₦airaland Forum

Maestro21:
I don't know if it is indoctrination or if you are just reading your thoughts into the very same scripture you posted. People prayed to God, heard no word and decided to cast lots. That is the very sequence you have above. You cannot claim that decision came from God anymore than the one involving the soldiers who cast lots for Jesus' clothes. That is why I keep telling you to understand spiritual timing. That something was allowed pre-Holy spirit does not mean same thing continued post him.

Your argument on the silence of rejecting Matthias is non-sequitur. Matthias was a Christian who probably died a martyr but he simply was not Gods choice as that apostle. To peer Barnabas and Paul to save your dead argument is also shallow. Are we referring to a Paul whom " Pope" Peter said his teachings were scripture and esoteric to comprehend? With a bulk of the NT teachings or another Paul?

And you said Paul called himself an Apostle not as one of the twelve but that is simply because Paul was not into the early church politics of ranks and titles. He had already said he learnt nothing from any of them and when it appeared other Christian folks tried to make his appointment as one of a junior rank owing to being sent to non-jews he magnified his OFFICE (Romans 11:13). Or should we extend your logic and argue that John who saw the Revelations saw 12 names and not 11 other names since he did not expressly state it as such or he too was not part of the 12?

And nobody was set to disparage the use of saints for children of God both in heaven and on earth as you know it is one family. But the ones in heaven do not have any special meaning to the name. The whole body of christ are all one and the same saint. Humans will not segregate or discriminate where the word of God has not done and if such reasoning is wasting your time, it speaks a lot about you.

You're really a time waster.

MuttleyLaff:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you kicked off on an ad hominien rampage
"Shey mo gba e jadu iyawo po ni?"
Attack the message, not the messenger.
Biko, leave the courier out of it.

Paul wasnt even among what I emboldened before wondering whether the aforementioned accept and agree with it.
Not even when everyone in the know, knows that the apostleship didnt shack Paul.
Paul didnt go on apostleship ego trips.
1 Corinthians 15:9 and 2 Corinthians 12:11 are a testament to this biblical fact and truth

I merely showed how Paul came about the Apostleship
1/ an apostle--sent not from men nor by man
2/ an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope
3/ called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God

Not to support you or what
but a mere exercise of presenting on their own merits factual biblical verses

Seems, I didnt understand it.
Discussion to clarify and clear the air about it will be most welcome.

I dont know about what and/or any deception you're talking about

"And remember, our Lord's patience gives people time to be saved.
This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him--"
- 2 Peter 3:15

"¹¹You have made me act like a fool--boasting like this.
You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these "super apostles," even though I am nothing at all.
¹²When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle.
For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you"
- 2 Corinthians 12:11-12

Peter, who is one of the twelve, in 2 Peter 3:15 above, gives Paul an endorsement, acceptance and approval.
I'll let 2 Corinthians 12:11-12 above, do the rest of explaning.

I dont want to fall out with you,
but recognise that it was wondered whether you agree to the emboldened before up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

It was just a simple and harmless curiosity remark

There is no iota of hatred.
Dont perceive me as a hater. All I've got for you is love Syncan
So Syncan no need for teeth baring, I love you. No homo.
Not saying "No homo", for fear of treated like a pariah, but just saying.
As you started your post with "Its no problem at all o...", that's good enough for me.

MuttleyLaff, I haven't been posting on Nairaland for a long time because I really do not have the time. You called me out on this,I simply came to clarify things. I find it unappealing reading responses to broken down posts of mine, as I do acknowledge that I am handicap in that respect in which I have noticed that you're quite skillful in. Having read through your post, I find nothing that interests me to respond to, so I will gladly pass with these words... Those members of the church you talk about; are not saints in heaven because the were Canonized, no, they were Canonized because they are saints in heaven. The books of the bible did not become inspired because they were Canonized,no, they were Canonized because they are Inspired.

Do have a splendid day.

Maestro21:
You are actually beating about the bush yourself as I maintained they were 12 names but suggested which name will be the twelfth. Any one who is Christian will know it is not Judas and if casting lots is your understanding of how the Holy Spirit acts, then you have a lot to learn.

For the sake of perspective, Matthias was elected before the Holy Spirit came. Jesus told them to wait but they did not. In Acts 2, after they received him, their decision making changed and lot casting was never done again. So it is pertinent to know what the time is spiritually.

Concerning Paul, We know Jesus appeared to him and told him he was going to send him ( a la Apostolos). We know that Paul barely learnt anything from the other apostles (he said so). We know even matters down to the communion Paul himself said he received his own revelation on the subject matter from Jesus himself. He also informed us that he had ALL the signs of an Apostle. So there is no question about Paul's apostle ship and if it differed from the other eleven prior.

Saint means Sanctified, separated, consecrated. Who does the sanctifying, consecration or separation? The bible says Jesus' blood did not is hoping to do. But DID. Also, there is no aspiration to perfection. Not a single human being can be perfect in any sense but the salvation wrought by Jesus which birthed Christianity has made that perfection a reality not a process. Mountains were called Holy, Cups, Bread etc and we all know why they got such appellation: because God called them so not for any aspiration or acts that they performed.

There is no summit of holiness or more deserving of it simply for the fact afore: it was given freely to everyone who believes in Jesus. John said "NOW are we already the sons of God" not when we go to Heaven but now. It is a present hour reality just like the free gift of righteousness. Thus, nobody in heaven is more righteous or holy than any Christian on earth.

For your information, you should read Hebrews 12 in context before yanking the "just men made perfect" part. The writer of the book was expounding on our now time sonship not relegating it to something futuristic. He clearly stated that WE ARE COME unto Mount Zion which is King James English for, we are now on Mount Zion. So the fables on specific people being saints and others aspiring to it is unscriptual no matter how well-meaning it appears.

You have to make up your mind whether to accept scripture or not. Acts 1:26 Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place". Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. This clearly states that Matthias was added to the eleven. The next passage was the Pentecost, and there was no where in scripture where the Holy Spirit rejected Matthias. Oh, I have a lot to learn because I quoted proverbs 16:33 to you "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" . What else can I say but to refer you to Lev.16:8.

Casting of lot is not something you do often, that the scripture didn't record them casting lot afterwards never invalidated the one they did earlier. There was nothing that Suggested they had to wait till after Pentecost for another to take the seat of Judas, nothing at all. It is indeed very significant that the apostles be twelve at the birth of the Church, hence the eleven's decision to replace Judas before Pentecost was inspired. Neither was there a change of mind in their decision after Pentecost. If God didn't choose Matthias, He would have rejected him, but he didn't. Even after the descend of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:14, Peter Stood with the eleven which included Matthias. With apostle being an office of the twelve, Paul no where fell into this category, neither does he qualify for it based on the criteria laid down in Acts.1 by those whom Christ have earlier told that what they bound is considered bound.

Paul called himself an apostle, not as one of the twelve, but as one set apart for the work of preaching the gospel. He spoke of himself as an apostle, in the same way Luke called Paul and Barnabas apostles, they were both requested by the Holy Spirit to be set apart for the missions. Hence we see the use of apostle not as an office (for the twelve), but also as a term for a chosen person set apart for the preaching of the gospel.

The rest write up above really doesn't say anything to disparage the use of the word Saints for members of the Church in heaven, you make bold to say that "Thus, nobody in heaven is more righteous or holy than any Christian on earth". That's the point were - having known what scripture says about the righteous man on earth - I simply see am wasting my time with you.

Maestro21:
I know the context you are trying to bring in but I believe it misses the point for there is no disparity between the Apostle Paul was, compared to the other apostles. If anything, he seemed to be above them courtesy of the level of revelation he brought to the body of Christ.

That aside, there is nothing in the Book of Revelations that suggests that Matthias was a Godly replacement. It even lends credence to the reason we heard nothing of him afterwards. Jesus did not appoint his apostles by casting lots and the 11 who did erred. When it was time to appoint another apostle, we saw who Jesus himself appointed and it was Pau. That is exactly why Paul on a myriad of occasions was quick to point that his apostleship came from Jesus himself not by any man. That much is pretty clear.

Bringing this into the discourse, Apostle as the word Apostolos meaning sent ones is an office/ a calling and to that effect it was used rightly and not generically as you maybe aiming to imply. Ephesians tells us there are select Pastors, Prophets, Apostles, Teachers and Evangelists.

But when it comes to the issue of sainthood, it was not an office created by canonization. It was clearly and repeatedly used to refer to ALL members of the body of Christ. As a result, the OP is correct.

It's always good to consider what you're saying deeply before jumping to hold on to a preconceived notion. You claim to understand where I'm going, but still continue to beat about the bush. How can there be no difference between the apostleship of Paul and the apostleship of the twelve? In the book of revelations with regards to the apostles as I quoted Rev.21:14, twelve names were written and not thirteen.

The Scripture did not in any way condemn the way the apostles made the decision in Acts 1. Casting lots was a biblically allowed method of making a decision Proverbs 16:33The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. The same Peter who Ananias and Saphira lied to and were said to have lied to the Holy Spirit was the one who spoke and quoted scripture in the choosing of Matthias. Yet you dare suggest that he wasn't led by the Holy Spirit at the time of that decision. Where did Jesus choose Paul as an apostle? And, while Matthias is never again mentioned in the New Testament, the same can be said for most of the other 11 apostles.


Saint means holy one. It is used for God's people here on earth to indicate their aspiration to perfection, their willingness to live a holy life and a reflection of their state on receiving the merits of Christ sacrifice through baptism. It doesn't remove the fact that heaven is still the eternal abode of these earthly saints among whom some may fall. Those in heaven cannot fall, they are at the summit of holiness, Even scripture called heaven the place of the "just made perfect" Heb.12:23. Hence no one deserves the name Holy one/ Saint more than them. People on earth even acknowledge this in their speech as we've often hear people say " Am not a saint..."and they are very right.

Society and groups always have models, the scripture is filled with models for various virtues. The Church decides to portray some of her members as her models, that their lives may inspire her children still fighting the battle, but Lo, you have a problem with it, because she called them Holy Ones "Saints".

MuttleyLaff:
"John, to the seven congregations {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones} which are in Asia:
Grace be unto you and peace from him who is and who was
and who is to come and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne"
- Revelation 1:4

It's you who simply misses and/or missed the crucial point about ekklesia and what it is
The word "church" does not come from the Greek word ekklesia

Ekklesia has always been, case in point is Revelation 1:4 above
When Ignatius, who incidentally was a disciple of the author of the above Revelation 1:4 verse
as in the person of apostle John, coined the "ekklesia katholicos" phrase,
it was used to mean the called out ones universally, in distinct to the local, town or city assemblies

"Paul, an apostle--sent not from men nor by man,
but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead--"
- Galatians 1:1

"Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope"
- 1 Timothy 1:1

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,"
- 1 Corinthians 1:1

Interesting, so your beef is with Paul being an apostle

I do wonder what joy you gain in deception. How trying to look smart and not honest will help your life as a christian. I am glad you're not the only one God has blessed with a functional grey matter, so those who read us can draw their inferences as well. How those quotes exonerate you from what I wrote, I do not know. Very clearly I stated that St. Paul addressed himself as apostle, you started copying and pasting everywhere he did that, to support me or what? If you do not understand my post, then I can't discuss with you, If you understood and simply want to deceive, then I don't have time to waste.

Yes, you don't have beef with Paul calling himself an apostle when he isn't one of the twelve. How you can explain this and can't understand the use of saint for members of the church in heaven, only hatred can tell.

Sometimes I just come around to wish you all the best of God's favor.

Good morning brethren, a splendid day ahead to all.

MuttleyLaff:
Teach brother.
I wonder, whether or not, self-professed catholics,
the likes of Ubenedictus, 9inches, Syncan, italo etcetera agree to the emboldened up there
and accept that believers dont need to be canonized or formally recognized as biblical saints

Its no problem at all o, just that when you guys try everything to disparage the Church, you simply miss the point. Jesus appointed twelve apostles, the apostles elected Mattias to replace Judas Ischariot Acts1:23, the names of the twelve are written in heaven as seen in Rev.21:14. However St. Paul still used the name apostle in referring to himself 1Cor.15:9. He was not one of the twelve appointed by Jesus while on earth, neither was he elected by the apostles. So is it that when you name the twelve apostles, you now confuse yourself with Paul, or God is now a God of disorder for that reason? See how hard you're working to say the church is wrong for calling holy ones in heaven saints because it was used for those on earth, I just tire for you folks.

Oluwapomile1:
Let me vent here. How can my brother be refused sleeping in family house because he didn't register with NACC? After paying 1k. And he is relocating tomorrow? It is not fair o.

Cc Nasarawa NACC Chaplin and papas and mamas

Human decisions are often prone to imperfections, just do your best to keep him safe. Pelee

Ubenedictus:
I was on the thread too and just generally shocked at what people think is OK to wear to Church

I read through the comments yesterday, I wasn't shocked though. What do you expect when you ask adolescent age kids their opinion on what good parenting should constitute.

Let me join in throwing around scripture passages.


Lev.19:19

“You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

Deut.22:8

"When you build a new house, put a parapet around the roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt upon your house if someone falls off.


James 2:10

"For whoever keeps the entire law, yet fails in one point, is guilty of breaking it all".

Today is Divine Mercy Sunday. While we pray for God's mercy on us and the whole world, I want to use this opportunity to celebrate all Catholic mothers on this thread. It matters not if you've posted, reacted or just read postings on this thread; as long as you, a female, have and perform a maternal responsibility towards one created in an image and likeness of God, this shout out is to you. I pray the Lord to establish the works of your hands, bless your homes and make you fruitful.

Should you want to calculate mother's day ahead for some reasons, Just target the feast of annunciation, it occurs on the 25th of March, that's when the Church celebrates the motherhood of Mary, as upon the hearing of the angel's message and her fiat, the Holy spirit overshadowed her immediately; and the word took flesh. So Mothering Sunday is normally observed on the nearest Sunday to 25th March. However, if any of those dates falls on the beginning or end of the Holy week, i.e, Palm Sunday or Easter, it is moved to the next Sunday after Easter.

Cc. Antie Debbie, ChineloSA, Okpurukata,

Happy Mothering Sunday and a splendid week ahead.

A splendid Post. God bless you.

realGod:
Please is it any where in the bible i can relate to? Just learning ooooo

Read the post above yours?

bloodofthelamb:
Where and when is saint Paul's day and saint Peter's day? Or,don't you think they deserve a day as well?

"It is well with your understanding."

In the universal Church, St Paul actually has two days, January 25th and June 29th. St Peter is remembered on three at least, February 22, June 29 and November 18.

So, calm down.

Ubenedictus:
I know I had promised to summarize but today is ash Wednesday...



From a letter to the Corinthians by Saint Clement, pope


Repent

Let us fix our attention on the blood of Christ and recognise how precious it is to God his Father, since it was shed for our salvation and brought the grace of repentance to all the world.

  If we review the various ages of history, we will see that in every generation the Lord has offered the opportunity of repentance to any who were willing to turn to him. When Noah preached God’s message of repentance, all who listened to him were saved. Jonah told the Ninevites they were going to be destroyed, but when they repented, their prayers gained God’s forgiveness for their sins, and they were saved, even though they were not of God’s people.

  Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the ministers of God’s grace have spoken of repentance; indeed, the Master of the whole universe himself spoke of repentance with an oath: As I live,says the Lord, I do not wish the death of the sinner but his repentance. He added this evidence of his goodness: House of Israel, repent of your wickedness. Tell the sons of my people: If their sins should reach from earth to heaven, if they are brighter than scarlet and blacker than sackcloth, you need only turn to me with your whole heart and say, “Father,” and I will listen to you as a holy people.

  In other words, God wanted all his beloved ones to have the opportunity to repent and he confirmed this desire by his own almighty will. That is why we should obey his sovereign and glorious will and prayerfully entreat his mercy and kindness. We should be suppliant before him and turn to his compassion, rejecting empty works and quarrelling and jealousy which only lead to death.

  Brothers, we should be humble in mind, putting aside all arrogance, pride and foolish anger. Rather, we should act in accordance with the Scriptures, as the Holy Spirit says:The wise man must not glory in his wisdom nor the strong man in his strength nor the rich man in his riches. Rather, let him who glories glory in the Lord by seeking him and doing what is right and just. Recall especially what the Lord Jesus said when he taught gentleness and forbearance.Be merciful, he said, so that you may have mercy shown to you. Forgive, so that you may be forgiven. As you treat others, so you will be treated. As you give, so you will receive. As you judge, so you will be judged. As you are kind to others, so you will be treated kindly. The measure of your giving will be the measure of your receiving.

  Let these commandments and precepts strengthen us to live in humble obedience to his sacred words. As Scripture asks:Whom shall I look upon with favour except the humble, peaceful man who trembles at my words?

  Sharing then in the heritage of so many vast and glorious achievements, let us hasten toward the goal of peace, set before us from the beginning. Let us keep our eyes firmly fixed on the Father and Creator of the whole universe, and hold fast to his splendid and transcendent gifts of peace and all his blessings.



have a grace-filled Lent

Thanks Ubenedictus.

A grace filled lent to us all, dear brethren.

When falsehood is tested in the crusible of truth, it's ridiculous how it burns and get scattered like ashes. Now is this...then it's the other...Lord have mercy.

toscairo365:
Hello pals, let's drop our experience with holy rosary hospital water side Onitsha in Anambra State. As for me that is the worst experience I have ever had with any hospital. I came for a medical check up on the faithful day around 9pm and I went straight to emergency of which i will be charged, only to examine me and seeing the doctor took over 1hour as if that was not enough I was handed over to a co nurse whom it took like 3mins just to stand from where she is laying down and now is around 11:30pm. She now took my folder and work away without any excuse, I then followed her from one place to another without any iota of word from her. At a point I have to stop and watch her, when she saw I am no longer following her, she then turned and from afar askinh me question which I could not hear, so when I told her I could not hear her, she simply work away without any word and then is almost 12pm. I felt so bad, took my paper and work away. The nurse then started following me that I should return the paper to her which had been with them without any empathy or concern to assist, I refused at ist and later gave it to her. Then I entered my car to drive home only for the game men and security refused my access to leave and teamed up to abuse me, tore my cloth and gave me bruises and now is around after 12 mid night. Someone that is down and came for the medical assistance. This shows that their management is very poor.
Why I wrote this is for the management to sit up and look deep into the level of professionalism in their staff and also keep the standard they portray, if not people will loss total confidence in them. As for me, I will never ever visit or advice someone to use them for both medical and other things
The above named hospital is a Catholic hospital with a total service failure and poor medical attention.
Please share with friends and learn from my story

I sympathize with you for any unfortunate event that took place there, If you were abused as you claim, you should lodge a complaint to the management of the hospital, and may report to the police immediately. As a mission hospital there's normally a priest at the top of the day to day management, your parish Priest could help you get in contact with him if you can't. While you're at it, I will re-post this response to you from another thread, so you can as well make sure you didn't do something wrong out of ignorance. No one should tear your clothes or give you bruises just like that, especially not in a Church owned hospital. I pray the Lord grant you healing.

lomaxx:
I want to respond to your story but first and foremost I want to make sure you understand that I do not work with any of the institutions you've mentioned here. Secondly, I empathize with your plight and I hope that you're well. Now to the meat of the matter.

If you go to the hospital by 9pm, the outpatient clinics would have been closed. It is assumed that for you to come after work hours , at 9pm, you're not going for a "medical check up". It has to be an emergency.

Now at the ER/Casualty/Emergency, the modus operandi is not a first come ,first serve basis. I repeat. There is nothing like first come, first serve in a hospital emergency section. The mechanism used in attending to patients is a TRIAGE System. This means that patients that come to the emergency after work hours will first be assessed if it is an actual emergency and also for the severity of their condition. The reasons are simple:

1) There are few resources available at the emergency section, hence, it must be apportioned to those that REALLY NEED IT.
2) Those with more severe cases are given priority because failure to make an intervention will result in a catastrophe.

Also, when you come to the hospital, the nurses sees you first, take your vital signs and your complains and informs the doctor. Usually, they assess the viability of cases as emergencies or not based on criteria they were trained on.

It's a pity no one explained this to you there hence that was wrong on their part. But it appears that either you didn't have an actual emergency or you assumed you'd be treated on a first come first serve basis, and out of waiting you felt bad or the hospital has a bad case of poor management.

I sincerely doubt the last.

And your ordeal with the security could be secondary to what happens at the ER. Did you cause any scuffle? Else, sorry.

Ubenedictus:
From a discourse Against the Pagans by Saint Athanasius, bishop
The word of the Father gives order, direction and unity to creation
By his own wisdom and Word, who is our Lord and Saviour Christ, the all-holy Father (whose excellence far exceeds that of any creature), like a skilful steersman guides to safety all creation, regulating and keeping it in being, as he judges right. It is right that creation should exist as he has made it and as we see it happening, because this is his will, which no one would deny. For if the movement of the universe were irrational, and the world rolled on in random fashion, one would be justified in disbelieving what we say. But if the world is founded on reason, wisdom and science, and is filled with orderly beauty, then it must owe its origin and order to none other than the Word of God.
He is God, the living and creative God of the universe, the word of the good God, who is God in his own right. The Word is different from all created things: he is the unique Word belonging only to the good Father. This is the Word that created this whole world and enlightens it by his loving wisdom. He who is the good Word of the good Father produced the order in all creation, joining opposites together, and forming from them one harmonious sound. He is God, one and only-begotten, who proceeds in goodness from the Father as from the fountain of goodness, and gives order, direction and unity to creation.
By his eternal Word the Father created all things and implanted a nature in his creatures. He did not want to see them tossed about at the mercy of their own natures, and so be reduced to nothingness. But in his goodness he governs and sustains the whole of nature by his Word (who is himself also God), so that under the guidance, providence and ordering of that Word, the whole of nature might remain stable and coherent in his light. Nature was to share in the Father’s Word, whose reality is true, and be helped by him to exist, for without him it would cease to be. For unless the Word, who is the very “image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,” kept it in existence it could not exist. For whatever exists, whether visible or invisible, remains in existence through him and in him, and he is also the head of the Church, as we are taught by the ministers of truth in their sacred writings.
The almighty and most holy Word of the Father pervades the whole of reality, everywhere unfolding his power and shining on all things visible and invisible. He sustains it all and binds it all together in himself. He leaves nothing devoid of his power but gives life and keeps it in being throughout all of creation and in each individual creature.

This isn't simple to agree with on face value. It looks more like an opening statement, am sure there'll be questions...especially in our days with so much "disorderliness" in nature.

Ubenedictus:
From the treatise Against Heresies by Saint Irenaeus, bishop

knowledge of the Father consists in the self-revelation of the Son

No one can know the Father apart from God’s Word, that is, unless the Son reveals him, and no one can know the Son unless the Father so wills. Now the Son fulfils the Father’s good pleasure: the Father sends, the Son is sent, and he comes. The Father is beyond our sight and comprehension; but he is known by his Word, who tells us of him who surpasses all telling. In turn, the Father alone has knowledge of his Word. And the Lord has revealed both truths. Therefore, the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father by his revelation of himself. Knowledge of the Father consists in the self-revelation of the Son, for all is revealed through the Word.

  The Father’s purpose in revealing the Son was to make himself known to us all and so to welcome into eternal rest those who believe in him, establishing them in justice, preserving them from death. To believe in him means to do his will.

  Through creation itself the Word reveals God the Creator. Through the world he reveals the Lord who made the world. Through all that is fashioned he reveals the craftsman who fashioned it all. Through the Son the Word reveals the Father who begot him as Son. All speak of these things in the same language, but they do not believe them in the same way. Through the law and the prophets the Word revealed himself and his Father in the same way, and though all the people equally heard the message not all equally believed it. Through the Word, made visible and palpable, the Father was revealed, though not all equally believed in him. But all saw the Father in the Son, for the Father of the Son cannot be seen, but the Son of the Father can be seen. The Son performs everything as a ministry to the Father, from beginning to end, and without the Son no one can know God. The way to know the Father is the Son. Knowledge of the Son is in the Father, and is revealed through the Son. For this reason the Lord said: No one knows the Son except the Father; and no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son has revealed him. The word “revealed” refers not only to the future – as though the Word began to reveal the Father only when he was born of Mary; it refers equally to all time. From the beginning the Son is present to creation, reveals the Father to all, to those the Father chooses, when the Father chooses, and as the Father chooses. So, there is in all and through all one God the Father, one Word and Son, and one Spirit, and one salvation for all who believe in him.

Amen Amen. I guess that's why the question "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know ..."

chubbyz:
I am married to a catholic, my husband allows me to go to my church, but he does not belief in d holy ghost, speaking in tongues or being fervent in the things of God. Its so frustrating sometimes, it kills my spirit, when u want to have quiet time, then he comes with one erand or the other just to distract u!

My advicw it is left for u if u can cope then marry him, if not, wait for ur own. Simple!

Aunty, your hubby is not serious with his religion or Christian faith. You cannot use him as a yardstick to measure what a Catholic truly is. Catholics start their prayers "in the name of the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit", how then does he not believe in the Holy Spirit?Charismatics is a group in the Catholic Church where you find people with such Charism as speaking in tongues, how then does his belief represent the Catholic Church? The catholic church has produced numerous saints, has people who leave everything and stay in monasteries praying, and still boast of people who give up all and go into missions, not to talk of everyday catholics who die daily like St. Paul 1Cor.15:31 in living a life of holiness, how then does your husbands' lack of fervency in things of God represent the Catholic Church? You married a non serious Christian, no use your reggae spoil our gospel music abeg.

bchi:
Thanks for all explanations, advise ,critics and comments.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
This is a post I made 2015 and the mods decided to bring it up this year, showing there's nothing God can not do. Thanks mods ,am grateful
By Gods grace , we are getting married this year.

I got to the church on my own to see how things works there. I will tell you, there are alot of difference. I learnt a lot especially discipline before entry, though I came early before mass started.
Things I didn't see are
They didn't worship( worship songs)
No testimony
No tithe
No dancing.

it was awesome especially the teaching from the priest.
my doubt has been cleared.

Mind you, I was given birth in METHODIST. I grew up in an Orthodox church..

The best place in Catholic are Charismatics and Adoration (I haven't attended)
LOVE YOU ALL.
WISH YOU MORE GRACE TO RIDE THIS YEAR

I wish you the best of married life. Be rest assured that God loves you and it's a rare privilege that He has given you. I am glad you've found out that what ignorant or wicked people all around say about the church is false (the gates of hell must keep fighting, but won't overcome). Most people i know who appreciate the beauty of the Catholic Church are those who entered late. Be curious, be open minded, be a good scholar, and you'll see what treasures God is opening up for you. A lot of people already in the fold take it for granted...like the biblical children of the kingdom...but people will come from east and west to occupy Matt.8:12. Once again, as i said in the opening page, if you have any question or doubt at all, there is a catholic thread here on NL. God bless you.

Investnow2017:
I am indeed sorry I seem to irk you by my questions. But sincerely, do not doubt my amazement.

You don't irk me by your questions, rather I am careful not to deal with a scorner/mocker because scripture says:

"Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate you: rebuke a wise man, and he will love you". Prov.9:8


I myself was once amazed that the earth moves, but doesn't it?

LaaJiblik:
Accept it; Mary WAS a Human Being.
Born of a sexual intercourse between her mum and Dad.
Mary bore Jesus.
Joseph married Mary.
Mary performed ALL the duties of a Jewish woman.
Joseph performed ALL the duties of a Jewish Man. including having legal sex with his wife
Mary bore other children to Joseph.

Jesus is the Messiah.

Accept it; Mary WAS a Human Being..............Agreed.
Born of a sexual intercourse between her mum and Dad......Agreed
Mary bore Jesus......................Agreed
Joseph married Mary...............Agreed.
Mary performed ALL the duties of a Jewish woman......As demanded by her husband
Joseph performed ALL the duties of a Jewish Man. including having legal sex with his wife ...That's what the Jews thought before Jesus was born, were they right?
Mary bore other children to Joseph.....Absolutely False, baseless.

Jesus is the Messiah.....Praise God.

Investnow2017:
Ok granted that she remained a virgin. But does that warrant worshipping her?

You see @ Investnow2017, I respect people and their beliefs, when I discuss religion, I discuss with a mind ready to acknowledge a superior argument. I don't just accuse people falsely or deride their beliefs with the wave of a hand; as I do not take anyone to be stupid at a glance. I am willing to discuss my faith at any time especially for the sake of those who seek knowledge. I don't argue because I love arguing.

AkunnaTochi:
No. It doesn't.

And I ask;
If she didn't, does it affect your living?

Pay no heed to them, they are protestants. They will rather, rant than be open to truth.


"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut". Ezekiel.44:2

God has a way of doing things, God's children always recognize His handwork, Mary had no other children apart from Jesus. There is no where in the whole of scripture, where any other biological child of Mary was mentioned, yet the bible is filled with places where she was called the Mother of Jesus, here they are calling "Jesus brethren" children of Mary, and making fool of themselves.

Emyogalanya:
PROVE WHAT ? I WANT YOU GUYS TO PROVE TO ME HOW SHE WILL BE IN JOSEPH HOUSE FOR OVER 12 YEARS AND STILL REMAIN A VIRGIN. I'V NO PROBLEM IF SHE HAD OTHER CHILDREN OR NOT BUT THE ETERNAL VIRGINITY IS THE PROBLEM

What you have problem with or not does not matter. Just find a way to prove to me that a woman gave birth without the aid of a man(or don't you believe it?), and that a man will keep a woman in his house for more than Nine months without touching her(which you believe Joseph did)and I will prove the rest to you.

Investnow2017:
YOU HAVE CLEARLY RUN OUT OF IDEAS!

At least you agreed that the marriage of Mary and Joseph continued after the birth of Jesus. MOST UNFORTUNATELY, you could not establish that there are marriages in which couples, I mean healthy couples, live together and not have conjugal affair! And you also want a sane person to believe this? So when Mary and Joseph were betrothed to marry before even the conception of Jesus Christ, they were just going to live together without relating as husband and wife in a carnal sense? You could not establish that the birth of Jesus Christ changed whatever marital equation in their lives. Did you?

Are you proud to propagate what you cannot prove to a sane mind? I can't tell my pet this and feel proud that I have said anything reasonable.

You mentioned that it was only Joseph, Mary and Jesus that were mentioned 12 years later, accepting that they continued to relate as husband and wife, but though Mary was still a virgin?? If you read the context of that incident mentioned at the 12th year of Jesus, you would easily notice that the focus was on JESUS. Mary the mother and Joseph the adopted father were only mentioned by the writers to accentuate the efforts and anxiety of loving parents when a child gets missing. So you were expecting the Bible writers to go on to mention Jesus' biological brothers and sisters!

All I can find in your anxious effort to defend the indefendable are mere assumptions and unwarranted presumptions. That was the same pitiable mistake made by the so-called church fathers who side-lined God's inspired word and went about propagating their own warped ideas, telling the world that Jesus was born on 25th December. As the enlightenment over this matter grew, they quickly said that they only assumed, thus mixing up the truth with outright falsehood.

And if I ask you now, why do you worship Mary? You will also have an explanation! Even the devil has explanation for his rebellion. Jesus or the apostles too were also wearing long cap and long garb as we see in the original church today. Right?

Sad, too sad indeed.

It's a pity when people just become dramatic rather than face truth. You started with scripture, I followed you up with scripture, now you're dancing around absurdity. One who believes a woman gave birth to a child without the aid of a man doubts the possibility of married Celibacy. You believe a man that intends to marry a virgin(having left her untouched while living with him) could agree to still go ahead and marry her pregnant , yet you doubt the possibility of that man not touching her afterwards. You agree that the man lived with her for nine months without touching her, yet you doubt the possibility of same man continuing to leave her untouched. So how long is the limit according to you?

As per the later paragraphs, Imagine the trivialities you now concern yourself, baseless accusations instead of thinking deep and accepting truth staring in your face. Am not even going to oblige you of such discuss.

Emyogalanya:
FROM MY QUOTE DO I SOUND LIKE A PROTESTANT TO YOU ? PENTECOST STARTED IN CATHOLIC I'M A PROVEN PENTECOSTAL CATHOLIC MAN A FANATICAL ONE IF YOU LIKE. YOU THINK YOU KNOW CHURCH DOGMA AND TRADITIONS THAN I? VIRGIN BIRTH IS NOT SUBJECT FOR DEBATE BUT ETERNAL VIRGINITY IS. PLS FIND A WAY TO PROVE THAT A MAN MARRIED HIS WIFE AND WONT MEET HER FOR 12 YEARS WERE THEY UNDER VOW OF CELIBACY WAS JOSEPH A EUNUCH. DID MARY VOW TO REMAIN VIRGIN FOR EVER AFTER MARRIAGE.

Just find a way to prove to me that a woman gave birth without the aid of a man, and that a man will keep a woman in his house for more than Nine months without touching her and I will prove the rest to you.

Investnow2017:
You would have made the exchanges more interesting if you are not intentionally picky about salient points I have raised again and again.

What became of Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus? Did Mary divorce Joseph? Remember that 12 years after the birth of Jesus, the Bible still reports Joseph and Mary being together as husband and wife. So she continued to be a virgin 12 years after giving birth to Jesus Christ. These are questions you have not dared, and you say I have nothing more to say?

Or may be that too is open to interpretation?

Truth remains that there is no where recorded in scripture that Joseph knew Mary after the birth of Jesus. Was it Possible that Joseph stayed with Mary in a celibate relationship? the answer is Yes, nothing is Impossible to God.

Now to your questions. Having agreed that Scripture never gave us specific insight into their sexual lives after the birth of Jesus, nor did it in any where suggest they have other Children together (at twelve years, it was still Jesus, Mary and Joseph), I make bold to present to you this line of thought from a renowned theologian called Thomas Aquinas.

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

linearity:
What you are trying to do, is to prove a negative; which is impossible.

Facts:
1. There is no reference in the Bible stating that Jesus did not have brothers or sisters.
2. There is no reference stating that Mary did not have other children.
3. There are many references stating that Jesus have at least a brother and at least a sister.
4. There are many references stating that Mary have other children apart from Jesus.

The greek word used in the new testament to description Jesus' brothers and sisters is 'adelphoi', it means 'from the womb'; which means Jesus and those referenced as his brothers and sisters are from the same womb.

But, the Catholics confuses this with the Hebrew word "ben-dod", which means 'son of a paternal uncle. It is the Hebrew that do not have a word that differentiates between brother, cousin, etc..they all use the word "ben-dod"....but Greek with which the new testament was written have definite words for brothers/sisters, which is 'adelphoi'. If the reference to 'brothers & Sisters" were in the Old testament, then your argument might have some validity, since some portion of the old testament were written in Hebrew, but the new testament was written in greek.

The Catholics believed otherwise and they have references that are not in the Bible and in their reference they believe that Joseph and not Mary had other children and these were actually Jesus' step brothers and sisters. This position is not supported by the scriptures and trying to use the facts in the scriptures to prove these, is like proving a negative, which is impossible.

Truth:

1. There is no reference in scriptures stating that Jesus has brothers and sisters from same womb.
2. There is no reference in scripture stating that Mary, mother of Jesus, has other children
3. There are references in the bible showing that brethren does not mean from same womb.
4. There Is absolutely NO REFERENCE stating that Mary has any other child.

[quote author]The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers" (Gen 13:8, NIV; see also 14:12).

Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother," we can rest assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time" (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children![/quote]I laugh at the ignorance of the person you copied in those assumptions you stated about Catholics.

Investnow2017:
You never cease to amaze me and all honest-hearted readers here. How can you make such assumptions and claim they are revelations.
If your arguements do not hold water why not be humble enough to accept the truth. Must you go against every rationality? How can you flush a clear statement of a Bible writer that James was the Lord's brother with a harmless statement of Luke where he simply referred to believers as brethren or brothers. I know you know that the word brethren can refer to brothers and sisters. How can you compare that with where the Bible clearly refers to James as the BROTHER of Jesus? Is that how to compare Scriptures with Scriptures? Matthew 1:25 is too clear to be interpreted unless you want English people to change their own language to push up your argument.

I have one recommendation though. Pick up a version of the Bible in your own language, perhaps you will find it easier than the English language. You may be surprised it will help you to unlearn the false teaching which you have held so dear.

Now he has nothing else to say. It is now clear to you that brethren don't mean siblings of same womb always. Isn't it wonderful how people claim to know it all and dish out advise in an anonymous forum? How you know I haven't read the scriptures in more languages than you can imagine baffles me.

Now you've heard the truth, harden not your heart.

Investnow2017:
We would not go into all this if you stuck to what is revealed. What is revealed is clear: Mary had other children after giving birth to Jesus. Matthew chapter clearly says that Joseph marriage to Mary continued after the birth of Jesus.

Remember that when Mary was bethrothed to Joseph they had no knowlwdge what was going to transpire. They got on with the intention to consummate the marriage afterwards.

You are giving the impression that leaves Joseph out of the equation. Can you tell me please: why was Mary engaged to Joseph to marry. So they wanted to marry and not have children? Was that a common practice among the Jews?

Joseph had intercourse with Mary as his own wife after the birth of Jesus. That is the revealed truth. Stick with it.

There is no room for assumption. Luke called Elizabeth cousin of Mary; that historian could have simply referred to Elizabeth as sister and yet he did not.

Joseph's complaint that you referred to was not like I NEVER WANTED TO HAVE A CHILD WHY DID MARY BECOME PREGNANT? His complaint was that he had never had intercourse with Mary why would she get pregnant? That incident was to show that Mary was pure, a virgin while courting Joseph. But her virginity ended, according to Matthew chapter 1:25 when she had Jesus and her marriage to Joseph continued.

MARY NEVER REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER THE BIRTH OF JESUS, THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.

Speculation Galore!

1. "Mary had other children after giving birth to Jesus"
It is you who bring speculations in here. I make bold to say again, the bible NEVER MENTIONED ANY CHILDREN OF MARY APART FROM JESUS. All over Scripture you have Mary mother of Jesus, no where was it mentioned Mary mother of any other Person, if not, then show me. The brethren you erroneously hold to, I have shown you who their mother is, its not hidden, scripture made sure it was not hidden.

2. "Joseph had intercourse with Mary as his own wife after the birth of Jesus"
Again you bring your speculations here again, i have shown how the word "Until" does not mean that the condition changed. "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet" does not mean the reign of Jesus will end when the enemies are under His feet. 1corinthians 15:25

3. "Luke called Elizabeth cousin of Mary; that historian could have simply referred to Elizabeth as sister and yet he did not".
Here you try to insinuate that Luke only uses brethren for siblings of same womb, Isn't Luke the one who wrote the Acts of Apostles?
Now tell me if it was siblings of same womb with Peter he was talking about here. "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do"? Note that Same "Adelphos" was used in referring to the brethren of Jesus.

4. "They got on with the intention to consummate the marriage afterwards"
Food for thought on the relationship of Mary and Joseph. Why did Mary (a lady betrothed) say "How can this be, since I know no man" Lk.1:34, remember the angel used future tense in speaking to her, yet she asked that question.

Keep on speculating, don't focus on what has been revealed. My duty is to point it out to you.