₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: I will help you.
1. The mind is located in the brain.
2. When we die, our souls die too, but not our spirit.
3. Lol. No. A part of our tripartite nature will. That part is the spirit-the only thing that survives physical death.
4. Lol. The above will answer you.

frosbel: After Death is a resurrection to damnation or a resurrection to life.

In other words the wicked will not get away with their wickedness, they will one day be raised in mortality ( not immortality ) for judgement , punishment and destruction.

They will realise the error of their ways and alas it will be too late for repentance.

frosbel: for this life has returned to GOD.

Image123: ^
thanks for the inputs which I largely agree with BTW.

frosbel: MAN is made up of :

1. A Body
2. the life of GOD


7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


notice here :

- MAN was formed from the dust of the ground - at this time he was inanimate , no soul , no spirit , no life

- God breathed life into this MAN who was inanimate - MAN became a living SOUL , not a living spirit or a living body but a living SOUL.

By inference from this clear scripture , MAN was 'dead' until the breath of GOD entered his nostrils.

Same thing happens at death, the breath of GOD leaves from the nostrils of MAN when he/she dies and the body returns to the dust. This is why Daniel could say ' those who are asleep in the dust of the earth ' , they are actually DEAD.

Once a MAN/WOMAN dies , that's it . There is no other life in the dead body for this life has returned to GOD.

frosbel: Once a MAN/WOMAN dies , that's it . There is no other life in the dead body for this life has returned to GOD.

pastormustwacc: Very good thank you. I wish you the best in your endeavours and challenges you are going to face too. And i have prayed to God to grant you strength to prevail.

And remember, no amount of bible reading will save you from a confrontation with evil entities in this world if you do not operate in the spirit of christ. Unfortunately, many christians are unknowingly in the cluthes of the devil without their knowlege because they do not fellowship with the holy spirit.

The bible is important, but it is also important to be empowered also - seek the baptism of the holy spirit if you have not been baptised. It will clear a lot of doubts in your mind.

Some of you christians believe that the bible is enough to interprete all the mysteries of this world, and have attempted to suppress and negate the power of the holy spirit - and as such are diluting the power of the church as a whole. But God in his infinite wisdom will not allow this, and so every christian cannot be in darkness.
If you are not sure about certain mysteries, pray to God and ask God.

Reconcile with this:
when Jesus was on earth, he told his disciples to go and cast out demons and do miracles in his name. They went, succeeded and returned.

And yet, when he was going, he still promised them the holy spirit. That is to tell you that the level of power in which they were operating was not enough. In fact he told the apostles to tarry in Jerusalem until pentecost day.

I dont know your belief, but if you think as a christian, your reading the bible and listening to doctrines of men is enough? You are already in trouble.

obadiah777: AM SAYING YOUR INTERPRETATION IS WRONG. THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY THAT DOTH ALREADY WORK IS SATAN AND HIS AGENTS, AND THE PERSON WHO NOW LET IT TILL IT IS MOVED OUT OF THE WAY IS GOD. THAT IS WHAT THATS TALKING ABOUT. THE WORLD IS HANDED TO SATAN AND HE IS DOING HIS INIQUITY WHILE THE LORD LETS HIM UNTIL A TIME WHEN THE LORD WILL MOVE HIM OUT OF THE WAY TO MAKE WAY FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE APOSTLES OR APOSTACY

pastormustwacc: @truthislight, i will answer you in a single sentence. I am gifted with second sight and have a spirit guide too that i can talk to.
But you guys are distracting a thread, if you like accept, if not, just ignore me and move on with your life and your bible.

I will tell you this once again: if the bible really contains everything that a christian needs in terms of knowlege and power - then Jesus would not have bothered to send the holy spirit to his true believers. He knows that without the power of the holy spirit, they will be completely lost despite all the trainings, casting out demons and everything Jesus taught them directly.

And the holy spirit led them too, they were told where to go to and specific instructions on what to do, and what not to do. That was their spirit guide.

Without the holy spirit, the entire mission of Jesus would have failed. So messiah Yeshua knew exactly what he was doing.

Jesus was able to judge characters of people, know when a trap is being sent, and so many things. And he told us that the things he did we will do, and that we will do greater things if we believe.

John 14:12
I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

This are the end-times, the power of God is moving, and empowering people in many ways that are unknown to the world. As the devil keeps creating strategies, God is already ahead of him. And that is the truth.

Have you ever heard of the gift called "discerning of spirits", you should desire it - it helps you in lots of ways in this dark world.

obadiah777: THIS MAN SEF, YOU JUS DEY INTERPRET THE THING ANYHOW

pastormustwacc: *Laughing* i have looked you up spiritually - and have been told to let you be (that you are truly serving God). So, i will rest my case. We are brothers afteral.
Whatever, whether the links be true or not, you are serving Jesus christ in your own way, and that is most important.

But the links are valid. I have a special reason for not posting them here - that is why i asked you to find them (if you can).

My beliefs and yours do not have to be exactly the same, but i now believe you are really a christian. But that is no cause to unleash anything on you (that will make me a WINCH) - put your mind at rest. But strengthen yourself spiritually too (there are loopholes in your spiritual armour - you need more strength).

And we true worshippers of the father must get stronger, so we can interceed more especially for other believers that are in the dark.

But, let us drop that case. But i have not lied to you about existence of something that does not exist. It could be that all the links and my research of many years were faulty - but leave that for God to decide. Work on your salvation, that is all that matters (i think).

pastormustwacc: You have internet, and should have a spirit guide as well. And you have brain + internet. You dont need me to provide direction for you. Find out who emperor constantine was, and the effect he has had on christianity as a whole, and his link to the roman catholic church, and how he affected the early christian generations who dont go to church (based on the legacy left to them by the apostles). And how early christians that did not subscribe to his evil ideas were hunted down and murdered (by christians that go to church). How the bible was made up - and books that did not agree with them were thrown out - like the book of enoch.

Surely, i have given you more than enough things to search for, i dont wish to put any direct info here - make we no start arguments again.

plaetton: Well, if christianity is a slave religion, then christians should be honest about it.

plaetton: Disobedience to what?
Do you mean in the same way that a disobedient slave may prove to be a problem for his owner?

plaetton: But frankly speaking, let me ask you, does not believing in god take away or diminish your god, creation or existence in any away. Does god need belief and faith to exist?

If the universe is 14 billion years or more, god would probably be few billion years older,or eternal, as the case may be. How does the belief or faith of a puny human with less than hundred years of lifespan affect god?

plaetton: More like cyber rage.

@ Frosbel.
Threats, threats and more threats.
What else is new?
Any new message from Jesus? It's been long long time since anyone heard from him.
lol.

plaetton: Yeah. Imagine the stem of a tree disowning the root of the same tree. Or the branch disowning the stem and the root of the same tree.

Judaism is the root, catholicism is the stem, and every other denomination or sect are the branches. All have their foundations in the root and are nourished therefrom, via the stem.

lagerwhenindoubt: All Christian-related Religions have deep roots in Catholicism - save for theological disagreements, they are father and son. quit trying to discount the Truth with your throw-off comments

Anyigala: Some of Protestant interpretation of Matthew 16 after the reformation. Let’s look at them one by one.
A. Petros v. Petra
First, is the famous "Petros / Petra" distinction in Matthew 16:18. Peter's name in Greek is Petros, while Jesus says upon this Petra I will build My Church. Some Protestant authors argue that this means that Peter isn't the Rock Jesus will build upon:
At this point Jesus uses the Greek word for a small rock (Petros) and for a large rock (petra) instead of the Aramaic based Cephas (a stone). This was by design. It is the Petros (the man) declaring the petra (the foundational belief of the Christian Church). It is this belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of the living God that will stand against hell and gain salvation. Everything rests on these two points.
This line of argumentation doesn't work for a number of reasons. First, Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic, not Greek. We know this from John 1:42, in which John clarifies that he's translating the Aramaic Kepha (or Cephas) to the Greek Petros. Paul repeatedly refers to Peter as Cephas . This is significant, since as Brent Kercheville admits in the Christian Monthly Standard, “the Aramaic kepa , which underlies the Greek, means '(massive) rock'.”

So Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and Matthew translated into Greek (as he did with everything Jesus said). Why does Matthew use "Petros" instead of "Petra"? Because they meant the same thing, and Petros is the masculine version of the word for rock, Petra. That is, Matthew didn't want to give Peter a girl's name. And bear in mind that contrary to what Raymond claims above, in the Greek of Jesus; day it's not true that Petros meant "small rock," and Petra meant "large rock." Even John Calvin, while denying that Peter was the Rock on which the Church was built, conceded that "There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words 休赳矧 (Peter) and 疠赳�, (petra, a stone or rock,)."

Finally, Raymond's interpretation just doesn't work. As a stand-alone theological concept, sure: we can all affirm that Jesus is Rock. But in this passage, Jesus isn't the Rock He's referring to, just as He wasn't the shepherd He was referring to in John 10:3. Go back to the passage. Peter is blessed because (1) God the Father revealed to him that Jesus is Christ; (2) he is Peter, Rock; (3) upon this Rock Jesus will build His Church; (4) Peter has the Keys to the Kingdom; and (5) Peter has the power to bind and loosen sins. To say that # 1, 2, 4, and 5 are about Peter, but that 3 isn't because it refers to some other Rock (Jesus Himself, faith, etc.) leads to an interpretation which borders on incoherent. It would be as if God began to bless Abraham in Genesis 17 and then, without any way for a reader to know what was going on, started blessing a different Abraham, before coming back to the Abraham we know and love. So even though it's true that Christ is elsewhere described as Rock, in this passage, the Rock has to be Peter, or the passage stops making sense. Even D.A. Carson concedes that "If it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter."


B. Did Jesus Change Peter's Name in Matthew 16?

This is one of the strangest arguments. To try and break the parallel with Abram/Abraham, some Protestants authors claim that "the name Peter 'is not now given for the first time, for Matthew has used it throughout in preference to 'Simon' (which never occurs without 'Peter' until v. 17), and Mark 3:16 and John 1:42 indicate that it was given at an earlier stage'" (Shape of Sola Scriptura, p. 188). Look at those examples. Matthew, in narrating the Gospel, calls Simon "Peter," even before his name is changed by Christ. And Mark 3:16., in a list of Apostles, starts with "Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter)." In both cases, it's a narrative technique to make sure the reader knows that Simon and Peter are the same guy. Likewise, if you say something like "when Bob Dylan was a child..." you're not saying he was called Bob Dylan then; you're just using the name everyone now knows him by (saying "when Robert Allen Zimmerman was a child" will just get you confused looks).

John 1:42 is even more extreme: Jesus looked at Simon and said, “'You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas' (which, when translated, is Peter).” Jesus depicts the changing of Simon's name as a future event in John 1:42. In Matthew 16:18, that prophesy comes true, when He says "you are Peter." And John makes clear the point from A., that the name given by Christ is Cephas, not Petros, and that Petros is what Peter's name is "when translated."

C. Did This Authority Die with Peter
Ironically many Protestant commentators readily concede that Jesus may very well have been referring to Peter when He said, 'Upon this rock.' Rome's argument is not helped by this concession, because regardless of whether the 'rock' refers to Peter, to Peter's faith or to Christ, Rome has read much more into the text than can be found there. While many Protestants have not allowed for the possibility that the 'rock' is Peter because they believed that this would entail accepting the entire Roman Catholic argument, many Roman Catholics have assumed that if they can demonstrate the 'rock' is a reference to Peter then they have somehow proven that Christ established the Roman Catholic papacy in Matthew 16. The leap from 'this rock' being a reference to Peter to the doctrine of the papacy, however, is textually groundless.
One protestant authors argues that “even if we assume that the 'rock' does refer to Peter. What have we lost (if we are Protestant) or gained (if we are Roman Catholic)? Nothing. Because even if the passage is speaking of Peter, it says absolutely nothing about succession, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction or any other fundamental elements of the modern papacy”
The answer he provides to his own question above is obviously untrue. To say that the Catholic position is "not helped by this concession" is likewise untrue. Instead, he is doing what all too many Protestant apologists do in this position: namely, demand that every verse supporting the papacy support every single aspect of the papacy that they find questionable. And if a single passage doesn't prove, in explicit terms, "succession, infallibility, supreme jurisdiction," etc., they act as if proves nothing. There has to be some sort of middle ground. Just as the Trinity isn't proved by a single verse, but by looking at the interrelation of numerous passages, the papacy is the same way.

That said, many of the things he claims aren't in this passage are. If this passage means what it appears to, papal succession has to be true. "Hades" literally means the grave, although it's often a metaphor for Hell. If the Church's authority dies with Peter, then Hades has literally won. The grave triumphs over Peter's authority, and his authority is quenched. This interpretation is, of course, supported by times when we see Apostolic succession in practice, like Acts 1, in which Matthias is chosen to replace Judas; and in Acts 14:23, in which Paul and Barnabas ordain presbyters ("elders," priests) for the flock; or in Acts 6:1-6, when the Apostles ordain deacons by laying on hands. So from Matthew 16, we can see that the Church will overcome death (including, of course, Peter's death). And in Acts (as well as early Church history), we see how this was done: the Apostles ordained And it doesn't stop with the Apostles ordaining successors: in Titus 1:5 and 2 Timothy 2:2, we see Paul instructing the men he's ordained to ordain others and pass the Gospel along through them.

Likewise, papal infallibility is testified to in at least two different manners, perhaps three. First, the binding/loosening power (Matthew 16:19) establishes explicitly that nothing Peter binds or loosen contradicts what God has bound or loosened. The debate over whether Peter or God binds and loosens first is Church built upon Peter will never be overcome by Hades. If Peter or his successors can make declarations binding upon the whole Church that are wrong (as Protestants claim not only can happen, but has), then Hades prevails over the Church established by Christ. The Petrine Church ceases to be reliable. And finally,
As for "supreme jurisdiction," that's entailed in the binding/loosening as well. In Matthew 18:17-18, the Church has the binding/loosening authority because She's the last stop. If you refuse to listen "even to the Church," you're out. Peter's got the same authority, for the same reason. He's the last resort in a theological dispute: when Rome speaks, the matter is settled.

Anyigala: You see Christ asked His apostles two questions - Who to men say i am? Who do you say i am? The second questions was as if He wanted to know who God the Father will reveal His true identity to.

Anyigala: The second questions was as if He wanted to know who God the Father will reveal His true identity to.

musKeeto: make una attack the Bible verses.... frosbel was definitely out of line and you guys are clueless on how to defend him... lol

confused souls... at least i know where im going if ur god is real and his foolish hell... do u?

lagerwhenindoubt: What happens when you have found the "TRUTH" and it turns out to be either a LIE or a case of Mis-information (TRUTH deliberately obfuscated for whatever divine reasons). As in my case the Catholic Library Zaria was a treasure trove of TRUTH, especially about the Bible we read today. if you are non-catholic, you'd have to admit your source of knowledge has been (possibly) tainted as history will have it. like you said, it is a choice to rely on tainted-history or Faith. perhaps a discussion for another thread.. willing?

inurmind: Guilty conscience

musKeeto: Oga cereal, na bad thing to know exactly as God wan use punish me9

seriallink: ^^^ You've rejected salvation and chosen to perish, why quote all those verses and try to interpret them your way to deceive others? You said if Yahweh happens to be real, you would prefer death to His gift of eternal life; why then are you tryna convince others to follow you to eternal death musKeeto take am easy o!

musKeeto: If we're not responsible for Adam's sin, then there was no point of Jesus' sacrifice.. bullshit frosbel..

Zikkyy: What is the basis for saying the priestly order of Melchizedek transcends time? You are just as confused as Joagbaje. What is without beginning and end is Melchizedek occupation of office. There is no evidence to show that he was removed from office or evidence to show that he died thereby creating a vacancy. This is what you fail to understand; it is the qualities of the person occupying the office that defines the office and not the other way round. The levitical priesthood is one where the priest were prevented by death from remaining in office while Melchi is seen as a priest that continues in office because there was no record of his death.

Hebrews 7:3 (KJV)
3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Hebrews 7:8 KJV)
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

What am saying is that Jesus did not take up an office whose features were already pre-defined, it is Christ's nature that defines his priestly office and that's what makes his office different from that of Melchi. Christ's priestly office only resembles that of Melchi in having a priest that continues in office forever (that's the way the Jews saw Melchi's office).

So Newmi, the order of Melchizedek (as you interpreted it) does not transcend time. You don't find this in the bible.



This is because you are defining the priestly order (or office) by the activities performed under that under (office) and not by the qualities of the person occupying the office. Christ is not required to comply with the requirements or activities undertaken by Melchizedek or let me say that Melchizedek activities is not the standard for what operates under Christ priesthood. What you guys have done is to elevate Melchizedek to equal status or in this case made Melchizedek superior to Christ by saying activities to be undertaken by Christ must comply with what Melchi did.



You have only succeeded in rejecting Christ and accepting Melchizedek as your high priest. The bible did not command that we practice activities in Melchi's era. What you practice is the gospel according to pastor chris.

We have a priest who was made one with an oath, we have a priest that lives forever to intercede (Abraham did not need Melchi for this), we have a priest who offered himself as sacrifice for all. Can you say the same for Melchi?

musKeeto: I dont know about Logicboy, but if God's real, and he happens to be Yahweh... i'll gladly go to hell, wont be able to accommodate such an evil spirit..

What abt you?

JeSoul: To Seun and the NL powers that be, this section is deteriorating with each passing day, and turning into one long endless rant after rant against christianity. A once vibrant section with interesting, funny, challenging and intellectual topics has become a trash dump for unfortunates with beef against religion to unload their grievances that frankly would be better off shared with a psychaitrist.

  So since we have begged, kissed behinds, sucked up and pleaded for intervention and it has fallen on deaf ears, I think it would better to rename the "Religion" section to "Bash Christianity/Religion" section - it would be by far a more accurate description of this section.

JeSoul: Lol. Who dug up this 2yr old topic?

Brother Jenwitemi lol. Go siddon jor 

Unfortunately as I've found out, one man's 'bashing' is another man's 'freedom of speech'. It is not our job to muzzle speech just because you/we don't like what they're saying.

As long as forum rules are not broken. Those complaining rules are not enforced, I have not seen any complaints recently from any of you. abeg hold your peace if you have not reported on the mod thread or via the link. Mods are not omnipresent & cannot see everything happening on every single thread.

Pastor Kun: They are not confused, they know the truth since we have explained it to them countless times on this forum. They are just in denial and hanging on to straws to defend the filthy lucre called tithes they benefit from.

italo: Do you show great respect and devotion to your mother, father, wife, church?



Do your regard your mother, father with honour?

This is your opinion. I will believe it if you can show me where the Bible says that.

Joagbaje: But did it originate in the law? NO. So the emergence and exit of the law has no relevance. The order of Melchizedek is forever. As long as there's a highpriest ,there will be tithing and offerings. You can't separate the two. They per existed the law.

Joagbaje: Tithing pre existed Levitical priesthood. It's a spiritual principle.

Zikkyy: "[size=14pt]Yes, woe upon you[/size], Pharisees ([size=4pt]joagbaje[/size] ), and you other religious leaders-- hypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden......"

Joagbaje are you saying anytime you read the quote above, you truly feel that it describes you? that Jesus was talking to you?

I know image123 considers himself a pharisee, the reason he's glued to Mathew 23:23

The message in Mathew 23:23 was for Scribes & Pharisees (hypocrites ), if you believe you belong to the category listed, you can continue to tithe

Joagbaje: Tithing pre existed Levitical priesthood. It's a spiritual principle.