₦airaland Forum

You obviously are too driven to defend Catholicism rather than looking objectively at what people are posting. Please go back and see the samples I gave earlier:

Oh miss pilgrim you are way too funny, when you can't provide any evidence you result to discredit the messenger. Talk about the topic o jare, provide evidence, and I did see your examples, your examples had nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Tpiah mentioned, the Egyptian Coptic Church, the Cgreek Orthodox Church, and the ARMENIAN church.

But here you are talking about the Assyrian church, that has nothing to do with the topic.

But even still, the bbc article was written in present times, it was written after the schism, therefore it would call the assyrian church a non-catholic church, and it will rightfully say it existed since the 2nd century. But what you fail to realise is that during that 2nd century when it was founded, it was a part of the Catholic church. Today the Assyrian church is not catholic, but was it catholic back in the day?

I asked you a question. Can a schsim occur without any unity being there before? How can you have a division if there was no unity before? Haw can you divide 1, if that 1 was never 1?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=284000.msg4040111#msg4040111 date=1245196025][/quote]Madam keep praying to God, that myself and the readers will get confused. It wasn't Omenuko that I replied to it was tpiah so copy tpiah's post not Omenuko's post. Second you are talking about ASSYRIAN, not ARMENIAN. or is it that you don't pay attention to what you post?

viee:
hi lady,

i share your views intoto. . . .

so sori abt your Grannie, hope she is getn beta?
will rem her in my prayers always.

plz i also have a prayer request, my very good friend is battling a serious health issue, been in and out of hospital.
plz say a rrosary for her daily and rem her during Mass.
she is stil at the hospital, still critical. . . . . .
plz pray for her.

thank you!

may God bless us all and Mother Mary, pray for us.

nice day

I definitely will

kennbox:
Ave, Maria!!!!!!

Any members of the CONFRATERNITY of the MOST HOLY ROSARY OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY in the House?

Does the brown scapula count?

I'm not arguing about what you assume to be your own Church; at least you need to be open to dialogue and see if you not missing out issues. Okay, here are just snapshots to address some misconceptions, among whcih are the ideas that "all churches were  part of the Catholic Church" before the broke away some 451 AD, etc., etc. We've repeatedly observed that is not the case, and here are a few things to consider

I am not assuming anything, I know very well that the Egyptian Coptic are very much Catholic, there are some coptics that are not catholic, but they were catholic until the schism occured.
I know this very well because at one point I considered switching rites. You do know what they are don't you.

And did you actually read look at the websites I posted. I specifically posted the Eastern Catholic website for you. From them they are Catholics.

"The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

Assyrian? When did Assyrian come into the picture? Are you confusing Assyrian for Armenian or are you hoping I won't see the difference? We were never talking about the Assyrian Church, tpiah did not post the assyrian church, he posted the ARMENIAN CHURCH.
Don't chage the topic.

These are the churches that tpiah posted.

Egyptian Coptic, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, nothing about Assyrian church. If he had posted about Assyrian, I would've commented on Assyrian, but he didn't did he?




The Eastern Catholic Churches and their Rites

The Holy See's Annuario Pontificio gives the following list of Eastern Catholic Churches with residence and of countries (or other political areas, consisting of more than country) in which they possess an episcopal ecclesiastical jurisdiction (date of union or foundation in parenthesis):

Alexandrian liturgical tradition
Coptic Catholic Church (patriarchate): Cairo, (163,849), Egypt (1741)
Ethiopian Catholic Church[1] (metropolia): Addis Ababa, (208,093), Ethiopia, Eritrea (1846)
Antiochian (Antiochene or West-Syrian) liturgical tradition
Maronite Church[2] (patriarchate): Bkerke, (3,105,278), Lebanon, Cyprus, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria, Argentina, Brazil, United States, Australia, Canada, Mexico (union re-affirmed 1182)
Syriac Catholic Church[3] (patriarchate): Beirut,(131,692), Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United States and Canada, Venezuela (1781)
Syro-Malankara Catholic Church[4] (major archiepiscopate): Trivandrum, (412,640), India, United States (1930)
Armenian liturgical tradition:
Armenian Catholic Church[5] (patriarchate): Beirut, (375,182), Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Palestinian Authority, Ukraine, France, Greece, Latin America, Argentina, Romania, United States, Canada, Eastern Europe (1742)
Chaldean or East Syrian liturgical tradition:
Chaldean Catholic Church[6] (patriarchate): Baghdad, (418,194), Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, United States (1692)
Syro-Malabar Church[7] (major archiepiscopate): Ernakulam, (3,902,089), India, Middle East, Europe and America (date disputed)
Byzantine (Constantinopolitan) liturgical tradition:
Albanian Greek Catholic Church (apostolic administration): (3,510), Albania (1628)
Belarusian Greek Catholic Church (no established hierarchy at present): (10,000), Belarus (1596)
Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church[8] (apostolic exarchate): Sofia,(10,107), Bulgaria (1861)
Byzantine Church of the Eparchy of Križevci[9] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Križevci, Ruski Krstur (21,480) + (22,653), Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro (1611)
Greek Byzantine Catholic Church[10] (two apostolic exarchates): Athens, (2,325), Greece, Turkey (1829)
Hungarian Greek Catholic Church[11] (an eparchy and an apostolic exarchate): Nyiregyháza, (290,000), Hungary (1646)
Italo-Albanian Catholic Church (two eparchies and a territorial abbacy): (63,240), Italy (Never separated)
Macedonian Greek Catholic Church (an apostolic exarchate): Skopje, (11,491), Republic of Macedonia (1918)
Melkite Greek Catholic Church[12] (patriarchate): Damascus, (1,346,635), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Brazil, United States, Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Egypt and Sudan, Kuwait, Australia, Venezuela, Argentina (1726)
Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek-Catholic[13] (major archiepiscopate): Blaj, (776,529) Romania, United States (1697)
Russian Catholic Church[14]: (two apostolic exarchates, at present with no published hierarchs): Russia, China (1905); currently about 20 parishes and communities scattered around the world, including five in Russia itself, answering to bishops of other jurisdictions
Ruthenian Catholic Church[15] (a sui juris metropolia[16], an eparchy[17], and an apostolic exarchate[18]): Uzhhorod, Pittsburgh, (594,465), United States, Ukraine, Czech Republic (1646)
Slovak Greek Catholic Church (metropolia): Prešov, (243,335), Slovak Republic, Canada (1646)
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church[19] (major archiepiscopate): Kyiv, (4,223,425), Ukraine, Poland, United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany and Scandinavia, France, Brazil, Argentina (1595)

That is precisely the problem. From all points considered, it does not follow that all churches were at any point "part of" the Catholic Church. If we revisit Church history, we find that some churches indeed grew almost indepently apart from the Catholic Church; and it was only when they convened to deliberate on doctrines that the schisms occured. Many people interprete these schisms as people leaving the Catholic Church to become other churches - that is not honest by any means.

How can a schism occur if they were not initally a part of the Catholic church. You can only have a schism when you were once together.

Definition of a schism

schism  /ˈsɪzəm, ˈskɪz-/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [siz-uhm, skiz-]  Show IPA
–noun 1. division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties.
2. the parties so formed.
3. Ecclesiastical. a. a formal division within, or separation from, a church or religious body over some doctrinal difference.
b. the state of a sect or body formed by such division.
c. the offense of causing or seeking to cause such a division.

Therefore in order fo division to take place, unity must have been there. Ms. Pilgrim1 you're contradiciting yourself. You said they were not a part of the Catholic church, how can they have a schism, if they never were a part of the Catholic church?

No, some of them were not "part of" the Catholic Church. They were not even fringe or minor. Although the sought to have close fellowship and work in unity and community, they still had their 'autonomy' (for want of a better word). It seems that it was due in part to the fact that Rome was trying to exert undue authority over others Churches that ultimately led to a schism

Maybe you don't seem to understand how the Catholic church functions. Each Church, all 23 of them have their own autonomy, but in union with the Bishop of Rome. They have now what they had then, it was a part of miscommunication that led to the schism. After better communication came into being all churches were able to set aside the differences and better understand each other. They were Catholic then as they are Catholic now. Those that are not in union with the Bishop of ROme today are doing so out of annoyance. The Maronites still claim till today that they had allegiance to the Bishop of Rome when the schism occured.

@dalaman,
Bros, Catholics did not write the Bible - so all this idea that without the Catholic Bishops we would have no Bible is a bit too presumptuous

Madam the burden of proof is on you to prove that the writers were not Catholics. Telling us they are not catholic bcus u don't think they believed what we believe is not evidence enough. You will have to provide evidence of the beliefs of the early christians, and pls use non-christian sources, as i can use non-christian sources to prove that the same beliefs we have today are the same beliefs they have then.

Can you prove that they are not catholic?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=284000.msg4039984#msg4039984 date=1245193697]No, they're not.[/quote]Yes they are. Don't be so foolish to argue with a Catholic about her own church. They very much are Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Catholic_Church

I really dont have to keep repeating myself.

i dont think we're on the same page.

And you need to go easy on the crusader mentality

I'm on the page that says what I said above, what page are you on?

You've never heard of the Greek Orthodox church?

The Ethiopian Church? The Egyptian Coptic church? The Armenian church?

The Egyptian Coptic Church, and the Armenian Church are Catholics. The Greek Orthodox were Catholic until the schism in 1054. Maybe you need to do your own research.

The Catholic Church consists of 23 churches The Eastern churches are 22 and the Western Church. Do research and find the different rites in the church, it is too much to list here.

Catholics didn't write the Bible.

All writers of the Bible are Catholics.

And they were identified with the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch the disciple of St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Catholic church, calling the church Catholic. And even at that time the term Catholic in describing the Church was nothing new, so it is no surprise that the early christians are Catholics.

ok people, God created men and women for special roles, child bearing doesn't mean a woman is an idiot, and tilling the soil doesn't mean the man is an idiot either. The order of creation has nothing to do with intelligence. It only has to do with the roles of each gender in life. Roles does not equal intelligence. Child bearing isn't a standard for measuring intelligence and neither is bringing home the bacon.

seriously are they? could intelligence be the reason? why are they in front, and why are we standing behind them?'

taa God forbid. Male and female he created them. Each with their distinctive and special roles in life, but never unequal in intelligence. Anyone that tells you that is an idiot. If you are a christian, it isn't in the Bible, I am not too sure about the quran and others, but I know in the Bible it ain't so.

We are not standing behind them. Any man who has his woman standing behind him is severly insecure about his manhood. If he was a real man, he would be confident enough to have her by her side. Seriously God has blessed me never to meet such a man and I thank him for it.

There are different forms of female circumcision, and different cultures do it for different reasons. I was told in my culture it is done for cleanliness, same as a man, and to help the sex life or something along that area.
But it isn't done to degrade women though. So they're different.

but to answer question.

Whether or not a woman is circumcised if she wants to be promiscuous, she will be. Rather than taking drastic measures to "keep" her, how about you make sure the woman is a cultured woman and she values her sexuality. If she doesn't, no amount of circumcision will deter her from fooling around.

I can, but I won't. Abeg he needs to prove he can take care of me jare.

seriously, we'd share the bill.

But in the U.S. it is customary for the parents of the bride to foot the bill.

Jesus is the only begotten son of God - that sonship did not begin when Mary gave birth to Jesus, it has always been so - Mary being a vessel to bring Jesus into the world did not initiate that sonship and as such is NOT a part of the sonship I get through the death (NOT birth) and resurrection of Jesus

Gee I wonder how was Jesus supposed to die if he wasn't born? Yeah his birth meant nothing, the angels singing meant nothing, and the magi's visiting was just for show.

Don't muddle things up - she had no choice as to Jesus' death. She did have a choice in allowing herself to be a vessel, so if she refused, ANOTHER vessel would have been chosen. In the bigger picture, whether Mary chose to birth the Saviour or not, it would have happened, so in that sense, her choice is secondary - I hope that is clear.

Oh I'm not muddling things up. Your mother would be completely irrelevant, all she needed to do was bring you into the world as a baby making factory. Nice way to honour your mother and all mothers everywhere.

Oh she did have a choice, she knew her child would die, she knew his destiny and even after knowing she chose to give birth to him, even after realising the suffering she would have to go through she still chose to suffer, that is worth honour.

Forgive us for honouring a woman who shares a Son with God, who shares the same DNA with God, who contained God in her womb. Forgive us for choosing to honour a woman, who got pregnant without a man, infact pregnant by God, yes that's right she's God's baby mama, she gave birth to God, breastfed God, raised God, educated God, and nurtured God. And you think she is nothing but a vessel worthy of the same honour due you? You think you're on the same level with God's Mother? The woman who got pregnant for God? You really think she is worth nothing?
You really think she should be pushed to the background as someone irrelevant?
Is that how you would treat your own mother?
Is that how you expect your father to treat your mother? As someone irrelevant? Someone who just popped a baby out? A baby making factory? All she's good for is making babies? She is not worthy of having a say in your life? She isn't worthy of honour?
Is that what you think of women and all mother's everywhere?

The above explains it - I have no grouse with her motherhood, but that's where it ends motherhood, no co-redemptrix, nothing more.

Apparently you know nothing of motherhood. I feel sorry for your mother because now I know how you feel about her. She is nothing but someone who popped you out. Her relevance ends with her giving birth to you.

This isn't about my mother - Jesus' case was an extraordinary case and yes, Mary was simply a vessel in a higher aim. My relationship with my mother is completely different - I was not the King of Kings who was brought through my mother, so we are of a different relationship.

How is the relationship different? So Mary really isn't Jesus' mother? And all the times she was called his mother the Bible was lying?
And yes it is about your mother, it is about mothers everywhere. If the woman who gave birth to God will be disrespected by you, I wonder how it is you treat your mother.

God's mother? When did God give her this title? He said she is blessed among women - where in the bible was she referred to as the mother of God? Show me. The greeting he gave her, did it include this 'mother of God' title?

So Jesus isn't God? And Mary didn't give birth to him? Forgive my ignorance but I thought when a woman gives birth to a child she is the mother of a child. SO the woman who gave birth to debosky is the mother of debosky, but the woman who gave birth to Jesus, who is God, is not really the mother of Jesus and therefore not the mother of God. So the many times the Bible calls her his mother, the Bible was lying.

That is a humanistic interpretation - My adoption is spiritual not physical, since God my Father is a Spirit. This twisted interpretation of yours does not apply to me. Christ's human father was Joseph, and he was not my father, so Mary is not my mother.

No not a humanistic interpretation. I didn't even interpret anything, all I told you was what's the truth. Is Jesus your physical brother? Is God the Father your physical Father? Did your mother physically give birth to Jesus?
Mary is our spiritual mother, just as Jesus is our spiritual brother, and God the Father our spiritual Father.

Christ doesn't have a human father. His actual "biological" father is God the Father. Joseph did not give his sperm.

He did not give her to 'us' he gave her to the SPECIFIC person he was talking to - why the Catholics interprete this to mean 'us' is beyond me. If you think she was given to you, enjoy it, she wasn't given to me

If he was giving her to the specific person, the person's name would have been called, and since we know that person even wrote that gospel, that person could have inserted his name there, but he knew exactly what Jesus meant and didn't insert his name, because it wasn't for him alone.

She suffered, no doubt about it, but she is not a part of redemption by her suffering. Mary Magdalene suffered as well watching Jesus die, and she was arguably closer to Jesus given what she went through, I guess she's also a co-redemptrix by virtue of suffering too.

Oh yes she most definitely is. Just as those who are disciples of Christ are also co-redemptrix. I did ask you to learn what co-redemptrix means. When we suffer as disciples of Christ our suffering is joined to his on the cross, so even our suffering are co-redemptrix sufferings. See exactly why I said find out what co-redemptrix means?
Mary Magdalene can never be closer than the woman who raised God.

Again, she did no such thing - if she did not play the role, someone else would have done it. Meritorious yes, but that's where it ends. She 'allow herself' pain yes - once Jesus was born, that was the end of it. If she chose to allow or not, it would not stop the work of salvation

haha you just keep contradicting yourself. if it was meritorious why are you shouting when we recognise that merit?
But just to touch on what you're saying that it wouldn't change anything if she said no.
It would change a lot, because God won't be God. God would've been wrong about her, and we know God can never be wrong. How could he have been wrong? Before she conceived she was already called full of grace, and was already Hailed and honoured by God. Imagine someone God already honoured disobeying God, God apparently didn't get it right if that was the case and she wouldn't have been full of grace which would call God a liar.

It amazes me how you guys never take these things into account.

You don't even realise how you indirectly insult God and deny Jesus' divinity.

She did no such thing - she is as much a recipient of salvation as the rest of us - this warped thought process of yours is the problem. She was a sinner and had to be saved like everyone else, so how can someone who needs redemption give redemption? Once again, she was a vessel for the physical birth of the Saviour, nothing more.

So she didn't give birth to our redemption, our salvation? Jesus isn't our redemption, our salvation? hmm nice to know.

Jesus is more than the physical he is also spiritual. A person is more than the physical, a person consists of a body and soul, not just a body. Only zombies have no soul. Mary didn't give birth to a zombie, Jesus isn't a zombie. Jesus is fully man and fully God, if Mary gave birth to him, she didn't give birth to half of him, she gave birth to a full person with a body and soul. Jesus' soul is divine, she also gave birth to a divine being, and this divine being is God.
Your mother didn't give birth to you without a soul. Babies are not born without souls, they are born body and soul. They are not zombies at birth and then later their souls get infused in them.
Women do not give birth to half of a person. They give birth to a full person.

It's amazing how the grace Christ gives us is given to her before she even conceives Christ. hmmm,
yeah he wasn't even born when she had her fullness of grace.

I did no such thing. Again, if comprehension is the problem, let me rephrase. All believers are equal, no one believer has a HIGHER role compared to other believers. Mary is a believer, she received Jesus into her life and got her own redemption that way, just like the rest of us. Yes she had a meritorious role in physical birthing of the saviour, but that's where it ends

haha and the contradiction continues. Once again, amazing how she received the grace of Christ before she even knew she was to give birth to him.

slimfine:
I was a chief brides maid for my friend last year so I can tell u from experience. This is in the US mind you and realistically, I was more than a chief brides maid. my job was as follows:

I did my friend's (bride) hair and makeup, made sure that all the brides maid atires were ready and maintained, me and my friend (bride) fried all the goat meat , I made sure we had the hair dresser for the brides maid were on time as well as the florist, I kept an eye on our outta state guests and made sure they are fed on friday befor the wedding, on the day of the wedding, it was my job to make sure that the bride's changing dresses/traditional wear came to hall with us, I helped her change when it was time, I secured our belongings in the hall so there are no misplacement of items, I made sure the bride and groom ate at the reception as well as packed some extra food for home. I was at the high table some of the time but managed to make sure that drinks, food were served at the appropriate time! of course, I had to give a speech prior to toasting, and finally I made sure that my friend was looking her best at the whole event!

oh yeah and I had to hold the dress train when we were taking pictures and stuff! Sadly, we are no longer that close. shit happens right?

Exactly the duties of the chief brides maid, with the exception of frying goat meat. Why was the bride frying goat meat sef?

What about the Bible? Who actually wrote it?

God inspired men to write down what he wanted them to convey to the world.

What was the original language of the Bible? (Hebrew? Aramaic? Koine Greek?)
NOTE: - The Bible was never in English during the time of any prophet (not even Muhammad) - because English did not exist until after 1066 AD!

All three, some books were written in Aramaic, some in Hebrew, some in Koine Greek.

Does the Bible exist in the original form anywhere on earth? (No)

Yes, it's in the Vatican.
And stop answering your own questions.

Why does the Catholic Bible has seven (7) more books than the Protestant Bible?

Because the devil is fast at work and convinced one man to challenge the Bible, but don't worry Christ wins in the end.

Why do these two Bibles have different versions of the same books?

There are not different "versions" but different translations. Just as you have in the quran with yusufali, pickthal, shakir.
do not be a hypocrite, allah doesn't like that.

Why are there so many mistakes and errors are from the very first verse right up to the very last verse?

and yet you guys have never been able to prove those errors and mistakes, only shown your ignorance in understanding the bible.

Why do 'Born Again Christians' teach concepts that are not from the Bible?

because they are misguided, just as you would try to say the terrorists are misguided, but we know they're the ones actually doing what the quran calls for.

There is no word "Trinity" in the Bible in any version of any language

It doesn't have to be there, but the concept does have to be there and is there. Just as you call your father and mother, parents. the concept being father and mother, and the definition being parents.

The oldest forms of Christianity do not support the 'born again' beliefs

It's unfortunate they don't realise that, but like I said the devil was able to convice one man, after he realised he couldn't bring down christianity thru islam. But as I also said Jesus wins in the end. We may loose some of the battles, but we will win the war and that's all that matters,

Jesus of the English Bible complains about the 'crucifixion'
("Eli! Eli! Lama sabachthani? - My God! My God! Why have You forsaken me?"

He was reciting a psalm. it is Psalm 22:2, the prayer of an innocent person. and point of correction, it is Eloi, Eloi, Lema sabacthani? at least get it right.

How can Jesus be the "Only Begotten Son" of John 3:16? When in Psalms 2:7 David is God's "Begotten Son?"

That is a prophecy of Jesus. It is seen in Matthew 3:17
and that passage doesn't say begotten, we know david's father is jesse, to be begotten you have to be from the loin of the person with the same substance, david is the begotten son of jesse.
Jesus has the same substance as God the Father.

Would a 'Just' God, a 'Fair' God, a 'Loving' God -- punish Jesus for the sins of the people that he called to follow him?

Point of correction, Jesus is God, and it is his choice as God to redeem his people, so it is not a punishment. To even say that why would God punish Jesus you are trying to say that Jesus isn't God, and therefore your above question doesn't allude to the christian belief. At least ask questions in line of christian belief and stop putting your islamic spin on it.

What happens to people who died before Jesus came?

He preached to them, and freed them from purgatory, hades, sheol, the place of the dead. he descended unto the dead and freed them.

What happens to those who never hear this message?

the grace of God is so abundant that we as humans cannot determine who will make it to heaven and who wont. It is up to God to decide if those who haven't heard the gospel will share in his glory.

What about innocent children who die although their parents are not Christian?

Same as the immediate above statement.

Didn't God create Adam from dirt? -- So, why does he need Mary to make Jesus?

Because the redemption of man was to undo the fall of man. It was woman who introduced man into sin by giving to him the forbidden fruit, it was woman who said yes to the devil. Therefore woman is to first say yes to God, and then man is to say yes to God. This follows the order of the fall of man (man and woman). The woman disobeyed first and then the man, therefore the woman is to obey first and then the man.

How can God create Himself?

God did not "create" himself. But rather he assumed the human nature and did not absorb the human nature. Meaning he existed from the beginning, to be a creature is to not exist from the beginning, but Christ did. Therefore rather than being created, he as a divine being took on the human form.

How can God be a man?

He can do all things, he can take on the human nature if he wills it. It is not up to you to determine what he can and cannot do. He is God.

How can a man be a God?

A man cannot become God, but God can become man. Jesus is God that became man. So this question doesn't apply to him.

How can God have a son?

Because God is a unity, he is a community, he is a family.

The Bible says "Seth (is) the son of Adam" and that"Adam is the son of God." [Lk 3:36]

Seth is the begotten son of Adam, Adam is the son of God in the way we are sons and daughters of God. Also don't forget that Adam is the foreshadowing of Jesus. Jesus is the New Adam.

Can't God just forgive us and not have to kill Jesus?

Jesus (God) didn't kill himself, but rather he gave his life as a sacrifice. He didn't have to do it that way, but to show the extent of his love he did. Also Jesus is the sacrificial lamb as foreshadowed in the Old Testament when the Jews sacrificed a spotless lamb for their forgiveness.

Jesus did not even carry the cross -- Simon Cyre'ne, a passerby did! [Mk 15:21]

And who carried it before Simon was forced to carry it?

Jesus of the Bible was NOT on the cross for longer than six (6) hours -- NOT three days -- (from the 3rd to the 9th hour) [Mk 15:25 & 15:33]

Ok who says he was on the cross for more than 6 hours or for 3 days?

Jesus of the Bible did not spend three days and nights in the tomb -- Friday night - until Sunday before dawn -- is not 3 days and nights!

It says ON the 3rd day he will rise. Not after the 3rd days.

Jesus DID NOT claim to be God - or even equal to God!

oh but he very well did.

[size=14pt]Jesus claims to be God[/size]

Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus tells satan, "you shall not tempt the Lord your God" in reference to Himself.

Matt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-32; 33-34; 38-39; 43-44 - Jesus makes Himself equal to God when He declares, "You heard it said, but I say to you, "

Matt. 7:21-22; Luke 6:46 - not everyone who says to Jesus, "Lord, Lord." Jesus calls Himself Lord, which is God.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:20; 7:48 - Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins.

Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5 - Jesus says that He is "Lord of the Sabbath." He is the Lord of God's law which means He is God.

Matt. 21:3; Luke 19:31,34 - Jesus calls himself "Lord." "The Lord has need of them."

Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:70 - Jesus acknowledges that He is the Son of God. The Son of God has the same divine substance of God, and is therefore God.

Matt. 28:20 - Jesus said He is with us always, even unto the end of the world. Only God is omnipresent. FOr Jesus to be omnipresent means he must be God.

Mark 14:36 - Jesus calls God "Abba," Aramaic for daddy, which was an absolutely unprecedented address to God and demonstrates Jesus' unique intimacy with the Father.

Luke 8:39 - Luke reports that Jesus said "tell how much God has done for you." And the man declared how much Jesus did. The man telling how much Jesus did, is telling how much God did, because Jesus is the one that healed him, and is therefore God.

Luke 17:18 - Jesus asks why the other nine lepers did not come back to give praise to Him, God, except the Samaritan leper.

John 5:18 - Jesus claimed to be God. The Jews knew this because Jesus called God His Father and made Himself equal to God. This is why Jesus was crucified.

John 5:21-22 - Jesus gives life and says that all judgment has been given to Him by the Father.

John 6:38 - Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven."

John 8:12 - Jesus says "I am the light of the world." - 1 John 1:5 - God is light and in him there is no darkness at all.

John 13:13 - Jesus says, "You call me Teacher and Lord and you are right for so I AM."

John 14:6 - Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth and the life." Only God is the way, the truth and the life.


[size=14pt]Old and New Testament Parallels of God the Father and God the Son[/size]

Exodus 3:14 - God says "I AM who I AM" - John 8:58 - Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I AM" in reference to Himself. He actually calls himself YHWH.

Deut. 4:2; 12:32 - the Lord God commands that we not add or take away from His word - Rev. 22:18-19 - Jesus so commands us not to add or take away from His word.

Deut. 32:39; 1 Sam. 2:6 - the Lord kills and makes alive again and raises up - John 5:21 - the Son raises and gives life.

Deut. 32:39 - neither is there any that can deliver out of God's hand - John 10:28 - nor shall any pluck out of Jesus' hand.

Deut. 32:43 - rejoice, ye heavens, with Him, and let all the angels of God worship Him - Heb. 1:6 - the "Him" is Jesus the Son.

2 Sam. 22:3 - God is the horn of salvation - Luke 1:68-69 - Jesus is the horn of salvation.

Psalm 24:10 - the Lord is the King of glory - 1 Cor. 2:8 - Jesus is the Lord of glory.

Psalm 45:7 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. God calls someone else God. This someone else is His eternally begotten Son - Heb. 1:9 - Therefore God, your God, has anointed you. cf. Heb. 1:8, 10

Psalm 62:12 - the Lord God renders to each according to his work - Matt. 16:27; Rev. 22:12 - Jesus so renders to each according to his work.

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel which means "God is with us" - Matt. 1:23 - this Son is Jesus Christ, God in the flesh.

Isaiah 9:6 - the child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Pay close attention to the MIGHTY GOD.

Isaiah 45:23 - to God, every knee shall bow and every tongue swear. Phil. 2:10-11 - at Jesus' name every knee should bow and tongue confess.

Isaiah 48:17 - God is the Holy One - Acts 3:14 - Jesus is the Holy One.

Ezek. 34:11-31 - God the Father is the shepherd of the flock - John 10:7-29 - Jesus is the shepherd of the flock.


DO YOU SERIOUSLY NEED ME TO CONTINUE

Obedience is a choice - but she was A vessel, meaning others could be used. As such, she is not indispensable. Even if she disobeyed, it wouldn't prevent Jesus' birth

And that automatically makes her irrelevant. It's funny first you say it wasn't a choice, now you say it's a choice. Pls make up your mind. So your mother would be irrelevant for choosing to give birth to you?
This is one of the biggest insult to motherhood and all women everywhere. We are not baby making factories.

No it doesn't.

Prove that it doesn't and pls make sure you explain it well.

She was a vessel and nothing more . Why must everything have a fancy title in order to elevate people beyond what they aren't? Mary is NOT my mother and I am definitely not born through her. If the source of my opposition is not clear now, it never will be to you.

So your mother is nothing more than a thing to bring you to earth?
Elevate who to what? God himself elevated her when he gave her a greeting fit for a queen. God himself Hailed her and you think you're bigger than God to reduce his own mother?
She is your mother, if Jesus is your brother, Mary is your mother, if she isn't, God the Father is not your Father because we are adopted sons and daughters of God through Christ (Galatians 4:4-5). Christ has a mother and father, if his father is your father, so is his mother. When a child is adopted, he is not adopted as the child of the mother and not the father or the father and not the mother.

So whether you deny it or not, if you are the brother of Christ, you are also the child of Mary. Not just that, Jesus gave Mary to us when he gave her to his beloved disciple at the foot of the cross, we are his beloved disciples, and John the beloved disciple was standing in place of us.

Let me give you a scenario - if she died at childbirth, would Jesus still not go on to complete the work of redemption? Yes he would, meaning her suffering played no role in the redemption. It is the death of Jesus that achieves redemption - HIS suffering and no one else.

Yes because she suffered to bring the redeemer to the world, so either way she did suffer too and it would probably be even greater, because it would mean she gave her life to bring the redeemer to the world.
I think that in itself is suffering galore.
But in reality she didn't die at childbirth, she saw her only son die at the foot of the cross, and it was prophecied by simeon that she too would suffer, so i think that's enough to tell us that she suffered.

She had a choice in whether SHE would suffer, but if she refused, someone else would have taken her place. She made NO choice as to whether Jesus would die or not. In fact, once he was born, she was powerless to do ANYTHING about the path that was set already.

And so because she suffered she is irrelevant?
That makes it even more meritorious, knowing that she doesn't HAVE to suffer, but she CHOSE to suffer, she allowed herself pain in order for you and me to receive salvation, that is a BIG deal and infact an insult to her by you.

you said this

ha nice try to twist my words.

Indicating she made a sacrifice FOR mankind, by your words. She did no such thing. The only 'choice' was in being a vessel by which Jesus came - beyond that, she did not do anything meriting of any other titles

You know what you're right she did do something for mankind, she gave us our redemption, our salvation. You do know that Jesus is our redemption, our salvation and she gave us him.

I never said the title places Mary above Jesus, reread my comment. I said there is Jesus and then followers, no coredemptrixes, no 'Mother of God' 'Mother of All Christians' or any other inventions of the Catholic Church.

Your own words below.

We all have a role to play in Christianity, but no one, NO ONE has a higher role except Jesus - the rest of us are all followers, with no co-redemptrix status or any other inventions by the Catholics

you insinuated that the title gives her a higher role than Jesus. If you believe it doesn't, what's the fuss about?

That's because they were all in one accord . . . unlike the churches of today where its me . . . me and myself.

EXACTLY!!!

The Church is not selfish it is about all around the world, we share the same belief, and commune together even if we are miles apart.

we have had loads of discussions abt Mass and Catholic practises as a whole.
she and d husby feel that the Mass is boring ( i think some of us just do not listen while Mass is going, cos i cant think of a better prayer, it is sooo complete)
they prefer a more lively service, lots of music, and a Pastor that will always tell them that their problems are over. . .that sort of thing.

Ask them what the difference is between a church with lively music and a lagbaja concert? Ask them if they can get the same feeling in the lagbaja concert.
Truth is they can, they both make one feel good.
Feelings are so deceitful, and if we rely on them, we'd get no where. If we go solely by our feelings, we will never be constant in worshipping God, because today we'd feel good and so praise him, tomorrow we'd feel bad and so curse him. So what good are our feelings if it is unstable.

Another problem is that people do not understand the Mass. In truth it is The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. People forget the sacrifice part a lot, they think it is just "church" that we get to go on sunday.
In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, we place ourselves at the foot of the cross, literally because in Mass we offer to the Father the same sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We know that sacrifice is unending because Christ is eternal, and never ending, and he asked us to do it in remembrance of him. So the question is what do they expect themselves to be doing at the foot of the cross?
Should they be gyrating at the foot of the cross or should they be focused in prayer?

Also place them in prayer, studies show that those who leave the church for a hip hop church usually are unsatisfied with the church because they lack sound doctrine, and it really is like a rock concert and people get tired of those quickly.
It's great that today is the Solemnity of Corpus Christi and we get to focus on him giving us the gift of the eucharist.

I have a prayer request everyone. My grandmother is badly injured and is unable to walk, it is hard for her to move about even to get to the hospital and she fell on the same leg that is injured. Please pray for her healing. Thanks.

"~lady~": You don't need a "church" to "commune" but rather to fellowship which you can do with like minded folks even in your basement as our good Lord already assured us that "where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there".

Unfortunately this is an ideology that isn't found in the Bible. The Church is One as Christ prayed for it, none of the churches in the Bible decide to get together by themselves and start communing by themselves while disregarding the other churches. All local Churches had leaders, appointed leaders with the hands of the apostles laid on them.

So yes you very much need the Church to commune. You cannot separate the body of christ because you as a person are unable to accept the truth that she teaches.

OgidiBoy:
I don't watch anything from FOX NEWS. 99.9% is just fabricated news so I can't comment on the thread

It's not fabricated. If you actually watch Fox News you would see a lot of truth in their reportings. Those who don't like them are those who've never watched them.

@ Topic

These things do not move me, because there are equally christians who become muslims or atheists and such. There are those who've become muslim or atheist and such that return to the christian faith, and there are those who converted to the christian faith that left and went back to their respective faith.
So really this is nothing.

What 'consent'? She obeyed God, SIMPLE! If she didn't someone else would have been used, so Mary in herself is of LOW significance.

Isn't obedience a choice? Isn't a choice a consent? If she had the possiblity to disobey doesn't that mean she has the possiblity to obey as in give consent?

Or is it that you do not know what consent means?

Yes she did, lots of mothers share their kids lives, it doesn't make them co-redemptrixes.

Um yes it does, it most certainly does. I would advice you to actually learn what co-redemptrix means before you start flaring up against it and showing your ignorance.

No one is denying her suffering, does the suffering make her integral to the process of redemption? NO

Would you mind showing how it does not?

You speak as if she had a choice! Jesus lay down his life - she did not sacrifice ANYTHING since she had no choice in the matter. She COULD NOT stop it even if she wanted to, just as no one on earth could stop it. She experienced pain, but she did nothing 'on behalf of mankind'. Only Jesus did

She did have a choice, she could have prevented her heartache by saying no to God's will. By accepting his will she also accepted his suffering, also don't forget the prophecy by Simeon that she too would suffer.

No one says she did anything on behalf of mankind, see this is why I said you should find out what co-redemptrix mean, you just may find out that you're acting against what you're saying right now

We all have a role to play in Christianity, but no one, NO ONE has a higher role except Jesus - the rest of us are all followers, with no co-redemptrix status or any other inventions by the Catholics

Could you kindly explain how the co-redemptric title places Mary or anyone above Jesus?

@ Kunle

I am sorry that you feel that way, but wouldn't that mean you are going against the Bible? Because the whole point of the church is for us all to commune together, and you seem to want to do what you see in the Bible, but by not going to church you are doing the exact opposite of what you say you want to do. The Church communed together and they met on the Lord's day. To give that up is to go against your own belief.

I get what is biting you catholic people. You've got a persecution complex. I'm not attacking anyone or in opposition to anyone, church or otherwise.

It wasn't directed at you alone, it was a general saying and it is not limited to Catholic topics. I have logic wanting in other forums too and not just nairaland. I guess at this time I have no patience for idiocrisy. It's human beings in general, and I fall in there too sadly.

Me, I just found an interesting article that I thought was worth discussing. I realise now that anything of the sort will be impossible with you guys. I've been here before when I quoted a historical event from the early church councils and some catholics started foaming and cussing me. It was just an historical fact.

No you didn't, you came off with an attack against the Church.

You made a statement as a fact, and the fact you were stating is that the Church tries to equate Mary with Jesus and that there's supposed to be some kind of campaign towards that. Please go back and read your first post. Maybe you're so used to making statements like that that you just don't realise when you've spoken ignorantly.

<<Anyway sha, yes I had read the article before posting it and I do know what a redemptrix is. I shouldn't have said equal to jesus as redeemer perhaps, but the basic point remains the same.>>

It is not redemptrix, it is co-redemptrix, it is when people wrongly use words that blur the meaning of the word.
How does the basic point remain the same?

If by basic point you mean you want to discuss the article? Ok that's a good basic point.

@ Topic

a good way to describe the Trinity and show that it is very possible for one thing to exist while being 3 or doing 3 at the same time.
My favourite is the shamrock used by St. Patrick in explaining the Trinity to the Irish. There are 3 leafs in a shamrock and yet it is still 1 leaf.

Also someone used a flame and a circle to explain it.

Draw a circle

You see the line, the interior and the exterior. Not one of those existed before the other and neither exists without the other.

Light a candle

The flame consumes, gives light and gives heat. All three happen while the flame exists. None of them exists without the other.

I really like the flame consuming, giving light, and giving heat at the same time.

[size=15pt]CHAPTER I
THE REVELATION
OF GOD'S WISDOM[/size]
Jesus, revealer of the Father

7. Underlying all the Church's thinking is the awareness that she is the bearer of a message which has its origin in God himself (cf. 2 Cor 4:1-2). The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith (cf. 1 Th 2:13). At the origin of our life of faith there is an encounter, unique in kind, which discloses a mystery hidden for long ages (cf. 1 Cor 2:7; Rom 16:25-26) but which is now revealed: “In his goodness and wisdom, God chose to reveal himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of his will (cf. Eph 1:9), by which, through Christ, the Word made flesh, man has access to the Father in the Holy Spirit and comes to share in the divine nature”.(5) This initiative is utterly gratuitous, moving from God to men and women in order to bring them to salvation. As the source of love, God desires to make himself known; and the knowledge which the human being has of God perfects all that the human mind can know of the meaning of life.

6. Sure of her competence as the bearer of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the Church reaffirms the need to reflect upon truth. This is why I have decided to address you, my venerable Brother Bishops, with whom I share the mission of “proclaiming the truth openly” (2 Cor 4:2), as also theologians and philosophers whose duty it is to explore the different aspects of truth, and all those who are searching; and I do so in order to offer some reflections on the path which leads to true wisdom, so that those who love truth may take the sure path leading to it and so find rest from their labours and joy for their spirit.
I feel impelled to undertake this task above all because of the Second Vatican Council's insistence that the Bishops are “witnesses of divine and catholic truth”.(3) To bear witness to the truth is therefore a task entrusted to us Bishops; we cannot renounce this task without failing in the ministry which we have received. In reaffirming the truth of faith, we can both restore to our contemporaries a genuine trust in their capacity to know and challenge philosophy to recover and develop its own full dignity.
There is a further reason why I write these reflections. In my Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, I drew attention to “certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied”.(4) In the present Letter, I wish to pursue that reflection by concentrating on the theme of truth itself and on its foundation in relation to faith. For it is undeniable that this time of rapid and complex change can leave especially the younger generation, to whom the future belongs and on whom it depends, with a sense that they have no valid points of reference. The need for a foundation for personal and communal life becomes all the more pressing at a time when we are faced with the patent inadequacy of perspectives in which the ephemeral is affirmed as a value and the possibility of discovering the real meaning of life is cast into doubt. This is why many people stumble through life to the very edge of the abyss without knowing where they are going. At times, this happens because those whose vocation it is to give cultural expression to their thinking no longer look to truth, preferring quick success to the toil of patient enquiry into what makes life worth living. With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation. This is why I have felt both the need and the duty to address this theme so that, on the threshold of the third millennium of the Christian era, humanity may come to a clearer sense of the great resources with which it has been endowed and may commit itself with renewed courage to implement the plan of salvation of which its history is part.

5. On her part, the Church cannot but set great value upon reason's drive to attain goals which render people's lives ever more worthy. She sees in philosophy the way to come to know fundamental truths about human life. At the same time, the Church considers philosophy an indispensable help for a deeper understanding of faith and for communicating the truth of the Gospel to those who do not yet know it.
Therefore, following upon similar initiatives by my Predecessors, I wish to reflect upon this special activity of human reason. I judge it necessary to do so because, at the present time in particular, the search for ultimate truth seems often to be neglected. Modern philosophy clearly has the great merit of focusing attention upon man. From this starting-point, human reason with its many questions has developed further its yearning to know more and to know it ever more deeply. Complex systems of thought have thus been built, yielding results in the different fields of knowledge and fostering the development of culture and history. Anthropology, logic, the natural sciences, history, linguistics and so forth—the whole universe of knowledge has been involved in one way or another. Yet the positive results achieved must not obscure the fact that reason, in its one-sided concern to investigate human subjectivity, seems to have forgotten that men and women are always called to direct their steps towards a truth which transcends them. Sundered from that truth, individuals are at the mercy of caprice, and their state as person ends up being judged by pragmatic criteria based essentially upon experimental data, in the mistaken belief that technology must dominate all. It has happened therefore that reason, rather than voicing the human orientation towards truth, has wilted under the weight of so much knowledge and little by little has lost the capacity to lift its gaze to the heights, not daring to rise to the truth of being. Abandoning the investigation of being, modern philosophical research has concentrated instead upon human knowing. Rather than make use of the human capacity to know the truth, modern philosophy has preferred to accentuate the ways in which this capacity is limited and conditioned.
This has given rise to different forms of agnosticism and relativism which have led philosophical research to lose its way in the shifting sands of widespread scepticism. Recent times have seen the rise to prominence of various doctrines which tend to devalue even the truths which had been judged certain. A legitimate plurality of positions has yielded to an undifferentiated pluralism, based upon the assumption that all positions are equally valid, which is one of today's most widespread symptoms of the lack of confidence in truth. Even certain conceptions of life coming from the East betray this lack of confidence, denying truth its exclusive character and assuming that truth reveals itself equally in different doctrines, even if they contradict one another. On this understanding, everything is reduced to opinion; and there is a sense of being adrift. While, on the one hand, philosophical thinking has succeeded in coming closer to the reality of human life and its forms of expression, it has also tended to pursue issues—existential, hermeneutical or linguistic—which ignore the radical question of the truth about personal existence, about being and about God. Hence we see among the men and women of our time, and not just in some philosophers, attitudes of widespread distrust of the human being's great capacity for knowledge. With a false modesty, people rest content with partial and provisional truths, no longer seeking to ask radical questions about the meaning and ultimate foundation of human, personal and social existence. In short, the hope that philosophy might be able to provide definitive answers to these questions has dwindled.

4. Nonetheless, it is true that a single term conceals a variety of meanings. Hence the need for a preliminary clarification. Driven by the desire to discover the ultimate truth of existence, human beings seek to acquire those universal elements of knowledge which enable them to understand themselves better and to advance in their own self-realization. These fundamental elements of knowledge spring from the wonder awakened in them by the contemplation of creation: human beings are astonished to discover themselves as part of the world, in a relationship with others like them, all sharing a common destiny. Here begins, then, the journey which will lead them to discover ever new frontiers of knowledge. Without wonder, men and women would lapse into deadening routine and little by little would become incapable of a life which is genuinely personal.
Through philosophy's work, the ability to speculate which is proper to the human intellect produces a rigorous mode of thought; and then in turn, through the logical coherence of the affirmations made and the organic unity of their content, it produces a systematic body of knowledge. In different cultural contexts and at different times, this process has yielded results which have produced genuine systems of thought. Yet often enough in history this has brought with it the temptation to identify one single stream with the whole of philosophy. In such cases, we are clearly dealing with a “philosophical pride” which seeks to present its own partial and imperfect view as the complete reading of all reality. In effect, every philosophical system, while it should always be respected in its wholeness, without any instrumentalization, must still recognize the primacy of philosophical enquiry, from which it stems and which it ought loyally to serve.
Although times change and knowledge increases, it is possible to discern a core of philosophical insight within the history of thought as a whole. Consider, for example, the principles of non-contradiction, finality and causality, as well as the concept of the person as a free and intelligent subject, with the capacity to know God, truth and goodness. Consider as well certain fundamental moral norms which are shared by all. These are among the indications that, beyond different schools of thought, there exists a body of knowledge which may be judged a kind of spiritual heritage of humanity. It is as if we had come upon an implicit philosophy, as a result of which all feel that they possess these principles, albeit in a general and unreflective way. Precisely because it is shared in some measure by all, this knowledge should serve as a kind of reference-point for the different philosophical schools. Once reason successfully intuits and formulates the first universal principles of being and correctly draws from them conclusions which are coherent both logically and ethically, then it may be called right reason or, as the ancients called it, orthós logos, recta ratio.

3. Men and women have at their disposal an array of resources for generating greater knowledge of truth so that their lives may be ever more human. Among these is philosophy, which is directly concerned with asking the question of life's meaning and sketching an answer to it. Philosophy emerges, then, as one of noblest of human tasks. According to its Greek etymology, the term philosophy means “love of wisdom”. Born and nurtured when the human being first asked questions about the reason for things and their purpose, philosophy shows in different modes and forms that the desire for truth is part of human nature itself. It is an innate property of human reason to ask why things are as they are, even though the answers which gradually emerge are set within a horizon which reveals how the different human cultures are complementary.
Philosophy's powerful influence on the formation and development of the cultures of the West should not obscure the influence it has also had upon the ways of understanding existence found in the East. Every people has its own native and seminal wisdom which, as a true cultural treasure, tends to find voice and develop in forms which are genuinely philosophical. One example of this is the basic form of philosophical knowledge which is evident to this day in the postulates which inspire national and international legal systems in regulating the life of society.

2. The Church is no stranger to this journey of discovery, nor could she ever be. From the moment when, through the Paschal Mystery, she received the gift of the ultimate truth about human life, the Church has made her pilgrim way along the paths of the world to proclaim that Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). It is her duty to serve humanity in different ways, but one way in particular imposes a responsibility of a quite special kind: the diakonia of the truth.(1) This mission on the one hand makes the believing community a partner in humanity's shared struggle to arrive at truth; (2) and on the other hand it obliges the believing community to proclaim the certitudes arrived at, albeit with a sense that every truth attained is but a step towards that fullness of truth which will appear with the final Revelation of God: “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12).

Hello everyone, this is a very long encyclical letter, and don't wish to bore everybody, but I find it a great read. So I will post it in parts ok.
God bless and enjoy.
If you will challege it please make sure you have sound logic.

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
FIDES ET RATIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

My Venerable Brother Bishops,
Health and the Apostolic Blessing!
Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).
INTRODUCTION
“KNOW YOURSELF”
1. In both East and West, we may trace a journey which has led humanity down the centuries to meet and engage truth more and more deeply. It is a journey which has unfolded—as it must—within the horizon of personal self-consciousness: the more human beings know reality and the world, the more they know themselves in their uniqueness, with the question of the meaning of things and of their very existence becoming ever more pressing. This is why all that is the object of our knowledge becomes a part of our life. The admonition Know yourself was carved on the temple portal at Delphi, as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings”, that is as those who “know themselves”.
Moreover, a cursory glance at ancient history shows clearly how in different parts of the world, with their different cultures, there arise at the same time the fundamental questions which pervade human life: Who am I? Where have I come from and where am I going? Why is there evil? What is there after this life? These are the questions which we find in the sacred writings of Israel, as also in the Veda and the Avesta; we find them in the writings of Confucius and Lao-Tze, and in the preaching of Tirthankara and Buddha; they appear in the poetry of Homer and in the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles, as they do in the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle. They are questions which have their common source in the quest for meaning which has always compelled the human heart. In fact, the answer given to these questions decides the direction which people seek to give to their lives.

hey there's a muslim forum, do u mind taking this to the muslim forum?

@ Viee

If you can have your in law get in touch with me I think I can show her where Jesus is spoken of as God. Not only was he called God there, he called himself or at least equated himself with God in several places, most especially when he speaks of himself existing since before Abraham, and calling himself I AM. The reason why I favour our understanding of the original languages the Scriptures was written in is because it gives us a clearer understnading of what is meant. To see in those verses where Jesus calls himself YHWH would certainly clarified it for her, the only one that can call himself YHWH is YHWH himself, just like only ~Lady~ can call herself ~Lady~ he alone has that identity.

I also had a discussion with a Jehovah's witness who proceeded to tell me that there are many gods by showing me a verse in the Bible, the thing is that verse speaks negatively about those gods, and then when I asked him if he believed in many gods, he said no. He did tell me that Jesus is a God, but he isn't the God, which really doesn't make much sense.

He also provided for me a verse in Isaiah where the prophecy says that the messiah would be called Mighty God, apparently he was confused to thinking that Mighty God is different from Almighty God.

Yeah he couldn't get the logic around that one. I can talk to her if you want.

It would also be nice if some of you can send Seun an e-mail. I will try my best though. Click on his name and it will take u to his profile and u will see his e-mail. Hopefully that's the one he uses, unless he's like me who has a couple of e-mails but only checks one. lol


As for whether the Church doesn't do a good job in teaching us. I actually just handled a question like that on facebook, and my response is this. I agree that catechism classes are failing, unfortunately we are getting faithful who wish to be politically correct, those who don't know whether to stand for truth or to pander to some people. But it is up to the individual whether he or she wishes to understand what the Church teaches. The Church can teach the basics but if an individual isn't willing to water his/her faith to grow then they do not care for their salvation. I personally will not trust my salvation to people who are confused on their own beliefs and who have no sound doctrine.

If your inlaw is accepting to be a Jehovah's Witness, I am sad to inform you that she is no longer a christian. Because to accept the JW's as christian would be to accept muslims as christian as they both claim that Jesus isn't God, and a core of the christian faith is to accept that Jesus is God, and the second person of the HolyTrinity.

You can send me her name through facebook, and I will include her in my prayer list. I will pray that Christ will convert her and bring her home to His Church.
@ All

I love you

Jesus loves you, Mary loves you