₦airaland Forum

If we don't like people because they don't do what we expect them to, does not make them wrong. Perhaps we are wrong in expecting that. That's inly my opinion.

If the universe is too complex to have happened and evolved, then it is more than impossible for an intelligent designer to exist. Also if life is just too complex to have evolved, it might also be too complex to have been created. And indeed, a moment's thought shows that any God capable of creating all these complex living things (to say nothing of a universe) would have to be a far more complex, and therefore statistically improbable, entity itself - even more in need of an explanation than the object he is alleged to have created.

I'm not muslim if you want to know. And there are lot of christians in western world who go for war and not do what christians are supposed to do. Remember that most exploitation is done by western christians and not by muslims.

You don't like muslims much?

Islamic people have close connection with God. And Muhammed was great prophet.

Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is 'teaching' them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?

2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?

3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?

4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?

5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, 'once saved always saved', and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?

6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?

7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?

I could go on and on with the differences between non-Catholic sects, but I think you get the point. It takes only a minimum of common sense to realize that the Holy Spirit could not be speaking to each and everyone of those thousands of non-Catholic sects in the opposing ways of which I have sampled here. However, I was recently reminded that common sense is not so common anymore. It is easy to see that the 'fruits of Sola Scriptura' are not from GOD. There is no 'one fold and one shepherd' in Protestantism. Opposing teachings in these denominations is rampant, all caused by the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura and its accompanying 'individual interpretation' of Holy Scripture. Which, if any, of these sects is being taught all of the truth, as promised by Jesus Christ in John 16:13?

I come from the Semites to the north of modern Israel in the area corresponding more or less to modern Lebanon which were called Phoenicians by the Greeks and who developed the modern alphabet.

In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers removed a large section of the Old Testament that was not compatible with their theology. They charged that these writings were not inspired Scripture.

Following the Protestant attack on the integrity of the Bible, the Catholic Church infallibly reaffirmed the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books at the Council of Trent in 1546. In doing this, it reaffirmed what had been believed since the time of Christ.

The Protestant patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old and New Testament] . . .

The deuterocanonicals teach Catholic doctrine, and for this reason they were taken out of the Old Testament by Martin Luther and placed in an appendix without page numbers. Luther also took out four New Testament books—Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation—and put them in an appendix without page numbers as well. These were later put back into the New Testament by other Protestants, but the seven books of the Old Testament were left out. Following Luther they had been left in an appendix to the Old Testament, and eventually the appendix itself was dropped (in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society), which is why these books are not found at all in most contemporary Protestant Bibles, though they were appendicized in classic Protestant translations such as the King James Version.

The reason they were dropped is that they teach Catholic doctrines that the Protestant Reformers chose to reject. Earlier we cited an example where the book of Hebrews holds up to us an Old Testament example from 2 Maccabees 7, an incident not to be found anywhere in the Protestant Bible, but easily discoverable in the Catholic Bible. Why would Martin Luther cut out this book when it is so clearly held up as an example to us by the New Testament? Simple: A few chapters later it endorses the practice of praying for the dead so that they may be freed from the consequences of their sins (2 Macc. 12:41-45); in other words, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Since Luther chose to reject the historic Christian teaching of purgatory (which dates from before the time of Christ, as 2 Maccabees shows), he had to remove that book from the Bible and appendicize it. (Notice that he also removed Hebrews, the book which cites 2 Maccabees, to an appendix as well.)

Martin Luther (1483-1546) is to be given the credit for inventing the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Bible Only or Bible Sufficiency).
It has become so bad that the sects are feuding amongst themselves and are further splitting internally. There are scores of splinters in the Baptists alone, and several splinters in all of the other major Protestant sects. It is every man for himself in Bible interpretation for Protestantism. If it feels good for you, it must be OK, but be prepared to suffer the consequences. There is no unity in what Martin Luther started.

Luther is the one who, on his own 'authority', removed 7 books from their rightful place in the Old Testament, and placed them in an appendix. They had references in them which did not agree with 'his' teaching, mainly 2 Maccabees and Purgatory. He also wanted to remove the last four books of the New Testament, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he succeeded in removing them from their rightful place and put them into an additional unnumbered appendix.
Here is a quote from a Lutheran scholar:
Heinrich Bornkamm's LUTHER AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Trans. by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Edited by Victor I Gruhn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. page 189:
"He did not make his distaste evident through his arrangement for printing, although he characterized the last four writings of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) as inferior by not numbering them in the Table of Contents, just as the Old Testament Apocrypha, and by separating them from the main writings of the New Testament by a clear space.(394)"
The footnote, number 394, reads as follows: "394 From the New Testament of September, 1522, to the last edition of the Bible in 1546, "
So what do we know? Luther included the four books, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, in his NT, but only in an unpaginated appendix, clearly separated from the rest of the NT. We know that this continued from the first printing of Luther's NT until he died in 1546, and then his Bible was reconfigured by his followers.
James 2:24 must have proved an embarassment to him in his teaching of 'Sola Fides', as it says, "You see that by works a man is justified, and NOT by faith ONLY." Also, James 2:26 says, "Faith without works is dead."
Luther added the word 'alone' to his translation of Romans 3:28 because that verse also contradicted his teaching of 'Sola Fides', "For we reckon that a man is justified by faith alone independently of the works of the law."
See Proverbs 30:6


Martin Luther declared good works were useless for salvation. He did take away from the Words of GOD. James 2:24-26

Martin Luther wrote a series of pamphlets in which he declared that the Priesthood and the Episcopal Office must be done away with. He did take away from the Word of GOD, which clearly established the Episcopal Office and the Priesthood. Acts 6:5,14:22,20:28, Tit 1:5, James 5:14.

So the protestant Bible is corrupted and cannot be relied on and certanly no way in line with Muslim Tradition Muslim is purer

I'm a semitic person

There are lot of similarities, unless you're protestant and have mixed and corrupted everthing up.

Definately not an extremist.

It is interesting how the Bible was formed and the reverence the Catholic Church has had for the Bible since she defined it and the Catholic Church's preservation of the Bible up to the Douay Rheims translation. I mention here the painstaking process of how monks copied Bibles before the printing press. I also defend the Catholic Church against accusations that they hid the Bible to keep people ignorant of it.

I give two reasons why it is hard to find English Bible translations dated before the reformation. Because the Protestants destroyed many Catholic objects in countries where the reformation flourished, Catholic Bibles could not be found in these areas. However, in countries where the reformation did not take foothold, there are many existing vernacular Bibles. I actually went to the Field Museum in Chicago and saw 11th century Spanish Bibles with my own two eyes. It was luck that they were on a tour.

I learned that Martin Luther regarded the Epistle of James to be unworthy to remain in the Scriptures (mostly because of James 2:24) but I had to do some searching to verify it.

Enough now. Wish you a nice day

How about the tongue-lashing disciplinarian your typical Pentecostal preacher is.

I agree 200% with Nfern here.

So, what's wrong with Pentecost? I think the most important fault within the entire movement is the religious power and authority most of these denominations and congregations instill within the local pastor -- something that is pandemic within both Pentecostalism and its spiritual descendent, the Charismatic movement. The local pastor has Pope-like powers over the local church, and many Pentecostal/Charismatic pastors rule over their local assemblies like virtual dictators -- many only having church "boards" filled with "yes-men" to satisfy tax authorities. In many of these congregations, the pastor answers to no one -- to no committee, not to the church at large, and not even -- in many cases -- to the denominational organization that credentials him. He is an authority unto himself and to his God, and many Pentecostal/Charismatic/non-denominational church-goers literally believe that his words uttered in sermons, prophecies, etc., are the literal words of God -- as surely as most Christians believe the Bible to be.

Am catholic and been going out with pentecostal woman and I tell you it's not the same.

You these so-called "born-again" are nothing but hypocrites! Although, I'm not a Christian (and I will never be one; I was born a Muslim and I'll die a Muslim -- insha Allah), but I respect the Catholics more than you "new breed" christians. By negating them you have alienated over a billion of the christian adherents. What makes you better than the catholics?

I fully agree with ajisafe on this one

they get killed by the bad