₦airaland Forum

SalC:
And the joke is getting even funnier

Uben sorry you came in contact with such a person

I brought this on myself.

brocab:
Will you make some sense? You never said he was a Presbyterian, you said he was a Presbyterian priest, what's the difference
Don't you have to be a Presbyterian to be a Presbyterian Priest

I GIVE UP

brocab:
Still guessing on the wife issue, this topic is starting to be confusing? She may be still alive in those last day's of Peters. So if the apostles were Presbyterian priest , then where does the Catholic's come into it?
And how can Peter be the Pope if he was a Presbyterian

i never said he was a presbyterian, I said he was a presbyterous (priest), presbyterous is the greek root word from which we got the word priest in English.

brocab:
Quote> the Earlier Christians that wrote about Peter did not mention about Peter's wife, the reason why they didn't mention her was because the earlier Christians wrote about a Peter, not the disciple Peter who was married. Two different Peters?

the bible itself doesn't mention his wife just his mother in law, his wife may very well have died. They weren't writting about another Peter, the early Christian were dumb.

Name the priest who were married and I will search the scriptures.

you are funny.

So you do not know that the apostles were also "presbyterous" (priest)? The very example that shows that peter was married is the proof that shows that presbyerious (priest) were also allowed to marry.

When looking into the scriptures we didn't hear much about the women back in those days, but many women were there-looking from a distance they followed Jesus from Galilee all had provided for Him, the ones we hear off, were Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Mary Magdalene and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
And in those days women were to keep quite, but it didn't mean they weren't there.

In the Jewish temple the Synagogues, women were to sit opposite the men while reading the Torah, even after the Christians arrived, the old customs Messianic Judaism were finding it hard to accept Jesus and His followers, and the women continualed to stay quite amongst them.

It was Mary the mother of Jesus who was mention, with Mary Magdalene more then the others, even after Jesus had risen.
I suppose the disciples wife's weren't mentioned, maybe because of the old Jewish customs, and if the women stood up, it would have been blaspheme.
1 Corinthians 11:3 Christ had written He is the head of man and man is the head of women.

And It's the Catholic's who have risen up Mary the mother of Jesus, up on a petter-stool. Not the born again Christians, It was Jesus who had risen, no mention of Mary raising.

non seqiter. Stick to issue on ground.

Nadheer15:
This so-called Caliph was also hated by Muslims, he caused wars between Muslims. He was ultimately overthrown-ed by Seljuk(Muslims of Turkish origin). So his crimes against Christians and Jews was cruel and as you it, Muslims fought against him!

Of course, Muslims were at peace with the Christian world.

so after you admitted that your emperor was cruel to Christians and was busy distroying their places of worship you still go on and say that was "peaceful coexistence"? Common he was either cruel or not so decide.

Ghen ghen! You done come with 'part 2' again oooo!!!!! No such thing happened, in fact it was even the Crusaders that killed people hiding in the Al-Aqsa Mosque. In fighting was against the man you complained about, Caliph Al Hakim. This Al Hakim was a man who claimed divinity for himself, after he destroyed the Holy Selpecher the Crusaders used his actions as excuse to slaughter Muslims and Jews.

actually it happened.
In 1070–71, the Turkic emir Atsiz ibn Uvaq al-Khwarizmi besieged and captured the city, placing it under the nominal control of the ' Abbasid caliphate. In 1077, on his return from a disastrous attempt to capture Cairo, the capital of the Fatimid caliphate, he found that in his absence the inhabitants of Jerusalem had rebelled and forced his garrison to shelter in the citadel. He therefore besieged the city again, and on recapturing it, slaughtered an estimated 3,000 of the rebel inhabitants, including those who had taken shelter in the Al-Aqsa mosque. [url]en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_(Middle_Ages)[/url]

I hope you now see that it was the practice then for the victorious army in a seige to vanquish their enemies, the so-called masacre didn't begin with the crusaders, you muslim began the practice.

Nadheer15:
Lemme help a brother.

Of course it's a liberation. The aggression was started by the Byzantium Empire or should I say it was the fault of the allies of the Byzantium. Prophet Muhammad sent his emissary to the Byzantine governor of "Provincia Arabia" carrying a letter that was meant for the Byzantine emperor Heraclius. While on his way to Bosra, he was executed in the village of Mu'tah by the orders of a Ghasanid official.

The Muslims mobilized to fight against the Byzantium governor and his Ghasanid official in the battle of mu'tah, though the Muslims were outnumbered but they put up a good fight. After losing three commanders to the battle, Khalid Ibn Walid took charge. Khalid ibn Al-Walid reported that the fighting was so intense that he used nine swords which broke in the battle. Khalid, seeing that the situation was hopeless, prepared to withdraw. He continued to engage the Byzantines in skirmishes, but avoided pitched battle. There were eight causalities from the Muslim side which were; Zaid bin Haritha, Ja'far ibn Abi Talib, Abdullah bin Rawahah, Masoud bin al-Aswad, Wahab bin Saad, Abbad bin Qais, Amr ibn Saad, Harith bin Nu'man, Saraqah bin Amr, Abu Kulaib bin Amr, Jabir ibn 'Amr, Amer bin Sad.

hehehe,

a local official mistakenly killed a messenger and muhammed (saw) raised up a 3,000 strong army to punish the town because messenger was mistakenly killed. Do you see a disproportionate use of force? This made the town to run back to the byzatine emperor for assistance hence the battle.

Oh! I am aware the Quran allows for retailation but if I remember correctly it also says the retaliation should be proportional to the offense. That is what led to the battle.

While on Byzantium side is unknown, but exegesis place it a hundreds while others place it at 3000 causalities. The claim of running away is unfounded and probably from a non-reliable source.

Actually it is correct, after the first war, the byzatines sill outnumbered the muslims. So the muslims avoided battle and early in the morning they will divide themselves into two groups and behave as if the other group was new reinforcements from medina. They did this to prevent the byzatine from attacking they continued this untill they retreated back to medina.

Nadheer15:
worship outside of specific locations

I actually don't know what you mean by this, but I know that even the most Islamophobic dude can't the deny the fact that many churches and synagogues were built by Muslims for the benefit of all. Every Christian and Jew had their fair share from the Islamic treasury.

limited in areas where they could travel

O boy, you sabi lie o. Na only God go helep you o!!!

forced to bow before Muslim Mosques and Imams

Even devil dey catch cold from this your fable!! Bros calm down jor!!

charged to wear specific clothing

This was done only during the time of war, the Dhimmis who paid Jizyah were exempted from fighting in the Muslim army. So they were given different clothing so as to differentiate the Non-muslim men who weren't fighting from Muslims(Muslims also wore specific costumes for war).So I don't know how this is a problem.

ordered to make way on the streets to Muslims

This was done by some ignorant oppressors and has nothing to done with Islam, some attribute this acts to the Fatimid illiterate Caliphs who caused a lot of havoc in the Muslim world. So don't be pissed off!!

Limited number of pilgrims

I don't know why you're bringing up this point! So you want all Christians and Jews to troop into an Islamic State like say na 'wonderland'?!

actually dear all my points were correct, their was never a time of Peaceful coexistence, the early arabs simply tolerated the Christain, at first it was simply discrimination but in the 10th century it was all out persecution



Although they were severely discriminated and regulated in worship, movement, ownership of property, repairing of buildings etc., the early Arab period tolerated the presence of Christian and Jewish communities in the city with the Jewish population given the most freedom and benefices. However, the communities, especially the Christians were in essence second class citizens, forbidden to proselytize, worship outside of specific locations, limited in areas where they could travel, forced to bow before Muslim Mosques and Imams, charged to wear specific clothing, ordered to make way on the streets to Muslims, and limited in the number of pilgrims allowed to visit Holy sites. The Emperor Charlemagne started the precedent of Western European influence in the region under various treaties with the Caliphs establishing Frankish protection for pilgrims.
With the decline of the Carolingian Empire in the early 10th century, another period of persecution by the Muslims began. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem_(Middle_Ages)

as you can see, the muslims had a treaty with france to protect prilgrims but immediately the frank empire declined the went back on the treaties and persecution continued again from the 10 century.

Nadheer15:
Yes I would talk about all the atrocities you committed, you always claim to be the victims when in fact you were the oppressors!

hehehe,

if you want to talk about atrocities, well, do you know you muslim saints also mutilated the corpse of the dead soldier?

Reread my post and get the message, stop twisting things up. I hope the grammar I used weren't too much for you. Your speculations about Alexius and Crusaders is totally false because, if he didn't provide reinforcements as claimed, he wouldn't have proclaimed that he was betrayed. Stop portraying the the Crusaders as good guys!

my point is that the AIM of the crusades was just, I didn't say the means were all just, I said the aim was just. On the otherhand, the protracted aggresion of the muslims were unjust as they passed their lands into states that weren't theirs. The distruction of over 2000 churches was unjust, harrassing pilgrim by the turks was unjust and this lead to the war.

As for your funny story!

You need to go back and study history, the first and fift crusades are two different thing. In the first crusades the crusaders gave back Nicean and Antioch but they didn't give back Jerusalem because alexius kept his troops at antioch and didn't provide enough supply for the jerusalem expendition.

@bolded- The looting of Constantinople took place in 1204AD, which was 100years after Emperor Alexius had died! So you're busted lying again!

sacking of constantinople had nothing to do with alexuis. Where did i say that?

Nope, it was Alexius and the so-called Al-Hakim that caused everything, Muslims kept their pacts with him. He lied to the Pope so as he can slaughter Muslims and Jews!

that is actually a lie.

After the muslims distroyed 2000 churches they also attacked the byzatine kingdom and captured Nicea. Nicea is not far from constantinople that is why alexuis called the pope to come to his aid. The so called Rum empire was set in Nicea not far from Constantinople.

thorpido:
There are people who go somewhere and start throwing stones at a structure saying they are stoning satan.How come satan still roams around despite all the stoning all these years?
That something feels good doesn't make it of spiritual significance.

Mary is not in a position to hear or answer prayers and the bible doesn't show otherwise.

logical falacy.
Arguement from silience.

brocab:
Not priest only bishops were married..
Only guessing without evidence you have no idea if Pope Peters wife died before he became Pope..

my dear priest too were married.

Peter mother in law is recorded in scriptures don't you find it interesting his wife was nowhere to be found. Even so all the earlier Christian who wrote on St peter do not mention his wife either.

Bobbysworld28:
Now I get u! I see ur point too!
U need to try to simplify ur theology too. The exegesis u poured out is strong meat + bone.
Only a few mature minds will see ur point. But I get u and I am sorry for d earlier post. Cheers!

thanks.
I sometimes find it hard to put my thought into simple words hence the long congested explanations I gave.

I also know my topic was sensational and it is easy for someone to mistake or misunderstand it.

Nadheer15:
So resorting to cannibalism is a way of protecting Christians bah?! smh!

no seqiter!

We are talking about the reason for the war you are talking about canibalism. How does the reasons for war concern reports of canibalism.

Alexius made agreements with Sulaymān ibn Qutalmïsh of Konya (1081) and subsequently with his son Qïlïch Arslan (1093), as well as with other Muslim rulers on Byzantium’s eastern border.

The Crusading movement, motivated partly by a desire to recapture the holy city of Jerusalem, partly by the hope of acquiring new territory, increasingly encroached on Byzantine preserves and frustrated Alexius’s foreign policy, which was primarily directed toward the reestablishment of imperial authority in Anatolia. His relations with Muslim powers were disrupted on occasion, and former valued Byzantine possessions, such as Antioch, passed into the hands of arrogant Western princelings, who even introduced Latin Christianity in place of Greek. As armies from France, Germany and Italy poured into Byzantium, Alexius tried to force their leaders to swear an oath of loyalty to him in order to guarantee that land regained from the Turks would be restored to his empire. After Western and Byzantine forces recaptured Nicaea in Asia Minor from the Turks, Alexius and his army retreated, drawing accusations of betrayal from the Crusaders.

so you just confirm my point, Alexius had a truce with the muslims yet they still attacked him and he had to beg pope Urban to send troops. Are you not aware that the crusades began after Alexuis made the request to the pope? So the muslims broke their own treaties.

After Antioch and Nicea were liberated by the crusaders they actually gave the lands back to Alexuis. Unfortunately alexuis didn't provide troops or reinforcement or supplies during the seige of Jerusalem hence the reason why the crusaders didn't return it to him

During the subsequent Crusades, animosity continued to build between Byzantium and the West, [b]culminating in the conquest and looting of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204.(this happens when you lie).

and as already pointed out that action came with an excommunication.

OLAADEGBU:
As from 1200 AD the RCC was responsible for the murdering of about 68 million people. Call them monks or Jesuits they are all working for the same master.

"The thief comes not but for to steal and to kill and to destroy: I am come that they might have life and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).

lol,

Jesuits were not responsible for the inquisition, Rivera lied again!

Bobbysworld28:
U r always so sensitive. U need to chill.
If u reject Jesus and his mission as a whole, I will get u but this ur cherry picking is quite ludicrous

my dear this is not cherry picking, I do not cherry pick.

Some guys decided to teach that Jesus who was devine was sent to hell fire by his father to burn with the damned as a payment you sin (a transfer of wrath) and you think I am cherrypicking? You do not think it is outrageous?

Some guy claims the father was actively pouring wrath on the son and was inspiring soldiers to beat him so that the suffering of Jesus is directly attributed to the fathers wrath and you still think that is funny?

Some guy decided that the father cut off his son from the divine Ousia, the manifest divine prescence of his divinity, how can Jesus who is by nature God lose his Godhead? And yet you do not think that is heresy.


Sorry dear I am not cherrypicking, my post are serious and the heresy I am talking about is pretty real, Jesus is not the vehicle the father diverts wrath on, he is the sacrifice that averts. I was saved by the payment of a ransom in biblical terms not by God revenging my sins on his son.

simplex2:
Man makes his own laws which are as a result of sociological and environmental needs. I don't need to be religious to know that I shouldn't murder, steal, bear false witness, fvckk another man's wife and so on.

My point remains this: God's laws have never worked for man and as a result of this, he keeps killing, murdering and even maiming his own son. Yet after the murder of the son, nothing has changed. Sin abound!

did you see the irony in your post? You mentioned the so-called "God law" and said it is right and ok to obey them, infact you said all men should obey them instinctively and yet you say they "never worked for men".

You see the irony, should the so-called good and instinctive law be thrown away because some have failed to do them?

Papist:
You know my brother I read that most of the myths surrounding the crusades were not written by muslims but by western leftists which is a tragedy. They promote Islam at the expense of their own Christian heritage. Ask the Muslim guy here where the great church of St Mary Major of Jerusalem is. Or the Hagia Sophia, or the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople? How did Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Palestine and North Africa become Muslim? It's a real tragedy the crusader states did not survive. God bless the Maronites, Copts, Syriacs, Antiochians, Assyrians, Armenians, Melkites and Chaldeans surviving in the Holy Land.

yeah dear they suffered seriously and watched as their major church were converted to mosques

Bobbysworld28:
Good u saw dt. *sigh* to think I used to like dis guy's reasoning.

you should know that the use of emotional backmail like the one above does not work on me.

I have explained what an atoning sacrifice is using scriptures you can check my post.


This is my post on the question

Re: Penal Substitution: Jesus Didn't Die In Place Of Anyone.
by Ubenedictus(m): 5:48pm On Mar 25

The Hebrew term "kaphar" (H3722) means to 'make atonement', 'propitiate', 'cover over [sin]', 'cleanse', etc, and is used about 90 times in the Old Testament (mostly in regards to sacrifices, which we would expect). I will highlight some very
clear examples of atonement/propitiation taking place in the Old Testament (where
"kaphar" appears) that doesn't involve a transfer of punishment at all, but rather a 'turning away of wrath' all together.

I went on to explain step by step the meaning if atonement in the bible explaining that is averts wrath not divert wrath. You should read before you criticize. Provide a rebutal to my points if you think I am wrong do not drop your smart-as.s insultive comment.

This is my response to the question on atonement, if you disagree, prepare a rebutal.

www.nairaland.com/2205514/penal-substitution-jesus-didnt-die#31997517

www.nairaland.com/2205514/penal-substitution-jesus-didnt-die#31996985

OLAADEGBU:
Why are you in denial? Do you also believe the inquisition is a lie?



Dr. Alberto Rivera's testimony is tenable and the evidence of all his claims can be substantiated all around us today.

the Jesuits were not in charge of nor did they begin the inquistion as the liar Alberto said.

The inquisition started in the 13th century while the Jesuits were form in the 15th century.

Alberto was a fraud! Oh, do you also believe the vatican has the names and info of all protestants and are waiting for when to kill them.

OREMUSSANCTUS:
We indeed monkeys
Mugabe traveled to vatican city buh no european press harassed him cos dey know its bullshitz
Buh deh hail sahara reporters for behaving as uncivilized goats
We say no to bad reporting

Mugabe is banned from visiting European states, his saving grace was that he was lisited as a vatican city visitor and the vatican does not extradict guest.

OLAADEGBU:
Why would you believe the Vatican over the widow who lived and knows her husband intimately?

the article i gave you wasn't from the vatican but from a neutral source.

I can see that you are trying really hard to cover the tracks of your masters. Do you know how our Lord Jesus Christ addressed the Scribes and Pharisees? He suffered for righteousness and thus those who will live godly in Christ shall suffer persecution.

so rivera the fraud man is now you idea of a righteous Jesus.

Demmzy15:
None of this lead to the crusades. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived happily in Palestine for 300years after the war with the Byzantine Empire, in fact everyone was allowed for their various pilgrimage. Everything changed when the crusades attacked. If the crusades wanted to revenge on Muslims for taking over their lands, why did they clear and destroyed Jewish(who had nothing to do with Muslims) villages?! Why did they burn Jews?!

it had nothing to do with revenge the war was simply seen as the best way of protecting Christians.

Incase you don't know the muslims attacked byzantine again in the 11 century, coupled with the distruction of churches and violence to western prilgrims and inhabitant christians. The emperor Alexios was the person who appealed to the pope after the anatolia muslims attacked again. Pope sixtus already hinted at a war whem the holy sepulcher was distroyed. The violence against christian and christian states led to pope Urban preaching that Christian should make a prilgrimage to the holy land. The first groups who were masacred were the peasants who had no war training.

When Jerusalem fell, many Jews had made a pact with the muslims against the crusader while many of the Christian population were expelled, that is why there was a high casualities of Jews.

Demmzy15:
The Byzantine Empire started it all, this was why Muslims attempted to take over 'Constantinople'. @bolded, I don't know the Selpucher you're talking about! When Umar liberated Jerusalem, some church fathers invited Umar and the Muslims to pray in the Selpucher, but he refused because he didn't want later Muslims to claim the area(just because he prayed in it) which was meant for christains. During later Sultans, when the wailing walls of Jews was reduced, Muslims built them back! So don't twist history here!

None of this lead to the crusades. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived happily in Palestine for 300years after the war with the Byzantine Empire, in fact everyone was allowed for their various pilgrimage. Everything changed when the crusades attacked. If the crusades wanted to revenge on Muslims for taking over their lands, why did they clear and destroyed Jewish(who had nothing to do with Muslims) villages?! Why did they burn Jews?!

lol,

the very funny stories muslims tell, non muslims were actually discriminated against in Jerusalem, the jews though had the better deal but the Christians were in essence second class citizens, forbidden to proselytize, worship outside of specific locations, limited in areas where they could travel, forced to bow before Muslim Mosques and Imams, charged to wear specific clothing, ordered to make way on
the streets to Muslims, and limited in the number of pilgrims allowed to visit Holy sites. Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of all churches throughout Al-Islam starting with the churches in Jerusalem. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre, revered by most Christians as the site of Christ's crucifixion and burial, was among the places of worship destroyed. A total of about 2,000 churches were distroyed by that order

Is that you idea of peaceful Coexistence?

In case you don't know the Abbasid took over jerusalem and killed 3,000 people including those hiding in the mosque! About 3 different muslim Kingdom were continously fight and killing each other in an effort to control Jerusalem.

The muslim were fighting themselves, who do you think will suffer when two elephant fight? Ofcuz the Christian were the scape goat, they were the one who were the sacrificial.

The killings intensified in the 11th century so also did the discrimination, that ignited the crusades.

Demmzy15:
Yes Muslims liberated Palestine from the Byzantine oppressors who wanted to wipe out Islam during the time of the Prophet. Byzantine Empire wanted to destroy Islam during the battle of 'Mutah', but the Muslims were successful. Muslims continued to advance forward until they were stopped in France!

lol,

liberation indeed, muslims left medina and mecca and entered Egypt a Christian nation, then syria, Jerusalem and then constantinople and yet you claim it was liberation. Sorry dear that is the definition of an all out war! They didn't stop there they entered spain and would have reached Italy if they weren't stop. That was an all out military aggression.





The muslims didn't win the battle of Mutah, A group of messengers were mistakenly killed by a garrison commander and muhammed decided to raise an army of about 3,000 to punish the village, they cried to byzatium for help and the emperor sent his own army, 3 of the major muslims commaders died in that war and one of byzatium died and the muslims didn't get the reinforcement they wanted so they played a series of tricks and retreated back to medina.

Actually the muslim force were beaten in the first round hence the reason they ran back to medina.

simplex2:
Really? And he acted surprised when Adam informed him he was na'ked? Must be a good hollywood actor then.

Fastforward few hrs later, why not just scrap Adam and Eve and start creation of man anew? Wasn't that the idea behind wiping out the entire generation of Noah? Sodom? Wouldn't it have been better killing just Adam and Eve (2 people) than killing off all Noah's generation?

Right from the time of Adam, man has never-ever kept God's law; not Adam, not Noah, not Sodom, none!
Can't God take a clue that the ways of man is different - totally different from his ways and at such let man be?

do you believe all laws should be abolished because many fail to keep them?

trustman:
Your various comments and responses leave many questions unanswered. And by ignoring those issues you have failed to make your position clear.

I actually believe that through out this thread I have made a point of answering every post thrown at me, even those of athiest that I though I wouldnt respond to on a normal day.
I put my thought to words using scriptures. First I explained that biblically an atonement has nothing to do with transfering wrath to an innocent substitute, instead it was an offering of a "gift of value" to the aggrived to appease him for wrong done and avert his wrath. I went on to explain that the bloody sacrifices of the OT used the "life force" blood of the animal as a gift to appease the creator even though that wasn't fully satisfactory. I explain that a ransom in scripture is also something given to avert wrath, i went on to explain that to "bear sins" biblically is to make intercession for sin.... I went one and on to establish that:

*an atoning sacrifice averts wrath by offering a gift not trasfer it.
* the sacrifice of Jesus offer a valueable gift, the "life force", obedience, humility... Of Jesus to the father to appease him for all sins.
* this sacrifice is the ransom that buys us from wrath.
* this sacrifice "bears sin".
* this sacrifice was proposed by the father, done by his son and applied by the holy spirit on our soul.
....
My dear you may point to the unanswered questions.

First, the title of your thread "... Jesus Didn't Die In Place of Anyone" contradicts Romans 5:6-8 and Hebrews 2: 9

Not true, the title of the thread actually starts with the word "penal substitution" and the first post I explained,

"Before I go on I must state that I am a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ died FOR me and offered an atoning sacrifice for my sin that suffice for all sins!"

so yeah, I clearly stated that Jesus died for sins, I went on to state he died vicariously, the point of the OP is that he didn't die in the way penal substution teaches he died.

Jesus voluntarily gave up the ghost. What does this tell us? 
One, that he did not bleed to death. Two, he did not give up the ghost as soon as he was nailed to the cross or shortly after but only after noonday darkness, his cries to the father and declaration that "It is finished". 
Three,  he knew that it was only then his work was complete. He was still physically alive on the cross when the work of salvation was completed for him to declare "Tetelestai!" 

God was actively involved in Jesus' sacrificial death. 
See Romans 3:25 "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."(ESV). 
"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished."

The cross was a high point in the work of salvation. 
1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."(ESV)
The cross was therefore critical to the salvation work of Christ - Col. 2:14

you still haven't defended penial substitution!

Yes Jesus died for sins.

Yes his father brough him as the sacrifice of propitation

Yes the cross is the high point os Salvation!

I didn't dispute those points!

What I disputed is that Jesus was propose as a vehicle of wrath, I said that is untrue in the active sense, I believe that the scripture teaches he was instead a sacrifice of atonement. Something that appeases not something that the father is unjustly punishing.

I point is Jesus paid a ransom on the cross! He gave to God on behalf of humanity something of value his own life force, his will, total obedience, this ransom is superabundant to pay for sins! He has paid the price of our disobedience by his obedience, where we refused to give God our will, our best...Jesus gave his all. The price is paid! The father didn't and cannot actively pour wrath of his son after he has already paid the price.
He didn't active pour wrath nor did he send his son to hell fire out of anger. The price was paid the sacrifice was sweet smelling not a barage of dive wrath.

OLAADEGBU:
Go back to the link I gave you and read what Rivera's widow disclosed. It is not for those who have already made up their minds because their minds are already made up, it is for those who are ardently and diligently seeking for the truth, for they shall know the truth and the truth shall make them free indeed. For whosoever the Son shall make free shall be free indeed.

Rivera's widow simply made unsubstantiated allegations and spin theories! That you so-called site didn't investigate anything, they didn't try to check whether her story tallies.




Is that was you called an investigation?

Nothing was done to look into her claims or verify them, the person who wrote the article simply printed her claims and yet you call that an "investigation"? Rivera is a fraud who in his life time was decleared wanted by several police department for fraud related crimes and spiphoning money.

My dear get you art together and go check your dictionary for the meaning of neutral investigation.

onetrack:
Once again, the encyclical comes out of breaches of the Reichskonkordat by the Nazi party, and not in reaction to antisemitism or nazi ideology, except it issues a mild criticism of the way that the Nazis glorified race. If the Nazis had not started to turn against the Church, the Pope would not have issued that encyclical.

first you claim the church never comdemned nazi ideology, now i showed you an encyclical where the pope condemned ideas of superior race, national religion and several other nazi ideology and your excuse is that he was responding to persecution and it was mild.

Really?

The catholic church on directions from the pope was busy hiding jews and catholic bishop conferences were condemning the nazis and your defence is that it was mild.

Well done.

OLAADEGBU:
Am sure you have not read the investigation conducted by a neutral investigator in 1983 in the link posted below, 13 years before Rivera's demise. It was discovered that his testimony was based on factual evidence and this goes on to prove that all your attempts to cover-up and re-write history will not succeed. "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time" -- Abraham Lincoln.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/20-Feb-2007.html

lol

the link I gave you was also a neutral source, the writter wasn't a catholic and the newpaper wasn't catholic either. How come you think yours is more correct.

fitzmayowa:
He has already resumed officially, in as much as i agree with you that asset declaration is less important and shouldn't be an issue, those asking for him to declare it publicly are only holding him accountable on his campaign promises...

When you don't deliver on trivial campaign promises such as asset declaration, how do you expect nigerians to trust him to deliver on the the important campaign promises...

Remember drop of water makes an ocean, plus tune down on the insults those asking (whether justified or not) have the right to ask you know...

he said he will declear his assets publicly in the first 100 days of his presidency. Let his 100 days pass before we crucify him, even if he releases the declaration 30 days from now he will still have kept his words.

Yar' adua who decleared his assets did the same thing, he first gave his declaration to the ccb and a month later decleared it publicly.

Firefire:
I don't do abuse no matter the level.

I am quoting one of your own newspaper owns by APC. http://www.osundefender.org/?p=199868

[size=18pt]“I have at least one million naira in my bank, having paid N5.5 million to pick my form from my party.

I have around 150 cattle because I am never comfortable without cows. I have a house each in Kaduna, Kano, and Daura which I borrowed money to build.

I never had a foreign account since I finished my courses in the USA, India and the UK. I never owned any property outside Nigeria. Never.”
[/size] - General Muhammadu Buhari

that was sometime last year, who told you the watch wasn't bought before then.

brownlord:
Nice point from you, but trust me, the question most people are asking, assuming she or her husband bought the wrist watch, how do you relate this to the fact that buhari borrowed money to purchase nomination form and also having less than a million in his bank account?

did they tell you she purchased it just yeserday.

Demmzy15:
Muslims weren't the aggressors, they were aggressors and transgressors! I hope you aren't trying to defend their actions?!

did muslim not move into lands that weren't their? Did they not start a jihad from the middle east even to the doors of italy, lepanto?

So yeah, the muslims began aggression on Christian countries and even distroyed the church of the selpucher, ie the site of Jesus resurrection, there were also reports of violence to Christian pilgrims going to Jerusalem. That is what led to the crusades, a sustained and continous aggression by muslims.