₦airaland Forum

Well this week have been kind of surprising for me, i saw someone write that he believed the deity (in greek "the state of been God" of Jesus christ yet he didnt believe that Jesus is God. I asked myself how can someone believe that Jesus is in the state of Godhood yet believes that he isnt God. It is like say ubenedictus possess the human nature but he isnt a human, i had to ask myself, how can i have d human nature and be anything but a human being? How did this guy form this idea? How did he concieve it and how can a reasoning mind hold such. Ofcourse it was surprising, he was trying to deny the trinity yet was also trying to make sense of scripture. He was saying christ was deity but christ couldnt be God because in his mind that would make God two instead of one as the bible says.
Wow it show how far one can go to hold ideas even though he has totally contradicted himself. I donot wish to continue that debate nor to fault it instead i wish to present another perspective.
Hilary lived around 300AD was bishop of potiers, he was a student of scriptures like most nairaland christians, this is his thoughts on christ http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330203.htm . I would love to see each persons thoughts of the above work, please i would prefer a polite discussion rather than a heated debate and please i would prefer if ideas are discussed not peoples insulted.
Peace

ijawkid: SMH!!!!!!!....

I believe the balderdash u put up there was the same thing Jesus and all the Jews believed in??.......

SMH!!!!!......

I can't believe my eyes.....

Mayb the holy spirit which is the last part of the triplet whose name too is Yahweh explained this to you........

Haibe even catholics don't believe in this,,,,.........

Its so unfortunate that the trinity can make u believe this rubbish u put up there....

I'm waiting for other persons to come see the rubbish u wrote....

check again, catholics believe exactly what he explained above.

tidytim: [/quote]i saw ur copy and paste, weldone, ur claims above seem unfounded [url]http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/trinity.htm

that is my copy and paste, it answers ur copy and paste.

plaetton: Oh, I see your position loud and clear.
Listen to your words:
Dogmas are truths defined and confirmed in councils.
Those who disagree were excommunicated.
And then you contradict yourself in the third sentence by saying:
That dogmas weren't invented in councils.

if u were interested in a conversation instead of trying to contradict me u would have noticed that those two statement arent contradictory. Over 150years b4 nicea justin was already saying christ,the father and the holy spirit are God, yet he believed that God is one, same with ignatuis of antioch and so did all the prenicea fathers, nicea didnt just invent the doctrine, it was alway part of christianity, tertullian was the first to give the teaching a name. Errors later started and the council of nicea gathered to proclaim that which was true doctrine and to differentiate it from error. The church agreed that the trinity is a doctrine handed to her by the apostles. If u cant understand that there is a difference btwn proclaiming something and inventing it, then i would question ur reasoning abilities

So which one? Dogma is defined and confirmed in councils , but not invented by the same councils?

yeah the councils defined and confirmed the dogmas but didnt invent them.

And then you go further by stating that dogmas are truth of faith .
That is an interesting word, truth of faith?

If there is a truth of faith, there must also be falsehoods of faith. right?

So lets go over this again:

1.The church councils DEFINE and approve, sorry wrong word, CONFIRMS and then PROCLAIMS the Truth Of christian Faith, then throws out(excommunicates) anyone who disagrees.
Right?
But isn't this exactly what I have been saying by the term enforced dogma?

maybe that's what u've been saying or maybe u are simply making fun of what other believe.

2.And then, you go on to claim that dogmas are truth of faith as revealed by Christ and confirmed by spirit(which spirit, where and when?) to the apostles(which apostles?), and then faithfully(big laugh) handed down to the church(wow!) and passed down from generation to generation(through excommincations , right?).


Wow, this is a very long stretch of fantasies.
Well, my friend, you have your fairy tales all figured out.
Kudos.

If Nicea did not invent trinity but only defined it, then what on earth was trinity before Nicea defined it?
Who first floated the idea of trinity, and who handed it down the Nicean council to define and confirm? Was it Jesus?

my friend i didnt speak greek did i? I would love to use some greek words but i dont speak greek. The divinity of christ and d holyspirit was taught by d apostles.

(a) If it was jesus , then how and why would a bunch of self appointed men now convene to DEFINE, which in this context, means edit and confirm(who gave them the power and perogative ?) what is and has already been established by Jesus?

pls note to define doesnt mean to change, when errors start flying around the bishops convene and put in writting that which was handed to them thru scripture and tradition. If u want to know how they got d authority read up act 15

Was the definition,confirmation, proclamation and adoption of sunday in place of saturday one of such dogmas revealed by Jesus?

continue to joke, sunday as a day of worship isnt dogma, it was practiced by d apostles.

(b) If Jesus did not,then since the teachings of jesus are the foundations and pillars of the christian faith, then such dogma or any supplementary teachings attributed to Paul or any other, as adjuncts to the testimonies of Jesus himself, should be null and void.

now u are trying to be silly, argueing this with u will b a waste of time, if u havent heard abt d 'inspiration of d holyspirit' go look it up.

If trinity or any other of the council doctrines were already revealed by Jesus, then why on earth would you need a council to convene for the sole purpose of debating(often with much rancur), defining and confirming(and excommunicating) what should have been obvious from scriptures?

because error arose, read act 15,

So, in summary;
The church councils debate,define,confirm, proclaim and enforce its own truths of faith, and then passes such along from generation to generation through intimidation with the threat of excommunication.
This summary is not different from what both of us have been saying so far.
So can we both now agree?

u want to put ur word in my mouth, i disagree, it seems u dont even have an open mind. I dont discuss with people whose sole aim is to display their beautiful ignorance.

frosbel: No one is denying the deity of Christ.

We are simply saying that he is not YAHWEH.

Yahweh or Almighty GOD is one Person, the suggestion that he is made up of 3 separate persons is a blasphemous insult.

you are using deity as an english word, the bible wasnt written in english, it was written in greek and am damn sure that "the fullness of the Godhead(deity, divinity)" doesnt mean that he is an angel in greek. In greek that word means, "the state of been God". Unless u want to twist more scriptures.

frosbel: Don't waste your time my brother with trinitarians otherwise you will have a heart attack, it's just like the Catholics or Muslims, show them 1000 pieces of evidence to support the truth and they will keep marching on towards falsehood.

im not suprised, it seems u ur mind d worst thing dat can happen to a person is to become a catholic. U are letting ur hatred ride u, it will take u places u would rather not go.
Peace

plaetton: ^^^^^
Have you ever heard of the Council of Macon?
Here is a link.

http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/women-souls-1.htm

did u read d link? It debunks ur myth

Enigma: A person claims that "the church finally decided that women have souls".

When asked for evidence, he provides this:

When you go to his link, you see the site stating immediately from the beginning in the very heading that the claim is a myth. The substantive body starts by saying:



Look also in Wikipedia and you see:

Now those who have been long here know that I have always said that these people (evangelical atheists, conspiracy theory nuts etc) are usually either obtuse or dishonest or both. Well, who is providing more and more evidence to support that statement now?

I say again, these are the same people who come here forming "intellectual"!

Oh by the way, trust to see evidence of dishonesty when this same myth is repeated elsewhere even after this post; as our friend's own link says:

im not suprised, it seems my friend lives in the land of fairy tales. He has started to manufacture lies. It isnt new, im nt suprised.

It seems u are trying to twist my words,

plaetton: Celibacy is not an option for catholic priests. It is an enforced dogma.

this is a very big lie, i can say this as a catholic still descerning the priesthood. Priestly celibacy, has never been, isnt, and never will be a dogma. It doesnt qualify as a dogma, priestly celibacy is a CHURCH DISCIPLINE, it has been for over 1500yrs, is and may change at anytime. Please dont spread misinformation, celibacy isnt a dogma.
Eastern catholic church has a married priesthood, do u know that? When married anglican ministers become catholics and wish to be priest they are allowed to keep their wives, so dont be suprise if u enter a catholic church and d priest is married.

i dont know where you are going to get your proof that most early fathers were celibate.

my dear with the exception of tertulian wu was a family man most other church fathers were celibate bishops, both history and their writtings bear witness to that fact.

At least you will agree with me that dogmas(the rules of belief or faith) were decided at various church councils or synods.

nah, dogmas were defined and confirmed in councils, and those wu disagree were excommunicated. The dogmas werent invented in councils.

In other words,they were not direct emanations from scriptures, but are improvised belief systems that were firmly crystalised and fused into the main body of christianity.

again this isnt true, dogmas are truth of faith as reveal by christ and confirm by the spirit to the apostles and faithfully handed on to the church generation after generation thru scriptures and tradition. The councils didnt invent the dogmas, they proclaimed it. Before nicea defined d trinity, it was already handed on to the church and believed and taught to christian, nicea simply said the trinity is a xtian doctrine, reminded us what d doctrine says and said that those wu rejected it were following a false gospel.
I hope u can see my position.

ijawkid: Ur fellows state that Jesus was GOD in flesh.....

They quote the (spurious extract) 1 timothy 3:16 to prove that....

But later on it back fired when Jesus said he didn't know when the end will come but only Yahweh did.......

i have tried to tell u that d fullness of d divinity, diety, Godhead dwelt in christ in d flesh, whether u agree or not with scripture doesnt affect it. Argument like this havent been helpful on nairaland, i wont be a part of something that doesnt help.

ijawkid: _u culd add d apostle peter...he said Jesus was raised up in the spirit not in the flesh....

Thank u!!!!!

U think we blind fold our eyes to scriptures just to believe what we choose to believe??...

You could start by asking yourself how Jesus was able to pass through a locked room......

Can flesh do that??

hahaha, my friend u are trying to twist scriptures to suite ur intention. His flesh, (body) was transformed became spiritual, and glorified so he could do those stuff. Job said "i know on the last day i shall rise up with my skin". Take scripture as a unified whole and u would stop these ur funny ideas

plaetton: Early christians fathers were family men and did not practice celibacy as a rule. Celibacy was an enforced dogma that came much later.

generalising is going to put us in trouble. U will find it very hard to proof ur above statement, it is true that celibacy was totally optional until some councils applied it as a rule but most of the church fathers were celibate, without wife or family. Please read that up i would hate to argue about d celibacy of d church fathers. Besides celibacy isnt a dogma, it is a discipline and can change.

frosbel: The real JESUS who you trinitarians do not seem to know was 100% Human, 100% annointed of God, it is clear that trinitarains are in great need of revelation.

You say Jesus did not come fully in the Flesh as a man but 1/2 Man and 1/2 God the stuff of Pagan Mythology. This is the anti-christ spirit.

Even so called baby Christians seem to grasp this simple truth says a lot.

God bless and help you.

frosbel u have started twisting most trinitarian believe that christ was fully human and fully divine, where did u here ur 1/2 human idea? Or have u start to make up ur own stuff?

frosbel: I was shocked in another thread when my beloved JW friends denied that Jesus Christ DID NOT resurrect bodily.

And then our Trinitarian brother said Jesus existed as the second part of the trinity before he came to earth.

This brought fear and tears to my eyes.


I will tell you why :


1. If Jesus Christ did not resurrect bodily then what hope have the dead who are locked in their graves ?


"12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished." - 1 Corinthians 15:12-18


2. If Jesus Christ existed as second person in a Trinity, then the whole purpose of the gospel is defeated because it means that the word of GOD did not become flesh and this in my opinion is wrong.


Brethren, what is so hard in accepting that God begat a Son in the flesh through his Word , this Son scarified his life for you and me through the Spirit , died , rose again in bodly form and now has the keys of hades and death to give eternal life through the Spirit to all who will place their faith in him.

Why are we following the doctrines of men through the teachings of our institutions.

Consider this , please do, let us not be part of the apostate church .

thanks.

frosbel easy, the trinitarian didnt deny the bodily resurrection. The last time i check only d Jw and some other few sects doubted the bodily resurrection.

I just check again and confirmed u arent a xtian, nonetheles, i will answer ur question with a open mind.

plaetton: ha ha ha,
Who is in fairytopia?
Christ was not intimate with Mary? Did he tell you that, or because it was not recorded?
Was it resorded in the gospels that jesus used the toilet twice a day, or that he ate garri and ogbono soup?

the early xtians concluded he didnt marry because they live around that time and witness the fact. Beside, Jesus' mother, adolphus(brothers), disciples are mentioned in scriptures, i cant find 'wife' and 'children'. Besides d guy didnt stay in one place, how could he race a family? There are so much to consider, the templars' myth is not an argument.

Jesus is permitted to have a special love for the John, as most of you imagine, but it's absolutely unthinkable for him to have loved or marrired a woman?
Why , because women are degenerate and impure?

it is u wu say so.

Is this not the notion behind the rule of priestly celibacy?

the notion behind celibacy is the word of christ "some will b celibate for sake of the kingdom" and paul advises that it is better to be celibate if u wish to b totally devoted. That is d notion bhind celibacy.

Priests ar swiftly deciplined or defrocked for having intimacy with women, but when they caught having intimacy with young boys, they look the other way or simply transfer them to another diocese from wwere they continue their iniquities.

this is a joke, canon law prescribes d same punishment wen priest arent chaste where d unchasity is by woman or man. The situation u mentioned above is the fault and failure of the bishop wu failed to apply d law to the detriment of the church.

You say that the Catholic church does not have an ongoing war against women, then why are women still prohibited from priestly functions?

are u kidding me? Are u d only unbeliever wu isnt aware that the NT prohibit women from those function is the church? The catholic church isnt against women, or any thing like that, instead after a careful study of scriptures she concluded that she lacks the power to ordain women priest, she didnt say she will not or cannot the church says she doesnt have that power.

Let me give you an assignment. Can you please tell me , or find out for us, when the church finally declared that women had souls?

are u kidding me? Or are u just insultive or trying to b? Is this a joke. In the church women has alway had, do and will alway posses soul. Go and check no exclusion is made wen talking abt soul. If u heard otherwise, u have been decieved.

k2039: Frosbel,I think the problem is just due to the fact that you dont agree with the Roman Catholic Church,as a result its affecting your reasoning(you trying to fault all roman catholic doctrine(you just want to fault the trinity doctrine)).
As much as I dont agree with all of the RCC doctrine,some of their doctrine is right and trinity is not an exception.

i think so too, frosbel hatred for the catholic church is the underlining topic in his argument. Im sure his best source will b d 7th day adventist and d JW. He really dislikes catholic teachings so he decides to fault anything that is related to it. I have never seen a thread by frosbel where he argues the reformed doctrine "once saved alway saved"

[quote author=Ki-Katanga]No, luck is random chance -- I was born in Europe, rather than Nigeria so have an easier time finding well paid work.

Skill or Luck?[/quote]that isnt luck, chelsea won d champion league and probably played worst, that is luck.

joe4christ: [size=15pt]There are different levels at which God relates with individuals, there's a level you would get with God that you would no longer feel confortable living in luxery or having much to do with worldy desires and what others would refer to as pleasure of life.
It's a personal thing, because those possessions have actually become gods to so many women including men that they place more priorities on them than God almighty, and that in itself is idolatery, and this has led so many people to hell.
So when God is dealing with some people in this areas dont criticize else God would demand you do thesame.
The truth is God does'nt even need to tell you to do away with them, you'll spiritually grow to a level where you no longer find pleasure in them cause you're now consecrated to God's work and that's all that matters to you now and not your body...[/size]

on point

Sweetnecta: @Ubenedictus: You should have goggled it. Never mind/ Here is it from this muslim to you christian man: John 14 verse 16

the word there is 'another advocate'. "Another advocate" isnt d same wit "another comforter" did u purposely change the words? I asked because d word 'comforter' is used to adress just one being in the NT, so i was surprised wen i saw u talking about another comforter. The "paraclete", "paracletus", "comforter is the holy spirit, another advocate (one wu pleads ur cause). So my argument is that the thread is bogus "another comforter" cant b found in scriptures.

You guys may actually have incomplete Bibles. You are the 2nd person to ask me for this.

my bible is fine. "Another comforter" isnt in d bible.

read the roe of the another comforter. None of the things in your list is part of what he was to do with the disciples. How did God speak with the another comforter? We may not know, but we know that God spoke to many and in most cases they audiences heard The Very Voice of God, Aloud. Moses is one. Before that Adam. Even many of ordinary people heard the Voice of God Loud and Clear if we have to believe the Bibles on the matter of Baptism of Jesus. Jews dont practice baptism. But thats another matter. How could God have spoken to these many people, and His last speech to His Another comforter, we may say God did not use voice? Even if that is an argument, we know man hears with ears not with hearts. We will expect The another comforter to talk to man about what God sent him to tell man in a sounding loud voice. Read from your Bibles what the another comforter was to do, including praising Jesus. That at least he must do with Audible voice. You can ignore the correcting of mistakes assumed to be the norm. How dull can the disciples be to fall into mistakes so soon that the another comforter must come to correct them? It is just too soon for the best students of the master to fall into an error. List their errors for me, if you know any to support the opinion that they were corrected?

"another comforter" cant be found in d bible, so please rephase ur question.

[quote author=Bélla3]John the baptise wrote the book of John nt john the beloved, they are two different pple.[/quote]hahaha! Where did u get ur information?

[quote author=rich_john]Oga Ubenedictus

And what exactly happened at nicea? They just fliped through shey...........Please keep your loyalty to the see of rome, we aren't interested in a blood thirsty type of christianity responsible for changing times and seasons, re-writing history, wanton destruction of lives and properties just because one holds a different view, hellish intolerable spirit and the combination of all forms of idolatry.

Wish you all the best.......I know much better than you think[/quote]hahaha, yeah, i believe u know more, but u certainly behave as though u know less. Nicea didnt say anything about d bible, nicea was about the trinity, d cread and church administration. The fathers of nicea didnt attempt to write d canon. The canon was in hippo. As regard ur idea of some monster... oh! I just remembered it isnt a monster, u are talking about d novel 1984 by elliot with some guys wu did historical malpratice etc. Wow! U certainly read wide, but i've got to tell u, wakeup from novel land. That company doesnt exist.

plaetton: True, it does not in any way diminish the teachings attributed to Jesus.
However, for christians, especially the early church fathers, who were bent on promoting him to god, the idea of jesus condescending to enjoy what is essentially human, a source of weakness at that, proved too complicated for their narrow minds to deal with.

Dont forget that the early chruch fathers declared a war against women, a war that is still being waged today by their progeny, the Roman Catholic church.

u are in fairytopia, the world of fairy tales, pls wake up. The catholic church has nting against women. If u nid proof simply ask, besides christ didnt have sex with mary so d fadas didnt nid to understand it because it didnt happen.

Hey guys, pls bring the tone of d discussion down, we are not on topic. Pls attack opinions and ideas not human being. Please and please a little charity in d discussion will help. Everybody calm down, think and write.
Peace

k2039: [size=14pt]@Ubenedictus

[/size]
REVELATION 5
8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

11 And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands;

12 Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing

13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.

i see ur point, im not a place where i can make exergesis(im watching a match). U will see it soon.

i just saw this and i remember i owe u an explanation. I wish to ask u a question. Why will the saints in heaven need intercession? They see God so y will day need intercession? Besides take a look at scriptures and see how d word saint is used, act9:13, act9:32, rm16:2, eph4:12, eph5:3, act26:16, phi4:21, even see revelations, rev13:7-8, rev14:12 etc. They are talking about the saints on earth, besides the saints in heaven have no need for intercession. These all point to the fact that intercession was offer for those on earth.
Peace

k2039: The saints that revelation was talking about could be the saints in heaven or on earth.When I mean identity I dont mean their name,I meant their status(heaven or earth)

are u joking? A student of scripture is asking me what d bible usually means wen talking about d saints. U gat to b kidding me.

If you are going to pray through a saint,then you should be able to tell me the identity,whether they are saints on earth or in heaven

i point has been that both can interceed, rev show those in heaven interceed, paul asks those on earth to pray 4 him, which are u contending?

I agree with everything except the one in red (on what basis did you make that assumption)

on d basis of rev 8, those in heaven can interceed.

I never asked for the names of the saints



I have a problem with everything.
You need to go through my previous post again to understand my point.
I reposted it below

sorry if i misunderstood u, but it truly seem u are trying to frustrate me.

k2039: She had KECHARITOMENE,definately that is true

Mary being immaculate am not convince,and that she has KECHARITOMENE doesnt mean she can dispense Grace to others

are u kidding me? Did i say anything about dispensing grace?? Or are u just trying to spin the discussion to a tangent?? Someone has a complete non depletable grace, what other proof do u want? She has a grace all other xtian dont have. Grace that cant fall, that doesnt need to be renewed, to remain alway in a state of grace completely exclude her from a state of sin. If one wu studies the scripture cant understand that simple fact, wow!!!. It seems u are only interested in denying.

k2039: what happens to original sin

original sin is imputed, u didnt commit it, it was reckoned to u. U cant repent from something u didnt commit. I thought u understood d nature of original sin. Baptism wipes it away.
Peace

ijawkid: Do I make an image of my parents and bow down to them and also say or recite words of veneration??

it seems u dont have a picture of ur mum, it seem u have also neva spoke a word of praise for ur mum, veneration is simply a form of respect.

Ubenidictus??......

ijawkid pls spell my username well.

U guys are worshipping mary.....

hahaha, u just said we venerate her, now u say we worship her, do u worship ur mum?

U can't run away from this glaring fact......

hahaha, u mean i cant help but notice that u are trying to be silly? U are trying to tell me the amount of respect i give mary, that is imposible and silly because i am d only person wu can truly say the level of respect i give her. If u cant accept my word then that is ur problem.

Honouring mary can never mean d same with making an image of mary and bowing down to it.....

so u dont have a picture of ur mum right? And holding ur mums pic close 2 ur heart or kissing it is idolatry in ur dictionary?

Its absolute idolatry.......

Idolatry all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!..........

hahaha, u are seriously blabbing, do u mind speaking coherently?

Did d apostles bow down to mary wen she was alive let alone make an image of her and bowing down to it??

hahaha,

Answer these questions and see how spurious bowing down to mary's image is......

i saw all ur question, i can only see ur misunderstanding. Did Jesus honor his mum? Did he honor her like a true son and bowed to her? Jesus d lawgiver truly fulfiled the law and glorified (kaboda) his mum.

""Holy mary mother of God,please pray for us""... I've forgotten how u guys say it.....

now and at d hour of our death" is that worship in ur dictionary?

U guys are playing with the hell fire u teach....

tell me u are joking.

[quote author=i.chuka]Hmmm,interesting topic.
My take is,in the so called Christain countries,Catholics have brought in the judiastic teachings.in Judaism,there was the priestly class.the priest acted as an intermediary class.if a Jew wanted to see God,he had to pass through the hand of the priests;there was no way for him to go directly to God.
The question now is what is Judaism? Its being kept away from worshipping God in a direct way.between God and man,there was the need of priests to serve as a intermediary class.the Israelites had to go through the priest before they could see God.the same is true with Catholicism.God is on one side,and man is on the other side.there is no direct fellowship between them,and the priests serve as a medium in the middle.in the Catholic Church,every time there is mass the priests are there.everytime there's a preaching the priests are responsible for it,and everytime there is prayer offered,the priests are the ones to do the work.in this way,men are brought back to the situation of the Old Testament.
Protestantism is divided into state churches and private churches.the Anglicanan Church in England serves as an example of state churches.in the Anglican Church,there are the clergy and the laity.the bishops,archbishop, and deacons are all called priests,just as they are in Catholicism.this has likewise brought in Judaism.God is on the top,and the people, who are called the laity,are on the bottom.in the middle are the clergy,who call themselves priests.the laity can come to God only through this class of people,who monopolize all spiritual matters.
Among private churches in Protestantism,there is also the intermediary class.God is on top,and the members are on the bottom.in between the two there are pastors.the pastors are the intermediary class,who replace the believers and monopolize all the spiritual matters that belong to the members.for example,administering the Holy Communion,baptism,and preaching are all done by pastors.they do everything for the members and become intermediaries between God and man.
From Judaism until today,including all the denominations in Protestantism,God has always been on the top and man has been down on the bottom,with an intermediary class in between.ALTHOUGH THE NAMES MAY HAVE CHANGED,NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN SUBSTANCE.
Peter said that we are a royal priesthood..1Pet2:9.in Rev1:6 John also said that every Christain is a priesttherefore,,there is no need for any man to be a medium between us and God.in other words,we are all "pastors" and "priests".[/quote]the picture u paint of catholicism is bogus, that is not what the catholic church teaches, if u heard that somewhere, it isnt d whole truth. I hope to paste d catholic view, but time wont allow me me, pls check for it later and till then try to hold off on pasting this ur idea.

frosbel: I want to add another point.

Many of us like to make excuses for our multiple denominations because we love the approval of man more than the approval of GOD.

We are pastor, prophet and crowd pleasers, doing the right thing and adhering to God's word can mean a lot of things , such as segregation , ostracization , branding and even slander.

But we have to make our standard scripture.

Now to my point.


The Spirit is ONE and he leads the Body of Christ. It therefore follows that the Spirit will give a uniform message to his CHURCH and not 30,000 different messages.

Something is desperately wrong when we all claim to have the leading of the Spirit yet we differ not on one but numerous issues. God is not the author of this confusion , it is US , MAN.

"For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 12:13

We have to always test the spirits, because many spirits have gone out into the world to deceive the elect , otherwise Jesus would not have made the following statement :

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible." - Mark 13:22

this is probably the first of your post that i agree with. Good post.

nedostic: @Ubenedictus,

Please treat the issues I raised and stop personalizing issues.

Need I remind you that being a Christian by tradition,birth, religion or even denomination is not a 100 percent guarantee that one indeed is a child of God.

If there is anything you and I need to know is that Christianity is not rhetoric,it involves personal sacrifice and ultimately displeasing oneself most times in order to stick to what God wants.

it is beautiful that u know that.

Methinks, you are always fond of attacking 'virtual' personalities rather than addressing issues holistically.

not true, u didnt present any holistic issue, u post didnt seek any objective truth instead u were only interested in condemning some practices probably in d hope of asserting that urs is better.

Kindly feel free to debunk my assertions of the similarities between the Roman Catholic and most protestant churches, albeit using the Bible as a standard for your critique.

sorry my friend, i didnt attack anyone, the thread seem silly to me, ur aim is to disprove both protestant and catholic, my dear, lately i have done my best to abstain from arguement that are not helpful this particular one is one of such. I have learnt not to argue scriptures with pipo whose sole interest is not to seek understanding but to issue condemnation. If u have a problem with catholic practices do well to open a thread and ask catholics to explain, the original post doesnt help, it shows u are not ready for a good discussion, i consider it offensive.

Sweetnecta: @Udenedictus: abeg tell me who the another comforter is ol' chap,

i cant seem to find the word "another comforter" in my bible, pls can u show me d passage where u got those words

capable of hearing from God, and then speaking what he hears from God to men. How did he deliver his "speak to man" to man and how did man hear his "speaking to them"?

act2 show how d spirit speaks thru man, he speaks to man's heart, he speaks thru dreams, visions and in d core of our being, he grants man utterance, act 15:28 show how d spirit guides the church. The scriptures makes it clear that the comforter is the holy spirit.