₦airaland Forum

The Catholic Church is the same Church the Apostles built and it's not a denomination. If your reason for thinking that the Catholic Church is a denomination is that there are many other Churches with different doctrines then that means the apostles too were not 'non-denominational' like you put it because there were also other Christian groups that taught a different doctrine from what the apostles were teaching and this is evident from the verses in the Bible that warned the early Christians against following a different doctrine. Like it or not. Peter was the head of the same Church that has Pope Benedict XVI as its head today. If you are still adamant, then perhaps you have to furnish me with the date the Catholic Church started and also tell me what happened to the Church that Jesus told the apostles the gates of hades wouldn't prevail against.

Enigma:
0@ italo

Don't let him mislead you; it is more complicated than that and even 'alma' does/can mean virgin. Do some more study on the subject. An example: the Septuagint which was compiled way way before the Christian era translates it to a Greek word that is widely reckoned to mean virgin ---- even though some will argue that even that word can be used e.g. to mean maiden.

EDITED I have found a link with a useful simplified discussion (though the discussion can be 'heavier or more 'scholarly')

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/jewishcatholicdialogue/virginbirth.htm

Dont worry about me, I'm just fooling around. What do you do when a blind man is arguing ferrociously with you that grass is a colour other than green. After giving him reason and explaining to him why that it's green and he refuses, I think it's best you just tell him, 'okay, I think you're right, it's actually red like you said, I can see it properly now'. Or what do you think Enigma?

vedaxcool:
- Isaiah, Chapter No. 7, Verse No 14, says, prophesying of…‘The coming of a person who will be born to a virgin - his name shall be Emmanuel.’ They say… the Christians - it refers to Jesus Christ peace be upon him. Born to a virgin - the Hebrew word there is ‘amla’, which means not ‘a virgin’- ‘a young lady.’ The word for ‘virgin’ in Hebrew is, ‘baitula’, which is not there. Even if you agree - we are using concordance - we agree… ‘Virgin’… ‘Virgin’ - No problem. It says… ‘He will be called Immanuel.’ No where in the Bible is Jesus Christ peace be upon him, is called as Immanuel - Unfulfilled prophecy.

It's true sha, but Sir, do you know the meaning of 'Immanuel'?

@

nopuqeater:
@Italo: « #173 on: Today at 10:33:58 AM »In the interest of peace, Italo said of the muslims and those who may read their posts; fools or may be fooled. Some peaceful quality there. And Jesus said whosoever called aanyone a fool, will end up in Hellfire. Then he turned around, according to the Bible called some people fools.

I didn't call anyone 'fool'. You don't have to lie just because you want to diminish Jesus.

See how you have resorted to lying, to the extent that you now insinuate that I insulted all the Muslims here.

You can begin a Jihad(as usual) on me but, first, where's your proof?

Dear Viaguru,

The Catholic Church teaches that speaking in tongues is a gift of the Holy Spirit. However, the popular notion of speaking in tongues promoted by Protestant Pentecostals is false. They speak nonsensical gibberish and call it speaking in tongues. This is not from God according to the Bible.

The Catholic Church understands speaking in tongues to mean speaking a human language previously unknown to the speaker. At the first Christian Pentecost this truth was clearly illustrated. “Tongues as of fire appeared, which parted and came to rest on each of them. All were filled with the Holy Spirit. They began to express themselves in foreign tongues and make bold proclamations as the Spirit prompted them” (Acts 2:3-4). The Apostles spoke a language previously unknown to them “These heard the sound (of wind), and assembled in a large crowd. They were much confused because each one heard these men speaking his own language…'How is it that each of us hears them in his native tongue?'” (Acts 2:6, . This is clear biblical evidence that speaking in tongues is not Pentecostal gibberish.

Another example of true speaking in tongues occurred before St. Peter baptized in to the Church the first Gentiles. The Gentiles received the Holy Spirit and began to speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46). Later, Peter explained to the complaining Jews why he baptized Gentiles. “If God was giving them the same gift he gave us when we first believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to interfere with him?” (Acts 11:17). What was the gift that the Apostles received when they first believed at Pentecost? They spoke foreign languages previously unknown to them.

St. Paul teaches at length about true speaking in tongues. He teaches that true speaking in tongues does not consist of uttering nonsensical gibberish. “Similarly, if you do not utter intelligible speech, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will be talking to the air” (I Corinthians 14:9). St. Paul also says that what one is saying must build up the Church which gibberish cannot do. “Since you have set your hearts on spiritual gifts, try to be rich in those that build up the Church. Therefore, he who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret” (I Corinthians 14:12-13). Further he points out that one's spiritual gift must be used to teach one's fellow Christians. “Thank God, I speak in tongues more than any of you, but in the church I would rather say five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:18-19). Finally, St. Paul notes that speaking in tongues can help unbelievers to believe because it is a spectacular manifestation of the Spirit. “The gift of tongues is a sign, not for those who believe but for those who do not believe” (I Corinthians 14:22). Yet for the Protestant Pentecostal they speak their gibberish for the benefit of their fellow Pentecostals. Often many in their church are making unintelligible sounds all at once “as the Spirit moves them”. Such action is condemned by St. Paul. “If any are going to talk in tongues let it be at most two or three, each in turn, with another to interpret what they are saying. But if there is no one to interpret, there should be silence in the church, each one speaking only to himself and to God” (I Corinthians 14:27-28).

The Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church's position on speaking in tongues. Just as clearly the Protestant Pentecostal gibberish is condemned by the same Bible.

God Bless You.

I actually got the above from a Catholic website for you. I do not want you to fall away from the faith as many have done out of ignorance. However, I pray that these questions in your mind ultimately lead you to the truth. If I may say this, you are already in the truth, don't fall away!

nopuqeater:
Italo is now playing the "ital o card; speaks ignorantly when sure he has been caught red handedly.


Englishman; it that a U boat?
ital o: no. am just a looking.

Maybe I'm just trying to live in peace with my Muslims brothers. However, when spoke what I knew, it didn't go down well with you; now I 'seek knowledge' from you, it still doesn't go down well with you.

Maybe you want to be the one to answer the question I asked vedaxcool;

"Are you serious? I thought it could only be used to defend one idea, 'that Jesus is the servant of God'. I didnt know it could defend the opposite. And what is this opposite? Please enlighten me."

Besides, how have I "been caught red handedly"?

Even if they are demonic symbols Obama has shown that you have no backbone to challenge him, if it was Hitler that told you to renounce Jesus Christ you would jump before he tells you to.

Why would Hitler tell a Catholic to renounce Jesus? I thought it was Mary, Images, saints and anything but Jesus that they worship. Wouldn't that mean that even the devil(Hitler) thinks (or knows) they worship Jesus?

Jesus said those who are ashamed of Him are not worthy of Him.

Even if you want to dodge a question, this was a very poor way of doing it. Haba! To think that I thought highly of you. Just to refresh your memory, which I thought was better. The question was; "Why should both the cross and the symbol not be considered pagan symbols. Is it not the same Catholic Church that brought about the symbol that also brought about the veneration of the Cross and the Crucifix? Or is making a cross and venerating it not "idolatory" like non-Catholics always say?"

You are known for making an idol out of the Eucarist how much more of symbols.

That might just be a good reason for me to have doubts. But what about you, don't you make an Idol of the cross? And what is the 'Eucharist'? Last time I checked, it was Christ.

You will have to ask Obama's administration what they have to fear about the name and cross of Jesus, I even learnt that they have now banned the army chaplains from using the name of Jesus Christ in prayers when they are praying for christian soldiers.

Of course it's clear to me that the devil is at work in the world. However, this is only another kind of persecution. Those who endured even worse persecution(and stood firm in the name of the Lord even in the face of dehumanizing deaths) many centuries ago have been 'persecuted' as 'pagans' by you.

A lot of Muslims and socialists would certainly be proud of him for stripping America of what remains of their Judeo-christian values.

I wasn't asking about Muslims and socialists. I said shouldn't you be proud of Obama for covering up 'pagan' symbols? Straight to the point.

dexmond:
I just want to correct misconception about the new testament been written by the catholic church without joing in the arguement. The apostles were non-denominational christians. In other words, they were not catholics. Therefore, the new testament was not written by catholics.

Even though you say you don't want to argue, I'm afraid I have to implore you to defend what you have said.

What is 'The Catholic Church'?

The Catholic Church does not see itself as a denomination so on what basis do you say it is one?

What is a denomination?

I humbly await your answers but if you do not have answers it's okay. It's always better to ask about what you don't know than try to force ignorance on others(who might know more than you do).

The sweetest thing in the world is the reply you got from 'whiteroses'.

Well said. If only the truth will be accepted.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=487126.msg6467562#msg6467562 date=1280336665]I thought Mr Oladeegbu thinks catholics are demonic pagan worshippers. Shouldn't covering up their ''pagan symbols'' make him a true christian[/quote]

OLAADEGBU:
The jesuit symbol may be a pagan symbol but the cross is not. For them to agree to cover it up says so much about how they stand up to their faith.

If the Cross is not a pagan symbol but the 'Catholic demonic pagans' are using it(alongside other demonic pagan symbols) for demonic pagan purposes in a demonic pagan house of worship, should you not be proud of Obama as a true Christian for covering them up and - in doing so - discouraging millions of Americans from emulating and imitating these demonic pagan practices?

Why should both the cross and the symbol not be considered pagan symbols. Is it not the same Catholic Church that brought about the symbol that also brought about the veneration of the Cross and the Crucifix? Or is making a cross and venerating it not "idolatory" like non-Catholics always say?

Remember the Bible says in Exodus 20:4: "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.

Doesn't that tell us that it's not only making images of Jesus, Mary or the Saints(in heaven) that is wrong but also making images of the Cross(on earth) too.

Shouldn't you be very proud of Obama?

Now you should blame your bible for speaking from the two side of its "mouth". since it can be used to defend two opposing ideas at the same time.

Are you serious? I thought it could only be used to defend one idea, 'that Jesus is the servant of God'. I didnt know it could defend the opposite. And what is this opposite? Please enlighten me.

By the way, I'm already baming my Bible as you ordered.

Enigma:
@ italo

Well done for holding firm even though it seems hardly worth it with your 'opponents'!

Image123:
Haha, sorry o italo. Talk about testing one's patience. It is well. Ahah

**Laughing** Thanks guys. Talk about the "opponents", it surely not worth it. It's just that, you could never tell who else might be reading and getting fooled.

Cupidkc:
Experience was nice, dt kind of attitude can only b seen in Africa. Interestin story!

Sorry to disappoint you, it wasn't in Africa, it was in the American Virgin Islands. So said the OP.

Nwaka77:
She probably is not married to a naija man. Are you people not the same people who suspect your GF/wives of cheating on you or being to whorish once they know what they want in bed? I know naija society and backward cultural mindset all too well. You naija males do not know what you want. Tomorrow, I will see another thread on nairaland from a typical naija male asking whether or not to marry his girlfiend because she seems too experienced in bed and knows what she wants. One can't win with ya'll I tell ya. Feel really sorry for naija women sometimes especially the ones back home who are stuck with with ya'll.

Well, I don't know about the "naija males" in your family, but I know what I want.

Nwaka77:
@OP

When a woman says NO she means NO! All this epistle ain't gonna work! If it was here in the States, you can go to jail for stalking and harrasing a lady and she can even file a restraining order against you but in naija, anything goes I guess

What has the OP said that suggests "stalking" and "harrasing"? The guy's talking about "acting coy and aloof, 'being confident', 'teasing her and walking away' and you are talking about 'going to jail'. And are you trying to give the impression that these techniques aren't used in the US even more than they are in Naija? Please! Don't tell us the same things you would tell old folks in your village.

Pimpu:
PURE FALLACY JOHN NEVER SAID THAT

Okay, John never said that. His words were twisted.

Romans 9:5 says: "according to the flesh is the Christ, who is God over all".

Paul's words too were twisted.

2nd Peter 1:1 says: in the righteousness of our God and saviour, Jesus Christ.

Peter's words too were twisted.

The only parts of the Bible that weren't twisted are the ones that say 'Jesus is the servant of God'.

I agree with you.**smiling**.

When Italo finally listens to Jesus statement; the servant sent by God Almighty Eloi. I guess that will not happen because Italo is stuck in a neutral of fallacies.

Alright, in the interest of peace, I agree, I'm "stuck in a neutral of fallacies" as you say.

Belief a lie. Thats enough for you.

I also agree. But that lie is my life. Thank you.

Maybe you should lead the way. What do you think?

@ OP.

Is there really any point? Is there anyone here who hasn't seen or heard of a case of someone putting his or her faith in God(or seemingly doing so) on a particular issue and ending up not getting that which he or she wanted?

Be more imaginative and you just might achieve your aim more easily.

Well I can.

I was never trying to convert you. The only reason I got on this thread is for the sake of those whose faith in Jesus - as God - might be shaken by what was being said here. I believe - by God's grace - I have given them encouragement. I agree with you that truth is one, however I want to add that truth is not something you fight to establish. It fights for itself.

At this point I recall how Jesus handled those who never believed him while he was on earth. He would always preach with an open heart to those who believed but would be elusive to those who didn't - often answering their questions with questions of his own or referring them to scriptures. They were the ones who always came asking all sorts of quuestions. Several times when they tried to kill him, he escaped. At the trial, he stood, almost speechless, when all sorts of accusations were being levelled against him. He knew they couldn't see the truth because they had blocked their minds. He knew nothing he said would change their minds.

Abraham said in a parable given by Jesus: if they dont hear Moses and the prophets, they will not hear even if someone rises from the dead and tells them.

Jesus resurrected and instead of believing, they lied that his disciples came to steal his body.

Isaiah said he shall be called "mighty God"

Matthew 28: 9 says: , and they came and beheld his feet and worshipped him.

John said "the word was God".

Acts 7: 59 says: "and calling upon God, and saying Lord Jesus, receive my spirit".

Romans 9:5 says: "according to the flesh is the Christ, who is God over all".

2nd Peter 1:1 says: in the righteousness of our God and saviour, Jesus Christ.

Now what is Italo going to say that will make you believe?

But its okay, not everyone should believe.

I know Jesus is my God. That is enough for me.

alexleo:
italo,
where did you get that false information that catholics wrote the new testament? And even if they wrote it (which I insist they did not) are those that wrote it still alive to give it the true interpretation you are talking about. Anybody who knows the bible knows that it is the Holy spirit that interprets the bible and thats why you need the Holy spirit. How can you get the Holy spirit when you are not taught about him in your church?

Your problem - just like that of many protestants(of course not all) - is very fundamental. Sorry but my post wasn't for you because you don't seem to have even the slightest hint of the history of the Church or what it stands for. It was actually for people who knew more. I don't usually argue with people who know as little as you seem to know except they are willing to learn. Am sorry I have to leave you to wallow in your lack of information.

@ITALO I HAVE STATED THIS BEFORE BUT U IGNORE IT NOW U HAVE TO FACE IT
Verse No. 6
Thomas said to Jesus; "My Lord and my God." John 20:28
Perceived by the "man of extraordinary faith": Since Jesus did not rebuke Thomas, upon hearing the above explicit statement declaring him as God, proves he was God.

Study No. 6
Here is the entire text from the 'New American Standard Bible' John 20 : 27-28:

   "Then he (Jesus) said to Thomas, 'Reach here your finger, and see my hands, and reach here your hand, and put it into my side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'"

Please observe the mark of exclamation (!) at the end of the phrase. The King James Version has removed the exclamation mark.

John 20: 16: Jesus said to her, [b]"Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni," which means Teacher.

So should we also take it that "Mary!" was just an exclamation and not her name - because of the exclamation mark?

Well here's how wikipedia describes it: "An exclamation mark, exclamation point, or bang (!) is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings or high volume, and often marks the end of a sentence.

Please notice there was no question asked in the entire narration. Hence, the text which reads "Thomas[/b] answered" is  inaccurate.

The meanings of the word [b]'answer' according to thefreedictionary.com are found below;

v.intr.
1. To speak, write, or act as a return, as to a question.
2. To be liable or accountable: You must answer for your actions.
3. To serve the purpose; suffice: "Often I do use three words where one would answer" (Mark Twain).
4. To correspond; match: I found a dog answering to that description.
v.tr.
1. To speak, write, or act as a return to; respond to.
2. To respond correctly to.
3. To fulfill the demands or needs of; serve: "My fortune has answered my desires" (Isaak Walton).
4. To conform or correspond to: The suspect answers the description given by the police.

, And, of course you know, no English dictionary will disagree. So allow me to say that whoever the scholar that did these studies is not even worthy to be called a scholar. It's clear that it is either the scholar doesn't understand basic English or he does but is deliberately twisting words to deceive people. It's your duty to determine what kind of scholar you've been reading from Pimpu.

The last phrase "My Lord and my God!" was not an answer but it was an[/b] outburst by Thomas, having seen something  inexplicable and baffling. It is not unusual that a man cries out; "O' my God!" when he sees something totally bizarre.

Another reason this person is a scam is that; no God fearing Jew would use the name of God that way. For you, "O' my God" might be an exclamation you make when you see "something totally bizarre" but for the Jews(especially of that time) it would have been considered disrespectful to God, to say the least. They had such high regard for the name of God that they would normally spell 'YAHWEH' as 'YHWH'(out of respect).

One more reason this scam of a scholar is so wrong is that; he totally ignored two words in the above verse - 'to him' - as we see below;

Thomas answered and said [b]to him, 'My Lord and my God!'

It wasn't just an outburst, it was a personal address.

Below are the texts from two reputed versions of the Bible
that support what Thomas said was not an answer to any question.

'New English Bible': Thomas[/b] said, "My Lord and my God!"

'Phillips Modern English Bible': "My Lord and my God!" cried Thomas.

Study Supportive Passage:
Apostle John writes, immediately after the discourse between Jesus and Thomas; "Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples,which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ."

Let me just prove one more time that this man is a fraud and a liar. John 20: 30,31 says:

30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.
31 But these are written that you may (come to) believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you may have life in his name.

But see how he carefully and deliberately avoided the part that says, "the Son of God".

If John had recognized the answer by Thomas to be  a testimony for the 'Deity of Jesus', and the observed silence by Jesus to be his acquiesce to such a testimony, then the apostle John would have asked us to believe "Jesus is the God", instead of "Jesus is the Christ" in the above verse.

John doesn't have to mention it a million times. Believing he is the Son of God is crucial to knowing He is God. If you don't believe He is the Son of God, then you wont believe He is God. John had earlier said in the very beginning of his book:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.  
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 A man named John was sent from God.
7 He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.
11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him.
12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,
13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

See in verse 14, the word(which was God in verse 1) "became flesh" and lived among us. And it goes on to say "we saw his glory", whose glory? God's - The word's - glory. But we saw it as "of the Fathers only son". What else do you want John to tell you?

@ITALO AM HERE AWAITING your RESPONSE

Quote from: Pimpu on July 21, 2010, 01:02 PM
Verse No. 2
Jesus said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
(John 14:9).
Perceived by the "man of extraordinary faith": This verse proves Jesus was God.

Study No. 2
One day to prove a point, Jesus picked up a child and said to his disciples; "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives Him who sent me;" (Luke 9:48).

This specific act of Christ Jesus and/or his explicit statement concerning this Child does not make; the Child and the Christ, co-equal or one in status.

The next plausible question would be did Jesus admit he too was sent by God just as he was sending the Child? The answer is found several verses. Here are two:

Jesus said: ", and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me." John 8:28.

Jesus said: ", I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak." John 12:49.

Study Supportive Passage:
Jesus said; "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither one who is sent greater than the one
who sent him." (John 13:16).

Quote from: Pimpu on July 21, 2010, 01:15 PM
MY QUESTION ARE
1-FROM THE FIRST QUOTE (John 14:9). DOES IT MEAN THAT THE CHILD AND CHRIST ARE CO-EQUAL OR ONE IN STATUS.

2-DID JESUS ADMIT HE TOO WAS SENT BY GOD?

Sorry Pimpu, too many distractions.

John Chapter 14

1 "Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God; have faith also in me.

2 In my Father's house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be.

4 Where (I) am going you know the way."

5 Thomas said to him, "Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?"

6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

7 If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen him." (If one could see God in his servant, then the Jews would have seen God in Moses or Elijah or any of the prophets but Jesus said, 'from now on you have seen him'.

8 Philip said to him, "Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us."

9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? (Notice that Philip asks to see the Father and Jesus said, I've been with you so long and you still don't know ME.

10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.

Also Exodus 33: 18-23 says:

18 Then Moses said, "Do let me see your glory!"
19 He answered, "I will make all my beauty pass before you, and in your presence I will pronounce my name, 'LORD'; I who show favors to whom I will, I who grant mercy to whom I will.
20 But my face you cannot see, for no man sees me and still lives.
21 Here," continued the LORD, "is a place near me where you shall station yourself on the rock.
22 When my glory passes I will set you in the hollow of the rock and will cover you with my hand until I have passed by.
23 Then I will remove my hand, so that you may see my back; but my face is not to be seen."

Dont you see a great revelation in these passages? First, they couldn't see Him, then, "from now on you have seen him".

Also, Exodus 3: 13,14 says:

13 "But," said Moses to God, "when I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' if they ask me, 'What is his name?' what am I to tell them?"
14 God replied, "I am who I am." Then he added, "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you."

While John 8:58,59 says:

58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
59 So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple area.

The only reason they tried to stone him was that he claimed to be God. If you read just before these verses 58 and 59 you will see that he had engaged them in a long dialogue which didn't go down well with them but they didn't try to stone him. They, even, at one point said he was possesed, but the only time they 'picked up stones' was when he said He was God.

nopuqeater:
Jesus said that he is a servant of God Who sent him. This verse is enough to confirm that Jesus was a messenger and no God.

That is enough to confirm he is a servant of God. Yes. But that is not enough to confirm he was not God.

I thought you don't believe St. Paul because no one saw what he said he saw.

nopuqeater:
I was think just yesterday that why would any christian believe Paul, when he said he met Jesus in a vision, since no one else in his company saw what he said he saw on the way to Damascus?

So you shouldn't believe Mohammed because no one is a witness to the 'revelation he said he got from God.

You have your own Quran and Bible in your head. The ones that suit whatever you feel. But you discard the ones that don't agree with what you don't believe.

You seem neither a Muslim, nor a Christian to me. What do I say to someone who knows the truth but refuses to accept it?

chakula:
He is the servant of Allah send him to the Israel Children for him to guide them to the right path not to you people as you claimed.

John Chapter 1: 1-15

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;
5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
6 A man named John was sent from God.
7 He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.
8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.
9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.
11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him.
12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name,
13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man's decision but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.
15 John testified to him and cried out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.'"

I am sure that sounds like a servant to you. Keep exposing yourself. Keep exposing the 'Prophet'(who said, God referred him to the Bible).

Matthew Chapter 28: 18-20:

18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

, And I know for sure that "ALL NATIONS" means "ISRAEL CHILDREN" to you. Go on and show the whole world that you are following a lie.

As Catholics were responsible for writing the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit), the Catholic Church doesn't "interpret" the Bible. We explain it. Protestants can only "interpret", because they are not the author (guided by the Holy Spirit), and therefore, can only guess at the possible meaning of a chapter, passage or phrase, just as anyone can only guess at any author's intentions in any other book. As the author, the Catholic Church is the only proper authority to consult in matters pertaining to the Bible.

What do you expect. When God came to live on earth, did he go looking for people who didn't believe him? No. They were rather the ones who sought him; to criticize him, to trick him, to trap him, to kill him. And that is what they still do to us today. Didn't Christ say that "if they persecute me they will persecute you?"

Let me help you out. Catholics are going to hell, right? Thank you. So since we are going to roast for eternity, can we at least have some peace while we are here on earth?

You want to know if I'm a Catholic? Let me be plain with you. Catholicism is the disgrace of Christianity. Without catholicism christianity would have been better.

Yeah! That's like saying 'without rice, fried rice would taste better'. That's very smart of you.

Don't forget that catholicism is just a good name for a bad dog, the real name being Roman Catholic. It has every evil thing that the Roman empire stood for and is growing from bad to worse.

Okay, since the word, 'Roman', is synonymous with evil, then St. Paul was also evil. He was Roman! Bravo!

Roman Catholic presented a diluted gospel to suit the Roman spirit because the harsh real Gospel was too much for them to handle.

So who is this "Roman spirit" and what is "the harsh real Gospel"?

It merged too many evils into what the apostles were building.

What are the "too many evils"?

Hmmmmmm. . . I stop now and wait for attacks.

Attacks? You will get them from Christ who is the Head of the Catholic Church, if he wills it.