₦airaland Forum

honeric01: Did the bible say anything about the death of any of the female disciples nor the rest of the disciples apart from the direct 12? does it mean the rest didn't die too since the bible didn't say anything about them?

its just a fact that there is no proof wether biblical of extra biblical that marry is in d grave.

Acidosis: Biggest lie in History!

The blood that flows through a man is that of the father, not the mother (go for a blood test if you doubt).
The blood that flows through Jesus is from above (God), not Mary's.. lil wonder he passed through a virgin, so no one on earth will claim HIM not even the husband of Mary.

..and yes, he took the "flesh" from Mary! But the Flesh died over 2000years ago.
He took the form of a man so he could fulfill the prophecy of death & resurrection.. He came to die for us including Mary the earthly mother (cos she'd have landed in hell had it been she failed to accept him (Jesus) as her Lord and personal saviour).

The way you guys make much noise in worship about Mary sounds like Mary is the wife of God, and Jesus is the 'small child' of Mary

I dey wait for the judgement day

you have no knowledge of biology, where did u get d idea that d blood dat flows thru a man comes from his father? Maybe you want to explain how manage my broda has my mums blood group.
Please dont add lies just becos u want to make a defense.

Acidosis: Why should anyone pray through Mary when you've been told to pray through/and in the name of Jesus christ? I don't understand..

Does that mean, I can ask my grandfather to pray for me?

just d same way u pray thru your pastor.

I know d thread is alread 8th page long but i hope u are still on it, i would love a discussion.

Ihedinobi: I actually understand both extremes - one of making something of Mary and one of making nothing of her. I think that either is a snare.

When a person serves the Lord well, they deserve honor. They are worthy examples of how we ought to be with the Lord. Mary is a grand example of true submission to the Lord. She is also a good example of the meaning of sacrifice. But it dishonors her to make her something that she is not nor has ever been.

amen!

In any case, for my Roman brothers and sisters, I get the thought that the family in heaven and on earth is one family and it means the same to you to ask a saint whp has been called home to pray for you as it means to ask one yet on earth to pray for you. But there is a significant difference. The saints above have been freed from their labors (including watching for their brethren), they are resting and waiting for us. Until we are all together, they must rest and wait for their glorious bodies. It is our part today to work, pray, preacb, in short, labor and run the race set before us. If anyone ought to pray, it is us. If there is anyone for whom we must pray, it is us. If there is anyone of whom we may ask prayer, it is one another on this side of the divide. Let us not trouble our brethren whose labors are over, they have earned a right to rest.

here i disagree. The dead saints are resting in christ but resting doesnt equal idleness, infact my bible says that after their labours on earth God puts the saints "in charge of many things", their rest isn't idle. Heb 12:1 makes a beautiful analogy! We are runners in the race and the saints are surrounding us as a great cloud of witness. Have u ever been to a race with a silient crowd of witness? Certainly not! The witness must be cheering for or against!
The significant difference doesnt exist, just one body (d body of christ) with many members, can d hand say i dont want d leg? Or cand d head sever itself from the body? No! We are one body, and to think d dead saint must live seperate from those on earth is to deny the communion within the body i christ.

Of course, none of this means that they're uninvolved in the War of the Cross. They very much are. Their labors yet produce. Every book they've written, prayers they've said, letters they've authored, everything in which they obeyed will continue to grow in power and bless their brethren yet wearing the earthly tent. Every bit of their labors is a living power available to believers on this side of the divide to fight a good fight with. But they themselves have nothing more to give until we are all together with the Lord. Then our new labors will begin together and carry on through eternity.

the bible seems silient of the divide you seem to see.
I do hope you are still on the thread.
Frosbel keep off.

CrazyMan: Mary was just the earthly vessel God use in bringing Jesus into this world.

She's human like you and I...so it would look silly to worship her.

amen to d bolded.

Ishilove: Honoured to the point of asking her to pray for us?

do people ask you for prayers? If yes, why cant other member's of christ body be asked?

Ishilove: Wish I could package frosbel and take him home

What the Word says is there is only one Mediator, Jesus Christ. I don't understand how Mary managed to become an intercessor

@greedie: I attended a catholice secondary school, so I know for a fact that Catholics ask Mary to pray for human beings.

"Hail Mary, Mother of God,

Pray for us sinners,

Now and forever more. Amen"

A song-

"Mater Amabalis

Ora pronobis

Listen to your children, they are calling on you

Ave sanctissima, ave purissima,

Sinless and beautiful, star of the night"

Not just Mary, but a thousand and one other saints, some of who we've never heard of are asked to pray for the sins of mankind.

They sha say all of them kpakpo should pray for 'us'.

The justification for this is Elisabeth, John the Baptist's mother who declared that Mary was 'blessed and more highly favoured amongst every other woman'. Luke 1vs 42.

And my Lord said in Matthew 15 vs 9: They worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

ishi, are you are christain? Are you an intercessor? If your answer is yes on both counts then i wonder why u are an intercessor and are still wordering about mary's ability to interceed.

Acidosis: even in an emergency?
Like confronting a demon possess individual¿.. Don't you think the demon would disgrace one before She (Mary) deliver the message to the saviour (Jesus)?

nothing beats d devils pride like humility, mary's humility will repulse d devil and catholic exorcist use it.

Acidosis: Please I need your answers, brothers and sisters

hehehe, all generations acclaim her blessed, dats what happens

Goshen360: @ Ihedinobi,
You guys have said so many things that I do not know where to come into the discussion anymore. However, lemme pick from here asking you these questions. I hope to know your stance on this subject from the answers you provide.

1. When did the Old Covenant\testament ended?

2. When did the New Covenant\Testament began?

answers to both.
On the cross.

3. In Acts 15:5,10-25. What is the "content" or "scope" of the law of Moses that was discussed among the Apostles? That is, does the law of Moses in context include ALL or SOME aspect(s) of the law of Moses?.
I hope I have time for us to build our discussion from here. Thank you.

actually it was mostly d ceremonial laws in dat passage. But if he read paul, he doesnt specify, he talks of d fault of d whole law of moses and argues that d law has been brought to completion in christ. Not so much by work of flesh but by grace.
On another note, paul actually taught a part of d law eg thou shall not steal, though as a part of d new covenant not the old.

Ihedinobi: The bold is the summary of your argument here and it is a bald-faced lie. The Scriptures say, Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. That's Romans 7:12.

However, the law that Jesus brought was indeed a law of liberty. But its purpose was most definitely not to free us from Moses's law per se, it is to accomplish what Moses's law couldn't, viz, break the hold of sin over us.



This is a very bad twisting of the truth, my friend. "The power of the sin is the law" is not at all the same as "sin and death is the law". No doubt there is a "law of sin and death" but it is by no means the same as the law of Moses. Says Paul, "for I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." The law (or nature, that is the more correct term) of sin is that within us that pulls us toward all the wrong things. The law of Moses is a different thing altogether. It was a "handwriting of ordinances that was against us".

That handwriting condemns the sinner. It says unequivocally that man is a miserable sinner with no hope of saving himself. The law of Moses was God's tool for showing man how bad his condition was. Only such a man as has realized how desperately evil he is can seek help.



My friend, you're mixing things up very badly. The law was given by God to man through Moses to acquaint him with his terrible condition and teach him to look for help outside himself. The law of Moses had nothing to do with the tree of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil except in exposing what it had done to man in making him through and through a rebel against God.

ofcourse, if okey knows his onions he will still be able to defend his position. While i disagree with okey, i think know d position he seems to enspouse. Its calvinism, d part where d calvinist doctrine beats the lutherian one.
Expect d legal buhaha,

Goshen360: ^ I'm not that making too much distinction of the same person of Jesus Christ. I'm only making distinction of the dimension(s) of the same person. If you follow all the epistles and the context with which it was written, you often find Paul use "Christ" first before "Jesus" as in Christ Jesus; and in some case, "Jesus" before "Christ" as in Jesus Christ. It's an allegory that belongs to the Apostolic works, so to say. I believe that's what okeyxyz was trynna point out for us.

my dear there is no point there, at time d translator translated anointed saviour, other times saviour anointed.
I difference u see seem to be self created.
Watch it.

striktlymi: Good morning Ihedinobi,

The post above is just too much and I agree with it totally.

i too must agree, the law of moses was decleared void. But an even more perfect law now operate.
The believer is not a sinner may sound true after d sematics has been done, but "a christian doesnt sin" is a untruth.

frosbel: First point pal, Christianity is not a religion, it is a way of life by means of conforming to the image of Christ , and reflecting his virtues to the world , for the glorifying of God and salvation of men and women.




Well for me the word of God is my spiritual food and milk. Oh , lest I forget, I also have a life at my work place and with beloved family , and of course my friends who I have a lively drink with once in a while.



Peace without submission to the order of GOD is no peace but false peace.

Listen to what Paul said, he saw all this thousands of years ago :

"When people are saying, "Everything is peaceful and secure," then disaster will fall on them as suddenly as a pregnant woman's labor pains begin. And there will be no escape." - 1 Thessalonians 5:3

Daniel also saw the same eons ago when he said :

"And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." - Daniel 8:25

The Pope cannot bring peace, he is not in concord with Christ and is not anointed for this purpose. Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace and only he is able to bring lasting peace to this disturbed world.




Wrong, he did not refuse to convert everyone, he went about with his disciples preaching the gospel and when he resurrected from the dead commissioned Paul to reach out to the gentiles.

"And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, have been grafted in. So now you also receive the blessing God has promised Abraham and his children, sharing in the rich nourishment from the root of God's special olive tree." - Romans 11:17



Christianity is not a religion.

you are attacking a strawman, go and read d popes full speech

frosbel: Muslims, Jews , poor , rich , me and you are all invited, free of charge to partake of the Lord's table , but only Through Jesus.

Jesus also said :

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

Again, I care not what you worship or who you follow, just don't call it what it is not.

I personally mix with all religions and all races but the line is drawn when we start to qualify who is a Child of God and who is not. Only those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he came to die for their sins will receive eternal life. Period.

i just remembered a sermon preached by pope emeritus benedict when he was still fr ratzinger, he condemn expecting d condemnation of others as part of d reward of a xtian.
If the gentile who without d law works according to d law he becomes a law unto himself.
I rest my case.

frosbel: tell me brother, you know we can never agree on a middle ground, you believe Islam is the only way, we believe Jesus is the only way, how can we meet with compromise ? Except you are willing to believe in Jesus for eternal life, as for me and my house, Jesus all the way

there is no compromise but we can resolve to live in peace without killing ourselve.

peteregwu: i dont even like the new pope. h is always looking forward to combining islam with christianity. its not possible. the same purpose his predecessors followed. this is unbiblical and uncalled. tis an abomination. what is business with muslims. pls can somebody tell me what is wrong with the pope. why did say muslims worship the true God. ths is just nonsense and deception. if you dont believe me, pls click to open below...just read and dont be deceived. theg are planning to form a one world religion. their aim is to make way for antichrist to come in and rule, which anyone who does not bow to the antichrist(satan) will be killed. you still dont believe me right? dont worry things will begin to unfold very soon. the blible says, " their is nothing hidden under the sun that will not be exposed."

http://christiannews.net/2013/03/21/pope-francis-meets-with-muslim-jewish-leaders-praises-atheists-as-precious-allies/

what u lack is understanding! So if i call d muslims in my area for dialogue so as to stop a constant muslim-xtian massacre dat means i'm combining two religion?
My dear....

ooman: hmmm I pity you ooo!

when science finally find the secret of life, then you will swallowed your tongue. But for now, you still get mouth.

Anyway sha, the pope said that and you can't change it.

actually i think u misquoted johnpaul, johnpaul said "evolution is now more that an hypothesis", benedict said "one can bring generations into d lab to examine, evolution can't be practically proving" interestingly both were correct.

frosbel: Trying to educate the gullible on what the catholic church means when they say dialogue, it has nothing to do with telling them out of love, that they need to believe in Jesus to receive eternal life or they will be forever lost.

The catholic dialogue from experience and practice is an all embracing ecumenical attempt to conglomerate all religions under one umbrella in the name of peace and humanity, while caring less for the integrity and honor of the gospel.

then u clearly have no knowledge of catholic dialogue. And i'm not surprised that you speak of what you do no know.

frosbel: Good.

So do you accept that Pope John Paul II erred when he implied that all religions led to God ?


Or are the images below your idea of dialogue ?




https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2009/08/john_paul_ii_quran.jpg
Kissing Quran


[img]http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/popeandbuddhist.jpg[/img]
In Buddhist temple

[img]http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/popeandshivamark.jpg[/img]
Pope takes in his forehead the pagan idol mark

hahaha pagan idol mark? I guess u've never been to india

maclatunji: Point of correction Pope Francis, you can only have a dialogue with Muslims not Islam. Outside of that error, you have spoken well as is expected of a leader. However, I will add that people study Islam objectively and independently not through hearsay or what haters say.

i'm quite sure d pope has d quran and hadith.

I made a statement earlier dat u insulted my intelligence, this was what i meant

Enigma: Technically, Arius and Arianism arose when the word "catholic" had not yet acquired the meaning that today's Roman Catholics like to give to it or even the meaning given to it within the Edict of Theodosius.

Thus technically, arianism developed as an aberrant teaching yes but within the Church catholic, or within the catholic Church.

Look, if not why were the "Trinitarians" debating with the Arians at the Council of Nicea? Because they were all still within the Church catholic and needed to establish as between the two views what was the right position and correct Christian theology and especially Christology.

all heresy start from within the church arainism was no different! Arius himself rebeled against his own bishop (like luther), and got follower, local bishops tried checking d heresy but arius was a good orator and won follower, thus neccesitating the nicean council and condemn arainism and decleared his adherent under anathema. At that moment d arains weren't considered catholics. The claim arainism was simply a form of catholicism is a fraud and i do consider it an insult to my intelligence.
The moment something is decleared heretical, it adherent were considered outside d church that is why a church father used d phrase "outside d church no salvation" he was refering to d heretics.

Reyginus: This analogy doesn't fit in. It is not like the scriptures were written by the council that compiled the bible. The objective to merge the several books into one, was to create a chronological order as well discourage the scattering of these books, hence, making study easier.

it seem u dont have a sound appreciation of what d council did, they were chosing between what was inspired and what was not, there were many available book at d time and they chose which is which, in essence what guarantee do we have dat d council didnt give us uninspired books. On whose authority did they chose what is inspired and what isnt? That is d question. What authority??

But when you make images, directly, you are modifying an impression, the structural materials, to suit your taste.
My question to you is, the images in the catholic church, were they in existence and needed arrangement or they were brought to existence.

as far as i know they were alway in existed even before d council of nicea d church had images. Infact i'm tempted to say d church alway had image. It was a universal practice and wasn't initiated by a council and was condemned by none for d 1st 5 centuries of xtianity.

Reyginus: No, not really. Whatever I know about arianism is from chukwudi's post. The link he provided me never said so. Where it did, surely it deviates from christainity.
Please go through that link again. Wherever it is written that there was a break away in the early church, accompanied with the sustenance of true christainity, please show me.

chukwudi abeg give that guy a full view of arianism, help me show am say dem get their own bishops and faithful. I don tire, i no even fit loo d link u give am, my bed time do pass.

Reyginus: In other words, their were no denominations?

in other words there was one church that identified itself as catholic church and those who taught false teaching were regard as heretics, placed under anathemas, in d words of paul they were "given to d devil"

truthislight: NIV/ESV/etc etc:
Now brothers, these things i have transferred so as to apply to myself and apollos for your good, that in our case you may learn the (rule): "Do not go beyond the things that are written" ...................
(1cor4:6)

http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&q=1corinthians4%3A6&btnG=Search

what?? Did you just do that?? You simply misapplied d text. That text doesnt say that d corithians should only obey what he wrote to them. Infact if you can prove that it said so that means you have proven that the bible contradicts itself.

In d process of posting i just lost my reply, bear with me if this sounds weary but i'll present this simple reply even though it may not measure up to d one i lost.

Enigma: @Ubenedictus
I provide some replies --- just because it is you.

very much appreciated.

Hmmm bros, I see say you take style dodge those my questions there. I am not surprised though because once one properly acknowledges the position, role and contribution of the Orthodox (or Eastern Church) in "early" or 'Greco/Roman/Byzantine' Christianity, the false claim that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible simply gets "debunked" ---- even irrespective of all those claims about Rome "presiding in love" etc.

this is propaganda. The eastern church didnt have a council to set the canon! So what does d above mean. D councils reponsible for d canon was the synod of rome, the synod of hypo, the council of carthage. During dat time d eastern church was fighting arianism and calling a council to discuss d canon wasn't the 1st thing on their list. So i dont see the meaning of d above comment.

1. I am saying that even during the life of the apostles some letters that they wrote to particular communities were known to and even sometimes read to and before other communities. I have already pointed to Peter who referred to Paul's letters. Another example would be Paul himself asking that his epistle to the Colossians should also be read before the Laodiceans; importantly, he also asked that a letter that he wrote to the Laodiceans should be read to the Colossians too.

oh yeah, during d time of d apostles some xtian communities had as many as 3 letters of d apostle and some didn't have any. Thomas took d gospel to india and those guys had no letters or nearby xtian community, constantinople was evangelised by andrew and they also had no letters.
It too about 3 century for those letter to circulate to every community and even at that very few communities had d complete stuff and not every xtian had immediate access to it. Some books are missing like d original 1st cor and d letter to d laodicean, we don't even have a complete catalog.
Bottomline: for about 3 century there was hardly a xtian community with a complete new testament.

2. Consider this: how come these different people all had copies of various books of the New Testament including the epistles? Polycarp of Smyrna, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Papias of Hierapolis, Origen of Alexandria, Tatian the Assyrian etc etc. Notice that I have included the different places where they were based.

that is interesting, it shows dat d epistles had started circulating but yet none of those u name had our currently canon and few considerd them scripture. Example, even though polycarp was from ephesus a great community of christainity he wasnt aware of books like colosian, revelation, jude, james, philemon, titus, those stuff seem absent in ephesus were polycarp learned xtianity. Clement of rome was d 4th bishop of rome and he doesn't even regard d nt letters he had d same way he regarded d old testament, in a word he wasnt using them as scripture, among d old tes he quotes are judith, wisdom and tobit which protestant reject. Clement of alexandria also quoted gospel to d egyptians, gospel to d hebrew, tradition of mattias, preaching of peter, 1 clement, epistle of barnabas, sherpherd of hermas, apocalypse of peter as authoritative to him, those book doesnt appear in d canon. Tatian didnt have, 2pt, 2jn, 2jn, jude revelation, and tatian was a heretic who said marriage is adultery. Origen considered james, 2npt, 2jn, 3jn suspect and he doesnt quote them, origen says d gospel of peter, gospel to d hebrews, acts of paul, 1 clement, epistle of banabas, didache, sherpherd of hermas are inspired. Papian seems to be the guy with d least number of books. All of them were school men, bishop and presbyter one a heritic, and the paint a picture dat even among d good christains of d 2nd century no one had a complete new t and many had addition, we havent even started to talk about the gnostic scripture and yet it already shows d picture that for about 3 century there was no new t that everyone accepted. Infact books like revelation and 2 peter were been disputed as uninspired and many christains in those days never quote them. I rest my case.
Peace.

Intercessions for friday
we give thanks to Christ the Lord, who died on the cross that we might live. Let us pray to him with all our hearts R/ Lord Jesus may your death bring us life.
Master and saviour, you have taught us by your life and renewed us by your passion; do no allow us to get used to sin R/
You call us to feed the hungry; let us deney ourselves some food this day to help our brothers in need. R/
May we accept from you hands this day of Lent; may we make it your by deeds of love. R/
End the rebellion within our hearts; make us generous and willing to share. R/
Our Father....

ijawkid: If they have ignored the other arms of christendom how then did you get this report??....e be like you want make we post ona reports here and also show you how much your church has spent to pay fines...e be like you want make reports dey fly over this place now......you ready??.....

it seem d numbers by protestants is higer that that of catholic and yet only those of the catholic church make headlines.
So yeah, some news are exagerated and other never make d headlines.

ijawkid: Who ever said that??......read my comments well............I said enforced celibacy is one of the reasons why some heterosexuals (your priests) resort to homosexuality and pedophilia............keep denying this truth..

sorry my dear, those priest didnt turn homosexuals, go and make ur research one doesnt turn homosexual, it is a deep sitted desire. A heterosexual who cant control himself will rape women, a homosexual who refuse to control his urge will rape his fellow men, a pedophile will go for children. Celibacy doesnt turn heterosexuals to homos.

The bible never enforced marraige or celibacy on any class of Gods servants..that is my point.........got the point??.......
I cannot wake up one day and enforce marraige on some group of christians or attach it to a particular position in the church.......

that same bible gave d church d power to make laws.

Remember we were discussing the church,it was italo who decided to mention the crowd in the world.......

is there no sin in d church?

ijawkid: People become anything when they are deprived of nature.................deprive a full grown man sex and see what he becomes after that.....your priests are put undÉr intense duress to be celibates even when if they get married God wÓuld be happy with them.....you can't tell me all the priests involved in pedophilia and homÓsexuality had always been like that before they became priests.......for you guys to deny totally that the law on celibacy for priests has little or no relation on some few engaging in homosexual acts and pedophilia is an absolute LIE.................when more news on these acts come on air we'll be ready to show u guys.......

so jesus who was 33 without sex was a homosexual and pedophile abi? Since according to u when a grown man doesnt have sex he becomes a homosexual, what about paul? Was he also a homosexual? Early xtian accound says john was also a virgin was he a pedophile too?

ijawkid: What are u insinuating about peter from your statement??....are you trying to say peter threw away his wife to practice an enforced life of celibacy??..

You guÝs forbid marraige for those who reach out fÓr the priestly office...abi no be forbid be that??........

again i repeat u got it wrong there are married priest.