₦airaland Forum

Juvante: 2. What was their stand on Adolf Hitler, a baptized Catholic and occultist? The Pope did a deal with him! The Catholic Centre Party,which was the only political party that survived the Nazi Purge,was dissolved by the Pope. In exchange, Hitler leaned on the Duce, Benito Mussolini,to grant the sovereignity of the Vatican City. It is called the Hitlerian Concordat of Rome! I dare the do-gooders to call me a liar with proof!

the pope condemned hitler for racism, he wrote an encyclical on it. Infact the amount of priest killed by hitler was large. The amount of jews the catholic church saved were also large.



And lastly while hitler was chancelor of germany, the vatican didn't make any concordat with him. When he started killing people the church was against him.


Go and read history well, stop cherry picking.

And this is a thread on arrogance and intolerance....

We don't even need religious belief to spark arrogance and intolerance.

OLAADEGBU: Christianity is only as intolerant as Jesus is true.

http://carm.org/it-intolerant-say-christianity-only-true-religion

hmmmm....

Sarassin: Certainly, if you excuse the length of my post.

With regards to the apocalypse of John;

Eusebius wrote that in his day (early 4th century) in the Eastern church the status of the Book of Revelation was in dispute;

H.E 3.24.17,18

17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.

this simply say opinions are divided, this particular quote doesn't say anything about authorship

H.E.3.39.6

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John

this deals with authorship but seem hardly definitive

Eusebius also records Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria’s observations that there were significant differences between the Gospel of John and the letters on the one hand, and the Book of Revelation, on the other, too many, in his opinion, to allow for the attribution of authorship to John.

you didnt provide the quote

The reasons for the objections to the acceptance of the book of revelations were not merely doubts about apostolic authorship, there were other considerations too, for instance;

The Synod of Laodicea rejected the book and did not list it among their canon. St.Cyril of Jerusalem, (Bishop of Jerusalem) produced a canon list similar to that of the Laodicean council and advised in his catechetical Lectures, iv. 33-37, that “the omission of Revelation from his list is due to a general reaction against this book in the east after excessive use was made of it by the Montanist cults”.

ok
and i know of montanism, the digression made ur post pretty long

The reformist Martin Luther in his “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” was adamant in rejecting the book, stating “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”

The Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us about St. Jerome. "in the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East".

luther has an interesting number of grey books.

Authorship disputes were quite clear, in addition to theological disputes, cheers.

so i have finished picking hairs...

I have to agree that authorship played a part in the non acceptance of some books, though i'm a bit suprised that the quotes you presented hardly seem definitive.

Ukutsgp: probably? u are nt even sure. continue to invent stories. u can tell me that other words agree with english but nt until. u see how myopic u are?

so you are ignorant of the fact that the bible wasnt written in english?

OLAADEGBU: Whenever the church fathers depart from what the apostles recorded in Scriptures who do you think we should obey?

whenever the fathers transmit the apostolic traditions they never contradict scripture. Just as the words of the apostles can't contradict their writtings so also the tradition taught/practiced by the apostles can't contradict scriptures.



If a church father expresses a personal opinion that is against scripture, then such opinions are rightly condemned and thrown away.

texanomaly: Hmmm...isn't this your thread?

https://www.nairaland.com/1875678/does-christainity-encourage-intolerance-arrogance#25807915

Be careful...Your arrogance is showing.

i thought you explained on that thread that arrogance is an exalted idea of ones self...i'm not interested in exalting myself.... The post you quoted hardly displays arrogance.

OLAADEGBU: Yes.

that is interesting....



So i just hope you know that you are agreeing with catholics on that one.

That mary was saved by God before the death of christ.

Interesting.


So how do you think she was saved?

solotutu: never heard as such despite reading alot about Lutherism. If you say so......

i could give you quote from luther and even fron the lutherian book of concord on mary.

I am not just saying so, it is so.

OLAADEGBU: That is what the JW's uses to confuse folks. The Bible is clear that Mary sired other children after given birth to Jesus.

only the ignorant become confused.

Scripture says "study to show thyself approved", all you need to do is study. Check for the greek word for until.

I repeat the bible wasn't written in english.

JesusisLord85: haha all christianity of rome will be punished, from 1st century up until today.

Stop following the teachings of your oyinbo oppressors.

You are the Israelites the bible speaks of. Read the bible, and understand. Concern yourself not with the customs of the heathen

i have an interesting feeling that you will be the only resisdent of your own "heaven".

I just pray that on the last day you won't elect to go to hell simply becos u don't want to be in the same heaven with catholics.

nairalife2013: if Oritsejafor is guilty of involvment in any kind of illegal arms deal, he should be shown d way out, not for identifying wid d presidency or in having wealth. Datz what I mean.

so you are ok if the church become a government parastatal?

I was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many say Mormon. Some say LDS.

Throughout my childhood and young adulthood, I was a staunch believer in LDS teachings. I'm not sure I still believe all I was taught growing up, but there are many teaching my heart still clings to. I do know for sure that I believe this statement made by Robert L. Millet, former dean of religious education at Brigham Young University.



"Latter-day Saints do not believe that the answer to the world’s problems is ultimately to be found in more extravagant social programs or stronger legislation. Most or all of these ills have moral or spiritual roots. In the spirit of the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind, is it not possible to lay aside theological differences long enough to address the staggering social issues in our troubled world? My recent interactions with men and women of various faiths have had a profound impact on me; they have broadened my horizons dramatically and reminded me — a sobering reminder we all need once in a while — that we are all sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. We may never resolve our differences on the Godhead or the Trinity, on the spiritual or corporeal nature of Deity or on the sufficiency or inerrancy of the Bible, but we can agree that there is a God; that the ultimate transformation of society will come only through the application of moral and religious solutions to pressing issues; and that the regeneration of individual hearts and souls is foundational to the restoration of virtue in our communities and nations. One need not surrender cherished religious values or doctrines in order to be a better neighbor, a more caring citizen, a more involved municipal."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ



With this post, I'm done. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll get drawn in again, but still, I tire O.

i actually took the liberty of reading the article in ur link.

Not much difference in what is written there from what i see different christians profess daily (the main difference will be the belief that divine revelation is continous).

While i may one day be interested in the specifics of the terms used above, for now, i'll simply say in the most general sense i agree with the post above. If we put all our teaching into practice maybe the world world be a better place.

damerry: Haha . Hopefully I'm done with "baca" you won't get a chance to 'yab' me again

Thanks!

hehehe...

I thought it is impossible to detach ones "baca"?

btoks: yes o,I've tried to explain in simple English to these guys but been hell bent on sola scriptura 2000 years later they never understand.

it is the problem of their pastors. After 6 months bible school they come out and start teachings things they are ignorant of.

If they tried to study a little greek in their bible schools we won't be here tying to educate these protestants that in scriptures the greek for untill doesn't imply that anything happened after.

I guess I have pushed this line a bit too far, but i'll comment on this.
(anytime a question mark appears it may be treated as rhetorical question, i'm just talking to myself)

texanomaly: First, I have to say, "Why do I get involed in religious discussions/debates?" I hate them. I just want to believe what I believe and be left alone, but here I go again. Every time I say I will stay out of the religion section I get pulled back in by something I find interesting. SMH

i guess it is because man is a religious or/and spiritual being, we are interested in the stuff beyond our understanding. Even the atheists can't help been here.

The word “adoption” is used throughout the Scriptures to describe the relationship between God and His children.


Many Christians believe that they are God’s sons by adoption. But does the Bible really say that?


Where did the word “Adoption” come from? It was translated from the Greek word huiothesia. Huiothesia is a combination of two words. Those words are huios (“son, child, descendant”) and tithemi (“to place, put; to set, appoint, decided, arrange”). Huiothesia may mean "sonship" or "adoption".

not exactly, as you said two words were combined, the greek word translated as "adoption" mean to "place as son(s)", "ordain/appiont/arrange... As son(s)", in all these possible combination it seems to always carry the idea to been "given" a status no already had. Natural sons are "born", if others are placed as/arranged as/appointed as son then it does seem like "adoption". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then it may as well be a duck.

I think the translators weren't wrong on this one.

To be honest, I don't care who believes what. I only care that "you/we" are strong enough to search, ponder and pray about what we believe and not just take everything we hear to be gospel without a thought.


Many words in the Bible have been translated incorrectly. Who's to say which words are correct and which are not? Which parts are allegory and which parts are to be taken literally?


One group says "this". Another group says "that". All say they have the "truth". In the end we must search, ponder and pray. Never just believe whatever is taught. I believe what I believe. You believe what you will. I'm good with that.

big questions, who has what, what is what, is the "truth" simply an illusion created in the human mind that seem to give purpose to his life?

Or is the truth a concrete reality one that can bring a certain fulfilment to the human life....? Is it within the grasp of the human mind? Or if it isn't can man at least take fine portion of it enough to give true meaning to his path?

I'll like to believe it is a reality, it totality is beyond us, for it is transcendent but it can impact us.


Christ is the Word, that sounds definitive to me, i may be wrong, but i still believe the fringes of the "cloak of truth" is within our reach.

If it is a concrete reality then it is possible to us, it is different from "other opinions". It is distinctive....

I believe what i believe, you believe what you believe, that is ok, but is my believe truely a concrete reality or a beatiful illusion....

Is it wise to believe 2+2 always add up to 3 because i like it so or it is necessary that i hold what is real?...


Too much rambling.

nairalife2013: D presidency has d right to send any one on an erand, be it d christian or moslem leadership. Involvement in politics cannot make anyone turn evil if d person wasn't already evil-inclined inwardly. D catholic leadership should put their house in order first, begining from d vatican. An error at d top should not inspire secession from d units. But rather, it should make room for democratic changes or wholesome efforts at influencing d leader towards a postive lifestyle dat would be acceptable by d majority. Christianity is not a rigid or extreme religion. The GRACE has made having or spending money d choice of d individual adhererant. It is not a decider when entry into heaven is considered. That allusion to the cow and d eye of a needle is just to guide against the hoarding or misuse of wealth to d detriment of d poor or d downthrowden. Moderate and high taste in living are attainable in christianity, even as Jesus was known to have identified wid kings and rulers of very high taste, such as david and solomon. Those who want to creat an arithmetical method for d christendom are on their own. It could be assumed that they want to creat a problem, divide and rule and sit atop as holierthanthou!

this is a pretty huge pile of excuses.

Strange thread...

Let me seat down and eat my pop corn

Wow!

You've just shut me out....

I'll take a little time to sip ur post in before i reply....

...I guess I can forget about discussing this futher.

texanomaly: First, I have to say, "Why do I get involed in religious discussions/debates?" I hate them. I just want to believe what I believe and be left alone, but here I go again. Every time I say I will stay out of the religion section I get pulled back in by something I find interesting. SMH


The word “adoption” is used throughout the Scriptures to describe the relationship between God and His children.


Many Christians believe that they are God’s sons by adoption. But does the Bible really say that?


Where did the word “Adoption” come from? It was translated from the Greek word huiothesia. Huiothesia is a combination of two words. Those words are huios (“son, child, descendant”) and tithemi (“to place, put; to set, appoint, decided, arrange”). Huiothesia may mean "sonship" or "adoption".


To be honest, I don't care who believes what. I only care that "you/we" are strong enough to search, ponder and pray about what we believe and not just take everything we hear to be gospel without a thought.


Many words in the Bible have been translated incorrectly. Who's to say which words are correct and which are not? Which parts are allegory and which parts are to be taken literally?


One group says "this". Another group says "that". All say they have the "truth". In the end we must search, ponder and pray. Never just believe whatever is taught. I believe what I believe. You believe what you will. I'm good with that.



I was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many say Mormon. Some say LDS.

Throughout my childhood and young adulthood, I was a staunch believer in LDS teachings. I'm not sure I still believe all I was taught growing up, but there are many teaching my heart still clings to. I do know for sure that I believe this statement made by Robert L. Millet, former dean of religious education at Brigham Young University.



"Latter-day Saints do not believe that the answer to the world’s problems is ultimately to be found in more extravagant social programs or stronger legislation. Most or all of these ills have moral or spiritual roots. In the spirit of the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind, is it not possible to lay aside theological differences long enough to address the staggering social issues in our troubled world? My recent interactions with men and women of various faiths have had a profound impact on me; they have broadened my horizons dramatically and reminded me — a sobering reminder we all need once in a while — that we are all sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. We may never resolve our differences on the Godhead or the Trinity, on the spiritual or corporeal nature of Deity or on the sufficiency or inerrancy of the Bible, but we can agree that there is a God; that the ultimate transformation of society will come only through the application of moral and religious solutions to pressing issues; and that the regeneration of individual hearts and souls is foundational to the restoration of virtue in our communities and nations. One need not surrender cherished religious values or doctrines in order to be a better neighbor, a more caring citizen, a more involved municipal."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-mormons-believe-about-jesus-christ



With this post, I'm done. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll get drawn in again, but still, I tire O.

Ukutsgp: why is it difficult for u to understand the word 'until' from the op's first post. if u understand, u will nt ask me lame question.

probably because the bible wasn't written in english but in greek.

And the greek word for untill doesn't mean d same thing as the english.

A li'le bit funny even though it is only mostly true in europe.

This is the "fullest" report of the pope's homily in his private residence.



Pope Francis marked the Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows during Monday morning Mass at Casa Santa Marta, with a reflection on how Mary learned, obeyed and suffered at the foot of the Cross.

The Holy Father said that in the liturgy of the day first we are shown the glorious Cross, then the meek ​​and humble Mother. In the
Letter to the Hebrews, "Paul emphasizes three strong words": he says that Jesus "learned, obeyed and suffered". "It’s the
opposite of what had happened to our father Adam, who did not want to learn what the Lord commanded, who did not want to suffer, or obey." Instead, even though Jesus is God, He "is annihilated, He humbled Himself and became a servant. This is the glory of the Cross of Jesus":

"Jesus came into the world to learn how to be a man, and by being a man, walk with men. He came into the world to obey, and
He obeyed. But he learned this obedience from suffering. Adam left Paradise with a promise, a promise that lasted for so many
centuries. Today, through this obedience, this self-abnegation, this humiliation, through Jesus, that promise becomes hope. And the people of God walk with sure hope. Even the Mother, 'the New Eve', in order to participate in her Son’s journey, learned, suffered and obeyed. And thus she becomes Mother”.

The Gospel shows us Mary at the foot of the Cross. Jesus says to John, "Behold your mother." Mary - the Pope said - "is anointed
Mother"
"And this is our hope. We are not orphans, we have Mothers: Mother Mary. But the Church is Mother and the Mother Church is anointed when it takes the same path of Jesus and Mary: the path of obedience, the path of suffering, and when she has that attitude of continually learning the path of
the Lord. These two women - Mary and the Church - carry on the hope that is Christ, they give us Christ, they bring forth Christ in
us. Without Mary, there would be no Jesus Christ; without the Church, we cannot go forward".

"Two women and two mothers" - continued the Pope Francis - and next to them our soul, which in the words of Isaac, the abbot
of Stella, is "feminine" and is like "Mary and the Church".

"Today, looking at this woman by the Cross, steadfast in following her Son in His suffering to learn obedience, looking at her we see the Church and look at our Mother.
And also, we look at our little soul that will never be lost, if it continues to be a woman close to these two great women who accompany us in life: Mary and the Church. And just as our fathers left Paradise with a promise, today we can go forward with a hope: the hope that our Mother Mary,
steadfast at the Cross, and our Holy Mother, the hierarchical Church, give us. "








i have read it over and over again, it is totally in line with scripture and with the witness of the christian down through the ages...nowhere does it claim that mary is equal to Jesus or part of the trinity. Nowhere does it hint at it.


Why do protestant love been alarmist, screaming foul over nothing?

stanchris4reality: Stick to your belief and leave them to wander in their ignorance.
Protestants accepting or rejecting of The blessed Mother Mary cannot change what She is in the eyes of God, it cannot reduce her fame neither can it denounce her from being the Queen of heaven.
I wonder what will happen on the last day when Jesus before all creatures will call himself the Son of the Father and Son of Mary.
Just pray for them.

the post is actually from a protestant pastor. I'm pretty interested in their reactions.

Ukutsgp: i cant be wrong. i know that through d bible.

actually you can be very wrong, because your interpretation of scripture is still fallible. Infact the stuff u think u see may just be because you didn't study well or due to your own innate prejudice.

vest: hmm!! i finaly join dis nairaland(i tot i woundn't), gud evenin everybody.
italo,chukwudi, sycan,salc,ubendictus skiritm(i hope am corect wit the spelns) nd many more, u guyz ar good nd wondaful keep it up!! actualy i ve bin a guest on NL 4 abt a yr nd ve larnt alot 4rm u ppl.
plz note dat pple ar learn 4rm u so try nd b very careful nd sure wen u post.

secondly:pls try nd share good books,blogs,site nd advics here so we can learn more i love dis one it has debets nd lot more,

www.matt1618.freeyellow.com

Living The Faith!!

welcome dear, we are happy to have you here, why did you remain a guest for so long? Anyway, welcome all the same.


The link is pretty good i'll take a look.



Feel Free to drop in your comment, prayers, reqest.... Anytime anyday.

Ukutsgp: where do u people even got the picture of Jesus and Mary from?

the early christians.


I think you should one day visit the sophia hagia or the catacombs

ogahenry: THERE IS SALVATION IN NO ONE ELSE! GOD HAS GIVEN NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED - ACTS 4:12, NLT

nobody said there was another name by which we are saved.... It seem you lost your way because that passage has nothing to do with the topic.

Ukutsgp: the rcc worship idols and carved images. it is not of GOD

it seems according to you all Christians from the 1st century to the 16th century are going to hell for idolatry.... Have you ever ask yourself "what if you are wrong?"

ogahenry: Unfortunately you are neither a pastor nor least to say a so called protestant or whatever. It amazes me that your kind would never meet God at the point of His mercy and grace rather than use the biblical Mary as a basis to pen-lash us for not selling our souls to the queen of heaven who actually is a certain mermaid spirit who oppose the truth of the gospel, hate holiness, avoid Biblical salvation and indeed follow an all inclusive worldliness and apostasy.

hehehe...

Yes, i am not a protestant pastor, but the writter of the article is a protestant pastor a lutherian.


Don't you find it interesting that all the founders of protestanism believe mary is a virgin and the mother of God? Both luther, calvin, wesley, zwingli, knox and a host of others all belived that.

Don't you find it suprising that all the protestant church that were formed in the 16 and even 17 century all held this teaching?

Don't you think it is unwholesome you are teaching a heresy that was manifested in the 20th century?

The bible rightly says that in the later times people will no longer endure sound doctrines but will be carried away by waves of false opinions.

solotutu: True Protestanism doesnt follow such. And not to forget, Lutheran Church have been adulterated and pernetrated into that if its founder were alive, he would be shedding tears to death. If you based your point on diversified relevance, then youve lost this already.

actually i think you have it upside down. The founder of lutherianism, martin luther actually wrote that mary prays for the church, he also believe mary was a perpetual virgin, he also wrote that mary is the mother of God, he also wrote that she is without original sin, he didn't even attempt to argue the assumption.

From the begining it has been so, it is only 20th and 21th century churches who go about making noise about issues that they are ignorant about.

logicboy01: Like I earlier said, you are christian bigot

i see you are back to your favourite past time: name calling.

[url]thejaggedword.com/2014/08/12/protestantisms-great-heresy-ignoring-the-blessed-mother/[/url]