₦airaland Forum

Boomark: Hmm

ho[e all is well?

turnstoner: Yes e pass apology

More like :

Apologist + Revisionist + Liar

if there is anything untrue in what i said point it out!

Kay 17: I'm glad you brought this back to life.

The geocentric theory states all planets and heavemly bodies in the solar system revolve around the Earth. Galileo with aid of the telescope was able to detect a planet revolving around Jupiter. That only destroys the geocentric theory.

Also he was able to detect and calculate the paths of Jupiter, Venus and some others revolving around the Sun. As far as facts are concerned, this was not a hypothesis.

It forms the present theory of heliocentrism.

The Catholic Church and Martin luther opposed it based on their findings in the Bible.

much of what u wrote here is true,but it wasnt j ust 2 theory someone once said they were abt 7, d geocentric came frm aristotle wu said there was no stellar parallax, d oda by Copernicus and defended by galileo, d third by typho, aristotle said everything moved around d earth galileos telescope saw d oda planet moving around d sun dat distroy aristotle but not typho, infact it supported typho since galileo had alot yet unproven copernicus wasnt widely considered.this is one of galileo's arguement frm wiki. Galileo, Kepler and theories of tides
Galileo Galilei. Portrait by Leoni

Cardinal Bellarmine had written in 1615 that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun".[26] Galileo considered his theory of the tides to provide the required physical proof of the motion of the earth. This theory was so important to him that he originally intended to entitle his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems the Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea.[27] The reference to tides was removed by order of the Inquisition.

For Galileo, the tides were caused by the sloshing back and forth of water in the seas as a point on the Earth's surface speeded up and slowed down because of the Earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the Sun. He circulated his first account of the tides in 1616, addressed to Cardinal Orsini.[28] His theory gave the first insight into the importance of the shapes of ocean basins in the size and timing of tides; he correctly accounted, for instance, for the negligible tides halfway along the Adriatic Sea compared to those at the ends. As a general account of the cause of tides, however, his theory was a failure.

If this theory were correct, there would be only one high tide per day. Galileo and his contemporaries were aware of this inadequacy because there are two daily high tides at Venice instead of one, about twelve hours apart. Galileo dismissed this anomaly as the result of several secondary causes, including the shape of the sea, its depth, and other factors.[29] Against the assertion that Galileo was deceptive in making these arguments, Albert Einstein expressed the opinion that Galileo developed his "fascinating arguments" and accepted them uncritically out of a desire for physical proof of the motion of the Earth.[30] Galileo dismissed as a "useless fiction" the idea, held by his contemporary Johannes Kepler, that the moon caused the tides.[31] He also refused to accept Kepler's elliptical orbits of the planets,[32] considering the circle the "perfect" shape for planetary orbits.
so d typho was considered a modification of aristitle.

Livingwaters: this tradition stuff is the reason why most atheists are former frustrated RCC members, because, they so believed in this tradition thing that by the time they realize the 'baselessness' of it,they feel so empty and retrograte into atheism. This tradition thing make them to practice idol worship, invoved in fetish traditional initiations ocultism(knighthood) and child molestations.

sorry to burst ur bubble, d apostle didnt say "hold on to immorality" he said to tradition and there is no 'baselessness' or immorality there

truthislight: you keep saying tradition tradition, whose radition? Tradition of men?

d one d apostles told us to hold!

truthislight: whose tradition?
Tradition of men that they warned about or the tradition of the apostle or their way of doing things befor the epistle were written?

How can it be the tradition of men after they have gone when they did say wolves will enter into the congregation after they have gone?

d tradition d apostle told us to hold, did u forget d bible said so?

Boomark: Don't you see why i said everything is in the scriptures/bible. Is there anyone of the emboldened points you cannot find in the bible? That is why bible should be your all and all with regard to Christian doctrine/tradition.

What do you understand by holding unto the tradition? Tradition: a belief or way of life of people. What tradition are Christians or followers of Christ supposed to hold unto? Is it the ones borrowed from heathen or the one Christ laid down for us. All truth were revealed to the apostles by the Holyspirit. If you borrow tradition outside the scripture as regards to serving God, you are on your own.

sorry man d bible never said it contained everything christ said and did nor does it claim to contain everything d apostles believed. d bible says instead "hold on to tradition..." are u following d bible?

Livingwaters: @christemmbassey tnx, @ubenedictus how many churches did Christ built?

just one and it sure as hell didnt begin in the 16 century.

christemmbassey: the church is one, one faith one saviour. It doesnt matter individual interpretations of the bible, there will be a coming of unity in faith as predicted in Eph 4:10-13. Again Peter talked about like-precious faith in 2Peter1:1. The church is one.

hahaha humor me; so there is one faith and one spirit and many contradictory doctrines and yet u call dat d biblical church that christ built? damn, pipo are still call christ angel micheal and u are claiming d church has one faith. get serious

christemmbassey: the last time i checked the story of how the church started, Acts 2: the apostles were not worshping images o, so how can that be the beginhng of RCC?

that mean u missed d part abt d apostles in the temple, u are aware dat there were many images in d temple right?

alexis: You asked me for clarification on why Christians worship statues of "Jesus" and Mary. I answered your questions and supported it with factual evidence from the Bible that it is not a Christian principle. I never made a claim that Catholics are not Christians. There are several doctrines that Catholics believe in that I don't subscribe to. For example, it is the catholic tradition of SOME catholics to confess their sins to a catholic priest in the Catholic Cathedral. This doctrine is not taught in the Bible, it is not scriptural and personally I don't subscribe to it. So, there are practices in the catholic church that I deem unscriptural (We discussed them above), but I have never forgotten the many wonderful merits of the Catholic Church either. I believe God is much bigger than our understanding, and His Church transcends denominational lines. I believe God can look into the heart of a Catholic and recognize a heart that follows Christ. Could you say that Mother Theresa is not a Christian? That been said, I also believe there is a responsibility on the part of Christians to expose false teachings whether it is in Churches or in Mosques; I hope you get me.

Again, I will happily answer all your questions. I will not blindly turn an eye because of religious leanings. However, the perfect example of a true Christian is not the Catholic church or the Anglican Church or any other Church but Jesus the Christ himself. He is our only example. Likewise, Muhammed should be the example of every muslim, his life, character, actions and history will show how a muslim should live. Do you agree with this? An honest answer will help us answer many questions you have about Christianity and many questions Christians have about Islam.

So, I have a question for you about a few things I don't understand in the Quran and Hadith, will you be willing to help me understand or throw more light on?

i might not agree with u, i may even have much to argue about, that not withstanding i love the honesty u demonstrated above. peace

plappville: We could have accepted the trinity dogma in order not to be called names abi? Anyway, those scriptures are so plain.

See ur pope considering the Koran' view on the trinity.

hahaha, dat is easy to do, God is one says d trinity God is one say d koran. D other disagrements then follow.

prairie: other churches ar nt hell bound, nd yes he ws referin to d catholic church

sweet!

Rich4god: Ube my brother.. Where have you been. Its been a long time, hope all is well.
Realy missed your posts. Happy new year.

same to u, thanks 4 ur concern! i took d holiday to b with family. Hw was ur xmax celebration?

Livingwaters: pls stop embarassing christians. There is nothing like pentecostal in christianity or anything for that matter, the church of Jesus is one. Jesus said "i will build my church....," Mat 16:18, he did not say, i will build my pentecostal church and orthodox church. Na una de spoil christianity.

so christ built one church and d apostles had 1 faith. And u are teling me dat all d contradictory faith is 1 church and 1 faith, hahaha dat is funny!

truthislight: @Enigma will soon meet you with this your 1am early morning replies in NL. Lol.
Guy, where have you been all this while?
I have been wandering if you had issues with religion and had to stay away.
Any, long time no see. good to see ya.
Peace

i've gat no probs, its gud to hear frm u! Thank for ur concern! I took d holidays to b wit family, i decided to keep away from the net during that time. Hw u dey?

DanielNoble: IF YOU ARE DOING ANYTHING CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES DID NOT TEACH THEN YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN!!!

dat is great, and d apostles tell us dat one of d way to knw wat they taught is by tradition! Are u following wat d apostles taught.

Boomark: the doctrine in the bible is more than enough for Christians to follow. That is the doctrine of the church Christ raised.

Where did you get other doctrine you follow?

scripture says "hold on to d tradition..." did u miss dat part in ur bible study? D bible neva claims to b d sole source of doctrine!

Boomark: Enigma was right. The true doctrine of the church of Christ is Solely base on the scripture. The man made doctrines of the catholic, winners, assemblies, etc, are what contradicts one another.
A catholic or a deeper life member will not tell you that their church doctrines contradicts itself.

again this is ur opinion, the apostles didnt base their doctrine on d scripture available to them only (old tes), but on d words of christ and d revelation of d spirit + d old t, that y d word of God is d source of doctrine and dat word is found in scripture and tradition. So your idea dat scripture alone is d sole source of doctrine is unbiblical.

Boomark: The type of predestination i meant is the type a catholic ones told me. He said, "if any one commits suicide, God has destined him to die that day and by that means." Anytin that looks like this is certainly not in the bible.

so u just swooped in and said predestination isn't biblical. What an excuse!

abibio2001: In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented below.

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).

https://img3.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/80554397-prophet-muhammad.jpg

https://www.islamic-study.org/iais-images/The_Patent_of_Mohammed.jpg

http://www.islamic-study.org/saint_catherine_monastery.htm

this isn't new, after making all those promises his successors attacked constantinople, jerusalem, atioch, alexandria and all the early xtian cities and converted everyone to islam by force or increased tax, converted churches to mosque and molested d xtians, they captured so much xtian land till they reached spain and d pope knew rome was next, broken promises like d above is d reason y d pope called d crusades becos d muslims refused to let d xtians live in peace.

Congrats man and happy new year all!

advocate666: In any case, history has proven the church wrong.

rather in any case science has succeeded in finding substantial proof dat d earth is round and it moves thus showing dat d literal sense of scripture didnt make sense and helping d church in taking d allegorical position instead.

Kay 17: Your argument is getting messy and unclear.

You seem to take Galileo's views as mere hypothesis rather from what he saw on his telescope.

at d time galileo's views was mere hypothesis and he couldnt see d earth was round or dat it moves on a telescope, d earth was round and moves was simply a "leap of faith" at the time it could hardly be proven and wiki shows that galileo contradicted himself plenty in an effort to find substantial prove for d theory. Ofcux better equipment made sure it could be proved later on.

Pastor AIO: How does the rendering of Logos as 'Word' convey our understanding of what the Logos is?

How would 'Mouth' fail to render it as 'Word' does?

What exactly does Logos mean to us? Is it the same meaning as Heraclitus intended? What about Philo, is it the same meaning as Philo's Logos?

First we need to know just what we understand by Logos before we start to consider which english words best render it.

we cant cant deny dat d concept of "logos" seem to have been borrowed and upgraded from greek philosophy, it seems, under d inspiration of d holy spirit st john particularly chose d word dat to xplain a xtian concept to d greek. It take some study to learn d traditional greek thought on "logos", but everytime d works come up "mouth" does seem to be very inappriopriate.

Pastor AIO: I think it would be worth our while to consider what is meant by a god. When John says The Logos was (a) God, is it a statement of identity or a statement of quality. For instance, if we are looking for a thief and I say that Michael is The thief that would Identify him as the thief we're looking for. If I say Michael is a thief that tells us about Michael, but it doesn't identify him as the particular thief we're looking for.

Yet saying that the Logos is a god, ie saying it has divine attributes can mean nothing to us if we do not know what we mean by Divine. It is common to throw around phrases in a superficial way that when we are asked what we mean by those phrases we can only respond with 'hmmm . . . haaaahh'. That is why I open threads like this:
https://www.nairaland.com/514524/what-god

Then I've also tried to ask questions about the problem of Identity. When can something be said to be identical with something else (yes, an oxymoron but you still get what I mean)?

If one thing is greater than another in some capacity or the other can they be said to be identical. If Jesus says that the Father is greater than I what does that suggest about their shared identity. What do we mean when we say that Jesus is the same as God in essence but is a different Person from God the Father?

If I get a textile and make a buba and a sokoto from the textile can I say that the buba is the sokoto simply because they were cut from the same cloth?

this arguement has a trinitarian line and i doubt truthislight will d open to discuss d topic, dat is y i was trying to find d literally arguement instead of d "wat does it mean" arguement.

donmatin: U choose 2 believe every oda part of d bible buh err in the sabbath,if I may ask u,was Jesus a jew?whatever ur answer says den u belive dat he worship in the church on the sabbath day.u believe in good friday and easter sunday,what happened dat Mary and odas chose not to anniot his body dat day?cus d sabbath was near,shows u dat d sabbath is 4 all wu call demselves sons and dautas of God,1john has a gud advice 4 u,if u say u love me and u keep not my commandments,u are a liar and the truth is not in u.quote author=Ubenedictus] if ya want to keep d sabbat go and become a jew! And if that is ur criteria then wow! It seem st paul may have a word for u col 2:16-17, well according to d bible, it seems i shuldnt allow u condemn me becos of ur shabbat!! Hmm jew!

the old covenant has been abolish dear dat is y i ask u to read col 2:16 and 17, wat does it say?

vickyO: well, i understand that it is pretty hard for one take in the fact that what he or she believes is right is being declared wrong by another. Making images whatsoever for the sake of worship is absolutely wrong,christians are to worship in spirit and in truth (The Scriptures says so), not by using some images as mediums to reach out to God (which is nothing but a carnal and perverted way of worship). if we worship or bow to images, what then distinguishes Christianity from other religion? Bowing to images is a sin and will remain one whether y'all like it or not.

u are entitled to ur opinion as i am to mine. Happy new year.

itslordmoh: But why exactly do I need a fallible man to get salvation when infallible Jesus paid the price for my salvation on the cross. I think I know a place in the Bible where Jesus says he only is the way the truth and the life. I never heard him say;'As I live, I'm transferring that power to the pope'. Don't to argue but its somehow. #smh

i neva said d pope is responsible for salvation. Beside if u want to see where Jesus gives d pope power i think matt 18 "i give u d keys of d kingdom". The keys are very significant in scripture,

Boomark: It means that the church people should continue to see him as their means of salvation even though all are sinners/fallible including the infallible.

infalliability doesnt mean d pope is a means of salvation. U have started lying again abi?

itslordmoh: So what exactly does it mean. I'm confused here.

im not suprised u are! Papal infalliability say wen d pope teaches in his capacity as universal teacher (not just as bishop of rome or as a private theologian etc), in matter of faith and morals (not in politics or deplomacy etc) he is assisted by d help of d holyspirit wu guide d church so he doesn't teach error to d faithful. It doesn't concern disciplinary matters nor with d daily living of d pope, nor does it mean d pope shuldnt seek advice, nor does it mean d pope cant be rebuked. B4 infalliability can b excercised d pope must fulfil all d above, he must wish to teach a xtian and must b in regard to faith or morals and lastly he must wish to excercise d said authority.
Did dat help?

Logicboy03:


God did not like castrated people?

i see, u want to twist and turn, i dont have time for that God didnt like castration(practice), he didnt hate people!