₦airaland Forum

frosbel: Mystery of Rosary
Mystery of Trinity
Mystery of Eucharist


Everything with these people is a mystery, no wonder they walk in darkness, but I believe many of them will be saved and turned from worshiping idols to worshiping GOD.

ijawkid: keep the mystery to yourselves...because it seems everything to u guys is always a mystery... including the worship of mummified pieces of human body parts...

italo: We must be careful not to try to understand fully The Most Holy Trinity. That's why it is called a mystery. It cannot be fully understood by we humans.

Make do with what has been revealed and taught.

Thank you.

ijawkid: iI didnt copy boomarks response...our posts were dropped at different times and coincidentally with d same bible quote.....
you know we've been through this wahala before.....
iI would bow out...let boomark do the job....

ijawkid: iI didnt copy boomarks response...our posts were dropped at different times and coincidentally with d same bible quote.....
you know we've been through this wahala before.....
iI would bow out...let boomark do the job....

Boomark: I don't trust in man made hypostatic union when i have it clearly written. If you want to use it, get it here and we will show you how true or faulty it is.
We all have one God, 1Cor 8:5-6. That is why Christ called the Father his God.

Boomark: The Father Is The Only True God.

Jesus told us so in John 17:3. Do you disagree with Christ?

striktlymi: Good evening please,

I have been going through the various contributions (both those said out of sincerity and those that were borne out of sentiments) and really I am struggling to understand why it's so difficult to accept the teachings of the Trinity. I believe the fact that Jesus is God is glaring in sacred scriptures.

Anyways, I do understand why some won't see this truth considering that each individual has his/her looking glass, from which he/she sees and determine what is true to him/her.

dokie: frosbel is probably combing the net looking for the next article he would use to call catholics pagan. when he finds his way here, he'll probably call the man a pagan and the whole story a plot of the jesuits.
the guy is trapped. maybe dem pursue am from seminary who knows.

any ways, its very difficult for anyone to study church history and the catholic church's teachings with an open mind and prayerfully, and not get converted to the church or atleast realize how wrong he/she has been.

my boss at the office is a staunch member of rccg. a prayer document on my table made her start reading more about the church. according to her, she never believed catholics pray that way. i only told her that if she continued at the rate she was going, she will be converted to catholicism eventually. she's said that won't happen. Only time will tell. the beauty of the whole thing is that not one of the stories of conversion i have read had anything to do with a catholic trying to convert a protestant. the protestant person always started the journey himself or herself until their eventual conversion

Any protestant that has the courage can give it a shot, but prayerfully and with an open mind. if such a person doesnt get converted, na small e go remain.

Not by power nor by might but by the Spirit.

striktlymi: Good morning please,

I am of the opinion that Judith should not be taken very seriously! I quite appreciate the fact that there might be some truth in what she said but c'mon fellas, it is not uncommon for an individual to garnish the truth with some 'spiced up lies' when the individual speaks from his or her emotions.

The post is filled with all manners of emotional blackmail. Do we honestly believe that the members of the 'good' pastors Church have all been hypnotized into parting away with their hard earned money? I don't think this is the case. Deception might be the pastors gimmick but still Judith should have presented her case without this emotional outburst.



Thank you!

JeSoul: I'm going to break with my usual spectatorial mode and inject here...also throwing diplomacy to the wind to match the gravity of the quote above. And for whatever my thoughts are worth...I could not in stronger, firmer, and more emphatic terms condemn the above assertion (without condemning bro Okeyxyz) as a serious manipulation of scripture to fit a very twisted ideology on christian virtue and sexuality.

I won't go into scriptures because anyone can use the bible to back up anything - if you twist scripture hard enough it will fit whatever you say. You don't need a bible to tell you sleeping around and "having s.ex with anybody" is ungodly, sharply inconsistent & thoroughly incompatible with Christ-like values. And the very notion of attempting to justify this with scripture is just honestly ridiculous or worse, a deliberate seduction away from basic christian values that is symptomatic of the depraved times we are in.

Professing christians, Ya'll berra shine your collective eyes. And don't use the freedom from Christ, as a license for immorality.

---

Okeyxyz, please don't construe that^ as an attack. You laid out your beliefs. And in the interest of younger christians reading, witness & balance had to be provided. So that when we all stand before God, there will be no excuse for us all. Especially those of us who added, substracted or performed extrapolations of His otherwise very simple word. Godbless.

Enigma: ^^^ The Roman Catholics really should know better; and the key point you are making really should be pretty clear to every Christian.

Even as a Church, the Roman Catholic Church clearly teaches error. They even tacitly admit it but I guess they are too keen on domination to be wholly honest.

Let us look at it from a couple of angles:

Infallibility:

Clearly, 'the Magisterium' is not infallible; the single example of the papal bull (and 'bull' is rather appropriate) that for salvation every one must be subject to the Roman Pontiff is something that Roman Catholics should be (and some of them are) ashamed of!

Another example: the Roman Catholic Church taught for ages that unbaptised children who die go to 'limbo' (some kind of half-way to edge of 'hell' in fact; and altogether different from 'purgatory'!); then circa 1992, they changed the teaching and said the teaching of 'limbo' is not correct!

The natural question to ask is: was the former teaching of limbo not supposed to be infallible? And is the changed teaching also 'infallible' ---- and maybe that one too can be changed in the future?

Now interestingly, some Roman Catholics would argue that the former teaching was not a 'dogmatic pronouncement' and so did not fall into the 'infallible' category! But of course ----- and so they fall into a trap of their own making!

In other words they admit that at least some, in fact the vast majority, of their Church's teachings are not infallible. Their Church can and does make mistakes in its teachings and interpretations of the Bible.

Even apart from 'the Magisterium' as a specific 'organ', would anyone dare say that all the sermons delivered daily/weekly etc by all the Roman Catholic priests all over the place are necessarily biblically, theologically or intellectually sound?

Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, somethings are certain and i believe paul spoke in certain terms he said by faith those who believe are "seeds of abraham", the meaning of seeds in this context is simple it means "by faith we ar CHILDREN of abraham", i see no reason why you wish to twist as turn "seed" to mean another thing.



If i was good at throwing the word "heresy" around, i would have no problem taging the bolded as such. You said d man that had faith like abraham was replaced by the new born again man, that is nonsense. Your old man, the self of sin was replaced by a new man, a born again man who by faith is a child of abraham, and in christ is a heir of abraham's blessings.
Goshen u were d guy busy endorsing the message i hope you take time to correct the bolded.

This is why i earlier said you were simply shrouding yourself.

Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, somethings are certain and i believe paul spoke in certain terms he said by faith those who believe are "seeds of abraham", the meaning of seeds in this context is simple it means "by faith we ar CHILDREN of abraham", i see no reason why you wish to twist as turn "seed" to mean another thing.



If i was good at throwing the word "heresy" around, i would have no problem taging the bolded as such. You said d man that had faith like abraham was replaced by the new born again man, that is nonsense. Your old man, the self of sin was replaced by a new man, a born again man who by faith is a child of abraham, and in christ is a heir of abraham's blessings.
Goshen u were d guy busy endorsing the message i hope you take time to correct the bolded.

This is why i earlier said you were simply shrouding yourself.

Enigma: There is plenty of falsehood in this post as to almost make the few useful things in it worthless.

1

brainpulse: I think I like this from Frosbel.

When Christ the Head of the Church was refering to the churches in the Bible (Rev 3) He never mentioned the Catholic or one universal Church ( One of the doctrines of men to deceive men).

First let us look at Christ's words to the churches.

To the church in Sardis

These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.

2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches ( Catholic church was not mention).


2. Church in Philadephia.....Vs 6-8 etc


let us look at also Paul's latter to the church in Laodicea(Col 4:16), Ephesus (Ephe 1:1) even his letter to the church in Rome ( not roman catholic)

Boomark: That Jesus is equal and one God with the Father yet the Father is his God, are they not two confusing stories. Unless being a God to someone has no meaning? That is why you should stick with the mystery as it is.

You said God is a NATURE. Do you mean "UNKNOWN NATURE"? I believe this qualifies the mystery in trinity. Because we can't know/understand what we don't know.

ijawkid: what about revelation 1:5-6 where Jesus still calls the almighty "MY GOD" in heaven.....??...



ABI u forget?...



your explanation up there is never supported by the scriptures...only pagan traditions can explain it....

ijawkid: revelation 3:12..
the one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name.

......-......

what do u have to say about the above?...

still johns words abi?...
your contorted view of God wont stand the test of truths....
HOw you intend to twist the expressions "my GOD " and my Father defies all logic...

Boomark: Revelation 3:12
King James Version (KJV)
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

So whose words are these and where was he made the statement?

Boomark: So he called the Father "my God"?

Boomark: Our God's existence as far as we know has no contradictory part. Even though we don't know it all.

It is not the same with trinity. That is why sir Str and so many are confused with even the little they know.

Boomark: We are agreed to do it the catholic way. How do i sound derogatory? Shouldn't i ask simple question in our church when am confused like Mr Str?

Yes.

There are Gods (all of them are not equal), but there is one God over all of them, the Father.
There are lords(all of them are not equal), but there is one Lord over all of them, Christ.

deSika: am sure yu would that the new testament is a historical account of Jesus,his twelve, the early converts and the migration of the gospel to other places of which rome is just one of them.
how yu come to agree that christianity started in rome just beats me.

that historical account never mentions rome or roman catholic or pope as taking such a revered position in christianity. 2 most of what the roman catholic stands for are never mentioned in that account.

and again even if i agree that the church has always being catholic (universal) from time immorial. u hv to agree that there is a diference between catholic and roman catholic.

for one, the roman in that phrase neutralises the universality of the phrase for how can it be universal and also roman (rome is a part of the world).

FINAL WORD, if roman catholic church was the first church then it means the church referred to in 1cor 1:2, 15:9, acts 18:22, Rom 16:5, 1 cor 16:19 were roman catholic churches annd they had a pope.

rom 16:likewise, greet the church that is in their house.

Bawss1: I see. And Iran has nothing but sweet love for Israel right?

okeyxyz: Read 1 corinthians 7 again, but this time with a mindset of the spirit that I'm gonna show you here:

fornication\sexual immorality means: illicit sex, ie: sex without consent, either of the woman\man or of her husband\wife. Or sex not given with love, ie: because you feel compelled\required to but your emotions do not agree.

Paul says: it is better not to marry, but you assume he's saying: it is better not to have s.ex. And why is this? Because you still read the new testament with a mindset of the law. It is better not to marry simple means: it is better to have s.ex without marriage. Just as Paul and the apostles where doing. We know they were not married but it can't possibly mean they were not having s.ex. You assume they were not having s.ex because the jesus(of the law) you identify with was not having s.ex. And this is how the catholic papacy(and christianity in general) started to glorify celibacy as holy. This is all "LAW" mentality.

Verse 9 says: But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.: Again with a mindset of the law, you interprete self-control and passion as having to do with s.exual urge. passion in this context simply means negative emotions that might arise in a s.exual relationship, eg; jealousy, bitterness as a result of someone else having access to your sex partner, Therefore rendering the s.exual relationship as unlawful\without consent.

So paul recommends: Because of immorality, Let every man stick to his wife and every woman to her husband(1 Corinthians 7 ). Why would he say so?? It implies that prior to this recommendation, they were actually sharing sex partners but some(or most) were habouring bitterness and jealousy because of this, therefore making it s.exual immorality.

Paul says: It is good for a man not to touch a woman(1 Corinthians 7:1 ): Again you interpret "touch" as s.exual activity. "Touch" simply means to "cling to" or to "possess" a woman, in other words to marry a woman.

If you can apply these insights I give, then you'd be able to see revelation of the "New Testament".

okeyxyz: Mehn dis thread don waka go far oo. you guys threw a carnival in my absence abi??

But just to put in my own token, The fornication we all know/assume today is as defined by the law of Moses rather than as defined by the spirit. It was brought back and made mainstream after the catholic church "absorbed" Christianity and redefined it's values with it's pagan and "LAW" traditions. So today, most people who identify as "christians" still subject themselves to the same laws of moses that christ was supposed to have set them free from.

[b]The law declares as unlawful: sex between a man and woman who are not married, but the spirit says: to him that is pure, all things are lawful.

Boomark: NO.

So is my "no" answer the reason why catholics pray to Mary?

deebrain: A representative or "The" representative? Because as christians, we are all representatives of christ.