₦airaland Forum

ijawkid: Don't act like you don't know what we are talking about..........UBe and you(I no know wether you follow too) are celebrating EOSTRE............I just want UBE to tell me what relationship Jesus has with EAOSTRE.....

Can you please answer the question too??........

Just answer............

Honestly don't know what you are talking about. Getting to know bout EAOSTRE for the first time (& from you). It appears you know bout EAOSTRE than zikkyy. You should be the one telling us bout the relationship between Jesus & EAOSTRE. e be like you don worship EAOSTRE before I can only talk about Jesus

Alwaystrue: ....... but it does not negate the fact that tithe is essential for the work of God.

This is very false statement. If tithe was essential for the work of God, the apostles would have collected tithe. Please don't let anybody deceive you.

ijawkid: Hehehehe.............I am only telling the man that Jesus hates eoastre.........because its a pagan goddess...I just don't know how Jesus got entangled with that goddess........I really just don't know...maybe UBE can help us explain how our Lord is linked to the goddess EOASTRE..........

If someone tells you he is celebrating Christ resurrection, take it like that. Unless you have evidence to prove that it was all a lie. UBE is not saying that he is celebrating the the resurrection of 'EOASTRE', you are one accusing him of worshiping 'EQASTRE'.

ijawkid: You guys are nt celebrating the ressurection christ...you are swimming in the pagan celebration of easter which Jesus himself never instituted.....don't u get it??......

Must you guys always tie Jesus to paganism......can't you leave Jesus alone??........leave him alone and hug paganism.....choose one and leave the other.............

What is Jesus' business with easter??.....

You don start again why force someone to worship other gods? If the man says he is celebrating Christ resurrection, why accuse him of worshiping something else. Abi you saw the man in sango worshipping attire sacrificing a goat to sango?

Syncan: You see why it is unsafe to follow one man's interpretation of scripture. Even Paul himself had to go back to Jerusalem to be re-assured that what he was teaching is right. That's why we talk about councils and not one man.

there's no bullet-proof approach to interpreting the scriptures. they all have advantages and disadvantages. The idea of a council is not bad if the congregation is carried along. The council work even better in this age where people don't even want to interpret the scriptures for themselves. so they swallow the both the drug and poison provided by the church leaders. italo's position is that the council must be that of the RCC. and my position is that council's interpretation is acceptable if it aligns with my understanding of the scriptures, afterall council members are also bringing in their private interpretation on the matter under review.

Syncan: Please remind me what we are talking about.

Interpretations my dear, interpretations. that's the koko of the matter here

italo: Even if the books are false, it wouldnt mean there is no Christ. The books could well be a deliberate misrepresentation of the person and teaching of Christ.

It would still mean that you do not know what you believe.

I think that's what referred to as 'faith'

italo: You protestants just dont get that.

Please stop calling me a protestant am not protesting anything here.

italo: The problem is you dont know what you believe. If they did, then you can never be sure you know Christ.

I think the problem is you don't understand what you are reading. There is a difference between 'can' and 'did'.

italo: Is that what happened at the council in Jerusalem?

They took feedback from every Christian?

stop comparing church leadership of today to the apostles. modern day arrangement is what i call 'student teaching student' we all rely on what was laid down by the apostles. They are not teaching any new stuff. It just that they spend more time with the scriptures and history books

italo: ...And you think the "founding fathers" were sinless?

Ma illustration was not to show that the apostles were without sin, but to show that a lot of factors can influence church teachings today and some of these teachings can contradict that of the apostles..

Syncan: That's where we profess belief and yet we have no faith. The apostles were with Jesus, heard him preach that he will rise after the third day, yet they had no faith that it will happen that way. The same scenario is repeating, Why will i look at the "Church" as being solely under human influence?

Yeah. same way Rev. King followers believed their pastor was being led by holy spirit you never know till something happen to show otherwise.

Syncan: Yes o, because i believe Christ's word is true..."and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".

we are not talking about Christ word here o!

italo: The bolded is big evidence that you dont even know where you stand.

if only i understand what you are talking about here.

Ubenedictus: not when d holyspirit is alive, will he be sleeping when d whole church is teaching error!

We have thousands of interpretations abi? so the truth is out there somewhere

Ubenedictus: Again dat implys dat d bible u hold may be filled with error, a council compiled it.

are you referring to the books or the content of the books?

Enigma: And bros, quite often people misrepresent and overstate what happened at the Council of Jerusalem. That Council addressed a very small number of specific things,

So what then happened to all the many many many different things that Christians still worried about (and that divide Christians today) ---- who says that those Christians of that era did not still do some things differently. Remember that the New Testament had not been written at the time.

True talk. Something to think about.

Ubenedictus: while d councils do so, d approach will still be problematic unless d council resolve only to teach what d church of christ always taught. If d feedback method alone is used then all d churches in america will teach dat gay sexual activities are moral.

There is no option/approach to the issue of interpretation that provides 100% solution. i don't expect the council to accept feedback from the congregation just like that, but it must consider their views as well. and i agree that decisions must align with Christ/apostles teachings. gay right cannot be in the majority except (maybe) america or uk

Ubenedictus: what happen when some preachers started preaching circumcision, d council of jerusalem happened, what happened when arius d presbyter rejected d Godhood of christ a caused division in the church, d council of nicea.... The list goes on. At d end d heresy is decleared for what it is and d true teaching continues.

We past that age when councils exist to decide what is true teaching and what is false teaching. Now councils exist to rubber stamp the decisions/teachings of the big guy.

Ubenedictus: the bolded is what italo also rejects. The apostolic teaching must be infalliable or we are all in trouble.

The apostolic teachings, yes. but church teachings today need to be properly scrutinized before acceptance.

Ubenedictus: d apostles are not a separate entity on their own, they are part of d church, d church continues to teach thoughout the ages d very same the apostle taught that is why paul says "the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"

i have no issue if the church been teaching the same stuff taught by the apostles. but is it possible for the church to come up with teachings that contradict that of the apostles? i will say yes. it all depends on the guy in charge at any point in time.

Ubenedictus: can one reject d church dat wrote and compiled d bible and at d same time accept d bible? No they are on package.

The issue is not about rejection. To reject the church is to reject (ext.) 1.2 billion people. No, am not rejecting anybody.

italo: The Catholic Church today cannot teach, and has never taught something that contradicts what it taught through the apostles in the 1st century.

Who told you the catholic church cannot teach wrong. This is the problem, you just believe the catholic church cannot go wrong. are they not human? Just pray you don't get a gay leadership that will allow gay marriages someday. peeps like you will not recover from such decision, cos you so much believe the church leadership cannot be wrong.

italo: The Catholic Church today cannot teach, and has never taught something that contradicts what it taught through the apostles in the 1st century. It is YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of what the Catholic Church taught through the apostles writings and YOUR PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of what The Catholic Church teaches today that can cause you confusion.

There will always be private interpretation, otherwise you become a zombie.

italo: ...made available by who? Why do you protestants always dodge that part?

I still don't know why you call me a protestant, and i don't remember ever arguing over who compiled the bible.

italo: So you accept Christ and the Bible, but you reject the Church that compiled and gave you the Bible and its interpretation. That is hypocrisy.

For me, this is not a matter of rejection. Your anger should be directed at frosbel not zikkyy. don't think have done enough to justify your accusations. my belief is that the church leaders are human and can make mistake. i will accept interpretations that aligns with my understanding of what is written.

italo: Besides how do you the description of Christ you accept is the true one? How do you know it is not an imaginary "christ" described by heretical leaders of the church in the heretical books they included in the bible?

This is the only Christ i know. if you know of any other Christ, i need the info so i can compare.

italo: They are not Churches. Jesus founded only one Church. All those shops were founded by men.

The church is not the shop. i will agree with you to the extent that some peeps consider the shop a church.

italo: I say THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. What do you say?

it depends on the interpretations that aligns with my understanding of the scriptures.

italo: How do you know that what you are accepting unconditionally are the teachings of the apostles. They could be heresies included in the bible by the heretical people that could have led the Church (which you said above) when the Bible was compiled and canonized. Example: how do you know that Mark wrote "Mark?" How do you know the book was not sneaked into scripture by possible heretical leaders of the Church at some point?

The books aligns very well with my belief (though it instrumental to my taking such decision). what am saying is that if the books are false, then there is no Christ. but if the heretics were preaching Christ in process, all good.

italo: You are the one with a problem here, not me. I believe heretics never led the Catholic Church at any time and their teachings can never find their way into Catholic doctrine.

well....you said it.

it just your belief, we don't know if your belief will hold.

italo: You believe these could have happened because the Church is made up of humans that can err. My submission to you is that, given your opinion, the Church could have been teaching heresy on any particular doctrine and could have even filled "the bible" with heretical books. How can you then be a Christian, when the book you claim to learn christianity from could be full of heresy...for all you know.

You have to understand that the content of the books is not the issue here. The church teaches from the book and probably adds its own and try to justify it with the book. That's my issue. In the course of doing this the church can get it wrong.

debosky: Because human beings can go astray - that you got something right yesterday doesn’t mean you will always get it right. Why should I accept the practice of indulgences for example which was never taught by Jesus? Why should I accept the practice that the ‘same Church’ eventually ‘modified’ when it saw its error? We hold on to that which is true and discard the rest.

My point exactly! this is what i have been trying to tell my brother, italo.

Ubenedictus: false teachings can only happen when we deviate from right teaching.
When false teaching started in d early church what happened? The council of Jerusalem.
The church remained d bulwark of truth.

The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.

Syncan: The problem lies when we start looking at "the church" as separate from us, as a group of people with hidden agenda.

Very true.

Syncan: The major church teachings are ratified by councils, and these are a congregation of church leaders from all over the world where the church exists. Believe me, contrary views are heard, research and deliberations made in prayers and a final decision taken at the end. This is a rather more trust worthy means than relying on ones own interpretation.

What are you going to ratify, when the major decision maker is said to be infallible? the council more likely to be rubber stamp. That's my issue here. If the council considers the views/feedback from the congregation before taking a decision, your approach will be most ideal even if it will not solve the problem 100%.

Syncan: Exactly the point! If Peter and Paul had been allowed to continue with their divergent views on circumcision, Imagine the chaos it would have caused...No one can accuse Peter or Paul of not being led by the holy Spirit, or is there? But they had to seek clarification from the council, and when the council decides, then..."it has pleased us and the Holy Spirit..."see (Acts 15). What could be more certain than the decision of the church.

It was much easier then, cos the council members were what you would call the 'founding fathers' It's not that easy anymore. Just imagine if you have a council with homos as majority addressing the issue of gay marriage

Please note i do not have the RCC in mind when making the comment above, just an illustration.

italo: If the could teach you a lie, then it is also possible that the Church could have lied about the Canon of Scripture.

If you want my honest view, then i say it's a possibility. My very little understanding of church history gives the impression that what was included in scriptures was arrived at based on simple majority (or influenced majority ), so do we have the complete scriptures? i don't know. Maybe there were some other letters by apostle Paul not in wide circulation or were destroyed (poorly handled) prior to the time the church compiled the bible.

italo: Maybe "Mark" wasnt written by Mark... And maybe "The Acts of Peter" was scriptural but the Catholic Church dubiously threw it out.

Have you considered the implication of that?

There would be no Christian faith if the Catholic Church could teach error.

What's my own if Mark was not written by Mark? It's also possible that the "Acts of Peter" was scriptural. The thing is i don't have info to substantiate these possibilities. i no dey there, so I have taken a decision to accept what was presented.

italo: If the Church was infallible in 50AD, then it will remain infallible to the end of time.

You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes.

italo: So make up your mind. Was the Church infallible in 50AD?

I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false.

The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible.

italo: But the (Catholic) Church continued to teach God's word and declared the Canon of Scripture and you accepted.

Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package.

italo: There is NO denomination. There is only ONE Church that teaches ONE faith.

I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings.

italo: If one group says "Jesus is God"; and another says "Jesus is not God," can they both be "denominations" of God's church? NO. God does not teach such confusion.

True. The question is, who is correct.

Goshen360: Okay, two quick questions. I'm yet done with you on the first issue of Mary, mind you. I have time all day today.

1. Are you saying events like Noah's flood did not happen literally?
2. Are you saying Christ raising Lazarus from death did not happened literally as a miracle of Christ?

i am not so sure Obadiah is doing much damage with his teachings. i think you should let it go.

Enigma: You see, it still boils down to each individual listening to what Jesus said and letting the Holy Spirit remind oneself of what Jesus taught. However, we come back to how to know what Jesus ---- but look at the basic things that I focused upon: (1) Jesus is the Way of Life and (2) We respond by trusting him and following the teaching love God and love neighbour. Before I go on, is that something that any Church no matter that they may be in error on other things will have difficulty to teach ----- even to an illiterate?

Now if we are taught those two things {Jesus is the way; we respond by loving God and neighbour); and if we remind ourselves to follow them e.g. anything we want to do we say is this loving of God and neighbour ----- then we will be yielding to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

But Bros you know say love don take back seat for church. not when you have P.I.M.P.s and idol worshippers on the pulpit if it was all about love, fallibility would not be an issue.

Enigma: The problem is that "churches" like to go on teaching all kinds of sometimes fanciful stuff (and good stuff too admittedly) but really it is important that the church focus on the gospel, the central message ---- and to use what really I find difficult to acknowledge as a cliche --- the Cross.

Now you are talking. This is the koko of the matter. Its the fanciful stuff we are talking about i think the whole infallibility talk is all about who is infallible and who is fallible when it comes to teaching fanciful stuff

i think frosbel relocated to Rome

@Frosbel are you reporting from the vatican?

Enigma: C. The Holy Spirit: Leading and Teaching

1. The first thing: Christians are required to submit to the Holy Spirit; in any event the Head and Founder Himself said He would be sending the Holy Spirit; t[b]herefore Christians should no longer need anyone else to teach them to submit to the Holy Spirit.[/b]

But Bros, you know pastors are always coming up with something new, what happens to those that cannot read (depend on others including pastor to feed them)? i mean all they know is what been taught (probably by pastor). How will the Holy Spirit influence this?

Enigma: ^^^ And the thread in the following link discusses one way to look at the infallibility of the "Church".

https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach

seen. am leaving a comment there for you.