₦airaland Forum

Peacefullove:
Explain this in relation to OP?

Are they equal by nature ?

so you can't understand English,

Yes.

SalC:
It's page 500 again. If I no post here na wetin I gain?

lol, someone already stole the first post from us all.


Sorry

Syncan:
Without delving much into this, we in these parts tend to exaggerate things a lot. Sometimes we can't even distinguish rules from fashionable. Eg Married deacons in Nigeria...

on a lighter note, a friend once told me that after the VAT II council married deacons were actually a thing in kogi state and they still exist there but it seems the Nigerian bishops put a lid on that some years ago and no more are been ordained

mhizzcherry:
Am a non catholic,who is planning to get married to a Catholic, a knight of St Johns,he wants us to get married in the Catholic church but my parents would never agree,what should I do plz

I did a little checking on your profile just to make sure you are not trolling... Seems you do have a genuine case.

You wrote somewhere that your parents were pastors... That usually complicates issues since some pastors hate the Catholic Church.
You also mentioned somewhere that you have no problem converting, what are your parents reaction to that?

You also wrote something about catechism classes for baptism and confirmation, have you finally began? How is it?

What stage will you say you marriage thing is now, really serious or casual?

Again is your spouse aware of your parents reservation? What does he say?

Sorry for the plenty questions I need a background if I will be able to speak objectively here.

Anas09:
Lolzzz. These are deep and Spiritual matters, they are spiritually discerned. They are not for those who take the Scriptures literally.
As long as the Church stays focus in disseminating the Gospel, her Borders which are Spiritual and are guided by Angels are secured. But, wen she lost focus and began to fornicate with Hellenism, her borders became compromised The Master says 'Go into the whole world and preach the gospel'. The Papacy built a Capital in Rome and sat down on the gospel until the revolution by the Reformation brokeout.

This is another dumb submission, sorry to say, the papacy did not keep Christianity locked up in Rome that is just silly.

The papacy, that's the church of Rome evangelised the whole Europe, from Rome it entered France, England, Germany, Ireland, everything from Rome to the west, the Catholic church in Antioch and later Constantinople was responsible for evangelising the east, Russia, albania, Africa was supposed to be evangelised by the Catholic Church in Alexandria Egypt but unfortunately the Muslims launched there jihad just when the church was making headway. When the Americas was discovered by Columbus it was still the papacy that sent missionaries to both north and South America, what more, the same papacy sent missionaries to the Far East to China, ultimately covering every continent. So where did you get the lie that Rome locked up Christianity. Even when the church in Antioch and later Constantinople and then Alexandria was unable to do their bit in evangelising their immediate surrounding, Rome still sent missionaries to those places.

Don't be ignorant.

Before Emperor Constantine pretended to be a Christian convert, the Church was a wonder to her enemies. The more her enemy came against her, the more she grew formidable, why? because her husband 'Christ', fought for her. Even when she was locked up in Rome, her husband set her free. Papacy tried every thing to keep the Church as One unit, she broke free.

as usual you again have it upside down.

Constantine didn't pretend to convert, he was a catecumen just learning the basics of Christianity, he only took baptism at his death bed until then he was studying Christianity.

Even after Christianity was granted freedom the church continued to grow, it did not become stunted.

Jesus established just one church not churches and denominations and the church was one. Fractions and dissension caused by heresy did not "break the church free" instead those were the manifestations of the evil one trying to break the unity Jesus prayed for in John 19.

a divided, denominational church teaching contradictory doctrines does not serve the will of God infact the new testament condemned such

The enemy of the Church is Satan and he is hiding behind the Catholic Church trying to subtly Change the decrees of the Scriptures thereby weaken her from within. But hey! Satan loses. He lost in Eden, at Calvary, he'll yet lose.

No dear,

The enemy certainly is Satan, bringing up heresies in the church and raising contradictory, divided sects and factions which were expressly condemned by scriptures and Satan got a great help from you protestants who have continued protesting against each other, contradicting each other in doctrines, raising new heresies and resurrecting old ones while fractioning, dissenting, and dividing at an alarming rate.

Talk of the reformation breaking free, do you know all the reformation leaders accused each other of great heresy and said the other reformer was damned... How is that breaking free, is that not the exact division the Bible condemns.

OLAADEGBU:
Why do you think the high priest ties a rope on his foot and bells on his waist when he goes into the holy of holies?

that one is simple, when he is moving the bells will ring, if he stops ringing for a long time the priest may assume he fainted and drag him out of the Holy of holies.
It was to prevent him from dying there

mhizzcherry:
No o,he has been there right from when he was a teenager,after his dad who was a Knight died,he is the first born, i think he cant get to a. Certain position till he is married

I'm not an expert in knighthood...does anyone here know if it passes from father to son? Don't think I have noticed that before

mhizzcherry:
Am a non catholic,who is planning to get married to a Catholic, a knight of St Johns,he wants us to get married in the Catholic church but my parents would never agree,what should I do plz

what denomination are your parents?


Has the matter of marriage come up in a "formal" way at home and they expressly rejected it or are you presuming from experience?

Marriage is considered an important thing for any Catholic, it is not just a ceremony or a contract, it is a sacrament, an effective sign and covenant ordained by God to give grace to the couple to sanctify their union and kick start for them a journey together to heaven.... It is almost impossible for you to find any serious catholic who would miss receiving this sacrament in the church.

You'll need to gauge your parents response on the issue, it may not be as bad as you think... If it is really that bad then you guys need to have a long discussion, find compromises etc. But I'll be blunt with you this is a hard one, many Catholics including myself will insist on a catholic marriage.


I pray it all works out well for you guys... Have you talked to your spouse about your parents position in the matter?

Anas09:
Hahahahahahahaha. But nah for Bible i see Babylon the Great, I no sabi Jack Chick.

Babylon the great certainly dey bible but na chick and co dem decide say the title belong to the Catholic Church

LordReed:
This is not the preeminence we are referring to. At that time the Bishop in Rome did not declare a doctrine then everyone followed. There were as many different doctrines as there were bishops. If this was not the case there would have been no need for the councils. Recognition of Apostolic ascendancy was not even a thing until more than a 150 years after the gospels were written.

councils are an exercise of collegeity, even today the church still has councils and synod because that is the best opportunity to get the feel of what the spirit says to the church not because councils annuls primacy.



There is always primacy in the church residing in the Roman see and that predates Constantine and religious freedom or military might as you put it.

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189])


And as you may note this primacy was already accepted before your so-called 150 years after the gospels.

OLAADEGBU:
That verse is talking about what was done to the serpent of bronze that the Israelites began to worship just as you are bowing down to the image of Mary. If worshipping the image in that verse was considered to be idolatry what makes you think you are not doing the same today?

was the ark also treated like that even though people prostrated before it?

MexManuel:
Can we in conjunction with the Catholic church build an avenue (just like what Trump is doing for the border wall ) in which we can raise enough fund and support to see that every Almajiris get proper education.


MURIC, through the mouth of Ishaq is utterly insensitive and with goals that's are terribly unsustainable.

probably the best comment so far

hardeytarhyour:
We must play politics of Religion because Christians won't train this children and still remain them practice their initial religion any more,,

South West are not in, Nor he is Profraudsor as you claim As far as the matter is islamic affair,
In islam we're brotherhood we doesn't separate ourselves because we using D same book, and our other Practices is D Same.
Kukah have devil plan against Nothern muslims

this is most rev kukah a catholic bishop not just anyhow person.


Catholics will certainly proclaim their faith in their schools but they are expressly forbidden from imposing it on others, especially on children who are not Catholics.
This is the Vatican guideline for catholic schools.

Not all students in Catholic schools are members of the Catholic Church; not all are Christians. There are, in fact, countries in which the vast majority of the students are not Catholics - a reality which the Council called attention to. (6) The religious freedom and the personal conscience of individual students and their families must be respected, and this freedom is explicitly recognized by the Church.(7) On the other hand, a Catholic school cannot relinquish its own freedom to proclaim the Gospel and to offer a formation based on the values to be found in a Christian education; this is its right and its duty. To proclaim or to offer is not to impose, however; the latter suggests a moral violence which is strictly forbidden, both by the Gospel and by Church law. (
PART ONE

Ihedinobi3:
'Locked up until they finished' is rather weird. The whole thing was also presented as some sort of possible reason why the Septuagint must have been so special to "the Church".



What's the alternative? The Bible just magically appears on all mantelpieces and shelves with an angel standing right next to it to make sure we all know it came from God?



It contradicts the idea that the Septuagint was as big an authority for the Church as you represented in your argument.



It certainly clarifies the issue. The Septuagint had problems and was no miracle. Chances are that those who cared then knew that the Septuagint was no miracle and therefore used it carefully. So, while the emerging monolithic Roman tradition at the time may have made an idol out of it contending with Jews too for their own reasons, that was not necessarily the story of the Christian Church.



I don't think you and I have enough history on this forum to warrant the thought. The reason I pointed it out is that small exaggerations and inflections and minor overstatements and understatements in an argument tend to add up to a very convincing but false argument. In this case, you are attacking the reliability of the Bible as the true Word of God and you did it so cleverly that an unprepared believer could be significantly damaged by your efforts.

just to put this long argument in perspective.

Do you deny that scripture quoted in the New Testament show a marked difference from what is presented in the masoretic text?

Do you deny that the same masoretic text shows a marked difference from the Vulgate which was translated from the hebrew and even the Greek text?


If you don't deny these then how do you account for the differences, subtraction, additions and editing?

OLAADEGBU:
That is scary. See what should be done to that image in the verse below:

"He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan" (2 Kings 18:4)

shoot and miss as usual,


Is that the ark of the covenant

I know say I b late comer but at all atall name e bad pass.

Sisters and brothers happy new year

Anas09:
Lolzzzzz@ the Catholic Church was Christianity.
I don't expect you to understand this. But, i'll say it anyways.

The Church is called 'The BODY of Christ' for a reason. Jesus is much a person as you are. The Church is a whole body with Jesus as the Head. In your body, you don't only have a head, you have other organs which functions to keep your body going. And Apst Paul says they all function together as One. But the Catholic sort to remain the head and only part of the Church by squashing other Cells aka denominations. Now, here is what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 12:12-19,21-28

[b] One Body with Many Parts.
Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of us, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one Spirit to drink.

For the body itself is not made up of only one part, but of many parts. If the foot were to say, “Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to the body,” that would not keep it from being a part of the body. (Denominations)

And if the ear were to say, “Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body,” that would not keep it from being a part of the body.

If the whole body were just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part! So then, the eye cannot say to the hand, “I don't need you!” Nor can the head say to the feet, “Well, I don't need you!”

On the contrary, we cannot do without the parts of the body that seem to be weaker; and those parts that we think aren't worth very much are the ones which we treat with greater care; while the parts of the body which don't look very nice are treated with special modesty, which the more beautiful parts do not need.

God himself has put the body together in such a way as to give greater honor to those parts that need it. And so there is no division in the body, but all its different parts have the same concern for one another. If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it; if one part is praised, all the other parts share its happiness. All of you are Christ's body, and each one is a part of it. In the church God has put all in place: [/b]

Catholic Church thought it could take the place of Jesus in the Church, be the head and eliminate other parts.

Every Denomination is a Part in the Body of Christ, cut them off and the head dies. The Catholic Church is not for Christ, it's spiritually dead, a den of thieves.

Lol you got me laughing at your silly excuse at exegesis.


first the bible says Jesus Christ is the head of his body the church.

It also says that individual Christian make up parts of his body, IT DID NOT SAY DENOMINATIONS. that seems like your own silly attempt to misinterpret the Bible.

The Bible say each Christian been baptized in the one spirit constitute one body, it doesn't say several contradictory denominations make one body.


In fact the Bible clearly teaches against denominations and clearly condemns the forming of factions and dessension in the church as works at of the flesh.


Gal 5:19-21

TATIME:
Some amongst us who are still slow in understanding gather material things so they build houses planning for PROTECTING the materials,installing heavy burglaries but most importantly true Christians DON'T STORE UP TREASURES where thieves do break in to steal(because of those material things). Matthew 6:19-21
We're to live simple lives so that we're not tempted to KILL while trying to PROTECT material things! Matthew 6:22,23
That's what CHRISTIANITY truthfully means!

when someone comes to rape and kill your family I hope you will be there to offer them as sacrificial lamb because your church doesn't recognize the right of self defense

Anas09:
See. Truth is where everything hinges on.
Now do tell, What was Rome about right from the time of Constantine to when the Pontifex Maximus aka Papacy took over full force, to when it ruled the world with an iron fist? The separation of the Church from state began after the Second World War. This was called the Renaissance era. But, before then it was the Mediaeval era and the Papacy was the Government, it was the educational system, it was the legal system, it was the medicine, it was the Engineering, and it was the religion. Everything was the Catholic Church. You break away, you die.

What resulted to the Dark Ages? It was the agitation to break free from the Catholic fist. Have you heard abt Joan De Ach?

Question is, was this why Christ died on the Cross? To give us earthly power and control over others? Why then did He refuse to be crowned King when the Jews wanted to force Kingship on Him? Jesus died to build a spiritual and eternal Kingdom and it's power is deep in Love, not control or force. Anything done outside of Love weakens and dies. And, because the C.H wanted to control people, it neglected the main reason Christ died, it tried to kill the faith, but no one kills the Holy Spirit.

What did He say to Pilate? 'My Kingdom is not of this world...
.

As usual you have it upside down.


First Constantine gave Christianity freedom of worship. The emperor had the political power, the Pope and bishops had authority in the church. At that time the Pope had no military, he did have the power to preach to the kings.

Later Christianity became the religion of state but even at that the church still didn't have military power that belongs to the emperor.

The capital of the empire was moved by Constantine from Rome to constantinople, military power still belonged to the state not the Pope, even when the popes started to use the title pontiff the military power was still with the state not the Pope.


Now go and read up the fall of Rome, barbarian invaded Rome and brought down the government, they burnt books and whatever inventions they could find that is what is called the DARK AGES, it was not caused by the church instead it was caused by the barbarian invasion of Rome which almost ended Roman literacy. It was the church that was instrumental in redeeming the situation, the monasteries became centers of education, that is how the church came to control both medicine, science, architecture etc because it was the educator of the entire Europe after the barbarian invasions.


Even after this the Pope did not keep political and military power of the world nor did he "rule the word" as you ignorantly claimed. Instead the most influential king in Europe, was given charge over the western empire, it was this emperor that had the political and military power not the Pope. The only temporal power the Pope consistently maintained were the papal states in modern day Italy.


So yes the governing of the society was always done by the state not the Pope, the Pope oversees the church and was instrumental in correcting kings and preventing wars. The idea that the Pope " ruled the world with an iron fist" is a sad myth. The Pope wasn't ruling the world the kings were, the Pope ruled the church and the papal states as an assurance of independence.


It is funny that you are ignorant of this because many of those kings actually attacked and sometimes killed the popes if his teaching disturbed them, some captured and imprisoned the popes and others had standing armies in Italy to intimidate the Pope, does that sound like the Pope ruling the world?


Separation of church and state simply meano states do not have to recognize the church as it used to do and clergy can't lead society apart from that, the state always had military power and the church always had spiritual power and each one defended it's turf from encroachment by the other.

Yes I have read Joan of arc, she was a catholic woman who believed she saw heavenly people and she led wars for her country, the armies she fought against captured her put her before a religious court which condemned her religious experience as heretic and condemned her, they were wrong and the church soon found out what had happened and declared her a saint, she is St Joan of arc.

Lastly even the earth belongs to God, the Lord's is the earth and it's fullness the world and all its people, even the Bible says the meek will inherit the earth, I see no reason why Christians can't rule and I also understand the reason the popes has always allowed states to keep political and military power without interference because we look forward to a heavenly kingdom

KillTheZombies:
Mbaka the semi-literate businessman fooling himself and his illiterate congregation.

Muslim dumboharist APC zombies will come here to masturbate and hail him while licking their semen in joy. They'll even proclaim him greater than prophet Mohammed.

I have a feeling he is more educated compared to you

LordReed:
That is not true. There were many bishops of different cities in Europe and the Middle East in the time before the Nicaean council. Claiming Rome had a preeminence is not supported by any thing I have seen, feel free to produce evidence to the contrary.

there were many bishops of different cities but Rome had the preeminent place, the early Christians before Nicaea certainly knew who had preeminence.


You can begin with this clement bishop of Rome instructing the church in Corinth on what to do.


Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).


Then this is Ignatius bishop of Antioch talking about the Roman see



Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).


this is iranaeus bishop of Lyon in modern day France talking about who has preeminent in the church. This should put an end to the discussion



Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 189]).



These tell us the basis for preeminence in the church

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Origen

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).



These tell us how the church of Rome exercises it preeminence

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).



Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

sonmvayina:
Eusebius is notoriously the author of a great many falsehoods – but then he does warn us in his infamous history:

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

Does that look like somebody who wants to write actual stories?

yes, that is how all history is recorded.


Events useful to the writer and posterity , do you think historians set out to record all things to the minute details whether relevant or irrelevant to them?

alBHAGDADI:
The church the taught is different from Roman Catholic Church which is pagan and of Satan.

where did the church he taught go to that the so called pagans now took over?

TATIME:
Is it before or after the commissioning of Christianity by Jesus of Nazareth? Because if you're one of His followers,you must NOT carry weapons nor do anything with violence even when it means your life NOW! Matthew 26:52

so your church doesn't recognize the right to self defense?

solite3:
it is the truth. Happy new year

no dear, it is your opinion.


Wish you same

LordReed:
It may be as you say but I think its hard to misread this:

And yet they want to comprehend the mind of God, talking about it as though they had already dissected it into parts. Still, they remain unaware of their own bodies, of the realities of their surroundings, and even unaware of their own stupidity.”

“Along with the scholars, they despise the mathematical sciences, which are the only true sources of information about those things which they claim to know so much about. Instead, they talk about miracles and write about things that nobody could ever know, things that cannot be proven by any evidence in nature.”

As anything other than a rebuke of sanctimonious bullies.

who exactly were the sanctimonious bullies he was talking about?

TATIME:
How i wish this is TRUE, because there are weapon carriers in the the Catholic church and i wonder how your Pope will handle a situation when two politicians are instigating their people against one another. Do you think Catholics (supposed Christians) won't kill Catholics during such strife involving racism?
For example during the Nigerian civil war,Catholic Ibos kill Catholic Yorubas when they're supposed to be Christian brothers!

weapon carrying doesn't have anything to do with racism, you are confusing two different things

sonmvayina:
Read church history by Eusebius...

I already did, he never said Christianity was formed in Nicaea, clearly you didn't read up, eusebius also mentioned many Christians before Constantine.

Anas09:
Who be Jack Chick?

d guy wey dey always shout Babylon the great

Anas09:
Who be Jack Chick?

d guy wet dey always shout Babylon the great

sonmvayina:
It was what was written afterwards.. Not prior.. The history was also formulated.. As time went by..
This is what Christians are saying.. Not what really transpired...

this is a sad conspiracy theory and I am sad any educated person will believe it because it is totally stupid.

Ask an history this your theory doesn't stand to scrutiny

LordReed:
Really? Christianity would have been a worse mess of schism than we have today and would never have had the influence it has today. If you separate the Roman Catholic church from all other sects it would fall to being the 2nd largest religion, after Islam, a religion that was also helped by political and military force. My guy it is obvious that neither Christianity nor Islam would have anywhere the influence they have now without the the injection of political and military power.

you could make all the arguments you want about how the church benefited from state support but that has nothing to do with how Rome took it preeminence because Rome already had that preeminence before Christianity had state support