₦airaland Forum

easymancfc:
Reason 1: this was before the resurrection... so technically.. heaven was not open yet.. secondly you assume that the body and soul need to be together before it can be resurrected....

Jesus said that the hour was coming when those in the grave will hear His voice, and will come out, some to resurrection of life, and some to resurrection of damnation. How does Jesus saying this before resurrection have any impact on the meaning of His statement?

when a person dies we know the soul is not in the body anymore..

Where does the Bible teach this?

easymancfc:
Resurrection of the body like I have said to you.. doesn't preclude or exclude anything... if you still insist.. then explain...
Hebrews 12:23, Hebrews 12:1 and this
Rev 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before thou wilt judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth?”

Gen. 2:7 KJV defines "soul" as a combination of body and breath of life. Therefore SOUL = BODY + BREATH.

Just like GOD said the blood of Abel was crying unto Him out of the ground, the things which these men suffered demand justice.

Jesus said, “Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John 5:28, 29).

easymancfc, how can the righteous be in Heaven now when Jesus says that those who have done good would resurrect "from their graves" to eternal life?

Paul in 1 Thess. 4:16-17 describes without any limitation the way and means by which we go to be with the Lord. Don’t overlook the word “so” in his statement. It means “in this way.” By that little word Paul precluded every other way of being with the Lord. When he described the coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the saints as being the manner and means of being with the Lord, he automatically excluded all other means of doing it. Then he admonishes us to “comfort one another with these words.”

easymancfc:
I thess 4:16.. doesn't tell you that... it only says bodies will be resurrected.. this soul of the dead in Christ are in heaven... So 1 thess 4:16 doesn't disprove anything...

1 Thess. 4:16 says the "dead in Christ" will rise when Christ returns, not bodies. How can a soul be in Heaven and bodies resurrect when Christ comes back? The soul is not separate from the body.

easymancfc:
Let's live the part about her hearing us first...

DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOU JUST SAID MARY IS NOT IN HEAVEN?? BY WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU SAY THAT.. DOES THE BIBLE TELL YOU THAT??

I KNOW YOU HATE CATHOLICS BUT DON'T SAY WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE BLASPHEMY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY WHO IS IN HEAVEN OR HELL MUCH LESS PRONOUNCE JUDGEMENT AGAINST JESUS'S MOTHER...

1 Thess. 4:16-17 tells us that Mary will resurrect to meet the LORD when He comes back to this earth. So, she is not in Heaven now, and you're deceiving yourself praying to whom you don't know.

easymancfc, if you read your Bible, you would know that praying to Mary is unbiblical.

First of all, Mary doesn't even know that you're praying to her, neither is she in Heaven right now, nor does she intercede for anybody!

Ubenedictus:
by ur reasoning It was in antioch that people where 1st called xtians, so before then, there were no Christians.

I know you would not read that article, lest you be cured of your delusion.

Follow the link below to find an excellently articulated piece debunking the "Pope Peter" fraud. Included in that article are quotes from even the Catholic encyclopedia admitting that the early Christians didn't see Peter as Pope, and that Damasus was the first to refer to himself as "Pope".

www.excatholicsforchrist.com/articles.php?PageURL=Peter.htm

italo:
But one of them (Judas) sold him for 30 silver pieces, one (Peter) denied him 3 times, one (Paul) killed many Christians, one (Thomas) doubted his resurrection, and all (12) struggled to be the greatest.

Who called Rome the home of forgery? Another of your imaginary ex-nuns?

Judas was not converted in the heart, we know.

Peter later repented and never denied Jesus again. He also did not act like a pope over the church, nor was did he claim to be lord over the monarchs of the earth.

Paul killed Christians when he was still in Judaism. When he met Christ, he repented and never killed anyone again.

italo:
This cannot be taken seriously by any right thinking person because the person you're quoting does not exist.

Malachi Martin didn't exist?

italo:
From one lie to the other. 'Ex-nun, Mary Ann Collins' never existed. Alberto Rivera was never a Jesuit Priest.

Your whole faith is built on sand by satan, the father of lies.

It's a pity.

LOL. Says the person who believes in a church that is known for forgery and lies.

Walter A. Elwell (editor), "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), page 141.

We all know how good the catholic church is at forgery. Indeed, Rome was called "the home forgery" during the dark ages. Moreover, stop deluding yourself: the Roman Catholic church did not produce the Bible. The Bible was written by holy men of GOD who were not Roman Catholics. They didn't pray to Mary, they didn't collect indulgences, they didn't institute any office of celibate priesthood filled with homosexual priests who keep on molesting children and women who come for confession, or unholy, corrupt, greedy and immoral popes.

Ubenedictus:
provide proof of this pls.

I guess the catholic church also forged the bible abi?

It is common knowledge that even up till the time of Miltiades, nothing like a "pope" existed. Miltiades was only the Bishop of Rome but catholics now call him a pope.

Bishop Silvester was Miltiades' successor. Silvester was eager to have the Church be spread using Roman roads, Roman wealth, Roman law, Roman
power, and Roman military might. Constantine officially approved of Silvester as the successor of Miltiades. Then he had a coronation ceremony for Silvester and crowned him like a worldly prince. No bishop had ever been crowned before. (Malachi Martin, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church," pages 34-35).

italo:
Provide evidence.

italo:
Very funny, coming from one who started this thread with a forged article from "Ex-nun, Mary Ann Collins," who never existed.

You should bury your head in shame, but no, you're an antiCatholic protestant.

For what it's worth, Mary Ann Collins could be a pen name. The person behind the name may have chosen not to reveal her true identity. We all know how the catholic church murdered Alberto Rivera(a former priest) after he left the catholic church and exposed them.

italo:
Since you are already distancing yourself from your post, I dont see any reason to engage it.

Do you still maintain that there were no Popes before 200AD?

Yes, there were no Popes before Constantine, a pagan, crowned Sylvester, and commanded other churches to become loyal to him.

italo:
Please mention just one of these your "many Churches" that existed before 314AD and provide evidence.

The church in Corinth, the church in Ephesus, the church in Galatia, etc.

Also, where is your evidence of what you claimed happened at the Council of Carthage? Which books were agreed on at the council?
Please provide evidence of this.

Walter A. Elwell, "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1984), page 141.

Again, the books were already in the bible at the Council of Carthage. If the books were added in 1548 by the Catholic Church, how come the Orthodox Church that had a Schism with the Catholic Church in 1054 have them in their Bible?

We know that the council of Carthage met to recognize properly as canon those books that were already canon by concensus of use. Did Christians even around the time of Origen use the book of Maccabees or Sirach? The answer is NO. So, you have no point.

blackbriar:
What do you mean by "you know the church can manufacture forged documents",you guys are just anti-catholic fanatics.
Have you ever worked with the church in any means( diocesan or vatican) and they gave you forged documents? Have you?Going by your argument that means the Bible is a forged document . Is it?

Here is a true Roman Catholic who doesn't know jack about his church and what they can do. He gobbles down whatever he is fed by the priests.

Bro, the Roman Catholic church has forged many documents and writings, and edited countless others, simply to lend credence to whatever lies they've decided to teach their flock. The Catholic encyclopedia even admits these forgeries!

The Donation of Constantine is only one, and a good example, of such forgeries. You can read about the Donation of Constantine on Wikipedia.

On whether there is a set, unchangeable destiny which GOD has for each person, I would say NO. Life itself also doesn't randomly assign fate to individuals. Our fate is a function of the choices we make. No one is destined to be destroyed, neither is anyone destined to be saved.

We may receive the reward of our good deeds here on earth. We may also not receive the reward of our good deeds here on earth, but we can be sure that every single good deed will be rewarded(Matt. 5:12)

The confidence we have in GOD is that when we pray according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, we know that we have the petitions we desired of Him(1 Jn. 5:14-15). Sometimes, the reason why our prayers are not answered is because we "ask amiss" to consume it on our lusts(James 4:3). Know, also, that GOD can delay the answers to our prayers according to His will.

The perfect path in which the LORD decides to lead His trusting child may be fraught with hunger, adversity, privations and sorrows, but surely that path is going to lead to eternal life, "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Heb. 12:6

Jesus Christ our Lord, "learned obedience by the things He suffered." Heb. 5:8

The early Christians who loved and served GOD with all their hearts were crucified, burned at the stake, fed to wild beasts, locked in terrible dungeons, beheaded or flayed alive. Is GOD not capable of saving them? Or does not care about their sufferings? He is able to save, and He cares for us, but He allows things come our way for a reason. The stories of how GOD dealt with us as His trusting and obedient children can serve to further the cause of His kingdom.

And then when everything is over, we will live in a world where no disaster, disease or privation will exist.

"We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one." 1 Jn. 5:19

The story of Job comes to mind. OP, while GOD may not always directly interfere in our everyday lives, we can be sure that He is not oblivious of anything that happens to us. The perfect earth which GOD created had no disease, hunger or disasters. These things came as a result of sin. Satan seeks to inflict pain on the followers of GOD in any way he can, to make them doubt GOD or charge Him foolishly. In one day He brought Job from 100 to 0. Job surely didn't understand why those things were happening to him, but his story today encourages Christians who suffer adversity.

OP, as far as you remain trusting in GOD, obeying Him and doing His will, you can be sure that He is guiding you through the best possible path, "For the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him..." 2 Chron. 16:9

Ubenedictus:
2. You claim the Catholic Church changed the
Bible by adding the 'Apocryphal' books in 1548.
But those apocryphal books were listed in the 397AD Council of Carthage's Canon, which you claim was an identification of the canon that existed already.
So which one is true.

The apocryphal books were not canon before 397 A.D. going by concensus of use. And since the catholic church only gathered in the council of Carthage simply to recognize as canon those books which were already canon by concensus of use, we know then that the apocryphal books were not even thought of in that council.

I know. I know. I know how the catholic church can manufacture forged documents as evidence to support their lies. So, don't even bother showing me any evidence of the council of Carthage listing the apocryphal books as canon.

italo:
1. Who then created this canon that already existed?

2. You claim the Catholic Church changed the Bible by adding the 'Apocryphal' books in 1548. But those apocryphal books were listed in the 397AD Council of Carthage's Canon, which you claim was an identification of the canon that existed already.

The many churches in the parts of the then-known world had copies of one or more of the NT epistles, Gospels and maybe the book of Revelations. These books of the New Testament were generally held as Scripture then and were used by the churches. This was sixty years before the formation of the catholic church in 314 A.D. The catholic church simply gathered in the council of Carthage to agree that all those books were regarded as canon by concensus of use were canon.

The catholic church added apocrypha the Bible in the council of Trent(1548), simply because they seem to support their unbiblical practices.

The canon of the New Testament was not formed
by the decision of any Church council. Rather, the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) listed as canonical "only those books that were generally regarded by the consensus of use as properly a canon". [Note 18] In other words, it didn't create the canon. Rather, it formally identified the canon that already existed. So the Catholic Church did not give us the Bible. However, it did help confirm the authenticity of six New Testament epistles. Also, Catholic monks faithfully preserved the Bible by copying it. The Catholic Church changed the Bible. In 1548, at the Council of Trent, it added the Apocrypha to the Bible. The apocryphal books contain passages which are used to justify some Catholic doctrines, such as praying for the dead.

The early Christians expected that Jesus would return for His Church at any moment. As a result, they didn't see the need for long-term planning for future generations. Furthermore, Christians were persecuted by the Romans. When your life is in constant danger, it is difficult to collect writings which are scattered all over the Roman Empire. So it took time to collect all of these writings, decide which ones were authoritative Scripture, and make complete sets of them. By the time of Origen (185-254 A.D.), there was general agreement about most of the New Testament. However, there was disagreement as to whether the following six epistles should be part of the New Testament canon: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude. This was sixty years before Constantine's "conversion" and the formation of the Roman Catholic Church in 314 A.D. By 367 A.D., all of the books of the New Testament were acknowledged as being authoritative Scripture.

Why weren't all of these books collected in one place? Look at what the books themselves say. Individual apostles wrote them for specific audiences. For example, the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written for Theophilus. (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Most of the Epistles were written to specific churches or to specific individuals. (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:2; Ephesians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:1; 3 John 1:1)

The Old Testament was written by God's inspired prophets, patriarchs, psalmists, judges, and kings.
It was faithfully copied and preserved by Jewish scribes. Modern Protestant Bibles have the same content as the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament was written by Christian apostles. None of them were Catholics, because there was no Roman Catholic Church at the time. This was over two centuries before Constantine's "conversion". The early Church did not have the New Testament as we know it. Rather, individuals and local congregations had portions of it. They would
have one or more of the Gospels, some of the letters which Apostles had written, and perhaps the Book of Acts or the Book of Revelation.

The devout and knowledgeable Henry Halley further notes:
“The Church was founded, not as an institution of Authority
to Force the Name and Teaching of Christ upon the world,
but only as a Witness-Bearing institution to Christ, to hold
Him before the people. Christ [Messiah] Himself, not the
Church, is the Transforming Power in Human Life. But the Church [which] was founded in the Roman Empire, and gradually developed [for itself] a form of Government like the Political World in which it existed, become a vast Autocratic organization, ruled from the top.”

www.ramsheadpress.com/messiah/ch10.html

[It] had become a Political Organization in the Spirit and Pattern of Imperial Rome....The Imperial [Roman Catholic] Church of the 4th and 5th centuries had become an entirely different institution from the persecuted [true believers’] church of the first three centuries....Ministers became Priests. The term ‘priest’ was not applied to Christian ministers before a.d. 200. It was borrowed from the Jewish system, and from the example of heathen priesthood. Leo I (440-61) prohibited priests from marrying, and Celibacy of priests became a law of the Roman Church....The Goths, Vandals and Huns who overthrew the Roman Empire accepted Christianity; but to a large extent their conversion was nominal and this further filled the Church with Pagan practices.”

Halley not only documents the changes Constantine made,
but the period of time under Emperor Theodosius just after
him: “Emperor Theodosius (a.d. 378-398), made Christianity
the State Religion of the Roman Empire, and made Church
Membership Compulsory....This Forced Conversion filled the Churches with Unregenerate People. Not only so, Theodosius undertook the Forcible Suppression of all other Religions, and Prohibited Idol Worship. Under his decrees, Heathen Temples were torn down....Up to this time Conversion was Voluntary, a Genuine Change in Heart and Life. But now the Military Spirit of Imperial Rome had entered the Church. The Church had Conquered the Roman Empire. But in reality the Roman Empire had Conquered the Church, by Making the Church over into the Image of the Roman Empire....

www.ramsheadpress.com/messiah/ch10.html

italo:
Your link takes its lies from Mary Ann Collins. One who is said to be an ex-nun, but never existed.

When anti-Catholic protestants have to manufacture a non-existent ex-nun, to manufacture lies to disprove the Catholic Church, you should know they are being led by a spirit other than the Holy Spirit.

Have you ever seen the Catholic Church manufacturing a pentecostal pastor, to manufacture a lie about pentecostalism?

Why is it always protestants telling outright lies against Catholicism?

Argumentum ad hominem, mixed with a little bit of red herring.

Is anything in that article not true? Bring your solid evidence. Don't gimme those forged "writings from the early church fathers".

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early Christians were all Roman Catholics, and that (aside from the Orthodox Church) all Christians were Roman Catholics until the Protestant Reformation. It claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, ruling from Rome. It also claims that it gave us the Bible.

But do these claims stand up to the test of history? Or are they false credentials?

There is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church began with Emperor Constantine. Many Protestants believe that throughout Church history, there have been many true Christians who were not Catholics, and these Christians were often killed by the Catholic Church. They also believe that Peter was just one of the apostles, and that the Catholic Church only copied and preserved the Bible, which God had already given to us.

Follow the link below to read more:

www.behindthebadge.net/apologetics/discuss129.html