₦airaland Forum

frosbel: I will rather bow before a stone than become a Muslim

God forbid !

em..frosbel, are you sure you are not referring to the black stone? the one in Mecca, Saudi Arabia appears the islamization of frosbel is already in progress

frosbel: ISLAM is against my Ibo culture

Lol!

chukwudi44: Constanstine did not make constantinopole the head of orthodox christianity as orthodox xtianity did not exist then.

True talk. i wonder what this orthodox Christianity thing is all about.

Enigma: The Orthodox are even till today still called Orthodox Catholic Church.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

Edit

Atheist:-D:
The key here is that the Catholics tried to put the Orthodox church under its authority. There would have been no schism if they were already one church.

Don't tell me there was an orthodox church prior to the 'schism'

one more thing sir, can there be a schism if they were not one church? e.g. can we have the Christian/Hindu schism and i thought my knowledge of church history was close to zero

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

Lol! frosbel takes things to the extreme sometimes. being an islamic fanatic would mean frosbel migrating to Afghanistan. that would mean the end of frosbel on NL. I don't even see him making any post cos he's going be busy fighting the American marines

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At the rate which you are going you might end up with lagosshia before the end of the year.

They are already good pals

Atheist:-D:
There is middle ground. You can be an Orthodox Xtian. I believe they are more loose with tithing but believe in the Trinity too.

... are you saying orthodox churches are not catholic?

Atheist:-D:
Orthodox and Catholicism were the two main branches of Xtianity. They were never under the Catholics (except for shortly after the 4th crusade).

I can't say they were ever under catholic, but they were part of one catholic church before the name change. It's either they are still catholic or they are protesting. I think their not wanting to be identified with the word 'catholic' makes them protestant.

frosbel: Just a question, do i need to belong to any one of the about 40,000 denominations that exist to be called a Christian ?

No. and you don't need it to belong to any denomination to be protestant

chukwudi44: Please don't derail this thread if you want us to discuss this we can continue from the last thread which you shamelessly abandoned after your own trick was used against you.

Take it easy na. which one you dey?

Enigma: I agree with the bolded although it always depends on how one is using the expression "catholic church" and whether one is using it properly.

Are you saying you don't agree with the un-bolded part? the part that has to do with frosbel being a protestant

Enigma: Actually, I had wanted to explore some of these issues and also that the use of the expression 'Roman Catholic Church' only started in about the 16th century (yep, that recent relatively speaking) in that thread on the RCC and the canon of the 'Bible' link provided below for reference.

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

There is no way you are dragging me to that thread i reject it IJN

on second thought maybe i might have something to say just as long as it has nothing to do with who canonized the bible. i am quite sure that was done by my great great ...... great grandfather

petres_007: The premium you WoLFers place on numbers is one red flag I believe consistently gives you away. The way that leads to life isn't the one with multitudes on it.

The problem with modern day church. success is measured by the number of attendees.

Pastor Kun: You are wrong, there are at least five major christian denominations that pre date the catholic church and did not spin off(protest) from them; namely greek orthodox church, ethopian church, egyptian coptic church, syrian orthodox church and the armenian church. These churches never protested from
the catholic church.

Basically speaking, not all christian churches broke away from the catholic church.

The churches listed above were originally part of one catholic church (i think ). it's either they still catholic or they are protesting even if you claim you are not protesting, i don't see how frosbel can escape the categorization. Beig an ex-catholic, i believe he left in protest That makes him a protestant.

frosbel: I am a Christian with no strings attached, no denomination.

There is no middle ground, it's either you are catholic or protesting . You don't need strings to know you belong to the daughter or grand daughter category abi you be orphan maybe you want to claim the virgin birth as well

But being an ex-catholic, i think you belong to the 'prodigal son' category

You can see there's no way you can escape being categorized

frosbel: Wow !!

Her daughters ( protestants ) are only doing what 'Mummy' does and 'Mummy' sure knows how to reap the cash .

These chaps have so much in common , they don't just get it .


- Tithe
- Trinity

What next !!

Frosbel, do you worship allah or sango? cos if you are christian there's no way you can claim not to belong to either the 'mummy' or 'daughter' category.

Pastor Kun: The truth is that these pastors never reveal to the congregation that they intend to charge exhorbitant fees for the university they actually give an impression that the university belongs to the members. They are silent on issues such as school fees or if church members would have concessions as far as fees is concerned. That to me is what is called "obtaining by false pretense" aka 419

I can't say i know the pastor's objective, so maybe it's '419' for real. But i also think it goes beyond availability of information. for example, oyedepo can stand on the pulpit today and announce that the university is broke more donations required, it's very likely some of the poor members will contribute even if they cannot afford to educate their children. Some people don't consider fees at the time they make their contribution, sometimes it's a thing of pride. i.e. "my church is establishing a school";

the congregation can claim ignorance for contributions towards the establishment of the first generation (pentecostal) church universities like covenant, but i don't think today's congregation should naturally assume that any proposed church university/school will be affordable. Not when they have the covenant experience to learn from.

Pastor Kun: The truth is that these pastors never reveal to the congregation that they intend to charge exhorbitant fees for the university they actually give an impression that the university belongs to the members.

This is something i don't support and fully in agreement with you. pastor's should not give the impression it's a collective ownership.

Jenwitemi: Lol! The poor congregation gets conned by their "shepherd" into contributing money for building an institution they and their children will never benefit from and they should not blame the church hierarchy for it?! Oh well, the poor sods deserve what they get for putting their faith in these con artists in the cloak of pastors.

I don't see why you should blame the pastor if the poor congregation knew the fees was going to be in U.S dollars prior to contributing.

manmustwac: Well shouldn't the church at least be honest and faithful and let the poor congregation know that their hard earned money that they contribute towards the building of the priviate university would only be affordable for the rich and out of the price range the poor. Don't you think that would make a lot more sense Zikky rather than to con and decieve the poor congregation?

True, members should be made aware of the visions/motive of the church/pastor (from the beginning). That's when when you blame the the church/pastor. I think that's what Joagbaje was saying here:

Joagbaje: If the vision for the institution was for free education or for Christians only or for the poor. You may blame them . But I don't think that's the case.

Joagbaje: They seem to be getting secular over faith issue . But not for long. Nigeria is the capital for real Christianity in my opinion and God is sending men from Nigeria to nations of the world with the gospel and signs and wonders . The world will believe very soon

Real Christianity Jo, you know this cannot be true. It's true the population of church goers is massive, but that does not equate to 'real Christianity'. The United Kingdom might just be the capital of 'real Christianity', even with the low population of Christians. There's not much to show for Christianity in Nigeria other than people somersaulting on t.v (e.g. when oyaks is doing his thing), or oyedepo slapping the 'winch' out of little girls.

ijawkid: Joe it would be wrong if u take sides with these guys who milk there members dry to erect schools that the members after putting much effort to build d school cannot afford the fees after its completion.....

Its clear that these persons(the church members) are being used...

For once say ""NO" to the corruption that is prevalant in the churches today.....

I want to agree with joagbaje, you really need to ask what the church objectives are. Was it to provide affordable education to church members? was is to provide quality education (only to those that can afford it)? Was it for profit? If it was clear from the very beginning that it was going to be for those that can afford it, you don't blame the church.

MacDaddy01: As for Anony, I am obsessed with debunking the guy. The religionists here look up to him as the alpha debater. Not good for my business here

Lol!

mkmyers45: Kindly Ignoring your insults

My apologies if that's the way you see it. It was never my intention.

mkmyers45: Can you educate me on the significance of prophecy in relation to the future?

The way i see it; prophecy only tells you what will happen in future. It's a notification, nothing more.

mkmyers45: How then will the prophecy be fulfilled if it dosent account for actions that lead to it?

It has nothing to do with accounting for actions that leads to the future event coming to pass. A prophet coming here to inform the house that mkmyers45 will be reading this post at a future date has nothing to do actions leading to you opening this page. He's just passing information.

mkmyers45: Can you educate me on the significance of prophecy in relation to the future?

You know you are behind on your school fees i don't see how you'll get a proper education if you don't pay up

Prophecy talks about future events, it does not decide the event. you need to be able to separate these two. Prophet Joagbaje under divine inspiration can come here and prophesy that mkyers45 will read this post. Your logging on to NL was not determined by the prophecy.

mkmyers45: then indeed someone had to do it and of course the identity of this said person would not matter?

whether the identity was known or not is not an issue. It does not change the fact that it could have been anybody.

mkmyers45: Jesus had pity on this said person and even wished he was not born why?

I believe i already answered this question.

Image123: you do not understand a prophecy. It is seeing the future, not just writing or making the future. The future comes.

Don't mind the young man jare i don't understand his obsession with 'prophecy', as if it's prophecy that determines the course of events.

mkmyers45: so it was possible that the prophecy could have failed no?

The prophecy could not have failed. not possible.

mkmyers45: It could have been anybody no? But at the end of the day it will just be ONE person doing that one thing that could have been done by anybody yes?

You are avoiding my question what's your idea of truth?

mkmyers45: It could have been anybody no? But at the end of the day it will just be ONE person doing that one thing that could have been done by anybody yes?

Yes, it 'just one person doing that one thing'. The issue here is whether there was an audition or screening exercise (conducted before man was created)and judas was selected as the man to do the job. To ensure the job was carried out, he was programmed to make only the pre-determined choices that would lead to him betraying Jesus. My question is this; you believe this is the truth abi? so what is the basis for arriving at such conclusion? is it what is written in the bible? or is it your interpretation of what is written? or is it based on your knowledge of physics?

mkmyers45: ..Its not about stubborn but about the truth...

What do consider as truth? Is it what is written in the bible? or your interpretation of it?

mkmyers45: in Physics it does...

Physics ke how?

mkmyers45: ^^^^ Jesus in his omniscience knew what he will do? that says it all then..

You stubborn sha am begining to think you are pre-destined to keep arguing this pre-destination thing knowing what will happen does not equate to controlling events that will lead to the expected outcome.

mkmyers45: Matthew26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely you don’t mean me, Rabbi?” Jesus
answered, “You have said so.” What do you understand by the bolded?

I don't know how you want to interpret the bolded,you can imagine the type of punishment that awaits judas for this act. is it not better judas was never conceived? it has nothing to do with predestination.

^^^^ Mr. Jo, carry go i dey your back for this one

Delafruita: christians believe in predestination and therefore judas was destined to betray jesus.

Lol! so because 'some' christians believe in predestination, you can conclude that judas was destined to betray Jesus. Lol!

Delafruita: and as you know,yahweh says his honours his words above his name so judas had all the cards stacked against him.even if he attempted to walk a different part,yahweh would still have pushed him back unto the path of betrayal.

....and God told you that it's Judas or no show. Lol

Delafruita: just as pharaoh didnt choose to harden his heart.the bible says "and the lord hardened pharaoh's heart".

yes, and the bible did not say it was routine

Delafruita: yahweh is ultimate and does what he wants in any way he wants it.he chose to despise esau for no reason.he chose to strike uriah dead despite his attempts to keep the ark from falling.

That's why he is God

mkmyers45: Two Questions: Does the bible say anything about destiny of a man even before he was conceived?

I understand destiny as being the final outcome or the result of choices. We all make choices that results in a particular outcome and that outcome becomes a destiny. The outcome (destiny) would have been different if a different option was selected. I believe to pre-destine is to decide the choices or action a person will make (in advance) and that will lead to the expected outcome.

To answer your question, i will say that God knowing the outcome of choices we make (even before we consider these choices) is not the same as deciding the selection of these choices/options.

mkmyers45: Matthew26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” 25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely you don’t mean me, Rabbi?” Jesus
answered, “You have said so.” What do you understand by the bolded?

Jesus knew it was going to be Judas, but did he decide Judas choice? Consider this bible verse as well:

1Co 2:8 None of the rulers of this world understood it, because if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

is it possible for satan and his crew to stop Judas from doing what you believe he was destined to do? If he can, it mean Judas destiny could have been different. Then i don't consider Judas betrayer as being pre-destined.

mkmyers45: He didnt choose anything..He was pre-destined to betray jesus,there was also prophecy on what he will do with the money and how he will die..

who told you he was pre-destined? The prophecy was that something will happen. am sure the prophecy did not say that a man named judas will be the one to do the job. It's just that somebody has to do it.