₦airaland Forum

shdemidemi:
Yes... The faithful book says I should reckon myself as saved and I believe it with every fibre of my being.


Only God knows. I can only share the gospel that leads to salvation.



WORKS- This isn't a doctrine of GRACE which is a free gift of salvation to all (male,female,old, young, good, bad) that believe. It is actually that of works, whereby you are judged by what you do.

You will not find a statement like this in the epistles of Paul, who happens to be the minister appointed to the church(primarily Gentile).

here it comes, the theory of two gospels! One for paul and another for others.

shdemidemi:
That is how big the price paid for sin is, heaven gave its very best.... the demand of sin was entirely paid for.

The wage of sin is death. Sin was fully paid for by the death of the purest and greatest of all.

Christ must be weeping in heaven.

Hiswordxray:
I told you before you are too carnal. If you don't understand spiritual things just shut up and read.
And as you humble yourself I know you would get to a place where you could understand these things.

this must be some old trick!

"oh man! You can't understand these lofty stuff, not because it is beyond human gasp but because you are carnal".

Come on!
You can do better than that.

ayoku777:
That is not necessarily true. An unbeliever can do good works and still be unrighteous by divine judgment. And a born again christian can sin and still be righteous by imputation.

Psalm 51v5 -Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

He didn't mean his mother was an adulterer or had him outside matrimony; he meant he was in iniquity from the very moment he took shape in the womb, and that he was a sinner from conception.

That's remarkable! How can someone be a sinner ever before he was born, ever before he has had a chance to do anything -good or evil?

It is because sin is first and foremost BEING IN THE IMAGE OF THE FIRST ADAM. Any man in the image of the first Adam is a SINNER, even if he hasn't committed any sinful act.

Let me show you another scripture to buttress that truth.

Psalm 58v3 -The wicked are estranged FROM THE WOMB they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Can you see this too. To be estranged means to be foreign to, or to be at odds with.

How can someone that is still in the womb be called wicked and estranged from God? When he hasn't done anything good or evil? It is because sin is fundamentally the image of the first Adam; and anyone in that image is estranged -even before evil works follow.

So a sinner is anyone born of a woman in the image of the first Adam -even if he still does some good or righteous acts.

Now, flipping it right-side up, this same principle applies with the new creation too. A righteous person is someone who is born of God in the image of the last Adam through faith in Christ -even if he still sins.

The consequence of sin in the life of a believer is not the loss of his salvation or imputed righteousness, unless the carnality degenerates into unbelief (loss of faith in Christ).

Yes, carnality can degenerate into lukewarmness, lukewarmness into spiritual indifference, and indifference into unbelief. But until unbelief, he is still saved and righteous by imputation.

bottomline, God is blind to the sins of the justified because his sin are now hidden in Christ!

That is some pretty funny righteousness! Sin strongly! Faith has already saved you.

That is some conc calvinism.

Goshen360:
Justification is indeed a deep subject, an Apostolic doctrine as it is. It is part of the finished works of Christ but I will save time and go straight to your queries:

How can a just God declare a sinner righteous even with their sins because they are in Christ Lord our fortress and some still say they have sin in their lives?

Simple because, in Christ, we have no righteousness of our own but Christ has become our righteousness. God doesn't see us via our works or faults, but God sees us via the righteousness of Christ. Christ's experience becomes our experience just like If I place money inside an envelop and mail to you as a gift. The experience\movement of the envelop becomes the experience\movement of the money inside the envelop. Such is ours, IN Christ - He is our righteousness and our justification.

Being a sinner is by nature not by our works. We are not a sinner because we sinned but because we inherit the sin nature by Adam. So also, we are not righteous because we did something right, but because Christ became for us, righteousness and made us righteous.

King James Bible
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

God doesn't see sin in the lives of those who he had declared righteous and those he had justified in Christ. Abraham had his faults and errors and missed the mark (sinned) but never was Abraham's sin recorded but instead, we was described as a perfect person. This is the works of Christ's finished works of Justification hidden in Abraham for believers. Heaven does not record the sins of believers because of Christ's righteousness\justifications, just like it never happened. God removed man from the equation and put Christ alone in the redemption!!!

Another issue is how can a sinner be declared guiltless without works?

Because your works didn't make God see you as righteous and declared you justified in the first place - it is because you're in Christ. So also, your works can't help God to declare you righteous.

King James Bible
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

So my question is is one who is justified and declared righteous still a sinner?

don't tell me you belive in a blind God.

Goshen360:
Justification is indeed a deep subject, an Apostolic doctrine as it is. It is part of the finished works of Christ but I will save time and go straight to your queries:

How can a just God declare a sinner righteous even with their sins because they are in Christ Lord our fortress and some still say they have sin in their lives?

Simple because, in Christ, we have no righteousness of our own but Christ has become our righteousness. God doesn't see us via our works or faults, but God sees us via the righteousness of Christ. Christ's experience becomes our experience just like If I place money inside an envelop and mail to you as a gift. The experience\movement of the envelop becomes the experience\movement of the money inside the envelop. Such is ours, IN Christ - He is our righteousness and our justification.

Being a sinner is by nature not by our works. We are not a sinner because we sinned but because we inherit the sin nature by Adam. So also, we are not righteous because we did something right, but because Christ became for us, righteousness and made us righteous.

King James Bible
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

God doesn't see sin in the lives of those who he had declared righteous and those he had justified in Christ. Abraham had his faults and errors and missed the mark (sinned) but never was Abraham's sin recorded but instead, we was described as a perfect person. This is the works of Christ's finished works of Justification hidden in Abraham for believers. Heaven does not record the sins of believers because of Christ's righteousness\justifications, just like it never happened. God removed man from the equation and put Christ alone in the redemption!!!

Another issue is how can a sinner be declared guiltless without works?

Because your works didn't make God see you as righteous and declared you justified in the first place - it is because you're in Christ. So also, your works can't help God to declare you righteous.

King James Bible
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 5:19

So my question is is one who is justified and declared righteous still a sinner?

No, one who is justified and declared righteous is not a sinner. Like a said, being a sinner is by nature, not because one did something wrong, just like being a male\female is by nature. The sin nature most time is what the Apostle dealt with but people misinterpreted as the act of sin and that's why they kept asking...."shall we continue in sin (act) that Grace may abound". Listen to the reply: How shall we who are dead to sin (nature) live therein in it? A dead man is no longer alive to an act...he's dead.

Does the bible teaches that one can be righteous, justified and at the same time be sinner after being declared justified?

No, the bible doesn't call or teach that one who is righteous or declared justified (in Christ) is still a sinner. Just as the Apostle taught the sin nature (outside of Christ via Adam), he also taught righteousness and justification as a nature\identity in Christ. You can't be a male and at the same time a female. You're either one but can't be both at the same time. You were once a sinner but now, righteous or the righteousness of God in Christ. Listen to this verse and pay attention to the tenses:

New International Version
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11

hehehe

you must believe in a blind God.

JMAN05:
Show me where my source said the first bold face words.

this is what your source said:

The Romans, too, maintained the worship of the sun after Heliogabalus had introduced it and had built a temple to, Sol. "



i believe you can read that it clearly says that heliogabalus also called elagabalus introduced the worship of the sun god to rome.

Show me a prove of your 200 year life. You have started to spew gaffe again.

the emperor who adopted the name of his god an brought the cult of elagabal to rome lived over 200yrs after christ, he was born abt 203 AD, that shows he only began existing some 200yrs after Christ.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (c.203 – March 11, 222), commonly known as Elagabalus (pronounced elaGABalus) or Heliogabalus, was Roman Emperor from 218 to 222.

still wiki

JMAN05:
Mithra is the same as the sun god.

this is like saying amadioha is the same as shango! They are both god of lightening but their cults are different, their rituals are different. Mithra is from iran, sol invinctus is from roman, they are both sun gods but their cults, practices and rituals were different, your quote says mithra influence the practices of sol, but their cults were different.

Mithra was secretive, sol wasn't, their sybolism and practices were also different. Sol didn't reserve their teachings initiates only.

That is the main reason for that source. There appear to be a slight difference between what I said and what I just saw on wiki:

Sol Invictus played a prominent role in
the Mithraic mysteries, and was
equated with Mithras himself.

There are different sun gods in Rome, most of which bear the name sol invictus, but Dec 25 seem to be a day for celebrating the birth of this sun. Most likely, all the adherents of these various sun gods will participate in it.

actually there is no historical record that the mithraics came out of their underground temple to join sol worshippers, infact it seems you produced the joint celebration out of thin air!

There is also no historical record that the mithraics celebrated any festival on the 25th of december.

JMAN05:
At least now are making adjustments.

But Your source said the religion spread in the second century, yet you are here arguing that the Elagabalus began in Rome during the reign of emperor Aurelius. That Elagabalus introduced it during his rulership as an official god does not mean it started in Rome then. Your source only said he brought the statue of the god to Rome. Even if the worship started during his rulership, thats not too much a problem.

this is what my source said.


The cult statue was brought to Rome by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who before his accession was the hereditary high priest at Emesa and is commonly called Elagabalus after the deity.

Your source also stated that there was an assimilation. When did this assimilation occur?

this one is simple, after the death of the emperor, the god elegabalus was demoted from the roman pantheon of god, the cult naturally diminished in rome and it adherent were later part of the newly elevated cult of sol invinctus which the new emperor inaugurated.

In the 4th century, Elagabalus was also known as Sol Invictus, agreed?

not necessarily.

The new cult of Sol invinctus asimilated the adherents of Elagabalus in rome and some scholars argue that it also took some of it rites, but this was only so in rome.

In syria elagabalus was a god on its own.

JMAN05:
So you now favor 22nd? Like I said, we do not know the reason yet, but we both could be right. Some authoritative sources said it ends on 23rd, while some say 24th. Why the difference am yet to ascertain.

actually wiki gives the reason. Saturnalia starts on 17th december, the roman governments was adding or subtrating, the highest it came was in the later republic i.e between 70BC and 29BC when 7 days were added, after the republic ended the emperial house started and throughout the emperial day, ie throughout the christian times only 5 days were added which means saturnalia ended on the 22nd. So the christians didn't steal the day of saturn because saturnalia was ended when christmas started.

The Mithraic Mysteries were a mystery religion practiced in the Roman Empire from about the 1st to 4th centuries AD.
The name of the Persian god Mithra (proto-Indo-Iranian Mitra), adapted into Greek as Mithras, was linked to a new and
distinctive imagery. Writers of the Roman Empire period referred to this mystery religion by phrases which can be anglicized as Mysteries of Mithras or Mysteries of the Persians;[1][2] modern historians refer to it as Mithraism,[1] or sometimes Roman Mithraism.[3][4






and incase you don't know what a mystery religion is, then read...


Mystery religions, sacred mysteries or simply mysteries, were religious schools of the Greco-Roman world for which participation was reserved to initiates (mystai).[1] The main characterization of this religion is the secrecy associated with the particulars of the initiation and the ritual practice, which may not be revealed to outsiders. The most famous mysteries of Greco-Roman antiquity were the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were of considerable antiquity and predated the Greek Dark Ages. The mystery schools flourished in Late Antiquity; Julian the Apostate in the mid 4th century is known
to have been initiated into three distinct mystery schools — most notably the Mithraic Mysteries.



So you have it, the belief of mithras and their rituals and mysteries were only revealed to initiates. If mithra had a festival only initiates will know because the cult was heavily secretive.

So here we have it, elegabalus was a god borrowed from syria and was brought to rome by a priest who adopted the gods name.

Sol invinctus gained tranction with aurelius and only at the time of Julian the apostate did it begin to celebrate on the 25.

Mithra was a secretive religion and i'll like to hear the original historic source where u hear any of its festival. Because romans who weren't initiate didn't celebrate the mysteries of mithra because it was highly secretive.

And mithra was secretive


The Cult of Mithras
Mithras was the name of an ancient Persian god who was adopted into Roman beliefs. Mithraism was a secretive cult religion. Beliefs were known only to its initiates, who were not allowed to record their knowledge. This secretive nature is what designates Mithraism as a
mystery religion.

education-portal.com/academy/lesson/cult-of-mithras-myth-history.html

dolphinheart:
you believe the Dec 25th date is accurate right? Pls on what calender(s) was this date derived from,and what calender are we using presently to measure that date?. remembering that not all calenders are the same and none is accurate in relation to time and earth movement and none is constant as to dates in relation to the each other .


Humans cannot accurately measure time.
Definitely dates change in the real sense of it.
If you have a reply to this, pls do add the answer to the questions

the present roman-gregorian calender actually measures time accurately even though not perfectly.
The date was previously derived from the hebrew calender, these dates were later matched to the roman calender and thus became fixed.

JMAN05:
I said number 49 of the wikipedia info on that subject. Some reputable sources end the date on 23, while others end it on 24th. There must certainly be a reason for the discrepancy. We could all be correct, but we do not know how for now. I understood that some changes were made in the Julian calendar. Whether that is the reason for the difference, I cant be dogmatic.

2 No. The article was reviewing all the claim as to where Christmas originated from. And after reviewing many of these claims, it gave that one the pass mark above all the other claims. In other words, from available evidence, the christmas as we know it today originated from a pagan festival. There is no other claim that is stronger than that one. Thats the point.

hehehe article 49 says 7 days were added in the "LATTER REPUBLIC", ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE REPUBLIC ENDED IN 29BC?

THE EMPERIAL ROME TOOK OVER FROM 29BC TILL THE FALL OF ROME.

THE ARTICLE SAYS ONLY 5 DAY WERE ALLOWED IN THE EMPERIAL ROME.

That means during be time we are disscussing about, i.e the time of Christianity, the festival ended on the 22nd!

JMAN05:
Another reference work:

Heliolatry:

"The worship of the great orb which insures to us light, warmth, and life is as ancient as history. It existed in the earliest ages among the Phoenicians, Egyptians, Persians, and Hindus, and later among the Greeks and Romans of the West, venerating its object under the different names of Helios or Sol, or of Baal, Osiris, or Mithras. Various forms of sacrifice and prayer characterized this worship among the different nations, but they agreed in regarding the sun as a mighty and superior deity who ruled the world with an independent authority more or less complete. The Greeks alone did not render higher honors to the sun than to the other gods regarded as of superior rank. All Eastern nations considered it as practically the supreme divinity. The Romans, too, maintained the worship of the sun after Heliogabalus had introduced it and had built a temple to, Sol." (from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia)

So
Who needs to take correction now?

hhehehehe, u see what your source said?

It said heliolatry came back to rome under elegabalus, the older cult of sol had died down, it didn't even have a place in the foremost gods of rome until elegabalus, are you aware that elegabalus lived over 200yrs after Jesus.

JMAN05:
Ubeni, I advise you scrutinize your sources, and don't believe it easily unless it is an accurate source. You have made many wrong assertions here, and my concern is how you always easily cast your belief in this sources. You ve made an error about horus, and again eleagbarus (which I don't know how your formulated that name). But I think what you mean to say is Elagabalus which is the same person as Heliogabalus.

He was a Roman Emperor of the early 3rd century. Let me post a source here:

After a reign of fourteen months, he was defeated and succeeded by Varius Avitus Bassianus, a cousin of Caracalla, and priest of the Phoenician Sun-god, from which fact is derived the name by which he is commonly known,-Elagabalus, or Heliogabalus. Upon his accession to the imperial power, he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which became his official designation.
(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 1). The Persian god's name is El-Gabal. It appears the name sounded Elegabalus in Rome.

Please spell your words correctly so that I can understand what you are saying.

So the man didnt invent the god, he only took the god's name.

elegabalus/heliogabalus is also a god, it is the sun god and is totally different from mithras. It only entered rome in the through the emperor aurelius who was its priest.



Elagabalus or Heliogabalus is a Syro-Roman sun god.
Cult
The temple at Emesa, containing the holy stone, on the reverse of this bronze coin by Roman usurper Uranius.
Elagabalus was initially venerated at Emesa in Syria. The name is the Latinized form of the Syrian Ilāh hag-Gabal, which derives from Ilāh "god" and gabal "mountain" (compare Arabic: ﺟﺒﻞ jabal), resulting in "the God of the Mountain" the Emesene manifestation of the deity.[1]
The cult of the deity spread to other parts of the Roman Empire in the second century. For example, a dedication has been found as far away as Woerden, in the modern-day Netherlands.[2]

In Rome
The cult statue was brought to Rome by the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who before his accession was the hereditary high priest at Emesa and is commonly called Elagabalus after the deity.[3] The Syrian deity was assimilated with the Roman sun god known as Sol Invictus ("the Undefeated Sun".[4]

this is still wiki.




To put simply the worship of heliogabalus only began in rome during the reign of the emperor aurelius and its festival was in the summer, this syro-roman diety was later assimilated into sol invinctus since its cult died out after the death of emperor aurelius.

SalC:
Question

Someone said to me, "I want to become a Catholic but I don't want to pray the rosary, will that make me an incomplete Catholic?"

What will be your answer if a non-catholic inquire such from you?
Is there any official stance of the church as regards such a person or his case?

hehehe,

i happen to know catholics who don't pray the rosary, i belive they are missing something because the rosary is a powerful prayer, its vocal, meditative and can even be contemplative. The rosary is my school of prayer. I could go on and on!

But yeah, i believe one can be a catholic without having to constantly pray the rosary though i will be impossible to escape the rosary all together.

On the other hand, it is not possible to be fully and trully catholic without venerating mary and the saints. One way or the other devotion to mary will come back to knock on your doors.

I Think when a catholic refuses to pray the rosary he is missing alot. Why should someone ride a bike when he could fly a helicopter?

FortresOfChrist:
I have been studying the doctrine of Justification for some time and I must say it's a deep doctrine that beats the human mind of what the Lord our fortress did for us. How can a just God declare a sinner righteous even with their sins because they are in Christ Lord our fortress and some still say they have sin in their lives? Another issue is how can a sinner be declared guiltless without works? This doctrine of justification and righteousness by faith is really the Lord our fortress doing. So my question is is one who is justified and declared righteous still a sinner? Does the bible teaches that one can be righteous, justified and at the same time be sinner after being declared justified? I need my brethren in this discussion please.

Invited: Everyone
Special invitation: BabaGnoni, vooks, candour, Image123, Bidam, Gombs, Mbaemeka, 5solas, shdemidemi, elantraceey, Alwaystrue, PastorOluT, nannymcphee, Goshen360, DrummaBoy, ayoku777, GooseBaba, frosbel, ichuka, MEILYN, Ubenedictus, OLAADEGBU, nlMediator, Ishilove, ATMC, PastorKun, esere826, lastmessenger, italo, trustman, haibe, WinsomeX, Mintayo, God2man, nora544, QuiverBox, sexyseun, christemmbassey

i go talk abt this later.

italo:
From the CCC

II. TAKING THE NAME OF THE LORD IN VAIN

2150 The second commandment forbids false oaths. Taking an oath or swearing is to take God as witness to what one affirms. It is to invoke the divine truthfulness as a pledge of one's own truthfulness. An oath engages the Lord's name. "You shall fear the LORD your God; you shall serve him, and swear by his name."81

2151 Rejection of false oaths is a duty toward God. As Creator and Lord, God is the norm of all truth. Human speech is either in accord with or in opposition to God who is Truth itself. When it is truthful and legitimate, an oath highlights the relationship of human speech with God's truth. A false oath calls on God to be witness to a lie.

2152 A person commits perjury when he makes a promise under oath with no intention of keeping it, or when after promising on oath he does not keep it. Perjury is a grave lack of respect for the Lord of all speech. Pledging oneself by oath to commit an evil deed is contrary to the holiness of the divine name.

2153 In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained the second commandment: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all. . . . Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."82 Jesus teaches that every oath involves a reference to God and that God's presence and his truth must be honored in all speech. Discretion in calling upon God is allied with a respectful awareness of his presence, which all our assertions either witness to or mock.

2154 Following St. Paul,83 the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus' words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). "An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice."84

2155 The holiness of the divine name demands that we neither use it for trivial matters, nor take an oath which on the basis of the circumstances could be interpreted as approval of an authority unjustly requiring it. When an oath is required by illegitimate civil authorities, it may be refused. It must be refused when it is required for purposes contrary to the dignity of persons or to ecclesial communion

Sal C, Ubenedictus, Rich4god, Jnrbayano...pls read and see if it's clear enough.

yeah, it is clear the church allows true oaths, i take exception to the circumstance of the oath in question and its implication.

I'll certainly not allow anyone i know to swear on a grave during witch hunts. I do not advise any christian to participate in such witch hunt and swearing on graves is usually based upon the superstition of ghost physically exerting vengance.

To the question asked, i do not support such oaths, i am not a pagan and i donot believe oaths should be based on graves or that christians should participate in accusing each other of mysterious muder.

JMAN05:
I wonder where you get this knowledge from. Sun-god worship was never invented in Rome. It is a worship of Persians that Romans adopted. So that worship has a long history before it came to Rome. That is why saying that celebration of its birth started in the 3rd century is funny. Unless its popularity grew in Rome gradually, but since the 2nd century, when its worship was already on among roman soldiers, they must have celebrated his birth. Though that festival seem to be synchronized with the saturnalia which began earlier, the features of Xmas as we know it today were all picked from the saturnalia.

No, Aurelian temple he build cant be the first temple of Mithra in Rome. Archaelogical finds have revealed a temple dating to 205 AD for Mithra in Rome.

Mithra's worship has been on for a long time before Julian, and his birthday, which is part of his worship is known, the celebration cant reasonably start from the rule of Julian. I ve given a reason for this above.

you have now confused yourself.

There was more that one solar deity worshipped in rome,

there was,
the sol invincti
the helio-gbalus
and lastly mithra.

These 3 dieties are different not one, they also have different cult.

1. The roman sun god indigenious to rome is the helio-gbalus and its cult began in the 3rd century.
2. The sol invictus stated as a cult under the reign of aurelian when a temple was dedicated to it. This deity didn't have a festival until julian the apostate.

3. Mithra came from iran, but it is funny to claim that christianity borrowed a festival from mithra because mithra was a secretive religion that met underground all there teaching were given only to initiates! If followers of mithra had a celebration, non mithra follower will not even be aware. That is why mithra never had a public festival or feast in rome!

So tell me dear which of them did d christians borrow from?

Saturnalia which ended on the 23rd? sol invincti that only had a festival during the reign of julian? or mithra that was so secretive it didn't even have public festivals?


And correction.

Aurelian didn't buid a temple to mithra, he built a temple to sol so correct yourself.

JMAN05:
Check number 49 of that wikipedia info. the date were added until it reached 7 days. it could also be cos of the adjustment in julian calendar dat caused d difference.

simply quote the relevant portion.

As for the issue of source you mentioned, it seems you dont read well. I gave a good reference for my statement. read all i posted.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia after reviewing many theories on this subject admits:

"The well-known solar feast, however, of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date." It continuous:

The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cyprian, "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." — "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born."[/color][/b]

did you happen to read what you quoted? It didn't say that the case was settled, it instead say "it has a strong claim", sorry dear at best that statement is not definitive but merely probable.

Horus:
1 - You just confessed that the date of 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible.

2 - You just confessed that the word Chistmas is not mentioned anywhere in your Bible

3 - You just confessed that your bible do not talk about snow when he was born

4 - You just confessed that there is no chapter in the bible where the presence cold is mentioned at the time of birth

5 - Conclusion: on that date you are just celebrating Santa Claus

Then your action of quoting this picture with snow was irrelevant and misleading

sorry dear, you are making a strawman. That is a funny logical fallacy called arguement from silience.

The bible doesn't need to mention the date for it to be true.

PastorAIO:
That depends on what you mean by human. Apollinarius argues that since man is made in the image of the logos, then which is more real the original or the copy. Man is modelled on the Logos. So as the photocopy man is a corruption. Therefore the pure and incorrupt version of humanity is that which is the Logos itself, not the copy of the logos.
Unless you want to say that to be human you must necessarily be corrupt because human by definition is a corruption of Logos. Then the original Logos cannot would not be human.

if the logos is already the "true man" then there was no "incarnation", God was always man and i see why the fathers had a hard time accepting this teaching. It confuses the godhead and humanity.

If Christ is the true image of man in the sense you just explained it then he should always have had a "flesh". The human body is an intrinsic part of been "man", it is part of his nature. Without a body it is not a man, it is a ghost.

This is also ignoring the fact that scriptures usually talk of man and God as two separate natures.

Sorry, allow me to turn this over in my head, a really human Jesus before the incarnation seem to me rather funny. I'll get back to you.

Not really. We know from the parable of the sower that the Logos is likened to a seed which grows in the heart of the man and all kinds of things can happen to it. It can be eaten by birds, fall on stony rock etc, and in others it can flower and flourish yielding many fruits.

please elaborate, in what sense will we explain passages that says Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge. And may i quickly point out that it will be funny to claim the divine mind grows in wisdom, i believe you are aware that will present a phisolophical imposibility.

In other words Logos is something that grows in man.

you already said the logos was man in the perfect sense, so i don't get what this means.

This is a new understanding of original sin for me.
-If we are born within the grace and friendship of God, would we still be able to sin?

probably, yes like adam, or no like the saints. I do not have a one answer to d question.

-Is sinful acts a result of being outside of God's grace?

not all sinful act is as a result of being outside grace, it may be as a result of ignoring grace etc and the other is our deformed nature's affinity to sin.

- When you say that 'we are under the dominion of our human/carnal nature', are you suggesting that there is another nature that we have that should actually have the dominion? if so, what is that nature? How is the loss of it's influence equivalent to original sin?

i believe you've read some church fathers... They all had this crazy idea that baptism wipes out original sin, why do you think they thought so?

As to you question
I like to called the nature "graceture". It simply human nature place under the dictates of God's grace and in conformity to his will.

Yes I'm aware that in order for christ to be free from an hereditary original sin then Mary will have to be free of sin.

i hope you are aware i don't believe what you wrote above. I do not believe d above condition is strictly necessary. I believe Jesus would still have been free from original sin if mary was a muderer.

I also happen to believe that sinful nature is acquired from other sources apart from hereditary.

i'll like to hear your take on this. This happens to be one of those question in catholic theology left in the veil of mystery. How do u think original sin is propagated?

Rich4god:
I what to know what is the church's stand on swearing. I was in my villa for the xmas, I happened to witness where a man was asked to swear with the sand of his sisters grave, that he has no hand in the death of the sister. A priest was there and he gave the man the go ahead to do the swearing. So, what the church's stand on this issue...


CC: Italo, Ubenedictuc, babestell, Salc, stryk and co...

the church allows swearing, like the one they do in court, but the case you described is rather disturbing, that seems superstitous and fetish. To such cases i'll rather advise "let your yes be yes and your no be no, anything else comes from the evil one".

RikoduoSennin:
Yet to see a picture of Shepherd tending to their sheep DURING NIGHT HOURS (because I am aware of the huge temperature drop during the night hours).

Is there any evidence that sheep are being tended in modern Isreal this very period and day?

Could Sheep "FEED OUT IN THE FIELD" during Winter ? Where is the grass for grazing from ? Why use the word "Field" in winter time?

you seem to be the person writing "feed out in the field". The bible says they "watched at night", if sherperds were travelling to jerusalem they would watch by night irrespective of whether or not the sheep were grazing. The migdal eder watch their sheep through the year not just when grass is much.

JMAN05:
It is true that Julian became an apostate and made an effort to stamp out Christianity, but there is no historical prove that he established ceremony that was done on December 25th. And from that Catholic Newspaper the festivities were already popular in Rome. The sun god was popular, not only the Saturn god.

I wouldn’t say Aurelian introduced sun-god worship in 274. It seems that he made it a notable god of the empire. He proclaimed it the principal patron of the empire on Dec 25 and also built a temple for it. ISBE reports that the worship of Mithra had been among Roman soldiers as far back as the 2nd Century AD and it was popular amongst them. Dec 25 has always been its birthday. It could be that its popularity gained momentum from the time of Aurelian onwards.

are u aware that eleagbarus invented the so-called roman sun god? Are you aware that aurelian was the person to first built a temple to this god and yes it was dedicated on d 25 of december?

Are you also aware that the said festival of sol only started to be celebrated during the reign of julian the apostate?

JMAN05:
It commenced from 17 and ends on 24. Why?

it ended on the 23, from wikipedia

Saturnalia was an ancient Roman festival in honor of the deity Saturn, held on the 17th of December of the Julian calendar and later expanded with festivities through to the 23rd of December. The holiday was celebrated with a sacrifice at the Temple of Saturn, in the Roman Forum, and a public banquet, followed by private gift-giving, continual partying, and a carnival atmosphere that overturned Roman social norms: gambling was permitted, and masters provided table service for their slaves.[1] The poet Catullus called it "the best of days."

The Story of Christmas answers:

“there was a day set aside for special reverence to the sun whose apparent rebirth on the Winter Solstice had originally provided the excuse for all these widespread pagan jollifications. This day was known as Dies Solis Invicti Nati, the Day of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun, and it fell on what corresponds to 25 December in our calendar.”



To show that that day was replaced, we read:

the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano made some interesting observations.

Regarding the date when Christmas is celebrated, the Catholic newspaper said: “The real date of Jesus’ birth, from the historical viewpoint, lies concealed beneath a veil of uncertainty as regards Roman history, the imperial census of that time and research in the subsequent centuries. . . . The date of 25 December, as is well known, was chosen by the Church of Rome in the fourth century. This date in pagan Rome was dedicated to the Sun god . . . Although Christianity had already been affirmed in Rome by an Edict of Constantine, the myth of . . . the Sun god was still widespread, especially among soldiers. The above-mentioned festivities, centred on 25 December, were deeply rooted in popular tradition. This gave the Church of Rome the idea of impressing a Christian religious significance on the day by replacing the Sun god with the true Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ, choosing it as the day on which to celebrate his birth.”

i find it funny that the two sources you quote to confirm the popular tale do not quote any historic source, not a single church father or secular historian who claims that the Christian replaced the pagan festival, all you have above is a constant repetition of popular myth deviod of historic sources and historical proof.

Horus:
I am aware that the 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible

I am aware that the word Chistmas is NOT MENTIONED anywhere in your Bible

So what are you celebrating on that date?, Santa Claus?

And where did your bible talk about snow when he was born?

Give us the name of the chapter where the snow is mentioned at the time of birth

Post also the name of the chapter where the word winter is mentioned

does the bible claim to give all information about Jesus? No! It doesn't so your questions above is non sequter

Horus:
I dont know if he later became an emperor but the question that you should ask yourself is: Why a date of birth need to be set by a mortal ?. Also, the 25th of december is nowhere to be found in your Bible.

i hope you remember that you are the one making the claim that the date was set by a mortal in the 15th century contrary to all commonsense and fact, i also rejected that silly claim, so befor you ask the question above you have to begin by showing us how the 25th of december was set by a mortal.

dolphinheart:
Ok o, I don here, like I said before, I dnt use the issue of shepherds being out in the field as a bases for not believing in the Dec 25th date.

My basis for not believing in Dec 25th are as follows .

5. The book u quoted from brings some questions forward .
A. What month is the Passover?.
B. Was jesus born 30 days to the Passover cus the shepherds would be in the field during that period?

All my points can be verified using the bible

the book i quoted actually says that sherpherds keep watch on sheeps in bethlehem throughout the year, he called them the migdal eder "the tower of flocks" not just before the passover.

dolphinheart:
Ok o, I don here, like I said before, I dnt use the issue of shepherds being out in the field as a bases for not believing in the Dec 25th date.

My basis for not believing in Dec 25th are as follows .

1. The bible never mentioned such a date in relation to jesus birth.

2. Choosing that date is extremely controversial .

3. The reason for jesus parents travelling from Nazareth to Bethlehem (very long distance)was for the census. I dnt think its likely for ceaser to command the isrealites to move around during the winter period, not to talk of during the middle of winter.

4. Jesus lived 33 years and half years, if he died on Nissan 14 , easter period which is always around match/April , Then his birth date would not have been in Dec, talk less of the end of Dec .

you objection no 1 is spurious, it is a logical fallacy called arguement from silience, you simply can't simply dismiss other sources becos you say it isn't recorded in the bible, infact the bible never claimed to contain everything about the life of Christ.

Your no 2 is simply incredible, totally lacking in any sort of convincing power, so 25th is simply wrong because it is "controversial". Sorry dear, tell me another story, which day is not controvesial, all d days in the calender were named in remembrance of one pagan gods all d other, are we simply going to say Jesus was never born because all dates are controversial?

Your no 3 is also interesting because, the summer is not good for travels because isreal is a dry place with much dust, the spring is not good either because that is when farmers plant their fields, you can't tell people to leave their source of sustenance and go for census, again the fall is not suitable because that is the time for harvest, nobody will leave their fields at harvest. That brings us back to winter when there isn't much agriculture and the weather isn't too harsh.


Lastly i'll like you to provide the bible verse that says Jesus lived exactly 33yrs 6month, if u can't then your no 4 is non sequiter.