WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GRUDGES?

Answer: We all have reasons to hold grudges. People wrong us. Situations hurt us. Even God does not always do what we think He should do, so we get angry. We hold offenses against those who have wronged us, and often against God who we think should have done things differently. A grudge is nothing more than a refusal to forgive. So, since this tendency is inherent in all of us and seemingly unavoidable, what does the Bible say about it?

God has such a strong concern about grudges that He included a specific command about them when He gave the Law to the Israelites. Leviticus 19:18 says, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.” It is interesting that God concluded this particular command with the words “I am the Lord.” In doing so, God reminded us that He is the Lord, not us. To hold a grudge is to set ourselves up as judge and jury—to determine that one person’s wrong should not be forgiven. No human being has the right or authority to do that. Romans 12:19 says, “Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”

Misunderstanding forgiveness often keeps us in bondage to grudges. We think that to forgive is to excuse sin or pretend the offense did not matter. Neither is true. Forgiveness is not about the other person. Forgiveness is God’s gift to us to release us from the control of someone who has hurt us. When we retain a grudge, we give someone we don’t like power over our emotions. Without forgiveness, just the thought of an offender can send acid to our stomachs and heat to our faces. In essence, we make that person an idol, giving him or her control over us (Deuteronomy 32:39). But when we forgive, we release to God any right to vengeance or restitution. Forgiveness puts our relationship with God back in proper alignment. We acknowledge that He is the Judge, not us, and that He has the right to bring about any resolution He chooses. Forgiveness is the choice to trust God rather than ourselves with the outcome of the offense.

We often hold on to grudges because we feel we have the responsibility to see that justice is done or that others know how badly we were hurt. But when we release the situation to God, along with the right to dictate the ending, we free the Lord to work as He sees fit without our anger getting in the way (Matthew 18:21–22).

It is important to remember that forgiveness and reconciliation are not synonymous. Forgiveness is a matter of the heart. It is an act of surrender to God’s will and is primarily between us and God. We release to Him our right to hang on to anger (Psalm 115:11). However, reconciliation depends on the true repentance and proven trustworthiness of the offender. For example, in the case of spousal abuse, the victim must forgive as part of her ongoing healing. She can release her anger to God. But, at the same time, she must keep protective boundaries in place until the abuser has proven over time that he is worthy of her trust (see Proverbs 26:24–25).

“The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (James 1:20). We do God no favors by trying to “help” Him right a bad situation through our vengeance. He does not need our anger. He needs our cooperation as we submit to doing things His way (Proverbs 3:5–6). And God’s way is always to forgive as He has forgiven us (Matthew 18:35; Ephesians 4:32).

We can release a grudge with a simple act of our will, by offering the whole situation to God and letting go of it. Forgiveness brings healing to our souls and allows God to build His strength and character into our lives as we allow Him to reign as our only God (Romans 8:29).

Does God really forget our sins?

Question: "Does God really forget our sins? How could an omniscient God forget anything?"

Answer: There are several passages in the Bible that indicate that God forgives and forgets our sin. Isaiah 43:25 says, “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.” Hebrews 10 explains how Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for sin was a once-and-for-all sacrifice. Unlike the sacrificial system of the Old Testament, in which sacrifices were continually made for sin, Jesus paid for sin once. His payment was complete. Hebrews 10:14–18 says, “For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: ‘This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.’ Then he adds: ‘Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.”

These passages make it evident that God does not remember our sins. However, God’s “not remembering” is not what we usually think of as forgetfulness. God is omniscient. He knows everything, and He forgets nothing. However, He can choose not to remember something. In human relationships, we can choose to remember the offenses someone has committed against us, or we can choose to forget. To forgive someone, we must often put painful memories out of our minds. We don’t actually forget the sin, and it’s not that we are unable to recall the offense, but we choose to overlook it. Forgiveness prevents us from dwelling on past troubles.

Rather than treating us as our sins deserve, God removes our sins from us “as far as the east is from the west”—an immeasurable distance (Psalm 103:12). Think of travelling around the globe. When does one stop going east and start going west? It is impossible to say. When we are saved, our sins are completely forgiven. This is what the writer of Hebrews is talking about—Jesus made a one-time sacrifice that completely removes our sin. In Christ, we are justified (declared righteous) before God. Romans 8:1 tells us there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ. Romans 8:31–39 is a beautiful discourse on our security in Christ. Sin has no say in our standing with God. We are fully accepted and declared righteous in Him. God does not remember our sins in the way He treats us. Instead, He treats us as righteous. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him who had no sin [Jesus] to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In this way, God “forgets” our sins.

Even as Christians, we sin, but we know that God is faithful to forgive (1 John 1:9). God cleanses, and then He moves on. He does not hold our sins over us. Instead, He frees us from the slavery of sin and sets us free to experience a new life. Knowing the complete forgiveness of God in Christ, we can join King Hezekiah in praising our Redeemer: “You have put all my sins behind your back” (Isaiah 38:17). Like Paul, we can forget what is behind and “press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called [us] heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:13).

WHAT WAS ABRAHAM'S RELIGION BEFORE GOD CALLED HIM?

Answer: Abraham is called the friend of God, the father of the Jews, and the father of the faithful. He is honored by Jews, Muslims, and Christians as a great man, but what religion did he follow before being called by Yahweh?

Abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees, which is in modern Iraq, near Nasiriyah in the southeastern part of the country. Joshua 24:2 says that Abraham and his father worshiped idols. We can make some educated guesses about their religion by looking at the history and religious artifacts from that period.

Ur of the Chaldees was an ancient city that flourished until about 300 BC. The great ziggurat of Ur was built by Ur-Nammu around 2100 BC and was dedicated to Nanna, the moon god. The moon was worshiped as the power that controlled the heavens and the life cycle on earth. To the Chaldeans, the phases of the moon represented the natural cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death and also set the measurement of their yearly calendar. Among the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, Nanna was supreme, because he was the source of fertility for crops, herds, and families. Prayers and offerings were offered to the moon to invoke its blessing.

When God called Abraham (then called Abram) in Genesis 12:1, He told Abraham to leave his country, his kindred, and his father’s house. Everything familiar was to be left behind, and that included his religion. We do not know what Abraham knew about the true God at that point, but it is likely that he had received some instruction from his father, as each generation passed down their history to the next. As a worshiper of other gods, Abraham must have been surprised to receive a direct revelation from Yahweh. The moon god and other deities were distant objects of worship, and they did not personally interact with men. Abraham obeyed God’s call, and, when he arrived in the land of Canaan, he built an altar to Yahweh at Shechem (Genesis 12:7). The text indicates that God’s appearance to Abraham was a deciding factor in his choosing to worship Him. Hebrews 11:8 says that Abraham’s departure from Ur was an example of faith in action.

Abraham continued to learn about this God he now worshiped, and in Genesis 14:22, following the example of Melchizedek, Abraham calls Yahweh “the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.” This statement shows that Abraham set Yahweh above and apart from the moon god. His decision to worship God alone was settled in Genesis 17, when God established the covenant of circumcision with him. God appeared to Abraham, saying, “I am God Almighty, walk before me, and be blameless” (Genesis 17:1). In verse 7 God said the covenant He established with Abraham was to be everlasting and that He alone was to be God to Abraham and his offspring. Abraham chose to follow God alone, and he demonstrated his commitment by circumcising every male in his household.

Though Abraham forsook moon worship, the worship of heavenly objects became a continual problem with his descendants. Many times in the Old Testament, God rebuked the children of Abraham for their idolatry and renewed His call to worship Him alone. In Deuteronomy 17:2–5, God specified the punishment for idolatry—death by stoning. Moses described idolatry as doing what is evil in the sight of God and transgressing His covenant. Much later, King Hoshea of Israel was defeated and the people taken captive. Second Kings 17:16 says the defeat happened because the people “bowed down to all the starry hosts.” In 2 Kings 23:4–5 King Josiah of Judah led a revival of Yahweh worship and deposed the false priests who burned incense to the sun, moon, and stars.

God Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, wants people to worship Him, not the things He created. In Romans 1:18–20, we are told, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” When we worship creation instead of the Creator, we exchange the truth about God for a lie (Romans 1:25) and reject what God has revealed about everything in life. God saved Abraham out of idolatry, changed his name, and him called to follow Him. As a result of God’s blessings to Abraham, the whole world is blessed (Genesis 18:18).

How could people have performed miracles in Jesus name though they're not true christians? see mathew 7;21-23

Listen carefully to what Jesus is saying.
(Vs21) "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
heaven will enter.
Keep in mind that Jesus is addressing the Jewish people. Some
were already calling Him Lord. Some who called Him Lord, would later
refuse to accept the work of the cross. What then is the will of the Father?
Jesus isn't speaking of works. He is speaking of 'will.'
In another place, Jesus said, "For this is the will of My Father, that
everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have
eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:40) See
the connection. It is possible to speak of Jesus as Lord, but never
actually receive Him to yourself as the completer of your salvation.
> If we have to do the Will of the father to enter the kingdom of
> heaven, how then we know what we are doing is enough? And do you
> think it is easy to do the will of the Father? By no means!
It is easy if we let the Scriptures define what the will of the Father
is. I did that above. We are saved by grace alone, through faith
alone, in Christ alone. No where in the Scriptures are we told that
our salvation depends on our works. The works we are given to do,
are works assigned to us by the Holy Spirit. But these are not salvation
works. They are works that glorify our Father.
> Isn't salvation is a free gift of God - Eph 2:8,9?
Absolutely. Keep in mind the difference between 'will' and 'works.'
But there is something else we need to consider. This reaches into
the last times. In Matthew 7:22,23, Jesus said, "Many will say to Me on
that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in
Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'
And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME,
YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'"
Who are these peoples who placed their acceptance upon
'prophesy', 'casting out demons', and 'miracles' that were supposedly done in
the name of the Lord? These are the false prophets and teachers.
Notice carefully that Jesus said, "I never knew you." That can only mean
that these people were not born of God's Spirit. If He 'never' knew these
people, then they never belonged to Him at any time.
But there is some background for this. God spoke through
Jeremiah concerning the false prophets of the last days. Listen carefully to
Jeremiah 23:20,21; "... In the last days you will clearly understand
it. I did not send these prophets, But they ran. I did not speak to
them, But they prophesied."
I believe the land is filled with false prophets today who are
speaking from lying spirits. These false prophets claim to speak for
the Lord. But their message is not a message of repentance and
acceptance. It is a message of prosperity and blessings. Certainly
we are blessed in the Lord, but our message is always to be a
message of turning from the world, and turning to the Lord.
Just something to think about.

WAS JOHN THE BAPTIST THE PROMISED ELIJAH?

Answer: Matthew 11:7-14 declares, “As John's disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: ‘What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings' palaces. Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.’" Here Jesus quotes from Malachi 3:1, where the messenger appears to be a prophetic figure who is going to appear. According to Malachi 4:5, this messenger is “the prophet Elijah,” whom Jesus identifies as John the Baptist. Does this mean that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated? Not at all.

First, the concept of reincarnation would have been completely foreign to the Jewish mind. We cannot simply import Eastern religious thought into the words of a first-century Jew. If anything, Elijah “come again” would have simply been Elijah raised from the dead at the coming of the Lord (cf. Daniel 12). So, even if John the Baptist were literally the person of Elijah, it would have been a resurrection, not a reincarnation. To say otherwise is to force one’s preconceived view of reincarnation on Scripture.

Second, the Bible is quite clear that John the Baptist is given this designation because he came in the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), not because he was Elijah in a literal sense. John the Baptist is the New Testament forerunner who points the way to the arrival of the Lord, just as Elijah filled that role in the Old Testament (and will again in the future – see Revelation 11). Third, Elijah himself appears with Moses at Jesus’ transfiguration after John the Baptist’s death. This would not have happened if Elijah had changed his identity (Matthew 17:11-12).

Fourth, Mark 6:14-16 and 8:28 show that both the people and Herod distinguished between John the Baptist and Elijah. Finally, proof that this is not an instance of reincarnation comes from John the Baptist himself. In the first chapter of John the Apostle’s Gospel, John the Baptist identifies himself as the messenger of Isaiah 40:3, not as the Elijah of Malachi 3:1. John the Baptist even goes so far as to specifically deny that he was Elijah (John 1:19-23).

John did for Jesus what Elijah was to have done for the coming of the Lord, but he was not Elijah reincarnated. Jesus identified John the Baptist in his role as Elijah, while John the Baptist rejected the identification when asked by the religious leaders. How do we reconcile these two teachings? There is a key phrase in Jesus’ identification of John the Baptist as Elijah that must not be overlooked. He says, “If you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah.” In other words, John the Baptist’s identification as Elijah was not predicated upon his being Elijah, but rather upon people’s response to his role. To those who were willing to believe in Jesus, John the Baptist functioned as Elijah, for they believed in Jesus as Lord. To the religious leaders who rejected Jesus, John the Baptist did not perform this function.

THE UNFORGIVEABLE SIN

Answer: The case of the “unpardonable sin/unforgivable sin” or “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” is mentioned in Mark 3:22-30 and Matthew 12:22-32. The term “blasphemy” may be generally defined as “defiant irreverence.” We would apply the term to such sins as cursing God or willfully degrading things relating to Him. It is also attributing some evil to God, or denying Him some good that we should attribute to Him. This case of blasphemy, however, is a specific one called “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” in Matthew 12:31. In this passage, the Pharisees, having witnessed irrefutable proof that Jesus was working miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit, claimed instead that He was possessed by the demon Beelzebub (Matthew 12:24). In Mark 3:30, Jesus is very specific about what exactly they did to commit “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.”

This blasphemy then has to do with accusing Jesus Christ (in person, on earth) of being demon-possessed. There are other ways to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (such as lying to Him, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10), but the accusation against Jesus was the blasphemy that was unpardonable. This specific unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit cannot be duplicated today.

The only unpardonable sin today is that of continued unbelief. There is no pardon for a person who dies in unbelief. John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” The only condition in which someone would have no forgiveness is if he/she is not among the “whoever” that believes in Him. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). To reject the only means of salvation is to condemn oneself to an eternity in hell because to reject the only pardon is, obviously, unpardonable.

Many people fear they have committed some sin that God cannot or will not forgive, and they feel there is no hope for them, no matter what they do. Satan would like nothing better than to keep us laboring under this misconception. The truth is that if a person has this fear, he/she needs only to come before God, confess that sin, repent of it, and accept God’s promise of forgiveness. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). This verse assures us that God is ready to forgive any sin—no matter how heinous—if we come to Him in repentance. If you are suffering under a load of guilt today, God is waiting with His arms open in love and compassion for you to come to Him. He will never disappoint or fail to pardon those who do.

THE DEFINITION OF SIN

Answer: Sin is described in the Bible as transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4) and rebellion against God (Deuteronomy 9:7; Joshua 1:18). Sin had its beginning with Lucifer, probably the most beautiful and powerful of the angels. Not content with his position, he desired to be higher than God, and that was his downfall, the beginning of sin (Isaiah 14:12-15). Renamed Satan, he brought sin to the human race in the Garden of Eden, where he tempted Adam and Eve with the same enticement, “you shall be like God.” Genesis 3 describes Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God and against His command. Since that time, sin has been passed down through all the generations of mankind and we, Adam’s descendants, have inherited sin from him. Romans 5:12 tells us that through Adam sin entered the world, and so death was passed on to all men because “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

Through Adam, the inherent inclination to sin entered the human race, and human beings became sinners by nature. When Adam sinned, his inner nature was transformed by his sin of rebellion, bringing to him spiritual death and depravity which would be passed on to all who came after him. We are sinners not because we sin; rather, we sin because we are sinners. This passed-on depravity is known as inherited sin. Just as we inherit physical characteristics from our parents, we inherit our sinful natures from Adam. King David lamented this condition of fallen human nature in Psalm 51:5: “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”

Another type of sin is known as imputed sin. Used in both financial and legal settings, the Greek word translated “imputed” means “to take something that belongs to someone and credit it to another’s account.” Before the Law of Moses was given, sin was not imputed to man, although men were still sinners because of inherited sin. After the Law was given, sins committed in violation of the Law were imputed (accounted) to them (Romans 5:13). Even before transgressions of the law were imputed to men, the ultimate penalty for sin (death) continued to reign (Romans 5:14). All humans, from Adam to Moses, were subject to death, not because of their sinful acts against the Mosaic Law (which they did not have), but because of their own inherited sinful nature. After Moses, humans were subject to death both because of inherited sin from Adam and imputed sin from violating the laws of God.

God used the principle of imputation to benefit mankind when He imputed the sin of believers to the account of Jesus Christ, who paid the penalty for that sin—death—on the cross. Imputing our sin to Jesus, God treated Him as if He were a sinner, though He was not, and had Him die for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2). It is important to understand that sin was imputed to Him, but He did not inherit it from Adam. He bore the penalty for sin, but He never became a sinner. His pure and perfect nature was untouched by sin. He was treated as though He were guilty of all the sins ever committed by the human race, even though He committed none. In exchange, God imputed the righteousness of Christ to believers and credited our accounts with His righteousness, just as He had credited our sins to Christ’s account (2 Corinthians 5:21).

A third type of sin is personal sin, that which is committed every day by every human being. Because we have inherited a sin nature from Adam, we commit individual, personal sins, everything from seemingly innocent untruths to murder. Those who have not placed their faith in Jesus Christ must pay the penalty for these personal sins, as well as inherited and imputed sin. However, believers have been freed from the eternal penalty of sin—hell and spiritual death—but now we also have the power to resist sinning. Now we can choose whether or not to commit personal sins because we have the power to resist sin through the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, sanctifying and convicting us of our sins when we do commit them (Romans 8:9-11). Once we confess our personal sins to God and ask forgiveness for them, we are restored to perfect fellowship and communion with Him. “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

We are all three times condemned due to inherited sin, imputed sin, and personal sin. The only just penalty for this sin is death (Romans 6:23), not just physical death but eternal death (Revelation 20:11-15). Thankfully, inherited sin, imputed sin, and personal sin have all been crucified on the cross of Jesus, and now by faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior “we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).

WHY DEMONS 'COME TO CHURCH'

                                         IF YOU CAST IS OUT

Ever wondered how come evil spirits could stand entering a church in a demon possessed person? Ever wondered how come they don't flee or give up before approaching the presence of God? Then we must ask yet another question; how come the evil spirits in the two demon possessed men could stand the approach and presence of Jesus Himself (Mathew 8:28)? When those spirits saw Jesus, they knew they've met their doom. What they saw when they looked upon Jesus was the embodiment of torture, yet they didn't flee for dear lives, that is, if they have any dear life. Instead they said to Jesus, 'if you cast us out, send us into that herd of pigs'. There were pigs feeding nearby the area where Jesus met them. Jesus hadn't even said a word yet when they begged Him to send them into the pigs 'if you cast us out'. The fact they were already 'writing their will' even before Jesus have spoken a word shows that they knew the inevitable. Jesus was going to send them where they belonged-hell. But now they had an option. They could escape to those herds of pigs feeding nearby or they could just escape and go look for other 'homes'. But they didn't. They didn't because they couldn't! Leaving the souls they were tormenting is an act of good and demons lack the capacity for good even if they wanted to. This is the reason evil spirits 'come to church'. The same reason the legion could not escape before Jesus dealt with them. Instead they said, 'if you cast us out'. They needed to be cast out.  They have the capacity to enter and torture but lack the capacity to leave and set free. They have the nature to pull down, steal, kill and destroy but lack the power to build, restore, revive or heal. I mean, even if they wanted to (which is impossible), they cannot. Evil spirits are in a sorry state and Jesus teaches us to put them where they belong. At Gadarenes when the demons sighted Jesus, they knew their time was up because

1. The authority was coming toward them.
2. The authority (Jesus) wasn't ignorant but knew who He was.
3. The authority (Jesus) will definitely and without fail out them back to where they belonged.

So according to scripture, as soon as they saw the authority they screamed! They were trapped in the mens bodies they inhabited, paralyzed before the authority and couldn't even flee. This is how an evil spirit could 'come to church'. Scripture says the spirits begged. They were at the mercy of the authority standing in front of them in the person of Jesus. When demons 'come to church', they are at the mercy of the authority in the person of the people of God. Do unclean spirits come and go unperturbed where you worship? The spirits begged Jesus, if you cast us out', they said, 'send us into those pigs'. In other words, they had the guts to ask the authority (Jesus) for a favor. Desperate people, they say, do desperate things. Desperation is not a mark of God's Spirit; it is an attribute of satan. Importunity and desperation are two very different things. No one is more desperate than saran himself because he knows his time is short (revelation 12:12). When you lack the control of God's word and Spirit you could succumb to desperation. Desperation is a striking sign of infidelity. In faith, there's no room for desperation. In God's Spirit there's rest, there's peace and there’s faith (Hebrews 4:10, Philippians 4:7, Galatians 3:26). The demons were desperate, 'if you cast us out, send us into that herd of pigs', they cried. They needed the authority to force them out because they were 'cripples'. They couldn't leave on their own. They couldn’t do anything that leads to happiness. Just as those demons could not save themselves, lies cannot save you. Sin is evil and evil cannot bless. Many go to satan in search of all sorts of things. Satan cannot help even if he wanted to. No matter how much you are willing to pay me, even if I wanted to, I could never provide you original rocks harvested from planet mars or Jupiter. I simply can't but perhaps Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong can. In the same way, what evil offers is deception. Children from satan will end in childlessness. Money from satan will end in situations beyond money. Reprieve from satan will rob your peace. Evil cannot help because it is evil and cannot help! God does; God is good.

Scripture do not say that Jesus was in foul mood when He arrived at Gadarenes. Scripture didn't say He was agitated on His way to Gadarenes due to some issues He recently handled. But when He addressed the spirits which possessed those two men, scripture reports that He commanded them. 'Alright, go!', He commanded. The quotation mark at the end of the command means He raised His voice. The demons needed to be commanded. That's the language they understand. They understand that they are lower than slaves and servant and are subject to authority. That's how it works. 'If you cast us out', it was Jesus who should kick them out. That's how it is; how it works. They can't leave on their own; 'send us into those pigs'. They dreaded going 'home' though, so they asked Jesus for a favor. How ridiculous! Interestingly, Jesus said, 'alright go!’ Off they went and entered the unsuspecting animals grazing nearby. And what happened next? The pigs plunged down the hill and drowned in a lake. Now that the demons have unwillingly lost their second 'home', where else is left for them to go? Home, bitter torturous home. Did Jesus do them a favor? Surely not!

There is a nollywood movie where a man came to see his friend and was met by a security man at the gate who informed him that 'oga' have been arrested for drug dealing. ‘I don’t believe this', replied the visitor. The security man retorted in pidgin English, 'you no believe am? Me too no believe am until dem carry koboko wire my back, na im I come believe am'. In the same way that only koboko 'whip' guides the fool, only authority puts evil where they belong. The demons waited for Jesus to do what should be done; and He did! So should we.

DID JESUS EXIST FOR REAL? IS THERE ANY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS EXISTENCE?

Answer: Typically, when this question is asked, the person asking qualifies the question with “outside of the Bible.” We do not grant this idea that the Bible cannot be considered a source of evidence for the existence of Jesus. The New Testament contains hundreds of references to Jesus Christ. There are those who date the writing of the Gospels to the second century A.D., more than 100 years after Jesus' death. Even if this were the case (which we strongly dispute), in terms of ancient evidences, writings less than 200 years after events took place are considered very reliable evidences. Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.

It is also important to recognize that in A.D. 70, the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem and most of Israel, slaughtering its inhabitants. Entire cities were literally burned to the ground. We should not be surprised, then, if much evidence of Jesus' existence was destroyed. Many of the eyewitnesses of Jesus would have been killed. These facts likely limited the amount of surviving eyewitness testimony of Jesus.

Considering that Jesus' ministry was largely confined to a relatively unimportant area in a small corner of the Roman Empire, a surprising amount of information about Jesus can be drawn from secular historical sources. Some of the more important historical evidences of Jesus include the following:

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats....He was [the] Christ...he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.” One version reads, “At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.”

Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.

NIGERIA'S SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW (A REBUTTAL TO MISS CHIMAMANDA ADICHI'S ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LAW)

In response to chimamanda Adichi's argument against the new law banning same-sex marriage in Nigeria I present this rebuttal. To begin with, many Nigerians and citizens of foreign countries have condemned the new law before Miss Adichi did the same. The reason I decided to do this now is because many of us, including me, hold Adichi at a very high esteem and I am sure that many of us, including me, is quite disappointed that she feels the way she does about this matter.

 I strongly disagree with her obiter that the new law (the law banning same-sex marriage) shows the failure of our democracy. Even if the new law is a mistake on the part of our government, without mincing words, democracy is still the reason she could write what she wrote, freely expressing her opinion about government and the country in a critical stance. I doubt any sensible person would be eager to do that in Abacha's era and that means we do have a working democracy today. I'd say we ought to lop our alacrity to condemn our country and democracy based on the numerous problems she's facing which, in fact, is not unique to her. To quote miss Adichi, 'the new law shows the failure of our democracy...because the mark of true democracy is not in the rule of its majority but in the protection of its minority'. That sounds all good and true but I was taught early in school that everything that has an advantage will also have disadvantage. We all think of, for example, communism or military rule with distaste. But bad as it may be, military government has its benefits. Democracy is not perfect. Surely, it is not indeed the perfect system of government. Democracy is certainly about the rule of the majority. According to democracy everybody is protected and the majority will have the strongest voice. The day the minority's wishes triumphs over that of the majority, you are sure to begin to hear and feel the cracks on the walls of democracy. I do believe that your use of the word 'true' democracy negates the truth because true democracy is definitely the rule of its majority, whatever their choice or decision for themselves might be.

To say that the subject of homosexuality is a strange priority in a country with so many real problems is indubitably a misleading notion. It reminds me of those organizations who passionately preach peace, unity; loyalty and patriotism but on the other hand promotes and celebrates hip-hop. These organizations actually host hip-hop events, importing rappers from overseas whose personalities, career trail and way of life are far from inspiration for modesty, peace, love, tolerance, equanimity and virtues that build society. What four flushers! What are the real problems of the Nigerian nation, Violence, corruption, illiteracy? I'm sure you'll agree these are but by-products of moral decadence and nihilism. When people have constitutional support to explore immorality, the upshot sweeps the society like a whirlwind. To me, a culture of morality should be at the very top of the list of any visionary government and I do not need be told that a man craving the body or anus of another man is perverse; abomination. Whether the behavior was learned or inherent doesn't change that simple truth. Chimamanda argued that a crime is a crime for the reason that it has victims. I'd readily say the same thing except that I can't possibly convince myself that the gay phenomenon is harmless to the society. Do you seriously believe its ripples are trivial or in some ways don’t add up? If we pass laws that condemn murder, for example, is it stupid for a government to pass laws that prevent murder? Our response can't be to criminalize homosexuality? The last time I checked no one criminalized homosexuality. That would be like criminalizing blindness, Aids, deafness etc. Just like boys will be boys, people will be people. Deaf people will always be mocked. Blind women will always be raped and 'knocked up' by unknown persons but a government would not make them criminals. Miss Adichi wrote that homosexuality is as old as man. My question then is why the tumult in this twenty-first century? As long as they did what they did, governments ignored them. But that's no longer enough for them. They now want marriage with a licitly tendered certificate that ratifies the sanction and substratum of the people of this nation. Out of all our inadequacies as a people, we're not completely insane! And when the government disapproves the ugliness, some people accuse her of fallacy. Some critics of the new law like Miss Chimamanda are like, 'yeah they're not like us but we should leave them alone'. The question then is if its wrong why support it? They are left alone. No one hunts them down and throw them in prison. By refusing them recognition the country is saying, 'we do not condone your disease'. She also argued that the holy books cannot be a basis for the laws we pass. But marriage is solidly rooted in religion! When a woman moves in with another woman because they want to be together, its their business. But when they seek an ordinance for that union, they poke at religion. I really don't see how we can honestly deal with the subject of marriage and not stir the waters of religion. What is government? Machinery... machinery manned by flesh and blood. These flesh and blood have religions, religions that define who they are, influence their choices, thought pattern and general perception. Should we continue to delude ourselves that religion have nothing to do with government? Religion, in a large measure, is part of who we are in Nigeria and Africa. There's no denying that and homosexuality strikes very close to home. It is true, like she said that the Bible, for example, condemns adultery and fornication as much as it condemns homosexuality yet no laws have been passed against adultery nor is fornication a crime. I was definitely amused by that argument but suffice it for me to ask this question; do you think our government should and/would sign fornication and adultery into law if someday those who practice them wants statutory recognition? Even without the holy books, this thing, gay, is an assault to human nature and because some people are prone to it is insufficient reason for the rest of humanity to espouse it.

Speaking of sochukwuma who is the subject of Miss Adichi's story she remarked that 'we don't know why he's like that' which can plainly be understood to mean we don't know why homosexuals are the way they are. Be as it may, we may not know but we do know not to cuddle it. An extremely important truth about the subject of homosexuality which its supporters seems to miss or just chose to ignore is that the condition of being gay is an error, a sickness, an illness, a disease. Humanity calls it 'abnormal' and rightly so. Don't get me wrong. This is different from victimization, maltreatment and bullying of people because of whom or what they are. I mean, I'm assuming and agreeing that yes people could be born that way. It’s a weird world we live in. Babies have been born with a holy Bible in its hand and then another was born holding the Koran both in this country. Can anyone explain that? So being born with some freakish genetic disorder is probably no big deal. Yes sochukwuma plausibly slid out her mother's womb with homosexual tendencies, still, that does not make it normal. Chimamanda wrote that if we are part   of a majority group we tend to think others in the minority groups are abnormal. Plenty of truth in that but for pete's sake, its homosexuality we're talking about here! We're talking about a woman who'd rather make love to another woman or a man who'd rather insert his genitalia in another man's shit hole. You honestly believe that's ok and normal? You can honestly tell yourself there's nothing wrong with that? Should we lend support to this behavior only because those who practice it are fellow human beings and, so to speak, in the minority group? This is the bane of this matter: homosexuality is a defect and people who find themselves in such should seek reprieve. Many a sickness a person could be born with; deafness, blood cloth, anemia, etc. If you were born with a weak heart, for example, wouldn't you seek medical attention? And if there is no cure, perhaps the experts say there is no cure for homosexuality, is that the reason we must all embrace the disease and our government should actually sign it into law? Just as boys will be boys, people will be people. But still, sensible people know not to mock, criticize or condemn others bearing one form of deformity or the other. There's a huge difference between living a fulfilled life even as a sick person and being sick and proud of it. And now you’re hankering the rest of humanity to look upon that sickness and say, 'wow, that's normal'. Or 'omigod, that's so cool'. 'Cool' and 'experimental' is how some people who are not even gay sees this trend today how much more the next generation and how much worse with our government's signature. Let me wrap up by saying that sochukwuma is definitely Nigerian and his existence is not a crime... And his sickness is not a virtue.