₦airaland Forum

A worthwhile alternative to FiDiFi

Ubenedictus: seperior 1 you said pope innocent "invented" the body and blood "theory".
I'm still waiting for u to show us that the aforementioned theory was non existent before pope innocent and thus prove that he invented.

In other words, the burden of proof is on you to show us that the quotes given by italo that clearly shows that the body and blood "theory" was already in existence, are false and non existent.
Peace

Do you know the difference between a catholic dogma and doctrine?

Emusan: I don't have any problem with your points above but if you carefully read my OP you'll surely see we're in the same line though you mixed it up with word 'believe'.

The title simply read "Have you received Holyghost since you believed?" Get it right sir!

God bless you.

Ok then, the manner of your response to my first question made me think otherwise.

Believers in Christ needs baptism of the Holy Spirit so as to enjoy the fullness of what God has for them.
@OP, thanks for sharing

There is more to the story of the Journalist. You don't attack someone for taking your pics in the full glare of the public. The story doesn't add up.

What do I know about football?

It is a game where 22 grown adults are chasing a round leather all over a field.

John 6:40 says, "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which SEETH the Son, and BELIEVETH on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Believe

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31

Believe

"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord Shall be saved."(Romans 10:13)

Believe

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness..." (Romans 10:10).

Believe

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Romans 4:5

Believe.

What saves you (makes you a born again Christian) is believing and confessing Christ. Baptism is for believers in Christ who have given their lives to Him (born again)

@OP, if you have any objection to this let me know before I continue

Emusan: What does it mean to born again to you sir?

Why don't you answer my question since I asked one first?

If he is able to issue e-forgiveness for his followers on twitter, why not e-judge them to? Atleast, it takes you to judge and acknowledge someone sin before you can forgive them.

I think the pope is trying to play safe by sitting on the fence

Emusan: In his journey through upper coast to Ephesus; 'Apostle Paul' saw about twelve desciples claiming to be a Christian and asked them the same question:

Acts 19:2 "He said unto them, Have ye received the HolyGhost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost".

Their responds baffles Paul to the point that he asked them again;
Acts 19:3 "And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism".

In the Book of John 3:5 Jesus talks about two categories of baptism that every believers should past through in life:

1. Water baptism
2. Holyghost baptism

1. Water baptism - This is called baptism of repentance-Acts 19:4 it was first performed by 'John the baptist' repentance here signifies total 'submission of heart from old path(way) to embrace the new ways of God' -Rom 12:2

2. Holyghost baptism- This signifies coming of Holyghost into the life of someone who has prepared his/her life to meet with the Lord and to have part in Christ Jesus; Rom 8:9 "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his". And to testify of Jesus as the 'Son of the living God'.

Without these two no one can enter the kingdom of God through Christ.

*How can a Christian claim that God exist without the Spirit of God in him/her, what evidence do you have then?

*How can you know the things of God without God's spirit in you? 1 Cor 2:11 "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God".

*How can you become a son of the most High God without the Holyghost in you? Rom 8:14 "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God".

*How can you speak in tongues or prophesied without being filled with the Holyghost? Acts 19:6 "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied". and many more......

Scince you claimed to be in Christ or born agian, have you received the baptism of the Holyghost?

Are you still like those twelve desciples who claims to be Christ-like but never have part in Christ?

Roman 12:1 says "......that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice (which is the Holyghost in you), to make you (holy) throughout your lifetime, and your work to be (accepteble unto God), which is your reasonable service" Emphasis added!

This verse made it clear that going to church to serve God won't be in vain with the help of the Holyghost and to succeed in this Christian's race you need Holyspirit.

Shalom!

Are you saying you only get born again when you received the Holy Ghost/water baptism?. Are there no people who haven't been baptised by both water and Holy Ghost and yet are born again?

Alfa Seltzer: My destiny and His are linked. I don't need to prove anything as I have submitted myself to Him in this life and the next.

Then goodluck with your decision or did satan asked you to force him on others?

Who is Ngozi fooling?. The right person to answer that question is Madueke Alison but we know liver no go gree you to ask Jona-dumbo's mistress dat kin yeye question

@OP, good points what reflecting on

italo: You never told me that. You said he came up with "theory."

Again, you deliberately distort the fact.



You lie. You never pointed to me that the article shows that the "dogma" wasnt in existence before then.

You lied that I said they never received the Eucharist until Pope Innocent III. When are you going to show us where I said so or own up to your lie?



And you havent shown me any official document or writing to show that your claim is correct. You want me to just believe your lame words?

I told you Jesus was the originator and gave you biblical proof.



Defining a doctrine does not mean inventing it. They are usually long-held beliefs since the beginning of the Church that are then unequivocally defined in a time of controversy.

E.g The Church always believed in the concept of the trinity. But it only formally defined it centuries later.

The books of the Bible have always existed but the Church defined the canon of the new testament centuries later because false books and teachings were threatening to infiltrate the Church.

These definition of doctrines are usually done to clear a controversy.

Should we now say that the Bible and Trinity are traditions of men?

For your education

From the commencement of his reign Innocent III had purposed to assemble an ecumenical council, but only towards the end of his pontificate could he realize this project, by the Bull of 19 April, 1213. The assembly was to take place in November, 1215. The council did in fact meet on 11 November, and its sessions were prolonged until the end of the month. The long interval between the convocation and the opening of the council as well as the prestige of the reigning pontiff, were responsible for the very large number of bishops who attended it, it is commonly cited in canon law as "the General Council of Lateran", without further qualification, or again, as "the Great Council". Innocent III found himself on this occasion surrounded by seventy-one patriarchs and metropolitans, including the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Jerusalem, four hundred and twelve bishops, and nine hundred abbots and priors. The Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria were represented by delegates. Envoys appeared from Emperor Frederick II, from Henry Latin Emperor of Constantinople, from the Kings of France, England, Aragon, Hungary, Cyprus, and Jerusalem, and from other princes. The pope himself opened the council with an allocution the lofty views of which surpassed the orator's power of expression. He had desired, said the pope, to celebrate this Pasch before he died. He declared himself ready to drink the chalice of the Passion for the defence of the Catholic Faith, for the succour of the Holy Land, and to establish the liberty of the Church. After this discourse, followed by moral exhortation, the pope presented to the council seventy decrees or canons, already formulated, on the most important points of dogmatic and moral theology. Dogmas were defined points of discipline were decided, measures were drawn up against heretics, and, finally, the conditions of the next crusade were regulated.
The fathers of the council did little more than approve the seventy decrees presented to them; this approbation, nevertheless, sufficed to impart to the acts thus formulated and promulgated the value of ecumenical decrees. Most of them are somewhat lengthy and are divided into chapters. The following are the most important:

Canon 1: Exposition of the Catholic Faith and of the dogma of Transubstantiation.
Canon 2: Condemnation of the doctrines of Joachim of Flora and of Amaury.
Canon 3: Procedure and penalties against heretics and their protectors.
Canon 4: Exhortation to the Greeks to reunite with the Roman Church and accept its maxims, to the end that, according to the Gospel, there may be only one fold and only one shepherd

General believe doesn't have anything to do with the real blood theory, Innocent issued the decree as a dogma and not a doctrine deliberated on by the church council like you stated in your defence.

Now, I hope you know the difference between a dogma and a doctrine (your explanations above on defining and inventing doctrines make me feel you don't)

italo: No. They are not "question evading tactics." I'm saying, correct the lies and distortions you have made on my post and yours before I can give you another post to distort and lie about. If you only intend to lie and distort...why should I bother my head with you?



Another lie. I answer questions and have been doing so all thread. Do you want me to list answers I have given or will you own up to this and all your other lies?

I want us to take a critical look...only in truth...not lies.



All this because I want you to be truthful?

What questions did I not answer that you answered. Are you not done with telling lies?


If a good Catholic is one who succumbs to your dishonest principles of arguing... I am not a good Catholic.

But the Church teaches that a good Catholic is one who does the will of God as prescribed by his holy Church. For that, God will be the judge, not you.

Read through the thread again from the beginning for it appears you forget your response fast. It is obvious you do not know your church history and when I told you it was innocent 3 that brought the real blood dogma, you started pasting all manner of articles you know nothing about to argue otherwise.
I pointed to you a dogma is different from the articles you posted and your articles only proved the dogma wasn't in existence before than, you started screaming 'lies' like you are chanting on your holy marys.

When I asked about the date of the dogma and the originator, you pushed the question back.

Finally, there is no catholic doctrine or dogma that do not have a date it was established, this make a mockery of your claim of following christ teaching, you have been following the doctrine of men and not the bible.

italo: This is a lie/untruth. You havent told me this.

What you said is:
And


Another lie/untruth you have told on this thread is:



If you cannot prove the above to be true, can you own up to your lies/untruths?

Problem with your question evading tactics is that they only show you are not very sure of what you think you know. You will never answer a question but result to irrelevant comments to avoid taking a critical look at your church.

If you do not even know the history of your church how can you make any meaningful defence of the man made traditions you follow?

I answered the same questions you refused to answer and instead of thanking me for the info, you started looking for excuses to make yourself look more knowledgeable than you really are. You are not a very good catholic, are you?

The beginning of the end of Jona-dumbo

italo: You seem to have forgotten totally the title and purpose of this thread.

I got on here to help the OP seek the face of God by referring him to the Blessed Sacrament.

I have demonstrated to you why we believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, using the words of Jesus.

You are the one who said the "theory" came up under Pope Innocent III. I refuted that with early writings of Church fathers.

You then said you could show us when the "doctrine" came into existence.

That has nothing to do with my point.

It is your job to show us how Pope Innocent III came up with the "theory", when the "doctrine" came into existence and tell us how that affects my position.

I am waiting.

I sure haven't forgotten the purpose of the thread and I even suggested earlier that we defer the topic but since you want it discussed here, so be it.

I have told you and will repeat it. It was Pope Innocent 3 that decreed the dogma of Transubstantiation (real body and blood theory) in 1215. Now if this is not true, just say so before I continue

italo: No! The writings show that the early Church fathers believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

Let me quickly teach you one small thing about Catholic doctrine. That a doctrine is officially defined today does not mean today is when the Church started believing that thing. That is why I gave you those early writings to show that the Church has always believed in the real presence since the beginning. I'd still like to read from your link. I'm sure it will corroborate what I have said.



For us Catholics, it is not a mere "theory". Jesus said "this is my body...this is my blood." And we believe it as a fact.

Italo, these issue can be divide into 2.
1. The biblical perception of the Lord's supper
2. When real blood became a dogma or doctrine of catholic faith.

You assumed quite wrongly that I don't have any insight on catholism. You have showed me many works (articles) done by so called holy fathers but catholic doctrine aren't based on such articles..

Dogmas or doctrines of the catholic faith is what is binding on all members. The ecumenical council and the pope have the responsibility to issue doctrines and not any other. If it is not a doctrine or a dogma, it is not a doctrine and it is not binding on catholics.

So tell me, when did the real blood theory became a dogma( binding on all catholics), when was it affirmed by (which) pope, by which ecumenical council and at what year?. Also answer if prior to then it was a dogma? even if I agreed the holy fathers wrote those articles you pasted prior to the time of innocent 3.

I want us to thrash that out before we go into biblical hermeneutics and see what christ was saying at the last supper.

Ubenedictus: i bet you guys have lot of history but that isn't an excuse to play hide and seek on nl.

sorry my dear, read italo's post again, those quotes show conclusively that when those writtings were made that "theory" was already in effect.

no problem.

That is why I told you to look before leaping. What constitutes hide and seek? Which of NL rules forbade it?. And what happens if I show you from his post and other Catholic source the year that theory became a doctrine?

Ubenedictus: sorry if this sounds harsh, it seems you and italo are playing the game of the blind pursuing the blind, you claimed pope innocent invented the body and blood theory, italo proved you wrong by bringing out christian writtings as old as 110AD and yet you claimed it was italo who said that pope innocent invented the theory.
Who is playing with who? Are your kids playing with your NL account?

And you are the one with sight?. Myself and Italo have got a little history and you jumping in without that understanding makes you appear too hurry to make full sense.

The writings Italo showed if true are all talking of why real blood theory should have existed, showing it wasn't in operation for a time. And you thinking I do not know what am talking about is again a folly on your part. I can give you link to when the real blood theory was ratified as a Catholic doctrine and it was linked to Innocent 3.

Besides the Biblical verse Italo posted do not talk of real blood theory (it was a position we both did not agree on).

So Mr., watch before leaping. I will be opening a thread on this and you can come with your hard facts and great inSIGHTS

@OP since all you do is jumping from one place to another to gather prayer points, when are you visiting TB Joshua, Gurumaraji and Olumba Olumba?

italo: @Superior1 and all,

By the way, I hope you went to Church. I hope you are experiencing the joy of the resurrection this Sunday.

God bless you.

Thanks Bro, it was a great service today. God bless you in abundance too. Do have a great week!

italo: I have answered this question. If you do not see it, it is further proof that you are not reading and digesting my posts. You only intend to ask sarcastic and irrelevant questions.

I refuse to answer it again. If that means to you that I know very little or even nothing of Catholicism, fine.

I'm not in a contest to become the most knowledgeable Catholic...especially if you are the one judging the award.

Lol@ sarcastic and irrelevant questions. Guess we can leave this topic for now

veeco vee: I follow no one but Christ. And this man's ministry pulls out important stuffs from the bible which helps me in the followship with Christ.

The ministry call Jesus. You are pointing accusing finger on them from a distance. Go closer and worship with them on sundays for a month and come back and post your experiences here.

God bless you

I don't have problem with the important stuffs if it has root in the bible. god of my pastor, god of chosen doesn't bear root in the bible.

alexleo: Now you need to understand us.

1. Nobody is telling them to leave their church to another.
2. We are simply pointing out practices and traditions which are not approved by the scriptures so that those of them in this forum will take note and start pushing for a change of such practices.
3. No church is perfect that's why we keep pointing out these things so that we keep adjusting till we reach heaven. An outsider will see your error better than you. It is only pride and its foolishness that will make someone or an organisation feel he/they is/are perfect or incorrigible.
4. The chosen you are quoting in the bible is not what the members of that church have in mind. What some of them believe is that being a member of Chosen church automatically makes them the chosen of Christ. It is wrong.
They don't talk about the god of chosen from bible point as you think but because pastor Lazarus whom they worship said they should say it
5. When every attention is directed to the pastor it is devilish. All this god of my pastor stuff and god of chosen(which is also mouka's chosen church) draws attention to men rather than Jesus. Its bad.

Amen

They came to show their gratitude to Jona-dumbo for influencing the judiciary to release Al-mustapha?
Interesting!
Omo Odua se eti gbo o?.

italo: Oh. Now it is the length. When I give you the link to read for yourself, you dislike it. Now I post it out for you here, you still dont like it. How can you be pleased?

I wanted you to see how the early church fathers through the early centuries believed in the real presence...long before Pope Innocent III was born. Since you asked if it was him who started it.


What part of my thread actually led you to thinking that I said we didnt take the Eucharist until Pope Innocent III? It was you who said it...then you accused me of saying it. What is wrong with you?

I want to be sure that you are actually reading my posts and not just waiting to ask sarcastic and ridiculous questions regardless of what I say.

So which part was so difficult that you ended up misconstruing it?

Quote the words!

Typical Italo question evading tactics.

italo: "They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again."

Make this simple and answer the question, if not Innocent 3, who invented real blood theory as a doctrine?
If you can't answer this, then we must agree you have very little knowledge of Catholism.

italo: What gets me cracking up is this strange idea that it is wrong for only Catholics to copy from a source that has the same views as them. Tell me who doesnt do this. Everytime I asked you a question and you posted a Bible verse, what were you doing? "Copy and paste." And I never complain. Why are you so judgemental without adequately looking inwards?



Before we move forward, kindly show me where I said the bold.

Na, I am not judgemental on that. I just find the length of the articles you pasted funny.
Away from that, that was the summary I made from the first article in your posting.

If that is not what you meant then say so, because I will want you to point out when the theory of real flesh and blood became catholic practice.

@Italo, you got me cracking up with your copy and paste, but that is not the issue.

You said they did not take eucharist until innocent 3 and innocent 3 didn't make this announcement until 1215. Does that mean from the Apostles to Boniface 3 until Innocent 3, the church has been living in error of this real body and blood doctrine for more than a millennium?

Elder don see the handwriting on the wall, abi?. Sorry, apology rejected

italo: For that, you must ask Jesus. It was he who said "this is my body"..."this is my blood."

It was also he who said "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink."

And when God says something...IT IS!

But It was Pope Innocent 3 that brought the real blood and flesh theory, wasn't he?

italo: Jesus' actual body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine.

Do you have any beneficial information for the OP?

Actual as in real body and blood? Does it have tissues or muscles etc?