₦airaland Forum

Wishing you good recovery in Jesus Name. Your contributions here is like no other

Team Ghana-must-go, una don chop una own for Jona-dumbo awuf chei?

Was his spinal cord also broken, why is he on a wheel chair??
All na PR stunts joor

midetinz: Many people have been speaking their mind with regards to the connection of First Lady Patience Jonathan to some of the principal actors in the crisis threatening to bring Rivers State to its kneels. But one man has been watching with keen interest as the drama unfolds until now. 

See his message to our dear Patience Jonathan below:
"Is the malodorous excrescence in Rivers State, cascadingly oozing out from erebus Dame, all about the satiation of a megalomaniacal presidential termagant? 
"Let someone assist me in whispering to the Dame that 'Alagamus Paret Ai Ai Num, Ai Ai Num Cest Daret, Opotere Alagamus'."

Na dis kin grammar cause accident wey kill mama patience

You mean Jona-dumbo has gone that low
What a pity

Hausas forget about party affiliation when the interest of the North is in the balance.

Mimiko should be wise

Thou are inexcusable, Oh Mark!!

italo: @Superior1,

Can we agree than you cannot show us where scripture says "anything not written is irrelevant?"

The only thing we can find is where scripture says both written and unwritten should be adhered to.

My final response to you on this issue

You can believe what you chose to believe but the truth of God can never be compromised. The Bible is the inspired word of God. The final and only authority on the doctrine of Christianity.

italo: But tradition is in scripture.

2Thess 2:15:Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

You surely still have your sight, dont you?

And for the umpteenth time, even if tradition weren't in scripture, we Catholics are not bound by scripture alone so we dont have to prove anything by scripture ALONE.

Do you not see that statement or your memory loses it continually?

Even the Bible is a result of Church Tradition, not scripture...because nowhere does scripture instruct anybody to make a collection of books called Bible.

You highlighted what suits you and made a joke of issue relating to your eternity. You are entitled to what you chose to believe and bound you. May God bring you to the knowledge of Him (amen)

Peace

italo: Show us where scripture says "anything not written is irrelevant!"

"Scripture alone" is UNscriptural!

Un(not)scriptural is what is not(un)in the scripture. If e no b panadol, no b d same with panadol
Tradition not in the scripture is UNSCRIPTURAL

italo: What I "chose to believe?" It is what you are making the whole of nairaland believe.

Now you seem to be saying "scripture alone isnt in the bible but 'scripture and tradition' isnt either." You have lost the plot, havent you? You are supposed to be proving "scripture alone" from "scripture alone!"

1. Syncan has shown you that scripture teaches "scripture and tradition."

2. Even if he didnt, we are not bound to prove anything through scripture alone, we are only bound to prove anything through scripture and tradition.

Dont lose your critical thinking skills just yet.

Italo, you are getting quite emotional. Let me spell out what I have said

1. Scriptures are documented inspired words of God
2. To be a scripture, it has to be written, it has to be inspired.
3. If it is not written, it isn't a scripture
4. If it isn't a scripture, it isn't a scripture
5. Apostle Paul said scriptures are the basis of doctrine (tradition), for reproof etc
6. If it isn't in the scriptures, it can't be a Christian doctrine

With that said, let me tell you what should the basis of any Christian tradition and doctrine

1. Christian tradition should have its basis in the scriptures and should not in any way contradict the scriptures
Matthew 15,1-3
1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

2. It should not man made tradition or doctrine that suits a particular person

2 Timothy 4, 2-4
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Finally, if your sacred tradition bears no root in sacred scriptures, it is not of God

Kay 17: Jesus never said a word in the whole of Acts and the rest of the NT.

Kay, you need to study your bible more, I will give you atleast 3 places,

Rev. 22:16
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Acts 9:4-5
4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Acts 1:7-9
7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

The entire books of the New Testament was all about Jesus.

Syncan: ^^^ 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. KJV

You can thank me later.

Traditions which you have been taught by words or epistles. Meaning the traditions (doctrines) have already been taught, it aren't new, right?

What are those traditions?

italo: I dont believe in "scripture alone", I believe in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

You preach scripture alone, so let us see you practise what you preach.

Show me where scripture says "anything not written is irrelevant."

You cannot. You will not admit that you cannot.

Poor you! Look how your "scripture alone" doctrine is being torn to shreds by none other than YOURSELF.

Now you got me cracking my ribs.
Like I said, you are entitled to believe what you chose to believe.

Sacred scriptures and Sacred tradition
Have you a scriptural backing for this?

Kay 17: @superior1

Pls reference the bible passage where Jesus mentioned he was sending the Holy Spirit in Acts. Same to Revelations.

Kay, when you are sure of the point you are trying to make, come back and do with relevant scriptures backing it.

italo: Show me where scripture says the bolded.

Lol, if I start asking you also for indulgence in the bible, you will claim I am not straight forward, no?

Scriptures are written, if it is not written it is not scripture. If is it is not scripture, it is not relevant as far as issue of scriptures is concerned.

italo: This is your opinion...it is not scriptural.

Scripture says 'hold fast to what is passed to you by word of mouth.'

You say 'disregard what is passed to you by word of mouth.'

Haba!

You are the one that preaches 'scripture alone'...

...yet you are the one disregarding scripture.

I didn't say disregard what he said to them by mouth. You are the one who is assuming what he said by the word of the mouth to this particular people is not documented in his letter to many other groups. If you accept the Holy Spirit inspired the SCRIPTURES (I don't think I need to define this word) and SCRIPTURES are in summary documented teachings that are written down, If it is not written, is it part of the SCRIPTURES?. The answer is quite simple, if it is not written, it is irrelevant and it is not part of the SCRIPTURES.

Kay 17: You have not touched on the other books in the New Testament namely Acts to Revelation. Also note that the Gospels as they are, are third party testimonies (despite being Christians) of Jesus' life.

Acts started with the teacher Christ promised (The Holy Spirit) who teaches the Apostles to remember what Christ taught them among other things. Revelation is what Christ told John to write and the Gospels is all about Jesus. The collection of all these is part and parcel of the Christian scriptures. So what exactly is the point you are driving at?

italo: Oh! So God inspired the whole of the Bible except 2Thess 2:15, abi?

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

Paul wrote several letters to different churches, the essentials of his teaching is captured in those letters. He didn't write everything to a single church. What we need to know is what is captured in the aggregate of his letters.

italo: I told you that guy will never give you a straightforward honest answer. Lol.

He will rather die.

Lol, those are your opinions and you are entitled to it

striktlymi: Hmmmm....

The bold is still unscriptural...no part of Sacred scriptures suggests that whatever is not written is irrelevant. What we do have in Sacred scriptures is Paul asking his adherents to hold unto both what is written and unwritten:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
New International Version (NIV)

15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Which suggests to me that Paul considers the unwritten part as important too.



Though Kay's question has to do with the basis of Christian doctrine before the written testament (new) but I will allow him respond to your post.

.

If you believe the scriptures are inspired by God, you must then believe what He inspired is the truth and what he wants revealed to us is what is written. Whatever is not in the scriptures is not of relevance or we may have to say God who inspired the writers made a mistake (I won't be a party to that)

Kay 17: ^^
What if we omit the adventures and trials of Paul or Peter or philip's encounter with the Ethiopian? Or John's revelations, Paul's intricate "jurisprudence" of Christianity as it has presently become? Or the Apostles encounter with the Holy Spirit?

My answer is no, for we will not have any New Testament. Jesus being the first Christian, was the starting point of the New testament, starting point for all Christianity.

I don't understand the point you are driving at
Read the verses below

Matthew 26, 27_-28
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Jesus is the New Testament, He is the head of the Church, believers in His ministry are called Christians.

Articulate any argument you have against this with scriptural backing, ok?

striktlymi: Now, saying that Jesus is the new testament suggests that you are trying to dodge Kay's question. You have been clear on what you mean by the new testament. Which simply pertains to the written text and not some abstract idea of it being Jesus.

Even if we are to go by the bold, it still does not help your position because it is revealed in Sacred scriptures that not everything Jesus did was written down which still implies that the 'new testament' according to your definition still does not contain everything.


John 21:25
New International Version (NIV)

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Whatever is not written is irrelevant. Testament simply means Covenant, New Testament means New Covenant and the executor is Christ. Is life and ministry is what is written in the pages of Matthew to Revelation (which in addition to the Old Testament makes the Christian scriptures).

You see, I understand the direction of Kay's question and quite understand yours to (it has a slight variance)

striktlymi: The bold really got me laughing. The point here is, you only answered the question YOU asked and not Kay's question.

Lol, let Kay say so

striktlymi: I wonder why you have resulted to insults because of a very simple question? This is a public forum and anyone can respond to any comment made.

Kay asked a question over 4 hours ago and you are still to answer. If you can't answer it, just say so and everyone will let you be. Resulting to insults will only make people suspect your intentions.

No insult intended but if Kay is asking the question, I am directing my answers to him, you can make a side comment and I will equally respond to it. But you can't determine for him if I have answered his question unless you feel he is inadequate to comprehend my answers. Once again, no insult intended, ok?. Now, comment as an individual if you have problem with my response and I will respond to you directly aside my discuss with Kay

striktlymi: I hope the above does not represent the answer to Kay's question?

Unless you feel Kay is a re.tard, you will allow him to do the talking

Kay 17: The New testament of the Bible is the second half, second Will, beginnin from Matthew and ending with the final book Revelations.

Not exactly but your definition will do for now. Jesus is the New Testament, what he taught is what was recorded and now referred to as Gospels, He revealed himself to Paul who wrote the epistles and gave John prophecy.

striktlymi: You still distort my words!

I told you specifically that you might not find the exact words there...in your case, if it is not there then you are not accepting it.

Now, you make claims that are NOT in scriptures and the passages you quoted do not support your 'only scriptures is the basis of Christian doctrine' what they support rather is that 'scriptures is inspired by the Holy spirit'...

I still worry why my position is clear to Kay but not to you. Why not answer Kay's question?

You won't see the connection like you saw indulgence concept, you know why? You have decided on what to see and not to see, you have been fed the same stuff for God knows how many decades and like I said, those who wants to see, will see it. That concludes my discussion with you on that topic

You can be sure I will answer Kay, I just want to be sure he knows what he is asking about

striktlymi: You know the above is a distortion of my words. The following is the dialogue we had:

Now that is the point I am drawing, you didn't see those words but you drew conclusions they were there, right?
But I gave you about 5 scriptures from which you can without bias conclude on the authority of the Bible as a final tool on doctrine as relating to the Christian faith and yet.....you said what again?

italo: There goes...

The one who claims that every Christian teaching is in the Bible is suddenly saying "but you also cant prove that your teaching is in the Bible."

There is a point I am trying to draw, let him answer the questions

italo: Fine, thank you. Then prove me wrong.

I remember asking you a simple question eight times since last week...and you still havent answered. But then, this is another thread...lets not derail.

Yeah Italo, myself and others gave you sufficient answers but you chose to believe in what you chose to believe (and there is no argument about your entitlement to that)

I learnt daddy francis as been issuing e-forgiveness (good it isn't placed on sales like some centuries ago). We will have a good chat on my questions in a fresh thread anytime soon.