@4Him
Surely you also reject this one =>


Matthew 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

imhotep:

Born again does not appear in Acts of the Apostles. Why do u keep using it to confuse people??

1. Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, the one who called these same apostles you build a religion on . . . said so categorically in John 3:3
2. The term born again (as a concept) appears in the writings of Paul . . . new creature sound familiar to you?

imhotep:

This blasphemous organisation stands behind the book you have made your life.

No they dont. penance is not in the bible, vicarius filli dei is not there, confession as a means of attaining forgiveness is not in the bible, Mary worship is not there, purgatory is not there . . . how can they stand behind a book they dont read?

imhotep:

Go and find out what this means:

John 17:21-22 ==>
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.

Perhaps you shld start by understanding what it means yourself. Do you know that the prayer also included Judas Iscariot? What happened to him along the way?

imhotep:

Christ is not the author of confusion, bickering, hatred and division.

Sure, the bible records that Christ will not come until a great falling away first takes place. Part of the falling away from sound doctrine is the rise of unbiblical sects of which the catholic church is chief.
Read the doom of your church in revelation 17.

imhotep:

Christ made Peter the chief - not the apostles. And Christ is God - remember?

By telling him to feed his flock? Did Christ also make the men of Ezekiel 34 chief too?
Why did not a single one of the apostles obey this commandment? Paul withstood a chief to his face? how brazen.

Note that Christ appointed only 12 apostles, but on the day of Pentecost alone the number of new converts grew to over 3000. The number of converts had grown much too large for only 12 men to handle, in order to make the preaching of the gospel more effective they laid hands and ordained (verse 2) to cope with the obviously larger need to teach the gospel to the nooks and crannies of Israel

Exactly my point. If everyone was to read the Bible by themselves and come up with their own interpretations, why would there need to be teachers? Could it be that the Bible as we know it was not put together until after? If so then how were the people who lived before the Bible was put together supposed to read it and interpret for themselves, why were there teachers?
This is how you get the preists that you have today. Noticed that the apostles had to lay hands on them and not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry could. Also notice that it had to be those filled with the spirit and wisdom, not just any random person. They had to make a selection just as is done today in the Catholic (universal) Church. This is the SAME church.

Where is that expressely stated in Acts 6: 1-7? Who made him the leader of the apostles?

Why don't you try reading Acts and see how it is the apostles revered him.
Even random people did the same for Peter.
Acts 5:12-16

12 Many signs and wonders were done among the people at the hands of the apostles. They were all together in Solomon's portico.
13 None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them
14 Yet more than ever, believers in the Lord, great numbers of men adn women, were added to them.
15 Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on the cots and mats so that when PETER came by, at least HIS SHADOW might fall on one or another of them.
16 A large number of people from the towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem also gathered, bringing the sick and those disturbed by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.

But to answer your question, Christ made him the leader. Several passages have been cited, but I will remind you of John 21: 15-19.

You're reading that passage upside down . . .Gal 2:11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Is that the sign of a man "pleading a case"?

Um no not the passage I'm talking about, look at you picking what suits you, haha
I am refering to Acts 15: 1-12 particularly 7

7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Where did Christ appoint one? And please don't go running to John 21 because its clear you people don't understand what it means beyond the lies you've been force-fed.

Well then explain it. There are other passages. Christ had his beloved disciple (John) but it is evident that he chose Peter as the leader of the church. Trust me there are many passages where Peter was seen as the leader of the apostles.

That is a lie. No where is this supported in the bible. Timothy could lay hands on the sick, Paul, Phillip, James even Stephen saw heaven before his death

How is it a lie, when what you just said here doesn't refute my statement. Just because Paul, Philip, James, and Stephen laid hands on the sick does it say that Peter wasn't their leader. So because Stephen saw heaven before Peter it makes Peter not a leader?
Ok explain the reasoning there.

Paul said so in 2 Timothy 3: 16

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness

Good I got the passage, now show me where in there it says that the "evil" catholic Bishops would put it together.
Or better yet, how do we know what is scripture? How did the evil catholic bishops know that "2 Timothy" was telling the truth and it wasn't one of the fakes? Because Paul worte it? How did they make the distinction that it was indeed Paul who worte it when there were many other books that probably had the claim that Paul wrote them? How did they happen to know that the books you have in the New Testament was truly inspired by God?

how does this show us that Peter was appointed the chief apostle?

He was already appointed the chief apostle. I was showing how it is the succession came to be  

I have discovered that most catholics either do not understand the functions of the Holy Spirit or refuse to accept the fact that the bible was compiled by God through Him because he is the resident Lord on the earth

No we do understand and do accep that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers. Oh we know and that is the claim, but what we're saying is how cac the Catholci Bishops who you guys discredit and call false be the ones to put together the books of the Bible that you use today. Why trust their judgment? They had to make select which scripture was truly inspired, how would they know which one was truly inspired if they themselves are not of God? If they themselves were not inspired by God? Why would God inspire evil to put together or make the choice as to which of his word would his followers hold on to as infallible?[quote][/quote]

imhotep:

@4Him
Surely you also reject this one =>


Matthew 16:15-19
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The first question to ask here is - - what "ROCK" was Christ refering to here?
Second question - - Can a man hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven? None of the apostles talked about this . . . how strange!

4 Him:

1. Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, the one who called these same apostles you build a religion on . . . said so categorically in John 3:3
2. The term born again (as a concept) appears in the writings of Paul . . . new creature sound familiar to you?

We were looking for the word 'born again'. Remember?

4 Him:

No they don't. penance is not in the bible, vicarius filli dei is not there, confession as a means of attaining forgiveness is not in the bible, Mary worship is not there, purgatory is not there . . . how can they stand behind a book they don't read?

The word 'bible' is also not in the bible. So why are you reading the bible?? The Catholic Bible??

4 Him:

Perhaps you shld start by understanding what it means yourself. Do you know that the prayer also included Judas Iscariot? What happened to him along the way?

Judas Iscariot had a replacement - Mathias.

4 Him:

Sure, the bible records that Christ will not come until a great falling away first takes place. Part of the falling away from sound doctrine is the rise of unbiblical sects of which the catholic church is chief.
Read the doom of your church in revelation 17.

Sound more like the doom of 33,000 419 churches and their tithe-collecting pastors.

4 Him:

By telling him to feed his flock? Did Christ also make the men of Ezekiel 34 chief too?
Why did not a single one of the apostles obey this commandment? Paul withstood a chief to his face? how brazen.

Nice way of rejecting Christ when His words do not suite you.

Paul was not one of the apostles. We all know the story of how he was stopped on the road to Damascus. What then restricts God today from apointing someone who is not in the Catholic Church to do His work?

I like the fact that you used the word 'many' not all. Because not all 'protestant' churches are fake, self-appointed churches

No one is making this claim. We're not the ones bashing protestant churches. We hold that protestant churches are of God because they believe in God. But protestants are easily bashing us.

Oh 4him, I didn't run away, I bet you wished I did though, unfortunately i won't. I am at work and I should be exiting before I miss my bus AGAIN!!!

So I will return.
ciao.

4 Him:

The first question to ask here is - - what "ROCK" was Christ refering to here?
Second question - - Can a man hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven? None of the apostles talked about this . . . how strange!

Nice. Keep rejecting the words of Christ. None of the apostles also used the word 'born again'.

Now I understand why there are 33,000 of you guys. And they are jealous of the unity, power, influence, intellectual prowess of the Catholics.

~Lady~:

Acts 5:12-16

12 Many signs and wonders were done among the people at the hands of the apostles. They were all together in Solomon's portico.
13 None of the others dared to join them, but the people esteemed them
14 Yet more than ever, believers in the Lord, great numbers of men adn women, were added to them.
15 Thus they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on the cots and mats so that when PETER came by, at least HIS SHADOW might fall on one or another of them.
16 A large number of people from the towns in the vicinity of Jerusalem also gathered, bringing the sick and those disturbed by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.

Are people being healed by the shadow of the pope today? Infact has any pope's shadow healed anyone?
Paul healed with his handkerchief . . . is he a pope too?

~Lady~:

But to answer your question, Christ made him the leader. Several passages have been cited, but I will remind you of John 21: 15-19.

Um no not the passage I'm talking about, look at you picking what suits you, haha
I am refering to Acts 15: 1-12 particularly 7

7 After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe.

This was a clear reference to the conversion of Cornelius, i suggest you read it first before making a mountain on that verse.

~Lady~:

Well then explain it. There are other passages. Christ had his beloved disciple (John) but it is evident that he chose Peter as the leader of the church. Trust me there are many passages where Peter was seen as the leader of the apostles.

Paul was chosen as the apostle to the gentiles . . . did that make him co-leader of the church? You people just confuse issues anyhow.

Pls show us where the apostles CLEARLY defered to Peter as the head of the church.

@ imhotep, i'll take you up later.

4 Him:

Are people being healed by the shadow of the pope today? Infact has any pope's shadow healed anyone?
Paul healed with his handkerchief . . . is he a pope too?

This was a clear reference to the conversion of Cornelius, i suggest you read it first before making a mountain on that verse.

Paul was chosen as the apostle to the gentiles . . . did that make him co-leader of the church? You people just confuse issues anyhow.

Please show us where the apostles CLEARLY defered to Peter as the head of the church.

Jesus made Peter the chief apostle. We do not need James, John, Paul or Andrew to confirm the words of Jesus - who is God.

imhotep:

Jesus made Peter the chief apostle. We do not need James, John, Paul or Andrew to confirm the words of Jesus - who is God.

that is your own warped interpretation.
Just the same way you pushed your other unbiblical doctrines in through the backdoor.
Did Jesus ask for penance too?

4 Him:

that is your own warped interpretation.

Protestants are generally jealous of catholics. I know how you feel.

4 Him:

Just the same way you pushed your other unbiblical doctrines in through the backdoor.

Sound doctrines that have stood the test of time - 2000 years and counting. How many protestant churches are INTACT after 50 years of existence

4 Him:

Did Jesus ask for penance too?

Of course.

John 20: 22-23 ==>

22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

They were writing to the body of Christ. The apostles did not tell us to go form sects.

Catholicism was not a sect until the protestants broke away. The church was to be one body, universal, in unity with Christ.
Catholic means universal. It is the body of Christ until the protestants broke away. Then the division came.

No they don't. penance is not in the bible, vicarius filli dei is not there, confession as a means of attaining forgiveness is not in the bible, Mary worship is not there, purgatory is not there . . . how can they stand behind a book they don't read?

Then what do we read? Have you ever gone into a Catholic church and have them read from any other book than the Bible?
The passages I quote to you are they not found in your Bible? These passages are found in my Bible. If they are found in my Bible and my Bible is false wouldn't that make yours false too?
Seriously man stop expressing yourself like a fish without water.
Purgatory is in the Bible. We do not worship Mary, confession as a means of attaining forgiveness is in the Bible (funny at first it wasn't there, when we showed you, it wasn't interpreted correctly, because you can never be wrong, jeez people don't know when to accept that they've made a mistake), Penance is based on the Bible.

I do have this question though, Mary's birth was not in the Bible does it mean that it did not happen? Mary's death was not in the Bible does it mean that it did not happen?
Even the apostle John admits that everything was not included but enough to show the spirit of God and to show that Christ truly is God.

The first question to ask here is - - what "ROCK" was Christ refering to here?

We've already addressed that and the answer remains Peter, take it or leave it.

Second question - - Can a man hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven? None of the apostles talked about this . . . how strange!

I know it's so hard for you to comprehend, so my first advice would be to seek the spirit on wisdom on this.
This is the same manner that the Pharissees questioned Christ.
I'm sorry but if none of the apostles talk about this how did it end up in Mathew? I thought Mathew was an apostle and is the author of the book of Mathew

Are people being healed by the shadow of the pope today? Infact has any pope's shadow healed anyone?
Paul healed with his handkerchief . . . is he a pope too?

Dude you really are dancing around like a chicken with its head cut off.

No one said anything about the Pope's shadow healing anybody. You wanted me to show you where it is that Peter is being regarded to as the head well I show you where it is. Now you're trying to find another way to something else entirely.
No, Paul wasn't a pope he wasn't even one of the original apostles. Just like Stephen was given a charge so was Paul. Just like my Priest was given a charge to lead the sheep of ST. Eugene Catholic Chapel so was Paul. Does that make him a Pope absolutely not. The Priest are ordained by God in the same way, does that make all of them the Pope, No.
You really are pleading here. Pride isn't a good thing. There's nothing wrong in accepting that you may not fully understand or that you have erred.

This was a clear reference to the conversion of Cornelius, i suggest you read it first before making a mountain on that verse.

I suggest you read it too then you will see that Cornelius' conversion was not mentioned. If Peter was referring to only Cornelius then he would have said Cornelius. Infact let's look at it as a whole.
1. Some who had come down from Judea were instructing the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.
2. Because there arose no little dissension and debate by Paul and Barnabas with them, it was decided that Paul and Barnabas, and some of the others should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and presbyters about this question.
3. They were sent on their journey by the church, and passed through Phoenicia and Samaria telling of the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers.
4 When they arrived in Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church, as well as by the apsotles and the presbyters, and they reported what God had done with them. But some fromthe party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law."
6 The Apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter.
7. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe
8. And God who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy spirit just as he did us.
9. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts
10. Why, then are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?
11 On the contrary we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.
12 The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.

So you see this passage wasn't about Cornelius' conversion but about that of the Gentiles, Cornelius wasn't mentioned. Please stop looking for excuses to make a claim that isn't credible.
Now as I was saying, about verse 7, Peter clearly said God made his choice among you that through my mouth (which is Peter's) the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. Clearly GOD MADE HIS CHOICE AMONG THE APOSTLES.

Paul was chosen as the apostle to the gentiles . . . did that make him co-leader of the church? You people just confuse issues anyhow.

Please show us where the apostles CLEARLY defered to Peter as the head of the church.

I believe I just showed you and I will go searching for more. No dear there is no confusion in the Catholic (Universal) Church. We all stand in unity. Unity is Christ.

~Lady~:

Catholicism was not a sect until the protestants broke away. The church was to be one body, universal, in unity with Christ.
Catholic means universal. It is the body of Christ until the protestants broke away. Then the division came.

you misinterprete the bible's idea of "the church". It was not meant to be one monolithic body of religious socialites but "in ever tongue, in every nation . . . he that feareth God is accepted of Him".

~Lady~:

Then what do we read? Have you ever gone into a Catholic church and have them read from any other book than the Bible?
The passages I quote to you are they not found in your Bible? These passages are found in my Bible. If they are found in my Bible and my Bible is false wouldn't that make yours false too?

Then please show me where you get the idea of penance and purgatory in that same bible you claim to read. While we are at it pls show me anywhere any of the apostles reverenced Mary.

~Lady~:

Purgatory is in the Bible.

Where? you've been quick to quote passages to support your other heresies . . . quote one for this too.

~Lady~:

We do not worship Mary

tell this to the sea gulls.

~Lady~:

confession as a means of attaining forgiveness is in the Bible

Confession to the priest as a means of attaining forgiveness? Where did Timothy come confessing his sins to Paul to obtain forgiveness?
Christ said in the new testament that He only had power to forgive sins . . . who gave man that power that your priests now usurp so brazenly?

~Lady~:

Penance is based on the Bible.

Show me!

~Lady~:

I do have this question though, Mary's birth was not in the Bible does it mean that it did not happen? Mary's death was not in the Bible does it mean that it did not happen?

Mary's birth and death has no doctrinal significance . . . however penance and purgatory do!

~Lady~:

Even the apostle John admits that everything was not included but enough to show the spirit of God and to show that Christ truly is God.

But everything that partains unto salvation and righteous living is in there.

~Lady~:

We've already addressed that and the answer remains Peter, take it or leave it.

Continue in your delusion.

~Lady~:

I know it's so hard for you to comprehend, so my first advice would be to seek the spirit on wisdom on this.

Catholics shouldnt be asking others to seek the Spirit, they dont understand what it is. You cant claim to have the Spirit when you have installed the representative of Christ on earth for urselves i.e. the pope.
While Christ was physically on earth the apostles didnt need the Spirit . . . why would you be claiming the Spirit when you have "Christ" Himself installed in Rome for urselves?

Confusion reigns supreme in your midst.

~Lady~:

This is the same manner that the Pharissees questioned Christ.

Yeah, hide under that banner.

~Lady~:

I'm sorry but if none of the apostles talk about this how did it end up in Mathew? I thought Mathew was an apostle and is the author of the book of Mathew

Matthew was merely reporting a scene there. He wasnt acknowledging your heresy.

4 Him:

you misinterprete the bible's idea of "the church". It was not meant to be one monolithic body of religious socialites but "in ever tongue, in every nation . . . he that feareth God is accepted of Him".

So is it the church a collection of mutually distrusting, eternally-dividing sects - 33,000 of them?
Find out what this means ==>

John 17:20-22]
20 "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,
21 so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one,
[/quote]

[quote author=4 Him:

Then please show me where you get the idea of penance and purgatory in that same bible you claim to read. While we are at it please show me anywhere any of the apostles reverenced Mary.

Go and read your bible. They are there. Quit skipping passages.

4 Him:

Confession to the priest as a means of attaining forgiveness? Where did Timothy come confessing his sins to Paul to obtain forgiveness?
Christ said in the new testament that He only had power to forgive sins . . . who gave man that power that your priests now usurp so brazenly?

Of course.

John 20: 22-23 ==>

22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

4 Him:

Mary's birth and death has no doctrinal significance

Then why have u been bothering yourself since morning?

4 Him:

Catholics shouldnt be asking others to seek the Spirit, they don't understand what it is. You can't claim to have the Spirit when you have installed the representative of Christ on earth for urselves i.e. the pope.
While Christ was physically on earth the apostles didnt need the Spirit . . . why would you be claiming the Spirit when you have "Christ" Himself installed in Rome for urselves?

Is 33,000 sects a sign that you possess the Holy Spirit

4 Him:

Confusion reigns supreme in your midst.

Then anarchy must be the leadership of 33,000 sects that cannot agree on ANYTHING.

you misinterprete the bible's idea of "the church". It was not meant to be one monolithic body of religious socialites but "in ever tongue, in every nation . . . he that feareth God is accepted of Him".

Well then you fail to realise that Catholics preach in all tongues. I do remember when we had family and friends day here at my parish and Father Illesanmi delivered mass in Yoruba, it was so beautiful. Or should I just tell you about the Spanish community and their spanish mass.
I believe that goes with your interpretation too, and with my interpretation that we are to be one body, no separation.

Even Paul shows that there shouldn't be division.
1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10. I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be untied in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11. For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivals among you.
12. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas (Peter)," or "I belong to Christ."
13. Is Christ divided?

Then please show me where you get the idea of penance and purgatory in that same bible you claim to read. While we are at it please show me anywhere any of the apostles reverenced Mary.

Purgatory: 1Peter 3:18-20
18. For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison
20. who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.
The word "Purgatory" may not be used, but the "place" or "holding place" or "place of purging or cleansing" has always been there.
It is that place that the souls are purified. Christ descended to hell to preach to them so that they too may be free. They had to get purified or purged hence purgatory.
It is not a doctrine that came to be with the Catholics, it existed before the New Testament and exists in the New Testament.

Penance or Penitential acts: Mathew 3:7-9

7 When he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
8 Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance
9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham as our father." For I tell you, God can raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Ok one more time. The Books of the Bible were put together to show the manifestation of God through Jesus Christ. It is not about Mary. Just because it is not in the Books of the Bible doesn't mean it did not happen, just like some works of Jesus were not in the Books of the Bible, but it doesn't mean that he did not perform more than what is in the Bible, John says so (John 21: 25)
Now there are other books that were written and it wasn't quite clear whether these books were written by the apostles so they remained as the apocrypha.
here are some links to it.

Unknown lives of Jesus and Mary
http://www.atmajyoti.org/ul_unknown_lives_02.asp

http://www.atmajyoti.org/ul_unknown_lives_11.asp

SO PLEASE DON'T DISMISS THIS, ACTUALLY READ THEM, and then you can dismiss them if you want. Don't be stubborn to learning.

Confession to the priest as a means of attaining forgiveness? Where did Timothy come confessing his sins to Paul to obtain forgiveness?
Christ said in the new testament that He only had power to forgive sins . . . who gave man that power that your priests now usurp so brazenly?

Why must we go round about on this issue. I interpret it one way, you interpret it another. You however, really think that you are not flawed in your interpretations, so why should I bother?
Well I will put it to you this way. Christ said as my Father sent me so I send you, so that which Christ was able to do we are able to do. That is the point of walking in his footsteps and being Christ-like. Ofcourse it is through the Father that anything can be done, that is why Christ breathed on them and asked them to receive the spirit, there is the ordination. I don't see why you would believe that we can cast out demons and lay hands on the sick. Even Peter raised the dead in Acts 9: 36-43

36. Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which translated means Dorcas). She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving
37. Now during those days she fell sick and died, so after washing her, they laid her out in a room upstairs
38 Since Lydda was near Joppa, the disciples, hearing that Peter was there, sent two men to him with the request, "Please come to us without delay."
39. So Peter got up and went with them. When he arrived, they took him to the room upstairs where all the widows came to him weeping and showing him the tunics and cloaks that Dorcas had made while she was with them.
40 Peter sent them all ut ans knelt down and prayed. The he turned to her body and said, "Tabitha, rise up." She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up.
41. He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows, he presented her alive
42. This became known all over Joppa, and many came to believe in the Lord.
43. And he stayed a long time in Joppa with Simon, a tanner.

I thought only Christ had the power to do these things. Why then the disciples? Could it be that he charged them to do as he did on this earth?

There lies the problem with the christian community, picking and choosing, look at the full picture. Let the holy spirit open your mind to believe in the power of Christ.

But everything that partains unto salvation and righteous living is in there.

Isn't this what I said?

Oh wait, you're actually thinking that Catholics believe that without Mary we can't get to heaven. Oh I see your reasoning.
Ok let me tell you, that we don't believe that without Mary we cannot get to heaven. However, we do strongly believe in that there is power in prayer in numbers. So the more we have praying, the more powerful it is. We just decided to add the Mother of our saviour as a prayer warrior for us. We do this because we believe from history and from books that were written about her life that she is in heaven with her son. Surely you don't believe that Christ would abandon his mother. If you do, then does that mean that you too would abandon your mother? (u really don't have to answer that, I could care less)

Catholics shouldnt be asking others to seek the Spirit, they don't understand what it is

lol, and this is because you are judge of all and you know who is right and who is wrong.

While Christ was physically on earth the apostles didnt need the Spirit . . . why would you be claiming the Spirit when you have "Christ" Himself installed in Rome for urselves?

Christ is here on earth? Oh for real? Show me!!!! PLEASE, I want to see!!!

Yeah, hide under that banner.

but it's okay if YOU hide under it. lol. Hypocrisy at its fullest.

Matthew was merely reporting a scene there. He wasnt acknowledging your heresy.

Sure. Dude go examen your consciousness.

to lady and imhotep, i say weldone and keep up the good work.

these dudes are in for a treat! YOU ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE!!!

imhotep, i love your robocop profile. it shud be a religious kind for defending the faith.
Regnare Christum Volumus!!!

Carlosein:

imhotep, i love your robocop profile. it should be a religious kind for defending the faith.

Hahahahahaha!! Robocop actually made a deep impact on me when I watched it. Linking man and machine, cybernetics- beautiful concepts.

Carlosein:

Regnare Christum Volumus!!!

Yes. We want Christ to reign!

to lady and imhotep, i say weldone and keep up the good work.

these dudes are in for a treat! YOU ACTUALLY MAKE SENSE!!!

lol, it's really not that complicated if you have a broad mind and the holy spirit as your guide. It also helps to not be driven by anger, hatred, arrogance, pride, and ignorance.

Love rules!!!!!!!!! YEAH!!!!!!!

Regnare Christum Volumus!!!

Yes. We want Christ to reign!

Oh so that's what that means.
That's it I'm enrolling in Latin classes.


I also made additions to my previous posts.  I was reading last night and that thought dawned on me. If Christ's asked us to do as he did, why then do we limit ourselves. If Christ gave us the spirit as the Father gave him, why then should we consider ourselves falling short. The Holy Spirit is the gift given us.

Beautiful question. So God can choose M'uslims, buddhists, hindus, pagans, ogboni etc etc.!

Do you mean that all your Bishops and your Pope achieved that status by birth? Did they not have to accept the doctrine at some point in their lives? I'm sure you should be able to dig up statistics of people in the catholic church who were born christians.
Haven said that, let me reaffirm that Paul was not one of the apostles. He was a murderer of the people of God. You could also see Paul as being worse than the guys in all those other religions that you mentioned because at least those guys have a set of religious laws that they obey and these laws restrict them to an extent. But Saul wielded political power with no religious restraint. And God still used Him to pen down nearly the whole of the New Testament.
So if God wants to use convert the Dalai Lama and make him a preacher, what stops Him? Or is Paul's story too good to be true?
Haven also said that, I would also like to repeat that it is not all 'self-appointed protestant churches' that are self-appointed. There are loads of genuine ones out there that were established by God Himself and I sure do belong to one, praise God. If you have a problem with it's being outside the catholic church, you are on your own.

I also discovered that you did not adress this analogy:
When Segun Adeniyi comes on air and announces one of Yar'Adua's policies that you like, who do you credit, Adeniyi or Yar' Adua? Who gets the praise? Who set out the policy? These are simple questions with honest answers that should make certain things clear to you.

So, the Holy Spirit inspired the bishops to compile and approve the bible.

If it was truly the Bishops, then what you said is undisputable. And just because they  If they truly approved it, why do you think it has not occured to them to review it or to add some of the extra-biblical material that you guys practice as part of the bible? Much like countries approve their constitution and then ratify it from time to time? You said to 4Him that the constitution is differenct from the bible. Yes, just that you make them similar by seeing them as being compilations of men with little or no input from God.

Then, the devil inpsired these same bishops in their doctrines.

Why not? Just because they (supposedly) compiled the bible, does that now put them above board? Thats the same problem with the Catholic church, when someone says something derogatory about the Pope people start raining verbal hailstones as if they insulted Jesus. Jesus was the only perfect man on the earth. I can give you examles of great men in the bible who lost it at some point, from David, the man after Gods heart to Moses and even our father of faith, Abraham. So what stops the bishops from imbibing what in your own words (sarcasm or not) are devilish doctrines?

Now, who inspired  the 33,000 bickering protestant sects in forming 33,000 mutually contradicting  doctrines about ONE Christ

Much of your defence has been based on this 33,000 phenomenon and not the bible. You make it sound as if it is one's sect that makes the difference between a christian and a non-christian. Also if you've noticed, most of the threads on Nairaland are more like '33,000 vs 1' and vice versa, not '33,000 vs each other'. Ive adressed your issue about 33,000 protestant sects before on another thread. Just because I am not a member of the catholic church, does that disqualify me as a christian? NO. Does that make my salvation any less potent? NO. Does the fact that I disagree with som of the catholic church's doctrines that I do not find in the bible make God angry with me? NO. Does it mean I will go to hell? NO. Does that make a member of the 33,000 sects? IN YOUR OPINION, YES BUT IN MINE, NO. Do I see myself as being a part of one of the 33,000 sects? NO, contrary to imhotep's beilef.
I do not wish to deal with extra-biblical catholic doctrines one by one but suffice it to say that I do, and my Pastor preaches what is in the bible. If he says anything that is not in the bible, I have the sole right to throw it in the trash can. Do what the bible says, and you are on point. Do what it does not say, you are on your own. I think that is the whole essence of christianity, not arguing over sect. When I see someone say or do something that is not explicitly written in the bible (e.g. praying to someone in heaven other than a member of the Godhead), it makes me cringe.

P.S. Ive always wondered what that smokey thing Bishops carry is. I'm too lazy to check online please can anyone tell me?

A_K_O:

Do you mean that all your Bishops and your Pope achieved that status by birth? Did they not have to accept the doctrine at some point in their lives? I'm sure you should be able to dig up statistics of people in the catholic church who were born christians.
Haven said that, let me reaffirm that Paul was not one of the apostles. He was a murderer of the people of God. You could also see Paul as being worse than the guys in all those other religions that you mentioned because at least those guys have a set of religious laws that they obey and these laws restrict them to an extent. But Saul wielded political power with no religious restraint. And God still used Him to pen down nearly the whole of the New Testament.
So if God wants to use convert the Dalai Lama and make him a preacher, what stops Him? Or is Paul's story too good to be true?

Good. So God can work with ANYBODY. But God somehow stopped working with the catholic bishops after the year 393 AD? How come the catholic bishops are so hated by protestants?

A_K_O:

Haven also said that, I would also like to repeat that it is not all 'self-appointed protestant churches' that are self-appointed. There are loads of genuine ones out there that were established by God Himself and I sure do belong to one, praise God. If you have a problem with it's being outside the catholic church, you are on your own.

99.9% of them are self appointed, miracle-seeking, tithe-collecting institutions. They blend the bible with juju in order to HELP God do miracles. Tithing in the NT is not scriptural - yet they keep mis-quoting and mis-applying the bible - and confusing innocent people.

A_K_O:

I also discovered that you did not adress this analogy:
When Segun Adeniyi comes on air and announces one of Yar'Adua's policies that you like, who do you credit, Adeniyi or Yar' Adua? Who gets the praise? Who set out the policy? These are simple questions with honest answers that should make certain things clear to you.

When Catholic bishops discern the inspired books, who gets the praise?

A_K_O:

If it was truly the Bishops, then what you said is undisputable. And just because they If they truly approved it, why do you think it has not occured to them to review it or to add some of the extra-biblical material that you guys practice as part of the bible? Much like countries approve their constitution and then ratify it from time to time? You said to 4Him that the constitution is differenct from the bible. Yes, just that you make them similar by seeing them as being compilations of men with little or no input from God.

Nice question. This is why I challenge you to be consistent - reject the catholic bible and discern your own. Let us see what you will come up with.

A_K_O:

Why not? Just because they (supposedly) compiled the bible, does that now put them above board? Thats the same problem with the Catholic church, when someone says something derogatory about the Pope people start raining verbal hailstones as if they insulted Jesus. Jesus was the only perfect man on the earth. I can give you examles of great men in the bible who lost it at some point, from David, the man after Gods heart to Moses and even our father of faith, Abraham. So what stops the bishops from imbibing what in your own words (sarcasm or not) are devilish doctrines?

You base your ENTIRE life on the bible. Yet you calumniate its producers - hypocrisy.

A_K_O:

Much of your defence has been based on this 33,000 phenomenon and not the bible. You make it sound as if it is one's sect that makes the difference between a christian and a non-christian. Ive adressed your issue about 33,000 protestant sects before on another thread. Just because I am not a member of the catholic church, does that disqualify me as a christian? NO. Does that make my salvation any less potent? NO. Does the fact that I disagree with som of the catholic church's doctrines that I do not find in the bible make God angry with me? NO. Does it mean I will go to hell? NO. Does that make a member of the 33,000 sects? IN YOUR OPINION, YES BUT IN MINE, NO. Do I see myself as being a part of one of the 33,000 sects? NO, contrary to imhotep's beilef.

Yes. No one has given me a satisfactory answer => How did ONE bible give birth to 33,000 mutually suspecting sects? I will never tire of asking this question.

A_K_O:

I do not wish to deal with extra-biblical catholic doctrines one by one but suffice it to say that I do, and my Pastor preaches what is in the bible. If he says anything that is not in the bible, I have the sole right to throw it in the trash can. Do what the bible says, and you are on point. Do what it does not say, you are on your own. I think that is the whole essence of christianity, not arguing over sect. When I see someone say or do something that is not explicitly written in the bible (e.g. praying to someone in heaven other than a member of the Godhead), it makes me cringe.

God can work with the Dalai Lama, but not with a catholic (just because you hate catholics) - is that what you are saying? By the way, do you know that the Dalai Lamas succeed each other through re-incarnation (so the buddhists believe). And you still accept that God can work through them.
But not through a catholic -- you hate catholics. Nice.

A_K_O:

P.S. Ive always wondered what that smokey thing Bishops carry is. I'm too lazy to check online please can anyone tell me?

I suggest you google it.

Yes, just that you make them similar by seeing them as being compilations of men with little or no input from God.

No, we see them as books written by those inspired by God. But how do you tell if they are inspired by God, wouldn't it be with the power of the Holy Spirit. Why weren't all the books included if these Bishops didn't have the Holy Spirit as their guide? How is it that they were able to determine which book is of God nad not? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit be their guide? How then could the Bishops put together the Bible if they were not filled with the Spirit. How then could evil be filled with the Holy Spirit?

Haven also said that, I would also like to repeat that it is not all 'self-appointed protestant churches' that are self-appointed. There are loads of genuine ones out there that were established by God Himself and I sure do belong to one, praise God. If you have a problem with it's being outside the catholic church, you are on your own

The ONLY reason the Catholic church is viewed in separation from the other churches is because the other churches caused such division. The word Catholic means universal as in one. All Christians are meant to be one. So in essence if your church is of God, established by God, then by all means you are Catholic, you are universal, you are one with the Church and all Christians everywhere.

I do not wish to deal with extra-biblical catholic doctrines one by one but suffice it to say that I do, and my Pastor preaches what is in the bible. If he says anything that is not in the bible, I have the sole right to throw it in the trash can. Do what the bible says, and you are on point. Do what it does not say, you are on your own. I think that is the whole essence of christianity, not arguing over sect. When I see someone say or do something that is not explicitly written in the bible (e.g. praying to someone in heaven other than a member of the Godhead), it makes me cringe.

Actually they are not extra-biblical, they're in the Bible, you just happened to interpret it your way (gee I wonder what Martin Luther was thinking, clearly he failed to remember that minds do err and not all minds are filled with the Spirit, and that young mines in Christ should be nurtured instead of left to fend for themselves)

Ok about the praying issue, how about we define "PRAYER". Prayer is a petition as in ask. So if I were to say I pray thee A_K_O to fetch me some water, I will not be out of line, because I am asking you, petitioning you, praying to you. So when we go to God in Prayer, we petition, we ask, and by his grace we receive.
So to say that is wrong for someone to pray to another is to not know the meaning of the word. So yes I can pray to my mother because I want a new car.
Now the issue there in being that just because I "pray" u A_K_O does not mean that I am seeing you as my divine being. It doese not mean that you are the one I worship as in you are my creator and all the glory and honour belong to you.
Get it ?

@A_K_O
I am reposting==>

This is a classic example of mis-interpretation and mis-application of scripture by Martin Luther, the founder of protestantism. and the originator of SOLA SCRIPTURA.

In 1543, he wrote a book titled "On the Jews and their lies"
(See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies) .

He recommended the following, after his rigorous study of the bible :

Martin_Luther:
1 "First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. , "

2 "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. , "

3 "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. , "

4 "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. , "

5 "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. , "

6 "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. , Such money should now be used in , the following [way], Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount], "

7 "Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."

8 "If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs."

This book of his heavily influenced the Nazis in their murder of 6 million European Jews.

So much for studying the bible.

In 1543, he wrote a book titled "On the Jews and their lies"
(See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

thanks for this. wow.
Apparently he wasn't happy with the way the Catholics treated the Jews and said that they had to be approached with gentleness, this is true, but when they failed to convert through his method he turned on them. Lol.
That action alone would make a jew wonder why he should turn to Christianity. It seemed he had hidden motives to converting them.

He seemed to have been a very confused man.

This is a very interesting debate. I would like to offer a brief overview of the history of christianity.

From the very start it would appear that there were numerous group following Jesus which were not even aware of themselves. There is the instance in the gospels where the disciples come across a group preaching Christ. They tried to stop these guys. 'what right had they'? They reported this to Jesus and to their shock this group had Jesus' approval.

By the time of Paul's mission there were yet again evidence of many different christian movements. In Galatians chapter 1 vs 6 Paul is warning his followers against following another gospel. There were the ultra Jewish christians who did not see christianity as a religion for non jews. The divisions were mostly doctrinal and none were so prone to doctrinal deviance as the gnostics. The gnostics in fact put little importance in doctrine and emphasised rather the experience of christ. Consequently they felt free to adopt and invent doctrines as they felt would be most useful to their practice.
This was the beginning of a centuries long conflict. Those that insisted on the importance of doctrine went to great pains to establish what they believed, and what concepts were acceptable. They called themselves the Orthodox christians. Orthodox means Right Thinking. To be orthodox you had to accept the 'Right' doctrine. Opposed to them were those who said that the direct experience of Christ and the holy spirit was what matter no the terminology and concepts that you formed to understand it. They felt free to experiment with doctrines and 'invent myths', as one of the church fathers put it.

One of the Orthodox bishops was Irenaeus of Lyon. To restrict the number of ideas going around he suggested that there should only be 4 orthodox gospels. The bible hadn't been compiled yet at this point. He began a campaign to ban other gospels and unorthodox writings. When Emperor Constantine made christianity the Roman state religion he established the orthodox bishops as the leaders and thus began a pogrom against the greater part of christianity which were gnostics or other doctrinal christians whose doctrines just happened to be considered Unorthodox by those in power. In fact many contemporary accounts state that when the christian bishops took over the previously pagan temples and offices what was most notable about them was the greed and avarice with which they went for the material wealth and political power.

Inspite of mass genocide against the majority of christians who were not considered orthodox (in other words their thinking wasn't right.) the church could still not unite under one doctrine that everybody accepted. Those christians that were not politically powerful were just killed off. There were 3 main centers of orthodox christianity that were to powerful to wage pogroms against themselves and so the differences were settled by church councils.

These 3 great parties were 1. The Church in Egypt, based in Alexandria. These were headed in turn by first Bishop Cyril and then Bishop Dioscurus. Cyril was canonised and is now Saint Cyril while Dioscurus was declared an heretic (heretic is basically someone who thinking isn't right. unorthodox, in other words they have a different opinion from you). The funny thing is that Cyris and Dioscurus said exactly the same thing. Namely that Jesus Christ was God. He was divine.

2. the second party was the Church in Antioch headed by Nestorius. They stressed the humanity of christ. Jesus was a human being. Nestor was eventually charged with heresy but his beliefs persisted throughout the history of christianity.

3. The third party was the church in Rome. The pope was concerned with getting a bit of respect as the descendant of Peter and therefore the Rock on which the church was to be founded. However he was just getting ignored. For a start Christianity was biggest in the middle east and eastern europe. And secondly because world affairs were centered in asia the Emperor constantine had actually moved his capital away from Rome and set up in Constantinople which is in modern day Turkey. So basically there was nothing going on in Rome and nobody was taking notice of that Pope guy.

Of course the problem with doctrine and doctrinal faiths is that no two people in the whole world can think the same thing or have exactly the same opinion on anything. subsequently the harder one tries to impose an orthodoxy the more heretics will keep popping up until you have slaughtered half your congregation.

When Nestor became bishop of Constantinople as an Antioch christian he insisted that Jesus was human. The argument started from the proposition that if all men are sinners and christ was not a sinner then Christ could not have been a man. The antioch guys countered this by saying that where there is a human soul in most men in Jesus was the Logos. Since the human soul is created in the image of the Logos it therefore follows that Christ was even more human than us because we have the copy while he is the original.
What upset Nestor the most was the suggestion that the Virgin Mary could be considered the mother of God (theotokos in latin). His words apparently were,' I cannot speak of God as being two or three months old . . . Well, anyhow, don't make the virgin a goddess!".

Meanwhile Bishop Cyril of Alexandria together with the pope Clement l supported the idea of theotokos (mother of God). A synod was called in Rome where Nestor was denounced. Again in Alexandria he was denounced. As they were denouncing him in Rome and Alexandria he too was denouncing them in Constantinople. The yabis was flying back a forth all parties quoting scriptures at each other (nothing as changed much in 1500 years as you guys are still doing the same thing here on nairaland).

When the Emperor began to have enough of all the bickering (emperor Theodosius II) he called a council in Ephesus in the year 431 and told them to sort it out. It was at this council that once and for all the Virgin was declared to be Theotokos (mother of God). Nestor was condemned although he condemned them back one last time before he was removed from his post as bishop. He was eventually murdered by a monk in the egyptian desert.
Cyril was made a saint and when he died his place was taken by Dioscurus. In rome the pope was now Pope Leo the Great, the first pope to be taken seriously. That was when some guy suggested a solution that Jesus in fact had two natures. He was divine and human. Pope leo denounced him. Theodosius called another council to sort it out. That was when Leo started making strong claims that if there are any councils they should be held in Rome. He was still getting ignored despite his writing letters to everyone that mattered. Slowly he was getting friends in high places. The council was held in Ephesus again and the guy was vindicated and it was accepted that Jesus had two natures.

When Theodosius died Pulcheria became the empress and she was better disposed towards the pope. They called another council and these time the poor guy was denounced. Not only that but Pope Leo made quick moves to banish Dioscurus from his see and he was declared heretic. That is how Cyril is a saint but his successor Dioscurus who had the same views is today a heretic. As a result of Banishing Dioscurus the Coptic orthodox church broke away and started appointing it's own bishops independent of the empire. Eventually orthodox christianity would split with Rome taking over western europe and eastern europe comprising of various orthodox churches from Greek orthodox to Russian orthodox.


This is getting long. I will continue part two at a later date. I hope you all find this informative.

@PastorAIO
You forgot to quote your source(s).

There are many but the main one I guess would be Gibbons, the rise and fall of Rome. Then you could just google the history of the church councils and see what you get.

Just read about Edward Gibbons on wikipedia ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon

wikipedia:
The product of that disagreement, with some assistance from the work of Catholic Bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), and that of the Elizabethan Jesuit Robert Parsons (1546–1610), yielded the most memorable event of his time at Oxford: his conversion to Roman Catholicism on June 8, 1753. He was further "corrupted" by the 'free thinking' deism of the playwright/poet couple David and Lucy Mallet;[5] and finally Gibbon's father, already "in despair," had had enough.

Within weeks of his conversion, the youngster was removed from Oxford and sent to live under the care and tutelage of David Pavillard, Reformed pastor of Lausanne, Switzerland. It was here that he made one of his life's two great friendships, that of Jacques Georges Deyverdun; the other being John Baker Holroyd (later Lord Sheffield). Just a year and a half later, on Christmas Day 1754, he reconverted to Protestantism. "The articles of the Romish creed," he wrote, "disappeared like a dream." He remained in Lausanne for five intellectually productive years, a period that greatly enriched Gibbon's already immense aptitude for scholarship and erudition: he read Latin literature; traveled throughout Switzerland studying its cantons' constitutions; and aggressively mined the works of Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Pierre Bayle, and Blaise Pascal.

You can see that the young man's re-conversion to protestantism was somewhat coerced. One cannot rely on such a person for historical background checks.
Did the books he wrote express his heartfelt views, or was he also constrained to write the way he did

imhotep and lady,

you too make me laugh too much. I want to believe what you see on the outside is what you think catholicism is. I had said in one of my posts that Priests are allowed to fornicate at least two or three times in the RCC and you were silent about it. The same priests whom you people claim are infallible are allowed in your doctrines to sin and will be pardoned.

You call this hatred? You must be deluded? I think if you are really sincere and not holding on to a blind faith, youo should be concerned about finding out whether what i have said is true or not. Sit your priest down (i dont think you can because you look at them as Christ right- the the deception and fear they have created in your minds so that you cant even question them - o ma se o), ask him what St. Liguori wrote about Priests and their infallibility. You dont know anything. I just laugh at your very shallow responses to critical issues. I repeat, what is your position on my claim that your priests are very much allowed to fornicate not many times anyway on a month. Why do you think those pedophile cases are many times swept under the carpet? Its because it is perhaps just the first or the second time that the priests have slept with the boys. They wont be excommunicated until it becomes numerous. Now is it not better for them to marry if their sins does not relegate them from being priests, so why should marriage relegate them?

Permit me to raise another issue. Can i ask you to list the ten commandments of the bible re given in the catholic church with all sincerity? Can you list the the ten commandments that God gave Moses in the wilderness as preached in the cathecism? Let me see your honesty here else i will just label you as being mischievous and full of duplicity.

Thirdly, do you want evidences where your pope said that Mary is the Saviour of the people of you catholics without mincing words?

Do you believe in the infallibility of your popes?

All these noise about compile bible and others are not the crux of the matter, they are mere distractions. If you can truthfully answer to these, that is when we can fuly start a full fledged conversation about the main crux of the Vatican. The way you are going, i know you are going to end your statements with someting like this: that the bible is not the only book of authority that we should use as christians and that they were various undocumented traditions that were passed over from the founding fathers (whom your erroneously call the apostles) to the RCC. I am waiting for you to get there and when you eventually say it i would ask you: should oral traditions negate the written word (Bible) if indeed it is the same God and Spirit that directed both?

cgift:

imhotep and lady,

you too make me laugh too much. I want to believe what you see on the outside is what you think catholicism is. I had said in one of my posts that Priests are allowed to fornicate at least two or three times in the RCC and you were silent about it. The same priests whom you people claim are infallible are allowed in your doctrines to sin and will be pardoned.

Quote your sources, we don't have to take your word for it.

cgift:

You call this hatred? You must be deluded? I think if you are really sincere and not holding on to a blind faith, youo should be concerned about finding out whether what i have said is true or not. Sit your priest down (i don't think you can because you look at them as Christ right- the the deception and fear they have created in your minds so that you can't even question them - o ma se o), ask him what St. Liguori wrote about Priests and their infallibility. You don't know anything. I just laugh at your very shallow responses to critical issues. I repeat, what is your position on my claim that your priests are very much allowed to fornicate not many times anyway on a month. Why do you think those pedophile cases are many times swept under the carpet? Its because it is perhaps just the first or the second time that the priests have slept with the boys. They wont be excommunicated until it becomes numerous. Now is it not better for them to marry if their sins does not relegate them from being priests, so why should marriage relegate them?

We are in the information age. Everything about the RCC can be found online (Vatican site ==> http://www.vatican.va). Do some research and stop reclycing hearsay and ignorance.

cgift:

Permit me to raise another issue. Can i ask you to list the ten commandments of the bible re given in the catholic church with all sincerity? Can you list the the ten commandments that God gave Moses in the wilderness as preached in the cathecism? Let me see your honesty here else i will just label you as being mischievous and full of duplicity.

Check the Vatican website for the Cathechism. Read it very well before making these type of comments.

cgift:

Thirdly, do you want evidences where your pope said that Mary is the Saviour of the people of you catholics without mincing words?

Yes. And please quote your source(s).

cgift:

Do you believe in the infallibility of your popes?

Of course.

cgift:

All these noise about compile bible and others are not the crux of the matter, they are mere distractions.

They reveal the self-contradicting stance of the protestants.

cgift:

If you can truthfully answer to these, that is when we can fuly start a full fledged conversation about the main crux of the Vatican.
The way you are going, i know you are going to end your statements with someting like this: that the bible is not the only book of authority that we should use as christians and that they were various undocumented traditions that were passed over from the founding fathers (whom your erroneously call the apostles) to the RCC. I am waiting for you to get there and when you eventually say it i would ask you:

So how do u think the church operated between 33 AD and 393 AD. Which bible were they quoting?? There were so many manuscripts flying around. How could they know which one was inspired and which was not.
Why does anyone have to accept the book approved in 393 AD as a list of inspired books? Why?

cgift:

should oral traditions negate the written word (Bible) if indeed it is the same God and Spirit that directed both?

I'm sure you do not understand what the RCC mean by 'tradition'.

Good. So God can work with ANYBODY. But God somehow stopped working with the catholic bishops after the year 393 AD? How come the catholic bishops are so hated by protestants?

I hate the fact that I am actually beginning to sound like I hate. Maybe its the passion with which I am writing. It is for that reason that I shall gradually begin to wind up on this thread after this post.

99.9% of them are self appointed, miracle-seeking, tithe-collecting institutions. They blend the bible with juju in order to HELP God do miracles. Tithing in the NT is not scriptural - yet they keep mis-quoting and mis-applying the bible - and confusing innocent people.

Now you reveal what you and you alone meant by 'many'. Well at least there is a .1 out there, so I was right, right? Right!

When Catholic bishops discern the inspired books, who gets the praise?

God, because the bible was inspired by God, obviously meaning that the discerning process was also inspired by Him.

Yet you calumniate its producers - hypocrisy.

Its producer remains God thats why it is the word of God. And I already gave the examples of Abraham and David.

And you still accept that God can work through them.

Yes I do.

But not through a catholic -- you hate catholics. Nice.

Like I said it may be my passion for what I am saying that makes it sound like hate. Hence you put words in my mouth. I never said God cannot work through catholics neither do I hate them. I have quite a number of catholic friends. Disagreeing with a doctrine is different from hating the person. Yes, doctrines are not in isolation of people but I have tried as much as possible to seperate the two for the purpose of discussion on this thread. As much as I disagre with some catholic doctrines I still accept y'all as my brothers and sisters.

Yes. No one has given me a satisfactory answer => How did ONE bible give birth to 33,000 mutually suspecting sects? I will never tire of asking this question.

I have dealt with the issue of sect and yet you stubbornly bring it back again. I do not really know how better to put what I have said in the past. The fact that there are all kinds of extra-biblical doctrines flying around today bothers me and bothers God much more. As far as I am concerned, the only 'sect' is that which lives by the principles of the bible as stipulated in its 66 books, not in the conduct and words of the descendants of it's purported compilers. So quite frankly, I do not care about the answer to that question.

Ok about the praying issue, how about we define "PRAYER". Prayer is a petition as in ask. So if I were to say I pray thee A_K_O to fetch me some water, I will not be out of line, because I am asking you, petitioning you, praying to you. So when we go to God in Prayer, we petition, we ask, and by his grace we receive.
So to say that is wrong for someone to pray to another is to not know the meaning of the word. So yes I can pray to my mother because I want a new car.
Now the issue there in being that just because I "pray" u A_K_O does not mean that I am seeing you as my divine being. It doese not mean that you are the one I worship as in you are my creator and all the glory and honour belong to you.
Get it ?

Well, the only difference between petitioning me and Mary is that I am on the earth and am functional to you and Mary is'nt. On the interpretation of prayer, this is how the dictionary defines it:

Main Entry:
1prayer
Pronunciation:
\ˈprer\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex
Date:
14th century
1 a (1): an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage> (2): a set order of words used in praying b: an earnest request or wish
2: the act or practice of praying to God or a god <kneeling in prayer>
3: a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers —often used in plural
4: something prayed for
5: a slight chance <haven't got a prayer>

Furthermore, the bible does not instruct us to pray to saints in heaven including Mary. If Mary has so much influence over God's decisions, why not pray to the father of God? Does Jesus love Joseph any less? After all they were in the carpentry business together.

Well, the only difference between petitioning me and Mary is that I am on the earth and am functional to you and Mary is'nt. On the interpretation of prayer, this is how the dictionary defines it:

I see why you believe that Mary isn't functional to me. I will however tell you that she is. Why? because of my belief on her assumption, but that is another discussion for another day.

Furthermore, the bible does not instruct us to pray to saints in heaven including Mary. If Mary has so much influence over God's decisions, why not pray to the father of God? Does Jesus love Joseph any less? After all they were in the carpentry business together

The Bible also does not instruct me to "pray" or "petition" to you, but that doesn't mean that I can't. It does instruct us to pray for one another, we pray to the saints and Mary to pray for us, there is nothing wrong in that. To us there's a relationship between the living and the dead. There's a communion of Christ of Heaven and Earth.
Joseph isn't God's father, last time I checked he took no part in the conception of Christ. There is a prayer to Joseph though.