₦airaland Forum

emmaella: HMMM...INTERESTING THE POST LOOKS LIKE ORIGINAL ONE.(1)I KNOW AT THAT TIME,THE BIAFRANS HAVE MANY DOCUMENTS IN PRINTS INCLUDING A LETTER HEADED PAPER WHICH IS THE TRADITION OF THE MILITARY. WHY DIDN'T THIS LETTER POST COME WITH THE BIAFRAN LETTER HEAD TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS ORIGINALITY.(2)why didnt was ojukwus signature not endorsed in that letter.(3)A Man seeking assistance cannot use those words as contained in that letter.(4)In the military officers of equal ranks dont give order to their equals;they work symbioticaly respecting each other, Banjo and Ojukwu are officers of same rank.(5)It was a war time and banjo was in the Nigerian army;by what medium/media did the letter reached ojukwu?(5b) CAN THE PROF. OR THE UPLOADER OF THIS LETTER PLS GET US COL BANJO'S REPLY AS WELL.(7)ANY DOCUMENT NOT IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM INCLUDING THE FAKE ORIGINAL MAY HAVE BEEN DOCTORED. MAKE UR FACTS CLEAR BEYOND CONVICTIONS.

this is called, denial.

tomakint: Ubenedictus is from Edo and he is still nursin d 1967 invasion of the midwest by Biafran forces, one can see why he is hell-bent!

i see you kip tabs on my post, atleast u still remember wen i wrote abt my state. Good. Yeah one of my parent is from edo, and we werent in edo state wen d invasion happened so i have no horse in dis race. Edo was invaded via benin, my side of edo was untouched so non of my immediate or extended family members were involved with d invading force. So my dear when i say i gat no horse in this race i mean it. My perspective is academic and objective.

ebuka Otika: .
The Catholic Church Was founded by our Lord Jesus Christ At the institution of Holy Eucharist at the last Super when he gave the command "Hoc facite in commerationem meam" and dat has being the sole Centre of d Catholic Faith...but churches of 2day can be establish by any nigger.

amen

italo: @ truthislight, since you are so interested, can you tell me just ONE scientist that the Catholic Church forced to flee from Rome to America by molesting and threatening him?
Just ONE name.
I'm asking you because HerexG usually has no answers when questioned on his brainless accusations. I want to know if you're just a brainless anti-Catholic like him or YOU can at least work with reason.

hahaha, u wont get a single name, they work on myth and fairytales, they dont have any fact. The same way the lie abt galileo is d same way they accuse catholics.
Give a dog a bad name and hang it.

[quote author=HerexG ]They did'nt kill Galileo only, they also threatened and molested other scientist that they all have to flee from Rome to America and other parts of the world.[/quote]u are a very big liar! Who killed galileo? Atleast make research b4 u come here and spew rubbish.

GiantParrot: As someone who hails from a mostly Catholic family, I have been having my own problems with digesting the dogmatic (in my opinion) statements about Mary and the Church in general. I'm even getting disillusioned with all forms of religious formalism. After years of careful observation and introspection leading to freedom from denial, I am beginning to view religion the way it is currently practiced (and even what has being in practice in the past) with great suspicion. It's beginning to look more to me as a pardonable cause for brazen hypocrisy. I do however, still believe in God. Here are my problems with the Roman Catholic Church:
1. Mary is the Mother of God? This statement sounds very misleading to me. When I hear the word: God, I think of a Divine Being that exists from everlasting to everlasting. How can He then have a mother? Did Mary give birth to Jesus' divinity as the statement suggests? If anyone decides to give an answer, I would remind you that I am no longer in the frame of mind to deceive myself anymore. Please give a reasonable explanation.

a simple explanation, Jesus is God, by d work of d holyspirit he entered d womb of mary and took flesh, gave gave birth to Jesus who was both God and man, thus mary is d moda of God. Note d above statement flow unless u deny d premise u cant deny d conclusion. Moda of God doesnt mean mary is d origin of d divinity just as my mum didnt produce my spirit but she gave birth to christ both God and man, thus she is d bearer of God

2. Why is the Pope said to be infallible and a heir to Peter? Was Peter infallible?

because he is, and peter was.

3. Where did the term Pontifex Maximus come from?

it is a title not a term, im not sure of it origin, but it arose probably after d death of constantine.

4. Why is the Pope referred to as Holy Father and Catholic Priests as Fathers? Please read Matthew 23:9 and Luke 17:11

d same reason dat d bible says paul fathered timothy.

5. Peter did marry. Why do Popes and Priest not get married?

there are many married priest. D principle behind Celibacy is 1 cor 7:32-35

6. I find the murder of Galileo to be very disturbing given that the people who tried him and tortured him were supposed to be the closest to God

galileo wasnt tortured or murdered he died a normal death, u were misinformed. Galileo was sentence to house arrest.

7. The inquisitions. There is hardly anything more antithetical to the love and compassion demonstrated by Jesus Christ than the inquisitions.

i wont dispute this.

8. The sales of indulgences so as to provide the means for the construction of St. Peters Basilica.

indulgence were never sold, probably abused but never sold. U were misinformed.

9. What has the Church done to check molestation of minors? Do those found guilty of molestation get to face the weight of the law?

d church has done all she can to check d molestation of minors, from legislating dat all accused priest b immediately reported to d police, making sure d sentenced priest face d law, concentrating on detecting such behaviours during their formation and ecclesiatical punishment like censure, loss of faculties, defrocking etc. And settleing d abused even till many dioceses became bankrupt.

10. What relationship does God really have with Rome?

what relationship does God really have with nigeria?

highyo: WHERE IN THE BIBLE WAS MARY GIVEN THE TITLE QUEEN OF HEAVEN?
BECAUSE THE ONLY QUEEN OF HEAVEN RECORDED IN THE WORD OF GOD IS THE ASTHORET THE FALLEN ANGEL
SO BIBLE ITSELF HAS PROOVED THAT QUEEN OF HEAVEN IS A DEMON. SO WHO GAVE MARY A DEMONIC TITLE?

i pointed dis silly logic b4, d king of kings was nebuchanezer, does dat mean christian who use dat title for christ are worshipping d king of babylon?

[quote author=HerexG ]* You need to be logical in unraveling the answer's i give, i give more reasons to ponder on what ever i write.
* I'm sure the real mary is at rest in eternity and in God's fullness now but the person you folks adore and worship now is not the true mary. If Christ had wanted us to do this you folks do, He Himself would have given us instructions to .
Now whose instruction are you obeying ?
Let me digress a little
It was recorded in the old testament that images were carved to appease God in the Holy tabernacle but there is no record in the new testament that Paul or the rest apostle carved an image of Christ or Mary to appease God. Instead Christ promised us a comforter in the person of the Holy spirit to help teach us what to do after He is gone.[/quote]it seems u havent been following recent findings, all d house church discovered had images.

[quote author=HerexG ]With or without her, my salvation is guaranteed. God can use anybody, anything at anytime, He can even raise stones to worship Him ok. The person behind you folks adore and worship it's not the true mary but the queen of heaven.[/quote]but he didnt ask stones to give birth to him did he? And correction no catholic adore mary.

[quote author=HerexG ]* Hahahahahaha don't make me laugh my dear, about accessing my IQ, you might get lost in the deep forest
* Now about your question my dear, i wona make it clear to you that, all the rituals, adoration, honoring, magnification, bowing, praying to, you doing to mary is 100% unscriptural. You left what Christ asked us to do in Acts 1:8 and start doing otherwise.
Christ never asked us to do such practices. All glory and honor to God[/quote]my bible says give honor to whom honor is due. U havent responded to "from henceforth all generation will call me blessed" or dat isnt honor abi?

[quote author=HerexG ]Where in the bible do you see that is it is required for us to ask mary and other apostles of Christ to pray or intercess for us ?[/quote]dis is a joke, did anyone "require" u to do so?

truthislight: can you name the 22 rites/parishes, because we dont what you are talking about.
Dont just sale a blanket 22 rites "catholic" to us because you have been shown what the bible stand is.
Because of celibacy issues here on NL, anglican church will turn to Roman catholic church, so that you can cover the truth with mud.
Please name the 22 Roman catholic rites in black and white here and let us see how Roman catholic church permits their priest to marry and remain as priest in RCC.
Thanks and waiting.

i didnt say parish, i said rites/churches, on will be d antiochene catholic church, there are others, google and wiki are ur friends.

obadiah777: CHIEF, POLYGAMY IS NOT A SIN. WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION ROMANS 4 VS 15. MEANING IF THERE IS NO LAW IN THE BIBLE AGAINST SOMETHING, THEN YOU CANT COMMIT SIN AGAINST SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED AS A SIN. NOW I AM IN NO WAY SUBSCRIBING TO POLYGAMY BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS BRUV

i just showed u there is a law, only two can become 1 in marriage not 2.

Ishilove: Means I am up to the task. I have enough love for everyone

dat one no good. U nid one love.

wiegraf: That response wasn't for you, but I suppose it's relevant.

From my pov all morality is 'natural'. You could claim yours is trandenscendant but of course to me it wouldn't be so, it would be man made. And even if genuinely trandenscendant, it looks to me like still blindly following the god(s). Good acts aren't good because they are intrinsically good but because god says they are.

Just about the whole OT has atrocity after atrocity which xtians would call good simply because god said so. If the name god was substituted with satan in those passages xtians would no doubt find these stories even more fitting. Or what's the difference between giving eve apples and hardening the phaeroes heart then punishing him and myriad innocents? Yet god of OT is still heralded as good, it's the same thing as calling hitler good.

Consider that your trandenscendal morality is not absolute, it changes, whimsically even. Even by your own admission the nt, which addresses some of the excesses of the ot (thankfully imo), changed the moral code. So even if your god existed it seems to be changing its mind as well, its will is not absolute. There is the danger of it declaring rather suspect acts as good, just like humans. Unlike human made morality where questioning is more readily encouraged, with god his word is supposedly final (yet it still finds a way to change as time passes by), so it's even more difficult to change if it is found to be flawed with time. And of course it is more easily abused by 'charlatans', etc, who can bend and twist even the 'good' parts as they see fit with less supervision, checks etc. All they need do is have a sweet tongue and claim is they're mandated by god, then watch sheeple fall in line

In essence, it looks a lot worse than regular morality to a non believer. Actually, it looks like regular morality, except with needless disadvantages. Inflexibility and a patent lack of accountability. The more advanced muslims on these boards still think stoning, spousal abuse, finger cutting, heck even jihad are acceptable in this day and age because allah says so. Do you honestly agree with that?

No moral code can be perfect. Perfect to who? What purpose? But addressing that fact and coming up a fluid yet balanced system, with checks and balances, is easily the best way to go. Secularism is the best system at (or at least attempting to) providing that. Theocracies? No

this is an interesting attack on any percieved "GOD", one i would rather not answer so i dont end up turning this thread into atheist vs theist, that notwithstanding, i never remembered talking about theocracy, or did u see d word theocracy in my post? I know u have interesting problems with God as portrayed in d OT and while dat remains a ref for every xtian, d ot remained and unfinished work, only d bging of changing d morality of a people who leave like sheep without shepherd. The definitive face of God is revealed in d Nt.
The above aside, i wasnt advocating a theocracy instead my point remains laws based on "natural morality" is too relative to be law. Too subjective and religion is still more certain.

italo: @ HerexG,

You say God didn't honour Mary...

...Then you say "her honour is in heaven..."

Who gave her the honour in heaven?

God or satan?

abeg help me ask am oh?

[quote author=HerexG ]Hahahahahah you got that in your new version of the bible right because my bible did'nt tell me so.[/quote]dat means u havent even started feed on milk u are still in d womb.

Enigma: ^^^ Actually, that topic you are touching upon is a very fascinating one if you read the literature.

For me however, as I don't see what all that have to do with the allegation that the translation of John 1:1 as the Word was God was because of some alleged fraud, agenda or whatever, I will very deliberately not get involved in it on this thread.

I simply wait for proof of the fraud, agenda or whatever that led to the translation of John 1:1 as the Word was God.

ok broda, it seems i'm off topic, just couldnt help it. Ok back to topic.

Segeggs: who told you catholics formed christianity?christianity is not a religion but a way of life started by jesus christ,the author and finisher of our faith;catholics only highjacked and corrupted it cos none of their worship and practices can be traced to jesus nor the early apostles which are the true new testament writers.catholism is pagan

what is the definition of "religion"? If catholicism is pagan den all dat came thru d catholic church is pagan abi? So d collection of books u call bible is pagan abi 'cos it was compile by catholic bishops!

plappville: Thank you my broda, enlighten the people. Christianity is not a religion like you have said. Very correct.
It was mentioned in the Scriptures, this is how the none believers see/call those that believe and practice the ways of Christ.
Catholic was not yet, when the world Christian was used in the Scripture.



Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.


Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

d pipo who follow christ came to be known as christians, and their asembly came to be know as the catholic church. No contradiction there.

ijawkid: How can you make the bolded comparison ??.........all this to support the pagan use of beads in worship??......eh UBE??.......

d comparism is spot on! Ur logic if feebel and defective.

frosbel: show me in the bible were we are asked to pray with beads.

show me in the bible where pastors were asked to preach with microphone

Pastor AIO: Be careful. The perceptive and informed must know something that the church theologians didn't when they were discussing these passages.

As much as they know they seem unaware that it would be precisely because of Matthew's addition of the word 'alone' that makes it doctrinally necessary to omit 'nor the son'.

I have often argued that a text may be interpreted in any number of different ways. As it happens these passages and the church's treatment of them illustrate my point. The orthodox standpoint is that Jesus was Omniscient and Omnipotent. How does this doctrine marry with the text in question?

Well, st Basil argues that there are 2 types of meanings that can be applied to the text. The text Mark 13:32
But as for that day or hour no one knows it – neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son – except the Father

'except the father' can be understood as Exclusively True.

'except the father' can also be understood as Pre-eminently True.

Pre-eminence is different from exclusive. Preeminence just means that you're the first, the best. So knowledge of the end time is pre-eminently God's. However it is not exclusively God's, so Jesus too can know the end time.

Let me allow Basil to speak for himself.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202236.htm

So we see that Basil understanding of the the Father's knowledge of the end time is that it is Pre-eminent and not exclusive. He also says that he was taught this since a little boy so I think that it is probably accepted church doctrine at the time.

But we run into difficulty when we read that passage in Matthew because Matthew adds the word 'Alone'. This makes the father's knowledge of end time pretty damn exclusive. If Jesus is to maintain his Omniscience then he cannot be included in the exclusion so 'nor the son' has to go.
There is another consideration to be . . er . . considered. if you read Mark and Matthew in parallel you will find that Matthew has a tendency of omitting phrases that would suggest that Jesus lacked omniscience and omnipotence. Mark in general has a harder edge, doctrinally, than Matthew.
The inclusion of the word 'alone' in the Matthew text causes many many problems if you accept Jesus as omniscient (doctrine first, interpretationlater). The only way to reconcile it with Jesus' omniscience is if 'nor the son' wasn't there. What is also obvious is that the Mark passage and the Matthew passage are read and understood very differently from each other. One is referring to preeminent knowledge and the other is referring to exclusive knowledge.

Which now begs the question, are the passages both telling us about the same episode of Jesus' life. If they're the same episode, then what did Jesus actually say and what did he actually mean, exclusive or preeminent. Or if they are two different episodes then it's okay to understood one passage in one sense and the other passage in the other sense.

basil was thought by his teachers doesnt mean it was a church doctrine by then, the phase is used by the church fada to indicate he isnt just speaking an opinion but transmitting an apostolic tradition, d phase is equivalent to paul's "this is what i recieved and in turn pass on to you". Besides u seem to think basil was interpreting mk but d article shows he was interpreting matthew itself.
The exclusive interpretation isnt used by d church father becos it contradict scripture. D exclusive translation will contradict col 2:3. Thus d pre-eminence of the father esp in d light of act chapter 1 is used.

ijawkid: _______________________________
Douay-Rheims Bible
And again, when he bringeth in the first
begotten into the world, he saith: And let all
the angels of God adore him.
________________________________


Young's Literal Translation
and when again He may bring in the first-born
to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow
before him -
_______________________________


@enigma the rendering of the NWT is perfectly alright..........context should tell you when and how to render the greek word ""pro·sky·ne′o.............persons who want to claim Jesus is the almighty God would rush to render that greek word as worship to make it look like Jesus is the almighty GOD that deserves exclusive devotion,when we all know that both Jesus and all the angels worship the Father..............the angels bowed down by giving Jesus all due respect as Gods annointed one........chikena!!!!......

Read this scripture below from KJV.......
1 chronicles 29:20,23

20 And David said to all the congregation, Now
bless the LORD your God. And all the
congregation blessed the LORD God of their
fathers, and bowed down their heads, and
worshipped[/b]the LORD, and the king.

23... Then Solomon sat on the [b]throne of the
LORD as king instead of David his father, and
prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.
_______________________________

Reading that verse would seem like david was also worshipped as God.......but NO...........

the isrealites bowed down to Yahweh and his appointed king who sat on his(Yahwehs) throne................

The NWT is so damn perfect with its rendering at hebrews 1:6......

actually in the right sense of the word david was worshipped, i'm not pulling ur legs, epistemologically d word worship refers to both veneration, honor, homage and adoration that is why it translates proskyne perfectly. Worship in its actual sense doesnt exclusively mean adoration.

Balkan: let me enlighten you dimwit. The seat of government was in Lagos , Gowon was resident in Lagos, it would be stupid to go fight in the North while you coward were harbouring him in Yoruba land. We were coming to take him from Lagos and Ore was the only route to Lagos. Cowards. I have never seen a weak and craven tribe like Yoruba tribe.

sorry my tribalist nlander, u are talking to the wrong person, i'm not a yoruba person. And ojukwu's wish to conquer everytin in his path lead to the defeat of d biafran soldier. He didnt say he was going to capture gowon, pls get ur history right, he said he was "liberating" the west. That is what i call re-colonialisation.

amor4ce: Never to the bolded as long as the indigenes are prevented from protecting their interests and determining who joins or not. The Igbo and Fulani have been trampling on the rights of indigenes in this country, they are beneficiaries of the british colonialists/oxy-hominoids and seek to colonize Negroes.

pls improve ur reasoning ability and read objectively.
Thankyou.

revolt: mr man b4 u strt engaging historians drop ur sentiments! Since ifeajunas coups is 1st blood I guess the igbo massacres in the jos coal mines of 1945 the 1953 pogroms in the north the 1964 n 1965 massacres( all fueled by Sardauna and his cohorts)were all celebrations. Ure history is warped n sentimentally edited to suit ur demagogue traits! The sardauna in the interest of peace was imperatively killed so was the wild west premier the east was peaceful n thriving under okpara! Pls prove otherwise if thts possible

please do not not direct comment to people u dont know! I've gat no horse in this race, do u get that? Im not a yoruba, ibo or hausa, so i'm not sentimental, my points are born from a very objective persepective. The above u wrote is what is sentimental, so d prime minister was corrupt but zik wasnt corrupt abi, oh and opara was corrupt but osadebe and opkara were canonised saints. U are too sentimental and ur reasoning is heavyly block, the coup was becos d ibo soldiers wanted ibo dominance that is why they kill all the high ranking hausa officer and so many yoruba. That coup wasnt to better nigeria it was to show d stupidity of some ibo soldiers who wanted ibo dominance and that coup is d begining of nigeria's problem.
If u cant get ur facts right keep shut

LRNZH: I believe that if you were born after the war..... 1970 or later to be precise, you have to learn to shed the bitterness of our past as a nation.
Let's leave history in the history books. The lessons have been learnt a long time ago.

Our problem is currently how to improve our individual, sectarian and collective lots. For me the key pressing issues are:

1. The urgent need for a sovereign national conference discussing and agreeing on how to redefine our federalism (for the decentralising government power and resource control, ensuring security, rule of law and the provision of basic amenities)

2. Replacing the current indigenization rights by ancestry with indigenization by prolonged residency.

If you are ~40 or younger in age, please let's look forward. Looking back for too long never breeds progress. Proffer solutions not irreparable problems.
I see Nigeria if properly administered, at a better advantage than if we split into different countries. Permit me to state that it is apparently a lost generation for our parents. Our own generation is to aspire to change that in our own time.

Long Live Nigeria.

i agree

[quote author=HerexG ]The ark of God carries and represents God's presence, does mary statue carries His presence too ?[/quote]so it is now acceptable to prostrate b4 graven image so far it represents divine presence?

[quote author=HerexG ]* God found mary worthy of The conception of Christ, so it is a privilege or grace given to her. Where i caught catholics honoring her was in a song you sing " we are honoring mary, we are honoring , we are honoring mary, never worship and so the song go....."
* But you did'nt answer my second question ?[/quote]i guess we are following GOD's example!

[quote author=HerexG ]I have two questions for you dear ?
1) where is it written in the bible that we should honor Mary sharing glory with God,[/quote]who said anything about sharing glory with God? U are attacking ur own strawman. As regard honor luke say "from hence forth all generations shall call me blessed" dat my dear is honor.

2) why do you ask mary to pray for you, is she a spare mediator besides Christ ?

hahaha, christ alone mediates the new covenant not mary or d saints. Instead d saints both on earth and in heaven are incorporated in christ and share in his ministry as intercessors!

Mistade Regal: When are men of this generation going to understand the wiles of the devil? Worshipping mary is idolatery. Where in the Bible did you ever find or hear JESUS tell anybody to worship Mary? You are even talking of the queen of heaven? Which queen is married to a king in heaven? If you need more explanations go to LOVETHETRUTH.COM or via google search and type ALL THE WORLD BIG RELIGIONS ARE NEW WORLD ORDER CONTROLLED. I'm sure you will be startled after you finish reading. THOU SHALL NOT WORSHIP ANY OTHER GOD EXCEPT ME, THOU SHALL NOT MAKE UNTO THYSELF ANY GRAVEN IMAGE OF THINGS IN HEAVEN, EARTH OR UNDER THE EARTH, THOU SHALT NOT WORSHIP THEM, SERVE NOR BOW THYSELF UNTO THEM!!!!!!!!!!

and who here say he adore mary?