₦airaland Forum

I thought this would be nice.
Just to spark some thought.

The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first preached by Father Arnold Damen, S.J. This message was and still is a challenge to the many who pride themselves as being "Bible-and-Bible-Only Christians."

One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother, and likewise, one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher. It is the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, which alone preserves God's Word from erroneous interpretation. This is the essence of Fr. Damen's sermon.

Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true relation God has established between His Church and Holy Scripture. Therefore, we invite all who love the Bible, to read Father Damen's exposition with an open mind, lest while reading the Scriptures ", the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." [2 Peter 3:16]

I.
Dearly Beloved Christians, when our Divine Saviour sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned" [Mark 16:16]. Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation, Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.

We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith. Human faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the authority of God, the truths that God has revealed. That is Divine Faith, to believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitation. For the moment you begin to doubt or hesitate, that moment you begin to mistrust the authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His word. Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting and without hesitating. Human faith is belief upon the authority of men, on human authority. But Divine Faith is to believe without doubting, without hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God.

Therefore, my dear people, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man.

You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith that it matter not what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man. That is heresy, my dear people, and I will prove it to you to be such. If it be a matter of indifference what a man believes, providing he be a good man, then it is useless for God to make any revelation whatever. If a man is at liberty to reject what God revealeth, what's the use for Christ to send out His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if those nations are at liberty to believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples? You see at once that this would be insulting God.

If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Man is bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed, for, my dear people, we are bound to worship God, both with our reason and intellect, as well as with our heart and will. God is master of the whole man. He claims his will, his heart, his reason and his intellect.

Where is the man, no matter what denomination, church or religion, that will deny that we are bound to believe what God has taught? I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess the true religion if he wants to be saved.

But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right, for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all.

"But what is the true Faith?"

"The true Faith," say Protestant friends, "is to believe in the Lord Jesus."

Agreed, Catholics believe in that. Tell me what you mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?

"Why," says my Protestant friend, "you must believe that He is the Son of the Living God."

Agreed again. Thanks be to God, we can agree on something. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, that He is God. To this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but we will leave them alone tonight. If Christ be God, then we must believe all He teaches. Is this not so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and sisters? And that's the right Faith, isn't it?

"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend, "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, we must believe all that Christ has taught."

We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. We must believe all that Christ has taught, that God has revealed. Without this Faith, there is no salvation. Without this Faith, there is no hope of Heaven. Without this Faith, there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it, "He that believeth not shall be condemned."

II.
But if Christ, my dearly beloved people commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He must give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means Christ gives us of knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all people.

Secondly, the means that God gives us to know what He has taught must be a means adapted to the capacities of all intellects, even the dullest. For even the dullest have a right to salvation, and consequently they have a right to the means whereby they shall learn the truths that God has taught, that they may believe them and be saved.

The means that God give us to know what he has taught must be an infallible means. For if it be a means that can lead us astray, it can be no means at all. It must be an infallible means, so that if a man makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake or error, be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

I don't think there can be anyone present here, I care not what he is, a Christian or an unbeliever, who can object to my premises. And these premises are the groundwork of my discourse and of all my reasoning, therefore, I want you to bear them in mind. I will repeat them, for on these premises rests all the strength of my discourse and reasoning.

If God commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He is bound to give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means that God gives me must have been at all times within the reach of all people, must be adapted to the capacities of all intellects, must be an infallible means to us, so that if a man makes use of it he will be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

III.
Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has." And so says the Catholic. God has given us such means. What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the truth that God has revealed? "The Bible," say my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say, "No, not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church of the Living God."

I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers, to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the Living God.

For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His religion from a book, the Bible, surely God would have given that book to man. Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another, and all because of the private interpretation of the Bible.

Christ sent His Apostles with authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible. And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.

The first word written was by Saint Matthew, and he wrote for the benefit of a few individuals. He wrote the Gospel about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament.

Saint Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth, Saint Luke about twenty-five years, and Saint John about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God. Saint John wrote the last portion of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, about sixty-five years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been established. The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed.

Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren. Were these Christian people, who lived during the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, really Christians, good Christians and enlightened Christians? Did they know the religion of Jesus? Where is the man that will dare to say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven to the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians? It is admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.

But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible that they learned it? No, because the Bible was not written. And would our Divine Saviour have left His Church for sixty-five years without a teacher, if the Bible is the teacher of man? Most assuredly not.

Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends? You say, "Yes sir, they were the very founders of Christianity." Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible, not one of them except perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.

How, then, did those Christians, that lived in the first sixty-five years after Christ ascended, know what they had to do to save their souls? They knew it precisely in the same way that you know it, my dear Catholic friends. You know it from the teachings of the Church of God and so did the primitive Christians know it.

IV.
For not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had established without a Bible, but for over three hundred years. The Church of God was established and went on spreading itself over the whole globe without the Bible for more than three hundred years. In all that time the people did not know what constituted the Bible.

In the days of the Apostles, there were many false gospels. There was the Gospel of Simon, the Gospel of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus. All of these gospels were spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these were inspired and which were false and spurious. Even the learned themselves were disputing whether preference should be given to the Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew, to the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary or that of Luke, the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus or the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist.

And so it was in regard to the epistles. Many spurious epistles were written and the people were at a loss for over three hundred years to know which was false or spurious, or which was inspired. And, therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.

It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of Saint Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council. And there in that council it was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is the Word of God, and that the Gospels of Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all those other epistles were spurious or, at least, unauthentic. At least, that there was no evidence of their inspiration, and that the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the Book of Revelation, were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Up to that time the whole world for three hundred years did not know what the Bible was. Hence, they could not take the Bible for their guide, for they did not know what constituted the Bible. Would our Divine Saviour, if He intended man to learn his religion from a book, have left the Christian world for three hundred years without that book? Most assuredly not.

V.
Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible, but for 1,400 years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book.

Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things. Bibles were costly things. Now, you must all be aware, if you have read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a little more than four hundred years ago, about the middle of the Fifteenth Century, and about one hundred years before there was a Protestant in the world.

As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and costly things. Historians tell us that, in the Eleventh Century, eight hundred years ago, Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible! Before the art of printing, everything had to be done with the pen upon parchment or sheepskin. It was, therefore, a tedious and slow operation, a costly operation.

Now, in order to arrive at the probable cost of a Bible at that time, let us suppose that a man should work ten years to make a copy of the Bible and earn a dollar a day. Well, then, the cost of that Bible would be $3,650. Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have taken him at that time, not having the conveniences and improvements to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000.

Suppose I came and said to you, "My dear people, save your soul, for if you lose your soul all is lost." You would ask, "What are we to do to save our souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You must get a Bible. You can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would ask the cost and be told it was $8,000. You would exclaim, "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The answer would be: "No, you must have the Bible and read it." You murmur at the price, but are asked, "Is not your soul worth $8,000?" Yes, of course it is, but you say you do not have the money, and if you cannot get a Bible, and your salvation depends upon it, evidently you would have to remain outside the Kingdom of Heaven. This would be a hopeless condition, indeed.

For 1,400 years the world was left without a Bible -- not one in ten thousand, not one in twenty thousand, before the art of printing was invented, had the Bible. And would our Divine Lord have left the world without that book if it was necessary to man's salvation? Most assuredly not.

VI.
But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles, that Bibles were written from the beginning, and that every man, woman, and child had a copy. What good would that book be to people who did not know how to read it? It is a blind thing to such persons.

Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read. Moreover, as the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to know these languages in order to be able to read it.

But it is said that we have it translated now in French, English, and other languages of the day. Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful translation? If not, you have not the Word of God. If you have a false translation, it is the work of man. How shall you ascertain that? How shall you find out if you have a faithful translation from the Greek and Hebrew?

"I do not know Greek or Hebrew," says my separated friend; "for my translation I must depend upon the opinion of the learned."

Well, then, my dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in their opinions, and some of them should say it is good, and some false? Then your faith is gone, you must begin doubting and hesitating, because you do not know if the translation is good.

Now with regard to the Protestant translation of the Bible, allow me to tell you that the most learned among Protestants tell you that your translation, the King James edition, is a very faulty translation and is full of errors. Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops have written whole volumes to point out all the errors that are there in the King James translation, and Protestants of various denominations acknowledge it.

Some years ago, when I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city a convention of ministers. All denominations were invited, the object being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give it to the world. The proceedings of the convention were published daily in the Missouri Republican. A very learned Presbyterian, I think it was, stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less than 30,000 errors.

And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide and teacher. What a teacher, with 30,000 errors! The Lord save us from such a teacher! One error is bad enough, but thirty thousand is a little too much.

Another preacher stood up in the convention, I think he was a Baptist, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said for thirty years past the world was without the Word of God, for the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.

Here are your own preachers for you. You all read the newspapers, no doubt, my friends, and must know what happened in England a few years ago. A petition was sent to Parliament for an allowance of a few thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new translation of the Bible. And that movement was headed and carried on by Protestant bishops and clergymen.

VII.
But, my dear people, how can you be sure of your faith? You say the Bible is your guide, but you cannot be sure that you have the faith. Let us suppose for a moment that all have a Bible which is a faithful translation. Even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the private interpretation of the Bible is not infallible, but, on the contrary, most fallible. It is the source and fountain of all kinds of errors and heresies and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines. Do not be shocked, my dear friends. Just be calm and listen to my arguments.

There are now throughout the world 350 different denominations or churches, and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher. I suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This is an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction. Every man in his senses sees that every one of them cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and cannot, therefore, be all true. The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully has truth, and they all say that they read it right.

Let us suppose that there is an Episcopal minister. He is a sincere, honest, well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well-meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian, and "here is the Bible to give you the lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in. He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."

"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."

Next comes the Unitarian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolators. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.

Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says, "Baptize the men and leave the women alone. For the Bible says, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. "So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."

Next comes in the Shaker and he says, "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. My brethren, if you want to go to Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!"

VIII.
I have here brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the 350 different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is not Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God, another says He is not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is a requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility, my friends. All cannot be true.

Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is, the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.

The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics admit that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration, but your explanation of the Bible is not the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired, for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!

It is with the Bible as it is with the Constitution of the United States. When Washington and his associates established the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the United States, they did not say to the people of the States: "Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself. Let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution." If Washington had done that, there never would have been a United States. The people would all have been divided among themselves, and the country would have been cut up into a thousand different divisions or governments.

What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution. And these are to give the true explanation of the Constitution to all the American citizens, all without exception, from the President to the beggar. All are bound to go by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that can keep the people together and preserve the Union of the United States. At the moment the people take the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, there is the end of the union.

And so it is in every government. So it is here and everywhere. There is a Constitution, a Supreme Court or Law, a Supreme Judge of that Constitution, and that Supreme Court is to give us the meaning of the Constitution and the Law.

In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this: a Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge, that all the people abide by. All are bound by decisions, and without that, no government could stand. Even among the Indian tribes such a condition of affairs exists. How are they kept together? By their chief, who is their dictator.

So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court, His Supreme Judge, to give us the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus. The Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is infallible, and therefore, the true Catholic never doubts.

"I believe," says the Catholic, "because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God has commanded me to believe her." Jesus said: "Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." [Matt 18:17]. "He that believeth you believeth Me." said Christ, "and he that despiseth you despiseth Me." [Luke 10:16]. Therefore, the Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.

But our Protestant friends say, "We believe in the Bible." Very well, how do you understand the Bible? "Well," says the Protestant, "to the best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text." He is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment. This, my friends, is only the testimony of a man. It is only human faith, not Divine Faith.

It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity. That adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.

I have now proved to you that private interpretation of the Scripture cannot be the guide or teacher of man. In another lecture I shall prove that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of God, and that there is no other.

my goodness how many tithing topics must we have, goodness ppl use the search button. we have two on the front page not to add the countless others, sheesh.

Bobbyaf:
@ Lady

I am aware of the various theories. In either case its really no big deal proving that the word rapture isn't in the bible, since it s already a given that it isn't. Besides, there is no law saying we can't use a word to describe a future event that is recorded in the bible.

Christians use the word millennium to describe the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20. What would be the point in arguing that the word millennium doesn't exist in the bible?

huh? did you miss my post? just inquiring as this is not what the post is about.

And what is the source of the heretic statement highlighted above

well before you scream heretic how about you look up what the word Catholic means. and did you not read the rest of my post or did you just see that and jump to conclusions?

If its unbiblical for women to wear men wear,why are most women of God both ln Nigeria and abroad wears trousers to church?

How does the actions of people determine what is biblical? It is unbiblical to have sexual relations outside of marriage, but even men of God do it, so does that mean it has become biblical for sexual relations to happen outside of marriage?

Women do it because of the error of society, not because it is biblical. It is wrong for women to wear men's clothes. Now the issue is how do we determine what are men's clothes and what are women's clothes, as seeing that it is different in different areas of the world?

it is unbiblical for women to wear men wear and men to wear women wears.

Deut. 22:5 – “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” While we are no longer under the legal canons of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant incorporates their holy principles. To that end, women should think twice about wearing pants, trousers and other articles of clothing that “pertains to a man.” Such clothing obscures her feminine identity and plays to a wicked society that wants women to usurp the authority of men.


Now the question is how do we determine women clothes and men's clothes as it is not always the same in every society?

lol@ But i believe its biblical if not women of God will not be wearing it.
It is unbiblical for these women to be preachers, and u expect them to know that it is unbiblical for them to wear men clothes? If they cannot tell that they shouldn't be preaching, how do u expect them to tell that they shouldn't be wearing men clothes?

1 Cor. 14:34-35 – “the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” Notice that Paul says women should be silent in churches “as even the law says.” In verse 37, he reiterates “what I am writing you is a command of the Lord.” Paul is explaining that forbidding women to speak in church is a divine command from Almighty God (and not sexist or culturally motivated).

1 Tim. 2:11-15 – “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” Paul is emphasizing the woman’s primary role as the giver of natural life, just as a man’s primary role is the giver of supernatural life. Again, Paul bases his teaching on God’s order of creation.

toneyb

I have read it well over and over again, and they all align. The problem u might be having is that you guys are using the KJV that has 30,000 errors in it. If u found error, ur finding it in the protestant bible.
Like I said, I've read it time and time again, and they are all alighned. They were written by eyewitnesses with the exception on Mark and Luke, so stop deluding urself dear. I know u don't want to believe it, u don't want to admit u are wrong, but they all say the same thing, or maybe it is that u did not read my entire post. Read it well.

I am asking dis question because I feel Muslims are more religious dan Christians. They pray over virtually everything: b4 eating, dey pray b4 using d toilet, dey pray after using d toilet dey pray after waking up, dey pray in fact may times everyday which Christians don't

Secondly, dey are more disciplined Go to d North thier Ladies can't afford to dress indecently

This is wrong, a lot of christians are constantly in prayer, because we do not see the need to stand in the streets and pray or stop traffic or shout to the world that it is our time of prayer does not mean that we do not pray. I certainly pray while at work and they don't even know it. I don't have to make certain gestures to pray. So muslims may use gestures and christians don't, infact that may prove that Christians pray more than muslims, because you can never measure the many times our hearts are lifted up the Lord (prayer).
Also keep in mind that in the Bible it states that we should not be like the hypocrites who stand on the streets and pray so that all may see them. Our prayer is in our hearts not in our physical gestures.

Also the compulsory muslims prayer derives from the Christian prayer, I bet you guys didn't know there is something called Christian prayer. Some of you may want to make a big deal out of this, but keep in mind that the Catholic church has existed since Christ and that when islam came to be, the Catholic Church was the only "church" (body of Christ) and it was our practices that muhammad copied for the muslims. There is Christian prayer and it is called The Liturgy of the Hours. This prayer is prayed every three hours in full, and at certain times, and is the prayer of the Church after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is also called The Office, the prayer was a compulsory prayer among the Christians, mostly the clergy, but the lay too prayed it, and it is still prayed till this day. It does sound familiar doesn't it. So no muslims are not more religious than Christians, and Christians are not more religious than muslims. Each are equally religious in their own right.

what was jesus last word on the cross? because the writers of the bible do not agree as to what was the last thing jesus said on the cross. . . .

It is always convenient when you disregard the other verses isn't it. And who told you that the writers were trying o capture his last words. They didn't have a set of things they collaborated and said we will give an account of this particular thing.

Now let's look at each one of them.

This is what Matthew says
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47 And some that stood there and heard, said: This man calleth Elias. 48 And immediately one of them running took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar; and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49 And the others said: Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to deliver him. 50 And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost

Here is Mark
34 And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying: Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabacthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 35 And some of the standers by hearing, said: Behold he calleth Elias.

36 And one running and filling a sponge with vinegar, and putting it upon a reed, gave him to drink, saying: Stay, let us see if Elias come to take him down. 37 And Jesus having cried out with a loud voice, gave up the ghost

Here is Luke
46 And Jesus crying out with a loud voice, said: Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. And saying this, he gave up the ghost

Here is John
28 Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst. 29 Now there was a vessel set there full of vinegar. And they, putting a sponge full of vinegar and hyssop, put it to his mouth. 30 Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated. And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.

Now in all these passages there is the same event and the same things. If something is missing from one doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that they didn't have the story together. They weren't all written at the same time and not all by the same people, and each sought to portray what is relevant to their audience.

It doesn't have to be in the exact same words but by reading all four we see similarities in them and we can fully pciture the scene.
Matthew talks about Jesus saying Eli Eli, and so does Mark, it's funny how you chose to leave Mark from your list, I guess that one refutes your view on it and you don't like it. And then it goes on to talk about Jesus crying with a loud voice, and I guess this is where the confusion comes for you. Matthew speaks about Jesus crying with a loud voice, Mark talks about it also, Luke talks about it too, only Luke actually tells us what he says. John goes further to tell us that Jesus also said It is finished after taking the vinegar and then giving up the ghost. All gospels talk about the same thing, and in the same order, and each fill in in the blank for each other. Now where might the confusion come in again? In John, where it is the only one that records Jesus saying It is finished. But ofcourse we know why he would be the only one to know this because he was the only one of the disciples at the foot of the cross, and it is highly possible that Jesus did not cry out "It is finished" and only gave a whisper of it, watch the movie the passion of the christ and you will see that it would have been impossible for those who were not around to hear it. Because John was at the foot of the cross he heard it all. Why then did the other writers talk about him crying out loud, because he cried out loud, meaning others could hear him. The gospel writers got their crucifixion stories from John, Mary the Mother of God, Mary Magdala, and the Other Mary and others around, especially Luke since he told us that it was by his investigations that he put the story together. So it really makes sense that the first 3 writers wrote only that which was very audible by those at Golgotha, and John wrote more indepth because he was there, and saw no need to repeat that which the other writers already wrote, and only added in that which was a whisper "It is finished". Remember John was the last gospel to be written, and he only saw it fit to elaborate on that which the other writers did not go indepth with.

Now to correct you on something. The story of Jesus as it is in the positive light is only found in the Bible however, Jesus was mentioned in several non christian historic writings in the negative. His crucifixion was infact pointed out. So maybe you should do more research.

Chapter 2

On Having a Humble Opinion of Oneself

Knowledge is a natural desire in all people. But knowledge for its own sake is useless unless you fear God. An unlearned peasant, whose contentment is the service of God, is far better than the learned and the clever, whose pride in their knowledge leads them to neglect their souls while fixing their attention on the stars.
True self-knowledge makes you aware of your own worthlessness and you will take no pleasure in the praises of others. If your knowledge encompasses the universe and the love of God is not in you, what good will it do you in God's sight? He will judge you according to your actions.
An overweening desire for knowledge brings many distractions and much delusion. Many like to be considered learned and to be praised for their wisdom; how much knowledge there is which adds nothing to the good of the soul! To spend yourself on wordly pursuits which do nothing to further your eternal salvation is unwise.
It is useless to speand much time in talking; only aholy life and a good conscience will ease your mind and satisfy your soul, enabling you to face God with confidence
Remember, the more you know, the more severely you will be judged. So do not be proud of any skill or knowledge you may have, for such is an awesome responsibility. No matter how much you know, realize how much there is that you do not know. Do not be afraid to acknowledge your own ignorance.
Why have you exalted opinion of yourself when you know there are many, even in your own field, whose knowledge surpasses yours? If you want to learn anything worthwhile, seek rather to be unknown and to be thought of as nothing.
Nothing is so beneficial as to a true knowledge of ourselves, which produces a wholesome self-contempt. Always think kindly of others, while holding yourself as nothing; this is true wisdom and leads to perfection. If you ssee another commit a grievous sin, or whose faults are flagrant, do not regard yourself as better, for you do not know what you would do if similarly tempted. You are in good disposition now, but you do not know how long you will persevere in it. Always keep in mind that all are frail, but none so frail as yourself.

Hello all, this is a book I Just started reading, had it in my collection for a while but finally started reading it, and would like to share it with you all as it contains meaningful things. If you would like a copy of the book just look online for "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas A Kempis. Enjoy, and pls no disrespectful posts from religious and nonreligious alike. If you do not like it, simply don't read and move along. Thanks.

[size=14pt]BOOK 1[/size]

USEFUL ADMONITIONS FOR THE SPIRITUAL LIFE

Chapter 1
On Following Christ Our Model

No one "who follows me will ever walk in darkness" (jn 8:12. These words of our Lord counsel all to walk in his footsteps. If you want to see clearly and avoid blindness of heart, it is His virtues you must imitate. Make it your aim to meditate on the life of Jesus Christ.
Christ's teaching surpasses that of all the Saints. But to find this spiritual nourishment you must seek to have the Spirit of Christ. It is because we lack this Spirit that so often we listen to the Gospel without really hearing it. Those who fully understand Christ's words must labot to make their lives conform to His.
To be learned and able to discuss the Trinity will get you nowhere if you do not have humility, and therefore displease the Holy Trinity. Lofty words neither save you nor make you a Saint; only a virtuous life makes you dear to God. It is better to experience contrition than to be able to define it. To be well versed in scripture and all the sayings of the philosophers will not profit you if you are without God's love and His grace. "All things are vanity" (Eccl 1:2). Nothing matters except to love God and to serve Him only. The height of wisdom is to set your goal on heaven by despising the world.
How foolish it is to seek and to put your trust in riches that will pass. How foolish to go after worldly honors and to set yourself above others. How foolish to follow the impulses of the flesh, or to covet those things which so soon will cost you a heavy penalty.
How foolish to wish for a long life, but not care whether it is a good life; to be concerned only with the present, with never a though of eternity and the endless joy that awaits you.
Often think of the proverb: "The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor is the ear fille with hearing" (Eccl 1:. Be determined to detach your heart from the love of visible things, allowing it to center on those unseen.

@No2atheism

You mentioned the prosperity gospel and how you don't believe in it or are against it or something of that nature. I will agree with you, because all the while Jesus was preaching he preached the cross, and the cross isn't viewed as prosperity. He repeatedly preached suffering, the cross is suffering, and all the apostles preached the suffering Christ, so why these churches are preaching other things I don't know. But the way to heaven is the cross, the way to true prosperity is the cross. Our glory comes from the cross.

I disagree with the bolded - tithing is not needed by the church to function. While giving might be needed, it need not be in the form of a 'tithe' for the church to function.

maybe i should be more direct, tithing doesn't have to be in the form of money, and so is needed by the church. it isn't compulsory but it is needed, any kind of service that you can give is needed. Now I am not saying that tithing is the only way in which you can meet the need of the church, I am saying it is needed, as it is one of the ways the church can function.

And I believe the rest of your post is saying exactly what I am saying only in different words.

Bobbyaf:
It depends on how you define the rapture. If it is a phrase used to describe the second glorious return of Jesus then it is in the bible.

What I refuse to believe in is the secret rapture that says Christ will come and snatch away his church leaving millions of persons on earth to either choose the mark of the beast, or refuse it.

Hey Bobbyaf, how are ya?
Here is a little write up on the rapture and why it isn't biblical

1 Thess. 4:16-17 - Paul writes that "we will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." Many Protestants call this experience the "rapture" (even though the word "rapture" is not found in the Bible, although is derived from the Latin vulgate of this verse – “rapiemur”). John 14:3; 1 Cor. 15:52 - these are other passages that Protestants use to support the rapture experience. The question Protestantism has raised is “when will the rapture occur?” They have developed three theories – (1) post-tribulation; (2) pre-tribulation; and, (3) mid-tribulation. We address these theories later on. But first, here is some more background.

Rev. 20:2-3; 7-8 – John sees the vision of an angel who seizes satan and binds him for a period of a thousand years. Protestants generally call this period of a thousand years the “millennium.” The “millennium” is a harbinger of the end of the world, and the theories of when the “rapture” will occur center around this period of time. We should also note that the “thousand years” language is part of apocalyptic literature and should not be interpreted literally. For example, in Psalm 50:10, we see the cattle on a "thousand hills." The word "thousand" here obviously means a lot of hills. In Dan. 7:10, a "thousand thousands" served him. Again, "thousand" means a lot. In 2 Peter 3:8, with God one day is a "thousand" years and a "thousand" years is one day. "Thousand" is symbolic for a long time. It is not to be taken literally.

There are three ways that Protestants interpret the meaning of the thousand year “millennium” (and the interpretation leads to answering when they think the rapture will occur).

(1) Post-millennialism – this view interprets the “thousand years” as a very long time. This view also holds that God’s kingdom is being advanced in the world by His grace and the world will eventually be Christianized. Then Christ will return at the close of this period during a time of righteousness and peace. The problem with this view is that the Scriptures do not teach that the world will be even relatively Christianized before the Second Coming. For example, in Matt. 13:24-30;36-43, Jesus says the wicked and the righteous will co-exist until the end of the world, when they will be judged, and either inherit eternal life, or be thrown into eternal fire.

(2) Pre-millenialism (also called “millenarianism”) – like post-millennialists, this view also interprets the “thousand years” as a golden age on earth when the world will be Christianized. But they believe that this period will occur after Christ’s second coming, during which time Christ will reign physically on earth. They believe the Final Judgment occurs when the millennium is over. But Scripture does not teach that there is a thousand year span between the Second Coming and Final Judgment. Instead, Jesus said that when He comes a second time in glory, He will immediately repay every man for what he has done. Matt. 16:27. When Jesus comes, He will separate the sheep from the goats and render judgment. Matt. 25:31-46. There is nothing about any period of time between His coming and final judgment.

(3) Amillennialism – this view also interprets the “thousand years” symbolically, but, ulike the pre and post views, not as a golden age on earth. This view believes the millennium is the period of Christ’s rule in heaven and on earth through His Church. This is because the saints who reign with Christ and to whom judgment has been committed are said to be on their thrones in heaven. Rev. 20:4; cf. 4:4; 11:16. During this time, satan is bound and cannot hinder the spread of the gospel. Rev. 20:3. This is why, they explain, Jesus teaches the necessity of binding the “strong man” (satan) in order to plunder his house and rescue people from his grip. Matt. 12:29. This is also why, after the disciples preached the gospel and rejoiced that the demons were even subject to them, Jesus declared, “I saw satan fall like lightening from heaven.” Luke 10:18. Nevertheless, during this period, the world will not be entirely Christianized because satan, though bound, is still in some sense able to prowl around and attack souls. cf. 1 Peter 5:8. Of the three, this position is most consistent with Catholic teaching (the pre and post-millennium views have been rejected by the Church).

2 Thess. 2:1-4 – concerning the Second Coming of Christ, Scripture teaches (and most Protestants believe) that Christ’s coming will be preceded by a time of rebellion, lawlessness and persecution. Protestants often refer to this period as the “tribulation” (although the word “tribulation” cannot be found in the Scripture passages Protestants use to support the “rapture”). So the question is, when will the 1 Thess. 4:16-17 “rapture” occur, in light of the tribulation and Christ’s Second Coming? Here are the three theories previously mentioned:

(1) Post-tribulational view – this view holds that the rapture will occur right after the tribulation and immediately before the Second Coming of Christ. This view can be consistent with Scripture and Catholic teaching to the extent it holds that the rapture and Christ’s Second Coming occur together, after the tribulation and the Church Militant on earth. See, for example, Matt. 24:29-31; Mark 13:24-27; 2 Thess. 1:1-12.

(2) Pre-tribulational view – this view holds that the rapture will occur before the tribulation. The problem with this view is that it requires three comings of Christ – first, when He was born in Bethlehem; second, when He returns for the rapture before the tribulation; third, when He returns at the end of the tribulation and establishes the millennium. Scripture rejects three comings of Christ. In Heb. 9:28, it is clear that Christ will appear a second and final time, when he comes in glory to save us. This view also is inconsistent with Matt. 24:24-31; Mark 13:24-27; and 2 Thess. 2:1-12 where the rapture and the Second Coming occur together.

(3) Mid-tribulational view – this view holds that the rapture will occur during the middle of the tribulation. The problem with this view is that it also requires three comings of Christ – first, when He was born in Bethlehem; second, when He returns for the rapture during the middle of the tribulation; third, when He returns at the end of the tribulation and establishes the millennium. As seen in Heb. 9:28, Scripture rejects three comings of Christ. The view is also inconsistent with Matt. 24:24-31; Mark. 13:24-27; and 2 Thess. 2:1-12.

2 Peter 3:8-15 – instead of worrying about when the rapture will occur, Christians should follow Peter’s instruction to repent of their sins, live lives of holiness and godliness, be zealous and at peace, and wait for the Lord’s coming with forbearance and joy!

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/second_coming.html

Chrisbenogor:
Yipeeee you are back from your vacation!
I need some tequila!
I most definetly missed you!
So if its not in the bible where did it come from and why do many christians believe in it?

Lol, it wasn't a vacay oh, it was lent, and I gave up nairaland among other things. I would like to say I am a much better person upon returning.
I don't know it is made up by the protestants, so ask them. But I do know this, it is def not in the bible. Maybe they made it up to make themselves feel better, I really don't know.
While you're getting that tequila, can you get me some MARGARITA!!!!

babs787:
Lady,thanks for coming to the rescue of my dullard friends. The point am making is to test how knowledgeable they are since they derive so much pleasure in showing their ignorance in islam section but forgot that there are issues in christianity which am very aware of with facts hence my reversion to islam. David and his cohorts have been asking 'intelligent questions' which my brothers and myself have been providing answers yet pretend as if same have not been provided. Though you didnt tell if he was crucified in Jerusalem or not and muddled up the exact time he was crucified because there are conflicting reports from the gospellers. I wouldnt want to go further cos all of us cannot be Muslims,Christians or whatever you believe in and the ideal is to respect each other. I have tasted Christianity,know one or two things about cults in the guise of society without being specific. I would want to stop since David and his friends are cowards but would continue if you,Lady want us to by replying this post and if ignored,I would put a stop as well cos it will continue to cause rancour. The ball is in your court. As for David,he is not knowledgeable to discuss and continue being evasive.

I didn't come to anyone's resecue, I answered your question.
Your question was where was Jesus crucified, jerusalem or outside? I gave you the answer by telling you Golgotha the place of the skull. Do you wish to know where Golgotha is?
To be completely honest, I too have been frustrated by you guys, you really do not answer the questions, and I believe I've told you about this. So I decided not to even bother, because all I was doing is hitting my head on the wall and giving myself a bruise and blaming you guys for the bruise.
I didn't muddle up his crucifixion time, I gave you the truth. The crufixion didn't happen in one hour as I've stated, when we remember his crucifixion, we do not remember the time the nail went into his hands alone, as that isn't all of the crucifixion. The Crucifixion or the Way of the Cross starts from when he carries his cross to the time he takes his last breath. This is how it is described in the gospels, you guys want to see what you want to see, unfortunately that blinds you and instead of looking at it honestly you want to read into it what isn't there. The accounts are pretty much the same, in all four gospels. It all comes down to him carrying the cross from the 3rd hour to the darkness in the 6th hour to his last breath in the 9th hour.
If you wish I will post them from all four accounts for you.

Matthew 27
45 Now from the sixth hour (noon) there was darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour (3pm).

Mark 15
25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole earth until the ninth hour

Luke
44 And it was almost the sixth hour; and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour

John rarely makes mention of the exact time he was crucified, John was written later than the first 3 gospels and he assumes that his audience already knows the story of Christ, and all he does throughout his gospel is go into detail to show us that which the other gospels do not say about each event. He was closest to Christ and was the disciple whom he loved. And even though it doesn't go into detail it still goes with the chronological order as the others. You can read up more on it. It's really not hard to understand, you just have to approach it without bias. But I know that will be hard for you to do, because you were already told to believe that it contains false things, when it doesn't.

I don't have a problem with discussing as long as you are mature and are not disrespectful and are also open minded. Keep in mind you could be wrong, trust me I know I am wrong on some issues. I just pray the Lord grants me Wisdom so as not to mislead you.

But just to give you a rundown of the passion of Christ.
The agony in the garden of gethsemane is from 11pm to 3am, at which time Judas betrays him and he is carried away. sof rom 3am to 9am he is in custody of the jews, and he's going through the trial before the sanhedrin and pilate. 9am he carries his cross, and right before 12noon he reaches golgotha and is nailed on the cross, at which time darkness covers the land until 3pm when he breathes his last and then the great earthquake and the tearing of the veil in the temple, and all that. Hope that helps.

@ Seun

I agree, privatization of power would be best. The consumers can have a variety to choose from. The rest of the world are moving on to solar, wind energy. We need a variety and the consumers to choose which energy is best for them.

nobody really knows what the contents of original manuscripts of the bible really are

we do know. It's in the Vatican. We actually care enough to keep these things in tact.

@babs787. Those verses may very well not be missing in the Bibles, it may be worded differently, and because the english language has changed and unfortunately there are more versions of the bible nowadays, the words used are shortened, e.g. we can use one word to replace 4 words in the Bible, shortening the verse, and making the manufacturer put those verses in one, however they do still say the same thing.

But as a Catholic, I don't consider the Protestant Bible as the actual Bible, so I will caution you about using them as an attack on Christianity, because you really aren't attacking Christianity. Just what you think it is. Learn about Christianity first sir before you go and rant on and on as usual.

Also what is your obsession with Christianity. If Islam holds the truth, why would you bother yourself with Christianity? Continue in Islam, it's your choice right, and is it by force that we must entertain you? I would like to think not. SO live your life sir, and leave us alone.

If the Quran holds the truth it should be able to answer these questions for you, but we all know that the quran doesn't give answers to a lot of things, even answers to itself.

What was Ishmael age when he was sent away with her mother?

Ishmael was around the age of 14-17. Go back and do some research on the Bible before you embark on this journey, you will be disappointed.

Now a question for you. How is Ishmael's birth a miracle and Isaac's isn't? The quran states that the child God will make the covenant with will be a miracle child. Explain that pls.

@ babs787

Where was he crucified?
In the place called Golgotha (place of the skull), outside the city walls
When was he crucified?
The third hour to the ninth hour. His crucifixion wasn't a set hour, it started from him carrying the cross, third hour, to the darkness falling on the land, sixth hour, to him taking his last breath, ninth hour.

So now your point is?

Well since I'm back does anyone mind telling me more about the Protestant doctrine of Once saved, Always saved?

Image123:
@lady
the point I'm making is that been a catholic member is not a guarantee to heaven.Being in any church no matter how holy the church's story is is not a guarantee to heaven.The individual needs to have repented and to live according to the dictates of God.Ecumenism is just holding programs together and listening to different people.The different people having their different beliefs.Thats not Jesus' unity.The one serving Jesus and the one serving allah and the one serving gboiu and the one serving mary and the one serving Pastor soso all seated together in the same fellowship singing and saying grace,That is hypocrisy and a waste of resouce,not unity.Unity is a unity in belief

This is my point. However, everyone in heaven is Catholic, but that doesn't mean that they had to have been a member of a Catholic Parish on earth. Get my drfit?

@ No2atheism

other than a few irrelevant things in the post, your general idea is true. I get your point and it is the truth. If you wish to donate then do so, but do so out of love. If you wish to tithe do so out of love, God would rather have you not give at all than to give without love.
Tithing isn't compulsory, but is needed by the Church to function. However, if you are unable to provide monetary forms of charity, you can certainly provide labour or services. If you are an expert in something donate your service to the Church. Give your time. Help keep the Church clean, help with instruments, or arrangements. Volunteer your time. It doesn't have to be money, and I am glad you've come to see that. God Bless.

1st thing is to not panic. You mental state affects you a lot, so DO NOT PANIC!!!
2nd create a budget and be truthful with yourself, there are a lot of things you do not need
3rd map out your whereabouts you can save on gas money if you get things that are in the same area done at the same time
4th make sure you pay yourself first, set up a CD or savings account, and train yourself not to touch that money. I recommend a CD because you cannot touch the money anyway until the time period is up for the CD.
5th if you have a good job, with a 401K roll it into an IRA
6th Purchase life insurance, this is not to say anything about your death, but if you have a family you'll want them to be ok, so if anything happens to you they will be set. But when you purchase life insurance make sure that you also invest in it. I'll give you a personal experience. My mum purchased life insurance, it covers all expenses including our mortgage if anything should happen to her. So the house will be paid for, all debts will be paid for. Also we invested in the insurance, and when we hit hard times, we were able to get money out of it to get by, and then after hard times, we refused to touch the money and let it accumulate. So my family is pretty confident even right now. But we still budget EVERYTHING.
7th Did I mention, DO NOT PANIC??
YEAH DO NOT PANIC!!!

I'll be back with some more.

chukwudi44:
Happy easter to everyone in the catholic forum

@lady
welcome back to NL really missed u

Thanks love, I missed you and everyone here, but it seems they are all ghost right now. Happy Easter to you too

Yeah i can't seem to find it either. There is no rapture in the Bible.
Did you miss me Chris?

Immaculate Conception isn't about Jesus' birth. It is about Mary's birth, and it is very much supported in the Bible. Geneses 3 clearly tells us that the woman who is to give birth to Christ will hve complete enmity with the devil. A woman who is born with sin cannot have enmity with the devil. Therefore for Genesis 3 to be true, Mary must have been conceived without sin, therefore Immaculate Conception. Also in order for Christ to be free from sin, he must have a sinless mother, otherwise he too will inherit the original sin we all inherit. He isn't God alone, he is also man, and born of a woman. He shares the same blood as that woman just as we all share the same blood as our mothers, he got his flesh from her just as we got our flesh from our mother. He shared the same oxygen with her as he was in her womb, same food, and all that. If she is sinful, he will be sinful too. In order for Christ to be sinless, he must not have inherited original sin while inheriting flesh and blood from his mother. Since his Father is sinless being God and all, his mother must also be sinless or else she will pass it on to her son. But because we know that her son was sinless, we also know that she must not have had any sin, and because we know that those under the influence of the devil have original sin, and the BIBLE tells us that the woman to give birth to the Christ will have enmity with the devil, she must not be under his influence. Therefore she must not have original sin. In order for this to be achieved, she must have been kept immaculate by God himself.

So did everyone give up nairaland for lent?

been dating a guy 4 a while. i love him, can live with the person he is but i cant attend his church i love him, he wants to marry me but i know my parents will also object cos of the church. wots ur opinion

and wats wrong with his church? does he attend yours?

Ok people, for lent I am giving up Nairaland, and will return after lent. I love u all, and for those of u who can contact me outside of nairaland please do so.
bye.

Oby1:
A very Good day to you all.
weldone viee and lady, hey Chuks i salute, you guys are doing great i can see.

Make una no mind me at all, but at least i better pass many people wey no even come at all.

Hey! remember tomorrow is Ash Wednesday (to remind us that we are from dust and unto dust we shall all return).

Please i don't understand What is this Holocaust all about, can someone explain?

The Pope lifted the excommunication of the SSPX, but one of them said that during the Holocaust the amount of people that were gassed were exaggerated. So that discussion is going on and is heated right now.

@lady
thanx for the extra information, i would do more reseacrh meanwhile check out this list of books that were referenced in the bible and missing from it.

Books Mentioned, But Not Found, In The Bible
There are between eighteen to twenty-four books mentioned in the Bible, but not included. The variation is due to possible double mentions using differing names for the same book

You're welcome

I am aware of the books mentioned in the Bible, actually you just proved that sola scriptura is unbiblical because there are sources in the Bible about books that are not in the Bible, thanks for that.

But as I was saying, I am aware of the books mentioned in the Bible, but that in no way states that the Bible is incomplete. As I stated before, to state that the Bible is incomplete is to say that the Bible was already in existence before its canonization which would be contradictory, because it was after canonization that the Bible came to be.

If those books were canonized and are missing from the Bible, then you can correctly say that the Bible is incomplete, but if they were never canonized then you are incorrect in saying that the Bible is incomplete.

Let me put it like this.

You have 50 books written, and they are read by different communities, but they are not all put together by the appointed authorities and defined as scripture. Those books would be equivalent to books written today for inspiration, we can learn from them, they are not scripture.

But let's say that 30 of those books were now defined as scripture, does that mean that the remaining 20 books are scripture? No, they weren't defined as scripture. They can be referenced, they can be regarded as good moral readings, but they are not scripture. If they were not defined as scripture they were never scripture.

So now from those 30 books that were defined as scripture, if 10 were taken out after being defined as scripture, then you can say that the Canon is incomplete, because scripture was taken out.

So the ones defined as scripture are the only scripture, the ones not defined as scripture are not scripture, therefore just because they are mentioned does not mean that they are scripture.

So in reality the Bible is not incomplete (catholic bible), because those that were defined as canon are still canon.

Now for the ethiopian church (not coptic church) they do not have the authority to define scripture, what they define is for themselves and not scripture for christians, they were not apostolic and therefore had no say so as to which books were to be included. They can regard them as scripture all they want, but I can guarantee you that in heaven those books are not regarded as scripture. They do not hold any key to bind and loose.

From what i learnt some books were kept away from the public becos it did not fit the idea of christianity was being promoted by the catholic bishops of that time and emperor constantine who ordered the compilation of the bible. also some books were considered of "higher spiritual value" hence not meant for public consumption and to be used by a select few. I don't think the books would fundermentally change the gospel of christ but i believe we would be able to see things in a new perpective. Even from the bible we have, if you study it with an open mind you would discover that a lot of doctrines and practises held as true in today's churches lack biblical basis. they are merely doctrine of men

You make the statement as if it was a conspiracy by the Catholic Bishops, are you not aware that even Paul and several other apostles asked that the christians beware of those who preach a false doctrine?
Would you then say that they too were trying to teach what their idea of christianity was?
Are you aware that there were many writings that denied the divinity of Christ and his humanity?

How would you expect that the Church should have handled the situation of false prophets at that time?

The reason the Bible was put together was because there were many false doctrines passing around and saying that they were holding on to the true teachings of Christ. So the church decides to put together the canon or measuring stick to tell people what the teaching of Christ is. If it didn't align with the Bible it wasn't the teaching of Christ. How were they to know which one was true, they stuck to the ones that were written earlier and were written by the apostles or by the direct disciples of the apostles themselves, and were in line with the traditions of the apostles.
Constantine comes into the picture, not because he actually cared for what happened to the church but because he didn't want a riot, he wanted a rule or measuring stick for the christians to go by so that people won't start riots fighting for who was teaching the truth about Christ. Dude just didn't want his city to burn down.

The books could have probably changed the teaching of Christ because most of them taught that Christ wasn't divine, or that he wasn't human, or that one side of his nature had supremacy over the other side, and so on and so forth. So yeah it would have changed everything. But thank God, he stuck to his promise to guide us into all truth.