₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: I am not the one claiming that Sacred scriptures is where we draw our teachings from. My stance is that the Holy spirit is the basis of every Christian doctrine.

But claimed on the other thread there is indulgence and purgatory in the Bible, now didn't you?

striktlymi: But none of the passages above include:




We still arive at the same conclusion here. The words above CANNOT be found in Sacred scriptures and as such they are unbiblical.

But you can see indulgence and purgatory in the scriptures, right?.

Kay 17: @superior1

Address directly the non existence of the NEwTestament in the time of Jesus and his disciples and how it affected their doctrine and what formed the basis of their Faith.

What is the New Testament?

striktlymi: In other words, you can't support your claims from Sacred scriptures!!!

2 Timothy 2:2
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 1:13
13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 3:16
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

2Timothy 2:15
. 15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Proverb 30, 5-6
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

italo: He wont give you a straight answer.

How you doing Italo?, you know that isn't true, don't you?

striktlymi: Why not state where the bold is said in Sacred scriptures?



How do the passages above remotely support your claim that the bible is the final authority on Christian faith?



It shows that your comment is not true!



This is the question you are supposed to ask yourself. You are the one making the claim.




So you believe this and still quote it to support a claim that is unscriptural?



Show us where the following is found in Sacred scriptures:

Anyone who has been following our discussion can draw conclusions. Everyman is entitled to what he chose to believe.

We have a perfect guide of all times, it is without blemish, it is complete, it needed no addition nor subtraction, it is inspired by the Uncreated Creator, the Master Designer and the Everlasting God.

THE BIBLE

I recommend it and nothing more for any man on issue of mankind, God and eternity.

Peace

Young man, I think you are alone in this

I wish one of them will MACE Yerima

He wants to avoid the impending nemesis that is bound to catch his boss.

striktlymi: The above has no basis in Sacred scriptures. It's just your opinion.

That is the position of the Bible. We are not to change from the teaching as contained in the bible. It is the final authority on Christian faith.

2 Timothy 2:2
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

2 Timothy 1:13
13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

striktlymi: The above is not true.

Circumcision was deeply rooted in the Old testament but was said to be unnecessary in the new testament.

This is irrelevant.

striktlymi: The above is not talking about Sacred scriptures but the Gospel of Christ.

And the Gospel is part of the old testmanet? Paul is talking of his teaches and epistles as relating to Christianity and faith in Christ, read the verses I pasted earlier.

striktlymi: Then why do you proclaim things that are not based on the bible?

Like? You are the one saying things not found in the Bible

striktlymi: The above represents your opinion and has NO basis in Sacred scriptures.

The Bible is the complete and final authority on Christian faith, the Holy Spirit will not instruct any Christian on a matter which has no root in the Bible.

Let me leave you with this verses Galatians 1:8-9

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I believe in the Bible whole heartedly, I will not accept any teaching beyond what is written in the Bible. If any priest or teacher preaches anything beyond the Bible, Paul has made a decree over such a person or organised religion.

striktlymi: Again I repeat:

Scriptures comprise of just the Old testament at the time of Christ.

If the basis of Christian teaching was scriptures the Apostles would have gone back to the old testament to get the teachings therein.

For Christians, Scriptures (the Bible) contains both old and new testament. Both are inspired words of God and our teachings must be based on the Bible (scriptures) alone

striktlymi: Lol!!!

Stagnant wouldn't be my choice word but on the whole, you have a good grasp of what I have been saying...this gives me a cause for worry.

Hakuna matata

striktlymi: The basis of any Christian teaching is God and doctrine does not define God.

The basis of Christian teaching is what God has inspired in the Bible

Kay 17: In a few words, skrilyml argument is centred on the history and development of the Christian doctrine. He has showed that at the time of Jesus, the existing "bible" or Sacred Scriptures were the Old testament. That the Apostles and Paul further developed the Sacred Scriptures as part of Christianity. They more or less documented their experiences and added it to the Sacred Scriptures, up until our times.

We can't say Christianity has stopped development or the history of christianity is stagnant neither has the holy spirit departed. And the implication is the Bible has stopped taking record of the Christian experience, and subquent visions, revelations and miracles. We can say as a result that the Bible as it is on is stagnant and incomplete.

This Bible being the end product of the Christian faith, can not be the Basis of the Christian faith.

The Bible is the end product of the Christian faith, says who?
If the Bible is not a basis Christian faith, what is?

striktlymi: The above does not demonstrate an understanding of my post!

How?

striktlymi: Simply put: Teachings about our faith as Christians.

It is the bases of our believe and conduct. It is the frame for our actions and teaches.

The above does not say that Scriptures is the basis for any Christian doctrine. The only reason why scriptures is profitable for doctrine and the rest is because it is given through the influence of the Holy spirit, hence the Holy spirit is the basis of any Christian doctrine.

That verse said sciptures is inspired by God (the devil inspired the new testament, yes?), the new testament isn't part of the scripture for we Christains, yes?

The Holy spirit who is the basis of every doctrine, taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. Christ NEVER commanded the Apostles to learn their doctrines from scriptures. He promised them the spirit who he said will teach them:

The Apostles wrote what they are inspired of the Holy Spirit, no?. Paul said we shouldn't accept any different teaching from what he taught, no?

The above is not talking about addition to Sacred scriptures but the book of revelation. I have demonstrated already that every book in the new testament, including the book of Revelations was an addition to sacred scriptures because then there was just one scriptures which was the old testament.

The book of Revelation is separate from the Gospels, separate from the various Epistles and books written in the new testament when it was given to John and the proclamation about adding to it is unique to that book i.e Revelations and not to every other part of Sacred scriptures.

The same Spirit inspired the epistles and John prophecy,No?.

The scriptures (the Bible) is the final authority of God and the basis of all doctrine. Any dogma that do not draw existence from the scriptures (the Bible) is man made and dogma of the devil

striktlymi: Cool!



The above does not say that Scriptures is the basis for any Christian doctrine. The only reason why scriptures is profitable for doctrine and the rest is because it is given through the influence of the Holy spirit, hence the Holy spirit is the basis of any Christian doctrine.

If Scriptures is the basis for doctrine, then there wouldn't have been a new testament. Every doctrine we have today would have been from the old testament because then, that was the only scriptures available.

What we see is a situation where some of the teachings of the Apostles go against some teachings in the old testament e.g the ish with circumcision and the kind of food that are forbidden.

The Holy spirit who is the basis of every doctrine, taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. Christ NEVER commanded the Apostles to learn their doctrines from scriptures. He promised them the spirit who he said will teach them:

John 14:26
New International Version (NIV)

26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.




The above is not talking about addition to Sacred scriptures but the book of revelation. I have demonstrated already that every book in the new testament, including the book of Revelations was an addition to sacred scriptures because then there was just one scriptures which was the old testament.

The book of Revelation is separate from the Gospels, separate from the various Epistles and books written in the new testament when it was given to John and the proclamation about adding to it is unique to that book i.e Revelations and not to every other part of Sacred scriptures.

What do you understand by doctrine?

GEJ is cursed per seconds
1. We curse him when there is power outage, afterall he sold NEPA out to thieves
2. We curse him when police misbehave, afterall he appoints the IGP
3. We curse him when we remember PDP, afterall he is the leader of the party
4. We curse him when MTN misbehave, afterall, he appoints the DG of NCC who regulates MTN

Now you know why Jona-dumbo is the most cursed person on earth, 160million curses every seconds.

Time to repay supporters of Jona-dumbo's 2015 ambition.

striktlymi: I believe it firmly!!!

I also do, now this is my point
The scriptures (both Old and New Testament) are the basis for any Christian doctrine

2Timothy 3,16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

There should be no addition to the scriptures as it is and doctrine shouldn't be accepted unless written in the pages of the scriptures.

Revelation 22, 18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

striktlymi: At the time of Jesus, it was not! In our present time, it is.

Do you also believe the New Testament is inspired of the Holy Spirit?

striktlymi: The above demonstrates that you did not read my post.

How?

striktlymi: Hi Super,



Christian doctrine are taught by the Spirit...not by Sacred scriptures. The teachings of the Apostles were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

If Christian doctrine is from Sacred scriptures then we would not have had the new testament because all the doctrines taught would have been from the old.



Peter being a fisherman has nothing to do with his understanding of Sacred scriptures. The Holy spirit is responsible for teaching anything in scriptures and not man.

Peter Understood the teachings of Paul perfectly and that is why he mentioned that Paul writes in the same way. If you are saying that Peter did not understand Paul's writing then you are wrong.



Paul admonished Timothy to STUDY the word because it is not that easy and straight forward to understand. If he refuses to study, he would be at the risk of teaching incorrectly.

Sacred scriptures in itself is not that straight forward. It needs the proper guidance of the Spirit to understand it. One can be a bible scholar and still fall into error because of a lack of understanding. Go and read the book of Revelations and see how difficult understanding scriptures can be.



You still haven't said what you mean by the bible is complete and whole...Scriptures does not contain everything about God. All we have is a snapshot and not all revealed truth.

Scriptures does not claim to be complete, for Scriptures made us understand that Jesus did so many things that were not written; this in itself makes it incomplete.

Answer this, is the new testament part of the scriptures or not?

kenshin17: I watched a revelation,in which Jesus Christ showed a 14year old boy demons and he was drawing them,he said that there is beelzebub,joolzebub(his brother),devil(lucifer) and a dragon with seven heads.

now this is my question.
Do demons have brothers?
Beelzebub is another name for the devil,but this boy is depicting that beelzebub is different from the devil and also from the seven headed dragon in rev chapter 12,and he has a brother called joolzebub.
Please what do you guys have to say about this.

What do I have to say?, read and study your bible, stop listening to some silly tales of heaven and hell. What is the relevant of yahoobub, googlebub etc to your Christian life?. Demons (like angels) are not product of procreation (abi angels get mama and papa ni?) What does that say of them having relations?.

CrazyMan: Very true.

They (MOG's) even go as far as dictating lifestyles to their flocks.

Imagine a pastor telling his members not to marry outside his church; and before getting married, you must bring your spouse to him for spiritual evaluation...he's the one who decides who you marry...can you imagine that?

Imagine a pastor asking members to pay tithe, sow seed, give up to 5 offerings per service, and at the end, he would prefer to offer prayers rather than financial assistance to the needy in his congregation.

The christianity we have these days sucks...this men are just crooks and criminals.

I hope God judges each and everyone of them.

Satan has planted some of his agents to bear the title of a Pastor and create confusion among brethren and some took to the pulpit to better their economic situation. Just like you have originals, there are fakes, there are many genuine men serving God for the sake of the cross. It is our duty to locate the original and refuse to be swayed by TV adverts of churches.

Frank4YAHWEH: In every occurrence of "unknown tongue," in the New Testament, the word "unknown" is an added word (italicized in the KJV) by the translators to make the English readable. It is not in the Manuscripts!

In the King James Bible you see some words in italics. These are words that they had to add to properly translate the Hebrew/Greek into English. As we can see, they did not always add the right words. But they were faithful in that they placed the words that they added in italics so that we would know that the words do not appear in the original Manuscripts as such.

Check your Strong's for the word "unknown" in: 1 Corinthians 14:2,4,13,14,19,27; it is not there in the printed versions, and in the electronic versions it lists the definition for "tongues" not "unknown."

The false teachers have seized upon a word that isn't even in the Scriptures and built a whole false doctrine around it. In Acts the words are "other tongues" not UNKNOWN tongues.

It is not much of whether UNKNOWN is added or not, the Tongues in those verses are UNKNOWN tongues to Man (that is the main issue)

frosbel: ^^^^

I have nothing against speaking in real tongues which actually means languages , on the condition that an interpreter is present

I will rather not get involved in uttering gibberish in the name of speaking in 'unknown' tongues.

We should always endeavour to be decent in our conduct.

Lol.. Divers of tongues is different from speaking in unknown tongues,one is a gift another the expression of baptism of Holy Ghost.

frosbel: I spoke in some weird tongues for quite a while, who knows if I was cursing myself.

In fact , My dad told me a story of an ex-occult man who visited a church in South Africa , and was petrified to hear the demonic curses being spoken as tongues by the church members without them having the slightest clue.

These are indeed days of utter deception.

Lol, he spoke in some weird tongues for awhile..

God bless you in abundance bidam

striktlymi: None of my posts denies the above.



Not quite!

Faith in this context has to do with the belief in God. It is inappropriate to say that the Old and new testaments are the basis of faith or Christian faith.

Abraham NEVER read one passage of the old or new testament but still he was tagged our father in faith. The Apostles believed in Jesus before any book of the new testament was written.

Sacred scriptures is indeed the inspired word of God that has been written down but it is not the basis of Christian faith. Christ is the basis of Christian faith.



I do not have a problem with Sacred scriptures but still I do not agree with the bold. Peter made us understand that not everything in Sacred scriptures is clear and unambiguous...there are things that are difficult to understand.

2 Peter 3:15-16
New International Version (NIV)

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

By Faith, I mean Christian doctrine and concerning Peters comment, it is the same what a primary school holder (Peter was a fisher man) will say of a letter written by a Doctor degree holder (Paul was an equivalent of a Professor of Jewish law). The intent of scriptures are quite clear or else he won't advice Timothy (2Timo 2:15) to study and divide the word correctly and won't commend the berean Christian Acts 11:17 for being diligent. In study.

The Bible is complete and whole, any man tradition beyond this is nothing short of man's tradition and Gos doesn't honor or recognise the tradition of men

striktlymi: In simple terms, indulgence is the remission of the temporal punishment due to sin that has been forgiven. It is not the forgiveness of sins per se.



In that passage of Sacred scriptures, Christ was trying to teach the importance of settling our grievances with our brethren before they get out of hand...

Now, if after trying to reconcile with a brother, he stubbornly refuses and decides to remain in sin then Christ assured the Apostles that they would have the power to excommunicate such person from the flock, hence Matthew 18:18.

This power to bound and loose goes beyond just excommunicating a member of the Church who is adamant in sin. It also gave the Apostles the power to forgive and retain sins:

John 20:23
New International Version (NIV)

23 If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.

Thus, if a valid representative of Christ grants someone relief of the temporal punishment due to sin already forgiven, it is accepted as such in heaven because of the promise Christ made.

IF a brother offend you
1. Tell him, if he didn't repent
2. Pick 2 or 3 people and let them talk with him, if he didn't repent
3. Tell the church, if he didn't still repent, the church should set him aside from fellowship (when there is disunity among them, it will affect them spiritually)
Whatsoever the Church bound remains bound vice versa, if 2 shall agree concerning a matter, it shall be done, where 2 or more are gathered, he is there.

Read that scripture and follow the direction of Christ discuss. He is not talking of one who committed a sin like stealing etc, IF a brother offend you (verse 15). He is simply talking of how offence should be resolved and the power of unity in church or when people agree over a matter, there is no place for indulgence (forgiving temporal sin of the living and the dead).

Colossian 3:13
13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.