₦airaland Forum

fyneboi79:
Now let's talk pervert I called ur thread lunatic thread and ‎u replied by calling me lunatic.So what was Christs preaching about loving enemies and turning d other cheek Did ‎u forget to learn that one?Or is ur own bible different
it was a deliberate test and ‎u failed outright

ok sorry. It is just that u are behaving like someone who was flogged mercilessly this morning.

Dnt be provoked. Remember that the bible says that anger lies in the bosom of a fool. So cool down and express urself clearly. I dnt insult people.

fyneboi79:
Pls just shut up and let God be the judge cos ‎u are not any better than us.I drink alcohol,watch indecency,smoke weed,womanise and so on.But believe me when I say I am better than ‎u cos I come out clean.not people like ‎u who pretend to be good when they should even have the certificate to create their own hell fire here on earth. hypocritical charlatan ‎u are

this guy is really provoked. Abeg nor be me do u o. I nor say i better pass u o.

dueal:
i guess u r of d group dat has forgotten dat Christ drank and ate with sinners, turned water to wine, and was called a glutton and a drunkered by d pharisee.

is anybody drunk after the wedding at cana? How do u know that the water Jesus turned to wine have alcohol in it? Where did Jesus drink strong wine or ogogoro? Drink can be any liquid. Eg water.

Adaeze003:
Alcohol is now sin?

did christ drink alcohol? Christian should drink only non-alcoholic drinks.

sorom4:
I strongly disagree with the 1st and 2nd. Its only unchristian when you allow these to control you

born again christian are nt expected to take all those strong drink. Do u even know what it means to be a christian? Will christ take those drinks if he was on earth?

manjiggy:
Read 1st Timothy 5:23 and tell me what the passage means.

Cheers.

are u having stomach problem like timothy? Are u having frequent infirmities?

fyneboi79:
Azezel So ‎u r still here

i dnt understand u. Are u in tongues?

nora544:
but nigerian pastors accept it, they make a thief to a pastor and take the money what he give to the church.

does that mean God accept it? Are pastors God?

bukkylicious:
How do u know? Are u God?

if robbers bring tithe of the money they stole would God accept it? the answer is NO

fabulousdame:
Christians shouldnt leave in this world then.. Y'all are the reasons people fear christianity.

Plus christians shouldnt buy smart phones and surf the internet cos u might come across indecency.


Well i never buy/sell indecency..i just download for free.

so u watch indecency?

blink182:
He told you personally?

yea, in the bible. God will not accept the tithe that comes from weed for instance.

2 Corinthians 6:14-18

14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15 And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16 And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you b are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” 17 Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” 18 “I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the LORD Almighty.”

elobyobi:
There u go again with ur "u think". We don't need YOUR opinion. We need GOD'S opinion. From the bible. That's how u ppl started by saying TV is the devil's box, only to start buying them in ur churches.

my friend obedience is better than sacrifice. God had warned us nt to touch the unclean things. God don't accept unclean sacrifices.

gotousa2013:
Which bible verse did you use supports your claim. You dont know anything yet you want to opine.Don't come here and disturb the air .you have to come here with proofs we are not gullible like you are. Ok

i dnt need to quote any bible verse for u to know that God dislike those thing. God expect us to be holy. 1peter1:16-17

hardbody:
You people have started again. Nothing wrong with 1 -3. Things should be done in moderation. 9 depends on where u wear it. And therefore could be sold. Rat poison is not a bad thing to sell. Meanwhile please note that regular drugs are also poisonous. So should we not sell these?

Absolute crap. The holy book says dont add or remove else you will get additional punishment and or reduced blessings

i'm nt adding. u should know the poison i'm talking about. is it true that nothing is wrong with 1-3? can u tell God that?

debeginin:
Abeg U in d name of God,give me d phone number of those wey don go heaven come back tell U dis things make I call dem too.

are u nt using gold?

ikweremilitant:
but the pastors do.

are the pastors God?

Korrection:
How do you know if you don't take it.

God forbid. I can't take that.

elobyobi:
From the way u r just spelling out orders, with no biblical backing, it's clear you're among those practicing "blind religion"
GD pharisee! *spits*

so u think if u sell weeds for instance, God will accept the tithe?

Revolva:
The reverse should be the case....ok..christains sould sell all these mentioned....even SK weed ...n hard drugs...

tell me that u are joking

fyneboi79:
Another lunatic infested thread

only u i think is lunatic.

Buffer:
I can't help but notice that you ignorantly based your whole argument on the Authorised KJV, you should know that the KJV is a 1677? work while we are talking about the church councils meeting since 100AD.
And mind you, most people here you are arguing against are not Catholic, and please stop the copy and paste, just highlight the point or paste the links for those who wish to go. Also I noticed that you are copying from anti-Catholic sites, please do get a broader view about how the bible was compiled

i did nt base my argument on kjv. What i'm proving is that, it was only 66 books that were canonised and that the books the catholic added was not recognised nor even considered to be in the canon. The apocrypha was nt recognised and was considered uninspired or spurious. Why would the rcc accept those books as inspired when the jews and the early church rejected them as inspired?

There is nothing like anti catholic site. The catholic always considered those speaking the truth as anti catholic. What i have been posting is just the truth of the matter. I also have many books regarding the apocrypha and how the 66 books in the bible was canonised. It is nt my fault that u are too lazy to read and accept the truth.
I must open up everything so that those who can read will read and get informed. So that they will nt continue to wallow in ignorance regarding the apocrypha and the canonisation of the bible. I have made my research about this issue and when i finish my posting, then we can start the argument as u want.

Just follow my next post when i'm back from church.

we are children of God, therefore we must separate ourselves from the world.

chukwudi44:
Bros stop dodging the real questions.

When and which council chosed the 66 books and when did the Catholic church add to them

wait for the next post since i believed that your question will be answered there.

meanwhile,u can be savouring the post i just concluded in page 1. it is hot and juicy.

most of the questions u want to ask are addressed there.

haffaze777:
perhaps u don't know paul of tarsus

so why don't u tell me.

every thing must be laid bare. it must be opened.

the next thing i will seek to prove in my next post will be this:


The Majority of Early
Christians Who Prepared
Lists of the Old Testament
Canon Specifically
Excluded the Apocrypha

There is yet another point which strikes against
the notion of canonicity or inspiration for the
apocryphal books based solely upon references to
them made in the New Testament. The highly-
educated Paul, in inspired New Testament
scripture, quoted three times from the works of
Greek poets . He quotes from men who themselves
were not only uninspired, but also pagans to
boot. These quotations are:

In Acts 17:28, Paul said and Luke wrote, "For in
him we live, and move, and have our being; as
certain also of your own poets have said, For we
are also his offspring." This is a quotation of a
passage from Aratus' Phaenomena

In Titus 1:12-13, Paul quotes a saying from the
6th century BC Cretan poet Epeminides, found in
his De Oraculis, and follows it by saying, "This
witness is true..."

In I Corinthians 15:33, Paul quotes from
Menander's Thais .

Now, I am quite certain that no Roman Catholic
apologist would suggest that these quotations by
Paul render these particular Greek poems as
inspired canon. Yet, this is the sort of argument
which is explicitly made concerning the
apocryphal books. Further, we see that in Jude,
other apocryphal books (ones not held by the
Roman Catholic religion to be canon) are quoted
(Jude 9 refers to The Assumption of Moses , and
Jude 14 quotes from The Book of Enoch ). These
quotations in the New Testament are just as valid
as any which can be produced by Catholic
apologists from the "accepted" apocryphal books,
yet the Roman religion does not attribute
canonicity to these two works. Interestingly, we
should note that the three times Paul quotes from
these Greek poets, he was addressing or writing
to Greeks, and the two quotes from the Hebrew
pseudographical books appear in an epistle which
arguably was written with Jewish believers in
mind. These pagan poets and uninspired
pseudographia were quoted because, at the
particular point of the quote, they contained truth
which was not in contradiction to the Truth of
God, and which was used by the writers under
inspiration to make certain points to
knowledgable and receptive audiences. Thus, we
ought to recognise that simple quotation by the
New Testament does not necessarily impute the
status of inspired scripture to the works which
are quoted.


We see this further in that not all of the Old
Testament books are quoted in the New
Testament. The books of Esther, Song of
Solomon, Obadiah, and Ecclesiastes are not
quoted in the New Testament, though the
argument can certainly be made that each is
alluded to somewhat loosely at various points.
However, they are not quoted, while every other
book is. The reason for this is probably as simple
as that there was no specific application to be
made from them at any point in the writing of the
New Testament. This lack of quotation, though,
does not render these books uninspired or
uncanonical, any more than the quotation of
Epeminides makes him an inspired writer of
Scripture. This is because the Old Testament (as
well as the New) derive their status of both
inspiration and canonicity from God, from His
opinion of them, not from man's opinion that they
should be quoted in further revelation. The 39
books of the Hebrew canon are inspired and
canonical because they themselves are revelation
from God, not because they are quoted in the
New Testament. Or, as Unger states:


"Because the writings of the prophets, as soon as
they were issued, had tremendous authority as
inspired Scripture, no formal declaration of their
canonicity was needed to give them sanction. The
divine author who inspired these writings, we may
reasonably believe, acted providentially on behalf
of their acceptance by the faithful. However, their
inspiration and consequent divine authority were
inherent and not dependent on human reception
or lapse of time to give them prestige or until
there were no more living prophets, or any other
factor. Canonical authority is not derived from the
sanction of Jewish priests and leaders of the
Christian church. That authority is in itself."


Thus, we see that the Roman Catholic claims for
the reliance of the New Testament on the
apocryphal books are overblown, ahistorical, and
fall into logical inexactitude.

furthermore, we must understand that the ministry of
the Lord Jesus Christ and the early Church did
not exist in a vacuum. They were a part of the
fabric of the social life and context of Palestinian
Hebrew life in the early-to-mid 1st century. This
social context included a literary history which
contained the apocryphal books, and which was
based upon the combined, shared experiences of
the Jewish people. While these books were not
recognised as canon, they still existed and were
part of this combined socio-religious experience
which the 1st century Jews had in their cultural
repositories. So, no, it should not be particularly
surprising to us if the New Testament relates a
challenge to the teachings of the Lord Jesus
Christ which was made by certain of His
detractors, the Saduccees, and whose primary
element was drawn from the apocryphal book of
Tobit (this being the resurrection of the woman
with seven successive husbands through Levirate
marriages - Matthew 22:23-32). It should not be
surprising to us if the author of Hebrews
catalogues the faithful exploits of martyrs from
the Maccabean era (Hebrews 11:25, and possibly
v. 28). It should not be surprising to us if certain
passages even seem to echo phraseology found
in the Apocrypha, and which probably represented
common theological understanding among the
Jews at this time (such as the Johannine
reference to the Lord Jesus as "King of Kings" in
Revelation 17:14, which follows the title used in II
Maccabees 13:4, but which yet again, finds its
original basis in the use of "Lord of Kings" in
Daniel 2:47). There is no conflict between these
usages and the principle of divine, verbal, plenary
inspiration of the Scriptures, nor do these usages
necessarily imply inspiration on the part of any
apocryphal books.


Furthermore, we must remember that many of the
New Testament writers were well-educated men.
Certainly Paul could be said to fit into this
category. Likewise, Luke the physician and
Matthew the customs official would qualify in this
regard without objection. As such, these men
would have been in a position to have been made
familiar with these other literary works. Even the
fishermen Peter, John, and James, while being
"unlearned men" (in the cultural context, meaning
that they hadn't studied in the rabbinical schools
- the same way the term is applied to the Lord
Himself, John 7:15), they were a part of the
Jewish civilisation with this shared Jewish
heritage, and surely were aware of the apocryphal
books and what they said.