₦airaland Forum

shdemidemi: why are you directing me to your ogas at the top. Did they not tell you why you do what you do un front of those images?



[b]"for
the honor accorded to the image passes
over to its prototype, and whoever adores
the image adores in it the reality of what
is there represented."
[/b]I hope your pope has not ripped out the part of scripture that says we should worship in spirit.

Did you read it or not? Why copy what another posts?

bishopjoe02: i thnk both of them r lying

Do you consider it worth knowing (in the course of your seeking the truth) what was being practised at the time the bible was compiled? At least we agree they were Men Of God.

ijawkid: I got this quote from the link you gave....


"for
the honor accorded to the image passes
over to its prototype, and whoever adores
the image adores in it the reality of what
is there represented."


My question is.....what's the difference between this act what the people who practice shintoism,buddhaism, etc do??.....

They infact adore,bow before and worship images or representations of there God(s).......

Abeg Jesus command this kin act??.....

Can't you guys worship the one true God the Father with out images and mouldings just as Jesus did??......

I hope you took note of the date?

shdemidemi: why do you need him, don't you have a bible? Read it and tell me what I have said that is not true.

Verse Nine! Or don't you have it in your bible?

shdemidemi: italo

what do you do in front of the images?

This will help tell you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Nicaea

Boomark:
Am good Syncan. I hope brought Bach goodies from Rome? Its good to see you again.

Wonders shall never 'cease to' end. Are the catholics saying "bible is God" or your personal opinion? Italo did you see that?

The only thing that will help catholics is for them to make the word of God alone the bases of their belief. Oral traditions without scriptural backing has done worse things to them.

The Bible is a book. The word of God is written in it. Do you know what it means when you call Jesus the Word of God? I fear for all who believe the trinity doctrine of these people with going through the scripture.

Exactly the Point! The Image is an Image!

ijawkid: Never called the scriptures GOD before......

Never ever..!!!!..........

Then why did you attack me for chiding Bookmark on it ? I am sure you must have noticed that I have deliberately avoided engaging you severally on this forum.

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 person 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.

I hope bishopjoe is listening. Then verse nine?

shdemidemi: You did not answer my question.. what is the good news of Christ we should be propagating as a church?

Why should I allow you to derail the topic. My question is based on the topic, you may need to take another look at the topic.

shdemidemi: Is this what they feed you with?

Paul had to go there for all his work not to be in vain because people came to the church he started to teach the people about observing rituals and other jewish orders, Paul termed as bondage.

He came there to explain what he is teaching, as soon as he saw they were speaking different things concerning liberty(faith alone) and works(faith and jewish order) they parted ways.

It is a miracle that you can't see what transpired there.

Really? this is what you understood in verse nine?

shdemidemi: Why don't we leave denominations and see what the scripture says

what is the good news/gospel of Jesus Christ?

Infant Baptism was a practice by the Christians who collated the Canons in 393AD, were they wrong?

The word gospel derives from the Old English gōd-spell [11] (rarely godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad tidings".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

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 .

Gal2:1-10
"[1] Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. [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. [3] Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. [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. [5] We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. [6] As for those who seemed to be important--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance--those men added nothing to my message. [7] On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. [8] For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. [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. [10] All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."

Take note of the following:

2 … The Lord revealed to Paul that he should go to Jerusalem and submit his teachings to the elders. Paul did this to be sure, that is receive confirmation, that he was truly teaching and preaching the truth.

6 … The elders in Jerusalem did not add anything to the message that Paul taught or preached.

7 … The elders recognized that that God had entrusted to Paul the preaching and teaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles.

9 … James, John and Peter confirmed God's call upon the life of Paul.

In addition to the laying on of hands(Acts) and the confirmation by James, Peter and John, Paul's apostleship was also, confirmed though signs and wonders that follow him.

shdemidemi: I know it is of God cos he never met or walked with Christ all through the three years of His earthly ministry , yet, when he met with the other disciples they could not add anything to him.

It can only be God because a man that was against anything that has to do with Jesus went through all these for the same Christ

in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.

24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.

25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;

26 In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren;

27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and unclothedness.


Too many reasons why I believe only God could have directed a movie like that.

The bolded of all you wrote stands as cogent. Others you wrote are claims by Paul, who I am asking how you know his words are true. And for those sufferings,I guess you've not been in contact with an Islamic fundamental facing persecution for his beliefs. Simply put,It was the apostles that gave credence to what Paul preached. True?

bishopjoe02: Paul was a great man who lay the foundation of this our faith..without that man Christianity for the gentiles wouldnt have be possible..he was a men who was preach to by God Himself....he was caught up into the third heaven three times...he was a men who apron taking from his body heal the seek. who his shadow fall on the sick and they recover..which other proof do u nid

So what Paul claimed is what you used to authenticate him abi? I have told you, without Paul God would still have spread the Good news. I wonder how many of these extraordinary happenings have not been wrought by People who eventually are not from God.

Boomark: When you call the image you made Jesus and you call Jesus God, then you are making that image God. Do you now get it. May be not, due to the delusion caused by the pikin of perdition.

Yeah, when you call the bible "word of God" and the "Word of God" is Jesus and Jesus is God; therefore the Bible is God...(Bookmark).

Long time Bookmark, how you dey?

shdemidemi: it is actually a good thing if you lose faith in men, all our faith and trust should be directed to God and God alone.

Even apostle Paul said the good he wants to do he isn't doing, the evil he dos not want to do is what he finds himself doing. The subject of our faith is not Peter, Paul or your church elders but God who used them at that time to create a book to guide us and suppress our sin nature.

I do not know how what they wrote will be of God when they aren't. I want to know how you knew all Paul wrote is of God when he is subject to error.

shdemidemi: They could have! They are men, remember. Like I said earlier

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Was Christ really speaking to the real Peter, no. He was speaking to the sin nature in him.

Every man on the face of the earth lives with the sin nature, only God is good.

Oh how you make me lose faith now in what those apostles wrote, it could all have been wrong, it was these men who could be wrong in their council that said they were inspired! Oh!

shdemidemi: Trinity is a word you won't come across in the scriptures, so I choose not to use it. Although I know God is a triune God. He is in three persons, He is the invisible father, He came in the likeness of man and the Spirit of this risen God dwells in all man.

Those early Holy Men of God used it (Trinity), do you think they erred?

shdemidemi: The concept of the trinity is right there in the scriptures if anyone is ready to study cos elohim is not even a singular word. Don't tell me because they came up with trinity, the institution can add what they want to add today.

What do you understand by Trinity? And do you think they at that time or the apostles were capable of preaching what is not of God?

bishopjoe02: yeah, if nt wat business do they have there

If you believe they were Holy Men of God,It then means that at the time, their teachings were Inspired of God just like the apostles. Remember they declared the doctrine of Trinity(which we profess today) some 60yrs before the canons were put together as we have it,not that they were able to explain it, but they knew it was a revealed truth. So you believe they couldn't have been at fault and are right to use the same words that, "it has pleased us and the Holy Spirit to declare thus..."?

mamsong9: in the first place my mummy never made an attempt to abort me, because she is not a prostitute like yours. And pleas tell me one good thing these so call men of God did, den I wul tell u Hundred bad things dey did. Dey can't deceive my for once. Give their life to save WHO? Instead their hands is dripping with the blood of innocent people they massacre in their inquisition. How many people the popes burnt alive? Please tell that lie 2 the maket women. They are tryin to bury their bad deeds with fake up good once. Afterall their are the one abusing all the children they open orphanage for. Hmm... Saint my left foot.

shhh...son of a "mummy" please keep quite,its bad manners to interrupt elders,or didn't your "mummy" teach you that?

bishopjoe02: yeah, if nt wat business do they have there

Really?

bishopjoe02: frm ur post u cn see d bible was written by men inspired by God. Using d case of circumsion as an example, if God want d gospel 4 d jews alone, he would have make d jews opinion prevail against dat of paul, he wil nt come frm heaven nd do it, neither wil He b dictating to men on wat to write, bt He wil use event, conventn and d holy spirit to direct the process. Dats wat happened doing d selectn of d bks dat wil feature n our modern day bible, if it was d will of man, by nw we r suppose to have diff versions, since wil nw have pentecostals and catholic.

So you mean that those men used by God during the selection were holy men of God like those in the Acts 15?

shdemidemi: Nothing could have stopped the job Christ gave to Paul, if you take the thirteen books of Paul from the scripture, you and I would have never known how to be saved today. God compelled Peter to go preach to the gentile centurion cos of the revelation and the mission He would give Paul.

I believe everything added and every book left out was God sat work.

I tell you most solemnly, many were martyred for the sake of preaching the good news, yet without reading any of St. Paul's writing.

Why do you believe your last line?

^^^ NO! You mean it did not fall from heaven? With mandate "Read and interpret anyhow"!

bishopjoe02: yeah u r rite, most of their qoute were frm the old testament, which r act/words/bks written by the prophet and the law, they also qoute some of the work of jesus.
Bt these men, peter, paul, james and many more lay the foundatn of our new faith, so we nid to read and learn frm their wk and preaching, do u knw if nt for paul, christianity we neva get to me and u, by the standard of the gentiles ( me and u) r forbiding to preatice christianity. Its God dat use paul to break dat law, dont u thnk such persn work, letter and preaching r worth reading

Is Scripture now based on what I think? Well some people at the early time, thought that the gospels of Thomas,Mary and Phillip were worth to be included in the canons, yet they were not. Paul was not there when Phillip preached to the Ethiopian eunuch, nor was he there when James preached in Spain. Paul was not there Jesus gave the apostles the mandate to spread the news to "the uttermost end of the earth" (in the absence of Paul). Note that if all the apostles were with Peter on the Issue of Circumcision in Acts 15 (which is not possible,except if its God's desire),Paul would not have continued that teaching.If he had, be sure that you would not have seen it in the bible.

bishopjoe02: the bible might nt have verse or chapters doing the days of old, if u take ur time to do ur research, u wil undastand it is the same scripture dat d apostle read dat we r stil using today wth a few exceptn.
If we shld b using personal bks to defend our faith, i guess it b totally impossible to convert an unbeliever cos he too have his persönal bk dat support his believe. D bible is jst too unique.

I have done the needed investigation,I never came across Peter, James and John reading the epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians,but I do read it today.

shdemidemi: See what religion is doing to people-

What happens to broad is the path that leads to destruction!

He only tried to set the fact straight.

shdemidemi: The churches in colosse, Ephesus, Galatia, Corinth had the teachings of Paul. They had people who teach according to how they were taught by the apostle, they had the manuscript and strict doctrines they adhered to at the time. Putting them together does not give anyone the right to add what he wants when he wants.

What about the church in Spain were James preached to, or India were Thomas died. Do they have Paul's writings too. Who told you in the 4th century that those letters were actually written by Paul or Peter, James, Jude or John, or do you think all the letters with the names of the apostles on it were taken?

flourishG: if i talk now u will say i insult u.did shdemidemi called my behaviour righteous or me he called righteous?y don't u understand a statement b4 u talk?read shdemidemi's statement again.

My bad please, I promise henceforth to respond to others only and Ignore yours even when directed to me.

bishopjoe02: were r u getting ur qoute frm, i guess some r nt frm d bible, if so, dey r totalling invalid

hahaha, as if the bible fell from the sky unto your lap, with a voice from heaven saying "Behold the word of God, the Pillar of truth, read and interpret according to your understanding".

shdemidemi: Bidam, this is where I tend to disagree with you. You will back the devil just to check the excesses of the righteous.

And here am I, thinking my discussions with you so far has been free of rancor. Now you jump in support of such behaviour and call it righteous