₦airaland Forum

Kazim88:
Take it or leave it, Core Northerners are actually impersonating Yorubas in Nairaland to fan the feud between the south.

omohayek:
And how do you know any of these people are actually Yoruba in the first place? Just how difficult do you think it is to open a new Nairaland account and claim to be from any part of the country, the planet or even the galaxy? What's stopping me from saying I am a Zeta Reticulan from Alpha Centauri?

The real people to blame are all the gullible id.iots who ignore the statements of well-known Yoruba politicians, writers and activists in support of restructuring and decentralization, but are quick to seize on statements by individual anonymous commenters or unknown "youth" groups as "proof" of what most Yoruba people must be thinking: you pretend Afenifere, Fayose, Fani-Kayode and Wole Soyinka are only speaking for themselves, but need no convincing that "sarrki" and other anonymous "One Nigeria" diehards were elected by all Yorubas as their legitimate online representatives, even though these people probably aren't even Yoruba to begin with!

There's a term for such thinking: it's called confirmation bias, and it's what you get when raging anti-Yoruba tribalists go out of their way to look for "evidence" to support the prejudices they probably imbibed with their mothers' milk, well before ever even meeting any Yoruba people.

akthedream:
YOU can only deceive yourself.. Igbo Jews

chipower:
First Timothy 6:3-4 does not answer the question rather it generates the question.

Which church has the right teaching, doctrines and interpretations? For the fact that among the protestant churches there exists different interpretations, doctrines and teachings from the same 66 books bible, which of the Churches has everything right. I went further to give you examples eg your interpretation of revelation 22 18-19 is different from mine and some protestant churches. Another example is that in some protestant churches wearing earing sends to someone to hell fire in some its allowed. In some, women wearing trousers sends them to hell fire in some it's ok. In some head attachments sends them to hell fire while some it's ok. I can go on and on. A primary school student will easily understand this question with all the examples i have given but you pretend not to understand it. You have decided not answer the question, simple.

From the above example, it's obvious that Protestantism does not solve the problem of false doctrines, teaching etc. They will still end up in hell fire according to you.

It's not enough for you to criticize the Catholic Church with animosity without telling us the church that's is getting everything right. For me, it's a shame on your part if you refuse to tell us.

9inches:
Finally you agree there are some teachings and/or traditions not vividly written in the bible but will serve as a useful tool in proper interpretation of some verses in the bible... And which the early Church fathers were urged to maintain IN ADDITION AND CONFORMITY WITH THE BIBLE to reveal the biblical truth. That, my friend, is the tradition the Church has maintained ever since. Once you break away from the Church which has this sort of exclusive authority bestowed on her; coupled with an almost unconditional guarantee of guidance by the Holy Spirit to teach the truth, you are prone to misinterpretation and heresy knowingly or unknowingly, which the bible strongly condemns.

Does that make sense now?

DangotePikin:
you have said nothing. Know God for yourself, God is not coming to rapture Christ Embassy members or Deeper Life members. It is based on individual and what they have in thier heart. The heart of my pastor has no bearing in determining if I will make heaven or hell.

DangotePikin:
you have said nothing. Know God for yourself, God is not coming to rapture Christ Embassy members or Deeper Life members. It is based on individual and what they have in thier heart. The heart of my pastor has no bearing in determining if I will make heaven or hell.

9inches:
In case you missed it. I will repost.

I would love to know your understanding of the verses- 2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2 as I explained.

By the way, the interpretation is the Catholic Church interpretation. Therefore, it comes with authority which Christ Himself bestowed on the Church.

chrisav:
U got it all twisted friend. Read through my post and I hope u comprehend.
My stand : u can't put out darkness with darkness rather u do so by putting on the light.
Preach and teach the truth ( not name calling) and watch how false doctrine will become obvious before the flock. Regards

petra1:
What's your proof or reason that they are false?

Secondly have you thought about the fact that you may be wrong in judging them . And if for any reason you're wrong have you also thought about the consequence .

chrisav:
yes Jesus died for all. suicide bombers, prostitutes, fornicators, thieves, liars.
He became sin he who knew no sin. He didn't come to condemn sinners by wants all men (false teachers inclusive) saved.
lastly reread the story of the wheat and tares. Jesus himself would separate the true believers from false teachers not u. Let both grow any attempt to do so like this showmanship would cause division in the church rather than edification

chrisav:
yes Jesus died for all. suicide bombers, prostitutes, fornicators, thieves, liars.
He became sin he who knew no sin. He didn't come to condemn sinners by wants all men (false teachers inclusive) saved.
lastly reread the story of the wheat and tares. Jesus himself would separate the true believers from false teachers not u. Let both grow any attempt to do so like this showmanship would cause division in the church rather than edification

chipower:
Brother, let us get one thing clear, we do not use the same bible. You mentioned "present" bible ie 66 books bible. The people who use your so called present bible are the protestants. My present bible is the original one the was canonized by the church fathers that has been in existence for more than 1000yrs. This is simple fact. A baby can easily understand these differences.

If the deuterocanonical books doesn't matter to you for whatever reasons ,that is your own problem. it matters to me because they are sacred scriptures that were removed by protestants.

If you think that you can't benefit spiritually from the books that were removed, that one is your concern. I benefit spiritually from them. The only people who don't see the spiritual benefits are protestants who removed them. The church fathers saw spiritual benefits in them but to you , protestants know more than the church fathers.

To you and i, "genesis to revelation" means different things. To you, it means 66 books. To me, it means 73 books. You are free to operate with your 66 books. Someone can remove more books and still get "genesis to revelation".

I have shown clearly that your bible came out as a removal of the word of God. You have the right to categorize the removed books the way you want. Anyone has the right to remove and categorize any book in the Bible the way he or she believes.

Whether you will suffer damnation or not if you don't accept the books as sacred scriptures is again your own problem. The church fathers called them sacred scriptures. You say they are not. You are entitled to your own opinion. You said that damnation awaits someone who removes from the Bible but you think this rule doesn't apply to you because you believe the books that were removed are not word of God.

The implication of this action is that anyone can declare more books in the Bible unsacred, remove them and still suffers no consequences.

Again you have refused to answer the questions. In summary, according to you, the right churches are ones with good shepherds doing the right interpretations etc.

For the fact that among the protestants using the same 66 books bible, there exists different interpretations, different teaching, different doctrines which one is the right church? Upon all these differences they are claiming the same thing as you, salvation, healing, bla, bla. All of them are quoting 2 Timothy 7-8. For example, your interpretation of revelation 22,18-19 is quite different from mine and some other protestant churches. How do we know the right one? Remember, any wrong interpretation = wrong teaching = hell fire .

As for your conversion expirence, it is your own personal experience. Everyone has his or hers. It has nothing to do with this discussion. I can't vouch for you on anything and you can't vouch for me also. I don't know you and you don't know me.

9inches:
Does that make the bible a sufficient rule of faith?

You see, bible-only (sola scriptura) Christians like yourself claim that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 claims Scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith. But an examination of the verse in context shows that it does not claim that at all; it only claims Scripture is "profitable" (ophelimos) that is, "helpful". Many things can be profitable for moving one towards a goal, without being sufficient in getting one to the goal. Notice that the passage nowhere even hints that Scripture is "sufficient", which is of course exactly what protestants like yourself think the passage means.

The context of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is Paul laying down a guideline for Timothy to make use of Scripture and tradition in his ministry as a bishop. In verse 14, Paul says, "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them". Timothy is being strongly urged to hold to the oral teachings (the traditions) that he received from the apostle Paul. This echoes Paul's reminder of the value of oral tradition (2 Timothy 1:13-14) "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Timothy 2:2) "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also". Here, Paul refers exclusively to oral teaching and reminds Timothy to follow that as the "pattern" for his own teaching (2 Timothy 1:13). Only after this is Scripture mentioned as "profitable" for Timothy’s ministry

How shocked are you knowing this now? I would love to know your understanding of the verses- 2 Timothy 3:14, 2 Timothy 1:13-14, 2 Timothy 2:2 as I explained.

Ubenedictus:
If your pastor is truly a minister then he would actually exercise priestly ministry. That is the ministerial priesthood, the priesthood a minister exercises in Service of the gospel.


But since your pastor are ignorant of the ministerial priesthood the i believe they aren't true minister.



Romans 15:15-16 --"But I have
written to you rather boldly in
some respects to remind you,
because of the grace given me by
God to be a minister of Christ
Jesus to the Gentiles in performing
the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel
of God, so that the offering up of
the Gentiles may be acceptable,
sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

That passage show there is a ministerial priesthood.

Paul received ministry by laying of hands. Act 13


Then after
fasting and praying
they laid their hands
on them and sent them
off. So, being sent out
by the Holy Spirit, they
went down to
Seleu’cia; and from
there they sailed to
Cyprus.

He called Timothy to ministry and ordained him by laying hands.


2 Timothy 1:6 Hence I
remind you to rekindle
the gift of God that is
within you through the
laying on of my hands;

Timothy then is empowered to lay hands

1 Timothy 5:22 Do not
be hasty in the laying
on of hands . . .





Every Christian is to bear witness to the good news , but the ministry to teach in the house of God isn't granted to all, it is for those who have been sent.


Romans 10:15 And
how can men preach
unless they are SENT ?
As it is written, “How
beautiful are the feet of
those who preach good
news!”

those who are sent in the first place are the apostles and the 70.

Luke 9:1-2 And he . . .
gave them power and
authority over all
demons and to cure
diseases, and he sent
them out to preach the
kingdom of God and to
heal.
John 17:18 As thou
didst send me into the
world, so I have sent
them into the world.
John 20:21 Jesus said
to them again, “Peace
be with you. As the
Father has sent me,
even so I send you.”
Luke 10:1-3 After this
the Lord appointed
seventy others, and
sent them on ahead of
him, two by two, into
every town and place
where he himself was
about to come.


Those who Jesus sent started sending others after pentecost.

Acts 13
Then after
fasting and praying
they laid their hands
on them and sent them
off. So, being sent out
by the Holy Spirit, they
went down to
Seleu’cia; and from
there they sailed to
Cyprus.
Acts 15:22, 25 Then it
seemed good to the
apostles and the elders,
with the whole church,
to choose men from
among them and send
them to Antioch with
Paul and Barnabas.
They sent Judas called
Barsab’bas, and Silas,
leading men among the
brethren, it has seemed
good to us, having
come to one accord, to
choose men and send
them to you with our
beloved Barnabas and
Paul,




So were all sent, even the pastor in my Church was sent by a successor of the apostles,

You sent your pastor? Who gave him authority to teach in the house of God?

chipower:
You didn't make any point clear. All you are saying is " believe my bible because I say so " No proof

You said something about Martin Luther defending himself. Against what? The point of this discussion is to show that Martin Luther removed books from the Bible.

You said that what i have is one-sided history from Catholic point of view . You are indeed a very ignorant person. You amaze all the time. Even Martin Luther himself did not deny that he removed books from the Bible rather he gave his reasons. Protestants apologists don't deny that he removed books from the Bible. Historians from both protestant and neutral sources didn't deny that he removed books from the Bible. Your problem is that you refused to read.

You said the divine inspiration of deuterocanonical books has been in doubt even before the advent of Martin Luther and the reformation. If the divine inspiration of the books were in doubt why did the church fathers canonize them?. Why did the church fathers declared them sacred scriptures? The only people who doubted the divine inspiration of the books were the ones who removed the books from the Bible. These people are you people, protestants. The bible canonized by church fathers were used uninterrupted for more than 1000yrs before the protestants tampered with it.

By tampering with the bible, protestants are saying that the church fathers are bereft of the Holy Spirit and that they added books to the scriptures therefore according to you they are suffering damnation.

You can categorize the book the way you want but the church fathers declared them holy scriptures. My point is simple, your 66 books bible is a derivation from the original Bible this implies that it is a diluted version. We are talking simple history here.

Again my question is " what stops someone from removing more books from the Bible and still call it bible?" This simply means that one can remove any books he or she is uncomfortable with from the Bible and it will still
be bible.

If i remove more books from the bible, can protestants summone the moral authority to warn me when they have committed the same offence?

Let me be frank with you. We can't agree on anything because we don't use the same bible. I use the Bible canonized by the church fathers and you use the one produced by Martin Luther.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us the church with the right interpretations, the right teaching and the right doctrines.

Lastly, the true children of God will be revealed on the judgement day. You don't need to tell me who you are in Christ or what i need to do. I don't know you. You don't know me. It's only God that knows our hearts. You can't take exams and score yourself. That's foul play.

If you refuse to answer the above simple question, I'm afraid i will not reply again.

9inches:
Attend to the question I raised if you're honest and brave enough. Why are you scared? Is the bible meant to be interpreted subjectively?

9inches:
Truth is truth; it has no duplicate. It's either you have it absolutely or you don't. Some human beings do profess lies sometimes thinking it is the truth. Why are you scared of putting your "truth" on trial? I only expect such behaviour from muslims.

chipower:
You said that you don't know what Martin Luther did. Well that one is your own problem. You have chosen ignorance willingly. The point is that i know what Martin Luther did to the Bible you are using. It's history, well documented. I know how he removed books from the Bible to give the doctrine of 66 books bible.

You said that the 66 books are part of the canon. Yes you are right but the books he removed are part of the canon too. They are the sacred scriptures handed down to us by the church fathers.

You said i claimed that it should be more than 66 books. I did not claim anything because the church fathers canonized 73 books. It's history. Everyone with a little knowledge of history knows this. This is why i finfd it difficult to discuss with you.

Again you pretend not to understand my point. My point is that as far as Martin Luther has removed books from the bible and protestants still believe in that creation of Martin Luther they will share in whatever that happened to him because according to you revelation 22,18-19 have condemned them to hell fire. They will suffer damnation because they removed books from the Bible. The 66 books bible is a false doctrine on it's own because it's a product of a sin. Sin of tampering with the word of God.

This brings me to the next point. What stops someone from removing more books from the bible and still call it bible. By removing books from the bible, the protestants are telling us that we can always remove books between genesis and revelation and it will still be called bible. That is the implication of Martin Luther's action. Can protestants stand on any moral grounds to warn anyone against removing more books from the bible when they are guilty of the same offence?

You talked about undiluted truth. This sounds strange to me coming from you because the bible you are using is the diluted version which has many books missing from it. How can someone get undiluted truth from a Bible which Martin Luther created. I doubt it. Like i mentioned earlier your interpretation of revelation 22, 18-19 is quite different from my own. If one of us is getting the interpretation wrong that person is guilty of false teaching and misleading others therefore the person or the church is spreading false teaching.

Again stop avoiding the question. Tell us which church has the right teaching. The right interpretations. The right doctrines.

Like i said before, i don't which to continue with this discussion because you repeat the same thing again and again without answering any questions though you expect others to answer your questions.

9inches:
Stop dodging the question. Are you scared of truth hitting you hard? Summon some courage and face it ma nigga. I have done my bit to embed it in your subconscious, and it won't go away until you explore it for truth's sake. Living in denial or ignorance will not benefit you.

seunlayi:
Oh, the love that sought me!
Oh, the blood that bought me!
Oh, the grace that brought me to the flock,
Wondrous grace that brought me to the flock!


I bless God for my GS, more grace sir

chipower:
I think you guys should leave this guy to have the final words just like i did. He runs around in a circle.
His arguments are always funny and childish.

For example, when i showed him that his 66 books bible is based on error, a creation of a man called Martin Luther , he said that he was not the one that removed the books therefore he shouldn't be held accountable. To buttress his point he quoted rev 22, 18-19. He went ahead to say that the same false doctrine of 66 books bible is enough for him.
The problem with this position is that if he believes in this error, on what moral grounds is he standing to correct Catholics whom he believes are in error.

Again observe his inability to accept responsibility for the creation of the 66 books bible without knowing that once he believes in the false bible that he should be held accountable for using the Martin Luther's creation because he is an adult. I will be held accountable for practicing my faith as a Catholic because im an adult. That is what is called the age of reason. If im enjoying stolen money with a criminal being aware of the origin, i will automatically have a share in the sin of the criminal. If i were to go with his style of reasoning, no catholic should be held accountable for anything because they were not there when everything was done.

Not being satisfied that i pointed out that he was using a fake bible, he said that someone told him that the church fathers canonized 66 books after praying and bla, bla without telling us the church fathers who did that. When i told him he was lying, he claimed ignorance and said that someone told him. I even showed him a link to prove my case. He promised to show me a link where church fathers canonized 66 books but he has not done so till this moment, and he will never do so because it doesn't exist.

The point is, is this guy at his age really ignorant of where his Bible came from? I find this hard to believe. If he is ignorant indeed, i wonder what his church and friends are teaching him because this is simple history. It needs no interpretations like the bible.

He said Catholics are practicing false doctrine but his doctrines are based on one big false doctrine of 66 books bible.

He said that the Holy Spirit has left the Catholic Church because of false doctrines. He is simply saying that if you die a Catholic, you will go to hell fire because nobody can see God without the Holy Spirit.
The point is, what is the Holy Spirit doing in a church that tampered with his words. According to him, protestants are going to hell fire because they removed from the word of God (rev 22, 18-19) and continue to believe in the false bible of Martin Luther. They grieve the Holy Spirit by their continuous belief in the Martin Luther's creation.

By rejecting the word of God handed down to us by the church fathers, protestants are indirectly telling us that the church fathers and the Holy Spirit are liars.

He talked about building faith. Building faith in what, the 66 book bible doctrine? This is funny. He still believes his Bible is the right one therefore everyone must believe in it.

Sometimes, he asks questions that doesn't make sense at all, like that of the seminary. You begin to ask yourself whether God is afraid of education. Even some protestant churches have seminaries. Paul was a very educated man. He was an expert in the Old Testament before his conversion. He spoke Hebrew and greek perhaps other languages. Out of the 27 books, epistles and letters that make up the New Testament, 13 have been authored by the Apostle Paul (This does not include the book of Hebrews which some believe he wrote). Paul quoted three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander, Aratus. This means that he knew greek philosophy. Only an idiot will not see how education helped Paul in his ministry. It was an added advantage.

He has refused to tell us which church has the right doctrines and why. Perhaps this will help us choose the right church.

Finally, i have decided to stop running around in a circle with the someone who doesn't even know the origin of the bible he has been reading. Allow him to have the final words instead of playing this funny games with him.

9inches:
The question you are dodging to answer bothers on your faith and salvation. You should really consider answering it.

9inches:
Law of Non-contradiction: Contradictory statements (A and B) cannot be true in the same sense at the same time. Either one of them can be true or they are both false; but they cannot both be true.
It's very pertinent that one objectively substantiates a deeply held "truth", else he'd be living in a fool's paradise. In that light, it would do you a lot of good if you resolve the issue below.

Being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?

9inches:
You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

9inches:
You keep building a strawman argument. The crux of the whole argument is below; address it.

Adekamkpe23:
Lock him up and throw away the key.

chiozor:
u are such a lowlife....there is a village called ogini! gosh!!1

LeSaint:
Hate speech is what it is - hateful, and dangerous and detrimental to peace and national cohesion and harmony.
If you don't have any good or helpful thing to say, keep the fvck quiet. If you are aggrieved about something, take your issue to the appropriate authorities.

sweatlana:
I never said they shouldn't fight hate speech but NBC has no right to hold radio stations accountable to what their callers choose to say.

4dor:
That's not hate speech, saying Igbos should leave the north or be killed is hate speech.

9inches:
That is the answer to your question why people easily repent after leaving the Church.



You know what happens to special center candidates; they acquire easy passes with no solid foundation. When such candidates are subsequently subjected to further examinations, say aptitude tests, their fraud comes to bare.

As a 'bible only' apologist, can you show me where the the bible says that the Holy Spirit might leave the Church at any time?
@bolded; have they always been the case ever since inception, or would you attribute it to a our post modern world issue? Figure that out.


The question was, being that there exists among protestants, the fundamental disagreement as the one I highlighted, which of them has the accurate interpretation of the biblical authors, the apostles and the early church fathers' teachings? Or is interpretation of the scripture and faith now a subjective all comers' affair?