The Vatican will exhume popes john paul II coffin for beatification on the 1st of may this year , what do you think about this act
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41670671/ns/world_news/?GT1=43001

Its a tradition of Cults like the catholic and other known cults.

LoveKing:

Its a tradition of Cults like the catholic and other known cults.

Meaning catholic church is a cult ?

No o. It means a cult is the Catholic Church

fredoooooo:

Meaning catholic church is a cult ?

Yes the Catholic church is the most influential cult on earth.

. . . up to them!

A cult is a religious system or sect, and says a sect is a religious group with a common faith so the Catholic is the most cult or sect. More influential than all the other cults put together, including your own cults.

This indeed is a foolish act of the highest degree. Pope or no pope. The man is dead like any other man. Buried like any other man. And his spirit has gone to spend eternity either in heaven or hell like any other spirit of man.What if the pope is burning in hell now? They will be here doing beatification for a soul burning in hell. You think being a pope or bishop or whatever qualifies you for heaven?  I pity people that are deceived  by such s.tupid  belief.

italo:

A cult is a religious system or sect, and says a sect is a religious group with a common faith so the Catholic is the most cult or sect. More influential than all the other cults put together, including your own cults.

if i can decipher what you write , you mean every religion is a cult ?

alexleo:

This indeed is a foolish act of the highest degree. Pope or no pope. The man is dead like any other man. Buried like any other man. And his spirit has gone to spend eternity either in heaven or hell like any other spirit of man.What if the pope is burning in hell now? They will be here doing beatification for a soul burning in hell. You think being a pope or bishop or whatever qualifies you for heaven? I pity people that are deceived by such s.tupid belief.

May God guide our ways , am speechless as i hate condeming others religion or belief , but this amaze me ,

@poster.
There is a difference between condemnation and saying things the way it should be. I am telling you that God cannot change his standard for heaven because of a pope or bishop. God cannot accept any sin in heaven weather it is commited by a pope or bishop or anybody pls. So if a pope happens to commit sin either secretly or openly and fails to amend his ways with God before death he goes to hell. God bless you.

alexleo:

@poster.
There is a difference between condemnation and saying things the way it should be. I am telling you that God cannot change his standard for heaven because of a pope or bishop. God cannot accept any sin in heaven weather it is commited by a pope or bishop or anybody pls. So if a pope happens to commit sin either secretly or openly and fails to amend his ways with God before death he goes to hell. God bless you.

i didnt say you condemn them, i only refer to myself that i would have name the topic the controversial .I perfectly understand your point and its the main reason i create this topic cos we both think in the same direction ,

This indeed is a foolish act of the highest degree. Pope or no pope. The man is dead like any other man. Buried like any other man. And his spirit has gone to spend eternity either in heaven or hell like any other spirit of man.What if the pope is burning in hell now? They will be here doing beatification for a soul burning in hell. You think being a pope or bishop or whatever qualifies you for heaven? I pity people that are deceived by such s.tupid belief

Alexeo I know your stand whe it comes to the catholic church and would not have bothered to respond if not that others are also reading his but for the sake of others let me explain.

A man is not beautified because he is either a pope or bishop.We have had hundreds of popes and bishops who were not beautified.There are steps involved in canonisation which is the act of confirmation that a person is in heaven.

The Steps of Canonization
Here are the steps that must be followed in the process of canonization:

A local bishop investigates the candidate's life and writings for evidence of heroic virtue. The information uncovered by the bishop is sent to the Vatican.

A panel of theologians and the cardinals of the Congregation for Cause of Saints evaluate the candidate's life.
If the panel approves, the pope proclaims that the candidate is venerable, which means that the person is a role model of Catholic virtues.

The next step toward sainthood is beatification, which allows a person to be honored by a particular group or region. In order to beatify a candidate, it must be shown that the person is responsible for a posthumous miracle. Martyrs -- those who died for their religious cause -- can be beatified without evidence of a miracle. On Oct. 20, 2003, Mother Teresa was beatified. She is now known as Blessed Mother Teresa of Kolkata.

In order for the candidate to be considered a saint, there must be proof of a second posthumous miracle. If there is, the person is canonized.

Some saints like St Anthony of Padua have worked more miracles after their death than even when theey were on this earth.Anthony of Padua is credited with over 100,000 posthumous intervrntion over the ages including raising of four people from the death in the months after his death.Heis also has the shortest canonisation duration in church history being caninmised only nine moths after his death.


Upon exhumation a lot of saints have been found to be incorrupt which is another miracle in he canonisation proces of the church

http://listverse.com/2007/08/21/top-10-incorrupt-corpses/

@chukwudi is this act biblica ?

@chukwudi is this act biblica ?

IS IT BIBLICAL FOR YOU TO USE THE INTERNET? HOW BIBLICAL IS THE CREATON OF THE BIBLE ITSELF BY THESE SAME CATHOLIC CHURCH.


IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POST HUMOS MIRACLES,YES IT IS BIBLICAL,THE PROPHET ELISHA RAISED A MAN FROM THE DEAD AFTER FROM HIS GRAVE

That is one of the devilish rituals that is perfumed by the Roman Catholics. There is no such thing in th Bible. Only God knows what they mean by that.

chukwudi44:

IS IT BIBLICAL FOR YOU TO USE THE INTERNET? HOW BIBLICAL IS THE CREATON OF THE BIBLE ITSELF BY THESE SAME CATHOLIC CHURCH.


IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT POST HUMOS MIRACLES,YES IT IS BIBLICAL,THE PROPHET ELISHA RAISED A MAN FROM THE DEAD AFTER FROM HIS GRAVE

please am asking about the beatification not post humous , please enlighten me more

It means that catholics will start praying through the dead pope

@fredooo


First and foremost I don't beleive in sola bible since it ha no biblical backing.Besides the compilation of the bible itself has no biblical basis.So what iam saying in essence is a thing does not necessary have to be iN the bible for it to be genuine.

The bible did not exist until it was created by the catholic hurch at the synod of hippo in 393 CE

Thanks chukwudi for your kind reply , so very good to hear others opinion without any abusive language , i really apprecitae that . i respect ur opinion and belief ,
you said you dont believe in the bible as it is not biblica , then what scripture do you believe in ?

chukwudi44:

@fredooo


First and foremost [b]I don't beleive in sola bible since it ha no biblical backing.Besides the compilation of the bible itself has no biblical basis .So what iam saying in essence is a thing does not necessary have to be iN the bible for it to be genuine.

The bible did not exist until it was created by the catholic hurch at the synod of hippo in 393 CE [/b]

Chukwudi,
To think you vehemently quote scriptures against some other issues like your life depends on it, so it was all for show?
You don't even believe in the bible? And yet you keep going on and on, whenever someone posts something that 'where is it in the bible?' Why are you acting like a hypocrite.
All because you have been boxed into a corner by beatification questions, which you cannot answer and which you are yet to show us a scriptural backing for, you deny the bible!?
I am not surprised anyway. Even the one that we show you in scriptures sef, you deny.

For your info, the 'bible' is a compilation of scriptures given by the inspiration of God. So I really do not understand what you are now saying.

Chei! and to think you are one of Kunleoshob's main 'men', 

chukwudi44 is just deceiving himself. He only misquotes the bible to back up some of their devilish catholic beliefs. Now he is telling us that he doesn't believe the bible. Let me say it clear- anybody who follows all these devilsh catholic tradition is going to hell. God is not a respecter of some of those nonsense traditions. Be warned.

The catholic church is the biggest open cult, i thank God that Jesus rose and went to heaven. . . wonder what they would have done with his bones

I think you all are missing chukwudi's point. It is more subtle than whether or not he believes the bible. I hope you all know what sola scripture means.

The bible was compiled by the church. The church councils determined which books were valid for inclusion and which were not. It therefore follows that the church that granted this authority or validity to the bible must be a higher authority than the bible. If God tells people to listen to moses cos he is his messenger then God has given authority to moses. Moses' authority can never be higher than the authority of God himself. It is God who gave moses his authority.


Likewise it is the church councils that picked certain books and rejected others to form the bible. They then vested authority in the bible as a source of guidance in christian life. It therefore follows that the bible can not have a greater authority than the church that gave it it's authority. Sola scriptura is taking the bible alone with a disregard for the authority of the church. That is like listening to Moses but having no regard for God that sent him.

This is the complex situation that Sola Scriptura finds itself in.

Of course Chukwudi believes the bible, but he believes it as he is taught to by the superior authority of the church that actually conferred the bible with it's authority originally. His position is very strong and is backed by history. There are many books that are quoted in the bible and mentioned as scripture that are not actually in the bible.


Books such as the Book of Enoch are quoted in the new testament authoritatively so we know that Jesus' disciples used these books for instruction. Yet they are not in the bible. Why not? Cos the church councils did not deem them fit to be in the bible. By what authority did the church do this? Whatever the authority is it is greater than the authority of the bible itself which was their creation.

* The Book of Jasher (whose title fully translated means the Book of the Upright or the Book of the Just) is mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18. From the context in the Book of Samuel it is implied that it was a collection of poetry. Several books have claimed to be this lost text, but are widely discounted as pseudepigrapha.
* The Book of the Wars of the Lord.[1] Referenced at Numbers 21:14.
* A "Book of Songs" is referenced at 1 Kings 8:12-13 (Septuagint).
* The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (lost/missing) and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah ("2 Chronicles" in your Old Testament or "Divrei Hayamim II" in the Hebrew Tanakh) are mentioned in the Books of Kings (1 Kings 14:19, 14:29). They are said to tell of events during the reigns of Kings Jeroboam of Israel and Rehoboam of Judah, respectively. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is again mentioned in 1 Kings 16:20 regarding King Zimri, and many other times throughout 1 and 2 Kings.
* "The Book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the Seer" (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annuals of the Prophet Iddo) is mentioned in the book of 2nd Chronicles. (II Chr 9:29, 12:15, 13:22). Iddo was a seer who lived during the reigns of Solomon, Rehoboam, and Abijah. His deeds were recorded in this book, which has been completely lost to history, excepting its title. However, it is interesting to note that Zechariah was the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1, Zechariah 1:1)
* The Manner of the Kingdom[2]

Referenced at 1Samuel 10:25.

* The Acts of Solomon[3]

Referenced at 1Kings 11:41.

* The Annals of King David[4]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 27:24.

* The Book of Samuel the Seer Also called Samuel the Seer or The Acts of Samuel the Seer, which could be the same as 1 & 2 Samuel .[6]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

* The Book of Nathan the Prophet Also called Nathan the Prophet or The Acts of Nathan the Prophet or History of Nathan the Prophet[5]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29, and also 2Chronicles 9:29.

* The Book of Gad the Seer[6]

Referenced at 1Chronicles 29:29.

* The Prophecy of Ahijah[7], might be a reference to 1 Kings 14:2-18.

Referenced at 2Chronicles 9:29.

* The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel[8]

Referenced in 2Chronicles 16:11, 2Chronicles 27:7 and 2Chronicles 32:32. Might be the same as 1 & 2 Kings.

* The Book of Jehu[9], Could be a reference to 1 Kings 16:1-7.

Referenced at 2Chronicles 20:34.

* The Story of the Book of Kings[10]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 24:27.

* The Acts of Uziah Also called The Book by the prophet Isaiah. Perhaps the same as the Book of Isaiah[7]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 26:22.

* The Vision of Isaiah[11]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 32:32.

* The Acts of the Kings of Israel Also called The Acts and Prayers of Manasseh.[8] May be identical to The Book of the Kings of Israel, above.

Referenced at 2Chronicles 33:18.

* The Sayings of the Seers[12]

Referenced at 2Chronicles 33:19.

* The Laments for Josiah Also called Lamentations. This event is recorded in the existing Book of Lamentations.

Referenced at 2Chronicles 35:25.

* The Chronicles of King Ahasuerus[13] Perhaps the same as 1 & 2 Chronicles.

Referenced at Esther 2:23, Esther 6:1, Esther 10:2, and Nehemiah 12:23.

Non canonical books quoted or alluded to:[18]

* Book of Enoch (Jude 4,6,13,14-15[22], 2 Peter 2:4;3:13[22][23])
* Life of Adam and Eve (2 Corinthians 11:14 "Satan as an angel of light", 12:2 "Third Heaven"[24]
* a lost section of the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9 "Michael, body of Moses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

Books such as the Book of Enoch are quoted in the new testament authoritatively so we know that Jesus' disciples used these books for instruction. Yet they are not in the bible. Why not? Cos the church councils did not deem them fit to be in the bible. By what authority did the church do this? Whatever the authority is it is greater than the authority of the bible itself which was their creation.

Sola Scriptura leads to all kinds of mess cos once you allow people to start interpreting the bible privately outside of how it was meant to be interpreted by the church councils then the interpretations will not stop. The only limit is the creativity of the person reading the bible. People can read it and understand that the Levites are present day pastors and they have a right to recieve tithes. Without the authority of the church such an interpretation is as valid as ahy other interpretation that anybody may care to pull out of their hat.

^^^^ Interesting

From http://nethymnal.org/htm/f/i/firmlyib.htm

And I hold in veneration,
For the love of Him alone,
Holy Church as His creation,
And her teachings are as His own.

. . . except that the problem, particularly  in current times, is identifying "the true church" and its voice ---- a point being made in recent threads by the poster Frosbel (I believe).

Sigh!

Chukwudi,
To think you vehemently quote scriptures against some other issues like your life depends on it, so it was all for show?
You don't even believe in the bible? And yet you keep going on and on, whenever someone posts something that 'where is it in the bible?' Why are you acting like a hypocrite.
All because you have been boxed into a corner by beatification questions, which you cannot answer and which you are yet to show us a scriptural backing for, you deny the bible!?
I am not surprised anyway. Even the one that we show you in scriptures sef, you deny.

For your info, the 'bible' is a compilation of scriptures given by the inspiration of God. So I really do not understand what you are now saying.

Chei! and to think you are one of Kunleoshob's main 'men',

I never said i don't beleive in the bible,I only said I don't beleive in sola bible which means bible alone since it itself has no scriptural backing

You people argue too much cant you harmonise for once

You people argue too much cant you harmonise for once