₦airaland Forum

shdemidemi: Where exactly have you been commanded to make images of Christ or Mary or whomever for any reason whatsoever?

shdemidemi: I can understand you are connected to the people special to you by flesh, what connects you with the images you reverence?

Take a look at the names in bold from your post above, and tell me you just did not ask me this question below it in your right senses.

shdemidemi: How would you feel if I slam the image on the floor or break it with a hammer?

The fact of the matter is, there is no precedence for that since the birth of the church in the scripture.

Same way I would feel had someone shown the same disrespect to the image of someone special to me, or even the coat of arm or national flag of my country.

The fact of the matter is, there is no prohibition of such since the birth of the Church in the scripture.

striktlymi: Never mind!

Thanks bro.

striktlymi: Hi Syncan,

Thanks for the input but I will suggest that you go through the OP and verify for yourself if there is any word that contradicts the church's teachings...

If there is, I will be very grateful if you would point it out. I can also learn from you!

Anyways, none of what I share represents the church's official position ( of which I am subject to) but still I am confident that none of what I have shared so far is against any known teaching of the church.

Dear brother, did my statement in any way say that yours contradict Church's teaching? If there is anything wrong in my post, please point it out.

However until you give me proof, I will take it that its just a figment of your Imagination, that anyone practised homosexuality in human, without it been looked at as against natural order by that society in the begining. Like St. Paul said in Rom2:12-14, natural law will be the condemnation or justification of such persons. Hence apart from our letting our Imaginations run wild, let's produce a case from adam where homosexuality was practiced as inline with nature. Till then....

striktlymi: It is not against any teaching of the catholic church.

Just to clear this. The teachings of the Catholic Church states that sex is only for married couple. They also teach that marriage is only between a man and a woman. If any of this condition is absent in the case in question, then it is against the Church's teachings.

^^^ Please don't be, people easily lose interest in the cross, I guess the OP isn't an exception.

^^^Never knew he had this sense of humour

bishopjoe02: from your words, i can see that you are an educated man...but why are not exploring your potentails?

Acts 8:26

King James Version (KJV)

26 And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert.

1.How can someone travel on a desert without water, will such person survive..why not think, and see things for your self


2.The City of David, which was Biblical Jerusalem, is located on a low, narrow spur south of the Temple Mount and today's Old City. A settlement existed here in the Bronze and Iron Ages, of which remains of fortifications and buildings have been found.
The City of David was built on a hill of hard limestone, in which underground water created karstic caves. The Gihon Spring, the only source of water of the city, emerges in the Kidron Valley, east of the City of David. It is mentioned many times in the Bible, e.g., its location in the valley east of the city (II Chronicles 33:14); the anointing of Solomon as King of Israel (I Kings 1:35, 45). It made the founding of the City of David possible, and sustained its existence for thousands of years.
(soource: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/IsraelExperience/History/Pages/Jerusalem%20-%20Water%20Systems%20of%20Biblical%20Times.aspx)


3.with this i guess we can now see the person that is manipulating the bible

Do not worry about my Potentials, It is not for letting my Imaginations run wild. Take a look at scripture:

1a."And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Acts8:36
The eunuch, having traveled this way, knows the location of water on his way, even though Gaza is a desert(you can find water in the desert though), the Ethiopian was going beyond Gaza. The evidence that there was water on this way is as shown. Yet nothing says the Ethiopian was with water.

Though I do not make speculations with Bible, but following yours, I can only tell you these:

1b. Philip was still explaining the scriptures to the eunuch, but the sight of water in the desert jolted him to make that observation.
1c.Could be that if the eunuch misses that opportunity, then he will have to use from the scarce resource he may have. So many inferences you can draw from the passage yet not enough to condemn sprinkling or Immersion as you did.


2.I thank you immensely for posting this. Did you see this "The Gihon Spring, the only source of water of the city..."? A city with one spring as the only source of water tells you a lot. Jesus was preaching in boats all over Isreal and not Jerusalem. The day He entered Jerusalem, He did that on a donkey.

3.I told you "it is built on a mountain without easy water" and your post actually supports me. Try something else, while evading once again what you cannot dispute.

bishopjoe02: 1.the Eunuch was on a far journey from Ethiopia to Gaza riding a horse, definitely there will be a water jar with he for the journey, if Phillip believe and practice the baptise by sprinkling, he would have told the Eunuch to stop his chariot, take some water from his jar and baptise he, why wait untill they get to a river before baptising the eunuch, this should show to that the apostle never teach nor practice baptism by sprinkling.



2.because Jerusalem is a desert land, most city and market are built near the rivers, during Jesus time, HE was found of always preaching using a boat, more-over were will you see water to baptise 3,000 people all-else in a river, who will store such water at home, not to mention the disciples were even on the run at that period .



3.when last did u see films with Roman setting (Spartacus, Rome, troy) you will see that each house have a pool at the center, this because of there weather, Paul and Peter must have make use of such pool .

"baptizo

were did u get this word from...justify it, then i will answer the rest questions.

Hehehe, Its not Scriptural! Its not Scriptural! This was your cry earlier. Now I am quoting scriptures and you are busy making unfounded speculations from wild imaginations and pornographic films.

1. I gave you a scholarly insight into Acts8:39, you came up with speculations that there will be a water jar with him. Did the bible tell you this? I do not want to let my Imaginations run like you, else there are many possibilities, I rather stick to scriptures and Learned Interpretations of it.

2. Another outrageous speculation about sites of market and cities. Jerusalem is a city, it does not have cities in it as you claim. It is built on a mountain and it is a desert land without easy water. You need to read.

3. Just listen to your self. I am talking Scriptural Israel and middle east (desert), and you are hear telling me Sensual fictions of Italy and Europe. All i can say is "God is watching You"!

So far you've evaded the ones you could not respond to, attacking with wild imaginations scriptural passages I have laid before you. You made an assertion that "The catholic church is the one lying..." Yet no biblical backing for it. I shall leave you to your conscience, rest assured that those who seek truth in sincerity of heart shall find it. However 2Pet3:15 says "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Finish up, Baptizo is the greek word used in those passages I quoted. Obviously you do not know the import of your argument, all the same go ahead. Sometimes google is your friend.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=907

Boomark: It was simple and short but hot like fire. No body can contest it because it is pure truth. Besides it is a teaching for catholics to learn from.

Abi you too dey fear am? Where will you even start to attack/refute it? Except you manufacture mysteries.

I will not delete it so that those who are been deceived will know what is actually true. You can lol from today till tomorrow, it is still incontestable!

Yeah, You sound like someone convincing another to buy a fake product. If you try harder, you may convince yourself too.

bishopjoe02: catholic is the one lying..cos of the record of baptism in the bible are by immersion

I will enlighten you a bit here. The word "baptizo" is used in these places thus:

(1) 2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for "dipped" is "baptizo." Here, baptizo means immersion.

(2) Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from "baptizo" ) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.

(3) Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash ("baptizo" ) their hands. This demonstrates that "baptizo" does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).

Other reasons to support sprinkling:

Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God "will 'sprinkle' clean water on you and you shall be clean." it says, sprinkle (not immersion).

Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (baptisei) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, "baptisei" refers to a "pouring" out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus' head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles' heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist's prophecy, the Lord baptized ("baptizo" ) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.

Acts 2:41 - at Peter's first sermon, 3,000 were baptized.No record of their proceeding to the river, Imagine immersion on that number,these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.

Acts 8:39 - because the verse says "they came up out of the water," . However, the Greek word for "coming up out of the water" is "anebesan" which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.

Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius.Those in the house had to be sprinkled.

Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.

You may need to re-visit your answer truthfully.

bishopjoe02:


1.Please support that your definition of baptism with scripture.
Romans 10:10 (For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.)

2.Prove to me from those passages of "household baptism" that each member of the household apart from the head who invited the preacher was asked the question and they said "yes I do" according to you.


all the people baptized were instructed on what to do before they were actually baptised.


Acts 10:34-43

New International Version (NIV)

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Acts 16:14

New International Version (NIV)

14 One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message.




3."And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee".Lk5:18-20.

dude this is not baptism, this is healing, there is a big different..what was the Jews response after that act, and what did Jesus said to them?


4.You said "[b]In the case of seen an instance were a whole house was baptised, d bible neva specified d age bracket of such persons, it could b everybody n dat home is already grow up, jst like my family nw". And i say bravo, it also means it could include infants just like my own family now. Why then do you exclude those the scripture never excluded in the first place?
[/b]

the bible neither include children either

5.You ask if John the baptist or Jesus Baptized a child? My answer is: Jesus did not baptize anyone and the scripture did not say John refused to baptize children.


but there was records of John baptist baptism, why were children not include..since is the catholic that compiled the bible and they support infant baptism, dont u think if it was there in the scripture that they will included it by all means.


6.Please do not twist the word of Christ just to drive home your point. Jesus never said they "should not stop the children from hearing the word of God" as you claimed, He said " let the children [b]come to me and do not stop them". Were the children old enough to understand him? Verse 15 tells you the answer by what Jesus did next:"He laid his hands on them, and departed". (He did not start teaching them the word of God for they were not old enough to understand).
[/b]

see for urself

The Little Children and Jesus

15 People were also bringing babies to Jesus for him to place his hands on them. When the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

1. Please tell me how (Rom10:10) you quoted replaced (john 3:5) which is the words of our lord on baptism. I do not know why you flip flop, on one hand you say water is not needed.Did you not read Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts8:36) "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized"? On the other hand you say it is only by Immersion.(I will tackle this with your next post to Italo).

2. You claimed that everyone baptized was instructed to and said yes I do before baptism (in your quest to eliminate the infants). You quoted Acts 10:34-43 where peter was preaching. I read through carefully to see where they recorded that the children in the house were taken to the backyard or locked up during baptism,or even to see the individual question and answer session and i did not see. More so that encounter may as well have held outside the home.

Then instead of you going to Acts 16:15 as i referred, you rather quoted Acts16:14

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul".

According your verse 14, a certain woman Lydia (singular) heard Paul teaching. Then she requested for baptism and verse 15 says:
"And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. You alone know why you did not see that the household did not appear in verse 14, where the instructions was given.

3.You said the bible did not include children during baptism. Though i say that household includes children too any day, however, the bible never excluded them. If they were neither included nor excluded, why is inclusion wrong and exclusion right to you?

4. You say the man with the palsy case is healing right? "Your sins are forgiven" that's what Jesus said at first remember? The faith of the relatives obtained for the man the forgiveness of his sins and later healing,do you dispute that? What does baptism do then? Again,do you think the servants in the household were asked their choice by the masters?

5. I will not say any word again on the issue of Jesus and the Little children, any one who reads (Matt19:14-15)will see it in black and white.

shdemidemi: Why are you so desperate to be right for this church of yours. You claim you proved me wrong when you know it happened the other way round, I leave you to it though.

Your word. I thank God it's all written in print for all to see.

shdemidemi: Every believer of the gospel is baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ not by literal immersion into water but spiritually according to the scripture [I Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 1:23

“Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit".John3:5.

So Clear! So Clear! Why are you so obstinate? And bishopjoe, I hope a headway has been made.

Boomark: Is it today that you knew me? What i give are incontestable facts. The Catholics that viewed do not know how to handle my case because what i presented is true.

They also fear i may ask them questions of things their church fathers may not know.

Hahaha, only catholics view posts on religious section now right? It was so bad even renowned trolls stayed away. Lol , you can still delete it before other forumites start judging you based on it.

^^^ And the fact that no one commented after those many views did not tell you it was been avoided like plaque. What is clear is clear. My question to you is yet to be answered. All you've done is tell me what you think. Outrageous private claims of interpretation of scripture.

Boomark: I took my time to explain these things from the link misonas gave me some time ago. Apostles warned of false doctrine that will soon arise in the church which is different from what they taught.

If you feel there is any strong reason they gave, bring it and i will tell you how it is not. I hope you saw my teaching on Sabbath you claimed your church fathers changed not knowing Christ has already done it all.

Exactly! That's why I take heed lest your false doctrines lead me away from the apostolic teachings. And to talk of Sabbath,You never proved to me that the apostles truncated the last day of the week, for the first day of the week as the lords day. It doesn't matter your rhetoric,all i ask is using your own basis of judgement of me "where is it in the bible that we should work on Saturday and keep Sunday as holy". I and you observe this, tell me why you do, since "Only bible" is your reference.

Paschal360: Yea right, says how much trust and faith he has in God's protection. Not very inspiring.
https://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/043-Nothing-says-I-trust-God-more-than-3-inches-of-bulletproof-glass-catholicism-the-pope-faith.jpg

And you are not aware he started with discarding that bullet proof? Pope francis was never in it.

^^^Same as you.

^^^ Thank you for this submission Bidam. As a "Catholic apologist" as dear shdemidemi called me, the key word shouting all over your post is Love(Agape). This is what Christ meant to knock into the skull of the "letter of the law righteous" pharisees. " You must love God above all things" he said. And else where, to His disciples: "A new commandment I give to you, Love one another" John13:34-35.

God does not count-us-as-righteous-even-though-internally-we-are-unrighteous; by infusing grace and agape into our hearts at the moment of regeneration He instantly makes us righteous. God does not count (or impute) our sins against us (Rom4:8 ), not by leaving us with a wicked sinful heart and merely overlooking our sins, but by mercifully transforming our heart through the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape such that there is no mortal sin to overlook. The person with agape in his heart is in friendship with God, and thus is righteous before God. When Abraham chose to believe God’s promise (Rom 4:3), this act not only showed that Abraham had a faith working through agape and thus was in friendship with God, but it also deepened that friendship, and so God counted it to him as righteousness. Agape fulfills the law (Rom 10:8-10), because agape is the spirit of the law. Without agape, no one is righteous in His sight. But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). By this agape in our hearts, we walk in newness of life; this infused grace and agape produces the “obedience of faith” of which St. Paul speaks (Rom 1:5, 16:26). This infused grace and agape is the gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17) by which we have been “freed from sin and made slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:18,22). By this gift we are made “doers of the Law” (Rom 2:13), such that the requirement of the Law is “fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,” (Rom 8:4). By this gift we subject ourselves to the law of God (Rom 8:7). By this gift of infused sanctifying grace and agape, our spirit is made alive (Rom 8:10) and the law is written on our hearts (cf. Rom 2:28-29), truly in our hearts (Rom 10:8, 10), as the prophet Jeremiah prophesied long ago concerning the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33-34). So according to the Catholic doctrine regarding law and grace, by the infusion of sanctifying grace we receive the gift of agape by which we truly fulfill the law. Here, grace and law are not mutually exclusive; grace orients us to God in divine love such that we fulfill the law, and are truly justified in our hearts.

Boomark: hieeeh! Syncan don expose them the more.

Now the images belong to different persons, i fear satan and his angels will be represented. And the honour will go to them.

Satan will look and say, "they bow to me in honour of me. God of heavens will see that i am God too and i deserve worship, hahaha!"

true worshipers worship God in spirit. There is no corruption with this kind of worship.

The link I posted, takes you to what the Christians believed in, around the time they collated the books of bible into a book. It also gives you scripture passages which backed their belief. Those quotes were made by the council in 787AD. Read and air your view.

bishopjoe02: baptism is a conscious effort by some1 to accept christ, it is a decisn dat cn nt b made 4 anybody, if God wantd some1 to make such decisn 4 us, He would have taken away our conscience so dat wil cn serve He wthout disobedience, d washing of the head or deeping u nside d river is nt d baptism, bt ur decisn and d 'yes i do' u normally respond to d prayer being said on dat day, try and read dat baptism prayer again (those ones u normal say yes i do n response) d water is jst a normal ritual dat reflect wat have happen n d spirit base on ur decisn, these decisn cnt b made 4 anybody. If i shld follow ur view, dat mean any child dat die b4 he get to d age of baptism is going to hell, im sure d baptism wil b 4 6months old baby and above.
In the case of seen an instance were a whole house was baptised, d bible neva specified d age bracket of such persns, it could b evrybody n dat home is already grow up, jst like my family nw.
Do u read n d bible were it recorded dat John d baptist or Jesus, baptise any child, al d pple baptise were grow-up, tax collector, soldiers etc, werent there child there doing those baptism hour n bible, y was they nt mentn.
Jesus said, u shld nt stop d children frm hearing d world of God, nt baptism.

Dearest, I am at a loss where to start in this your post, but I will try.

1.Please support that your definition of baptism with scripture. I believe in this: “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit".John3:5. Do take note of Nicodemus opening statement in verse 2.

2.Prove to me from those passages of "household baptism" that each member of the household apart from the head who invited the preacher was asked the question and they said "yes I do" according to you.

3."And, behold, men brought in a bed a man which was taken with a palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with his couch into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee".Lk5:18-20.

Please look at this passage and tell me the input of the said man in having his sin forgiven.

4.You said "In the case of seen an instance were a whole house was baptised, d bible neva specified d age bracket of such persons, it could b everybody n dat home is already grow up, jst like my family nw". And i say bravo, it also means it could include infants just like my own family now. Why then do you exclude those the scripture never excluded in the first place?

5.You ask if John the baptist or Jesus Baptized a child? My answer is: Jesus did not baptize anyone and the scripture did not say John refused to baptize children.

6.Please do not twist the word of Christ just to drive home your point. Jesus never said they "should not stop the children from hearing the word of God" as you claimed, He said " let the children come to me and do not stop them". Were the children old enough to understand him? Verse 15 tells you the answer by what Jesus did next:"He laid his hands on them, and departed". (He did not start teaching them the word of God for they were not old enough to understand).

7.You asked if they will go to hell should they die before baptism? I answer: I am not God to decide where they go to. All I know is that Christ died for Children as well, and Christ placed the condition of gaining this merit on being born "of the water and spirit". That said, I still believe in line with the church, that God is capable of and "will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church".

Bidam to shdemidemi: I am swift to hear,slow to speak and slow to wrath unlike you who always jump with error to answer posts without digesting the import of it.

Could not have said that better, thought I was the only one that took notice.

shdemidemi: I have just told you to show me one of the occasion where a verse says a certain thing and I said something different to deviate from the truth. I AM WAITING

If you were right about what the gospel of Christ is, I would not ask you again. Take it to your gathering, see what answers you get from those who seem to be pillars there. When you return with the answers you get, we will look through scriptures to see what gospel/ news Christ expect us to spread together.

Here they are if you've forgotten.

Syncan: ... Simply put,It was the apostles that gave credence to what Paul preached. True?

Your response

shdemidemi: Never
3 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

The man needed no letter of commendation from anyone. If you answer the question I asked you, we will get somewhere about why Paul should be believed .

quoting 2cor3:1, making no meaning to the context.

Then I proved you wrong with Gal2:1-10 with special reference to

Syncan: Gal[2] I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain.
And [9] James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

But you went on to say

shdemidemi: We can analyse every verse after you tell me what the gospel of Christ is.

Verse 6

6 But of these(Peter, James, John) who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's personsmiley for they(the more respected) who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

That verse is the key to the whole agreement--Paul expected to hear them speak the gospel as he got it from Christ but what they were saying was different. They must have been behind what Paul complained about in verse 4.

Hence giving your erroneous interpretation that Peter, James and John were false brothers, Since verse 4 says:

][4:
This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.

This again you started repeating on the issue of preaching Christ,now you say If I am right, after I've shown you scriptures.

shdemidemi: You seem bitter. If you have seen error or any interpretation that is not in line with the context of the scripture (not your church), draw my attention to it. I have not presented any other denomination here, so there is no issue of rivalry or envy, all I am presenting is the Word of God.

I asked you a question that you have not managed to answer..what is the gospel of the cross/of Christ that you preach?

I am not bitter, Just making an observation. Each time I point the light of Scriptures to your false interpretations , you tactfully evade it, throwing up many words that make no meaning in the context, therefore putting an end to that line and creating a new one by your questions. Even when answers are given to you(which are often scripture based), you take no notice, waiting to pour out what you think,thereby often disputing the very scriptures you profess. The thread is full of this. I just posted Scriptures to show you that our gospel is Christ (as Italo tried to enlighten you), and it is scriptural. You did not acknowledge that you are wrong in disputing it earlier nor try to explain your dispute, You are there yet again asking me what is the good news we preach. Why not ask St. Paul?

shdemidemi: read what?

Yeah, I guessed as much.

shdemidemi: You must be a very stubborn fellow, I have told you more than enough times that Christ is not the gospel of Christ. Take the question to your church, the answer might liberate a few.

Why are you so eager to spread your errors? You take on every question, giving erroneous private thoughts,not interested in listening to others. Why are you quarreling with Scriptures?

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.(Philippians1:15-18)

Also: but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,(1cor1:23)

Our Church "preach Christ" and yours don't. One of the two is not scriptural

bishopjoe02: i want to knw, y nt teach me...wats ur positn on dis infant baptism

Jesus said " let the children come to me and do not stop them" Matt 19:14. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory..." also includes children. In Acts 16:15, 31-33, also 1cor1:16, you read accounts of someone being baptised with his entire household or family as the case may be. There is no where it was commanded not to baptise infants.

bishopjoe02: i told u to enlighten me nd nt to refer, i thnk there is a big diff btw d two words

Sincerely speaking I thought your request was frank, never knew it was sacastic. I really thought your interest was to know, and not to teach me the difference between words.

shdemidemi: Syncan is so bothered about the early men instead of focussing on the Word(Christ)

Yeah I know your "word" came to you by revelation.

The word of God came to me through the actions of Holy Men via apostolic succesion as preserved by the Holy Church, the pillar and foundation of truth.

bishopjoe02: mayb u shld enlighten me then?

Good. Simply google the word " Infant Baptism". Take note that the church, in 393AD gave the first approval to what we have today as the bible.