₦airaland Forum

playah P: You quite silly for saying this.
Have you been to north korea before? Have you even seen pictures or videos of north-korea?

The so called "supreme leader" is developing nuclear bombs and shit while the citizens are starving!

In north korea, there is no health care, food is rationed by the mayor of each community and if a citizen of north korea escapes from the country, his whole family would be put in the concentration camp where they slave the rest of their lives out.

This is real talk bro and no fiction... North-korea is a sick country!!

have u ever heard of the word "propaganda"?

[quote author=shy-mmex]Obviously, the guy who answered the question is an ex US marine, what do you expect him to say Military isn't about spending power - it's about how effective you're and the loyalty/discipline of your combatants.... Most of US military spending is on foreign bases they don't really need and bogus things... The US just grounded F-35s - do you how much it wasted on the project alone The F-22s are still there with oxygen problems...

For every $1million the US spends on a fighter jet - the Chinese spends probably a tenth of that on the same project, and the way the strategise is more effective than the US or A... Like they say: "defense is the best form of attack"... and China military defense strategy is arguably the best in the world... Don't even get me started with the Russians and what Messr Putin has started for the modernisation of the Russian military - everyone needs to be scared, trust me.... For all of the yanks wasteful military spending - the Russians still have the best ICBM technology in the world... and also the most effective missile defense technology... Perhaps, you were asleep when the Russians tested a new ICBM last year.... heck, the Israelis thought the ICBM was a UFO...

Even the hyped drones are becoming obsolete after the Iranians stay capturing them, and getting the technology for free... The yanks now escort all their drones in the gulf with fighter jets.... So, what's the point of having drones when you still have to get a couple of fighter jets to follow it everywhere?? Another wasteful military adventurism...

Don't believe the hype - all the superpowers(USA, China and RUssia - UK and FRance are irrelevant) have big guns and they can all inflict collateral damage on one another...

We all need to pray against war because when shiit hits the fan - it'll be maximum destruction for everyone involved...[/quote]yeah, a blood bath for all involved.

[quote author=~Bluetooth]Can Israel declare a total war on Iran ?[/quote]heheh, total war will be a blood bath for both countries. Isreal no go try e self anytime soon.

ijawkid: Hehehehehe..............no worry when u visit me I go play u wayo by giving you snake meat to it.....

ewww!! Eyama!!! So u dey chop snake? Eww?

Reyginus: Theoritically and practically speaking this is wrong.
You don't know ubenedictus that for heresy to exist, their has to be some underlying belief factors it deviates from. The church never made up this necessary belief factors, but by the union with christ came to their realization . In other words, there are laid down rules which serve to decide what should be termed heresy.
You sounded like the body is still almighty without the head.

sorry my dear, even d bible will bear witness to this. Christ d head gave authority to the body! Gave it power to both bind and loose, d keys to open and close. The same bible bears witness that the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth. It is d work of d church to teach truth and condemn heresy. Who has d last talk for and erring brethen? Christ say d assembly.

Enigma: The book that non Roman Catholics use i.e. the one that has 66 instead of 73 books ------ is that "The Bible" or not?

hehehe, it is d lutherian bible, the stuff luther compiled in d 16th cent.
All hail luther!!!

Kay 17: 1. what Bible were you talking about that was compiled/canonized prior to the Council of Nicaea?

2. In your belief, is Bible limited to Christianity?

actually at nicea there was no canonised new tes. I dont see d point of d agruement though

Reyginus: What is this about heresy. Who determines what is heresy and, what defines it?

the church does.

ijawkid: Have u asked Jesus this question??.............try asking him.............smh!!!!!!..........

in essence u can't answer me becos ur answer will show ur fallacy.

ijawkid: Which of my arguments did u debunk??..........

go thru d thread, mr celibacy-causes-pedophilia

Let us pray earnestly to Christ our saviour, who redeemed us by his death and resurection. R/ Lord have mercy on us.
You went to Jerusalem to endure the passion and enter into glory; lead your Church into the paschal feast of eternal life. R/
Your heart was pierced with a lance; heal the wounds of our human weakness. R/
You made your cross the tree of life share your victory with all the baptised. R/
You gave salvation to the repentant theif; pardon all our sins. R/
Our Father....
Almighty God, grant that we constantly betrayed by our own weakness, may draw the breath of new life from the passion and death of you Only-begotten son, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy spirit, God, for ever and ever.

obadiah777: NOPE I DONT TOUCH PORK OR RATS OR SNAILS OR SHRIMPS OR LOBSTER. THESE ARE ALL SCAVENGERS. THEY ARE PUT ON EARTH TO CLEAN THE EARTH AND THE SEA AND BALANCE THE ECOSYSTEM. THEY ARE NOT FOOD. THEY ARE THE DUSTBIN OF THE EARTH

u no know good thing.

Calculus12: Not doing great! Insults r not in my nature but was trying to show these fellas why it is wrong to throw hateful words. ii over did it and ii couldn't stop thinking dat our blessed mother will not b happy with my conduct. D damage has been done, what is left is to pick up d pieces n move on.

when i see d insults, i take them as jokes. Try it, it helps. Know that it is almost imposible 4 someone to make u angry unless u chose to b angry.

bukatyne: Really?

So as far as a person professes one God no problem irrespective of the 'God' professed?

It is well.

really?? My dear i dont believe in many "god". For me God is one.

U need to read ur bible my dear,

xtayle: My brother, they are worse than suicide bombers.
Tell me if "hail mary is biblical".

yeah it is read d gospel of luke, what did gabriel say to mar?'

Where in d bible is it stated that mary is the mother of God?

if u believe the word is God then dat isnt a problem. Mary gave birth to christ, d word wu is God.

Tell what scriptures support the doctrine of Rev. Father, Rev. Mother or Sister?

paul said to timothy "i fathered u in the lord.

What about confession? If a catholic commits murder, all he need do is confess to a rev. father and he's believed to be forgiven.

d gospel of jn says "whatever sin u 4give is 4given". Read ya bible

The Mafia world is a Catholic affair. What other info do you need to know that they are not better than terrorists. Assassination is a regular plot and d hallmark of Mafia groups and the Catholic Church is their stronghold.

actually i think u need to check ur conspiracy theories again.

peteregwu: the bible declearing us holy ones does not mean we should boast over it. This is exactly what i am saying, we dont go about claiming or shouting or even taking the name "his holiness". it does not show humility before God. you want to take th name of God or Gods position.


Matthew 23:8-10 KJV
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. [9] And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. [10] Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.



if you a son of the president does no mean you are a president. let believers humble theirselves before the Lord. desciples in the bible refer to themselves as brothers, evangelist, pastors or prophets. see let me tell you, if you are a true born again christian, if people call you his holiness, u will feel bad about it because the holy spirit will make u know this. this exactly what Jesus came into the world to teach us, how to serve God and walk in His will in humility not in boasting pride because "we can of ourselves do nothing". despite all the miracles and being the one (Jesus) without sin(the holy one), Jesus never cherish the name, "good master," He rejected it immediately, seeing Himself as nobody to bear such name but ascribing it to God alone.



Philippians 2:5-11 KJV
"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [9] Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: [10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

boast?? i really do no have time for this. If i do not declear of God's work in my life and dat of my fellowman then what else will i declear. He has made me holy, i wont hide it under d carpet, that isnt humility dat is a refusal to acknowledge d work of God.

Calculus12: frosbel I greet you with the love of God through Christ our mediator with the father. ii think its about time we all discussed some of this very troubling 'teachings' dat r making d rounds. 4get for a minute dat i am catholic. do u honestly believe dat d God u serve is a God of d dead? or is dis ur own personal interpretation of what d bible teaches? i don't know about u guys but d God i serve is one of d living and not d dead. even though our bodies die, d spirit lives on.

one major implication of dat teaching is dat d soul is mortal i.e all dat is man is our physical body and after we die, everything dies until d resurrection. dis teaching is false and un-biblical.

dis is wasted effort. Frosbel doesnt believe a human has a spirit that lives on after physical death.

Enigma: And after Philip left that Ethiopean eunuch, who was teaching the eunuch? Who was preaching to him? Who taught him about "speaking in tongues"? Who taught him about "transubstantiation"? Who taught him about "papal infallibility"? Who taught him about "the canon of Scripture"?

sorry my dear, d meeting of philip wasn't d end of teaching for d eunuch. Who says he didnt meet other apostles or disciple of d apostles? What happen latter isnt recorded, all we know from d passage is dat he went home fulfilled

debosky: Since the church 'wrote' the New Testament as you claim, why didn't you 'write' indulgences into the New Testament? Could it be that Paul, John, James, and other writers of the NT did not practice such?

this is like asking why did d church not write "bible" in d new tes, or why did d church not write trinity in d new tes. The principle if there, if u are look for d letter the u are lost.

That is not the question - the question was whether there were teachings in the church that were challenged. Clearly such teaching existed and was challenged.

unfortunately dat question has no relevance to d topic. You claim d whole church can teach error. I'll like to see the proof.

Zikkyy: My point exactly! this is what i have been trying to tell my brother, italo.

not when d holyspirit is alive, will he be sleeping when d whole church is teaching error!
Again dat implys dat d bible u hold may be filled with error, a council compiled it.

debosky: Then let me explain - a church grouping is a group of Christians who belong to Jesus’ ONE Church who fellowship in a particular location - See the Revelations for the messages to specific church groupings - the church at Thyatira, the church that meets in your home (Romans 16:5, Philemon 1:2)
The bible’s validity comes from this simple verse, not any ‘church authority’:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

this is untrue, d scripture dat verse talks about is d old testament. Before d canonisation of d bible books like 2nd pt, 2nd and 3rd john, jude and revelation were rejected by many christian, d church in council decided in their favour.

That a Council ‘formalised’/’endorsed’ the scripture ALREADY in use by church groupings at the time does not mean it the council ‘declared it’ as God’s word. People were using Paul’s teachings, Luke, Matthew and James’ writings long before any Council did anything.

i repeat do u have an idea of how many books were in use? They were so many. Do d research.

That there were debates (which occurred even in Paul’s time) doesn’t mean that a common recognition was not reached. Paul wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them. John wrote his letters - the Catholic Church did not write them.

paul and john were member of d church and wrote to d very same church.

It’s like saying because I burned a CD with Wizkid’s songs, Banky W’s songs, 2Face’s songs and PSquare’s songs combined, I now claim to have written those songs. Ridiculous idea.

your analogy falls on its face.

I do not dispute that people have sought their own teaching - the scripture predicted this would happen. However, it is not the devil that sowed anything. And again I repeat:
Joel 2: 28-29 28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
This is not pride - this is the Word of God! Or did the Catholic Church write Joel as well?

are u saying all d contradicting doctine flying around is d work of God?? Wow!!!

The enemy and human nature is responsible for divisions, which is why we must continually rely on the Holy Spirit for guidance, and not the Church - we look to the head of the Church who is Jesus, and he has given us the Holy Spirit.

not d church?? Really? But my bible says d church is d pillar and bulward of truth, should i follow u or d bible?. Your attempt to separate christ from d church is a disaster.

Zikkyy: Very true.



What are you going to ratify, when the major decision maker is said to be infallible? the council more likely to be rubber stamp. That's my issue here. If the council considers the views/feedback from the congregation before taking a decision, your approach will be most ideal even if it will not solve the problem 100%.

while d councils do so, d approach will still be problematic unless d council resolve only to teach what d church of christ always taught. If d feedback method alone is used then all d churches in america will teach dat gay sexual activities are moral.

debosky: Everybody!
Hebrews 8:11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

1 John 2:27 But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ.

bottomline: everybody know the lord and yet they can agree about the lord.

No - the church IS the people of God. They are one and the same!!
They simply formalised what was already in common use in church groupings - they didn't ‘write’ the New Testament - were Matthew, Mark, Luke and Paul's letters ‘written’ in the 4th Century?

do you have an idea how many books were in common use? D letter of pope clement to corith was in common use, so was d didache, d acts of paul, d gospel of peter, gospel to d egyptian, d list goes on.

Because human beings can go astray - that you got something right yesterday doesn’t mean you will always get it right. Why should I accept the practice of indulgences for example which was never taught by Jesus? Why should I accept the practice that the ‘same Church’ eventually ‘modified’ when it saw its error? We hold on to that which is true and discard the rest.

interestingly christ actually said hell wont prevail against his church, so how can d church go astray. Indulgence would be found in d writtens of many early xtians including those wu canonised d bible. Indulgence rise out of the teaching that d death of christ has merit before d father. Whether u believe dat d death of christ is meritious or not is ur palava.

Gladly
2 Thessalonians 2:2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.
Colossians 2:18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
Where do you think the above teachings were being made?

did the whole church ever teach d above? That is d question?

Zikkyy: You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes.

what happen when some preachers started preaching circumcision, d council of jerusalem happened, what happened when arius d presbyter rejected d Godhood of christ a caused division in the church, d council of nicea.... The list goes on. At d end d heresy is decleared for what it is and d true teaching continues.

I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false.

the bolded is what italo also rejects. The apostolic teaching must be infalliable or we are all in trouble.

The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible.

d apostles are not a separate entity on their own, they are part of d church, d church continues to teach thoughout the ages d very same the apostle taught that is why paul says "the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"

Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package.

can one reject d church dat wrote and compiled d bible and at d same time accept d bible? No they are on package.

I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings.
True. The question is, who is correct.

yeah who is correct among 40000 contradicting xtian communities.

Zikkyy: I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

false teachings can only happen when we deviate from right teaching.
When false teaching started in d early church what happened? The council of Jerusalem.
The church remained d bulwark of truth.

debosky: Apologies for the oversight. My view is that scriptural interpretation is wholly reliant on the Holy Spirit who teaches all things. In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion.

we now have over 40000 churches who claim to follow d above and still contradict each other plenty and heavyly

If I recall correctly, this is your view:

I disagree with this wholeheartedly because this places the Catholic Church in a position of authority not given to it by Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church.

sorry my dear, it places d catholic in d very position d bible place d church, a self teaching organism.

Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't.

After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection.

and my point will be that the very fact that those false teachings dat arose were challenged and condemned is in itself a proof that the church still remains dat pillar and bulwark d bible says it is.

Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping.

I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more.

Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son.

your solution is d cause of our present problem. Every pastor is now d final abiter of d word, each claiming d holyspirit and each contradicting the other.

italo: @ Goshen360, I think you deliberately omitted what I would call the "genesis" of this thread.



What you did not mention are the key "contributions" that led to this No. 1 point on this thread.



This was part of my first post in reply to you on that other thread. Clearly, I set out to refute you teaching that "letting scripture interprete scripture" will lead us to the truth.

You then asked me to tell how to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture without adequately proving your theory right.

My summary is: in as much as you want me to prove that the Catholic Church is the authority to interpret God's teaching (Scripture and otherwise), you must first prove that your own "let scripture interpret scripture" theory is accurate...or at least we must do it side by side.

lemme break it down.
An open bible placed on a table or pulpit lacks d ability to interprete it self. The ethopian said to philip "how am i to understand if no one preaches to me". Paul says "faith cometh by hearing". The word needs a preacher or it is just words!!!

The bible verses bear witness to dem selves but they do not interprete themselves, that is d word of d spirit thru d ministry of d church.
I just left d obadiah thread and i witness a great...bible disaster by my opinion. Obadiah would use is bible to interprete and concluded dat d fowls dat died in d time of noah were d leaders, he posted another scripture were d foul were d elect. I laughed, which of them is d fowl, d elect, d rulers of the people or the literal fowl?
It all comes down to d fact that those passages do not interprete themselves, even after laying precept on precept we still had 3 possible interpretation for one word: fowl. We also have so many preachers each preaching contradictory doctrines and we must ask ourselves. What was paul taking about when he said "d church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"? Is he refer to frosbel d one man church? D church they established and left their teaching authority with? Or the church as a totality of believers?

italo: THE FULL LETTER.

Dear Father Nicolás,
I received with great joy the kind letter you sent me, in your name and that of the Society of Jesus, on the occasion of my election to the See of Peter, in which you assure me of your prayers for me and my apostolic ministry as well as your full disposition to continue serving - unconditionally - the Church and the Vicar of Christ according to the teachings of St. Ignatius Loyola.My heartfelt thanks for this sign of affection and closeness, which I am happy to reciprocate, asking the Lord to illuminate and accompany all Jesuits, so that faithful to the charism received and following in the footsteps of the saints of our beloved Order, they may be evangelical leaven in the world in their pastoral action, but above all in the witness of a life totally dedicated to the service of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, seeking unceasingly the glory of God and the good of souls.
With these sentiments, I ask all Jesuits to pray for me and to entrust me to the loving protection of the Virgin Mary, our Mother in heaven, while as a sign of God's abundant graces, I give you the Apostolic Blessing with special affection, which I also extend to all those who cooperate with the Society of Jesus in her activities, those who benefit from her good deeds and participate in her spirituality.Francis

Of course, the lunatic would conveniently ignore the bolded.

hehehe, frosbel didnt even read d letter before posting

musKeeto: Frosbel, what's up with your Catholic itch? Honestly...

hehehe

musKeeto: [img]http://s0.flogao.com.br/s9/30/03/05/525/7728785.jpg[/img]

Goshen and Obadiah on left and right.... guess who's in the center?
Your guess is as good as mine..


All hailings to OBAZUGEE 1 of Israel... you taught the non-tither and the Catholic runaway a few lessons in honoring Scriptural doctrines.. you have done marvelously well. For the Scriptures do say

and



To those 'heathens' bothered about your CAPS LOCK, Scriptures do say



To the rest of the Christian Community on NL


With love and two sucks,
Muskeeto

muskeeto too begin quote bible. World don end b dat.

Goshen360: @ Calculus12,

You must also understand that when the Apostles existed then, the New Testament had not being completed or written yet but in the process. This age and time, it is completed and we now have the complete revelation PLUS the Spirit of God and of Truth. The truth of any interpretation NOW is that, it must not contradict what is already written or completed, from beginning to the earth.

i really doubt there is something called "complete new testament"

Calculus12: I definitely do not have an agenda ii am pursuing. ii don't have a grudge with u as a person though ii can't ssay same for that fooolish fellow called frosbel. My problem with this thread is the title. Obadiah has been judged before any meaningful discussion was made. That shows that this conversation is more like the inquisitions of old.

Where exactly in d bible is it stated that d bible will interpret itself? When d apostles had disputes did they allow d bible to interpret itself or they relied on the holy spirit to guide them? If it was d holy spirit, where then did u get this thing about the bible interpreting itself? ii definitely agree dat d bible MUST agree on every topic but this is not d same as letting d bible interpret itself.

It is very possible for someone to interpret d bible in a way dat every part of d bible agrees with his explanation and yet still get it wrong. All of u should note dat ii might not agree with d teachings of obadiah but does this give me d right to say that his teachings r correct or false? ii think obadiah's teachings agrees with each other based on his interpretation just like urs might agree based on ur interpretation but does this mean that u r correct and he is wrong; or that he is right and u r wrong?

amen