OfficialAwol:
It's obvious you have been attending some "Bible believing churches" who are desperate need to increase the number of tithers and would turn the Bible upside down to achieve that aim.

To your questions..

1) The first thing I'd point out is that Catholicism is not a sect but a church, the body of Christ.

2) The highest authority where doctrines can be gotten is both from the Bible and from the experience of the fathers of the church( Tradition). The book of John rightly points out that there are many things done by Christ not recorded in the Bible. Have you ever asked yourself who the repository of such events are? Again after the death of Christ, the disciples and their converts had a way they survived which led to appointment of Deacons in Acts of the Apostles. Now, this tradition was passed from generation to generation until our day. How on earth would you compare an institution of over 2000 years with a church that started in 2013? There's a way the Catholic has survived all these years which has become part of their doctrine.

3) Are we sinners or not? Romans 8 records that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God". Take not of the word "all", which means without exception. I bet they have never quoted that passage of the Bible for you.

Again Jesus himself gave us a picture of what the last day will be when he said that on Judgement day, Sheep will go to the right, and goats to the left. While sheep will go into the Kingdom, goats will be thrown into fire where there would be gnashing of teeth.

Now, by your reasoning, who are sheep and who are goats? Or did Jesus contradict himself?

4) Is Jesus Christ God? If yes, does it not therefore mean that Virgin Mary is the mother of God? At Cana when they ran out of wine, Mother Mary interceded and Christ performed His first miracle. Why didn't anyone of his followers and doers of his words go to do that? Or are you saying Virgin Mary has lost her power of intercession?

5) Catholicism does not undermine the ministry of the Holy Spirit. After baptism in Catholic Church, the next Sacrament would be Confirmation which is the infilling of the Holy Spirit. It's a Sacrament of its own.

Again Pentecost is a Solemnity in remembrance of the dwelling of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles.

But I suppose you are talking about speaking in tongues. If you read your Bible well, you would know that the Bible said in Second Corinthians that the gift of the Holy Spirit are different, some to speak in tongues, some to interpret tongues.... What happen these where every church member of some Bible believing church will be speaking in tongues is a total aberration of what the Bible says.

With this said, I need to let you know that there 54 gospels of Christ but only 4 made past canonicity. There are numerous other religious writings that could not make it into the Bible. And maybe I need to remind you that the Bible was written, interpreted and arranged by humans. If you knew these things, you would know that things about God and Christianity are more than Bible-wielding illiterates make you see.

Shalom.

It's AWOL!

you should be a writer if you can take just a little time to compose this you are very good oo

nwamehn:


Mehn, what a good response!
Pls, I want to ask u a question, do u have any link to where someone can get those remaining 50 gospels of Christ u talked about, I have been trying to lay my hands on the other books of the new testament which were not canonized but to no avail.

book of
Thomas
Judas
Enoch
Mary Magdalene
and many more can be gotten by searching directories for ebooks
index of?pdf gospel try that

shadeyinka:


Please when you[/color] quote, do it in context

1 Timothy 3:15
I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the household of God, [color=#990000]which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


So, what is the church in this context?
a. The Building
b. The Assembly of Children of God (household of God)
c. The Apostles (at least, they are still alive)
d. Traditions

Certainly not the building
And not the apostles
And not traditions
But, the Assembly (house hold) of Gods children

Your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

In other words, the church is NOT the system of leadership of the people of God.

Did anybody say the church is that?


Isnt Mary a human being?
Did Jesus also died for Mary?

If Jesus died also for Mary, then Mary is just another sinner saved by Grace like you and me. Marys intercession is thus worth nothing.

Not a single Apostle taught this

For u its worthless but the early Church Believed in the Communion of saints. Check Nicene creed



This is true for everyone who is a descendant of Adam and Eve.

However, you didn't answer my questions. You answered someone else's questions.
My questions were about the Roman catholic clergies regalia, the use of Latin rather than Greek or Hebrew etc

I see u have a problem with Latin ,yet u speak English rather than Greek or Hebrew

OfficialAwol:


No.

The Catholic Church is simply trying to prevent further misinterpretations that has followed the Bible.

That's why they were skeptical about letting uninformed minds read the Bible in the early days until Luther's revolution.

You and I will agree that letting Evey dick and Harry read the Bible brought aberrations

Re-phrase: every dick and harry ought to read the bible to know the truth and be set free. you may advice against readers making public pronouncement about the scriptures

adaeze12345:
book of Thomas Judas Enoch Mary Magdalene and many more can be gotten by searching directories for ebooks index of?pdf gospel try that

Alright.
Thanks so much.

adaeze12345:

you should be a writer if you can take just a little time to compose this you are very good oo

Lol.

Thank you for the commendation.

Maybe I'm gonna consider writing.

Again, thanks.

NnaNna4:


Re-phrase: every dick and harry ought to read the bible to know the truth and be set free. you may advice against readers making public pronouncement about the scriptures

Just like saying Every Tom, Dick and Harry should go to court to represent you in a case because they have copies of the constitution.

Why do you think lawyers spend years studying how to interpret the constitution?

Do you know that everything that ha in the Bible happened within a context?

Do you know what is called exegesis?

Do you know hermeneutics?

Do you know that some things in the Bible were not rightly/correctly interpreted from their original language and that you would need to study that original language to really understand them better?

Please I don't argue with people who are poor in intellectual content.

bloodofthelamb:


"Yes it was true that all have sinned, but not true anymore, for in Christ those who believe has become the everlasting righteousness of God."

A believer calling himself a sinner is confuse and living a lie.

So the Bible is now wrong?

nwamehn:


Boss, I really don't know why u were laughing, or don't u believe that there were some other books that were written then which were not finally canonized? Even some books in the old testament were not included. 2 Chronicles 20 vs 34 says that all the acts of Jehoshaphat were written in the Chronicles of Jehu, the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the kings of Israel, so tell me, which books ar these Chronicles of Jehu and Book of the Kings of Israel?
They were books written then at the same time that other books were written but could not be canonized for some reasons or the other.

Are You aware that while there are 39 Old Testament books in the protestant Bible, there are 46 Old Testament books in the Catholic Bible?

Books like:

1) 1&2 Maccabees
2) Judith
3) Some parts of Daniel
4) some parts Esther. and others I don't have off by heart now.

These books made it at the second canon after the were discovered at Kumran, but the protestants refused their inclusion in the Bible.

There's simply more to religion and Christianity.

I think it's convention.

Dnaz:

Because the bible didn't record peter ever being In Rome. It automatically means he didn't go there?. Testimonies from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century Christains prove that peter died in Rome.
There is no Church that was before Catholic church. Even the Greek orthodox Separated from it, Read about the Great Schism of 1054 AD. There was nothing like Jewish Christianity, we had the Church in Jerusalem which was the headquarters of the Catholic church, until the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire and Jerusalem was totally destroyed together with the Temple Just as Jesus prophecied . before this Peter had already left the Church in Jerusalem Which he formerly led before his arrest by Herod and release by the Angel, James took over the leadership of the Church in Jerusalem. Peter sojourned in Antioch and finally Came to Rome where together with Paul he suffered martyrdom. After the Fall of Jerusalem and the death of all the Apostles. The headquarters of Christianity Shifted to 3 petrine sees. Rome , Antioch and Alexandria . These were recorded by 2nd Century Christains. Read Iranaeus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch, Tertuillian etc. Even when the so called pentarchy was formed After Constantine allowed tolerance from Christianity. Rome , Constantinople ,Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. The See of Rome was always recognised as Primus Inter pares( First Amongst Equals).

Good to see you.

tell me how you know these things. What's your relationship with the church?

OfficialAwol:


Are You aware that while there are 39 Old Testament books in the protestant Bible, there are 46 Old Testament books in the Catholic Bible?

Books like:

1) 1&2 Maccabees
2) Judith
3) Some parts of Daniel
4) some parts Esther. and others I don't have off by heart now.

These books made it at the second canon after the were discovered at Kumran, but the protestants refused their inclusion in the Bible.

There's simply more to religion and Christianity.

I think it's convention.

I'm aware of those books, they ar part of the Catholic Bible which Protestants don't accept, they call them Deuterocanonical books. When I was making my point that there were books which were written then but didn't make canonicity, I purposely didn't make reference to them but chose to make reference to the ones in the Bible which everybody accepts.

And boss, u ar very right, there is more to religion and Christianity than we all can see, that's why to me, it's better u just follow Christ as ur strength can carry u.

nwamehn:


I wished u would have the time to list those many more u meant.
But to the points u highlighted here:
1. Do u know why that bowing to images is not really enough reason to discredit the Catholic church? The reason is that we cannot as we ar now confirm that it wasn't God that ordered them to mould those images they bow to. We can only condemn them if we ar sure that it wasn't God that instructed them to mould those images, look up to or bow to them. Numbers 21 vs 6-9 shows where God instructed Moses to mould an image - a serpent such that whoever that was bitten would look up to it and be healed. Exodus 25 vs 18-22 shows where God commanded Moses to mould two winged creatures on the ark of covenant which was kept in the temple all through.
My point is this, if God doesn't expressly give u the command to mould any image or look up or bow to it, then once u do it, u have sinned against the second commandment, but if He is the one that commands u to do that as He did to Moses on those two occasions I referred to above, then u didn't sin. Question is, has the Catholic church told us that it wasn't God that commanded them to mould all those images? How then can we condemn them based on what we don't know yet?

2. Christ is the mediator between us and God the Father, Catholic church didn't elevate Mary to be the mediator between us and God the Father. Christ never placed any person as a mediator between us and Christ. Catholic church only included Mary to mediate between us and Christ which is just an ordinary waste of time to me since Christ said we can approach Him directly, it doesn't mean they ar now a false church for approaching Mary for her to approach Christ. Paul said in 1 Cor 11 vs 1, follow me as I follow Christ. He didn't say follow Christ directly, which was what Christ had preached all His life before He died, but he said follow me as I follow Christ, so does it mean that the Corinthian church that he wrote that letter to follow him as he followed Christ was a false church?

3. The third point u made is one valid point here. Peter wasn't the first Pope. Bible didn't even record that Peter visited Rome, whether for a short period or to establish a church there. Bible also didn't record that Jesus established any church let alone establishing Catholic church. And other churches also came before Catholic church emerged eg Jewish Christianity, Judaizing (not Judaism), Greek Orthodox church etc. So, even if Peter were to be the leader of the first church based on Matthew 16 vs 18, then it could have been any of these churches older than the Catholic church not the Catholic church.
So, boss, u ar very right on this one.

4. For ur fourth point, Catholic church wasn't the first people to create such divisions making some people clergy and others laity and they ar not also the only church doing that today. Paul also did that in the Bible in 1 Tim 3 where he gave separate rules to guide bishops and apostles aside his general rules of Christianity given in his epistles.
Paul also divided the church into men and women for a reason, 1 Cor 14 vs 34-35, he said that women should not talk in church but be silent always, maybe he did it because of the issues they were having in the Corinthian church then, but remember that there is no division that is worse than that. No wonder, some modern day churches don't even obey it.
So, boss, creating division in the church is not enough reason to see the catholic church as a false church because Paul also did same, and so many present day churches differentiate between the pastoral team and the rest of the congregation. They even give the pastoral team elevated seats in some churches separate from the rest of the congregation.

Don't turn the Bible inside out to defend a false practice. The case of the serpent is quite different and nowhere did it take place apart from the era of Moses.

When you litter and ascribe worship and 'honour' to statues of a supposed Jesus hanging on a rood and a supposed Mary making a peace sign, then you indirectly state that the torn veil after the passing of Christ holds no significance.

What then is the essence of the Holy Spirit if indeed you are instructed to slam your heads before images and carved stones?

How about we talk about the 'honouring' of Mary which was never announced or taught in the Scripture?

Perhaps we trace the root of purgatory and juxtapose how it aligns with God's Word, particularly in Revelation.

If the Catholic church could deify Mary to be the mediator between them and Christ, perhaps there is another need to deify Joseph to be the mediator between Catholics and Mary.

About Peter being the first Pope, I don't really understand why this is an issue, particularly on visiting Rome or not. The office of the Pope was never mentioned in the Scripture. That of the Deacon, the Apostle, the Pastor, the Bishop, the Evangelist and so on but not once did the office of the Pope come to light. How then was Peter a Pope or a Catholic at that when he neither taught or wrote on the practice of 'honouring' Mary?

Hellenism and Catholicism are sibling practices.

False practices and doctrines remain what they are and should be painted as such. The Bible equally remains the litmus test of doctrines.

BluntTheApostle:


Ignorance. The Roman Catholic Church is not the first Church!!!

Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church.

Well I think it is. The Roman Catholic Church (West) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (East) were one until the East-West schism. So it's still the oldest Church

Dnaz:

Because the bible didn't record peter ever being In Rome. It automatically means he didn't go there?. Testimonies from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century Christains prove that peter died in Rome.
There is no Church that was before Catholic church. Even the Greek orthodox Separated from it, Read about the Great Schism of 1054 AD. There was nothing like Jewish Christianity, we had the Church in Jerusalem which was the headquarters of the Catholic church, until the Jews rebelled against the Roman Empire and Jerusalem was totally destroyed together with the Temple Just as Jesus prophecied . before this Peter had already left the Church in Jerusalem Which he formerly led before his arrest by Herod and release by the Angel, James took over the leadership of the Church in Jerusalem. Peter sojourned in Antioch and finally Came to Rome where together with Paul he suffered martyrdom. After the Fall of Jerusalem and the death of all the Apostles. The headquarters of Christianity Shifted to 3 petrine sees. Rome , Antioch and Alexandria . These were recorded by 2nd Century Christains. Read Iranaeus of Lyon, Ignatius of Antioch, Tertuillian etc. Even when the so called pentarchy was formed After Constantine allowed tolerance from Christianity. Rome , Constantinople ,Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem. The See of Rome was always recognised as Primus Inter pares( First Amongst Equals).

True but Rome wasn't the primus interested pares as you put. The Bishop of Rome has equal powers with ghetto Bishop of Alexandria who sometime might be king(always known as Constantine). The schism was partly due to the large amount of the Roman Empire and who was the true head of the Church. These two people, West and Easy spoke different languages so Rome wouldn't be primus interested pares because it doesn't make decisions alone. Nice write up tho.

OfficialAwol:


So the Bible is now wrong?

Show me where the "Bible" called a believer whom "Christ" has sanctified a sinner.

nwamehn:



Roman Catholic wasn't the first church, I agree.
But, Roman Catholic being a false church, may I know why u say so, boss?

It was not founded by the apostles of Jesus Christ.
SEE: St. Peter of Rome is really Simon Magus the sorcerer.

Peter the apostle never went to Rome. I however believe there are some true Christians in the RCC.

nwamehn:


I'm aware of those books, they ar part of the Catholic Bible which Protestants don't accept, they call them Deuterocanonical books. When I was making my point that there were books which were written then but didn't make canonicity, I purposely didn't make reference to them but chose to make reference to the ones in the Bible which everybody accepts.

And boss, u ar very right, there is more to religion and Christianity than we all can see, that's why to me, it's better u just follow Christ as ur strength can carry u.

Your best line is... "follow Christ as your strength can carry you".

Don't kill yourself over religion.

Arondizuogu:


Well I think it is. The Roman Catholic Church (West) and the Eastern Orthodox Church (East) were one until the East-West schism. So it's still the oldest Church

It is one of the oldest. I have never disputed that. But it is not the oldest, neither is it the first Church or the one that Christ talked about in Jerusalem.

Whether it is the oldest or not is not even the issue. It is the way the Catholics tie it to the credibility of the Church. Being the oldest Church does not even mean that it is the True Church of Christ.

OfficialAwol:

Your best line is... "follow Christ as your strength can carry you".
Don't kill yourself over religion.

Lol. Na so boss.

BluntTheApostle:


It is one of the oldest. I have never disputed that. But it is not the oldest, neither is it the first Church or the one that Christ talked about in Jerusalem.

Whether it is the oldest or not is not even the issue. It is the way the Catholics tie it to the credibility of the Church. Being the oldest Church does not even mean that it is the True Church of Christ.

The Church of Rome and the Church in Jerusalem were both Catholic churches. So the Catholic church is still the First

Arondizuogu:


True but Rome wasn't the primus interested pares as you put. The Bishop of Rome has equal powers with ghetto Bishop of Alexandria who sometime might be king(always known as Constantine). The schism was partly due to the large amount of the Roman Empire and who was the true head of the Church. These two people, West and Easy spoke different languages so Rome wouldn't be primus interested pares because it doesn't make decisions alone. Nice write up tho.

Rome was referred to as the Apostolic see, founded on the blood and sweat Of the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. For the Early Christains, the church was the final arbiter and primus inter pares

Sanchez01:

Don't turn the Bible inside out to defend a false practice. The case of the serpent is quite different and nowhere did it take place apart from the era of Moses.

When you litter and ascribe worship and 'honour' to statues of a supposed Jesus hanging on a rood and a supposed Mary making a peace sign, then you indirectly state that the torn veil after the passing of Christ holds no significance.

What then is the essence of the Holy Spirit if indeed you are instructed to slam your heads before images and carved stones?

How about we talk about the 'honouring' of Mary which was never announced or taught in the Scripture?

Perhaps we trace the root of purgatory and juxtapose how it aligns with God's Word, particularly in Revelation.

If the Catholic church could deify Mary to be the mediator between them and Christ, perhaps there is another need to deify Joseph to be the mediator between Catholics and Mary.

About Peter being the first Pope, I don't really understand why this is an issue, particularly on visiting Rome or not. The office of the Pope was never mentioned in the Scripture. That of the Deacon, the Apostle, the Pastor, the Bishop, the Evangelist and so on but not once did the office of the Pope come to light. How then was Peter a Pope or a Catholic at that when he neither taught or wrote on the practice of 'honouring' Mary?

Hellenism and Catholicism are sibling practices.

False practices and doctrines remain what they are and should be painted as such. The Bible equally remains the litmus test of doctrines.

Guy, since u believe I was turning the Bible upside down to defend a false doctrine, whey then did u quote me? To make me turn it downside up abi wetin? U have the right to state ur facts while I state mine and we discuss but to make it seem like I don't know what I am saying? I'm not cut out for that.
If u so-called Christians cannot make ur points here without all these attacks then it's a big pity.
Thanks for ur mention.
Have a nice day, sir.

Arondizuogu:


True but Rome wasn't the primus interested pares as you put. The Bishop of Rome has equal powers with ghetto Bishop of Alexandria who sometime might be king(always known as Constantine). The schism was partly due to the large amount of the Roman Empire and who was the true head of the Church. These two people, West and Easy spoke different languages so Rome wouldn't be primus interested pares because it doesn't make decisions alone. Nice write up tho.

The Eastern Orthodox Church also uses the term "first among equals" in regard to the Bishop of Rome during the first thousand years of Christianity.[4] Whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople is now considered first among the Orthodox patriarchs, the Orthodox Church considers the Bishop of Rome (regarded as the "Patriarch of the West" the "first among equals" in the Pentarchy of the Patriarchal Sees according to the ancient, first millennial order (or "taxis" in Greek) of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, established after Constantinople became the eastern capital of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.[4][5] The Bishop of Rome no longer holds this distinction in the Orthodox Church because, following the East–West Schism, he is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.[6]


Source: wikipedia

donnie:


It was not founded by the apostles of Jesus Christ.
SEE: St. Peter of Rome is really Simon Magus the sorcerer.

Peter the apostle never went to Rome. I however believe there are some true Christians in the RCC.

Mehn, this Simon Magus story get weight die. But u know, some of these things that didn't appear in the Bible ar always very hard to prove right or wrong.
My point according to that post is still that Roman Catholic church wasn't the first church. Jesus never even established any church sef let alone placing Peter or any person in charge.

Dnaz:

The Church of Rome and the Church in Jerusalem were both Catholic churches. So the Catholic church is still the First

SMH...

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18


When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
John 21:15

A second time He said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
John 21:16

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And He said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
John 21:17
Here it is Proof that Christ established a church and assigned it to peter to be His Vicar

The Simon Magus Conspiracy theory is Bogus and only appeals to biased mind.

nwamehn:


Mehn, this Simon Magus story get weight die. But u know, some of these things that didn't appear in the Bible ar always very hard to prove right or wrong.
My point according to that post is still that Roman Catholic church wasn't the first church. Jesus never even established any church sef let alone placing Peter or any person in charge.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18


When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
John 21:15

A second time He said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
John 21:16

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And He said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
John 21:17
Here it is Proof that Christ established a church and assigned it to peter to be His Vicar

The Simon Magus Conspiracy theory is Bogus and only appeals to biased mind

Dnaz:


And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18


When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
John 21:15

A second time He said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
John 21:16

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And He said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
John 21:17
Here it is Proof that Christ established a church and assigned it to peter to be His Vicar

The Simon Magus Conspiracy theory is Bogus and only appeals to biased mind

The Simon Magus story, I honestly don't have much evidence to prove it right or wrong because the story is not accepted by all histories, I don't really like talking things I am not sure of.
But I want to ask u, I believe u ar a true Roman Catholic, is it lawful according to Roman Catholic rules for a cardinal or a bishop or Reverend father to scold, challenge or talk back at the Pope in the public?

nwamehn:


The Simon Magus story, I honestly don't have much evidence to prove it right or wrong because the story is not accepted by all histories, I don't really like talking things I am not sure of.
But I want to ask u, I believe u ar a true Roman Catholic, is it lawful according to Roman Catholic rules for a cardinal or a bishop or Reverend father to scold, challenge or talk back at the Pope in the public?

Is it lawful to Scold your dad in public?
Is it lawful to scold your mother in public?
Is it lawful to scold your pastor in public
There is something Called Respect .

Dnaz:

Is it lawful to Scold your dad in public?
Is it lawful to scold your mother in public?
Is it lawful to scold your pastor in public
There is something Called Respect .

So, from ur response, I want to believe u mean that the Roman Catholic church forbids such scolding or challenging of a Pope in public.
I also believe that all Reverend Fathers and bishops ar trained to have this respect for the Pope, who is the head of the Roman Catholic church.
See, boss, Paul scolded, challenged and rebuked Peter in the public, Galatians 2 vs 11 - 14. Peter was the supposed Pope of the Roman Catholic church and Paul would be regarded as an ordinary Reverend Father or at most, a bishop of a diocese, so what punishment did the Roman Catholic church give to Paul for such disrespect towards Pope Peter? Did the Roman Catholic church even condemn him for such attitude towards the Pope?
My point is this, Peter was not even head over Paul and the churches Paul established let alone being head over all the Christians and all the churches established by the apostles, reason Paul could rebuke him anyhow and wasn't seen as having done something wrong.

Now if u still claim that Peter was the Pope of the Roman Catholic church then and that Roman Catholic church was the first church to have existed, I have three questions for u:

1. When the followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch in Syria, was the church there called Roman Catholic church in Syria or the church in Antioch in Syria?

2. If it was called Roman Catholic church in Syria, can u give me link from the Bible to prove this?

3. Who was the Pope in Rome then that was overseeing the church activities in Antioch in Syria then?

Pls, boss, just answer me the questions straight, u wouldn't need to gather a lot of literatures to answer.

nwamehn:


So, from ur response, I want to believe u mean that the Roman Catholic church forbids such scolding or challenging of a Pope in public.
I also believe that all Reverend Fathers and bishops ar trained to have this respect for the Pope, who is the head of the Roman Catholic church.
See, boss, Paul scolded, challenged and rebuked Peter in the public, Galatians 2 vs 11 - 14. Peter was the supposed Pope of the Roman Catholic church and Paul would be regarded as an ordinary Reverend Father or at most, a bishop of a diocese, so what punishment did the Roman Catholic church give to Paul for such disrespect towards Pope Peter? Did the Roman Catholic church even condemn him for such attitude towards the Pope?
My point is this, Peter was not even head over Paul and the churches Paul established let alone being head over all the Christians and all the churches established by the apostles, reason Paul could rebuke him anyhow and wasn't seen as having done something wrong.

Now if u still claim that Peter was the Pope of the Roman Catholic church then and that Roman Catholic church was the first church to have existed, I have three questions for u:

1. When the followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch in Syria, was the church there called Roman Catholic church in Syria or the church in Antioch in Syria?

2. If it was called Roman Catholic church in Syria, can u give me link from the Bible to prove this?

3. Who was the Pope in Rome then that was overseeing the church activities in Antioch in Syria then?

Pls, boss, just answer me the questions straight, u wouldn't need to gather a lot of literatures to answer.

Heck that Paul rebuked peter doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. This same Paul also called The Galatians foolish
This does not remove the Keys from Peter. It was given to him by Christ.
Christ knew his Church will be built upon simon which was why he named him Peter. Not even Paul Challenging him or Protestants Protesting it can Change that
Coming to your question
1. Christianity did not start as denominational . the Church was the Church, it was only when Spurious groups started sprouting up that the Word Catholic was used to distinguish it from other gnostic groups. Ignatius of Antioch 108AD, is the first to have used the word Catholic. Still the Church has always been Catholic not Roman Catholic. Protestants like adding the word Roman to Confine it to Rome but. Rome is simply the Apostolic see of the Catholic Church. Our Creed still says One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church and not Roman Catholic church. The Antiochan Churches, Alexandrian Churches, Greek Churches still Profess One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church too.
3. Early Christains History shows The 4th Pope Clement in his Letter to the Corinthians (see 1st letter of Clement) admonishing the Church in Corinth and Instructing them

Dnaz:

Heck that Paul rebuked peter doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. This same Paul also called The Galatians foolish
This does not remove the Keys from Peter. It was given to him by Christ.
Christ knew his Church will be built upon simon which was why he named him Peter. Not even Paul Challenging him or Protestants Protesting it can Change that
Coming to your question
1. Christianity did not start as denominational . the Church was the Church, it was only when Spurious groups started sprouting up that the Word Catholic was used to distinguish it from other gnostic groups. Ignatius of Antioch 108AD, is the first to have used the word Catholic. Still the Church has always been Catholic not Roman Catholic. Protestants like adding the word Roman to Confine it to Rome but. Rome is simply the Apostolic see of the Catholic Church. Our Creed still says One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church and not Roman Catholic church. The Antiochan Churches, Alexandrian Churches, Greek Churches still Profess One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church too.
3. Early Christains History shows The 4th Pope Clement in his Letter to the Corinthians (see 1st letter of Clement) admonishing the Church in Corinth and Instructing them

In Christianity, there ar so many denominations, of which Roman Catholic, Anglican etc ar among. U have rightly said that Christianity didn't start as denominational, and that denominations began when the church started separating from each other. That's the point. Christianity began as Christianity and not as Roman Catholic church or Orthodox or Judeo-christianity or whatever we feel like calling it.
These other groups u ar talking about were churches spread across the entire East and West then and all of them made up the body of Christ which u refer to as the Church. And this body of Christ started first at Jerusalem, then Antioch and the rest, they even later had the church at Rome which was established by Paul, church at Corinth, other churches at greek established by Andrew and so may other churches.
The church at Antioch in Syria wasn't called the Catholic church in Syria neither was the church in Jerusalem called Roman Catholic church of Jerusalem. The church at Antioch in Syria was simply called the church at Antioch in Syria.
If the church at Antioch in Syria and the church at Jerusalem were never called Catholic churches, then I wonder how u will be saying that Jesus or Peter established any Catholic church in Jerusalem.
Jesus didn't establish any denomination, He didn't establish any church to put any person as the pope. And u will now go and bring the name of a denomination that was coined in 108 AD as u said which was so many years after Jesus died and say that it is the denomination that Jesus established, shebi? Lol.
Regarding that number 3, I asked u to tell me who was the Pope of the Catholic church in Rome that was overseeing the activities of the church at Antioch in Syria when the followers were first called Christians then. What u gave there isn't the answer. Or do u mean that Clement was the Pope when the church at Antioch in Syria was founded?