₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: You guys have allowed yourselves to be so locked in your dogmatic prisons that it has even began to affect your sense of reasoning.

Any student of history be it atheist,hindu,agnostic,muslim e.t.c would easily know the history of the catholic church.

You guys should be ashamed that an atheist knows much more about the history of early xtianity than you guys.

Even you hypocrites the only thing you have in common is hatred for the roman catholic church.You do not belong to the same denomination nor share similar doctrines.Even the catholic and orthodox churches we argue about have more similarities than you guys.

Can you imagine even a heretical JW truthislight dabbling in argument about history of catholicism

Image123: @MyJoe


Plus the new testament is a better covenant.

Pastor AIO: Actually, I did read it straight after I'd written that post, and I'll raise my hand and admit that you didn't say as much. However I didn't say or change anything about the post cos I felt that the issue stretches beyond this thread to what has been said previously. It is to that general sentiment that I'm sure Deepsight is addressing when he says the following:


If you don't feel that the RCC had nothing to do with the Biblical canon, sir, then I tender my full and unreserved apology for suggesting it. Why don't you clear the air once and for all? would you say that the institution that we currently know as the Roman Catholic Church played a major role in determining the biblical canon.

Would you agree that Jesus did not base christianity on the Bible but rather based it on the Church. And subsequently out of the Church emerged the bible?

MacDaddy01: Always on point sir.

Enigma is suffering a case of cognitive dissonance. She hates the catholic church but is pained that the bible she uses is canonized by the catholic church.


She has to go through lies and perversions to force herself to believe that the Roman Catholic church is not the catholic church and that the Roman catholic church has nothing to do with compiling the bible.

She is suffering


(sorry if you're a man enigma)

chukwudi44: Hahahahaha

I laugh in latin

I am really enjoying this.

Could you please tell me any early church father that contested the primacy of rome

Ihedinobi: . . .Suffice to say that Rome's primacy wasn't even so much as implied when the Bible was canonized. It was the logical conclusion of movements that Paul prophecied about to the Ephesian elders or bishops in Acts 20:29-30 -

"29 I know that after I am gone, ferocious wolves will get in among you, not sparing the flock,
30 Even from your own selves men will come to the front who, by saying perverse (distorted and corrupt) things, will endeavor to draw away the disciples after them [to their own party]. AMP

Many things arose in those days. All manner of error and wicked doctrines. And they persist among us today as well. But one thing that characterizes them all is that their proponents tear the flock apart. They must have a following whatever the cost may be. Those that indeed follow the Lord and tend His sheep never never cry for a following. In fact, they do not recognize nor appreciate a need for "organized" fellowship. It is always enough for them that they can form relationships among children of God. They entrust each child of God that they are instrumental in bringing to birth for the Lord to the Lord Himself. They do not ever set themselves up as models to be adherred to. Rather do they live their lives simply and openly allowing the sheep to see it all and compare what they see with the Lord that is being revealed within them.

The mark of the true shepherd is that he will always ever lay his life down for the sheep. He will never despoil and impoverish them over claims of right. He will never bind them to himself against their will. He will never seek to be inscrutable or infallible to them. He will bear their sorrows and pains as his. And share his joys with them. Rather than receive upkeep from them (which, yes, he is entitled to), he will bless them with his material wealth. He is a father, a big brother and a bosom friend to the ones the Lord commits to him.

He never never forgets that before he's the Lord's shepherd, he's the Lord's sheep. And being shepherd is not one level higher than the sheep. It is simply being the first (and hopefully, the only) to suffer anything the sheep may suffer. In short, the Lord's shepherds are simply His most sheepish sheep. They follow Him without a thought for doing otherwise. And as long as they do so, so do those whom the Lord commits to them (whom he may not even know).

frosbel: Very soon the catholics will call Adam and Jesus catholics, just like Muslims call Jesus and Adam Muslims.

In fact the Muslims say we are all Muslims from birth, whether we agree or not.

These 2 religions , ISLAM and Catholicism , hilarious.

Ubenedictus: the writtings were inspired by d HS, they were put down by members of the catholic church, eg luke, paul etc the fact remains that it is hard to prove that all d book were written by d apostles that they are ascribe to. The fact remains that d church fathers were the ones who did the ascribing, even after th 4th century some were stil debating abt 2pt etc. Even today u will find protestant scholar wu disagree that matthew wrote d gospel of matthew.

they didnt just put a seal, they decided what is what, what was inspired and what was not. They were many writtings to choose from.

obadiah777: a new earth simply means - a new set of righteous citizens on earth just as a new heaven simply means a new set of rulership on earth. they dont actually mean physical places. they are people. 'renewed righteous people'

frosbel: Ignore the Muhammedian , let us stay focused on this topic.

I will update tomorrow latest.

Good Night.

Sweetnecta: Glory to God.

@Frosbel and others: I pre-existed as a spiritual creature, a soul before I arrived in the womb.

so you guys never existed before you were in the womb?

Freksy: Do you mean Jesus did not exist as a spirit being or creature in the heaven before coming to the earth?

frosbel: What was Jesus before he came to earth if not the very word of God or the wisdom of God.

But I shall research further, by no means have we concluded this matter.

Where we agree is that there is only one ALMIGHTY God and he is not Jesus. Jesus is like a God , the Lord of Lords and King of Kings, but most importantly the Son of Man and of God.

frosbel: But what kind of god was he ?

How many gods are there ?


I beg to disagree.

Jesus Christ was begotten by the father through the Spirit of GOD. He did not pre-exist as a being per se, but he represented the inerrant word of God that never fails from eons ago.



1.Define the word Beget

verb (begets, begetting; past begot /bɪˈgɒt/ or archaic begat; past participle begotten /bɪˈgɒt(ə)n/)
[with object] literary
1(especially of a man) bring (a child) into existence by the process of reproduction:


So Christ was begotten by the powerful word of God through the Spirit , the same word that brought the creation and man into existence.

The same way that in the book of Genesis the Spirit hovered over the waters and God spoke, is the same way that the Spirit overshadowed Mary and she conceived.




2. What does strongs say :


3439. monogenes mon-og-en-ace' from 3441 and 1096; only-born, i.e. sole:--only (begotten, child).




3. The excerpt you quoted from Micah was clearly referring to the origin of Christ which is God, it's so simple , God spoke through Christ through the Spirit , hence we have instances when Jesus said , 'before Abraham I was ' etc.



Jesus was simply God's Son , begotten by God to bring salvation to all of us.

He did not pre-exist.

frosbel: I know.

My understanding of your position is that Jesus was an angel , which is something I disagree with.

Let us use the other article to discuss.

Thank You

Delafruita: am just wondering why i was distinctly labelled a saducee.pharisee sounds "cool".mummy come and tell buzudiah to make me a pharisee *sobbing childishly*

frosbel: Don't even start telling me that Jesus existed as angel Micheal from ancient times


Read the below from a brother which makes perfect sense :


Micah 5:2
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. (NIV)

1. “Origins” literally signifies a “going out,” hence a beginning or birth, and thus the verse is saying that the birth of the Messiah has been determined, or appointed, from everlasting. In contrast to the Messiah who had an origin, the true God is without origin.

2. The ancient Jews read this verse and realized that it spoke of the birth and birthplace of the Messiah. One of the few things the Jews at the time of Jesus did understand about the Messiah was that he would be born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:3-6). Yet of the Jews who read, studied, and understood the verse, there is no record that any of them concluded from the wording that Jesus had to be “God incarnate.”

3. The context of Micah makes it clear that the “ruler” from Bethlehem will not be God. This ruler will be born, and have “brothers.” No Jew ever thought God could be born, and the thought of the Creator of the Heavens and earth having brothers was absurd to them. These verses are speaking of God’s anointed king, and the Word declares, not that this ruler will be God, but rather that Yahweh will be “his God” (v. 4). Thus, this text of Micah is clear: a child will be born in Bethlehem and the Israelites will be his brothers, but he will grow up to deliver and rule the nation and stand in the strength of Yahweh his God.

obadiah777: Amen Brother O ' brian. AMEN.

thehomer: Where is this prediction you're talking about?

wiegraf: ^^^
You're the one making a claim.

frosbel: Jesus Christ existed as a golden plan in the ultimate will of GOD to redeem mankind and restore creation but NOT as a being.

chukwudi44: That anybody will say that God will not and cannot protect his word that he wishes that it reaches all the earth for a witness is a very strong people all over the world is evident for lack of faith in a God and lack of faith in God's ability to protect his "words".

So you know God can protect his word but don't think he can as well protect his church.Between the church and the scripture which is more important?