₦airaland Forum

@m_nwankwo,
[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=92544.msg1681511#msg1681511 date=1195064429]@Pilgrim 1

1.Thanks for your reply. The Grail Message does not borrow from the bible, Koran or sacred texts of other religion. The Grail Message states that it is a procalamation of truth. That is why it is entiltled "In The Light of Truth" Therefore whatever is true in other religions must also be found in the Grail Message.[/quote]I'd mostly confine myself to discussing the Grail message's relatedness to the bible in addressing your statements. Obviously, the marked similarity can be explained in two ways: borrowing or by the way you have alerted - independent revelation. I can't think of other explanations right now.
However, some issues naturally arise:
The similarities are an issue, however, the differences and even CONTRADICTIONS between some sacred texts and the said "proclamation of truth" constitute a source of major concern. In case you weren't aware, the bible, which claims to be the Word of God, also claims to be THE proclamation of Truth. Beyond that, the striking thing is that it claims to be the exclusive proclamation of truth, wherein there cannot be spiritual truth within any other book that makes such a claim. It is a cannon – and in its totality it reveals THE TRUTH, which/who is embodied in Jesus Christ. Not only that, it claims to be inerrant because, so-called truth mixed with error, is just as dangerous as pure untruth and error. Thus it claims to be wholly true.

That said, if we consider the similarities
It's obvious that, although the Grail Message seeks to be independent or to "stand on its own", you cannot do away with specific instances of marked similarity to other religions. My question now is: is it really true that "whatever is true in other religions must also be found in the grail message"? Let me explain. If there is "truth" existing in other religions, e.g. the bible, how did THEY arrive at that truth? I'm particularly referring to Truth (eg relating to the nature of the God-head) that people don't stumble upon. How did the heralds of such religious beliefs come about them? If we consider that those "truths" could not have been attained by mere human logic nor reasoning, can we not thereby say that those truths were revealed by God ? Now, did God reveal himself to peoples of clearly opposing religions and belief systems? In one peculiar instance, that of Hinduism (I believe there are elements of Hinduism in the grail message) which does NOT even believe in nor acknowledge a personal God, how then did they arrive at those truths? Furthermore, what is the purpose of God revealing himself to people that do not even acknowledge his existence?

now to the differences
It is possible you try to resolve that disparity by saying that it was revealed to them - something which obviously cannot be true for certain elements. However, that brings much more issues. If they are revealed truths, how come they contain "revealed" instances of truth that clearly contradicts the teachings of the grail message which also claims to be "truth"? Does God contradict himself? Or did he reveal part-truths that were later corrupted or filled in by their followers? Beyond that, Truth is a canon - there is a concept of ALL TRUTH or the WHOLE TRUTH, thus alluding to the existence of part-truths does not hold water. The bible obviously claims in its totality to be truth - and truth revealed by God. Furthermore, it makes an exclusive claim. The differences between the bible and the GM CANNOT be mere differences in interpretation - if you think it is such, we can consider that in more detail. Likewise, we affirm that the bible is inerrant and was not "corrupted" in any way - although human error in copying manuscripts and translating can make insignificant mistakes, which can easily be resolved by looking at the thousands of available manuscripts.

The issue is: there is a real dilemma here; and like I said before, truth mixed with error is just as dangerous (if not more dangerous) than pure error because by the "truths" it contains, it brings down one's guards and makes it easier for one to swallow the untruths. The poison in an ice-cream analogy will work here. So I affirm that there is NO WAY that the GM can be true if the bible that came before it contains independently attained "truths".

There are other issues I will hopefully address later today. Cheers .

@m_nwankwo,

The Grail Message does not draw from any other sacred texts even when it appears so on the surface.

This being your conclusion, and thus the motivation for you to clear the things that enitan2002 said up, I have at the outset a basic question: by "any other sacred texts", do you mean: other than the bible and the grail message? In other words, the inferences you make do not or may not contradict what is contained in the sacred text of the scriptures?

If the answer to that is NO, then we might change the direction of the argument. If it is YES, can you please examine these assertions as contained in your most recent post:

- that Immanuel is the Holy Spirit, and since the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from Jesus Christ, then Immanuel is distinct from Jesus

- that there was only God the Father in the beginning

- that the Holy Spirit came into to existence "when God decided to create"

- that the entire creation was "created by" the Holy Spirit, I assume precluding an involvement of the Word of God herein the second Person of the trinity. This latter point made more obvious by this next assertion:

- that Jesus Christ, and thus the Word (being my primary concern here the pre-incarnate Christ) only came into existence AFTER man's sin, WHEN God decided to intervene in the mess created by man

- that his existence is as a result of a "severing" OUT FROM or OUT OF God the Father

Are those valid inferences from your posts or have i misread you?
Do you think those assertions could be made using the text of Scripture?
Thanks as you clarify those points so we can know exactly what you are saying and not misinterpret you. Cheers

@Olowo

OlowoTee:
cgift and ricadelide! You people should leave my brother alone jo!   . just kidding lol. . .

So bro Backslider is your 'brother' - i didn't know o ! (j/k)

Actually, while I probably have been on the other side of the debate most times with bros, and even now I'm not in agreement with his perceived motives for asking this question (purportedly being that "christians are NOT supposed to be materially wealthy" - i'm not sure if that's his viewpoint, i could be wrong) i actually DO agree with him here that Jesus was not "rich" - rich being in the context i defined in my earlier post.

Just to set things straight. Cheers .

@topic,
I decided to be silent for a while in this topic.
However, please bear with my long write-up, brevity oftentimes leaves room for misinterpretation.

What does it mean to be ‘rich’?
I think the first problem with this kind of debate is the usual equivocation on the word: “rich”. For the sake of argument, it is good to define one’s terms: what exactly are we referring to when we say “was Jesus rich?” Obviously, if we are talking about being rich in character, there isn’t a debate there. If it were about being rich spiritually, I doubt if anyone would argue about that. However if we are referring to material wealth, then we need to define what material wealth connotes. There are two meanings that have been used on this thread – “Jesus did not have any needs that weren’t met, therefore he was rich”. Thus, riches is hereby defined as ‘having all your needs met’. If that was the definition of riches, then we can say right ahead: Jesus WAS rich – because in the long term, he always had all his needs met. I said in the long term, because there was at least one recorded instance where he did not have his immediate needs met . . . and the culprit faced the consequences (see fig tree encounter).

However, is that really the definition of being rich? Is that the definition that some of these preachers are using? Are some of these preachers actually saying that “because Jesus had his needs met then he was rich”? Elijah had all his needs met, albeit in some supernatural ways; was he rich? Do people we call ‘rich’ now have ALL their needs met?

Although, that might be a good renewed Christian mind’s definition of being “rich” that is not the standard definition for discussion purposes. A Christian can see himself as being rich; even if he doesn’t have any money in his bank account. He has the greatest procession of all: Christ in him. That is granted. However, a non-Christian will not share that very same definition, not to talk about one who does not even belief in the supernatural. So let’s define our terms and let’s know what we are talking about so we don’t argue for no reason.

The excluded middle or false dichotomy?
Now, this fallacy of the excluded middle is when people reduce scenarios to two possibilities, when clearly there are other alternatives. If one says Jesus was not rich – does that then necessarily connote that Jesus was poor? Coming to the context of our present society – how many people are considered rich and how many poor? Is it a thin line that separates being rich from being poor – the line of meeting needs – such that once all your needs can be met then you stop being poor? The reality is that, in most cases, poverty and riches are usually the two ends of a binomial with the majority of people lying in the middle; and some closer to one end than the other. The exception to this might be in the case of developed countries, in which, relative to poorer nations, the graph seems to be skewed to one end. And this then brings the point of “relativity” when it comes to defining riches and poverty. Is it the same standard that is used to consider one as being poor in the west that is used in developing countries? Easily, a middle-class person in the US would gravitate into a high class in Nigeria; because, relatively speaking, the societal context for defining wealth and riches is higher in one context than the other – thus bringing to the fore the issue of wealth being societal in context. Likewise, time plays a role. The average lower middle class person of our day would clearly be in a higher class in the past. What is the underlying point here – with greater income comes greater “needs”. With my being in the US and the things I “have”, by Nigerian standards I would be considered rich, but by American standards, I can’t be said to be rich because there are other things a “rich man” here should have that I don’t have. Now, do I WANT those things? No.

What does that then mean: if I choose to be modest in my desires, if I do not want to have many material things, and the few things I want I do have, can I then be said to be “rich” – if the definition for being rich was 'having my needs met'? In other words, if I decide to curb my appetites, does that then upgrade my social status to the level of ‘riches’? Can we call austere people “rich”?

Putting “riches” in context
Clearly, throughout the scriptures, we can see the bible make mention of men who served God and yet were rich. The patriarchs were rich, Job was rich, the kings were rich and so on. However, in each of those instances their being rich can be defined in context. In Job’s context, we could see his wealth displayed in the things he processed. The bible even clearly itemized them. I don't think i need to go into details. Even up to the New Testament we can see this form of definition of being materially rich. Now, if we were to define being rich as:

       • Processing great material wealth OR
       • Having great material processions

Can we then still say, by those standards, Jesus was rich?
If we were to define riches in that context, the question still stands: Was Jesus rich?
I’ll leave the issue at that level for now.

Seun:
How can a book written by benny Hinn prove his innocence?

Except you're trying to be funny, i don't seem to get it.

First, his motives for writing the books: they were not written IN ORDER TO prove his innocence - he wrote them for entirely different reasons.

Second, he wrote the books BEFORE the allegations of "heresy" were brought against him, so they are not a defensive tactic against examination.

Third, if the case in point is that he is actually a heretic, then THE VERY SAME BOOKS he WROTE can actually be a very good weapon to nail him as one. It is in those books that you can examine his beliefs to determine if they were "heretical". In other words, those books can actually pronounce him guilty if found to be severely at odds with his reference manual - herein being the bible.

Fourth, if, however, he is found to have been consistently "conventional" in what he says - he does not write (or perhaps say) anything heretical - then his allegedly heretical beleifs are confined to himself alone; and thus he is of no harm to anyone else but to himself. Of course, heretical practices are an entirely different matter.

Beyond all that however, you are allowed to defend yourself and be your own witness when cross-examined. You can't tie a man's mouth and pronounce judgement on him without hearing his own testimony - if he wants to give it - that's not being fair.

I hope I'm making sense. I'm not a lawyer, but i guess these are plain issues. Cheers

@Hey Olowo,
Happy birthday!!
Thank God for your life.
May Baba continue to bless you in ways that you cannot even imagine, and may He continue to use you to bless the lives of others.
So are you going to mail the cake? You can send it to my email account
Cheers!!

cgift:
Which word? The guy just yearned dust! Opata!. Nada!

His conclusion is not fertile. He carries two books and is confused as to which is right or wrong. How I'm I sure he can even read ? Why don't you go a step further and demonstrate through your scholarship, the on which is right or wrong? That's the only way yu would have added value.

Lol @cgift . . . bros, take am easy. The guy didn't yarn dust at all; he made some very cogent points. Let me restate (paraphrase) just a few of them:

- the claims of both religions are mutually exclusive, therefore both CANNOT be right at the same time
- it is possible that one or the other is right (and it is also possible that neither is right)
- it is better, rather than live your life under a "pascal wager" philosophy, to have a conviction as to which path is right
- ultimately, its an individual issue and it's best each person take time out to seek God for himself; by so doing, such a one will SURELY find

which one be opata for that one? Just because he didn't try to express his own beliefs? Abeg, sometimes its not necessarily giving people fish that is important; telling them how to fish also matters. You can "add value" by stimulating people to seek deeper - not only by telling them what YOU have found.

FYI, the guy is a saved christian - i can infer from his other posts.
Cheers

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=93216.msg1677193#msg1677193 date=1194970919]WITHOUT your usual drama of re-engineering words, could you please tell us the meaning of the word 'Amen'?[/quote]Is that actually possible? Na WITHOUT you talk oh, no be WITH.
It's like removing someone's tongue and telling him to lick okra soup.
Except the old Kuns we used to know has now changed.

Anyways, Kuns, welcome back! We've missed the teletubbies. Cheers

nb - i just noticed your last post before this was on September 11! Hope nothing oh? (j/k)

Lol . . . i dey wonder sef say maybe him be recent convert; almost half of his posts were paraphrased from the bible (*exaggeration *).
My guy don do too much reading of the bible in order to find fault; the thing don stick for him mind, no gree commot.

BTW, welcome back to the land! Hope you tore your exams? We say make we try small until you come. Hereby formally handover
_{e no easy to dey too post for hia - soso wahala}
Cheers .

combatant:
Father forgive her for she does not know what she is typing.

Are you a recent convert to Islam? I thought muslims don't refer to Allah as "Father". Or am i wrong?

_{At least from Bilquis Sheikh's book that was one of the inferences I made}

Or are you jokingly trying to mimic the words of Christ on the cross?
Anyways, cheers

@yeparipa,

yeparipa:
WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FROM FOLLOWER OF A RELIGION DON MASELO QUOTED AS SAYING THIS. ALL RELIGION PREACHES A FORM OF TERRORISM EXCEPT BUDISM

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

<snip>

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

True, God DOES kill; however God DOES NOT commit murder, neither does He allow us to do so. There is a difference between murder and killing – murder takes place without cause and is premeditated. As regards such the bible is clear:
Deut. 5:17
You shall not murder
Now, having differentiated between murder and killing, as regards killing, it’s not so hard; the God who created all things and owns all things, who GAVE life – does He not have a right to JUSTLY take life away? Even human beings, who did not create life, do kill persons who commit grievous sins against society – as those people are declared harmful to the society in which they live. Does the Righteous and Holy God not have a right to take the lives of or punish (by destroying) those who sin against Him? Does He not have a right to judge people whose lives are harmful to the righteous?
Again, murder is unjust killing – that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about judgment. Please, God has a right to judge those who disobey Him.
The beautiful thing is that, God’s patience towards sinful people is exceeding, and He always waits for people to repent of their ways and do right – that is why even though the people of Nineveh (in the book of Jonah) had sinned against God severely and God had purposed to destroy them, when they repented, God spared them. That is the aspect of the mercy of God coming to the fore – mercy does indeed triumph over judgment (James 2:13).
Furthermore, coming to the new testament, and as mentioned by cgift, God's injunction for us to love everyone, including our enemies, is very clear.

Ignorance is bliss. Christians should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians:

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Biding your definition of ‘free inquiry’, Christianity isn’t harmonious with the doctrine of secular humanism as a philosophical mindset. However, it is a different thing altogether and an empty stretch at best to allege that Christians DO NOT “socialize with non-Christians”. The verses you quoted in 2John and Romans were not read in context, and were unrightfully extrapolated to mean what they do not say. Before I address their context, let me make a point from another scripture. In 1Cor 5:9 Paul says not to “associate with sexually immoral people”. If one were to merely pick out that verse and not read the whole context, one who very easily have misquoted Paul. Here’s the full context:
1Cor 5:9-12
I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother BUT is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
Verse 10 there clearly explains the issue as regards non-Christians while verse 11 clearly shows what Paul’s target is: “anyone who calls himself a brother (christian)”. Verse 12 again reiterates that Paul’s concern was NOT with non-Christians – but with those who profess to be Christians whilst their message and/or action contradict their identity.
Now coming back to the scriptures you mentioned in 2John and Romans, here are they in their proper contexts:
2John 7-11
7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
It’s obvious that John was referring, NOT to non-Christians, but to false teachers WITHIN Christianity; who obviously began in Christ (see verse 9) but at a later date developed a false teaching about Jesus Christ (as having not come in the flesh). All through the NT, there are clear injunctions as regards dealing with such people.
The same thing applied to the scripture in Rom. 16:17, from the context – “those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way” – it is clear that he wasn’t referring to non-Christians.
Christianity obviously urges one not to indulge in the sinful activities of non-Christians, however, it DOES NOT preclude Christians from relating with non-Christians.

Judge other religions for not following Christ:

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

It is true that Christianity is exclusive; it makes exclusive (and unambiguous) claims as regards Truth. There is nothing wrong with exclusivity – most practical philosophical leanings do make them – and, most times, abstractions and relativity as regards ultimate truth is just impracticable. I’ve already explained that Christianity does not make it its primary goal to “judge” non-believers (see 1Cor 5:12). That is not to say that by our righteous living we cannot expose (and thereby condemn) the evil that men do (Eph. 5:11, Phil. 2:15-16 and others). Christianity teaches that all men are sinful and in need of repentance. However it does not call all unbelievers antichrists. I’d just give one example for space. Here is your reference to 1John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.
It would have likewise been good to note what was said prior to this in verse 19.
They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
I guess your misrepresentation should be fairly obvious to you.

All in all, you’re grossly misinformed. Hopefully, you’d read the bible for yourself rather than allow other people’s (or perhaps your own – I don’t know) prejudices to becloud your judgment on scriptures that are very plain. Cheers .

debojyde:
If you want to prep 4 step 2 in 2 months you have to study for about 12hrs a day and also register for usmleworld.

Are you done with the licensing exams?
Just curious - do u guys (human medics) also have to study all the way from anat, bic, physio and co? I'm a vet medic and WE have to do that.

davidylan:
Without a doubt. . . Horus has not a shred of wisdom. 

Lol . . . . I got tired of dealing with the bros long ago - after i discovered that he "deals with FACTS NOT Be-LIE-EVEs"
Or better yet, "Be lying to the sons of Eve"
_{Men, wetin eye no go see.}

hopefully Horus, Blabs787 and combatant can now see the answers they constantly claim not to see.

hopefully.

@combatant,
First off, bros, I didn’t “avoid your questions” I was online for only a short time this morning. I had to go to work.

combatant:
@Ricadelide, Pilgrims, Nwando, etc


In addition to what Olabowale said and with regards to the corrupted Injil:
<snip>

All the initial irrelevant statements about bible verses and all have been severally addressed so there's no need for recycling. I'm not a catholic - so quit referring us to catholic bibles and all such stuff.

Christians claimed that Jesus came and ied for their sins, please;

Christians say that "GOD LOST His only son to save us". To whom did God lose Jesus if he owns the whole universe?

What is the reason behind this irrelevant question – first, where did anyone say that God LOST his only son? Please rephrase your question. God GAVE the Son. It’s not like he is missing or something.

If it was agreeable with God’s Majesty to have sons, He could have created a million sons the like of Jesus. So what is the big clear deal about this only son?

You are not in position to dictate what God will do and not do. First, Jesus was not “created” so quit putting up your false statements. Why didn’t Allah create a million prophets to different nations and only sent one to the Arabs?
That said, although Jesus is the Only Begotten Son, through him a lot of us have been adopted as Sons. By God’s special grace, we are all adopted sons through Christ – that is one of the beauties of Christianity: God is our Father.

Why does the Bible say that Jesus wanted to die on the cross, when the one on the cross was shouting "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" according to Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33?

Were you not referred to read the Psalms? If you obeyed that injunction you would have seen that Jesus was quoting David in Psalm 22:1. If he did not want to die on the cross, he could have done many things to prevent it.
Beyond that “why have you forsaken me” as a statement does not even remotely indicate any absence of desire for death. They are two entirely different things. That inference of yours is totally unwarranted.

If God had wanted to save us, couldn’t He have done that without sacrificing Jesus?

Bros, you don’t have a point here. You are NOT in the position of God; you can’t instruct Him as regards how HE chooses to do things. God can do whatever He likes. He chose to do it that way, end of story.
I can explain why the Lord had to offer Himself for mankind – but the request for such an explanation would be phrased differently. You can’t argue by saying God should do this and God shouldn’t do that.

God is Just, and justice requires that nobody should be punished for the sins of others, nor should some people be saved by punishing other people. Doesn’t the claim that God sacrificed Jesus to save us because He was Just, contradict the definition of justice?

This may be true in your own book of justice. But with God it’s just not true. Justice demands that there be punishment for sins, it does not preclude one person from WILLFULLY taking the punishment of another. If it was by compulsion then that would be unjust. But that wasn’t the case. If you read the Torah like you were instructed to do you wouldn’t be saying that. In God’s justice, one person CAN take the punishment for another person’s sins. As far back as the Torah, animals were offered as atoning sacrifices for the sins of men. This was done on a regular basis by the priesthood. This kind of offering was however insufficient. Thus, Jesus came to end the era of continual sacrifices, by willfully offering Himself as the ONE sacrifice.

People sacrifice things they have to get something they don’t have when they can’t have both. Christians say that "God SACRIFICED His only son to save us". We know that God is Almighty; to whom did He sacrifice Jesus?

First, you won’t find Christians phrasing things yet again the way you do. Jesus offered up himself as a sacrifice. Maybe your confusion can be solved with these scriptures:
Heb. 7:27-28
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.
Heb. 9: 13-14
The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God , cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
Heb. 9: 27
so the Christ also, having been once offered in sacrifice in order that He might bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, separated from sin, to those who are eagerly expecting Him, to make their salvation complete.

A real sacrifice is when you can’t get back what you have offered , so what would be the big deal about such a sacrifice if God could recover the same offering? (according to the Christians’ terminology)?

You just keep offering your straw men. The beauty of the whole thing is that death could not hold Christ down – so no matter what he would rise again. However, that said – did Christ recover his life here on earth? The fact that he rose again does NOT negate the fact that he DIED. He DIED, but since death could not hold Him, He rose again. The sacrifice was Christ’s death – did he NOT DIE? Does the fact that he rose again then connote that he did not OFFER HIMSELF? Please look again at that argument of yours.
Beyond that, there's no need for equivocating on the word "sacrifice". The usage of sacrifice here does not mean "to forfeit", it refers to a propitiatory offering.

If all the Christians are saved through Jesus and are going to Heaven no matter what they do, then the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant and the definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant. If this is not so, then do Christians who believe in Jesus yet do not follow his teachings nor repent go to Hell?

Why all these strawmen arguments and why the endless repetition and recycling. Where did we say “no matter what they do”? What we said was: your works cannot save you. You can’t get saved by anything you do. Salvation is a free gift.  Except you don’t understand what salvation is and you are relying on the Islamic misunderstanding. Salvation in Christianity is not a mere futuristic event at the point of death; it takes place here on earth. For the christian who abides in Christ, being saved is past tense. It takes place following repentance and acceptance of Christ. Once you are saved, you are delivered from the power of sin and empowered to live a life above sin. Following salvation, one is mandated to live by the Spirit.

How can Christians take deeds as irrelevant after becoming one when Jesus says in Matthew 12:36; "But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by the words thou shalt be condemned"?

Again, another strawman stemming from a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine – I never did say deeds are “irrelevant after becoming one”. I said they are irrelevant before OR in order to become one. Salvation is not at the point of death. There are two stages in the life of a Christian – before (when one was NOT a Christian) and after salvation (when one becomes a Christian). We are not born Christians. Works done before salvation are dead and unprofitable works. After you are saved however, you must live righteously, and the ability to do this is not by human strength – it is by the grace of God. We are required to do good works after being saved.

Christians say that people go to Heaven ONLY THROUGH JESUS, yet Paul says in 1 CORINTHIANS 7:8-16 that the unbelieving husband is acceptable to God because he is united with his wife and vice versa, and their pagan children are also acceptable to God. So people can go to heaven without believing in Jesus according to this.

Again another misunderstanding – the word there is “sanctified” and it merely means, “set apart for a noble purpose”. It has nothing to do with going to heaven – it only stipulates that in the sight of God, such a marriage and such children are acceptable. No need for the addition of “going to heaven” there when the bible clearly does not teach that.

How come the Bible says that ALL Israel is saved although they don’t believe in Jesus? Doesn’t that contradict the claim in the Bible that the only way to heaven is through Jesus?

Again, reading the bible with the sole aim of looking for contradictions. Unfortunately you won’t find them. Have you read the context of Romans 11? It talks about two kinds of Isreal – the natural Isreal and the spiritual Isreal.
Romans 9: 6-8
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
There you can see the definition of the spiritual Isreal being the “children of promise”
Going back to the scripture you quoted here is it in its context:
Romans 11: 25-26
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And SO all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
  "The deliverer will come from Zion;
     he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
ALL ISREAL there refers to both the natural Isreal and the spiritual Isreal. In other words, by the very act of entry of the full number of Gentiles, ALL Isreal is saved.

Now to further bust your bubble:
Rom 11:23
And IF they do not persist in unbelief, they WILL be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
Can you see your misunderstanding? IF the natural Isreal DOES NOT continue in their unbelief, THEN, will they be grafted in. Clearly that verse shows that it is because of their unbelief that they have not been “grafted in”. Again, showing clearly that: THERE IS NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF CHRIST.

According to Christians, those who have not been baptized will go to Hell. So even the infants and babies go to Hell if not baptized, since they are born with an inherited original sin. Doesn’t this contradict the definition of justice? Why would God punish people for sins they never committed?

I think you really need to stop all these misquoting and putting up of straw men. I’ve obliged you enough. Please show me where it was said that “those who have not been baptized will go to Hell”? Please do so. If you want answers, ask them in the right manner, not by putting up wrong statements that aren’t found in Christian doctrine. Was the robber crucified beside Jesus, who received forgiveness from Him, baptized? What did Jesus say to him?

Cheers .

bros Olabo,

olabowale:
@ Recadelide: What do you mean by son; not made or sired? Please, explain.

God made everything through Jesus? Please explain.

Bros, first off, where did i even say that your first statement? i don't recall. Is it another topic-changing gimmick?
However if you want me to explain what the phrase "the Son of God" means, i'd oblige you - it means exactly what it says. There's no need for deliberately misconstruing it. Obviously, God is Spirit. He is not man with flesh and bones that would literally marry a wife in order to procreate and give birth to a literal son. So what is the source of confusion here? Sonship here is spiritual and metaphorical. The Word becoming flesh (John 1:14). It's not even so far-fetched. The fact that Jesus the Messiah is not an ordinary man like Muhammad (saw) is confirmed in your Qu'ran. Don't you know he was born by a virgin? Which ordinary man is born by a virgin? You tell me. Isn't it obvious from his virgin birth that he is "the Word (who) became flesh"? An-an! You people really need Paul to explain things to you. You don't even know your messiah. Here are a few scriptures:
Heb. 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
Col. 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
So basically "Son of God" means He is God in bodily form. The second person in the trinity. That is why when the Lord said that, the Jews tried to kill him because they thought he was committing blasphemy by equating Himself with God (see John 10:33). I know this would spark another round of misunderstanding - so let me restate what the trinity means in christianity to preempt another barrage of empty questions - it is ONE GOD existing in three persons. Se e ti gbo? So don't ask me that "if he is God who was he praying to?". There are three persons in the God-head.

As regards your second question, it means just what it says. Who made all things? Is it not God? Who is the Lord Jesus?
All things were made by Him, through Him and for Him. It's a pity you guys deliberately refuse to understand nor accept the trinity. So much for Allah referring to himself as "We".

If the jewish holy book is also christain book, in addition to the gospel, they must not disagree, yes? If they disagree, which then is correct? The one that came first or the one that came later? What did Jesus say about God; One God or how many? What did Moses say about God; One God or many? What did other prophets say about God; One God or many?

This is so funny in so many ways. First, you say “which is correct? The one that came first or the one that came later?” – have you applied that to the Qu’ran? Have you, on the basis of the obvious disagreements of your Qu’ran with everything that went before it now discarded it?
Secondly, is Jesus no longer to be respected? Are his words no longer to be heeded? If you reject the Words of Jesus, are you obeying your Qu’ran?

All that said however, the NT does NOT disagree with the OT, rather it fulfills the OT. The trinity or the God-head is one thing that keeps on baffling you guys – God is ONE God. You won’t find Christians saying that there are THREE Gods – Christianity is a monotheistic religion. So keep your straw man arguement to yourself.
So again, to prevent further re-cyclings, the christian new testament does not disagree with the old, just like the shadow cannot disagree with the real thing, rather it fulfils it. It is however, not the case with the Qu'ran which disregards and disagrees with everything before it.

What did Jesus say about God having any son, or begotten son? What did Moses say about the same Subject? What did any and indeed all the prophets in the Bible, befoer the advent of Jesus say about the same subject?

Again, please listen to your prophet and obey your Qu’ran. Right from Genesis the coming of the Messiah had been prophesied. Go and read your Torah. I don’t want to confuse you the more by showing you the existence of the Lord before Moses or Abraham. The God-head is enough mind-blowing for you already. However, the simple issues are: what did Moses claim to be? What did Jesus claim to be? Are they false prophets? You guys’ case is really pathetic because the Koran clearly demands that you heed the words of the Lord Jesus; here is just one set from Jesus the Messiah, I can give you more:
John 10: 30, 37-38
“I and the Father are one”
“Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
Jesus clearly claimed to be God the Son, and the jews weren’t confused (see verse 33). Why don’t you believe and obey Him? By disobeying Jesus, your Messiah, you’re disobeying the Qu’ran. Shikena.

John 5;24; If you crosss over from death to life, then you should not be punished, because you believe, even if you die when performing adultery and any of those evil deeds, right? Your salvation from death is simply the belief and you are free to do whatever, because already has lifted the pen on your record?

Obviously, recycling answered questions is a major tenet of Islamic apologetics. You have asked this question before and I have answered it. Is it really that you can’t understand or you’re just being intentionally dubious?

Matt 1;21: To save his people; where is nigerian yoruba place in this house of isreal? Was not that we hear Jesus saying that he was sent only to this specific people, the jews/lost sheep of the house of Israel? Please explain. Enquiring mind wants to know.

Have you never heard John 3: 16 and other scriptures in the injil? Didn’t it say there that he was sent for the sins of the whole world? Here’s one scripture for explanation:
Rom. 9:8
In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

If Jesus finished everything, right there on the cross, because of the big event, why do you quote to me Jer, rome, Hebrew, corinthians, etc? It should have been enough to stop at whatever jesus said on the crosss, period! Why do we have all these extra in the Bible and not Gospel of jesus, since jesus preached the 'Gospel,' all about the places he went.

Keep churning out irrelevant questions like a broken record. Obviously, you’re not interested in answers. You’d either come back with more irrelevant questions or recycle the same old ones. If I quote scripture to explain things to you – how does that detract from Jesus finishing his work on the cross? If I carry out an act – can I not later explain what I did? All these irrelevant questions are not helping you.

Which Gospel did he preach, the four innthe Bible or another? What is that Gospel, a book he carried or what?

You tell me. Show me the lost injil so I can hear the new gospel. An-an. O ga. Anyways, cheers .

Just a few scriptures:
Luke 8:1-3
After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod's household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
If they were rich, they didn't need to be supported by these women.

Matt.17:27
However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me
If He was so rich an ordinary shekel would not have been too hard to find.

However, those are all indirect references; this is a direct reference -
2Cor. 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.[color=#990000][/color]
I don't know how some preachers can argue their way around this last scripture, especially considering that the context was as regards giving and finances.
Cheers all

Bros Olabowale,
I anticipated that you will take another route and shortcut past the answers i gave you. Anyways, lets quickly address them:

olabowale:
@Ricadelide: You prove the point of Islam. If the death of this beloved son/being can not wholesale cover, which is what you said is impossible, then its your believe in God as in His true worship and doing good deeds that will bring you the Mercy of God.

Ehn-ehn, rara bros. I never did say Jesus' death "can not wholesale cover" - remember when you read your injil that Jesus said on the cross "It is finished". The Lord has finished His Work on the cross. Where christianity differs from Islam and indeed any other human religion is that we don't have to work for our own salvation - you see, salvation in Christ Jesus is a free gift from God. God Himself provided the salvation, and all we need to do is just accept it. Is there anything more beautiful than that? See some beautiful words;
Rom. 4:4-5
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
That is why you have to call me Blessed. Hehe ;
Rom 4:7-8
"Blessed are they
      whose transgressions are forgiven,
      whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
      whose sin the Lord will never count against him

You see, when a man works in other to get something, then he can boast, because it is his own effort that got him that thing. Same thing with salvation. However there are two problems:
the first problem is, all our so-called righteousness are like filthy rags before God, there is no man who is righteous before God, we have all sinned and fallen short of Baba's glory. Thus, nothing a man can do can earn that man a label of righteousness from God.
Rom.3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

the second problem is: no man can boast before God.
ICor. 1:28-29
and the things which the world regards as base, and those which it sets utterly at nought--things that have no existence--God has chosen in order to reduce to nothing things that do exist; to prevent any mortal man from boasting in the presence of God.

The only boasting that can be done is by those of us who know God
Jer. 9:23-24
Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the LORD

So you see, either way - works can never earn you the mercy of God. There is no boasting before God. You can't "earn" God's mercy by doing "good".

Why can I send my son to cover your death, which I already write off, but then my son says to you that that the former condition of payment is still inforce? It means that my writing off of your debt is only a lip service. You still have to pay the debt.

Bros, again, you misquote me - is it that hard to understand? He didn't send the son to cover my death - he sent his Son for my sin.
Matt. 1:21
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.

There are two types of death - natural death and spiritual death. Being a son of Adam results in the former - that is definite. Being a sinner results in the latter - sin causes seperation from God and thus spiritual death. What Jesus did was to cleanse us from all our sins, and deliver us from the power of sin - such that we are no longer spiritually dead but alive in Him. We have passed from death to life. Hear the Words of Jesus which you have refused to heed
John 5:24
I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

So all those things you are saying are wrong from the first premise - we do not have any debts before God, except the debt of LOVING one another, and that is why because we love you guys so much, we are sharing the gospel message with you. Heed your prophet and listen to the Injil!

Before Jesus, was there any process to receive mercy from God? Was there analytical conditions of sins and punishment, versus good deeds and reward? What then truly changes if you do evil and Jesus can cover you, as to against what Moses said long time before Jesus came. please take into consideration that jesus came to fulfill all the laws that Moses brought. Please list them and you will see that you as a christian only py lip service to it, nothing else!

Hehe , injil yi o ye yin sha bros. I'd explain in another post; it would be too long for this one, have to go to work.

As to Muhammad and the Qur'an, which he claims that is from God, the process of how to guide yourself, from sins and advocacy of doing good abounds. God says do not dispire in the MERCY OF YOUR LORD. He forgives again and again! He said, even if you come to Him with sin that you know is unforgivable, He will forgive. The condition is not to associate any with Him, worship Him as He prescribes, and be a doer of good deeds.

Bros, Is God just? Even in a human court, there is punishment for sin - there is a price tag attached to committing wrong. God is Holier than any human court. He is a just God and every sin must have an account. Have you not read the Torah? Didn't you read there that there is no forgiveness of sins without a shedding of blood? On what basis does Allah forgive sin, if he does not demand a blood sacrifice? that is why why keep saying that Allah is different from Jehovah. On what basis can a man continue to sin and continue to ask for forgiveness - does Allah tolerate sin? My God is not like that. If you say the condition is to worship him - what kind of worship can a sinful man commit? What prayer of an unrighteous man is acceptable before God? The prayer of an unrighteous man might be acceptable before Allah but not before God. The only prayer of an unrighteous man that God accepts is the prayer of repentance - and repentance in this case is different from merely asking for forgivenes, it involves a total change of mind not to sin again and to accept the sacrifice of His Son.

The condition of the christians to the muslims, is the same as the conditions of the Jews to the christians. The Jews will never tell you that there is a trace or remnat of Jesus identity in the Torah and Psalm. Inthe same token, the christain will never accept that there is remnant of Muhammad identity in the Injiil.

Again, you are misinformed; the jewish Holy Books are the same as the christian old testament; the jewish holy books DO NOT contradict the christian holy books. Unlike the Qu'ran which does not even know the name of God - Jehovah is never mentioned in the Qu'ran. It contradicts everything that went before it; and you think it is valid? You people say revelation is progressive - how can a latter revelation not follow from anything that preceeded it. The Qu'ran referred you to the Torah and the Injil - have you heeded? Instead you claim that the bible is corrupted. How sad.
The jewish Old testament was not complete - they were expecting something new, the only problem is that when that new thing came they did not accept it. That is a different case with christians and muslims. The christian new testament is complete. We are not expecting any other thing except the Second Coming of our Lord which you are also expecting. Where then did Muhammad (saw) find the basis for bringing another revelation.
Please don't make that analogy at all. Enjoy two scriptures:

Matt. 12:13
For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
Heb. 1:1-2
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe[size=30pt].[/size]
You can see the past tense "he has spoken". You can also see the very large fullstop. Bros, there is no space to fit Muhammad (saw) in there.

Read the Qur'an and then read your Injiil and Toral. Then come back for us to truly talk. Don't let us be emotional.

LOL the bible did not ask me to read any Qu'ran. I can read it for fun and so that i can find interesting things. Your Qu'ran specifically told you to read the bible (including the Torah, the Injil and the Zabur). I can preach Christ to you using only one of any of them - thank God for prophecy. So you see, it is you guys who will always come to us to talk not the other way round. Cheers

I know this may seem offensive, but the post itself is annoying - and sometimes a sharp rebuke is warranted.

Carlosein:
Holy Mary, daughter of God the Father,

Pray for us.

Holy Mary, mother of God the Son,

Pray for us.

Holy Mary, spouse of God the Holy Spirit,

Pray for us. Amen.

Ok. From this quote now: God the Father is the only one that is "higher" than Mary.
She's co-equal with the Holy Spirit (being a spouse) and higher than the Son (being a mother).
In other words, God the Father gave birth to Mary, who then married God the Holy Spirit so that she might give birth to God the Son. Or isn't that what was posted?

Since she's so involved with the God-head, you didn't phrase it properly, you should gone right ahead to say;

"Holy Mary, God the fourth (or God the Mother and Wife) answer our prayer."

Then, it would be more close to home.

Nonsense and ingredients ! If it seems that i've offended your sensibilities by making such a statement, i hope the absurdity of those statements contained in that post itself comes alive - for when one refers to Mary as the "Mother of God" (a statement that is nowhere mentioned in scripture, and is found wanting by simple reason) and then goes further to crown her as the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit", you know there is serious problem. It seems there's no limit to the number of titles and appelations that would be placed on the Roman Catholic Mary.
May God indeed have mercy.

I am happy that you have shown me you  read your bible. Thanks to God. If you have read the whole Corinthians you will know what I am talking about.

If you are a student of the bible you will know what the core of the Epistle was all about.

No need for "if you are" or "if you have" statements. The debate is not about whether one reads the bible or not; its about dropping one's viewpoint where it clearly contradicts the scriptures. I don't need to blow my trumpet about how many times i've read the epistles, yet i don't know what you are talking about, because the scriptures clearly never taught that "there is no such thing as a carnal christian".

If I quote scripture you may not be helped it is Good you are quoting it yourself.

Ok I change my Mind let me quote Scripture and put the matter to rest.

Romans 8:6
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.


Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Please sir, quote it - that's the whole point. To be carnally minded is death - that is what the scripture said. It never said to be carnally minded is to be a sinner. I never did turn myself into an advocate of carnality - if remaining carnal could lead to life in Christ obviously there would be no point to being spiritual. However, it would be wrong to say that "there is no such thing as carnal christian" and that "carnal christians (as taught in 1Cor 3) are sinners". I've not even gone into the deeper issues as it relates to carnality and not being spiritual, but i've just contented myself by remaining at the surface level of things. However, like I asked before, please show from the scriptures where your doctrine stems from.

The bad part is, again, you have deliberately ignored the places i showed you. However i'd quote and paste them again.

ricadelide:
Good terminology. I clearly showed you two words in that quote; and i'd glady refer you to them again.
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ."
Can you see the words in red? "Tact inspired by the Holy ghost" will not cause Paul to call sinners christians ("in Christ", or to call unbelievers brethren. Paul never did that. Maybe you can refer me to scriptures where he did.
When you have successfully addressed that, then we can have a discussion. There's no need for skirting around scriptures that are very clear.

Beyond that i also referred you to Romans 7. Was Paul also a "sinner" when he described those things that took place in Romans 7 from verse 7?

Can you please address this point rather than skirt around the issue? Was Paul wrong to have called them brethren? Did Paul ever call 'sinners' brethren? Was does it mean to be IN CHRIST? Are "sinners" also in christ? Was it a typological error?

---

Again, so that you don't divert the issue again - my arguement has never been whether it is RIGHT to be a carnal christian, or even that it may be PRODUCTIVE to be such.
However the issue clearly is: is there such a thing as a carnal christian? And, are carnal christians "sinners"?
Please let's keep to the issue at hand, cheers.

omena555:
please people, can someone tell me the meaning of 'adara'?

I presume you mean to say "a dara" (two words). It means: it shall be well.
Cheers

drrionelli:
@ricadelide:
The question I was trying to pose, my friend, (without much success, I'm afraid!) is this:

Many of the posters in this thread said that marriage is a decree of God. Well, suppose you don't believe in "God," per se, but have another faith system. Then, should marriage be viewed from the aspect of having been an edict of a "God" in which one doesn't even believe?

Does that clarify things a bit?

Ok, i get you now. Obviously, the one who doesn't believe in God, cannot (or may not) see marriage as being from God: his faith-system makes no allowances for that. However, his own peculiar case doesn't preclude those that deem marriage that way from maintaining such a viewpoint. The posters were writing things from their own perspective - it's a totally different debate altogether as touching which view is right.
Cheers

smile4kenn:
so lets unite

ecumenism

@Backslider,

Backslider:
Thank God you Quoted the bible.

Now Let us Look closely what you quoted

1Cor. 3:1-3
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it : nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men?"

Yes. Thank God i quoted the bible. I would have also thanked God on your behalf had you done the same rather than try to append your own misunderstanding to a scripture that is very clear - because it doesn't tally with your mindset.

Paul was using what you call tact inspired by the holy Ghost.

Good terminology. I clearly showed you two words in that quote; and i'd glady refer you to them again.
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ."
Can you see the words in red? "Tact inspired by the Holy ghost" will not cause Paul to call sinners christians ("in Christ", or to call unbelievers brethren. Paul never did that. Maybe you can refer me to scriptures where he did.
When you have successfully addressed that, then we can have a discussion. There's no need for skirting around scriptures that are very clear.

Beyond that i also referred you to Romans 7. Was Paul also a "sinner" when he described those things that took place in Romans 7 from verse 7?

He was Using the Analogy of Child needs the Milk to grow to survive into adulthood.

Ok? Good. Although it is an anology, it drives home the point. Two categories:
(a) infant/babe, milk, carnal etc
(b) mature, meat/solid food, spiritual etc.

whereas the Corinthian Church was in sin and what would you give to them. If you read the corinthians you will see that there could be no way this people be called saved.

Maybe its a different Corinthians than the one in the bible. First, can you show me anywhere in that book that Paul referred to them as sinners or unbelievers?
Second, i'd show you some scriptures; and anticipate that you would likewise sweep them aside as "tact inspired by the Holy ghost".
1Cor. 1:4-9
I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way—in all your speaking and in all your knowledge— 6because our testimony about Christ was confirmed in you. Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God, who has called you into fellowship with his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, is faithful.
According to you, this was addressed to "sinners". No wonder there are no christians in your book. May God have mercy.

They had the knowledge of salvation and they were living in sin. Can you give a dead baby Milk to grow. The people of the Church in Corinth had heard the word but were backsliden. There sin in the church and it was so rife that fornication was rife.

The question is "were they saved?" "Had they "lost" their salvation?" "Were they sinners?" Please show us from the scriptures.
Can you please refer to 1Cor5 and see that it was one person who was committing fornication? Fornication was not 'rife'. Their problem was that they tolerated it rather than to have confronted the sinner. Again, here are some scriptures:
1Cor5:1-2, 9
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? . . . "
9: "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people"
The other place, to my knowledge, where Paul refers to sexual immorality being common was in 7:2, and he was talking generally (he didn't say "among you" there) - not particular to the church. Just like there is sexual immorality in the country i live in - that does not mean you can't be a christian and refuse to partake in such things.

What would as an evangelist preach to a backsliden Church ?

Seven steps on how to receive the holy Ghost?
10 way of how to make money?
3 ways to be risch ?
5 principle of a good marriage life?

As a flaming evangelist you deliver the word of Salvation to a backsliden church. Now that is the milk of the word of God.

No Carnal man will enter heaven. There is nothing like Carnal Christian. Was Jesus Carnal? Child that seeks the hard truth of the word of God is a TRUE CHILD.

NOTE A CHILD THAT STOPS TO GROW IS NO CHILD.

All this rambling is unwarranted; i quoted scriptures, you're offering me your own opinion. What i should ask you is: is there anything like an uncarnal man? Since you are so willing to formulate the new term "carnal man". What of the uncarnal man? they will go to heaven eh?
All those aside, if there had not been any scriptures that addressed the issue, then there might have been a need for human reasoning and/or subjective opinion. The way it stands, the scriptures are clear.
Cheers

@Ivvie,

Ivvie:
Worldly and carnal are two states. One could be spiritual yet worldly. One cannot be carnal and then spiritual.

As regards 'worldly' and 'carnal', those are semantics; i cannot really consider what you mean unless you define your terms. There could be reason to say they are different but it would be good to append some form of definition to them so we can discuss. Some bible versions (i know you only use KJV) interchange the terms.
However, i disagree that one can be spiritual and yet worldly. And finally, I never said one could be carnal and spiritual at the same time - i said you can be carnal and progress into spiritual maturity. In fact, IMHO, most christians (except the few that had a really great revelation and understanding of the gospel at conversion) take this route.
Cheers

Backslider:
there is nothing like carnally minded christian to be carnally minded is to be a sinner.

Bros, here's a quote from scripture:

1Cor. 3:1-3
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not yet able to bear it : nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal, and do ye not walk after the manner of men?"

Can you see the words in bold: they were brethren and they were in Christ. Yet they were carnal or as NIV puts it: worldly.
There are clearly two types of christians; the spiritual ones and the carnal christians. That's not hard to infer from scriptures.
I'm not an advocate of immaturity or worldliness but rather of maturity in Christ; however, it would be foul of me to refer to those who are still trying to find their feet in the Lord, even after salvation, as being "sinners" and "not christians". The problem Paul had particularly with the corinthians is the duration they spent remaining carnal when they should have progressed to spirituality or maturity in Christ. It is good to note that Paul experienced those things he wrote in Romans 7:7-25 after he became a christian.
Cheers

Horus:
Same for Al queida!!,So, Al queida may claim to be Muslim but that is what it remains, a claim and not the reality!.

Bros Horus,
since you obviously have a problem with typed english, here's spoken english for you.
Follow this link: (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxk5AAA5FbI)
There you will find islamic scholars advocating terrorism by Al qaida as being "Qu'ranical" (supported by the Qu'ran).
Hopefully that should help you to spot the difference.
Cheers .

olabowale:
David, to ba ri nkon so, dake enu e. There is no reason to just yap! If the God of christians sent His son to die for the sins of christians, then we should assume that there is no more sins for all christians. That should be a 100% guaranteed thing! This should mean that Christians can do whatever they want. There is no wages for any 'sinful behaviour.' Its all good. If this is no so, then the death is actually falls short of its intented purpose, unless there was no death in the first place! We see that God still punishes by allowing bad thing to befall some christian individuals.

Bros, eyin naa ema ro nkan ti e fe so k'e to so o. Nigeria's debt was recently written off by our creditors; does that then mean that we can no longer borrow money indiscriminately and land again in debt? Forgiveness of sins does not connote an inability to sin. Here are a few scriptures:
Rom. 6:1-2a
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!
Rom. 6:15
What then? shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid.
Heb. 10:26-27
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

I do not want to touch on the fact that I think since God sent His son to die for the christians, therefore there should not be any physical death for the christians. Of course, that is only my deduction, because it is not clear from the general statementsthe christians attached to the son's death.

Bros, that is your deduction. "In Adam, all die". The important thing is that, leaving this body is not the end for us - it is actually a means of shedding this corrupt body and going to be with God. Here are some scriptures for your enjoyment:
Rom 5:17
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Phil 1: 21-23
For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;

I bet the christians may not be too sure, even after the death event of the son, that all Christians will go to paradise! Of course, paradise is not going to be a physical place, but a state of mind for them!

Again; christianity is not like Islam where there is no assurance of anything. In christianity we have assurances - one of them is assurance of salvation. Another is the assurance of sonship. Yet another is the assurance of that which is to come - you see we already have a downpayment for eternity; and the things that we are looking forward to in the afterlife, we can begin to have a foretaste now. Here are some other scriptures;
Rom. 8;16-18a
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ"
2Cor. 5: 4-5
For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

In christianity, the beautiful thing is that: there are guarantees! So bros, our arms are always wide open - Jesus will welcome you. Cheers

@na2day?
[quote author=na2day? link=topic=89568.msg1653004#msg1653004 date=1194303126]kindly read what u just wrote and see if it makes sense to u.[/quote]What ndisnoopi said makes sense to me although i'm not 100% in agreement with his views. We all write very fast these days with the advent of phone texting and all. Let me help you paraphrase what he said; perhaps, that way, it would make sense to you.

i hate 2 say this but i wil.even is nt 4 everyone.really people dt thinks dey qualified 4 it are nt half way qualified.really christians do look at demselves as superior nd dey tend 2 be decetfull 2 people.imagine a sister in d churc pretends 2 be holy nd gts home do dods useless stuffs outside this really brings shame to the name of God nd i wounder ow many more we still av hiding under dt umbrella.the truth is no 1 is qualified until GOD Says yes.

"[/b]I hate to say this but I will. Heaven is not for everyone. Really. People that think they are qualified for it are not half-way qualified. Really. Christians do look at themselves as superior and they tend to be deceitful to people. Imagine a sister in the church that pretends to be holy and goes home to do those useless stuffs outside. This really brings shame to the name of God and i wonder how many more we still have hiding under that umbrella. The truth is: no one is qualified until God says yes.[b]"

Est-ce que vous comprenez maintenant?
Cheers.

Hey Oby1, how're u doin?

Oby1:
That won't be the reason for you to stop contributing to the thread, remember through persecution you gather even more strength, i must tell you that i have learnt so much from this thread that has made me to even gaining more stand in belonging to the Catholic fold, that is the plain truth. Experience they say is the best teacher.

Lol . . . nobody has "persecuted" catholics here Abi na online, verbal persecution? when real persecution comes, we no go fit type for internet o!
Jokes apart, I admire your resolve, however the real question is; is it justified? Hopefully, soon, you'd answer that.

People have been tempted to set their focus on human figure. They build their faith on human ego. As a result, they are misled and highly disappointed. Many have dropped their faith in God and backslided to worldliness. Why? Because a great man of God, whom they so much trusted has been found unfaithful and immoral

OK. I like that you said this. However, make that not only human figures, but also human organizations , religious or secular, whether protestant or catholic or any other. There is no sacred cow with God, and with any child of God.

The various thread set up by our fellow (protestant) brethren has been very annoying, comprising of different lies, false accusation, but we know within us that it is not true. If it is true, why are people who have dropped out of the Catholic church coming back?

Now it gets interesting. Agreed, lies and false accusation can be annoying. But i've seen none of them on those threads - what i've seen is Truth being presented from the Word (which we all claim is our reference point) and denial when those truths are seen to be at loggerheads with what we hold so dearly - our 'church'.
Are the scriptures quoted lies? Or is it the quotes from the various catholic websites that are lies? For example, the 'promises' of Mary that was addressed side by side with scripture - are those also lies? Or is it wrong to examine all things in the light of the Word (Acts. 17:11, 1Thess.5:21) Or can you justify those "promises" in the light of the scriptures? (you can refer to that thread to objectively look at the issues).
There are many official doctrinal statements that we have not even cited as of yet, but which are even more incriminating - what will you do then?
What is obvious is that, sorry to point out, but truth is: you have a sacred cow - the beliefs you have accepted, the 'church' you grew up in, the teachings you were taught in sunday school, in cathechism and in baptismal classes - and you have refused to accept that it (or they) can be wrong, that you can be decieved. You have assumed that the church is infallible. And that is why, in the face of glaring evidence, which will still be made much more glaring, you still chose to ignore the Truth and hold on dearly to your sacred cow.
Believe me, i've been there, and i know what i'm talking about. Now coming to your last statement; that former catholics who left are coming back - that is very so not true , a handful who did not find their footing might, but the majority aren't and wouldn't. I also left the catholic church, and i definitely ain't coming back. And, although i argued and argued, thank God i ultimately did not ignore the truth - the Spirit's nudging of my conscience wouldn't allow; my prayer for you is that the Holy Spirit will continue to nudge your conscience until the truth takes its rightful place in you. (hope say that is a good prayer? )

What i do personally is to avoid any post from them, except the ones that can grow me spiritually, but anyone they post that is against the Cathoic teachings i ignore it[color=#990000][/color], with that i control myself.

Ok. Maybe we've been too militant, lol . However, again, you have clearly illustrated in your own words how much you hold 'catholic teaching' as a sacred cow. However, questions naturally arise:
     ~is it possible that the 'catholic teaching' can be wrong?
     ~if you are faced with a catholic teaching that clearly contradicts biblical teaching, what will you do or which would you follow?
Sometimes its good to ignore - but my prayer is that we will not ignore when confronted with the truth.

So don't leave the thread, you can post something that is of interest that we can learn from. Everyday i meditate on the readings of the day, and gather out some passages that is of interest to me and i share it together. Don't leave we need each other.

How nice.

May God help us and our Mother Mary and all the angels and saints intercede for us.

No need for the additions, lol. God will help us. Sorry to bust your bubble, but angels and dead people don't 'intercede' for us. The saints here on earth will though - the Holy Spirit will move them to.

Lord please i ask for your Grace upon your son (Smile4kenn) to serve you. Amen

Again, how nice of you. Cheers

@pilgrim,
Having read your reply to bros, my little mind is wondering how (inevitably) our friends will still ignore all the answers and come out dribbling from another corner to still refer to the same issue and complain that "it hasn't been answered". All in all, pretending that you never posted anything.
It's like a learned, professional skill. Amusing!! (Oh, i should have said; amazing!)

Anyways, trust u're enjoying your Sunday. Cheers.

Before bringing Paul into the question and making false accusation against the apostle - another diversionary tactic - have you even considered that when Pilgrim.1 presented you with the words of Jesus, you have not even believed nor accepted them? Or has Jesus now ceased to be a "prophet" in Islam?

If you so love Jesus and revere Him, why haven't you accepted His Words as clearly stated in red in your bible and mentioned by pilgrim and i'd mention here again?

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26

and the "Reverend" continues his endless, albeit hateful, search for the Living God.
One day, you'd find Him. Keep on looking