NewStats: 3,265,515 , 8,187,050 topics. Date: Sunday, 15 June 2025 at 01:24 PM r3m45

@Lady

They are different. God is not a Fraud. Will he be deceiving you appearing as a Jesus and HolyGhost and Father to Prove what?

@SeanT21

You dont Need Help You have just to believe in what you qouted. You either Believe God of the Bible or You believe Satan of other False Books.

@ Posts

The fact that someone say he is sorry doesnt me that bible is wrong. This pastor has backslided and is another false teacher. Well the bible calls The Catholic Church a LovePeddler. It calls it a Menstrous Woman.

She was born out of Fornication. How? The Church Slept with the State of the Roman Empire and along with is Demonic tradition.
It has fornicated with Islam
It has fornicated with Gay men and women
It agrees that we should kill Innocent babies

If You are sorry for exposing the WHOREDOMITY OF A BACKSLIDING CHURCH BECAUSE YOU A PARTY YOU ARE ALSO A LovePeddler. You see our preachers are becoming politicians.

Some of the pastors are puting the grace and mercy of God to their political Ambition.

@all

You can copy and read it later it is not a must you read everything.

@KunleOshob

well if the Bible has have alot of books they came then you will have a lot of repeatition. The books that you have now are the exact same books that the most high the Lord God wanted us to read.

If you have ever heard about the 70 scholars you would be amazed and be rest assured. However you cant be because you have not known the Spirit of the most High.

I have read the bible and I know that without any doubt the bible is purer than anything pure. It is Gods Holy word. The only book that can Convert a wicked sinner to a lover of them that seek God.

God had Used his power through one of the kings of Europe to make his word known. I known great men that Kings and queens feared. The great men that lived on earth that lived there life based on the bible.

You are either against God or For God there is no inbtween. You can say what you like about the bible but it is this very book that will Judge you. the bible says it was went through fire and it still became even purer.


It is however sad to note that so many men and even men of God have gone back from the truth.

@orikinla

Though this mail is along time but it looks like orikinla has question that I had and so many people still have. The greatest deception is that people believe that God is a house Help.

because we Africans are very Classy not Natural Racist we tend to beleive that the White man worship is what gives Him Superiority. We forget that We African we World leaders but how come we have been thrown aside?

The reason is in the bible We had felt our gods were greater than the Must high. God gave us to evil spirit by which it has almost made us foolish as though we were never Wise(timbuktu).

He sent the Ethiopian Eunuch but the Gospel did not spread. The Lord sent many other people we killed some, some died yet some came with false Religion. God has been merciful to us Africans.

before we were scatered all over the Land of Africa We were puffed to each other and we killed one another as we still kill today. We gave ourselves tribal names so that we could easily eliminate each.

Tell me why in africa alone we have so many Languages? Only in Nigeria Alone we have over 300! Some will not marry into any other. The power of satan is great in Africa unless we destroy our gods by ourselves and abolish the Traditional rulers there is no way The lord can do his power to transform The nation. Some will say that oh in Asia that there are gods but if you look closely how they Worship their gods you will wonder.

please I am not concerned about the Development of buildings and wealth if that is why Jesus came then we are all doomed.

@justcool

You are wrong The bible says for God so loved the world that HE GAVE his only begotten Son. If God did not give there was no way we could have the remission of sin.

You must understand that without the Shedding of Blood there will be no single remission. You better be prepared for so many blood issues because The Church was born with a lot of Blood.

If God Sheds Blood who will Judge Him You? Which court will you take Him to?

When God sent the Flood in the Times of Noah and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah what was that.

Ok that God Killed thousands because David Just Simply Numbered the Children of Isreal.

GOD Cannot Lie

The battle is in Ernest There is the consolidation of Sin. The Pastors and so called men of God are busy enriching themselves and focus on the Word of Knowledge. Is it now surprising that one of the well paid Job is to be a pastor.

The evil that is in the House of God is so much so that The young men are trooping to work there not because they love God, but because He is a Calculator God. You hear from pastors that God is a problem solver. You hardly hear nowadays Pastors tell their Congregations that they will Go to hell if they sin.

You here that God MUST ANSWER, as though God is the servant and we are the superior. The fear of God and the :Love or God has departed in our church in this last days.

You have not seen anything yet Just wait where they will start Teaching SEX in Church with Live Demonstration

Well Since you seek the Truth You must Avail yourself to read

In a manner that is somewhat similar to a modern research paper, citations appear in both the Old and New Testaments. The inspired writers sometimes referred to certain works that no longer exist—a fact that has caused some people to question the accuracy and completeness of the Bible. Atheists and skeptics claim that if it was truly God’s Word, then it would not lack any composition cited. Massimo schini, an Italian convert to Mormonism, has suggested that the biblical text is more than sixty-five percent incomplete, due, in part, to the “lost books” cited within the Bible itself (schini, 2002). If the Bible is, at most, thirty-five percent complete, then the Christian faith can be no more complete than that. Duane Christensen, in the October 1998 issue of Bible Review, listed twenty-three referenced books that have been lost in antiquity (14[5]:29), to which we can add seven additional works mentioned in the Bible. Such compositions as the Book of Jashar (Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18), the Acts of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29), and Paul’s previous Corinthian letter (see 1 Corinthians 5:9) are among the thirty cited works—twenty-eight from the Old Testament era, and two from the New Testament era—that are not included in the canon of Scripture, and that are missing from secular history. The contents of these books are known only by the fact that they are cited or quoted. Upon further examination, however, it appears that some of them actually may exist in another form.

Some scholars argue that a large number of these citations probably refer to the same composition. For example, the references found in 1 and 2 Kings to the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and the Acts of Solomon, possibly denote a single work (Christensen, 14[5]:29). It is a common practice, even in modern society, to refer to one thing by several different names. For example, a person may refer to Josephus’ work, Wars of the Jews, as “Josephus,” “Josephus’ Wars,” “Jewish Wars,” “Wars of the Jews,” “Josephus’ Jewish Wars,” etc.—all of which designate the same composition. In similar fashion, the many works cited throughout Kings and Chronicles very possibly refer to different sections of a single work. If there was a single original (one referred to by several names), it was likely a highly detailed record of the reigns of the kings in Israel and Judah. As a king lived and died, the records of his reign were added to this work by a scribe, prophet, historian, record keeper, or even by the istration of the next king, making it a composite work of many writers. The various names for this single might have designated certain sections that made up the composite work. The differences between Kings’ and Chronicles’ naming and citing of the sections of the original, can be understood by the differences that exist among modern citation styles. The style of citation, list of works cited, and information provided vary widely, for example, among such modern-day guides as the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, The Chicago Manual of Style, and Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Nevertheless, each one of these provides sufficient information to refer the reader to the original source. Similarly, the writer of Kings’ style of citation, and the writer of Chronicles’ style of citation, both mentioned the original, but did so in a different manner. Nevertheless, both provided the reader with enough information to locate the section referenced in the source.

The idea of a composite source makes sense when applied to Jewish oral tradition. The Talmud—a collection of Hebrew oral law and legal decisions (the Mishna), along with transcribed scholarly discussions and commentary on the Mishna (the Gemara)—holds that Jeremiah wrote Kings, and that Ezra wrote Chronicles (Rodkinson, 1918, V:45). [NOTE: There is no internal evidence for Jeremiah’s authorship of Kings, but 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4 are almost identical, which s Talmudic tradition of Ezra’s authorship of Chronicles.] One theory regarding the citation of lost books is that they were source material for the writers of Kings and Chronicles. Jeremiah possibly edited and/or condensed the original source (by inspiration of the Holy Spirit) into the book of Kings, sometime before or during the Babylonian exile. This new, inspired book of Kings provided a summary of the histories of Israel and Judah for the captives to carry with them—a much smaller, lighter book than the original detailed work. After returning from the Babylonian exile, Ezra composed another history of the Hebrew nation—Chronicles. According to this theory, he used the same original work as Jeremiah for his primary source, but referred to the sections by different names than the ones used by Jeremiah. To this, he added parts of Samuel, Isaiah, possibly Lamentations, and some non-extant works. Like Jeremiah’s compilation, Ezra did this by inspiration. While the original source no longer exists, a condensed form of it survived through the inspired writings.

However, it also is possible that the original work to which Jeremiah and Ezra referred was not a source for their books, but was an uninspired composition of historical significance to which the reader could look for additional information. Under this theory, Jeremiah and Ezra received everything for the composition of their respective works, but also were inspired to include a reference for “extra information.” God did not require every single detail to be preserved in the biblical s of the history of the Jewish people, so He revealed what the authors of Kings and Chronicles needed to know, while guiding them to insert a “for more information, please see, ” in the text.

Both of these theories allow for verbal inspiration. The first theory suggests that God inspired Jeremiah and Ezra to look at the single historical work as a source, and then He guided them (via the Holy Spirit) to include exactly what He wanted from that source into Scripture. According to the second theory, God revealed to Jeremiah and Ezra the necessary history, and then guided them to place a citation in the biblical text in order to refer the contemporary reader to a then-extant historical book. Some of the “lost books” are references to sections of this source, and others are different names for books that are not lost, but currently reside within the canon of Scripture.

Work Cited
Cited In

The Book of the Wars of Yahweh
Numbers 21:14

The Book of Jashar
Joshua 10:12-13;
2 Samuel 1:19-27

The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah
1 Kings 14:29; et al.

The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel
1 Kings 14:19; et al.

The Acts of Solomon
1 Kings 11:41

Book of the Kings of Israel
1 Chronicles 9:1-2;
2 Chronicles 20:34

Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel
2 Chronicles 16:11; et al.

Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah
2 Chronicles 27:7; et al.

Acts of the Kings of Israel
2 Chronicles 33:18

Acts of Samuel the Seer
1 Chronicles 29:29

Acts of Gad the Seer
1 Chronicles 29:29

Acts of Nathan the Prophet
1 Chronicles 29:29

History of Nathan the Prophet
2 Chronicles 9:29

Prophesy of Ahijah the Shilonite
2 Chronicles 9:29

Visions of Iddo the Seer
2 Chronicles 9:29

Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer
2 Chronicles 12:15

Acts of Jehu Son of Hanani
2 Chronicles 20:34

Acts of the Seers
2 Chronicles 33:19

Midrash of the Prophet Iddo
2 Chronicles 13:22

Midrash on the Book of Kings
2 Chronicles 24:27

Book by the prophet Isaiah
2 Chronicles 26:22

Vision of Isaiah the prophet
2 Chronicles 32:32

Book of the Chronicles
Nehemiah 12:23

Some additional writings, referenced in the Old Testament
and New Testament, can be added to Christensen’s list:

Book of the Covenant
Exodus 24:7; et al.

The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia
Esther 10:2

Book by Samuel
1 Samuel 10:25

Laments for Josiah
2 Chronicles 35:25

Chronicles of King David
1 Chronicles 27:24

Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans
Colossians 4:16

Paul’s previous Corinthian letter
1 Corinthians 5:9

List of the “lost books”/“lost writings” of the Bible (per Christensen, 1998, with additions)



Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, and Acts of Solomon (non-extant)

These names probably refer to sections of the original, detailed source either used by Jeremiah (through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to compose Kings, or mentioned by Jeremiah as a source for additional information. The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is cited in 1 Kings 14:29; 15:7; 15:23; 22:45; 2 Kings 8:23; 12:19; 14:18; 15:6; 15:36; 16:19; 20:20; 21:17; 21:25; 23:28; and 24:5. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel is mentioned in 1 Kings 14:19; 15:31; 16:5; 16:14; 16:20; 16:27; 22:39; 2 Kings 1:18; 10:34; 13:8; 13:12; 14:15; 14:28; 15:11; 15:15; 15:21; 15:26; and 15:31. However, the Acts of Solomon is referred to only in 1 Kings 11:41. This compilation probably contained the records of each king’s reign, official decrees, judgments of the court, census reports, taxation records, etc.

Book of the Kings of Israel, Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, Acts of the Kings of Israel, and Chronicles of King David (non-extant)

These five titles possibly were Ezra’s references to sections of the same source from which Jeremiah wrote Kings. According to the two theories, either he used this single historical work (again, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to compose Chronicles, or he referenced it as additional, uninspired information. The Book of the Kings of Israel is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 9:1-2 and 2 Chronicles 20:34. The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel is cited in 2 Chronicles 16:11; 25:26; 28:26; and 32:32. The Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah is referred to in 2 Chronicles 27:2; 35:27; and 36:8. Finally, the Acts of the Kings of Israel, and the Chronicles of King David, are alluded to in 2 Chronicles 33:18 and 1 Chronicles 27:24, respectively.

Acts of Samuel the Seer, Acts of Gad the Seer, and Acts of Nathan the Prophet (1 & 2 Samuel)

The only citation to these works is found in 1 Chronicles 29:29. This probably refers to 1 and 2 Samuel, which Talmudic tradition says was written by Samuel until his death (see 1 Samuel 25:1), and was finished by Gad the seer and Nathan the prophet (Rodkinson, 1918, V:45-46). With this explanation, it stands to reason that Ezra was referring to one work (Samuel) by its composite authors—Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. So these three “lost books” probably cite a single, currently existing work, known to us as 1 and 2 Samuel. [NOTE: In the Hebrew Bible, 1 and 2 Samuel were one book (Samuel), as were 1 and 2 Kings (Kings) and 1 and 2 Chronicles (Chronicles). Also, Nehemiah was added to the end of Ezra in the Hebrew text, and Hosea through Malachi were one book—which resulted in the Hebrew Bible being twenty-four books (Josephus combined two of those, making a total of twenty-two), instead of the thirty-nine in our present-day Old Testament.]

Book by the Prophet Isaiah and Vision of Isaiah the Prophet (Isaiah)

The two “lost books,” cited in 2 Chronicles 26:22 and 2 Chronicles 32:32, respectively, are said to have contained the records of King Uzziah and King Hezekiah. Isaiah lived during the reigns of these men (Isaiah 1:1; 6:1; 7:1; 36:1-39:, so these citations likely refer to the book of Isaiah that exists in our current canon.

Lament for Josiah (Lamentations 3)

In 2 Chronicles 35:25, it is recorded that Jeremiah composed a lament at the death of Josiah, who was the last unconquered king of Judah, and wrote it “in the Laments.” The book of Lamentations was the work of Jeremiah that mourned the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred not long after the death of Josiah. It is highly likely that the lament mentioned in 2 Chronicles 35:25 is included in Lamentations. It is perhaps in chapter 3, where the tone of the lament changes. There seems to be continuity between 2:22 and 4:1. Chapter 2 talks of God’s anger toward Jerusalem and the result of it, a thought that is continued in chapter 4. Chapter 3 takes on a more personal tone, which could be indicative of the personal grief experienced by Jeremiah at the death of Josiah. It is very possible that, in lamenting the destruction of Jerusalem (Lamentations 1-2), Jeremiah’s grief at the death of Josiah came freshly to his mind, and he digressed in his lament over Jerusalem to include the sorrow of Josiah’s ing (Lamentations 3). Following this digression, his thoughts returned to Jerusalem (Lamentations 4-5).

Book of the Chronicles (1 & 2 Chronicles)

Nehemiah mentioned a record of the Levites, which was kept in the Book of the Chronicles (Nehemiah 12:23). Since Nehemiah and Ezra were contemporaries, it is probable that Nehemiah was referring to the Chronicles written by Ezra—our 1 and 2 Chronicles. It appears that Nehemiah may have been citing 1 Chronicles 9:10-22 specifically, which contains a record like the one mentioned by Nehemiah.

Book of the Covenant (The Pentateuch)

Four places in the Old Testament refer to the Book of the Covenant: Exodus 24:7; 2 Kings 23:2; 23:21; and 2 Chronicles 34:30. This is another name for the Pentateuch, which is sometimes called the Law (see Deuteronomy 30:10; 31:26; 2 Kings 17:13; et al.) or the Law of Moses (see Joshua 8:31; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; et al.).

The Book of Jashar (Non-extant)

Recently, certain scholars have written about the Book of Jashar, especially in light of its “rediscovery.” There are only two quotations from the Book of Jashar: Joshua 10:12-13 and 2 Samuel 1:18-27. From these references, it appears that the Book of Jashar was either a book of songs or poems compiled throughout the ages by the Israelite nation, or a record of upright individuals among the Israelites (see McClintock and Strong, 1968, 4:785). The word “Jashar” is commonly translated “just” or “upright,” but some scholars contend that it may be a corruption of the Hebrew word for “song” (Christensen, 1998, 14[5]:27).

Currently, five works claim to be the Book of Jashar, but all are spurious or recent compositions. The most popular of these is a manuscript forged by the Rosicrucians, a secret society dating back to the seventeenth century. The original supposedly was “found” by Alcuin—an Anglo-Saxon from Northumbria—in Gazna, Persia, and translated at some point during the eighth century A.D. The translation, which is the manuscript that is extant today, was “rediscovered” in 1721 and printed in London in 1751. This writing—which continues to be published despite the lack of evidence for its authenticity—is viewed to be a forgery produced no earlier than the eighteenth century (see Christensen, 14[5]:30; McClintock, 4:768-788).

The Book of Jashar was used as source material by Joshua, as well as by Gad and Nathan. It no longer exists in its original form, and the five different recent works are almost universally rejected as forgeries.

The Book of the Wars of Yahweh (Non-extant)

Also called the Book of the Wars of the Lord, this composition is quoted in Numbers 21:14. The quotation is in lyrical form, so it is possibly a book of poetry or a hymnal. Some have suggested that the Book of Jashar and the Book of the Wars of Yahweh are the same work (Christensen, 14[5]:30). Moses quoted it, so the date of its composition must have been prior to the completion of the Pentateuch, perhaps during the wanderings in the wilderness. Nothing else is known about it, and it survives only in Moses’ quotation.

Other Old Testament Works (Non-extant)

Many of the “lost books” actually exist either in a condensed form or under another name. However, some compositions now exist as mere citations in the Old Testament. The History of Nathan the Prophet, Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and Visions of Iddo the Seer are all cited together (2 Chronicles 9:29). If this is a form similar to the 1 Chronicles 29:29 reference to Samuel (using the composite authors for the citation), then it is possible that this was a single compilation cited by mentioning its authors. The same can be said of the Acts of Shemaiah the Prophet and Iddo the Seer (2 Chronicles 12:15). Another possibility is that these, along with the Acts of Jehu Son of Hanani (2 Chronicles 20:34), are all sections in a single work titled Acts of the Seers, which is mentioned in 2 Chronicles 33:19. Since the authors were prophets or seers, their works could have been gathered into a single book of prophetic revelation, similar to the manner in which the works of the twelve minor prophets were gathered into a single book (the Twelve Prophets). It is possible that Ezra used the composite work (if they were placed together), or the individual works, as additional source material in composing Chronicles, or that he cited them in the same manner as the single historical work. So far as we know, these books no longer exist, except in name.

Two other non-extant, but cited, works are commentaries on certain books. The Midrash of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13:22) was a commentary on a specific writing that contained the record of King Abijah of Judah. [NOTE: A midrash is a Jewish commentary, sometimes translated as “annals” or “commentary.”] Perhaps the work on which Iddo wrote his commentary was the original source used by Jeremiah and Ezra to compose Kings and Chronicles, respectively. Another possibility is that it was Kings itself. The Midrash on the Book of Kings (2 Chronicles 24:27) was possibly a commentary on either Jeremiah’s Kings or the original source for Kings and Chronicles. These midrashim could have been a single work, with the two citations referring to different parts of it. Ezra used these midrashim either as sources for his inspired composition of Chronicles, or as places to look if the reader wanted more information—but the originals have been lost.

Two remaining Old Testament-era books no longer exist except through citations: the Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia, and a book by Samuel. The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia is mentioned in Esther 10:2. This is not considered a “lost book” of the Bible, because it was the official record of the Persian Empire, not an inspired source. It seems to be referenced in Esther 2:23 and 6:1, where the King of Persia is shown placing records in the book and reading from it. The Book of Esther mentions this contemporary Gentile source in order to point the early reader to further details about the Persian Empire, similar to Paul’s quotations from the Cretan poet Epimenides and the Cilician poet Aratus to make his point in Acts 17:28 (Bruce, 1977, p. 44). The Chronicles of the Kings of Media and Persia is a lost secular historical record. It is not a lost biblical record.

Recorded in 1 Samuel 10:25 is Samuel’s writing of a book concerning the “behavior of royalty.” The biblical record said that he had “laid it up before the Lord,” but nowhere do we find anything that bears the markings of this book. The citation possibly could be a reference to the part of Samuel composed by the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 1-24).

To summarize, eight of the “missing” Old Testament books probably are referring to Samuel, Isaiah, Chronicles, the Pentateuch, and Lamentations. Eight others appear to refer to sections of a single source used by the inspired Old Testament writers, making it only one “lost” historical record. Six others were written by prophets and seers, and might have been sections in a non-extant prophetic work known as the Book of the Seers. Two more were commentaries, which also could have been a single work, and two more were books of hymns or poetry. Therefore, the original number of Old Testament-era “lost books,” twenty-eight, actually numbers only a half-dozen. However, along with the “missing” books of the Old Testament era, there are two epistles referred to in the New Testament that some consider “lost books.”

Paul’s Letter to the Laodiceans

Paul, in Colossians 4:16, mentioned an epistle that he sent to the church at Laodicea. Since an epistle by this name is not found in our New Testament, some have claimed that it is non-extant. While this is one option, there are other possibilities. Some scholars say that it may actually exist in the canon of the Bible, but under a different name. According to this theory, Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians was written as an encyclical letter, meaning that it did not have one single destination. There is internal and external evidence to this theory. Certain characteristics of the letter (like the omission of the phrase “in Ephesus” from Ephesians 1:1 in certain reliable manuscripts), the fact that some early Christians were not aware of the “in Ephesus” for verse 1, and a heretical reference to Ephesians as Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans, appear to this theory (Metzger, 2000, p. 532). Yet, the possibility remains that Paul’s letter to Laodicea was lost somewhere, perhaps in Asia Minor, before it could be copied (or the copies were destroyed or lost as well). [ing mention should be made of a spurious epistle from the fourth century that claimed to be Paul’s letter to Laodicea (Bruce, 1988, pp. 237-240). ]

However, there is another possibility. The text never stated that the epistle was from Paul to Laodicea. It simply says that the Colossian church was to procure a certain letter in the possession of the Laodicean church. This would mean that the church at Laodicea probably had some canonical writing that Paul wanted the Colossian church to read, which would mean that there is no missing Laodicean letter. Of the three explanations (lost Laodicean letter, encyclical Ephesians, or canonical epistle in the possession of the Laodiceans), the latter appears to make the most sense. Most likely, the “missing” epistle to the Laodiceans was just a canonical epistle in the possession of the church in that city. Apparently, there was a section of it that Paul desired the Colossian brethren to read, and so he gave them directions for its procurement.

Paul’s First Corinthian Letter

Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to Paul’s missing previous Corinthian letter. Technically, the epistles of 1 and 2 Corinthians could be called more properly 2 and 3 Corinthians, because Paul actually did write an earlier letter to the church in Corinth. In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul said: “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.” While some would argue that Paul is referring to a previous section of 1 Corinthians (perhaps 5:1- rather than referring to a previous epistle, he then continued (in verse 10) to explain exactly what he meant by that statement, which is not what is said in 5:1-8. After explaining what the statement from the previous letter meant, Paul continued in 5:11 by showing the contrasting point, “But now I have written to you, ”—explaining the difference between the statement from the previous epistle and the one from our 1 Corinthians.

What are we to say? This truly is a lost writing of the apostle Paul, and nothing is known about it except that it existed, it was sent to the Corinthian church, and it dealt with sexual immorality. With this book, and with the other “lost books,” we now must ask the question,

Do We Really Need These Books?

When mentioning the “lost books” of the Bible, many people wonder, “Why do we no longer have these books?,” and “Do we really need them?” First, some of the so-called “lost books” probably are references to inspired books that still exist, but by another name. Others were historical references used as sources for inspired books, such as Kings and Chronicles, and so the Jews saw no need to treat them with special reverence, nor to strive to preserve them. Some were books of poetry or song that were uninspired, but served as a record of Hebrew culture. Others were non-Hebrew sources, making them non-biblical compositions and therefore not canonical writings. Many of these “lost books” probably are references to sections of the same work, making the actual number of non-extant books cited in the Bible less than a dozen. However, we must face the fact that some compositions cited by the Old and New Testament writers no longer exist.

While under subjugation to the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman empires, the Jews ultimately were able to preserve only those books that were holy and inspired—everything else was destroyed or lost. While this is unfortunate, it should not affect our faith adversely. The books we have are inspired, and came from inspired men who sometimes mentioned non-inspired sources for recording historical fact, giving places to find additional information, or simply to make a point. These men, like modern researchers, felt compelled to cite their sources, but did not intend these sources to become writings on a par with Scripture. The missing books that are cited in the Old Testament apparently did not bother the Jews, who recorded in the first century A.D. that their writings consisted of only twenty-two to twenty-four works that correspond exactly to our thirty-nine, except for a difference in order and division (Josephus, 1987, Against Apion, 1:38-40; Bruce, 1988, pp. 28-34; Rodkinson, 1918, V:44-45). Obviously, the “lost books” did not present a problem to Jesus and the apostles, who accepted the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament) as all they needed. They quoted from none of these books, and the only things they quoted as Scripture were the books of the Old Testament. To accept that God allowed the inspired writers to employ sources in composing historical books of the Bible does not negate inspiration by the Holy Spirit. If these men used sources, God still guided them by the Holy Spirit to correct, compile, and add to the uninspired source material. One of the gospel writers (Luke) apparently consulted various sources in compiling his letter (Luke 1:1-4). As was previously mentioned, Paul quoted Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17, and quoted Epimenides again in Titus 1:12. It was not uncommon for the authors of the Bible to use or quote, by inspiration, either uninspired works or inspired works that no longer exist.

God obviously did not intend certain works to be preserved, because His hand would have guided their perpetuation, just as He guided the continuation of the canonical books. Like the lost Corinthian letter, it is likely that other inspired books were written that God intended for a particular historical setting, but did not intend to be preserved in the canon of the Bible. God has given us “all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him” (2 Peter 1:3), and our knowledge of Him is complete through the revealed Word. None of the books God intended to be in the Bible is lost, and the phrase “lost books” refers only to those books of which no record exists. Whatever these “lost books” contained is irrelevant, because we have the Word of God exactly as He wanted us to have it—nothing more, and certainly nothing less.

Continuation The History of The Church

The emperor Severus may not have been personally ill-disposed towards Christians, but the church was gaining power and making many converts and this led to popular anti-Christian feeling and persecution in Catharge, Alexandria, Rome and Corinth between about 202 and 210. The famed St. Perpetua was martyred during this time, as were many students of Origen of Alexandria.

This is pure history to those who think Christian Living was an European thing.

bible by itself is pure.

The first prophesy is about Christ the Last Prophesy is about Christ.

Revelations 22 Verse

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Jesus is The Most High God The Almighty

@Redsun

Christianity is a religion that has many sides.

The True Church Of Jesus Christ is the one He died for in the Cross of Cavalry that is seperate in acts from those proclaiming to be Christian with their mouths.

The Church is seperate from the Hip hop Jazz watered down Gospel that is majorly Accepted today.

if you knew the how the Church was born you would understand that modern day Christianity is a Fraud.

@kunleoshob

The History of the Church was one of persecution. If you take out persection from the history of the Church you have no Church History.

@ cold


Luke 22:19
And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.


1 Corinthians 11:24-26
24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.


Know that without the death and resurrection of Christ we can never be anything called Christains as in our own way we were dead in sins and now we and are resurrected in the New Life of Christ.

Jesus ressurrected on the first day.

@Kunle Oshob

You are Wrong The True Church was Persecuted because the Way the lived SEPERATE FROM THE WORLD. Why was the Church Persecuted immediately It was born by the Holy Ghost.

@ Cold

i will help Just Hold On

Now we see that Trajan was merciful to backsliden Christians this was seen as a softening Now See the rule of  The emperor Hadrian in which He granted Christians even more concessions. Also responding to a request for advice from his governor, this time in western Asia Minor, Hadrian decreed (c. 124 AD) that Christians could be brought to trial but only for specific illegal acts. Significantly, therefore, being a Christian was no longer sufficient in itself to merit arrest. Moreover, "slanderous attacks" against Christians were forbidden, meaning that anyone who brought a case against a Christian but failed would suffer serious consequences. Justin Martyr attached Hadrian's imperial order to the end of his First Apology

Are you seeing how Christianity began to shape what we now have as Legal Procedure of DUE PROCESS it was Made by Christian Blood.

@Kunleoshob

After Nero the very Wicked then Came Domitian

[b]
Domitian is recorded as having executed of his own family on charges of atheism and Jewish manners, who are thus generally assumed to have been Christians.

In Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, the persecution under the great philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius is described this way:

Marcus Aurelius, the philosopher on the throne, was a well-educated, just, kind, and amiable emperor, and reached the old Roman ideal of self-reliant Stoic virtue, but for this very reason he had no sympathy with Christianity, and probably regarded it as an absurd and fanatical superstition. He had no room in his cosmopolitan philanthropy for the purest and most innocent of his subjects, many of whom served in his own army. He was flooded with apologies of Melito, Miltiades, Athenagoras in behalf of the persecuted Christians, but turned a deaf ear to them. Only once, in his Meditations, does he allude to them, and then with scorn, tracing their noble enthusiasm for martyrdom to "sheer obstinacy" and love for theatrical display. His excuse is ignorance. He probably never read a line of the New Testament, nor of the apologies addressed to him.

Belonging to the later Stoical school, which believed in an immediate absorption after death into the Divine essence, he considered the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with its moral consequences, as vicious and dangerous to the welfare of the state. A law was ed under his reign, punishing every one with exile who should endeavor to influence people's mind by fear of the Divinity, and this law was, no doubt, aimed at the Christians. At all events his reign was a stormy time for the church, although the persecutions cannot be directly traced to him. The law of Trajan was sufficient to justify the severest measures against the followers of the "forbidden" religion.


It was during the reign of Marcus Aurelius that Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred. Later, there is record of "new decrees" making it easier for Christians to be accused and have their property confiscated. In 177, 48 Christians were martyred in the amphitheater in Lyons (modern ).

In 112 AD, Roman governor Pliny the Younger was sent by the emperor Trajan to the province of Bithynia on official business. During his visit, Pliny encountered Christians, and he wrote to the emperor about them. The governor indicated that he had ordered the execution of several Christians, "for I held no question that whatever it was they itted, in any case obstinancy and unbending perversity deserve to be punished." However, he was unsure what to do about those who said they were no longer Christians, and asked Trajan his advice. The emperor responded that Christians should not be sought out, anonymous tips should be rejected as "unworthy of our times," and if they recanted and "worshipped our gods," they were to be freed. Those who persisted, however, should be punished. [/b]

@Kunle Oshob

You must know what I am trying to say to you. The Roman empire was at clash with Christ and his Church.

I will now help you to Understand that the Church was a persecuted Church. This was how the Church was Born by the Blood of the Saints.

Now look at the TRUE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

From the time of Nero to the collapse of the roman empire.

[b]Persecution in the early church occured sporadically almost since the beginning, but it was first sanctioned by the government under Nero. In 64 AD, a great fire ravaged Rome. Nero took the opportunity provided by the destruction to rebuild the city in the Greek style and begin building a large palace for himself. People began speculating that Nero had set the fire himself in order to indulge his aesthetic tastes in the reconstruction so, according to Tacitus' Annals and Suetonius' Nero, the eccentric emperor blamed the Christians for the fire in an effort to divert attention from himself. Nero was quite insane, and is reported to have tortured Christians with great cruelties for his own enjoyment. According to the Roman historian Tacitus:

Besides being put to death they [the Christians] were made to serve as objects of amusement; they were clad in the hides of beast and torn to death by dogs; others were crucified, others set on fire to serve to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open his grounds for the display, and was putting on a show in the circus, where he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in his chariot. All this gave rise to a feeling of pity, even toward men whose guilt merited the most exemplary punishment; for it was felt that they were being destroyed not for the public good but to satisfy the cruelty of an individual.
Despite these extreme cruelties, Nero's persecution was local and short-lived. However, it was the first official persecution and marked the first time the government distinguished Christians from Jews. Tertullian referred to persecution of Christians as institutum Neronianum, an institution of Nero.  After Nero, it became a capital crime to be a Christian, although pardon was always available if one publicly condemned Christ and sacrificed to the gods. [/b]

@redsun

we are discussing the History of the Church

@Kunle Oshob

I am sorry that you had to read my epistle but you must know the truth of the Life of constantin before we can now go back to what happened before he came on scene.

below is the reason why the church was persecuted

[b]The Roman Empire was generally quite tolerant in its treatment of other religions. The imperial policy was generally one of incorporation - the local gods of a newly conquered area were simply added to the Roman pantheon and often given Roman names. Even the Jews, with their one god, were generally tolerated. So why the persecution of Christians?

In order to understand the Roman distrust of Christianity, one must understand the Roman view of religion. For the Romans, religion was first and foremost a social activity that promoted unity and loyalty to the state - a religious attitude the Romans called pietas, or piety. Cicero wrote that if piety in the Roman sense were to disappear, social unity and justic would perish along with it. {8}

The early Roman writers viewed Christianity not as another kind of pietas, piety, but as a superstitio, "superstition." Pliny, a Roman governor writing circa 110 AD, called Christianity a "superstition taken to extravagent lengths." Similarly, the Roman historian Tacitus called it "a deadly superstition," and the historian Suetonius called Christians "a class of persons given to a new and mischeivous superstition." {9} In this context, the word "superstition" has a slightly different connotation than it has today: for the Romans, it designated something foreign and different - in a negative sense. Religious beliefs were valid only in so far as it could be shown to be old and in line with ancient customs; new and innovative teachings were regarded with distrust.

The Roman distaste for Christianity, then, arose in large part from its sense that it was bad for society. In the third century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:

How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? , What else are they than fighters against God? {10}
As Porphyry's argument indicates, hatred of Christians also arose from the belief that proper "piety" to the Roman gods helped to sustain the well being of the cities and their people. Though much of the Roman religion was utilitarian, it was also heavily motivated by the pagan sense that bad things will happen if the gods are not respected and worshiped properly. "Many pagans held that the neglect of the old gods who had made Rome strong was responsible for the disasters which were overtaking the Mediterranean world." {11} This perspective would surface again in the fifth century, when the destruction of Rome caused many to worry that the gods were angry at the Empire's new allegiance to Christianity. Saint Augustine's opus The City of God argued against this view.

On a more social, practical level, Christians were distrusted in part because of the secret and misunderstood nature of their worship. Words like "love feast" and talk of "eating Christ's flesh" sounded understandably suspicious to the pagans, and Christians were suspected of cannibalism, incest, orgies, and all sorts of immorality. [/b]

@post

when we say some one has a devil we dont mean insult. we are now seeing the manifestation of your Television heros and Heroines.

Selah

CONSTATIN


[b]Constantine was born in Naissus, Upper Moesia, on 27 February in roughly AD 285. Another places the year at about AD 272 or 273.
He was the son of Helena, an inn keeper's daughter, and Constantius Chlorus. It is unclear if the two were married and so Constantine may well have been an illegitimate child.

When in Constantius Chlorus in AD 293 was elevated to the rank of Caesar, Constantine became a member of the court of Diocletian.
Constantine proved an officer of much promise when serving under Diocletian's Caesar Galerius against the Persians.
He was still with Galerius when Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in AD 305, finding himself in the precarious situation of a virtual hostage to Galerius.
In AD 306 though Galerius, now sure of his position as dominant Augustus (despite Constantius being senior by rank) let Constantine return to his father to accompany him on a campaign to Britain.
Constantine however was that suspicious of this sudden change of heart by Galerius, that he took extensive precautions on his journey to Britain.
When Constantius Chlorus in AD 306 died of illness at Ebucarum (York), the troops hailed Constantine as the new Augustus.

Galerius refused to accept this proclamation but, faced with strong for Constantius' son, he saw himself forced to grant Constantine the rank of Caesar.
Though when Constantine married Fausta, her father Maximian, now returned to power in Rome, acknowledged him as Augustus. Hence, when Maximian and Maxentius later became enemies, Maximian was granted shelter at Constantine's court.

At the Conference of Carnuntum in AD 308, where all the Caesars and Augusti met, it was demanded that Constantine give up his title of Augustus and return to being a Caesar. However, he refused.
Not long after the famous conference, Constantine was successfully campaigning against marauding Germans when news reached him that Maximian, still residing at his court, had turned against him.
Had Maximian been forced abdicate at the Conference of Carnuntum, then he now was making yet another bid for power, seeking to usurp Constantine's throne.
Denying Maximian any time to organise his defence, Constantine immediately marched his legions into Gaul. All Maximian could do was flee to Massilia. Constantine did not relent and laid siege to the city. The garrison of Massilia surrendered and Maximian either committed suicide or was executed (AD 310).

With Galerius dead in AD 311 the main authority amongst the emperors had been removed, leaving them to struggle for dominance.
In the east Licinius and Maximinus Daia fought for supremacy and in the west Constantine began a war with Maxentius.
In AD 312 Constantine invaded Italy. Maxentius is believed to have had up to four times as many troops, though they were inexperinced and undisciplined.
Brushing aside the opposition in battles at Augusta Taurinorum (Turin) and Verona, Constantine marched on Rome.
Constantine later claimed to have had a vision on the way to Rome, during the night before battle. In this dream he supposedly saw the 'Chi-Ro', the symbol of Christ, shining above the sun. Seeing this as a divine sign, it is said that Constantine had his soldiers paint the symbol on their shields. Following this Constantine went on to defeat the numerically stronger army of Maxentius at the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (Oct AD 312).
Constantine's opponent Maxentius, together with thousands of his soldiers, drowned as the bridge of boats his force was retreating over collapsed.

Constantine saw this victory as directly related to the vision he had had the night before.
Henceforth Constantine saw himself as an 'emperor of the Christian people'. If this made him a Christian is the subject of some debate. But Constantine, who only had himself baptized on his deathbed, is generally understood as the first Christian emperor of the Roman world.

With his victory over Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine became the dominant figure in the empire. The senate warmly welcomed him to Rome and the two remaining emperors, Licinius and Maximinus II Daia could do little else but agree to his demand that he henceforth should be the senior Augustus. It was in this senior position that Constantine ordered Maximinus II Daia to cease his repression of the Christians.
Though despite this turn toward Christianity, Constantine remained for some years still very tolerant of the old pagan religions. Particularly the worship of the sun god was still closely related with him for some time to come. A fact which can be seen on the carvings of his triumphal Arch in Rome and on coins minted during his reign.

Then in AD 313 Licinius defeated Maximinus II Daia. This left only two emperors.
At first both tried to live peacefully aside each other, Constantine in the west, Licinius in the east. In AD 313 they met at Mediolanum (Milan), where Licinius even married Constantine's sister Constantia and restated that Constantine was the senior Augustus. Yet it was made clear that Licinius would make his own laws in the east, without the need to consult Constantine. Further it was agreed that Licinius would return property to the Christian church which had been confiscated in the eastern provinces.

As time went on Constantine should become ever more involved with the Christian church. He appeared at first to have very little grasp of the basic beliefs governing Christian faith. But gradually he must have become more acquainted with them. So much so that he sought to resolve theological disputes among the church itself.
In this role he summoned the bishops of the western provinces to Arelate (Arles) in AD 314, after the so-called Donatist schism had split the church in Africa. If this willingness to resolve matters through peaceful debate showed one side of Constantine, then his brutal enforcement of the decisions reached at such meetings showed the other. Following the decision of the council of bishops at Arelate, donatist churches were confiscated and the followers of this branch of Christianity were brutally repressed. Evidently Constantine was also capable of persecuting Christians, if they were deemed to be the 'wrong type of Christians'.

Problems with Licinius arose when Constantine appointed his brother-in-law Bassianus as Caesar for Italy and the Danubian provinces. If the principle of the tetrarchy, established by Diocletian, still in theory defined government, then Constantine as senior Augustus had the right to do this. And yet, Diocletian's principle's would have demanded that he appointed an independent man on merit. But Licinius saw in Bassianus little else than a puppet of Constantine. If the Italian territories were Constantine's, then the important Danubian military provinces were under the control of Licinius. If Bassianus was indeed Constantine's puppet it would have ment a serious gain of power by Constantine. And so, to prevent his opponent from yet further increasing his power, Licinius managed to persuade Bassianus to revolt against Constantine in AD 314 or AD 315.
The rebellion was easily put down, but the involvement of Licinius, too, was discovered. And this discovery made war inevitable. But considering the situation responsibility for the war, must lie with Constantine. It appears that he was simply unwilling to share power and hence sought to find means by which to bring about a fight.

For a while neither side acted, instead both camps preferred to prepare for the contest ahead. Then in AD 316 Constantine attacked with his forces. In July or August at Cibalae in Pannonia he defeated Licinius larger army, forcing his opponent to retreat.
The next step was taken by Licinius, when he announced Aurelius Valerius Valens, to be the new emperor of the west. It was an attempt to undermine Constantine, but it clearly failed to work. Soon after, another battle followed, at Campus Ardiensis in Thrace. This time however, neither side gained victory, as the battle proved indecisive.

Once more the two sides reached a treaty (1 March AD 317). Licinius surrendered all Danubian and Balkan provinces, with the exception of Thrace, to Constantine. In effect this was little else but confirmation of the actual balance of power, as Constantine had indeed conquered these territories and controlled them. Despite his weaker position, Licinius though still retained complete sovereignty over his remaining eastern dominions. Also as part of the treaty, Licinius' alternative western Augustus was put to death.

The final part of this agreement reached at Serdica was the creation of three new Caesars. Crispus and Constantine II were both sons of Constantine, and Licinius the Younger was the infant son of the eastern emperor and his wife Constantia.

For a short while the empire should enjoy peace. But soon the situation began to deteriorate again. If Constantine acted more and more in favour of the Christians, then Licinius began to disagree. From AD 320 onwards Licinius began to suppress the Christian church in his eastern provinces and also began ejecting any Christians from government posts.
Another problem arose regarding the consulships. These were by now widely understood as positions in which emperors would groom their sons as future rulers. Their treaty at Serdica had hence proposed that appointments should be made by mutual agreement. Licinius though believed Constantine favoured his own sons when granting these positions.
And so, in clear defiance of their agreements, Licinius appointed himself and his two sons consuls for the eastern provinces for the year AD 322.
With this declaration it was clear that hostilities between the two sides would soon begin afresh. Both sides began to prepare for the struggle ahead.

In AD 323 Constantine created yet another Caesar by elevating his third son Constantius II to this rank.

If the eastern and western halves of the empire were hostile towards one another, then in AD 323 a reason was soon found to start a new civil war. Constantine, while campaigning against Gothic invaders, strayed into Licinius' Thracian territory.
It is well possible he did so on purposely in order to provoke a war. Be that as it may, Licinius took this as the reason to declare war in spring AD 324.
But it was once again Constantine who moved to attack first in AD 324 with 120'000 infantry and 10'000 cavalry against Licinius' 150'000 infantry and 15'000 cavalry based at Hadrianopolis. On 3 July AD 324 he severely defeated Licinius' forces at Hadrianopolis and shortly after his fleet won victories at sea.

Licinius fled across the Bosporus to Asia Minor (Turkey), but Constantine having brought with him a fleet of two thousand transport vessels ferried his army across the water and forced the decisive battle of Chrysopolis where he utterly defeated Licinius (18 September AD 324).
Licinius was imprisoned and later executed.
Alas Constantine was sole emperor of the entire Roman world.

Soon after his victory in AD 324 he outlawed pagan sacrifices, now feeling far more at liberty to enforce his new religious policy. The treasures of pagan temples were confiscated and used to pay for the construction of new Christian churches. Gladiatorial contests were outruled and harsh new laws were issued prohibiting sexual immorality. Jews in particular were forbidden from owning Christian slaves.

Constantine continued the reorganization of the army, begun by Diocletian, re-affirming the difference between frontier garrisons and mobile forces. The mobile forces consisting largely of heavy cavalry which could quickly move to trouble spots. The presence of Germans continued to increase during his reign.

The praetorian guard who'd held such influence over the empire for so long, was finally disbanded. Their place was taken by the mounted guard, largely consisting of Germans, which had been introduced under Diocletian.

As a law maker Constantine was terribly severe.
Edicts were ed by which the sons were forced to take up the professions of their fathers. Not only was this terribly harsh on such sons who sought a different career. But by making the recruitment of veteran's sons compulsory, and enforcing it ruthlessly with harsh penalties, widespread fear and hatred was caused.
Also his taxation reforms created extreme hardship. City dwellers were obliged to pay a tax in gold or silver, the chrysargyron. This tax was levied every four years, beating and torture being the consequences for those to poor to pay. Parents are said to have sold their daughters into prostitution in order to pay the chrysargyron.
Under Constantine, any girl who ran away with her lover was burned alive. Any chaperone who should assist in such a matter had molten lead poured into her mouth. Rapists were burned at the stake. But also their women victims were punished, if they had been raped away from home, as they, according to Constantine, should have no business outside the safety of their own homes.

But Constantine is perhaps most famous for the great city which came to bear his name - Constantinople.
He came to the conclusion that Rome had ceased to be a practical capital for the empire from which the emperor could exact effective control over its frontiers.
For a while he set up court in different places; Treviri (Trier), Arelate (Arles), Mediolanum (Milan), Ticinum, Sirmium and Serdica (Sofia).
Then he decided on the ancient Greek city of Byzantium. And on 8 November AD 324 Constantine created his new capital there, renaming it Constantinopolis (City of Constantine).
He was careful to maintain Rome's ancient privileges, and the new senate founded in Constantinople was of a lower rank, but he clearly intended it to be the new center of the Roman world. Measures to encourage its growth were introduced, most importantly the diversion of the Egyptian grain supplies, which had traditionally gone to Rome, to Constantinople. For a Roman-style corn-dole was introduced, granting every citizen a guaranteed ration of grain.

In AD 325 Constantine once again held a religious council, summoning the bishops of the east and west to Nicaea. At this council the branch of the Christian faith known as Arianism was condemned as a heresy and the only issible Christian creed of the day (the Nicene Creed) was precisely defined.

Constantine's reign was that of a hard, utterly determined and ruthless man. Nowhere did this show more than when in AD 326, on suspicion of adultery or treason, he had his own eldest son Crispus executed.
One of the events tells of Constantine's wife Fausta falling in love with Crispus, who was her stepson, and made an accusation of him committing adultery only once she had been rejected by him, or because she simply wanted Crispus out of the way, in order to let her sons acceed to the throne unhindered. Then again, Constantine had only a month ago ed a strict law against adultery and might have felt obliged to act. And so Crispus was executed at Pola in Istria.
Though after this execution Constantine's mother Helena convinced the emperor of Crispus' innocence and that Fausta's accusation had been false. Escaping the vengeance of her husband, Fausta killed herself at Treviri.

A brilliant general, Constantine was a man of boundless energy and determination, yet vain, receptive to flattery and suffering from a choleric temper.

Had Constantine defeated all contenders to the Roman throne, the need to defend the borders against the northern barbarians still remained.
In the autumn of AD 328, accompanied by Constantine II, he campaigned against the Alemanni on the Rhine. This was followed in late AD 332 by a large campaign against the Goths along the Danube until in AD 336 he had re-conquered much of Dacia, once annexed by Trajan and abandoned by Aurelian.

In AD 333 Constantine's fourth son Constans was raised to the rank of Caesar, with in the clear intent to groom him, alongside his brothers, to tly inherit the empire. Also Constantine's nephews Flavius Dalmatius (who may have been raised to Caesar by Constantine in AD 335 !) and Hannibalianus were raised as future emperors. Evidently they also were intended to be granted their shares of power at Constantine's death.
How, after his own experience of the tetrarchy, Constantine saw it possible that all five of these heirs should rule peaceably alongside each other, is hard to understand.

In old age now, Constantine planned a last great campaign, one which was intended to conquer Persia. He even intended to have himself baptized as a Christian on the way to the frontier in the waters of the river Jordan, just as Jesus had been baptized there by John the Baptist.
As the ruler of these soon to be conquered territories, Constantine even placed his nephew Hannibalianus on the throne of Armenia, with the title of King of Kings, which had been the traditional title borne by the kings of Persia.

But this scheme was not to come to anything, for in the spring of AD 337, Constantine fell ill. Realising that he was about to die, he asked to be baptized. This was performed on his deathbed by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.
Constantine died on 22 May AD 337 at the imperial villa at Ankyrona.
His body was carried to the Church of the Holy Apostles, his mausoleum.
Had his own wish to be buried in Constantinople caused outrage in Rome, the Roman senate still decided on his deification. A strange decision as it elevated him, the first Christian emperor, to the status of an old pagan deity. [/b]

@Kunleoshob

You are been deceived!

Now if you have time please read and you will see that Constantin was in the minority because the christian were regarded as the a different type of Pagan worshipper because they worshipped a man their forefather killed as God when there was Diana Venus and other Gods at the time that were recognised by the Empire.

I will give you the biography of Constantin Next

@Kunle oshob

You need to go back to history before Constantain. for about 400years satan used the emperors of Roman to kill the holy men. If you read the History of the Church by Josephus the Jewish historian you will know the real history of the Church. I will just like you to read and quote before Constataine.

Selah

The Church of satan is growing in strength. The church is now possesed with the demon and foul spirit. Satan is now making a public show of the blood of christ. The Church has forgotten she was bought with blood by a man that put down his life, the Church is not ready to die for her beloved Husband.

There is a demonic revival and the quest for Numbers is what we see. The glory is departed from the House of God. The Church is all about Organisation. Very soon there shall be the movement of God and the blood of the saints shall be shed by the Demon possesed Church of Hell.

The Adulterous Church has shed blood so many times Killing Holy men. Satan will not win this War I assure for the Bible says that God will rise from his throne to fight for himself.

The true Church of God will be hated by many for the sake of Righteousness. You will see when they say a righteous man is evil or possesed with a demon because he says he does not love the world.

There was the time that the Church was in bed with the World Now this Adulterous Church as given birth to the False demon Possesed Church. This Church is filled with demonic signs and wonders.


@ ~Lady~

Dude the reason why the sabath for Christians is on Sunday is because of the persecution. . Instead of meeting on saturday they secretly met on Sunday. Saturday was deemed as sabath for Jews and they were very intolerrant of Christians.

You are wrong here the Scripture has that we worship the Lord of the Sabath and because he rose on Sunday that is why we meet on sunday to worship.

What did Nostrademus say?

@kola Oloye

My Beloved Brother What the bible says is that the spirit quickens the soul and without the soul you have a dead body.

The natural spirit of man is evil all it can do is to perpertuate sin because of the adamic nature. The spirit of man makes the body alive to sin. However the Spirit of God the pure one will quicken you to righteousness.

The confusion how is that when a righteous man dies where does his spirit soul and body go. By scripture we see every soul that sinneth shall die.

The other part of that scripture is "the gift of God is Zoe"

when Adam sinned God prevented them from eating another fruit.

also that man became a living soul when God shared his Zoe with Man.GENESIS.

If we look scientifically THE BODY CANNOT DIE

already by the word of God the SOUL AND SPIRIT CANNOT DIE.

NB:

Just by one cell DNA from your body can make a new you.



So if the soul cannot die why did the bible say that the soul that sinneth shall die?

The problem is that the use of "die" there in that verse is what confuses many. The Soul is cut off from the Eternal life called Zoe. That is why if a man is found with the spirit of man alone that God borrowed man he is condemned to Hell fire. Even if man is Moral by his ownself.

The soul is where you have senses and that is why in hell we still see The Rich man asking Lazarus to give him water.

SPIRITUAL DEATH IS LIFE WITHOUT ETERNAL LIFE.

@rotimy

If this so then we need to ask God to restore The GO.

Hell is waiting for those who have erred and still live in Heresy.

The Lord is the same today yesterday and forevermore.

We are saved from sin against the trinity of the Body spirit and soul.

Church is not for sinners to come and be Entertained. An Evangelist is supposed to preach the word to a sinner and the when he repents he is allowed to the body of Christ.

What we see now is evil where the Church (the body of Christ) is first introduced to a sinner with all the privilledges of a christian and then he is made to say a funny prayer he now begins to "feel" he is a Child of God, but his sinful Life is still with him. he has some simillitude of righteousness but he knows not the true God.

Tithing is good.

but your giving to God is not a law on its own.

We should give because we love with all our hearts.

IF YOU ARE GIVING BECAUSE YOU WANT TO RECEIVE YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED.

@donnie

The theme of the gospel of Christ is that we be righteous. Nichodemus saw the holiness and power of Jesus. The preachers we have now are traps waiting to catch men for Hell fire.

@ Olowotee
Why are you worried about all this people worry about your Life.

They have been Judged from the foundations of the earth.

They have eyes but they look they cant see. They worship themselves and mammon.

@Kola oloye

you said

The real man in you as a person is your Spirit,which is greater than your soul.Your soul communes with your body while
your spirits communes with your creator (GOD).This has to do with spiritual matters/activities.
Body and soul will perish but your spirit remains forever.

This is a wrong doctrine my friend.
The Soul is not superior to the breath (the spirit of man) the body is not less important.

This is the mirror of what the Godhead is about.

you cant have man without anyone of the three as trinity the three must agree to have a complete man.

The 3 are distinct and yet equal and none is greater.

The soul can be living and dead
The body can be living and dead Also
The Spirit can be Living and dead.

The soul is situates all the 5 senses of man
The body houses the soul
The Spirit is the breath of GOD( this has however has been contaminated with root sin)

We need the H.GHOST to quicken us so that we can has the Zoe of God because the Life of God is the Breath of God but we must use every breath for his glory and we cant do it without the MOST HIGH GOD CALLED THE HOLY GHOST.