₦airaland Forum

vedaxcool: You would notice I have refuse trading words with him, ever since he was exposed as telling lies against Pope Francis, we know before u guys the sort of man he is one whose fanaticism short circuits every functional brain cell in his head time to time, the same individual back in 2011 made a living attacking Islam and now unfortunately for u catholics it is your turn who next, people like frosbel are found in every religion, they think they know all, and hence act irrationally regardless of the sort of evidence in his face!

When religions dialogue with one another they do not necessary accept each others validity rather they accept their rights to coexist with each other and live in peace unfortunately our mr. Know all can't seem to get this simple fact!

oga, d guy tire me! He is just twisting everything! How does a call for dialogue means christians should stop preaching.
This religious fanatism is serious.

christemmbassey: there is nothing like 'a catholic christian' u are a christian or a NON CHRISTIAN(unbeliever) dont decieve urself, there is ' catholic faith which is completly dif from the 'christian faith' . NOTE: YOU CAN NOT BE A CATHOLIC ANDE A CHRISTIAN.. its not possible. Can one animal be goat and sheep?

hahahaha, you are deluded. I repeat i'm a catholic christian, if catholic cant be xtians neither can protestant, protestanism is an offshoot of catholicism.
I wonder at you delusion.

chukwudi44: Oh

How come you were quoting exodus for me? Abi is that now part of the new covenant? Why don't you quote the new covenant where Jesus asked us not to make graven images or better still where he asked us never to make graven images of himself or his mother

hypocrisy! Since marwin u have been quoting exodus and 2 kings is that not old testament yet u complain when another quote the same. Hypocrisy

honeric01: when you have no answer, you resort to blabbing? No scriptural backbone?

only a stupid man would argue with your strawman.

frosbel: we are in end times bro, a warning has been fired in the direction of the Vatican , watch this small video :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZL0Z2nV3cU

u need sleep.

Odunharry: i taya o..nt until after jesus resurrectd that the disciples were first called christians

ignoratio elenchi

honeric01: where na? Kindly refer to the verse in the bible for us to read that she was already a christian even before the birth of christ.

strawman, ignoratio elenchi.

christemmbassey: bro Frosbel is not telling you that he is the chairman of heaven qualified commettee, all he is saying is to warn ppl with th scriptures of the wolves in sheep's clothing, which Jesus told us may decieve 'the very elects, math24:24. You may not appreciate what Frosbel is doing until u know the truth. But my prayer to u is contained in eph 1:17-22.'

and d wolve in sheep clothing is d pope because he called for dialogue abi?

christemmbassey: catholics are not christians, stop pretending,, there is catholic faith and christian faith, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. In the catholic faith, pope is the head, while Jesus Christ is the head in christianity. So the catholic religion has every right to talk to any cult etc, but they should not pretend to represent christians, God forbid.

the above is a myth formed in ur fantasy.
I'm a catholic christian.

[quote author=frosbel][/quote]since according to you God was never in that place then the pope can be d guy in d passage who sits in the temple of God.
You can't eat ya cake and have it.

frosbel: I think there is some little misunderstanding.

I am 100% for living in peace with all men and women, whatever their religion , background etc, and in my own personal life this is the case. For example I interact and chill out with Muslims, Hindus etc.

But the peace the pope is talking about is a rather different kind, it is a peace that says we should just accept all belief systems as valid and not bother telling people about the work of salvation wrought by God through his Son , Christ Jesus, when he was crucified for the sins of all men to save us , not from only sin but eternal death. To this I cannot agree.

Besides the Pope is the spokesman for Catholics not all Christians.

@ Vedaxcool , I ask these questions :

1. Peace on what terms ?
2. On whose terms
3. How can over 100 religions agree that they all valid paths to the same God ? You and I know quite well, we believe there is one GOD , how can we integrate the millions of gods of the Hindus for example.

It is far more complex than most of you think.

You will have to trivialise and reject the greatest work of mankind , the salvation brought to us by God in his Son, to make us live in a peace of religious alliance.
Peace to all , and I mean it in Jesus name.

the bolded is a lie, the pope didn't say or imply the bolded. You are simply lying. I told you earlier to read his full speech, did he say anything like stop preaching about christ? Oga stop your lying jor.

Enigma: This seems to be the only point of apparent serious dispute in your last post. It is about Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica.

From here: http://www.thegospelofchrist.org/edictthess.html

this is a bad as claiming christainity started by d edit of milan.
Those who follow d orthodox teaching were already called catholics and those who didn't we called heretic long before this edit.
To claim dat those who followed d true teachings were called catholic and others heretic as a result of that edit is untrue.
This edit simply followed d coventions by which heretics were alway defined.
Peace.

Enigma: I stand by my statement that the Roman Catholic Church only finalised its own canon at the Council of Trent.

this is essentially different from what you said earlier, you said d catholic church didnt have a council to set the canon until trent, you only subtlely changed it to "finalised" after you saw my post on florence. Even subtlely you seemed to have d ability to readjust your views even though you do so dishonestly by claiming it wasnt readjusted.

I wonder if you are aware that this claim about the Council of Rome is widely seen as arising from a fraud and forgery based on the Decretum Gelasianum?

that the was a fifth council of rome under damascus is a fact. The fact that damascus seems to commision d jerome for d vulgate almost immediately after, allows me to reasonable infer that while d above document may be a forgery it may actually be a catolog of what happened in that council.

This is a misrepresentation, I am afraid.
1. Although Jerome eventually produced a Latin translation of the whole Bible, his commission originally related only to the gospels. Thus his commission was not originally an indication of the then existence of an authoritative or conclusive canon.

the gospels only This is very untrue and i challenge you to provide a source document.

2. The absence of a conclusive canon is exposed clearly when you remember that Jerome rejected some of the books in the Septuagint; he did not consider them as "canonical".

this again is untrue! Jerome used d hebrew in translating and even went d extra mile of translating d greek to make sure d deutero books were not omitted. This is borne witness to by the fact that at d jerome had all the deutero books in his vulgate.

3. Don't forget the dialogue of Jerome and Augustine --- the latter who of course supported the Septuagint.

i know d heated dialogue and augustine didnt accuse Jerome of removing any books and if he did it would be negated by d fact that d vulgate contained d deutero books.

1. The Roman Catholics are of course free to claim to "ratify" anything they want

the catholics arent "claiming", na so e b! Even d acts of d council of carthage themselves bear witness to d fact. Your use of d word "claim" makes it seem as though it didnt happen.

2. I have already explained the position about Jerome above and the false claims about a Damasian list/canon by my reference to the Decretum Gelasianum.

i never referenced Decretum gelasianum, you did. You brought that topic, dont ascribe it to me as if i made arguement quoting d document.

3. Let me throw in one point here: the canon confirmed at Trent is believed to be different from what the synods of Hippo/Carthage approved/adopted

this again is a lie, do you just make assertions? Tell me one book that differentiates d canon proclaimed in carthage and dat in trent.

1. The Council of Florence was in the 15th century. Do you want to tell us and list the books of the canon according to that Council of Floerence.

i pasted d link, it is d same with that of trent, hippo and d vulgate

2. Notice that just above you yourself said that it was at Trent that the Roman Catholic Church declared the canon "officially closed" --- which means the RCC "canon" (if any at all then existing) was not finalised until the Council of Trent ----- in the 16th century!

when i used d word "officially close" i am refering to the addition of d anathemas following d list. I do not subscribe to what you wrote above that is wasn't finalised, in 401 d pope wrote to a fellow xtian and gave him a list of d canonical scripture which is d same with dat of d vulgate and dat of florence, trent and hippo. Not a single book added or removed till today, for me that prettymuch defines finalised.

OK
We will have to agree to disagree. It is widely believed among scholars that Origen was probably using all 27 books of the modern New Testament. Second part of that quote of yours is funny, prompting me too to ask: did Origen say he didn't have all the books?

origen didnt quote from some today n tes writtings and he never decleared he had those books. That is simply a guess work dat has no backing. And if absence of those quotes is taken as proof of absence, it may be infer he didnt have them.

Enigma: 1. This is not as straightforward as you are presenting it ---- particularly in relation to the Arian controversy.

it is quite straight forward.

2. Even after Nicea, Arianism did not immediately (if at all) die out within the Church of that era.

correct, many bishops of d east were arians. And some of dem like eusebius of nico' were liars, becos they didnt want to be deposed they hypocritically signed nicea and went back to continue as an arian. Such bishops did more harm than Good.

3. Even Constantine later became more sympathetic towards the Arians; in fact he was eventually baptised by an Arian bishop!

ofcourse he was baptised by his relation eusebius who was insincere enough to agree at nicea and go back to continue in arianism.

4. Arius himself was later exonerated and admitted again to communion with the Church!

he wasn't exonerated by an ecumenical council, eusibius was exonerated by a robber council which was caused by eusebius who asked constantine to convene d council. The council was chair by eusebius an arian. Thus d council of constantinople had to undo all d harm d eastern council did.

5. Would you believe that Athanasius, the chief Trinitarian advocate, was exiled?

the handwork of eusebius, athanasius wasnt exiled for doctrine, constantine exiled him alledgedly stoping some food supply, if i remember correctly.

6. Successors of Constantine including his son Constantius II were Arians and welcomed back the Arians i.e. Arian bishops etc

constantine 2 was tutored by eusebius an arian so whad'ya expect?

7. It was only after Theodosius' edict in 380 (strongly influenced by Damasus) that it was declared that only Trinitarians were allowed to use the word "catholic" --- marking the beginning of the legal use of the word in an exclusive sense.

you can prove this.

Enigma: Bros, the Roman Catholic Church did not have a council to set the canon ----- until the 16th century Council of Trent. And bros, the real propaganda is for the Roman Catholic Church to try and claim ownership of the synods of Hippo and Carthage.

this my dear is a lie, even before hippo and carthage the roman church had a canon set in d council of rome. It was after dis council that pope damascus gave jerome d commision to make d vulgate. I put it to you, how can damascus commission Jerome to make the vulgate if the was no canon of the Roman church? Take note dat jerome started d vulgate b4 d council of hippo an carthage. Again even d council of carthage was held before representatives of d pope asked d pope to ractify their resolutions.
So how is the catholic trying to claim ownership over a council that it ractified. I put it to you that the council of trent didn't make any new canon and didnt debate about any books it only confirm d already exist canon of the roman church and decleared it officially closed. This will lead you directly to d part of trent http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html trent never claim to make a canon they simply confirm d canon damascus commission Jerome to translate, to futher buttress my point i also posit that even before d council of trent the council of florence confirmed d books of scripture http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#5. These should sufficently prove my point that d catholic church already had a canon before trent, d one used by d vulgate.
My dear, i'll be sincere with you, if u write that d catholic church only had a canon at trent again, i'll have no problem accusing you of delibrately distorting the truth.

So, at least we are agreed that different early communities had at least some of the books of the New Testament and that Paul's epistles circulated beyond the particular communities they were addressed to.

and it too about 3 centuries to fully do so. Yeah we technically agree.

It is generally believed that Origen had virtually all the books that make up present versions (note plural 'versions') of the present day New Testament (i.e. present NT canonS; again note plural).

it is a belief that has nothing to do with facts. How do you account for the fact that origen didnt quote any of d books not found in d septuagist, and didn't quote other nt books. Origen never said he had those book.

Bros, how could I have insulted your intelligence when you have here clearly agreed with what I said? I even tried to soften my own language by twice using the word 'technically'!

unless i misunderstood u and i apologise.

Arianism started within "the church" --- these are your words. Interestingly, I'd be grateful for you to clarify what you mean by "the church".

the catholic church.

1. Yes at the Council of Nicea, Arianism was deemed heretical.
2. The red bolded is not quite accurate; at the time of the Nicene Council the word "catholic" had not acquired the technical and legal meaning that it was to acquire under Theodosius' edict.

that is what you think, no proof. Show a church father dat considered d heretic as catholic, if you cant then you have no point.

3. The use of the word 'catholic' then still stemmed from the usage by Ignatius and was not 'exclusive' in a legal sense; I will agree though that even Ignatius use of 'catholic' supposes churches teaching 'wholesome' doctrine.

i would request that you produce texts where heretics that ofcourse have been proven to teach unwholesome doctrines were called catholics.

4. Importantly, this is where Reyginus has a strong point: all these people were still (seen as) Christian ---- whether they were Arian or Trinitarian!

but they aren't seen as catholics.
You seem to misunderstand reyginus who seems to say by some funny logic that the arians weren't christains.

Bros, I point out to you that you are making a false accusation here! I never said or claimed what you are saying here. You quoted my statement and even bolded some part; read my statement again and compare with what you are claiming here. ;

if i misunderstood then i apologise. But my contention with reyginus is that the arians weren't catholic and what i quoted seem to support that idea by claiming that arianism is a form of catholicism.
Nevertheless i apologise if i misunderstood.

Reyginus: Lol. Seriously, you mean the above.
Let me show you why the above is wrong, in a nutshell.
Firstly, to be christain entails leading the christ life. Living in the fullness of his grace under his coven. When you now decide that all you want to do must be opposite in the christ life, automatically, you are not leading the christ life, but the un-christain one.

d arian would have told u they live a christ-like life by grace, dat doesnt make their teaching any better.

Secondly, if the protestants think so, it means to them, you are not christain. The main thing is having an introspection and tell yourself the bitter truth, that is if it is.

the bitter truth is i'm not defined by what they think about me i'm defined by what God thinks and my accesment of my believes with a good conscience.

But another erroneus thing is to say that 'protestants' find the catholics contradictory. How many of these 'protestants' do you know well enough? Or does protestanism by default hold catholism contradictory to christainity?

i didnt say protestanism even though i have a good reason to say so, luther himself after been condemned went on the condemn d catholic church as against christ. I also know protestant do also thinks so, oh! Check frosbels and ijawkids posts.

Please, I would also like to know the jehovah witness teachings in line with arianism?

i thought u said you read d link chukwudi provided, didnt d link reveal d teachings? Arianism say Christ is a created being as witness say Jesus is an angel. This is just one point among many.

Reyginus: Your first point is cool. But seriously and with all sincerity, I don't think you understand the question I asked.
Maybe I should rephrase it.
Was any of the images we use in the catholic church made or are they raw natural resources?

are u asking if images of Jesus are found in nature?

Reyginus: I don't think it will be of any help. Whatever chukwudi is going to re-present must agree with the previous ones he presented, which depicts arianism unchristain. If he tries to publish something different, he will not be taken seriously.

arianism was a heresy, i consider heresy unchristian but how does that affect the fact that arians had adherrent who claimed to posses d "pure christain doctrine"? I dont understan what u are saying.

ooman: Who is talking to you?

my dear, it is a public forum and i'm free to air my opinion, i dont need to be "talked to" before i comment.
Peace

shdemidemi: u

Frosbel has a reason for his concerns backed with the Books. The children of light must let this known to all that are willing to hear.

The Man of Lawlessness

2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 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. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s TEMPLE, proclaiming himself to be God.

5 Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness

and that passage right says do not be unsettled. That passage says the man of sin will take his place in the temple of God and proclaim himself to be God. Frosbel doesn't believe that the catholic church is or was ever the temple of God. Since according to frosbel d catholic church isnt and has never been the temple of God, he therefore cannot logical infer that the above verse is talking about the pope. You cant reasonable say the catholic church has never been d temple of God and still say the verse talking about a man in the temple of God is the pope. You cant eat your cake and have it.
The last time i checked d pope was still preach Jesus and d fada and didnt claim to be God.
You are been unsettled the very thing that passage advise against.
Peace

vedaxcool: Somehow I have a feeling that this pope would be far better than the last. Sadly though, judging by most of what the adherents of the religion of love and forgiveness are writing, the pope might have to dialogue with his own religion before venturing out, as most of these followers seems to have a better idea on the sort of dialogue they want, the one that involves bloodshed! Anyway that seems to be the down side of being a leader, wanting to take people to a direction they certainly don't want to go!

A joke, somehow I feel if christianity were to take people to heaven only frosbel would go heaven since he seems to "know" very much the gospels more than any other man on earth and he seems to practice a version of christianity that unfortunately for most christians, the holy ghost only guided him to! The tragedy in this statement shows a failure of immeasurable proportion, which translate to a religion that only a few people as "intelligent" as frosbel can understand!

a peaceful rebuke. I doubt my dear frosbel will like this.

honeric01: where can this be found in the bible that Mary was already a christian before the birth of christ?

now you are twisting my word.
It is found in the bible that she alread had a saviour even be4 d birth of christ, she was saved. And i quoted d passage.

Lord God, at all times you are working out the salvation of man, but now more especially you erich your people with grace. Look kindly on this people;
keep the seal of baptism inviolate in those who recieved it and in those who still await their rebirth in the spirit. We make our prayers through our Lord Jesus Christ your son who lives...
Amen.

Benedicamus Domini!

intercession for saturday
Christ the Lord has made men into a new creation. He gives them a new birth in the waters of baptism and nourishes them with his word and his body. Let us glorify him in our prayer. R/ renew us, Lord by your grace.
Jesus, you are gentle and humble in spirit; grant us something of your patience towards all men. R/
Teach us to be neighbours to the sad and the needy; let us imitate you, the good Samaritan. R/
May the Blessed Virgin, your mother intercede for religious women; through her prayers may they serve you in the Church ever more perfectly. R/
Grant us the gift of your mercy, pardon our sins and save us from punishment. R/
Our Father....

Reyginus: Ubenedictus, that's not the point. The contention was that they had factions. I held none existed. What you are telling now is far from being described as a faction. Factions in this respect are not characterized by change in the underlying core of christainity, but a change in doctrine. Yours has the mark of both. Factions do not come that way. Immediately whatever faction you're describing fall short of the central theme of christainity, which is evident in other factions, it no longer become a faction but an entirely new ideology. Whatever movement contradicting the teachings of christ does not belong to christ, hence terming it a faction of christainity is a fallacy. In this respect, I think your arguement fails.

this your logic is so fatally flawed that i cant even begin to correct it. I also hold that many protestant teaching condict christ's teaching, i guess according to ur logic that means protestanism isn't a fraction, protestants holds dat my doctrines is contradictory to dat of christ by ur logic that means i'm not a xtian.
In essence Jehova witness are arain, the witness teaching of christ is just fine tuned arianism, so according to your logic jehova witness are not christian.



Thank God i dont subscribe to your logic.
Peace.

Hehehe, frobel sleeps at night having nightmare about d catholic church.

Luis relates his expirence with card jorge and you think he is leading people astray.
When people say good thing about adeboye you don't tell them "u are leading people astray". At the very least you are baised against d catholic church.

Enigma: @ belabela

Actually, the Roman Catholics did not have a canon of their own until the Council of Trent in as late as the 16th century! It was only after the shenanigans with Martin Luther etc that the Roman Catholics finally defined their own canon.

Yes, other people came up with their own idea of a canon e.g. the African churches at regional synods in Hippo and Carthage (EDIT) i.e. in the 4th century and more than 1000 years before the Roman Catholic Council of Trent! Even before that there were other compilations by different people/groups. The Roman Catholics try to lay claim to the African synods but a proper examination of the situation will disprove the Roman Catholic claims.

now pls stop lying, d council of trenth only decleared d canon close. The synod of rome determined d catholic canon in 382 after which pope damasus comission d vulgate, the synod of hypo and cathage were held in d presence of d representatives of d pope, both councils sent their resolution to rome and it was accepted by d pope, they actually adopted d canon of d roman synod.

Enigma: @ belabela

Actually, the Roman Catholics did not have a canon of their own until the Council of Trent in as late as the 16th century! It was only after the shenanigans with Martin Luther etc that the Roman Catholics finally defined their own canon.

Yes, other people came up with their own idea of a canon e.g. the African churches at regional synods in Hippo and Carthage (EDIT) i.e. in the 4th century and more than 1000 years before the Roman Catholic Council of Trent! Even before that there were other compilations by different people/groups. The Roman Catholics try to lay claim to the African synods but a proper examination of the situation will disprove the Roman Catholic claims.

now pls stop lying, d council of trenth only decleared d canon close. The synod of rome determined d catholic canon in 382 after which pope damasus comission d vulgate, the synod of hypo and cathage were held in d presence of d representatives of d pope, both councils sent their resolution to rome and it was accepted by d pope, they actually adopted d canon of d roman synod.

belabela: To add to the topic. Mary was like a surrogate mother. Modern science has shown us that it is possible for a woman to carry a child without having any DNA contribution to the child. i.e the father and the mother of the baby in her womb is different from carrier of the baby. Her only duty will be to carry her for 9 months. She has no genetic contribution to the child. Mary was like that but blessed to carry in her womb the son of God. She was equally blessed to raise him up. Claiming that Jesus got her humanity from Mary is bogus

bottomline: God is human and placed his humanity in mary.
Sounds heretic.

honeric01: LOL, so you mean because a jug is used to house water, the jug automatically becomes the source of that water?

Mary herself needed to believe in Jesus and also became his disciple before she was saved, if she hadn't believed in Christ,she would have died and remain a candidate of hell just like any other unbeliever out there. if she was already the head of the church, why then follow Jesus instead of Jesus following her since she's the mother of Jesus?

sorry my bible says marry was saved before the birth of christ. That is why even b4 christ birth she says "my soul glorifies d lord my spirit rejoice in God my saviour" she already had a saviour.

frosbel: ignore me, I will not ignore you.

I am an ex-catholic and Mary is at the center of most prayers and worship.

Sick!!!

that may seem so to u becos u no dey attend mass.

honeric01: And why did they single out only Mary and not the rest of the disciples?

Jesus specifically mentioned it in the bible "I AM THE WAY, TRUTH AND LIFE, NO MAN COMMETH TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME" any other way is no way and there's NO WHERE IN THE BIBLE IT WAS STATED THAT MARY HAS ANY INTERCESSORY POWERS TO HELP US PASS OUR SUPPLICATIONS TO JESUS NOR GOD.

d bible say i'm a intercessor, so is mary d only xtian who lacks d power to interceed.