you enough to want to do that or are u interested in purely converting him into a muslim hence only assumed you loved him in other to make his conversion easier.

- If you are so concerned about islam, then please go ahead and say goodbye to the guy and leave him alone and go ahead and say yes to all the muslim brothers suggested by olabowale, oyb and co, at least you know that your muslim brother loves you so much that he's going to show his love for you by marrying another 3 women if he so wishes later in future. Hence as far as am concerned I am going to please advise you to please leave the christian brother alone and go ahead and look for your loving muslim man .

This because various posts on this thread should have me you realise the following:

1. Islam cannot evanglise the same way that christian evangelises and physically preaches to people without deception or cohesion hence the need for this ridiculous rule of muslim versus non-muslim marriages.
2. Marriage and giving birth to children raised up as muslims is one of the predominant means that islam is propagated i.e. people are born into a muslims family and thus become muslims by birth and by force.
3. Allah permits muslim to only marries muslim (WHY ).
4. Allah permits muslim men to marry non-muslim women (a contradiction to point 3)
5. Allah does not permit non-muslim men to marry muslim women (so as to create an obvious advantage and reproductive genocide against non-muslims).



So ask yourself,


- Is Allah interested in love.
- Does Allah even know what love is.
- Is Allah only permiting point 4 above just so that islam can be propagated through marriage and sex and children due to marriage.


@poster

If you love your man, you would realise that:

HE SHOULD NOT CHANGE HIS RELIGION BECAUSE OF YOU, SIMPLY BECAUSE HIS LOVE IS FOR YOU AND NOT FOR YOUR RELIGION.

If you are not satisfied with my statement, then leave your guy alone, go your way and find yourself a muslim man so that you can please your so called Allah.


@others

Was Mohammed a muslim by birth or by conversion. since u are so concerned about marriage according to what allah says and the religion of the children born from marriages unaccepted by allah

@acidrop y y y are u falling for na2day, why are u not falling for whitelexi who is tested and trusted

@topic

mankini

davidylan:
na every thread you two must flirt? Get a room or visit each other . . . 

FL Gators:
Hmmm

dayokanu:
@Davidylan,


Pot calling kettle black

Me flirt around . I no fit otherwise Gator go kill me with bitty lust affection flirtatiousness.

seriously, @davidylan wat exactly was Dayokanu refering to wen he said pot calling kettle black .


@Gators, don't mind David jare, he does not realise that you are one of the few men and ladies on this NL who understands and appreciates my twisted sense of humour.


@Gators so wen next are we going to meet, i really enjoyed the last time, u  naughty girl  i did not realise you were such a Tiger 

davidylan:
na every thread you two must flirt? Get a room or visit each other . . .

LMAO LOL

Uncle David shee me we i be Saint Mohammed, wetin i wan take room do.

na2day and acidrop its enough now u wan blind us for NL.

Abeg get a room and knock yourselfs out, we'll bring the medic for you both tommorrow wen u are through with exhausting all forms of energy from ur bodies.

@na2day, i repeat "your baby mamma is downstairs waiting for u"