OLAADEGBU:

Why is Mary crying?

Trash. Is right for christains to obey the Ten commandment?Yes or No

Olusanya333:

Trash. Is right for christains to obey the Ten commandment?Yes or No

Don't derail this thread. Go to this thread for answers to your question. ==> https://www.nairaland.com/1839822/keeping-sabbath

OLAADEGBU:

Don't derail this thread. Go to this thread for answers to your question. ==> https://www.nairaland.com/1839822/keeping-sabbath

Trash. Just answer Yes or No.

Olusanya333:

Trash. Just answer Yes or No.

I have answered your question. Next?

Olusanya333:

Trash. Just answer Yes or No.

And if you insist on staying on this thread let this conversation with a Roman Catholic lady answer the question on the purpose of the 10 commandments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84VNkUcnsHg

OLAADEGBU:

I have answered your question. Next?

No u have not.When u r ready to answer let me know

OLAADEGBU:

And if you insist on staying on this thread let this conversation with a Roman Catholic lady answer the question on the purpose of the 10 commandments.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84VNkUcnsHg

Ur Faith is in dat nd dat u blv. When u r ready to answer the question.Let me know

You are now famous for your lies, but that doesn't stop you.

OLAADEGBU: Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?"

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Did Constantine Convert to Christianity? Did Constantine make Christianity a State Religion or did he merely make it legal?

Constantine found that, with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows:

(1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship.

The lies are too much. Where is Isis called 'Theotokos'? Sources please? Please name one or two temples of Isis that were converted into temples dedicated to Mary. I'm not aware of them.
Biggest lie: Catholic Mariology occur in the writing so of Origen from Alexandria. But wait Origen lived from 184 to 253. Constantine was emperor in the 4th century. If Constantine invented Catholic Church then how come Origen introduced catholic mariology in the 3rd century?

(2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries AD. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Church leaders after Constantine found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Even before Constantine, some early Christians had begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete.

'Possibly the religion of several Roman emperors'? Like who? Constantine was into Sol Invictus not Mitraism. And you forgot to mention that it was Jesus himself that called the meal his flesh and his blood. That is not a small omission to make, don't you think. In fact that above is a blatant and misleading lie.

(3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities.

The issue here is too deep to go into here so I'll skip this one for another thread.

(4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the[b] city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire[/b], and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centralized. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus.

Again you are contradicting yourself unwittingly (due to lack of historical knowledge). By the time christianity was legalised Constantine had removed the center of Roman empire away from Rome to Constantinople. There were no emperors of a unified Roman empire living in Rome while christianity was legal. In fact it was the Bishop of the See of Constantinople that was favoured. It was Bishop Leo that tried to make the Empire recognise Rome as the head but he was often ignored. It would be interesting to read Canon XXVII of Chalcedon where the eastern bishops challenged Rome. Reading in between the lines there seems to be an acknowledgement that the Bishop of Rome used to be the head of the Church but since Constantinople was the New Rome and the new Imperial centre then things had changed.

Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word.

If any of your 'many more examples' are as unsound as the ones you've offered so far then don't bother. you are only trying to reinvent history to suit your hatred for christianity. You might be good at twisting the bible but historical facts are a totally different proposition altogether.

^^^You did well bro, when I shouted Lies Lies Lies, like athaliah shouted Treason, Treason. He said I should provide proof, I was overwhelmed at where to start from. Well done joor.

PastorAIO:

You are now famous for your lies, but that doesn't stop you.

Lies to you is the truth and the truth you see as lies. That is what satan does to those who reject the truth. They are given up to believing lies.

PastorAIO:

Did Constantine Convert to Christianity? Did Constantine make Christianity a State Religion or did he merely make it legal?

You say this because you have no idea what it means to become a Christian. Christianity is not a religion it is a lifestyle and a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ our Saviour.

PastorAIO:

The lies are too much. Where is Isis called 'Theotokos'? Sources please? Please name one or two temples of Isis that were converted into temples dedicated to Mary. I'm not aware of them.
Biggest lie: Catholic Mariology occur in the writing so of Origen from Alexandria. But wait Origen lived from 184 to 253. Constantine was emperor in the 4th century. If Constantine invented Catholic Church then how come Origen introduced catholic mariology in the 3rd century?

Heresis existed even during the time of Christ. What are you yapping about? See the depiction of Isis in the depiction below.

PastorAIO:

'Possibly the religion of several Roman emperors'? Like who? Constantine was into Sol Invictus not Mitraism. And you forgot to mention that it was Jesus himself that called the meal his flesh and his blood. That is not a small omission to make, don't you think. In fact that above is a blatant and misleading lie.

If that is so why didn't Jesus offer His flesh and blood and let his disciples take a pound of flesh out of Him?

PastorAIO:

The issue here is too deep to go into here so I'll skip this one for another thread.

You better do.

PastorAIO:

Again you are contradicting yourself unwittingly (due to lack of historical knowledge). By the time christianity was legalised Constantine had removed the center of Roman empire away from Rome to Constantinople. There were no emperors of a unified Roman empire living in Rome while christianity was legal. In fact it was the Bishop of the See of Constantinople that was favoured. It was Bishop Leo that tried to make the Empire recognise Rome as the head but he was often ignored. It would be interesting to read Canon XXVII of Chalcedon where the eastern bishops challenged Rome. Reading in between the lines there seems to be an acknowledgement that the Bishop of Rome used to be the head of the Church but since Constantinople was the New Rome and the new Imperial centre then things had changed.

The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church are really two branches of the same story, as the power was transferred from one entity to the other.

PastorAIO:

If any of your 'many more examples' are as unsound as the ones you've offered so far then don't bother. you are only trying to reinvent history to suit your hatred for christianity. You might be good at twisting the bible but historical facts are a totally different proposition altogether.

What do you know? You are not even a Christian, how then would you know about the truth about Christianity? It is dangerous to delve deep into Scriptures when you don't have an open mind to believe, obey and practise the will and word of God.

wonda26:

Exactly, my point.

Someone would just wake up one morning and paste any rubbish about the Catholic church. . . I just wonder what is the aim? Are they so vexed? Always protesting?

At least, the person should be able to tell me how his own church is the 'real' deal in terms of the 'points' he quoted.

For example, this thread that this OP started, he should tell me his own church also, its history and WHY his church...


Yes! Everyone one knows that church alone would not save you. So I'm not saying that Catholics would be saved simply because we are catholics. But, I can't just be dragged into an argument without an aim. At least, let's assume the protestants wants me to have a change of view, they should be able to lead me to that new view na abi? Not just looking for cheap ways to try ridicule the catholic church...

As for me, I love the Catholic Church. A catholic I would remain forever!

Read up on the link to discover the difference between my church and yours.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Roman-Catholicism.html

OLAADEGBU:

Lies to you is the truth and the truth you see as lies. That is what satan does to those who reject the truth. They are given up to believing lies.

Right! so who has been lying? Look at the facts and then tell me who has rejected the Truth.

You say this because you have no idea what it means to become a Christian. Christianity is not a religion it is a lifestyle and a relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ our Saviour.

I didn't say anything. I merely asked some questions. And you are incapable of answering those question honestly so you digress into what it means to be a true christian. I'll repeat: Did constantine convert to xtianity? Did Constantine make Christianity a State Religion or did he merely make it legal?

Heresis existed even during the time of Christ. What are you yapping about? See the depiction of Isis in the depiction below.

Lol, desperately Trying to Digress. a common disease also known as DTD.
What I am 'yapping on about' is your lies that are exposed by the Anachronism of your statements. If the Catholic church started in the 4th century and Origen wrote about mariology in the (2nd)/ 3rd century then how did Catholicism start Mariology. The issue is simple. Did Catholicism pre-exist the 4th century, the reign of Constantine, or did it only start with constantine as you have mendaciously claimed?
You haven't answered the questions: Where was Isis ever referred to as theotokos? Which temples of Isis were converted to temples of Mary?Remember that Satan is the Father of lies, so if you want to disown your father you have to prove here that you have not been lying.

If that is so why didn't Jesus offer His flesh and blood and let his disciples take a pound of flesh out of Him?

Lol! DTD. You have failed to answer what I stated. Listen to the words of Jesus in Matt 26:26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

So you see, according to the bible, Jesus did indeed offer his flesh and blood. Of course you are denying this because you are a liar and your Father, satan, is a liar from the beginning. This blatant evidence from the bible will not suffice to shut you up, I know that already. But I'm posting for the general readership of this thread.

The fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Catholic Church are really two branches of the same story, as the power was transferred from one entity to the other.

What power? Besides it was only the western side of the Roman empire that fell. The political power in the empire had already shifted to the East when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople. There were bishops of Rome long before the fall of the Roman empire dating all the way back to the first century. The church of Rome had already existed. That is again another lie you are peddling. All the while DTD-ing. You didn't address what I said about Canon 27 of Chalcedon.

What do you know? You are not even a Christian, how then would you know about the truth about Christianity? It is dangerous to delve deep into Scriptures when you don't have an open mind to believe, obey and practise the will and word of God.

This standard desperate ruse. It's so sad. Anyone that doens't agree with you is 'not even a christian.' I remember you once even attacked Davidylan with the same desperate move when he wouldn't agree with your hateful polemic on one thread like this. That surprised even me. It was truly wondrous in my eyes.

Anyway the facts remain that you have been lying consistently in keeping with your satanic character. masquerading as an angel of light.

PastorAIO:

Right! so who has been lying? Look at the facts and then tell me who has rejected the Truth.

You.

PastorAIO:

I didn't say anything. I merely asked some questions. And you are incapable of answering those question honestly so you digress into what it means to be a true christian. I'll repeat: Did constantine convert to xtianity? Did Constantine make Christianity a State Religion or did he merely make it legal?

If you were paying attention you would have realised that your question has been answered in the OP.

PastorAIO:

Lol, desperately Trying to Digress. a common disease also known as DTD.
What I am 'yapping on about' is your lies that are exposed by the Anachronism of your statements. If the Catholic church started in the 4th century and Origen wrote about mariology in the (2nd)/ 3rd century then how did Catholicism start Mariology. The issue is simple. Did Catholicism pre-exist the 4th century, the reign of Constantine, or did it only start with constantine as you have mendaciously claimed?
You haven't answered the questions: Where was Isis ever referred to as theotokos? Which temples of Isis were converted to temples of Mary?Remember that Satan is the Father of lies, so if you want to disown your father you have to prove here that you have not been lying.

That is a complex question, try again.

PastorAIO:

Lol! DTD. You have failed to answer what I stated. Listen to the words of Jesus in Matt 26:26:
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

So you see, according to the bible, Jesus did indeed offer his flesh and blood. Of course you are denying this because you are a liar and your Father, satan, is a liar from the beginning. This blatant evidence from the bible will not suffice to shut you up, I know that already. But I'm posting for the general readership of this thread.

Are you suggesting that Jesus encouraged cannibalism?

PastorAIO:

What power? Besides it was only the western side of the Roman empire that fell. The political power in the empire had already shifted to the East when Constantine moved the capital to Constantinople. There were bishops of Rome long before the fall of the Roman empire dating all the way back to the first century. The church of Rome had already existed. That is again another lie you are peddling. All the while DTD-ing. You didn't address what I said about Canon 27 of Chalcedon.

We are not talking about when heresy started, we are talking about when they were made official into a religious doctrine.

PastorAIO:

This standard desperate ruse. It's so sad. Anyone that doens't agree with you is 'not even a christian.' I remember you once even attacked Davidylan with the same desperate move when he wouldn't agree with your hateful polemic on one thread like this. That surprised even me. It was truly wondrous in my eyes.

Anyway the facts remain that you have been lying consistently in keeping with your satanic character. masquerading as an angel of light.

There are basic things I expect from Christians and you have not shown from your objections how you are any different from atheists.

Mary in the Early Church
by Dr. Mark Miravalle

As in Scripture, so too in the infant Church we see the attention of the faithful rightfully focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ. The divine primacy of Jesus Christ (with its appropriate worship of adoration) had to be clearly established before any subordinate corresponding devotion to his Mother could be properly exercised. Nonetheless, the beginnings of acknowledgement and devotion to the Mother of Jesus is present from apostolic times in the living Tradition of the early Church.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the "praying one," the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as "Mother of the Church." Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary's prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior's Mother in his young Church.

It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary's role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked. (2)

The early Church Fathers, (also by the middle of the second century), articulated the primary theological role of the Blessed Virgin as the "New Eve." What was the basic understanding of Mary as the "New Eve" in the early Church? Eve, the original "mother of the living," had played an instrumental, though secondary role, in the sin of Adam which resulted in the tragic fall of humanity from God's grace. However, Mary, as the new Mother of the living, played an instrumental, though secondary, role to Jesus, the New Adam, in redeeming and restoring the life of grace to the human family.

Let us examine a few citations from the early Church Fathers that manifest this growing understanding of Mary's spiritual and maternal role as the "New Eve," who as the "new Mother of the living," participates with Christ in restoring grace to the human family.

St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church's first great apologist, describes Mary as the "obedient virgin" through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the "disobedient virgin," who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born…. (3)

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d.202), great defender of Christian orthodoxy and arguably the first true Mariologist, establishes Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the "cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race":

Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a Virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.... And so it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief. (4)

The teaching of St. Irenaeus makes evident the Early Church's faith and understanding that Mary freely and uniquely cooperates with and under Jesus, the New Adam, in the salvation of the human race. This early patristic understanding of Mary's unique cooperation appropriately develops into the later and more specified theology of Marian Coredemption.

St. Ambrose (d.397) continues to develop the New Eve understanding, referring to Mary as the "Mother of Salvation":

It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from Paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God....Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary Mother of salvation. (5)

St. Jerome (d.420) neatly summarizes the entire patristic understanding of the New Eve in the pithy expression: "death through Eve, life through Mary." (6)

The Second Vatican Council confirms this early understanding of Mary as the "New Eve" by the Church Fathers, as well as the Fathers' certain testimony to her active and unique participation in man's salvation:

Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience.... Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him (Irenaeus) in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound by her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary" (

OLAADEGBU:
Are you suggesting that Jesus encouraged cannibalism?

lol.. Ola, stop bringign yourself so low. You are more than this... Mind explaining to us what Jesus meant with the words... "this is my body and this is my blood"... Also, explain what st paul meant in this verse.. 1cor 11:23-27... Dont dodge dis post as you hv been doing on others...

Rich4god:

lol.. Ola, stop bringign yourself so low. You are more than this... Mind explaining to us what Jesus meant with the words... "this is my body and this is my blood"... Also, explain what st paul meant in this verse.. 1cor 11:23-27... Dont dodge dis post as you hv been doing on others...

The breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup both reminds us of Christ's sacrificial death and the liquid in the cup was not literal blood, which was still in His body. Our Lord Jesus referred to it as being symbolic of His blood and the bread symbolic of His body. Don't go looking for blood and flesh to drink and eat without understanding this truth.

OLAADEGBU:

The breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup both reminds us of Christ's sacrificial death and the liquid in the cup was not literal blood, which was still in His body. Our Lord Jesus referred to it as being symbolic of His blood and the bread symbolic of His body. Don't go looking for blood and flesh to drink and eat without understanding this truth.

lol... You want to play me the "reverse psychology"... Plz, show me which catholic goes about looking looking for flesh and blood to drink... I think you should take your anger to christ who clearly said "this is my body/blood..."

Rich4god: lol... You want to play me the "reverse psychology"... Plz, show me which catholic goes about looking looking for flesh and blood to drink... I think you should take your anger to christ who clearly said "this is my body/blood..."

Oops!

Rich4god:

lol... You want to play me the "reverse psychology"... Plz, show me which catholic goes about looking looking for flesh and blood to drink... I think you should take your anger to christ who clearly said "this is my body/blood..."

The moment you eat your wafer god thing that you claim has been supernaturally made into the real flesh, blood and soul of our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven, you are "killing Him again" and eating like the pagans use to do to their gods.

OLAADEGBU:

The moment you eat your wafer god thing that you claim has been supernaturally made into the real flesh, blood and soul of our Lord Jesus Christ in heaven, you are "killing Him again" and eating like the pagans use to do to their gods.

Thats your own view and belief... Got to 1Cor 11:23-27 and hear what St Paul says about the body and blood of Christ... Bte you and Paul, who should I believe...

Rich4god:

Thats your own view and belief... Got to 1Cor 11:23-27 and hear what St Paul says about the body and blood of Christ... Bte you and Paul, who should I believe...

Paul did not say you should commit cannibalism neither did he tell you to become vampires. The breaking of bread and the drinking of the fruit of the vine could only have been a symbolic statement. The bread was obviously not the physical body of our Lord Jesus Christ, as He was standing in front of them neither could the apostles in 1 Cor 11:23-27 eat His body because He died once for all not to be put to death again and again whenever we want to eat the Lord's Supper.

Olusanya333:

Ur Faith is in dat nd dat u blv. When u r ready to answer the question.Let me know

The video clip shows why you need to be born again?

OLAADEGBU:

The video clip shows why you need to be born again?

Jamb question. I don't even click the link

How did the Roman Catholic Church originate, and when? What is their history?

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

Ola isn't interested in learning, even after the errors in his op has been addressed he is still reproducing them.


That is just tragic!

Ubenedictus:

Ola isn't interested in learning, even after the errors in his op has been addressed he is still reproducing them.


That is just tragic!

Am not interested in learning errors am interested in learning nothing but the whole truth.

op u are right. i dnt even need all this write up to know dat d RCC is fake. deceiving and leading people to hell.

Roman Catholics who read the Bible
will soon discover that many Catholic
teachings and practices are
specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ
Himself. Worship is vain when it is
based upon the commandments of
men rather than the Word of God.
Valid tradition is based upon
Scripture and confirms it. Vain
tradition is based upon man's
teachings and violates it. In Roman
Catholicism, tradition is consistently
elevated above the Scripture. The
result is vain worship, and no matter
how sincere, it makes the
commandment of God of no effect –
a very serious matter.
The last few popes have expanded
the ecumenical (worldwide)
emphasis in the Roman Catholic
Church to unprecedented heights. All
unity purchased at the expense of
doctrinal purity is satanic and
deceptive. II Corinthians 6:14-18;
Ephesians 5:11; II Timothy 3:1-17,
4:1-8. All who join hands in
ecumenical fellowship with those
who preach a false Gospel are under
God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)
People do not realize that counterfeit
religions, like counterfeit money,
must resemble the genuine in order
to deceive those who lack spiritual
discernment or those who have not
had the opportunity or taken the time
to carefully compare all the major
tenets of Roman Catholicism with the
truth of God's Word. Only when one
compares men's words with Scripture
will it become obvious that Roman
Catholicism is a carefully crafted
counterfeit, not the pure, genuine,
Biblical faith.
Jesus Christ plainly taught that Mary
was on the same plane with all other
Christians who would do the will of
God. In Mark 3:31-35 we read:
"There came then his brethren and
his mother, and, standing without,
sent unto him, calling him. And the
multitude sat about him, and they
said unto him, Behold, thy mother
and thy brethren without seek for
thee. And he answered them, saying,
Who is my mother, or my brethren?
And he looked round about on them
which sat about him, and said,
Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of
God, the same is my brother, and my
sister, and mother. "
Do not avoid the truth here on the
authority of Jesus Christ, "Whosoever
shall do the will of God, the same is
my brother, and my sister, and
mother." And when one heard Jesus
and cried out, "Blessed is the womb
that bare thee, and the paps which
thou hast sucked, "Jesus answered,
"Yea rather, blessed are they that
hear the word of God, and keep
it." (Luke 11:27-28) There is no hint
in the Bible that New Testament
Christians ever regarded Mary as
more than a good woman. She had
no authority among the apostles. No
one was taught to pray to her, to do
her homage, to adore her, or to
partake of the unscriptural worship
which Catholics do, but call it by
other names.
To deny that Roman Catholicism is a
cult is to repudiate the reformation
and mock the millions of martyrs who
died at Rome's hands. The "Christ" of
Roman Catholicism is just as false
as its "Mary." Remember that a cult
according to the Word of God is any
group of people that worship
anything or anyone other than Jesus
Christ, and believe anything contrary
to His word as recorded in the Bible.
Roman Catholicism is not truly
Christian, but is in fact an offshoot of
Christianity and the largest and
oldest "Christian" cult in the world. In
addition, the display of adoration, the
gaudy parade of a mere man as if he
were a god, the pandering to
idolatrous worship through bowing
down and kissing his ring, the
insistence that he be addressed as
"His Holiness the Pope" or "Father"
of all Christians cannot but confirm
to any Christian that the Roman
Catholic church is a cult.

busy now,will Come back later

chukwudi44:

Mary in the Early Church
by Dr. Mark Miravalle

As in Scripture, so too in the infant Church we see the attention of the faithful rightfully focused first and foremost on Jesus Christ. The divine primacy of Jesus Christ (with its appropriate worship of adoration) had to be clearly established before any subordinate corresponding devotion to his Mother could be properly exercised. Nonetheless, the beginnings of acknowledgement and devotion to the Mother of Jesus is present from apostolic times in the living Tradition of the early Church.

The first historic indications of the existing veneration of Mary carried on from the Apostolic Church is manifested in the Roman catacombs. As early as the end of the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary is depicted in frescos in the Roman catacombs both with and without her divine Son. Mary is depicted as a model of virginity with her Son; at the Annunciation; at the adoration of the Magi; and as the orans, the "praying one," the woman of prayer. (1)

A very significant fresco found in the catacombs of St. Agnes depicts Mary situated between St. Peter and St. Paul with her arms outstretched to both. This fresco reflects, in the language of Christian frescoes, the earliest symbol of Mary as "Mother of the Church." Whenever St. Peter and St. Paul are shown together, it is symbolic of the one Church of Christ, a Church of authority and evangelization, a Church for both Jew and Gentile. Mary's prominent position between Sts. Peter and Paul illustrates the recognition by the Apostolic Church of the maternal centrality of the Savior's Mother in his young Church.

It is also clear from the number of representations of the Blessed Virgin and their locations in the catacombs that the Mother of Jesus was also recognized for her maternal intercession of protection and defense. Her image was present on tombs, as well as on the large central vaults of the catacombs. Clearly, the early Christians dwelling in the catacombs prayed to Mary as intercessor to her Son for special protection and for motherly assistance. As early as the first century to the first half of the second century, Mary's role as Spiritual Mother was recognized and her protective intercession was invoked. (2)

The early Church Fathers, (also by the middle of the second century), articulated the primary theological role of the Blessed Virgin as the "New Eve." What was the basic understanding of Mary as the "New Eve" in the early Church? Eve, the original "mother of the living," had played an instrumental, though secondary role, in the sin of Adam which resulted in the tragic fall of humanity from God's grace. However, Mary, as the new Mother of the living, played an instrumental, though secondary, role to Jesus, the New Adam, in redeeming and restoring the life of grace to the human family.

Let us examine a few citations from the early Church Fathers that manifest this growing understanding of Mary's spiritual and maternal role as the "New Eve," who as the "new Mother of the living," participates with Christ in restoring grace to the human family.

St. Justin Martyr (d.165), the early Church's first great apologist, describes Mary as the "obedient virgin" through whom humanity receives its Savior, in contrast to Eve, the "disobedient virgin," who brings death and disobedience to the human race:

(The Son of God) became man through the Virgin that the disobedience caused by the serpent might be destroyed in the same way in which it had originated. For Eve, while a virgin incorrupt, conceived the word which proceeded from the serpent, and brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary was filled with faith and joy when the Angel Gabriel told her the glad tidings.... And through her was he born…. (3)

St. Irenaeus of Lyon (d.202), great defender of Christian orthodoxy and arguably the first true Mariologist, establishes Mary as the New Eve who participates with Jesus Christ in the work of salvation, becoming through her obedience the "cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race":

Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a Virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.... And so it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by Mary's obedience. For what the virgin Eve bound fast by her refusal to believe, this the Virgin Mary unbound by her belief. (4)

The teaching of St. Irenaeus makes evident the Early Church's faith and understanding that Mary freely and uniquely cooperates with and under Jesus, the New Adam, in the salvation of the human race. This early patristic understanding of Mary's unique cooperation appropriately develops into the later and more specified theology of Marian Coredemption.

St. Ambrose (d.397) continues to develop the New Eve understanding, referring to Mary as the "Mother of Salvation":

It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from Paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God....Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary Mother of salvation. (5)

St. Jerome (d.420) neatly summarizes the entire patristic understanding of the New Eve in the pithy expression: "death through Eve, life through Mary." (6)

The Second Vatican Council confirms this early understanding of Mary as the "New Eve" by the Church Fathers, as well as the Fathers' certain testimony to her active and unique participation in man's salvation:

Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience.... Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him (Irenaeus) in their preaching: "the knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound by her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith." Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "Mother of the living" and frequently claim: "death through Eve, life through Mary" (

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

OLAADEGBU:

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

Source:==> http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2042.cfm

OLAADEGBU:

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

your list is totally inaccurate.

But if i were playing your silly games i would add.


Trinity
Bible

both 4th century.