Nuelsylves's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Nuelsylves's Profile › Nuelsylves's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (of 14 pages)
Byko899: |
uselessIDIOT:Try Neo-Medrol. It works for me and lots of other guys. |
A post like this will take centuries before anyone could reply or contribute to it. Sometimes I ask myself is it that there're no Engineers in Nairaland forum. You hardly see Engineering thread here, even when you stumble into one, it will be scanty. Go to Engineering section in Reddit, it's always active with people contributing and solving issues, sharing experiences and lots of other stuff. |
Bollinger:Of course! |
Bollinger:The worst of it is that we Nigerians can't come together and take a decisive action. Things are getting worser day by day. Just go through nairaland comments, you will see the so called leaders of tomorrow supporting and cheering up these past and present corrupt leaders. Sincerely, we're just different nations pretending to be one. I'm tired of this country. |
Bollinger:Being a Nigerian, you know that the revolution you're suggesting won't work in this country; one way or the other, it must be tagged one sided. |
Bollinger:You have been making sense in all your comments. My question is, what do you think that will salvage the situation in this country? |
Misplaced priority and evidence of a failed country. If not why on earth should anybody compare a Degree holder with a Higher National Diploma holder. The Act establishing polytechnic in this country has a set objectives. These people should have look in to the set objectives to make ensure that these institutions are still achieving them. |
Opportunity to actually read this story in details. Op dalụ! |
youngberry001:Yankari Game Reserve is in Bauchi not Kano |
Op good work |
Mine is 05. I'm suspecting Brazil because it was heavily advertised during FIFA'14 Sony Xperiaz1 |
Hmmm |
Nwafọ Igbo ọbụla na enweghị Igbo kiiboodu (keyboard) n' ekwe ntị ya, ga na Google play store downloaduo "SwiftKey keyboard". Ọ ga enyere gị aka nke ukwuu. |
obianuju95:Achị gbula m onwe m n' ọchị ooo. ![]() Ịlụ gịa dịkwa egwu. Mana ihe ị kwụrụ bụ eziokwu. |
Nodogragra4me:“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17). The adjective “new” can only mean they were going to speak in languages new to them, that is, languages they had not learned or used until that time. Note: Christ didn't said LANGUAGE OF HEAVEN. Why would Christ promised the believers the signs of speaking in 'new tongues' (NOT SPEAKING IN HEAVENLY TONGUES) if not to aid them in the spreading of the Gospels and establishment of Christianity. St. Luke even confirmed this in the Acts of the Apostles where he uses a different adjective “they began to speak with other tongues.” The word “other” simply means that they spoke in languages different from the normal language they were used to. The context substantiates this. Notice the surprised reaction on the part of the hearers—“And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:7, 8 ). Every man heard them speak in his own language (Acts 2:6 ). I believe you will agree with me that the word “language” is the translation of dialekto from which our word “dialect” comes. The two words glossa (tongue) and dialektos (language) are used synonymously, making it obvious that the disciples were speaking in known languages other than the language native to them. In verses 9-11 the languages are then identified. Again, the promise of Christ in Mark 16:17 was solely to aid the believers in the spreading of the Gospels as it was confirmed and proved in the Acts of the Apostles I quoted above. So Bro! The reason behind Christ promise in Mark16:17 was to aid the believers in spreading of the Gospels not for an ID CARD. Every promises Christ made to his believers was for a purpose. An identity of every believer is to behave like Christ by imitating Him, hence, the name 'Christians'. This will be my last response on the issue of Mark 16:17. For Fr. Mbaka, Ebube Mounso and Fr. Edeh, I can only attest for the first two. both two was born in a Catholic family. We all know that anyone born in a Catholic family and even some that claims to be a Catholic but do not practice it normally baptised their children at infant. This assertion is predominantly in the South East. So there's no way you can proof that the first two Frs I mentioned above wasn't baptised at infant. For Fr. Edeh, it's possible that he wasn't born in a Christian/Catholic family due to his age now. So probably he couldn't have been baptised at infant. But 3 of them and all Catholic priests uphold, perform/performing and teaches infant baptism. So Bro your argument on that can't hold. You're still avoiding my response to you on infant baptism. I mentioned you. Go to your Mentions and check it. I want to hear your response on that. |
Nodogragra4me:1. "is a proof for unbelievers that you are a believer......Jesus said , these signs shall but you believe that an epistle to Corinthians is more sacred than the very words of Jesus....study the mark, it is probably in red in your bible." I copied your words exactly. There you said that Mark is more sacred than letter of St Paul to Corinthians. Bro! As far as Christianity is concern, words of God are all sacred. Whether it's Mark or Paul, Christians considers all of them equally sacred because they're words of God not that of Paul or Mark. Concerning Mark 16:17. "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;" -KJV. meaning those that believe will be able to perform miracles: casting out devils; speaking in new tongues. Jesus never said that speaking in new tongue as you said ("Jesus said it is the recognized ID CARD of a believer. Mark 16:17" ) will be the ID CARD of a believers. Stop misinterpreting the Bible. The Bible said THESE SIGNS (it's a plural, meaning there are other signs). Jesus didn't said only speaking in tongues in Mark 16:17, shall follow those that believe. There are other miraculous signs He mentioned there. And the Bible didn't said that a believer MUST possess all the miraculous signs. So I don't see the reason why you should single it out as the only criteria for knowing a believer, if not to justify your personal ideology. Ask yourself why Jesus made that statement in Mark 16:17. I believe you know that all the books in the Bible are inter-linked, that's why I used two instances in Gospel of St. John ( 1:43-51; 4:48 ) where same Jesus that made statement in Mark 16:17 to proof to you that signs and wonders are gifts given to believers for unbelievers which St. Paul also attested in 1Corinthians 14:22. Also Acts 2:1-42, esp. 4-13 & 40-42 will bears us witness. Until you use bible instances to proof your point in Mark 16:17 that Jesus said speaking in tongues is the only ID CARD for believers, I will still maintain my status quo. 2. Let me quote your exact words: "Miracle and tongue is not a special gift to Mbaka and Ede and Munso......everyone of us has the gift if we were baptized in water and not sprinkled water on and have the baptism of the Holy Ghost." I agreed with you that all Christians have equal access to the gift of Holy Spirit. But was these men you mentioned wasn't baptised at infant? How come they received the gifts which according to you can only be recieved at adult baptism? (let me not go further on this infant baptizim here because you haven't responded to my yesterday's mention on it). Bro! Catholic church is not against speaking in new tongues. Speaking in tongues is not the only criteria to know believers neither is it an ID card to make heaven. Bible didn't tell us that. I must apologise for responding late, just coming back from work. Hope your day was great! |
Nodogragra4me:Bro! I'm not trying to convince you on infant baptism o, because everyone is entitled to his or her personal opinion. But I will like to highlight on your method of interpreting the Bible. 1. You said the Bible uses the key words "unless a MAN be born of water and spirit...," going by your interpretation, that keyword 'MAN' shouldn't also be apply to a WOMAN because a definition of a MAN is an adult male not an adult female. 2. Using your exact word, "Jesus, our ultimate guide and example never did." But it wasn't recorded anywhere in the Bible that Jesus baptised anyone by himself. 3. Have you read in any part of the Bible that Jesus' parents was baptised? If they wasn't baptised, how could they have gotten Jesus be baptised at infant. Again you said "the faith of a parents covers a child" that's a fact and I agreed with you. I also believed that you will agree with me that faith is a condition for baptism, and that baptism itself is not a demonstration of faith by the person baptised. Then the question can be asked, Whose faith is required? If we look now at the relevant biblical teaching, we will see that the faith of parents fully suffices for the baptism of their children. Genesis told us that After Abraham exercised faith in God’s covenant promises (Gen. 15:6), the Lord added the rite of circumcision to the covenant arrangement (Gen. 17:9–14). He received “the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he [already] had while uncircumcised” (Rom. 4:11). Because Abraham was righteous (his sins were forgiven) as the result of his faith, he was circumcised as a sign given by God that sealed that righteousness. Physical, outward circumcision signified spiritual, inward cleansing of the heart (Ezek. 44:7; Rom. 2:28–29), a spiritual reality for Abraham and all his true, believing descendants. Not only Abraham, but all males in his household, were to be circumcised. Henceforth, all males were to be circumcised as eight-day-old infants, throughout the generations of the covenant community (Gen. 17:12–13). Circumcision marked one’s entrance into the covenant community; without it, one was to be “cut off from his people” (vs. 14). So we have seen, that circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant was applied to infants on the basis of parental faith (Gen. 17; Rom. 4:11). Since we today are part of that covenant through faith in Christ, the new sign of the covenant, water baptism, should likewise be applied to infants on the basis of parental faith. This conclusion is confirmed by the accounts in the book of Acts which reveal that whole households were commonly baptized on the basis of the faith of the head of the household. The most detailed and informative account is that of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30–34). “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” he was told, “and you shall be saved, you and your household” (vs. 31; cf. 11:14). Accordingly, the gospel was preached “to him together with all who were in his house” (vs. 32). In response, he “believed in God with his whole household” (vs. 34), whereupon “he was baptized, he and all his household” (vs. 33). The key word in this passage is “with.” It signifies accompaniment. When Luke says that the jailer heard the gospel and believed with his household, the implication is that everyone in his household went along with him. Any older household members, such as his wife, evidently became believers, too. But any young children went along with their father, following his lead with whatever limited understanding that they had. This crucial distinction between “with” and “and” (regrettably obscured by some translations) is clear in similar passages in Acts: 1:14; 3:4; 4:27; 5:1; 10:2; 14:13; 15:22; 21:5. In each case, “with” introduces those who follow the lead of others and join with them in their activity, however actively or passively. In Acts 21:5, for example, Paul is escorted to the harbor by all the men in the church at Tyre, “with wives and children,” which no doubt included a number of small infants. In the household baptism passages, the head of the house always believes “with” his household, but he and they are baptized. Just as the heads of households escorted Paul to the harbor “with” infants who were only passive participants, so also heads of households were baptized “with” whatever infants were in their families. To conclude; if we look carefully at the teaching of Scripture, we see that the sign of the covenant was applied to infants prior to Christ, and presumably continued to be applied to them when Jesus changed it to baptism. And when we look closely at the household baptisms described in Acts, there can be little doubt but that infants were commonly baptized in the apostolic church. They were baptized then, and they should be baptized now, on the basis of God’s promise to bless the children of believers. The faith of a parent qualifies a child to be baptized and raised as a disciple of Jesus. He welcomed them into his kingdom, and so should we. |
Nodogragra4me:God have mercy on us. So some part of the Bible are more sacred than others? Nawaoo! SMH! Anyway since your church doesn't consider Corinthians as sacred part of the Bible, let me quote John to explain to you that signs and wonders are proof for unbelievers, not for believers. In John 4:48 "Jesus said to him, “None of you will ever believe unless you see miracles and wonders.”" Also remember Jesus's encounter with Nathaniel in John1:43-51. At first when Philips told Nathaniel that he has seen the Messiah, he didn't believe saying in verse 46, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” but when Jesus performed signs and wonders to him by telling him in verse 48 “I saw you when you were under the fig tree before Philip called you.” Nathaniel believeed immediately saying in verse 49, “you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” but Jesus replied him back in verse 50 saying “You believe just because I told you I saw you when you were under the fig tree" I believe these two instances in John where Jesus himself declared that signs and wonders are proof for unbelievers to believe is enough to convince you. Except if Gospel of St. John is not also among the books you considered more sacred than others. For we Catholics, every single passages of the Bible from GENESIS through St. Paul's FIRST LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS to REVELATION are all sacred. They're all God's words. Stop allowing those pastors who always interpret the Bible in a way that suits their personal agenda to mislead you. Proudly Catholic! |
ADAMUdaCOWBOY:I think many people misunderstood this sketch. I sketched this, and I was only asking how much an architect will charge me to draw it. So the sketch was just to put down an idea of what I want. I later hooked up with one Architect, he's done with the drawing both Mechanical and electrical drawings. He's equally sent it to me last week. He charged me 50k for everything. |
Nodogragra4me:On Mark 16:17, My problem with guys is that you only read passages of the Bible that suits your ideology. Again I'm begging you go and study 1Corinthians 14, please the whole of the chapter 14. Except if Corinthians is not part of your Bible. 1 Corinthians 14:22 says: 'So then, the gift of speaking in strange tongues is proof for unbelievers, not for believers, while the gift of proclaiming God's message is proof for believers, not for unbelievers.' Even Christ said that he came for the sinners so that they will be saved. All the signs and wonders performed by Christ is for the unbelievers to see and believe in him and God who sent him. AGAIN STUDY 1CORINTHIANS 14 PLEASE. On your last point about children: GNT and NIV Lk18:15 used the word "some people brought their babies....." While KJV used the word" And they brought unto him also infants..." O'boy study your Bible and understand it. Bible is to be studied "letter by letter, line by line, lesson by lesson." |
Nodogragra4me:Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16). Going by your ideology, children or babies shouldn't be taken to the church. Also Women are not to be included too. Since according you the Bible says "unless a MAN is born again...," This is how you guys keeps misleading people around. |
Nodogragra4me:'Men are indeed chewing the words' My friend go back and read what I posted again. Read it very carefully or better still chew it. Then after that go and read 1 Corinthians14. Read it slowly not quickly so that you will understand it very well. Catholic Church has not in any way condemned speaking in tongues, or made it compulsory that everyone should speak in tongues. Because no passages of the Bible stated that every Christians MUST speak in tongue. Talking about infant baptism, if you read my post very well, you will understand that Catholic church did not said that you MUST baptise at infant. She only encourages it. If you chew what I wrote, you will see the reason why she encourages it. Also Christ’s law applies to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:14). Talking about questioning Catholic doctrines, you're the one that need to question the doctrines of your pastors. An individual can't just come and impose his personal views or his understanding of the Bible on me. Catholic Church is an institution instituted by Christ not a personal church. |
Nodogragra4me:Did Jesus Christ spoke in tongue? You see, my problem with you guys is worshipping of your pastors rather than Christ himself. You guys always want to be like your pastors rather than Christ. Must Pope speak in tongue? Must everyone speak in tongue? Didn't St. Paul told us in 1 Corinthians12 about the different kinds of gifts of Holy Spirit? For Infant baptism read this below Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons. Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39). We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." |
JideAmuGiaka:Read as many as you want here http://www.catholicbible101.com/catholicbibleverses.htm |
oladoja1:Jesus did three things that established the framework of His Church. First, He chose humans to carry out His work. He appointed Peter to be the visible head of the Church. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church." (Matthew 16: 18) Jesus said "build," as in to create a structure. Jesus built His structure on specifically chosen human beings Peter and the apostles. Second, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles the power and authority to carry out His work. "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven."(Matthew 16:19; 18:18) "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven, whose sins you retain, they are retained."(John 20:23) Third, Jesus gave Peter and the apostles commands as to what that work should be. At the last supper, He commanded, "Do this in memory of Me." (Luke 22:19) He commanded them to "Make disciples of all nations" (Matthew 28:19), and to "Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) The early Church was structured in a hierarchical manner as it is today. We see in Acts, chapter 15 how the apostles and the elders came together under the leadership of St. Peter to decide the question of what was required of Gentiles. We also see how St. Peter was regarded as the head of the Church when St. Paul, "Went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas [Peter] and remained with him fifteen days." (Galatians 1:18) There is no Scriptural evidence of independent local churches. The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim to have been founded by Christ personally. Every other church traces its lineage back to a mere human person such as Martin Luther or John Wesley. The Catholic Church can trace its lineage back to Jesus Christ who appointed St. Peter as the first pope. This line of popes has continued unbroken for almost 2,000 years. God rules, instructs and sanctifies His people through His Church. Under her teaching office, the Catholic Church preserves the Word of God. She is the custodian, keeper, dispenser and interpreter of teachings of Christ. And she accomplishes this under the protection of the Holy Spirit. |
wizzywisdom:Can you please quote the book, chapter and verse of the Bible, so that I will be able to understand the angle you're taking it from. |
The points raised are interesting. Please Muslims in the house should come and clarify this. |
darioNaharis:Where Did Cain Get His Wife? Let us see who are mentioned in the Scriptures to be on the earth around Cain’s time. Gen 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” NIV Gen 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” NIV Gen 3:1 “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" NIV (We know that the serpent refers to the devil. See Rev. 12:9) The main characters are all mentioned here: God, the creator, Adam and Eve, and the devil, the evil one who usurped Adam’s authority of our planet. Now there are also the following characters: Gen 4:1-2 “Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.” NIV Two of the descendants from Adam and Eve were Cain and Abel. The count seems full, but is it? Right after Cain’s punishment by God he moves to the land of Nod and the first thing mentioned in the Bible that Cain does is Gen 4:17 “Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.” NIV Where does that wife come from? When did the wedding take place? Is she an alien from outer space? Not at all. We need to remember that often times in the Bible genealogies mention only the men, not the women. In the New Testament we see some women being included in genealogies, but not in the Old Testament. Read through Genesis and you will notice that only some of Eve’s sons are mentioned, but never is there a mention of a daughter being born to her, although she had daughters, which is conformed in the following two texts: Gen 3:20 “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.” NIV And Gen 5:4 “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” NIV Cain must have married his sister, as there was no one else on our planet, except God and the devil. The people inhabiting our planet in Cain’s life were all immediate and secondary descendants from Adam and Eve. Now one may ask if this (Cain marrying his sister) isn’t incest. If our civilization were to be raised out of one single pair (Adam and Eve), it would be unavoidable of such closely related marriages. The notion of incest seems to evolve as the consequences of sin seem to expand through the world. At first, incest was referred to sexual relationships between parents and children. Later on, it was extended to relationships among siblings. By the time the Pentateuch was written, the laws covered all kinds of incest (see Lev 18:7-17; 20:11-12,14,17,20-21; Deut 22:30; 27:20,22,23), covering incest with a dad, a mom, a stepdad, a stepmom, a brother, a sister, a half brother, a half sister, a grandson, a granddaughter, a son-in-law, a daughter-in-law, an uncle, an aunt or a brother’s wife. Note though that before Moses’ time, Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12 “Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.”); Amram (Moses’ dad) married his father’s sister (his aunt) named Jochebed (Ex 6:21 “Amram married his father's sister Jochebed, who bore him Aaron and Moses”. NIV) and it was never reported as incest. Close inbreeding in Ancient times was without any serious or genetic damage. However, today genetic damages are quite high. Could it be the effect of us not having to the tree of life (see Gen 3:22-24; Rev. 22:2) , as well as the degenerative consequences of sin? |
nc201016:Even truths can be regarded as lies. It all depends the angle one chooses to view it. |
nc201016:Hmmm! I don't know about spiritual force o! |


