otr1:

If you offend me, ask for my forgiveness and I forgive you, that's one thing. But you to confess all your sins to me and I declare you are absolved of them all, is another.
If anyone can just declare a sinner, sinless, after listening to his/her confessions, of what purpose was the sacrifices for sin instituted by God for the Israelites? Of what purpose is the sacrifice Jesus made for mankind at calvary?
Anyone that's pretending to have the power to forgive your sins belongs to the anti christ system. You can't justify that with the Bible.

donnie, joeagbaje and zionmade (and any other christ embassy member in here), i am really interested in what you make of this.

Ubenedictus:



You guys are just ignorant.


The syraic orthodox Church and all the orthodox churches are ancient churches, they don't add up new doctrines, infact since they broke Communion with the Roman Church 1000yrs ago they have not adopted any Roman Catholic practice, they have their bishops with apostolic succession, they have valid sacraments and ancient doctrines.


The entire ancient Church always had mariology and saints and images and all these doctrines, that is why they are all similar to the Roman Catholic Church.


If you check the syraic orthodox Church of the 19th,18th 17th 16, 15, 14,..... 10... 8.. 6 5 4 3, 2... Century you will still meet these teaching.


In case you don't know lucian was a priest in the alexandrian Christian school, he was in Communion with bishop cyril, cyril was in Communion with the Roman pope.
That means
Lucian was a Catholic priest... Who had the misfortune of teaching heretics like arius.

There must be many Lucians, obviously. The one I'm referring to was never in Alexandria. The Lucian I'm talking about grew up in the churches of Judea. He founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria. Lucian opposed Alexandria's policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background.
"The Gnostic theology of Alexandria which was followed by the Church of Rome, was hostile to anything Jewish, even Jewish Christianity. Therefore it is safe to conclude from these historic developments that primitive Syrian Christianity was not organized after the pattern of the Church of Rome, but followed an evangelical Judean and Biblical type of church organization" (from the book, Truth Triumphant)
Historian Newman aptly describes the difference between the theology of Antioch and that of Alexandria:
"In the great christological controversies of the fourth and following centuries Alexandria and Antioch were always antagonists, Alexandria representing a mystical transcendentalism and promoting the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures; Antioch insisting on the grammatico-historical interpretation of the Scriptures, and having no sympathy with mystical modes of thought."

otr1:

If you're talking about the 20th or 21st century syriac Church, I can relate with.
I'm talking about the Syriac church of the time following the time of the Apostles...before there is anything called catholic. I'm talking about the Syriac church of the 3rd century when Lucian edited the original greek NT manuscript (the Received Text). This edition preceeded the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Church. The wonderful man that did this job was never credited for it, just like many others. He and many others were never in agreement with any doctrine of the Catholic church. The fact that churches where they once lived now adopt catholic doctrines can not invalidate their labor.

the Syriac Church had a lot of things in common with the catholic Church..

They had same seven sacraments
They have same kind of Orders I.e. Bishops, priest and deacon..
They Believe in the Eucharist also...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church
read their liturgy..

syrianorthodoxchurch.org/2010/03/the-seven-living-sacraments/

sor.cua.edu/Intro/

AND P.S. THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED CATHOLIC IN THE 2ND CENTURY FOLLOWING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES... Ignatius of Antioch is the first recorded to describe or call the church Catholic on his way to be martyred in Rome in his letter to the Smyrnaean Church..

Wherever the bishop appears,
there let the people be; as
wherever Jesus Christ is, there
is the Catholic Church. It is
not lawful to baptize or give
communion without the
consent of the bishop. On the
other hand, whatever has his
approval is pleasing to God.
Thus, whatever is done will be
safe and valid. — Letter to the
Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis
translation.

This happen in 107 AD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Smyrnaeans

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

otr1:

There must be many Lucians, obviously. The one I'm referring to was never in Alexandria. The Lucian I'm talking about grew up in the churches of Judea. He founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria. Lucian opposed Alexandria's policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background.
"The Gnostic theology of Alexandria which was followed by the Church of Rome, was hostile to anything Jewish, even Jewish Christianity. Therefore it is safe to conclude from these historic developments that primitive Syrian Christianity was not organized after the pattern of the Church of Rome, but followed an evangelical Judean and Biblical type of church organization" (from the book, Truth Triumphant)
Historian Newman aptly describes the difference between the theology of Antioch and that of Alexandria:
"In the great christological controversies of the fourth and following centuries Alexandria and Antioch were always antagonists, Alexandria representing a mystical transcendentalism and promoting the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures; Antioch insisting on the grammatico-historical interpretation of the Scriptures, and having no sympathy with mystical modes of thought."

That was a mistake, Lucian was of the antiochian school not the alexandrian,...
The church of rome never followed gnosticism, in fact the Roman Church condemned gnosticism in all its forms. The Roman Church was also in Communion with the jewish Church all through those centuries it is laughable you think the Roman Church hated the jewish christians. The church of antioch was also in Communion with the Church of rome during those centuries so it is surprising that you believe they were against each other.

The school at antioch were literalist when it came to scriptures, that is why Origen castrated Himself after literally reading that anything that causes sin should be cut off. This type of stupid interpretation usually causes trouble between the scholars and their bishop... Even lucian was out of Communion with his bishop several times until he came back to Communion under the bishop cyril. Lucian literalist interpretation was the seed bed for the arian heresy, lucian trained a host of heretics even he Himself wasn't a heretic, that and the fact that he didn't write is why he isn't popular.

Ubenedictus:



That was a mistake, Lucian was of the antiochian school not the alexandrian,...
The church of rome never followed gnosticism, in fact the Roman Church condemned gnosticism in all its forms. The Roman Church was also in Communion with the jewish Church all through those centuries it is laughable you think the Roman Church hated the jewish christians. The church of antioch was also in Communion with the Church of rome during those centuries so it is surprising that you believe they were against each other.

The school at antioch were literalist when it came to scriptures, that is why Origen castrated Himself after literally reading that anything that causes sin should be cut off. This type of stupid interpretation usually causes trouble between the scholars and their bishop... Even lucian was out of Communion with his bishop several times until he came back to Communion under the bishop cyril. Lucian literalist interpretation was the seed bed for the arian heresy, lucian trained a host of heretics even he Himself wasn't a heretic, that and the fact that he didn't write is why he isn't popular.

The Roman church started well and was in communion with other bodies of Christ until they started mixing paganism with Christian doctrines.
John Mosheim testifies to this as follows:
He [Clement] himself expressly tells us in his Stromata, that he would not hand down Christian truth pure and unmixed, but "associated with, or rather veiled by, and shrouded under the precepts of philosophy"... the philosophy of the Greeks.

While Clement, with Pantaenus, mixed Christianity with paganism at Alexandria, Lucian founded at Antioch a school of Syrian theology.
Dr Williston Walker described the difference between Lucian teaching and that of the Alexandria allegorizing theologians
"With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, of whom little is known of biographical detail, save that he was a presbyter, held aloof from the party in Antioch which opposed and overcame Paul of Samosata, taught there from c. 275 to 303, and died a martyr's death in 312.... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching.
Note that Clement was the Teacher of Origen and they are both of Alexandria (the capital of gnosticism) and Rome has always been on the same page with Alexandria.

This is evident from the writing of Socrates a century after Lucian:
"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."

On why Lucian was not popular. Did you say he didn't write? Man, the transmission of the Received Text by Lucian with its unparalleled effects down through the centuries is enough a writing.

otr1: Roman church started well and was in communion with other bodies of Christ until they started mixing paganism with Christian doctrines.
John Mosheim testifies to this as follows:
He [Clement] himself expressly tells us in his Stromata, that he would not hand down Christian truth pure and unmixed, but "associated with, or rather veiled by, and shrouded under the precepts of philosophy"... the philosophy of the Greeks.

please quote the document where Clement wrote that he wishes to mix Christianity

While Clement, with Pantaenus, mixed Christianity with paganism at Alexandria, Lucian founded at Antioch a school of Syrian theology.
Dr Williston Walker described the difference between Lucian teaching and that of the Alexandria allegorizing theologians
"With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, of whom little is known of biographical detail, save that he was a presbyter, held aloof from the party in Antioch which opposed and overcame Paul of Samosata, taught there from c. 275 to 303, and died a martyr's death in 312.... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching.
Note that Clement was the Teacher of Origen and they are both of Alexandria (the capital of gnosticism) and Rome has always been on the same page with Alexandria.

This is evident from the writing of Socrates a century after Lucian:
"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."

On why Lucian was not popular. Did you say he didn't write? Man, the transmission of the Received Text by Lucian with its unparalleled effects down through the centuries is enough a writing.

this is a lot of hot air. Lucian were from the school of Antioch so were the heretics Arius and Nestorius. Again I repeat Rome never practiced gnosticism, infact Rome Antioch and Alexandria were in communion before and after lucian

analice107:



Pls, can you tell us the Century the Bible got to Rome. Oh, what i mean is, when the Roman Catholicism was established as a state religion in Rome.

Pls for how many Centuries was the Bible locked up in Rome away from the reach of even some Priests?

Are you sure the Catholic Church intended for the entire human race to handle a Bible for themselves and see what it said about them personally?

Why then was the Bible hidden for Centuries until some Priests began secretly translating it into the languages of their people with the hope of them understanding it?

Do you know how many Bibles the Mother Church burnt together with those who translated them into different languages? would you say that was an attitude of a Church which wanted the Bible taken to People?

Was Christianity meant to remain in Rome? Why then did Catholicism held it down in Rome for Centuries until the Reformation broke through?

Are you sure Catholicism would have allowed Christianity to be a Creed of Liberty if the Reformers didn't make the move seriously paying with their own blood? Have you watched this movie " Juan of Arc?" you should watch it and see what Catholicism meant or intended for humanity.

You all blame King Henry the 8th for breaking out and starting The Anglican Communion, but, have you found time to know what led to that?

He was given a Bible which he read for himself, he saw what the Pope had always told him through the Bishop to be lies, lies and more lies. He saw he didn't have to pay the Papal indulgence to ascertain his redemption. He saw he didn't have to marry his late brothers wife if he didn't want to, contrary to what the Catholic Church wanted him to believe.

He saw he had the liberty to choose for himself whether or not to obey God.

Let me ask you this sir.

From when Catholicism began, to when the Reformation broke out, how many years were they?

From When The Reformation started to When the Catholic Church saw the need to spread to our African Continent, how many years was it?

Sir, if you believe Catholicism brought you the Bible, then you just believed a lie. But for the Reformation, the Bible would've remained locked up in an extinct Latin language, and inside some old cupboards only to be read to you by those who feel they have the right to control you by telling you only what they want you to hear and know.

The Catholic Church works against Christ. Jesus says, take the Good News to the Ends of the Earth, the Catholic Church wanted it locked up in Rome.


With this, The Catholic Church just affirms that it's stance is not consistent with what He whom they claim to follow commands.

Jesus says in Revelation 22:19 ...

Good News Translation Revelation 22:19 And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

The Catholic Church added these other books to enable them practice paganism.

Cc. UnchangeableGod

Are you aware that St Augustine, son of Veronica, catholic compiled ,translated and make available the New Testament in Egypt?

Do you know that while John was writing the Book of Revelation, he was not aware of the books of Mathew, Luke or Mark . He was only referring to the highly coded message being given through him in the Revelation and not a book not in existence then which human call the Bible. That is the bitter truth.

Babacele:
Are you aware that St Augustine, son of Veronica, catholic compiled ,translated and make available the New Testament in Egypt?

Do you know that while John was writing the Book of Revelation, he was not aware of the books of Mathew, Luke or Mark . He was only referring to the highly coded message being given through him in the Revelation and not a book not in existence then which human call the Bible. That is the bitter truth.

What did you see bitter inside what you just called truth? You have said nothing.

analice107:

Are you sure you read what I posted? am very sure I didn't mention Greek Orthodox Church. i said Syrian and Lebanese Orthodox Churches. these ones are pure from Mariology or saintlihood.

analice I hope now you are aware that the above statement is untrue

otr1:

Have you heard about Peshitta? Meaning "simple". It's the Syriac translation of the New Testament dated to the time shortly after the death of the Apostles. It is still the authoritative Bible in large Eastern communities. It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
Lucian (AD 250-312), a renowned hebrew scholar worked on the text of the Old Testament, which he corrected from the original Hebrew. His version was adopted by the greater number of the churches of Syria and Asia Minor. Protestant denominations are built upon Lucian edition of the manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch, and other languages. During the Dark Ages, the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church.
They can not take credit for the compilation and translation of the Bible. The Church at Antioch had the truth directly from the Apostles. Rome was just a new comer. Don't mind the catholics.

. are you aware that apart from the fact that the Peshitta was done by a Catholic and used in Catholic communities it also contains the dueterocanonical books which Martin Luther deleted from the Protestant Bible.

analice107:

What did you see bitter inside what you just called truth? You have said nothing.

that there was no book on earth called the Bible when John wrote the Revelation.

Babacele:
that there was no book on earth called the Bible when John wrote the Revelation.

Really? Do you believe yourself? Hahahahahahahahaha. So if you compile someone's manuscripts and publish you'd claim the authorship of the book? You'd go to prison for plagiarism.

Babacele:
that there was no book on earth called the Bible when John wrote the Revelation.

Which book then was Paul referring to in 2 Tim 3:16?

analice107:



Pls, can you tell us the Century the Bible got to Rome. Oh, what i mean is, when the Roman Catholicism was established as a state religion in Rome.

the Bible was in Rome from the very year there was such a thing as a Christian Bible.

note: Christian began having bibles after Constantine

Pls for how many Centuries was the Bible locked up in Rome away from the reach of even some Priests?

the Bible was never locked up in Rome, it was translated into Latin by Jerome Latin was then the lingua franca of the empire, the old Greek was revised by Lucian into contemporary Greek,Cyril and Methodius translated the Slav version, Bede and others translated for the languages of the England region, there was 15 German edition before the Reformation. the monks painstakingly hand copied all extant manuscripts and circulated them even before the printing press was invented.

Are you sure the Catholic Church intended for the entire human race to handle a Bible for themselves and see what it said about them personally?

Why then was the Bible hidden for Centuries until some Priests began secretly translating it into the languages of their people with the hope of them understanding it?

Do you know how many Bibles the Mother Church burnt together with those who translated them into different languages? would you say that was an attitude of a Church which wanted the Bible taken to People?

this is a myth. nobody hid the Bible. this was before the invention of printing press all books were hand copied and less than 20% of the population could read. and even so,the church tasked every monastery to hand copy these texts and made sure every church had one. what more, the bible was made available in the language of education common to the whole Europe I.e Latin.


if the Church was trying to hide the Bible would she translate into the common tongue spoken all through Europe? would she make it available to all churches? even hand copied?

lastly many people translated bibles to further their own agenda e.g Martin Luther added the word ALONE to the passage that says the just shall live by faith because he was teaching the heresy of sola fide and wanted to justify it. such incorrect translation were forbidden. a Bible translator was supposed to request a license to translate and show his credentials. then his translation will be scrutinized. those who translate withouts license are all scrutinized to see the accuracy of the text.
this is to ensure the Bible is well translated and not mistranslated to further an agenda.

analice107:




Was Christianity meant to remain in Rome? Why then did Catholicism held it down in Rome for Centuries until the Reformation broke through?
Pls, can you tell us the Century the Bible got to Rome. Oh, what i mean is, when the Roman Catholicism was established as a state religion in Rome.

nobody held Christianity in Rome, infact the Roman church made sure Christianity spread through all Europe, Constantinople and Antioch made sure the the faith spread through all East, the evangelization of Africa was the task of the Alexandrian church but it wasn't able to penetrate the Sudan before the Muslims took over. you need to read about the pentachy.

You all blame King Henry the 8th for breaking out and starting The Anglican Communion, but, have you found time to know what led to that?

He was given a Bible which he read for himself, he saw what the Pope had always told him through the Bishop to be lies, lies and more lies. He saw he didn't have to pay the Papal indulgence to ascertain his redemption. He saw he didn't have to marry his late brothers wife if he didn't want to, contrary to what the Catholic Church wanted him to believe.

He saw he had the liberty to choose for himself whether or not to obey God.

Let me ask you this sir.

From when Catholicism began, to when the Reformation broke out, how many years were they?

From When The Reformation started to When the Catholic Church saw the need to spread to our African Continent, how many years was it?

Sir, if you believe Catholicism brought you the Bible, then you just believed a lie. But for the Reformation, the Bible would've remained locked up in an extinct Latin language, and inside some old cupboards only to be read to you by those who feel they have the right to control you by telling you only what they want you to hear and know.

The Catholic Church works against Christ. Jesus says, take the Good News to the Ends of the Earth, the Catholic Church wanted it locked up in Rome.


With this, The Catholic Church just affirms that it's stance is not consistent with what He whom they claim to follow commands.

Jesus says in Revelation 22:19 ...

Good News Translation Revelation 22:19 And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

The Catholic Church added these other books to enable them practice paganism.

Cc. UnchangeableGod

well-done with your myths above.


which of your pastors told you those lies about king Henry, it is a remix

Ubenedictus:



which of your pastors told you those lies about king Henry, it is a remix

LMAO same I said this

analice107:

Really? Do you believe yourself? Hahahahahahahahaha. So if you compile someone's manuscripts and publish you'd claim the authorship of the book? You'd go to prison for plagiarism.

it is obvious you are confused. When John wrote the Revelation which is a book , was there a book like the book of Matthew in existence? No Sir. There was the Torah but not the Bible. The Bible came into Being several years later when St Augustine in Egypt compiled the New Testament. Do a lil research.

DoctorAlien:


Which book then was Paul referring to in 2 Tim 3:16?

Timothy 3:16-17 New
International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness........all scriptures are inspired of God in another words. St Paul was writing to Timothy when he said those words
. At the time St Paul wrote that ' all holy writings are inspired of God' ,he was only aware of the Torah and a few of the NT books which includes his letters which he never knew would be canonized along with books that came out long after his death like the synoptic Gospels which were compiled ,debated , some modified at different church councils before it was named the Holy Bible several years later.

Babacele:


Timothy 3:16-17 New
International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed
and is useful for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training
in righteousness........all scriptures are inspired of God in another words. St Paul was writing to Timothy when he said those words
. At the time St Paul wrote that ' all holy writings are inspired of God' ,he was only aware of the Torah and a few of the NT books which includes his letters which he never knew would be canonized along with books that came out long after his death like the synoptic Gospels which were compiled ,debated , some modified at different church councils before it was named the Holy Bible several years later.

It would be very credulous of anyone to believe that Paul never thought that his letters would be used as guidance by the churches, or that Paul never thought that the other apostles would write books which the churches would find useful. The Catholic Church likes to claim that she prescribed the Canon of the Bible. But with or without her, God's word would still be in the possession of His people.

"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." Col. 4:16

"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27).

The two verses above tells us that Paul intended that his letters be circulated among all the churches. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. So, whether they were held as one compiled book, or as different books, they're still Scripture. One can hold all the books in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation as 66 different books. He still has the Scriptures.

Babacele:
it is obvious you are confused. When John wrote the Revelation which is a book , was there a book like the book of Matthew in existence? No Sir. There was the Torah but not the Bible. The Bible came into Being several years later when St Augustine in Egypt compiled the New Testament. Do a lil research.

Hahahahahahahaha. So Mathhew wrote, John Wrote, Paul wrote and all others, but when it came to assembling them all together the Catholic Church became the author? pulisssssssssss.

Ubenedictus:
nobody held Christianity in Rome, infact the Roman church made sure Christianity spread through all Europe, Constantinople and Antioch made sure the the faith spread through all East, the evangelization of Africa was the task of the Alexandrian church but it wasn't able to penetrate the Sudan before the Muslims took over. you need to read about the pentachy.
well-done with your myths above.

which of your pastors told you those lies about king Henry, it is a remix

Catholicism and Islam are just the same.
How did this spread happen? By conquest or by imbedding the teachings of the Bible? because looking at Catholicism, you'd hardly find God and His teachings there.

The Catholic Church has been interested in the salvation of the souls of men being the main objective for evangelism. You conquer lands not souls.

Ubenedictus:
nobody held Christianity in Rome, infact the Roman church made sure Christianity spread through all Europe, Constantinople and Antioch made sure the the faith spread through all East, the evangelization of Africa was the task of the Alexandrian church but it wasn't able to penetrate the Sudan before the Muslims took over. you need to read about the pentachy.
well-done with your myths above.


which of your pastors told you those lies about king Henry, it is a remix

If you get a grip and let go off pastors for a while, you could see clearly that i'm a student of the Word, not relying on what any man says. Pastors are not the Holy Spirit. I have the Holy Spirit for myself, whatever i don't understand, i ask him. so pls enough of what the pastor says.

I was a catholic and i know how reverenced the words of the clergy is there, it's not like that with everyone in the Pentecostal.

Winners Chapel is a Church which teaches you to be your own pastor. Bishop Oyedepo will always tell you 'I cant help you, i need help just like you do, ask the Holy Spirit'.

analice107:

Hahahahahahahaha. So Mathhew wrote, John Wrote, Paul wrote and all others, but when it came to assembling them all together the Catholic Church became the author? pulisssssssssss.

who said they authored it? please quote who said so please.

Babacele:
who said they authored it? please quote who said so please.

Why are you tailing all along if not to tell me that Catholic church gave us the Bible?

analice107:

Catholicism and Islam are just the same.
How did this spread happen? By conquest or by imbedding the teachings of the Bible? because looking at Catholicism, you'd hardly find God and His teachings there.

The Catholic Church has been interested in the salvation of the souls of men being the main objective for evangelism. You conquer lands not souls.

again you seem largely ignorant of what happened just like your King Henry remix.



the church spread the gospel by sending missionaries which were usually monks, the church never raised armies to spread the Gospel, it only raised armies to defend Christians against the invading Muslims during the crusades. whatever conquering that took place apart from the crusade was simply secular wars.

Britain received it first missionary in the first century sent from tye , Ireland was evangelised by a missionary named Patrick, eastern Europe was evangelised by Cyril and Methodius among others, Boniface evangelised Germany, Bede brought Celt and Gothic Christianity together etc. ....


when the Roman church took charge of spreading the Gospel through Europe it didn't raise an army or conquest, it was monks and missionaries.

analice107:

If you get a grip and let go off pastors for a while, you could see clearly that i'm a student of the Word, not relying on what any man says. Pastors are not the Holy Spirit. I have the Holy Spirit for myself, whatever i don't understand, i ask him. so pls enough of what the pastor says.

I was a catholic and i know how reverenced the words of the clergy is there, it's not like that with everyone in the Pentecostal.

Winners Chapel is a Church which teaches you to be your own pastor. Bishop Oyedepo will always tell you 'I cant help you, i need help just like you do, ask the Holy Spirit'.

of course Catholics respect the words of their pastors, the Catholic priest bears the anointing of the apostles successors and Jesus said to his apostles "he who hears you hears me". So yes I am happy to respect the words of a clergyman the Bible supports that. Good enough Catholic priests are usually knowledgeable in their general knowledge... you on the other hand have given us a remix of the king Henry saga and falsely accused Rome of spreading the Christian faith with a sword in Europe... certainly these simply shows your lack of historical knowledge similar to what obtains among pastors,the HOLY spirit didn't teach you these history remix. That is all you and your pastors.

analice107:

Why are you tailing all along if not to tell me that Catholic church gave us the Bible?

I think it was a comprehension problem on your part.


the Catholic church gave us the bible doesn't imply she authored the books in it.

it means you won't have a Christian bible if not for what God used the Church to do.

there were many books that early Christians read in Church, like Shepherd of hermas,gospel of Barnabas, letter of Clement e.t.c. it was the Church that sat and determined which were scripture and which weren't canonical. simply put if not for the Church you won't have a Bible at all, what you'll have is about 100 books all readable.

the Church didn't just set the canon of scripture, she preserved and circulated it, preached it and expounded it for 2000 years.


you wouldn't even know to read the gospel of Mathew instead of the gospel of James if the Church hadn't set the canon and given it to you.

Ubenedictus:
. are you aware that apart from the fact that the Peshitta was done by a Catholic and used in Catholic communities it also contains the dueterocanonical books which Martin Luther deleted from the Protestant Bible.

Are you kidding me? Which of the Peshitta are you talking about in the same sentence with catholic church? Now, tell me the name of the catholic that "did" Peshitta.

analice107:

Why are you tailing all along if not to tell me that Catholic church gave us the Bible?

very subtle of you......you used a word (author) you are afraid to defend because of obvious untruths you guys have been peddling. No doubt and beyond any doubt ,the Catholic church made the bible available to the world( copying from old patches and papyrus; translating, compiling, debating, preserving and protecting the different holy writing s especially the post OT scriptures) and has never claimed She wrote Genesis, The Psalms nor the Revelation and neither is their authorship in doubts .

DoctorAlien:


It would be very credulous of anyone to believe that Paul never thought that his letters would be used as guidance by the churches, or that Paul never thought that the other apostles would write books which the churches would find useful. The Catholic Church likes to claim that she prescribed the Canon of the Bible. But with or without her, God's word would still be in the possession of His people.

"And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea." Col. 4:16

"I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27).

The two verses above tells us that Paul intended that his letters be circulated among all the churches. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. So, whether they were held as one compiled book, or as different books, they're still Scripture. One can hold all the books in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation as 66 different books. He still has the Scriptures.

" likes to claim" ? ....but isnt it true that she played an unprecedented role in midwifing the Bible ? Why the Holy Spirit allow the Catholic church to play this big role may elude your understanding but it is a fact you can't wish away: that She gave the Bible to the world.

St Paul never knew the books of Proverbs, Revelation or Mathew were or would be in existence when he wrote his epistles and never talked about them nor was he aware that several holy writings would assembled, debated, some removed and others canonized and a 66 books compiled in one package called the Bible. Neither is any apostle or disciple of Christ aware that a 66 book had been ordained by God when each of them including John of the Revelation wrote their inspirations down , hence the ' do not add or subtract' claim was strictly for the book of Revelation and not for the bible that has been subjected to different additions and subtractions at different councils before the present 68,69 or 66 books depending on your choice of the Christian sects.