chukwudi44:

Your stupidity is indescribable ,I thought you said catholics were detering pople away from the true faith,how come they are now the ones passing the good news to future generations.Mind you the catholic church was not founded at the council of niceea.

Great defenders of the faith like irenaeus of lyons ,tertullian,ignatius of antioch e.t.c lived long before the reign of emperor constantine and the council of nicea

It is said that reading is fundamental (http://www.rif.org/) and it's obvious you were in a rush since you spelled deterring and people wrong. I used the word "were" not "are".  Surely, you are not thinking that I am comparing the early followers of Jesus Christ to these modern day Idol (praying to the statue of Mary/Rosary beads) worshippers?   To know God personally is to pray through Jesus Christ.  He is God's only provision for our sin.

Continue to read the Bible and seek wisdom and knowledge.

@lady

Longtime, how are you doing hope all is well with you. Please note that pilgrim1 is not ur enemy infact you can learn from pilgrim1 in terms of being open minded about issues so as to know the truth. Pilgrim1 based on her experience as a former muslim, knows the effects and consequences of blindly supporting a false idea/beliefs. She knows wat it means to discover that she might have been lost for eternity as a result of her former faith which she is now no longer a part of. Thus that she shares her experiences/understanding with everyone has more to do with her concern/attempt to reveal the truth she has learned over the years rather than an attempt to peddle falsehood information. She has nothing to gain by trying to falsely discredit the catholic church. She is just showing historical and biblical points that go against everything the catholic church stands for. Hence she is not out to attack you, she is out to shame and expose the lies of the devil via the catholic church.

Yes i know u are passionate about your catholic believe, but please do d favour of listening without being dogmatic. Better still get pilgrim1's email address for private discussion with her. At the end of the day you would agree that your allegiance is to only your Creator and not to the catholic church, not to your friends, not to your family, not to your fiance, not to your husband.

- Yes the bible opposes the catholic church
- Nevertheless it does not mean the bible opposes you as a person just because u are a member of the catholic church.

Hence wat pilgrim1 is trying to do is to help you see how the catholic church started, what they did, how everything comparees to history and scriptures and what everything mean in terms of salvation of the soul.

-----------------------------------------------------

@other catholics/christians on this thread:


- our goal is to get to heaven.

- our goal is to be counted amongst those considered saved.

- the bible is our manual on how to get to heaven, church program is not, church loyalty is not and church activity is not.

- the bible is our manual on what to believe and what to disbelief, church tradition is not.

- human experiences or human traditions cannot get us to heaven, because the bible makes this very clear.

- any faith that contradicts the bible and relies on human tradition is simply wrong no matter how religious such a faith looks like.

- our goal is to reveal any faith or religion that does not agree with the bible.

- our goal is not to defend a particular church/faith because our salvation is not dependent on whether or not we defend a church or not.

- our goal is not to defend the body of christ that is not our job. That job is already settled by the Messiah Himself.

- our job is to preach the gospel and say the truth in all circumstances and according to the bible and not according to a church doctrine nor according to popularity issues.

- our job to tell and reveal the truth so as to prevent other people from being deceived into serving a false god.



1. According to by bible alone, there was no central church after the ascension of the Messiah, instead wat existed where separate ancient churches located in separate geological locations (sardis, philadelphia etc) that were being graded and sustain based on their direct connection to the Messiah Himself and not on their connection to any so called central church administration. The church in Jerusalem was not controlling any other church.

Even the Messiah Himself did not refer to the 7 separate churches in revelation as branches of a single church. Instead the Messiah refered to them as separate independent churches that are not under the control of any other church - and funny enough not one of those churches was even called the catholic church. Doesn't that say something about the false claim of saying the catholic church is the mother church (mother church of wat)considering that at least we all agree that the Messiah never lied and would never lie. How come the Messiah himself did not even mention any thing called the catholic church. Does that not say that it was not in existence during the early church.


2. From the Bible, we have a single spiritual church (i.e. the Bride of the Messiah) at the same time as different and separate physically administered and de-centralised churches (e.g. galatian church, thessalonica church, roman church, corinthian church, philadelphia church, sardis church etc).



3. Paul was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).



4. Peter was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).



5. The existence and dominance of the catholic church created the first problem of mixing church and state, by creating an unbiblical/heretical idea of central administration of normally separate/independent ancient church structures. This problem was started as a result of mixing of rome's political structure into the early forbearers of the roman catholic church (readers should please note that before the mixing of politics and church, that particular church was just one of different and separate ancient churches that sprang up as a result of the evangelism of the early disciples and apostles after the ascension of the Messiah). Let's have in mind that the original ancient church structure was that the churches would be separate and only consider and have the Messiah as their central head and focus. However the catholic church replaced this structure with a human focus, with a human being as the central head and focus. This example of church structure corruption by the catholic church shows one area where the ancient biblical church structure was not in agreement with the heretical practise that the catholic church started. Unfortunately, this issue of having church branches still continues till today because the poison known has the catholic church is still in effect till today.



6. Unfortunately further research of the catholic church history only diggs up issues that shows that the catholic church achieved dominance through manipulation (e.g. worship of the idol known as Mary), spiritual permission (same as that giving to the devil to do certain things) and outright murder in certain cases (the european dark ages).



7. Yes the catholic church has been existing for thousands of years, nevertheless that still does not imply legitimacy, otherwise islam would also claim to be true if one were to assume that truth/legitimacy was dependent on lenght of time of existence.

The history of the catholic church is filled with blood shed against those that choose to follow only the bible and refuse the catholic doctrine Likewise history is also filled bloodshed carried out amongst other believers of other faith. Yet even the Messiah Himself made it clear that no one (whether catholic or not, whether christian or not) is permitted to kill in His name nor for His sake. This brings into questions the bloody history of the catholic church and how that influences our present view of them. All these then begs the question:

which is more important the Word of the Creator or the doctrine/authority of the Catholic church.

At the end of the day, it is pointless and unbiblical when we exert so much energy trying to defend the catholic church against the barrage of historical and biblical evidences against their establishment, heretical practises and idolatory. One thing is for sure


- Seperate and decentralised early churches had been existing before the catholic church even existed, hence it is complete falsehood to assume and dogmaticall state that the catholic church gave birth to all churches.

- Yet the combination of political power and church and state of the Catholic church became more pronounced as a result of the influence of the Emperor Constantine.

@No2Atheism
Are you in any way related to olabowale.

folami86:

It is said that reading is fundamental (http://www.rif.org/) and it's obvious you were in a rush since you spelled deterring and people wrong. I used the word "were" not "are". Surely, you are not thinking that I am comparing the early followers of Jesus Christ to these modern day Idol (praying to the statue of Mary/Rosary beads) worshippers? To know God personally is to pray through Jesus Christ. He is God's only provision for our sin.

Continue to read the Bible and seek wisdom and knowledge.

am sure you dont ask your pastors to pray for you since Jesus is the only one we can pray to? .
If you want to contribute to the gowth of christianity go and start preaching against tithes and prosperity preaching because that is the greatest heresy ravaging christianity today .Pentecostal pastors have been fleecing their members of their hard earned money by telling them that thier finances will be affected if they don't pay tithes.
WHEN YOU REMOVE THIS LOG OF MONEY WORSHIPING IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES YOU WILL SEE MORE CLEARY THE SO -CALLED IDOL WORSHIP IN CATHOLIC CHURCHES.

No2Atheism:

@lady

Longtime, how are you doing hope all is well with you. Please note that pilgrim1 is not ur enemy infact you can learn from pilgrim1 in terms of being open minded about issues so as to know the truth. Pilgrim1 based on her experience as a former muslim, knows the effects and consequences of blindly supporting a false idea/beliefs. She knows wat it means to discover that she might have been lost for eternity as a result of her former faith which she is now no longer a part of. Thus that she shares her experiences/understanding with everyone has more to do with her concern/attempt to reveal the truth she has learned over the years rather than an attempt to peddle falsehood information. She has nothing to gain by trying to falsely discredit the catholic church. She is just showing historical and biblical points that go against everything the catholic church stands for. Hence she is not out to attack you, she is out to shame and expose the lies of the devil via the catholic church.

Yes i know u are passionate about your catholic believe, but please do d favour of listening without being dogmatic. Better still get pilgrim1's email address for private discussion with her. At the end of the day you would agree that your allegiance is to only your Creator and not to the catholic church, not to your friends, not to your family, not to your fiance, not to your husband.

- Yes the bible opposes the catholic church
- Nevertheless it does not mean the bible opposes you as a person just because u are a member of the catholic church.

Hence wat pilgrim1 is trying to do is to help you see how the catholic church started, what they did, how everything comparees to history and scriptures and what everything mean in terms of salvation of the soul.

-----------------------------------------------------

@other catholics/christians on this thread:


- our goal is to get to heaven.

- our goal is to be counted amongst those considered saved.

- the bible is our manual on how to get to heaven, church program is not, church loyalty is not and church activity is not.

- the bible is our manual on what to believe and what to disbelief, church tradition is not.

- human experiences or human traditions cannot get us to heaven, because the bible makes this very clear.

- any faith that contradicts the bible and relies on human tradition is simply wrong no matter how religious such a faith looks like.

- our goal is to reveal any faith or religion that does not agree with the bible.

- our goal is not to defend a particular church/faith because our salvation is not dependent on whether or not we defend a church or not.

- our goal is not to defend the body of christ that is not our job. That job is already settled by the Messiah Himself.

- our job is to preach the gospel and say the truth in all circumstances and according to the bible and not according to a church doctrine nor according to popularity issues.

- our job to tell and reveal the truth so as to prevent other people from being deceived into serving a false god.



1. According to by bible alone, there was no central church after the ascension of the Messiah, instead wat existed where separate ancient churches located in separate geological locations (sardis, philadelphia etc) that were being graded and sustain based on their direct connection to the Messiah Himself and not on their connection to any so called central church administration. The church in Jerusalem was not controlling any other church.

Even the Messiah Himself did not refer to the 7 separate churches in revelation as branches of a single church. Instead the Messiah refered to them as separate independent churches that are not under the control of any other church - and funny enough not one of those churches was even called the catholic church. Doesn't that say something about the false claim of saying the catholic church is the mother church (mother church of wat)considering that at least we all agree that the Messiah never lied and would never lie. How come the Messiah himself did not even mention any thing called the catholic church. Does that not say that it was not in existence during the early church.


2. From the Bible, we have a single spiritual church (i.e. the Bride of the Messiah) at the same time as different and separate physically administered and de-centralised churches (e.g. galatian church, thessalonica church, roman church, corinthian church, philadelphia church, sardis church etc).



3. Paul was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).



4. Peter was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).



5. The existence and dominance of the catholic church created the first problem of mixing church and state, by creating an unbiblical/heretical idea of central administration of normally separate/independent ancient church structures. This problem was started as a result of mixing of rome's political structure into the early forbearers of the roman catholic church (readers should please note that before the mixing of politics and church, that particular church was just one of different and separate ancient churches that sprang up as a result of the evangelism of the early disciples and apostles after the ascension of the Messiah). Let's have in mind that the original ancient church structure was that the churches would be separate and only consider and have the Messiah as their central head and focus. However the catholic church replaced this structure with a human focus, with a human being as the central head and focus. This example of church structure corruption by the catholic church shows one area where the ancient biblical church structure was not in agreement with the heretical practise that the catholic church started. Unfortunately, this issue of having church branches still continues till today because the poison known has the catholic church is still in effect till today.



6. Unfortunately further research of the catholic church history only diggs up issues that shows that the catholic church achieved dominance through manipulation (e.g. worship of the idol known as Mary), spiritual permission (same as that giving to the devil to do certain things) and outright murder in certain cases (the european dark ages).



7. Yes the catholic church has been existing for thousands of years, nevertheless that still does not imply legitimacy, otherwise islam would also claim to be true if one were to assume that truth/legitimacy was dependent on lenght of time of existence.

The history of the catholic church is filled with blood shed against those that choose to follow only the bible and refuse the catholic doctrine Likewise history is also filled bloodshed carried out amongst other believers of other faith. Yet even the Messiah Himself made it clear that no one (whether catholic or not, whether christian or not) is permitted to kill in His name nor for His sake. This brings into questions the bloody history of the catholic church and how that influences our present view of them. All these then begs the question:

which is more important the Word of the Creator or the doctrine/authority of the Catholic church.

At the end of the day, it is pointless and unbiblical when we exert so much energy trying to defend the catholic church against the barrage of historical and biblical evidences against their establishment, heretical practises and idolatory. One thing is for sure


- Seperate and decentralised early churches had been existing before the catholic church even existed, hence it is complete falsehood to assume and dogmaticall state that the catholic church gave birth to all churches.

- Yet the combination of political power and church and state of the Catholic church became more pronounced as a result of the influence of the Emperor Constantine.

Nobody is saying that the bible is not the manual for salvation,but could you please explain how come it was catholics that selected the books that got in there?
Mind you all the gospoels had no name of the authors on them .The names were given by the catholic church ,if the catholic church turns out to be false in the end ,maybe it's high time we start examining the veracity of these books.f

The fact that peter was the first bishop of rome is a fact attested to by all the early church fathers like Irenaeus of lyons,clement of Rome,tertullian ,hegessipus e.t.c
Before martin luther came to challenge these fact none of the early church fathers has ever doubted the fact of peter being the first bishop of rome.It took about 1500 years before martin luther claimed that peter has never being to rome .If i were to choose those to beleive I would rather beleive the early church fathers that gave us the bible than matin luther who lived more than 1000 years after them

Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both coexisted as truly one Church, namely, the Catholic Church, since apostolic times. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and it was the Orthodox Churches who split from Rome in 1054 A.D. The Pope has no "right" but a mission from Christ Himself, by virtue of his succession to the apostle St. Peter, to be the *visible* head of the Church; of course, Christ is the true Head of the Church, but He left the Pope as a visible leader of the militant Church on earth. We have no "right" to any type of virtue or grace, but we all do have a role to play in the mystical Body of Christ, His Church. The Pope is not some austere theocratic dictator who mandates of us what to do; he is here to teach us in clear and explicit terms what our Catholic faith teaches us and what the message of Christ is about. (I will quote Scripture from the New Jerusalem Bible.)

Luke 22:31, 32: Simon, Simon! Look, Satan has got his wish to sift you all like wheat; but I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail, and once you have recovered, you in turn must strengthen your brothers.

Note that in this passage (and this is reflected in the translation), the first reference to "you" is plural (reflected in the "you all", and the second reference to "you" is singular, referring exclusively to Peter, whose faith will be sustained by Christ's intervention, so that as leader of the Christian community he may strengthen the faith of his brothers and sisters.

Luke 10:16, Jesus speaks to the Apostles (the first bishops of our faith): "Anyone who listens to you listens to me; anyone who rejects you rejects me, and those who reject me reject the one who sent me." This passage is related to Matthew 18:18, which reads as follows: "In truth I tell you, whatever you bind on earth bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." These passages show the authority the Apostles were entrusted with by Christ as leaders of the new Christian community, the Church, but as Luke 22:31, 32 shows, Peter held a role of primacy among the Apostles. This is shown in every list of the names of the Apostles provided by the New Testament: in every one, Peter is always named first among the Apostles (Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:12-16; Mark 3:13-19; Acts 1:12-14).

In Matthew 16:13-18 we see the classic example of the institution of the Papacy and of Petrine primacy. Looking at vv. 18f, Jesus speaks to Peter: "So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community (the Church). And the gates of the underwold (Sheol, Hades) can never overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Here we see that, while all the apostles are given the power and authority to "loose" and "bind," it is Peter who is given a primary and singular role in this role of authority in the Church.

I here reproduce a footnote on the text from the New American Bible:

"[18] You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: the Aramaic word kepa - meaning rock and transliterated into Greek as Kephas is the name by which Peter is called in the Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:5; 15:4; Gal 1:18; 2:9, 11, 14) except in Gal 2:7-8 ("Peter". It is translated as Petros ("Peter" in John 1:42. The presumed original Aramaic of Jesus' statement would have been, in English, "You are the Rock (Kepa) and upon this rock (kepa) I will build my church." The Greek text probably means the same, for the difference in gender between the masculine noun petros, the disciple's new name, and the feminine noun petra (rock) may be due simply to the unsuitability of using a feminine noun as the proper name of a male. Although the two words were generally used with slightly different nuances, they were also used interchangeably with the same meaning, "rock." Church: this word (Greek ekklesia) occurs in the gospels only here and in Matthew 18:17 (twice). There are several possibilities for an Aramaic original. Jesus' church means the community that he will gather and that, like a building, will have Peter as its solid foundation. That function of Peter consists in his being witness to Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the living God. The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hades, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death.

[19] The keys to the kingdom of heaven: the image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given "the key of the house of David," which he authoritatively "opens" and "shuts" (Isaiah 22:22). Whatever you bind . . . loosed in heaven: there are many instances in rabbinic literature of the binding-loosing imagery. Of the several meanings given there to the metaphor, two are of special importance here: the giving of authoritative teaching, and the lifting or imposing of the ban of excommunication. It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. In Matthew 18:18 all the disciples are given the power of binding and loosing, but the context of that verse suggests that there the power of excommunication alone is intended. That the keys are those to the kingdom of heaven and that Peter's exercise of authority in the church on earth will be confirmed in heaven show an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the church and the kingdom of heaven."

The gospel of John captures the bishopric of peter more succintly when christ officially handed over the church to him

John 21:15-17 states:

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."

He then said to him a second time, "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."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a 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.
CLEARLY PETER WAS APPOINTED AS THE FIRST POE OR LEADER OF THE CHURCH BY JESUS HIMSELF

PETER'S CONNECTION TO ROME
Connection to Rome
The New Testament says nothing directly about Peter's connection to Rome, but an early Catholic tradition supports such a connection.[2]

St. Ignatius of Antioch implies that Peter and Paul had special authority over the Roman church.[2] In his Letter to the Romans (Ch. 4) of c. 105-110, he tells the Roman Christians: "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons stated definitively that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church. Irenaeus was a disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was himself a disciple of the St. John the Apostle, which puts Irenaeus not far from the authentic teachings of the Apostles. In c. 175-185, he wrote in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):

Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles…

Tertullian also writes: "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded)."

Dionysius of Corinth also serves as a witness to the tradition.[2] He wrote: "You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter A.D. 170, in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.

Later tradition, first found in Saint Jerome, attributes to Peter a 25-year episcopate (or apostolate) in Rome.[2]
FOR MORE OF THESE SEE THE LINKS BELOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

chukwudi44:

PETER'S CONNECTION TO ROME
Connection to Rome
The New Testament says nothing directly about Peter's connection to Rome, but an early Catholic tradition supports such a connection.[2]

1. That settles it then that Peter was never a Pope, since you yourself admit that the bible says nothing about Peter's connection to Rome.

2. I would rather believe the bible than believe any man with any title.

3. Truth is obtained from the bible not from catholic church historians or other historians for that matter.

4. Catholic church historians and other historians cannot be trusted since they are either working for the catholic church or contradicting the bible.

5. Any other thing you say is just pure bullshit and earsay. What matters is what the bible says not what your catholic historians says, cus it was the same catholic people that were killing people in the name of the Messiah despite that the Messiah had explicitly pointed out that no - one should be killed.

6. Peter was not the Pope.

7. Peter was never a Pope.

8. Paul was not a Pope.

9. Paul was never a Pope.

10. Infact both Peter and Paul were killed as a result of their preaching and evangelism.

11. Paul was going about setting up separate churches.

12. As a far as I know, Paul was never the head of the churches that were being setup by Him. Hence part of the reason why He was writing letters to the different churches (in Rome, Corinthians, Ephesus, Thessalonia, Galatia etc.)

chukwudi44:

The gospel of John captures the bishopric of peter more succintly when christ officially handed over the church to him

John 21:15-17 states:

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[/b]."

He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "[b]Tend my sheep."

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a 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.

1. I am not sure whether or not you understand the verses you are quoting.


2. The Messiah telling Peter to feed His Sheep was not a letter of appointment for the position of the Pope. There was nothing like the title called Pope during the lifetime of both Peter and Paul. Instead when the Messiah said: Feed My Sheep, He was refering to the fact that members of the church needed to hear the Word (Spiritual Food) hence the need for Peter to preach the Word and feed the people spiritual food.
 
You only feed food to something. You do not feed leadership to something. You do not feed the position of Pope to something.

The Messiah was instructing Peter to feed His Sheep (i.e. the people left behind) the Word. This is because the Word was necessary for the Church to grow.

4. Tending of Sheep refers to the work of a Pastor of a church. A Pastor is not a Pope. The job description of a Pastor does not even come close to the nonsense being practised in the catholic church and most churches of nowadays.

A Pastor cannot forgive sin.
A Pastor does not make people saints.
A Pastor has no power to determine who lives and who dies.
A Pastor does not determine who goes to Heaven and who does not.
A Pastor does not disregard the bible and exolt church tradition above the bible.
A Pastor follows the Bible to the letter without compromise.

Peter was a Sheperd.
Peter was a Pastor.
Peter was Preacher.


Peter was not a Pope.

Peter was never a Pope.




The disciples went about setting up churches and evangelising, not one of them was anything close to a Pope. The churches did not belong to either of them.

None of the disciples was a representative of the Creator. The Creator did not go anywhere hence he does not need a representative. The Earth belongs to the Creator hence he does not need a representative on the Earth.

It is the Devil/Satan that has been trying since the creation to ursurp the role and position of the Creator on Earth.
It is the Devil/Satan that has been trying through the Pope to assume the position and role of the Creator on Earth.

The Pope is an ordinary man.
The Pope is a sinner Himself.
A Sinner cannot represent a sinless Creator.
The Pope is fallible.
The Pope is not a representative of the Creator on Earth.
The Pope is not the Comforter.
The Pope would live and die and either go to hell or be saved depending on his status with the Messiah.
The Pope himself needs to be saved.
The Pope is inhabited by the Devil in disguise.
The Devil is ruling the catholic world by using the Pope as a proxy.


The Creator is omnipotent and Omnipresent therefore does not need anyone to represent Him on Earth. The Holy Spirit was sent solely to provide the needed Spiritual presence after the ascension of the Messiah Himself (hence why He said He was going to send a Comforter), hence another spiritual presence in form of the devil incarnate known as the Pope was never needed and would never be needed.

The Romans were still very much against the Church at the time of Peter, Paul and John and co. Hence historical and biblical records shows that neither Paul nor Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The catholic history that you are quoting from wikipedia was written solely to lie about history. I do not trust history written by man. I would rather trust the bible.

You yourself admit that the Bible did not say anything about Peter or Paul being Popes.

This is they were never Popes hence the bible never had a reason to tell us otherwise.

STOP TRYING TO RAISE UP CATHOLIC CHURCH TRADITION ABOVE THE BIBLE.

THE BIBLE IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF THE CREATOR, IT DOES NOT LIE.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A GATHERING OF LIARS, MURDERS, IDOLTERERS HENCE I WOULD RATHER BELIEVE THE BIBLE THAN BELIEVE THE LYING CATHOLIC CHURCH HISTORIANS.


---------------------------------

The Messiah did not create the Catholic Church. The Romans created the catholic church , so please stop trying to lie and stop trying to twist the Bible to fit your heretical ways. Otherwise show me in the bible where the Messiah created anything called the Catholic Church.


Don't bother to quote or reference history written by catholics simply because i do not reckon with it. Use the Bible instead to show me proof of your statements.

Traditions of Men and Traditions of the Catholic church is worthless.

The Word of the Creator in the Bible is always true no matter what.

No2Atheism:


1. That settles it then that Peter was never a Pope, since you yourself admit that the bible says nothing about Peter's connection to Rome.

2. I would rather believe the bible than believe any man with any title.

3. Truth is obtained from the bible not from catholic church historians or other historians for that matter.

4. Catholic church historians and other historians cannot be trusted since they are either working for the catholic church or contradicting the bible.

5. Any other thing you say is just pure bullshit and earsay. What matters is what the bible says not what your catholic historians says, cus it was the same catholic people that were killing people in the name of the Messiah despite that the Messiah had explicitly pointed out that no - one should be killed.

6. Peter was not the Pope.

7. Peter was never a Pope.

8. Paul was not a Pope.

9. Paul was never a Pope.

10. Infact both Peter and Paul were killed as a result of their preaching and evangelism.

11. Paul was going about setting up separate churches.

12. As a far as I know, Paul was never the head of the churches that were being setup by Him. Hence part of the reason why He was writing letters to the different churches (in Rome, Corinthians, Ephesus, Thessalonia, Galatia etc.)

1. I am not sure whether or not you understand the verses you are quoting.


2. The Messiah telling Peter to feed His Sheep was not a letter of appointment for the position of the Pope. There was nothing like the title called Pope during the lifetime of both Peter and Paul. Instead when the Messiah said: Feed My Sheep, He was refering to the fact that members of the church needed to hear the Word (Spiritual Food) hence the need for Peter to preach the Word and feed the people spiritual food.

You only feed food to something. You do not feed leadership to something. You do not feed the position of Pope to something.

The Messiah was instructing Peter to feed His Sheep (i.e. the people left behind) the Word. This is because the Word was necessary for the Church to grow.

4. Tending of Sheep refers to the work of a Pastor of a church. A Pastor is not a Pope. The job description of a Pastor does not even come close to the nonsense being practised in the catholic church and most churches of nowadays.

A Pastor cannot forgive sin.
A Pastor does not make people saints.
A Pastor has no power to determine who lives and who dies.
A Pastor does not determine who goes to Heaven and who does not.
A Pastor does not disregard the bible and exolt church tradition above the bible.
A Pastor follows the Bible to the letter without compromise.

Peter was a Sheperd.
Peter was a Pastor.
Peter was Preacher.


Peter was not a Pope.

Peter was never a Pope.




The disciples went about setting up churches and evangelising, not one of them was anything close to a Pope. The churches did not belong to either of them.

None of the disciples was a representative of the Creator. The Creator did not go anywhere hence he does not need a representative. The Earth belongs to the Creator hence he does not need a representative on the Earth.

It is the Devil/Satan that has been trying since the creation to ursurp the role and position of the Creator on Earth.
It is the Devil/Satan that has been trying through the Pope to assume the position and role of the Creator on Earth.

The Pope is an ordinary man.
The Pope is a sinner Himself.
A Sinner cannot represent a sinless Creator.
The Pope is fallible.
The Pope is not a representative of the Creator on Earth.
The Pope is not the Comforter.
The Pope would live and die and either go to hell or be saved depending on his status with the Messiah.
The Pope himself needs to be saved.
The Pope is inhabited by the Devil in disguise.
The Devil is ruling the catholic world by using the Pope as a proxy.


The Creator is omnipotent and Omnipresent therefore does not need anyone to represent Him on Earth. The Holy Spirit was sent solely to provide the needed Spiritual presence after the ascension of the Messiah Himself (hence why He said He was going to send a Comforter), hence another spiritual presence in form of the devil incarnate known as the Pope was never needed and would never be needed.

The Romans were still very much against the Church at the time of Peter, Paul and John and co. Hence historical and biblical records shows that neither Paul nor Peter

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The catholic history that you are quoting from wikipedia was written solely to lie about history. I do not trust history written by man. I would rather trust the bible.

You yourself admit that the Bible did not say anything about Peter or Paul being Popes.

This is they were never Popes hence the bible never had a reason to tell us otherwise.

STOP TRYING TO RAISE UP CATHOLIC CHURCH TRADITION ABOVE THE BIBLE.

THE BIBLE IS THE INFALLIBLE WORD OF THE CREATOR, IT DOES NOT LIE.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A GATHERING OF LIARS, MURDERS, IDOLTERERS HENCE I WOULD RATHER BELIEVE THE BIBLE THAN BELIEVE THE LYING CATHOLIC CHURCH HISTORIANS.


---------------------------------

The Messiah did not create the Catholic Church. The Romans created the catholic church , so please stop trying to lie and stop trying to twist the Bible to fit your heretical ways. Otherwise show me in the bible where the Messiah created anything called the Catholic Church.


Don't bother to quote or reference history written by catholics simply because i do not reckon with it. Use the Bible instead to show me proof of your statements.

Traditions of Men and Traditions of the Catholic church is worthless.

The Word of the Creator in the Bible is always true no matter what.

Unfortunately for you the bible is part of the catholic traditions ,go on and reject it .

These so called lying catholic historians gave us the bible,If the are liars maybe the bible itself might just be part of their lies.

The entire gospelsand the book of acts has no names of their authors ,it was these same so called lying catholic historians who told us who wrote the Bible maybe it's high time we switch to the koran ,since these catholic historians deceived us.

@chukwudi44,

I wonder why you're being polarised and acting as if your responses have anything to do with what No2Atheism has posted. Let's see:

chukwudi44:

Unfortunately for you the bible is part of the catholic traditions ,go on and reject it .

He did not argue to reject the Bible, so what are you arguing? Catholic traditions are not the Bible - otherwise you would have been able to show them from the Bible itself.

chukwudi44:

These so called lying catholic historians gave us the bible,If the are liars maybe the bible itself might just be part of their lies.

Nor did he argue that the Bible itself was part of the lies of Catholic historians - so, what are you inferring again? Is it that this is the best you can do - turn to attack the Bible - when you can't address anything someone replies to you?

chukwudi44:

The entire gospelsand the book of acts has no names of their authors ,it was these same so called lying catholic historians who told us who wrote the Bible maybe it's high time we switch to the koran ,since these catholic historians deceived us.

The Catholic historians did not write the Bible - so what is this argument about turning to the koran? If that is what you're left with, don't try to recommend it to others who have not argued what you're suggesting.


The simple thing to have done is answer his questions. That was all. It is up to anyone who reads to absorb your answers or express further concerns for clarification. To be reactive and yet duck the questions is highly suggestive that something is terribly wrong somewhere in your own arguments.

chukwudi44:

am sure you dont ask your pastors to pray for you since Jesus is the only one we can pray to? .
If you want to contribute to the gowth of christianity go and start preaching against tithes and prosperity preaching because that is the greatest heresy ravaging christianity today .Pentecostal pastors have been fleecing their members of their hard earned money by telling them that thier finances will be affected if they don't pay tithes.

I wonder that if tithes is the greatest heresy ravaging the church, then perhaps you might do better in campaigning against the Catholic Church instead of trying to defend it - especially because we know for a fact that the Catholic Church also encourages tithes. Should we then take it that you're a member of the church with the greatest heresy going on the planet?

You see, this is why I've often wondered that you guys don't ever take the time to reason issues through before you post just about anything that jumps into your mind.

chukwudi44:
WHEN YOU REMOVE THIS LOG OF MONEY WORSHIPING IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES YOU WILL SEE MORE CLEARY THE SO -CALLED IDOL WORSHIP IN CATHOLIC CHURCHES

.

Ah, I see. A nice way to admit that there perhaps is idol worship in Catholic Church - only that we still have log in our eyes to see it. Thanks for the advice, but we're not here concerned with such accusations back and forth. There's only one thing we should examine which has brought us thus far: the claim by Catholics that all churches were part of the Catholic Church before the schisms. Leave out these inuendos: they are merely distractions to the kernel of our discussions. Cheers.

pilgrim.1:

I wonder that if tithes is the greatest heresy ravaging the church, then perhaps you might do better in campaigning against the Catholic Church instead of trying to defend it - especially because we know for a fact that the Catholic Church also encourages tithes. Should we then take it that you're a member of the church with the greatest heresy going on the planet?

You see, this is why I've often wondered that you guys don't ever take the time to reason issues through before you post just about anything that jumps into your mind.
.

Ah, I see. A nice way to admit that there perhaps is idol worship in Catholic Church - only that we still have log in our eyes to see it. Thanks for the advice, but we're not here concerned with such accusations back and forth. There's only one thing we should examine which has brought us thus far: the claim by Catholics that all churches were part of the Catholic Church before the schisms. Leave out these inuendos: they are merely distractions to the kernel of our discussions. Cheers.

Am sorry to disapoint you compulsory tithing (10% )is not int he cathechism of the catholic church .It is you hypocrite who say christians must pay tithes to your pastors.When it comes to praying ,you must pray straight to Jesus but when tithes or seed sowing are involved you can go through your pas tors to Jesus .Bloody Hypocrites!!

pilgrim.1:

@chukwudi44,

I wonder why you're being polarised and acting as if your responses have anything to do with what No2Atheism has posted. Let's see:

He did not argue to reject the Bible, so what are you arguing? Catholic traditions are not the Bible - otherwise you would have been able to show them from the Bible itself.

Nor did he argue that the Bible itself was part of the lies of Catholic historians - so, what are you inferring again? Is it that this is the best you can do - turn to attack the Bible - when you can't address anything someone replies to you?

The Catholic historians did not write the Bible - so what is this argument about turning to the koran? If that is what you're left with, don't try to recommend it to others who have not argued what you're suggesting.


The simple thing to have done is answer his questions. That was all. It is up to anyone who reads to absorb your answers or express further concerns for clarification. To be reactive and yet duck the questions is highly suggestive that something is terribly wrong somewhere in your own arguments.

Your stupidity would soon assume legendary status

pilgrim.1:



The Catholic historians did not write the Bible - so what is this argument about turning to the koran? If that is what you're left with, don't try to recommend it to others who have not argued what you're suggesting.


The simple thing to have done is answer his questions. That was all. It is up to anyone who reads to absorb your answers or express further concerns for clarification. To be reactive and yet duck the questions is highly suggestive that something is terribly wrong somewhere in your own arguments.

Catholics made the bible, How did you know that they did not write any part of it? The bible you have today are based on copies of copies of copies, not the original. So do you know if they did not add to some of it? I am not saying that they did but it is very possible they did. Without them there would have been no bible because the bible(compilation of books) itself is a part of the catholic tradition, there would have been endless letters floating all over the place if they had not decided to compile the books that agreed with their theology together .

They made the bible because based on their traditions(apostolic tradition) they gave names to most of the books of the new testament whose authors were unknown. The writer of the gospel of John for example never said that he was John the disciple of Jesus in fact the writer of Matthew never said any where that he has ever meet Jesus and never said who his name was, Catholics bishops gave the gospel its tittle using their traditions and concluded that the writer was Matthew the disciple of Jesus. If they had decided to name the gospel of Matthew gospel of Peter, you would have accepted the gospel of Matthew as the gospel of Peter.

The Catholics made the bible, without them there would have been no bible.

The Bible says that all scripture is given by God.

2 Ti 3:16

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
KJV


The Bible also says that no one should add or remove from them.

Rv 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
KJV

If the Catholics actually decided which books go into the Bible and which ones don't, this means that they violated what I quoted from Revelations up there.

The point is this - I don't believe there was ever a time when there was a bunch of books and some "Areopagus" sat somewhere to decide which ones stayed and which ones went. If there was, then they would have had to read through the entire thing (or did they cast lots?), and they must have come across the two scriptures quoted above. Then maybe they would have thought twice about it.

chukwudi44:

Am sorry to disapoint you compulsory tithing (10% )is not int he cathechism of the catholic church .It is you hypocrite who say christians must pay tithes to your pastors.When it comes to praying ,you must pray straight to Jesus but when tithes or seed sowing are involved you can go through your pas tors to Jesus .Bloody Hypocrites!!

Em, it's not worth yapping with your tail chained between your legs. I didn't have to read your cathechism before I got to know that many Catholic Churches actually preach tithes to their members. This has nothing to do with any other pastor outside catholicism, so what's biting you to yap endlessly about this issue?

chukwudi44:

Your stupidity would soon assume legendary status

Typically the weapon of a weakling - when you can't discuss any issue, turn round and yap vitriol at other discussants. I hope your medications are still up to date?

toneyb:

pilgrim.1 link=topic=284000.msg4070948#msg4070948 date=1245693201:


The Catholic historians did not write the Bible - so what is this argument about turning to the koran? If that is what you're left with, don't try to recommend it to others who have not argued what you're suggesting.


The simple thing to have done is answer his questions. That was all. It is up to anyone who reads to absorb your answers or express further concerns for clarification. To be reactive and yet duck the questions is highly suggestive that something is terribly wrong somewhere in your own arguments.

Catholics made the bible, How did you know that they did not write any part of it? The bible you have today are based on copies of copies of copies, not the original. So do you know if they did not add to some of it? I am not saying that they did but it is very possible they did. Without them there would have been no bible because the bible(compilation of books) itself is a part of the catholic tradition, there would have been endless letters floating all over the place if they had not decided to compile the books that agreed with their theology together .

They made the bible because based on their traditions(apostolic tradition) they gave names to most of the books of the new testament whose authors were unknown. The writer of the gospel of John for example never said that he was John the disciple of Jesus in fact the writer of Matthew never said any where that he has ever meet Jesus and never said who his name was, Catholics bishops gave the gospel its tittle using their traditions and concluded that the writer was Matthew the disciple of Jesus. If they had decided to name the gospel of Matthew gospel of Peter, you would have accepted the gospel of Matthew as the gospel of Peter.

The Catholics made the bible, without them there would have been no bible.

@toneyb,

Thanks for your comments. However, I was hoping you'd shed more light to show that what you quoted from my earlier reply was patently untrue. Two things are before us here:

(a) Catholic historians did not write the Bible

(b) The Catholics made the bible

Are these two things the same? After sharing your thoughts, I wonder where you have demonstrated the direct opposite of what I stated - did Catholics WRITE the Bible, for crying out loud?

I understand you're at pains to convince yourself that Catholics wrote the Bible; hence, anytime you read anyone saying the direct opposite it seems to raise an excitement in you to argue otherwise - and yet, at the end of the day, you don't seem to be able to bring forth any persuasion to show that Catholics actually WROTE the Bible.

Are we missing something in your persuasions, toneyb?

pilgrim.1:


Catholics made the bible, How did you know that they did not write any part of it? The bible you have today are based on copies of copies of copies, not the original. So do you know if they did not add to some of it? I am not saying that they did but it is very possible they did. Without them there would have been no bible because the bible(compilation of books) itself is a part of the catholic tradition, there would have been endless letters floating all over the place if they had not decided to compile the books that agreed with their theology together .

They made the bible because based on their traditions(apostolic tradition) they gave names to most of the books of the new testament whose authors were unknown. The writer of the gospel of John for example never said that he was John the disciple of Jesus in fact the writer of Matthew never said any where that he has ever meet Jesus and never said who his name was, Catholics bishops gave the gospel its tittle using their traditions and concluded that the writer was Matthew the disciple of Jesus. If they had decided to name the gospel of Matthew gospel of Peter, you would have accepted the gospel of Matthew as the gospel of Peter.

The Catholics made the bible, without them there would have been no bible.

@toneyb,

Thanks for your comments. However, I was hoping you'd shed more light to show that what you quoted from my earlier reply was patently untrue. Two things are before us here:

(a) Catholic historians did not write the Bible

(b) The Catholics made the bible

Are these two things the same? After sharing your thoughts, I wonder where you have demonstrated the direct opposite of what I stated - did Catholics WRITE the Bible, for crying out loud?

I understand you're at pains to convince yourself that Catholics wrote the Bible; hence, anytime you read anyone saying the direct opposite it seems to raise an excitement in you to argue otherwise - and yet, at the end of the day, you don't seem to be able to bring forth any persuasion to show that Catholics actually WROTE the Bible.

Are we missing something in your persuasions, toneyb?

What is the bible? The bible is a combination of jewish and christian scriptures put together by catholic bishops. It was edited by them and redacted by them. They did not write all of it but they made it what it is. You can not say that the catholic tradition is unchristian and still accept one of the product of their tradition which is the bible.

toneyb:

What is the bible? The bible is a combination of jewish and christian scriptures put together by catholic bishops. It was edited by them and redacted by them. They did not write all of it but they made it what it is. You can not say that the catholic tradition is unchristian and still accept one of the product of their tradition which is the bible.

Did they WRITE the Bible?
I don't know why you're so bent on arguing what you don't find in my posts.
Did the Catholics WRITE the Bible?

pilgrim.1:

Did they WRITE the Bible?
I don't know why you're so bent on arguing what you don't find in my posts.
Did the Catholics WRITE the Bible?

The bible is not writings but a collection of books. Which they put together, so YES they wrote the bible.

toneyb:

The bible is not writings but a collection of books. Which they put together, so YES they wrote the bible.

I'm sorry, but that's cheap talk. I actually didn't expect anything else to come forth from your argument, other than to confuse WRITER for your mistaken idea. Let's clap for you: this is the first time we have heard that Catholics wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. . . Malachi, Matthew, Mark. . . Revelation. Good - they WROTE all those documents, yes?

It's a pity when you beggar intelligence to such low levels.

pilgrim.1:

I'm sorry, but that's cheap talk. I actually didn't expect anything else to come forth from your argument, other than to confuse WRITER for your mistaken idea. Let's clap for you: this is the first time we have heard that Catholics wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus. . . Malachi, Matthew, Mark. . . Revelation. Good - they WROTE all those documents, yes?

It's a pity when you beggar intelligence to such low levels.

The christian bible is not mark, matthew, luke, genesis, leveticus all these are books that were included in the christian bible, the bible is the combination of those books, all these books were in existence long before the bible was put together, the book of matthew was in existence for about 300 years but there was ever a bible. So yes the romans wrote(brought about) the bible. If they didn't put it together as a part of their traditions it wouldn't have come into existence.  If the catholics had not decided to choose which was the word of god and which wasn'tthrough their traditions how would YOU have known which was?

toneyb:

The christian bible is not mark, matthew, luke, genesis, leveticus all these are books that were included in the christian bible, the bible is the combination of those books, all these books were in existence long before the bible was put together, the book of matthew was in existence for about 300 years but there was ever a bible. So yes the romans wrote(brought about) the bible. If they didn't put it together as a part of their traditions it wouldn't have come into existence. If the catholics had not decided to choose which was the word of god and which wasn'tthrough their traditions how would YOU have known which was?

Tease me more, I'm enjoying this drama. This is classic - to confuse "writer" for your effort is quite enjoyable. Sorry, the authors of the Bible were NOT Catholics. I know you still are at pains to convince (confuse, no?) yourself otherwise and force them to be "Catholics" - even Catholics on Nairaland would be too embarrassed at this piece of drama, but it's good entertainment. Enjoy.

pilgrim.1:

Tease me more, I'm enjoying this drama. This is classic - to confuse "writer" for your effort is quite enjoyable. Sorry, the authors of the Bible were NOT Catholics. I know you still are at pains to convince (confuse, no?) yourself otherwise and force them to be "Catholics" - even Catholics on Nairaland would be too embarrassed at this piece of drama, but it's good entertainment. Enjoy.

Who were those that gave the names of some of the "Authors of the bible"? Who were those that said Matthew wrote the book of Matthew? The Catholic bishops. You know exactly what I am saying but you just want to keep running around. The fact still remains that the bible as you know it came into existence because of the Catholics, they brought it into existence as a part of their tradition. You can not say that the catholic tradition is unchristain and yet accept one of the product of their unchristian traditions.(66 or what ever books you have as your bible)

toneyb:

Who were those that gave the names of some of the "Authors of the bible"? Who were those that said Matthew wrote the book of Matthew? The Catholic bishops. You know exactly what I am saying but you just want to keep running around. The fact still remains that the bible as you know it came into existence because of the Catholics, they brought it into existence as a part of their tradition. You can not say that the catholic tradition is unchristain and yet accept one of the product of their unchristian traditions.(66 or what ever books you have as your bible)

I'm definitely not on the same page with you, toneyb. I don't confuse "WROTE" for what you're trying to force it to mean. You have not persuaded me that those who WROTE the books of the Bible were Catholics; and as long as you are unable to do that, there's no reason why I should just nod my head and swallow what you're arguing. I really don't have ANY problems whatsoever about your effort to persuade yourself about what you're arguing - if it helps you, that's fine. Yet, it has no shred of value to establish that the authors of those documents (whoever they were) could be plastered with "Catholic". That is what you have not been able to bring forth, and that's just fine with me.

Cheers.

@~Lady~,

I would like to make something clear to you, please - if you can be reasonable enough to take it in.

We're not in the era of the Catholic crusade when the Catholics tried to kill everybody that was non-Catholic and discredit those who rejected Catholicism. The attitude you demonstrated all through didn't help your arguments, and I found discussing with other Catholics like Omenuko a better and more reasonable engagement. Why? Simply because he was willing to be considerate and discuss, not start out being reactive and maintain a dismissive over-rated importance. Several times I asked that you calmed down and try to be reasonable, but these all went overboard; and as such you kept shouting "tpiah" like he owned the thread or that is the only person discussing in this thread.

Please stop reading into my posts what isn't there. I don't stress my point as you do doesn't make me unreasonable. I am completely reasonable, I have very low tolerance for those who refuse to use logic in discussions and those who claim to be open minded but are extrememly close minded. Making assertions about the Catholic church without doing your research and checking every angle is actually very illogical and proves the lack of open mindedness.

So please do not come and tell me to be open minded when you yourself are not being open minded. If you were being open minded we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

Now, why did I bring in the case of the Assyrian Church? I mentioned several times it was in response to Omenuko's assertions earlier. It was infact at the point he posted the reply below that I decided to correct that misconception

Ok look.

You stated that the writers of the Bible are not catholic, I said they are.
I also replied to tpiah when he stated that the egyptian copts, armenians, and greek orthodox were not catholic.
You came in to MY reply (not omenuko's reply) and said that they are not a part of the Catholic church, I proceeded to list the churches that comprise the catholic church.
Then you came up to ME and replied to ME (not Omenuko) about the Assyrian church. I was not in the conversation with you and Omenuko, I was talking about what you were replying to me, not what you and omenuko were replying to each other. That does not concern me. As far as I was concerned I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, Greek orthodox, and Armenians, and you were talking about the Assyrians. If you have a conversation with Omenuko about the assyrian church you should've replied that post to him, and not to me.

Rather than calm down to read through, reason along and make comments, you started off charging indiscriminately and continued to miss the point I was making about Catholics claiming that "ALL CHURCHES" were Catholic before the schism of the 5th century! When I pointed out certain pointers that such is not the case, you again tried to dragoon the BBC report to make the churches there "Catholic". Now you came back typically with the same dismissive attitude and quipping "If the bbc article did not trace them to the Catholics, the bbc needs to do a better research because it lacks logic" - you're sounding as if the BBC must by default claim what is a false history typical of Catholic arguments; and if the BBC refuses to rewrite history in that bend, then you charge them with unscholarly research! When further discussion ensue to show you how dismissive you've been all along with such unhealthy attitude, you come back hooting "tpiah", "tpiah" all over! What is really the problem that you feel all roads must lead to Roman Catholicism and 'tpiah' before you can see reason in what others are saying? Your reaction does not address issues but just stretch things far too presumptuously and yet miss everything! This was why I felt if you're not inclined to discuss, you should be better left alone charging full speed and missing the target - I'm not new to the Catholic attitude of being unreasonable.

Lady, you got yourself confused, because I wasn't talking about ALL CHURCHES being Catholic before the schism, even though that is true. I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, and the Greek Orthodox, so I was very surprised when you showed up with Assyrian church. I stayed on the specifics that tpiah was talking about. So maybe you should go back and read and see that I didn't even reply to anything you said to Omenuko. I was not in that convo, you dragged me in it. Maybe YOU should take the time to clear your head and make sure that you're replying to the right person.

The Catholic Doctrine need to be change completely

Many are just going Catholic for the sake of going

I do not see anything that will inspire me to be a catholic addict

Longtime, how are you doing hope all is well with you. Please note that pilgrim1 is not ur enemy infact you can learn from pilgrim1 in terms of being open minded about issues so as to know the truth. Pilgrim1 based on her experience as a former muslim, knows the effects and consequences of blindly supporting a false idea/beliefs

Oh so I'm the idiot and close minded person because I'm the Catholic. You didn't even realise that Pilgrim confused me and Omenuko. She didn't even know who she was replying to, something she should've replied to Omenuko she replied to me. I was talking about one thing she was talking about the other and I'm the close minded person because I'm the Catholic.

And for your information I wasn't born into the Catholic faith I converted after reading my Bible and actually agreed to allow God to show me what is in the Bible and what he's actually saying. Instead of forcing what makes sense to me in the Bible. Yes that's right I was one of you.

For all I'm concerned you guys are the ones with the blinded faith and many converts to Catholicism will tell you that. Do yourself a favour look up Dr. Scott Hahn, he was a protestant theologian, he taught in seminaries until he decided to read his Bible well. Today he is one of the defenders of the Catholic faith.

Have you actually taken your time to study the Catholic faith, to try to understand why we believe what we believe and then checked it with the Bible, and actually see of our beliefs are more compatible with the Bible than yours? Have you actually done that, or do you just go off of what someone said to you who also heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone and on and on.

Hence she is not out to attack you, she is out to shame and expose the lies of the devil via the catholic church.

No she is actually doing the devil's work by speaking against Christ's church. Or can you prove that the Church Christ founded isn't the Catholic church. I would like you to provide support for this and please make sense out of it. Simply saying that the Catholic church is of the devil doesn't make it true. Prove it.

Muslims claim that the quran is the Word of God and we know that isn't true. Simply stating that something is something doesn't actually make it so. If you cannot back up your claims stop leading other people's souls into perdition.

- Yes the bible opposes the catholic church

No it doesn't, please learn how to back up your assertion.
Make sure that you have ombed thru the Bible and that it opposes the Church.

the bible is our manual on how to get to heaven, church program is not, church loyalty is not and church activity is not.

So Jesus left us a manual or better yet, before the Bible was written and put together what was the manual the early christians used or did they not make it heaven because they didn't have the manual?

According to by bible alone

Bible alone is not even biblical, I've proven this. According to Bible alone the early christians didn't make it to heaven because they didn't have a Bible.

there was no central church after the ascension of the Messiah, instead wat existed where separate ancient churches located in separate geological locations (sardis, philadelphia etc) that were being graded and sustain based on their direct connection to the Messiah Himself and not on their connection to any so called central church administration. The church in Jerusalem was not controlling any other church.

There is a central church, if there was no central church, Paul couldn't send his greetings from another church to the other. If the Church's had no connection to each other, the council of Jerusalem in Acts would be false. Seriously your logic makes no sense, prove that the other churches in the Bible were not aware of each other, and that they did not share the same beliefs, and that they weren't in communion with each other.

Even the Messiah Himself did not refer to the 7 separate churches in revelation as branches of a single church. Instead the Messiah refered to them as separate independent churches that are not under the control of any other church - and funny enough not one of those churches was even called the catholic church

Where does Christ say those Churches were separate independent churches not under the control of any other church?
Apparently you don't know what Catholic means.

From the Bible, we have a single spiritual church (i.e. the Bride of the Messiah) at the same time as different and separate physically administered and de-centralised churches (e.g. galatian church, thessalonica church, roman church, corinthian church, philadelphia church, sardis church etc).

Just as we have the Roman Church, the Armenian Church, the Jerusalem Church, the Egyptian church, the Ethipian church, and so on. All you just did was prove the Catholic church. Or is it that you do not know what Catholic means? _{I am stating this in hopes that you would be smart enough to look up the definition of Catholic}

Paul was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).

Who said Paul was a Pope?

4. Peter was never a Pope (this is clear from the Bible).

Actually it is very clear that Peter was a Pope and the very first Pope for that matter. Afterall he was the only one who received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:16-19), and he's the only one whose shadows heal (Acts 5:15), he's also the one who gave the final say at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12), and he's also the only one Christ prayed for for his faith to never fail (Luke 22:31-32), he's also the only one who received the charge to "feed my sheep" by Christ. He's also the only one told by Christ to strengthen his brethren, he's also the only one that the whole church prayed for when he was imprisoned. Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14).
Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority (Acts 5:3).

So you see dear there is overwhelming evidence in the Bible that Peter was the leader of the apostles, check with biblical scholars and they will tell you that. Since he's the leader of the apostles, it means he's the first Pope.

However all you guys do is make claims upon claims upon claims and throw your own opinion in there as if your opinion is perfect on the matters of faith

That settles it then that Peter was never a Pope, since you yourself admit that the bible says nothing about Peter's connection to Rome.

Rome is not a requirement for the Pope, If Peter were to have been Bishop in Nigeria and died there, Nigeria would be the location of the Pope's office. Location has nothing to do with whether or not Peter was the Pope. The power lies in the person not the location. Jesus gave Peter authority not Rome. When the Pope is in the U.S. he is still the Pope, if he decides to reside in Kaduna he will still be the Pope. Location has nothing to do with it. Peter does not have to be in Rome for him to be Pope.
And even at that, do you mind telling me where 1&2 Peter was written. Peter wrote them, where was he writing from?

~Lady~:

Rome is not a requirement for the Pope, If Peter were to have been Bishop in Nigeria and died there, Nigeria would be the location of the Pope's office. Location has nothing to do with whether or not Peter was the Pope. The power lies in the person not the location. Jesus gave Peter authority not Rome. When the Pope is in the U.S. he is still the Pope, if he decides to reside in Kaduna he will still be the Pope. Location has nothing to do with it. Peter does not have to be in Rome for him to be Pope.
And even at that, do you mind telling me where 1&2 Peter was written. Peter wrote them, where was he writing from?

Does the location of where he was writing from make him a pope? You're arguing away from location having anything to do with the papacy, and then asking about the same thing on location as if that has anything to do with being a pope.

@~Lady~,

~Lady~:

Please stop reading into my posts what isn't there. I don't stress my point as you do doesn't make me unreasonable. I am completely reasonable, I have very low tolerance for those who refuse to use logic in discussions and those who claim to be open minded but are extrememly close minded. Making assertions about the Catholic church without doing your research and checking every angle is actually very illogical and proves the lack of open mindedness.

How does your hasty illogical ranting address your own claim? Reading what the quotes say precisely is one thing, trying to bend it to be Catholic by default is quite another thing. I haven't seen the dots connected in yours and it would be of great help to yourself to bring it forth.

~Lady~:

So please do not come and tell me to be open minded when you yourself are not being open minded. If you were being open minded we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

I was open minded, sad you closed your mind and tried to bend everything you read back to catholicism. Being open minded is the reason why people engage in a discussion, not the other way round as you supposed.

~Lady~:

You stated that the writers of the Bible are not catholic, I said they are.

That's okay - and up until now NO CATHOLIC has come forward to show anywhere that the writers of the Bible were Catholics. NONE. Even Catholic sources do not make such an otiose claim.

~Lady~:

I also replied to tpiah when he stated that the egyptian copts, armenians, and greek orthodox were not catholic.

That's not my problem - we were all having a fine discussion until you came in with your noise.

~Lady~:

You came in to MY reply (not omenuko's reply) and said that they are not a part of the Catholic church, I proceeded to list the churches that comprise the catholic church.

I appreciate your listing them out; yet it still does not establish the basic claim that all churches were "part of" the Catholic Church until the schisms. Even here again in your reply, you're driving that assertion and bending everything back t catholicism as if it made any difference anyhow whether it was tpiah or omenuko that you were addressing.

~Lady~:

Then you came up to ME and replied to ME (not Omenuko) about the Assyrian church. I was not in the conversation with you and Omenuko, I was talking about what you were replying to me, not what you and omenuko were replying to each other.

I saw all that - which was reason why I repeatedly called your attention to the fact that the claim by Catholics that ALL CHURCHES were part of Catholicism (of 'Catholic Church') is false. If the problem was about criss-crosses in replies between you, myself, tpiah and omenuko, what difference does it make who was making that same claim anyhow?

~Lady~:

That does not concern me. As far as I was concerned I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, Greek orthodox, and Armenians, and you were talking about the Assyrians. If you have a conversation with Omenuko about the assyrian church you should've replied that post to him, and not to me.

Okay, my apologies.

~Lady~:

Lady, you got yourself confused, because I wasn't talking about ALL CHURCHES being Catholic before the schism, even though that is true. I was talking about the Egyptian Copts, the Armenians, and the Greek Orthodox, so I was very surprised when you showed up with Assyrian church. I stayed on the specifics that tpiah was talking about. So maybe you should go back and read and see that I didn't even reply to anything you said to Omenuko. I was not in that convo, you dragged me in it. Maybe YOU should take the time to clear your head and make sure that you're replying to the right person.

My thinking was clear enough - yours still misses its screws somewhere and I'm wondering how else you could be helped beyond this point. Now let's observe yet again the basic assumption of Catholic minds (if you will):

[list]

~Lady~:

because I wasn't talking about ALL CHURCHES being Catholic before the schism, even though that is true.

[/list]

That's where the problem actually is, and the same thing that has brought us thus far - the claim that "ALL CHURCHES were Catholic before the schism" is unfounded and patently false. Several sources I referenced pointed this out, such as the BBC in brief - and you came back dismissing them for not reading the default false assertion you had hoped they would! Anything that does not read "Catholic" or catholicism to you is illogical, whereas we haven't seen any clues about how strong your 'logic' is to bend those references to say what they do not say.

For this reason, I left a couple of questions to help sort this issue out for Catholics on Nairaland, viz:

   1. What exactly in your understanding was the 'Catholic Church'?

   2. What do you mean by 'they were part of one church (aka the Catholic Church)' ?

   3. Where's the papacy in all these churches?

   4. which church among them had jurisdiction over them, since they were all 'one church'?

WHY are Catholics on this forum shying away from these questions? Where do we find "Catholicism" in ALL CHURCHES from the very start?

If you may, please offer some answers or pointers and let's discuss - it doesn't matter what logic you claim, just address them and let's sort these misadventures out for many Catholics on this forum.

Cheers.

~Lady~:

Oh so I'm the idiot and close minded person because I'm the Catholic. You didn't even realise that Pilgrim confused me and Omenuko. She didn't even know who she was replying to, something she should've replied to Omenuko she replied to me. I was talking about one thing she was talking about the other and I'm the close minded person because I'm the Catholic.

There again - does it hurt you badly to calm down and discuss? I'm wondering, because as far as No2Atheism addressed you, I don't see where he referred to you as an idiot. What has necessitated this?

~Lady~:

And for your information I wasn't born into the Catholic faith I converted after reading my Bible and actually agreed to allow God to show me what is in the Bible and what he's actually saying. Instead of forcing what makes sense to me in the Bible. Yes that's right I was one of you.

Aww, puhleease! We've been asking Catholics for ages to address questions on Catholicism from the Bible and it takes forever for them to do so - not to even mention how Catholics today are not so sure who's actually following the faith and who's the heretic in Catholicism. One of us indeed.

~Lady~:

For all I'm concerned you guys are the ones with the blinded faith and many converts to Catholicism will tell you that.

It doesn't matter what 'many' Catholics say about others. Catholic history is rife with testimonies of how strongly they've made their point by murdering non-Catholics.

~Lady~:

Do yourself a favour look up Dr. Scott Hahn, he was a protestant theologian, he taught in seminaries until he decided to read his Bible well. Today he is one of the defenders of the Catholic faith.

Would you also be willing to consider the testimonies of those who were once staunch Catholics - like Richard Bennett and Mary Ann Collins? These, among many others, have also read their Bibles well and are not interesting in defending any "system" or "-isms".

~Lady~:

Have you actually taken your time to study the Catholic faith, to try to understand why we believe what we believe and then checked it with the Bible, and actually see of our beliefs are more compatible with the Bible than yours? Have you actually done that, or do you just go off of what someone said to you who also heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone who heard from someone and on and on.

I can speak for myself - my discussions are not based on hearsays, which is why in many instances I often go back to well articulated Catholic sources.

~Lady~:
No she is actually doing the devil's work by speaking against Christ's church. Or can you prove that the Church Christ founded isn't the Catholic church. I would like you to provide support for this and please make sense out of it. Simply saying that the Catholic church is of the devil doesn't make it true. Prove it.

Thank you, anyone who points out anything about Catholicism must by default be doing the devil's work. I hear. I guess when another Catholic on Nairaland blistered your brand of Catholicism, he must have been doing a more serious work for the devil by not referring to Vatican type of Catholicism as "Christ's church", eh? 

~Lady~:

Muslims claim that the quran is the Word of God and we know that isn't true. Simply stating that something is something doesn't actually make it so. If you cannot back up your claims stop leading other people's souls into perdition.

Good advice highlighted up there, but do you take it yourself?

~Lady~:

So Jesus left us a manual or better yet, before the Bible was written and put together what was the manual the early christians used or did they not make it heaven because they didn't have the manual?

No church programme will save any soul - that was his point.

~Lady~:

There is a central church, if there was no central church, Paul couldn't send his greetings from another church to the other. If the Church's had no connection to each other, the council of Jerusalem in Acts would be false. Seriously your logic makes no sense, prove that the other churches in the Bible were not aware of each other, and that they did not share the same beliefs, and that they weren't in communion with each other.

There was no "central church" and sending greeting from one church to another does not establish the idea of a "central church". Yes, the churches had a fellowship among themselves but the council in Jerusalem does not establish the idea of a "central church" either. In Acts 15 it is clear that the one reason why the apostles went to Jerusalem was because those who were teaching error had come from that same place - "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls" (v. 24).

~Lady~:

Where does Christ say those Churches were separate independent churches not under the control of any other church?

Did Christ say anywhere that any Church was under the control of another church? How about you try Revelation 2 and 3 where He addressed the seven churches in Asia - did He make one church to be in control of another church in any verse of those chapters?

~Lady~:

Apparently you don't know what Catholic means.

Please tell us what it means. . . and by extension, show us how 'Catholic' meant that Roman Catholicism had authority over all churches.

~Lady~:

Just as we have the Roman Church, the Armenian Church, the Jerusalem Church, the Egyptian church, the Ethipian church, and so on. All you just did was prove the Catholic church. Or is it that you do not know what Catholic means? _{I am stating this in hopes that you would be smart enough to look up the definition of Catholic}

Show us what the term Catholic means na. . or should we ask that same question in another language?

~Lady~:

Actually it is very clear that Peter was a Pope and the very first Pope for that matter. Afterall he was the only one who received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:16-19), and he's the only one whose shadows heal (Acts 5:15), he's also the one who gave the final say at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12), and he's also the only one Christ prayed for for his faith to never fail (Luke 22:31-32), he's also the only one who received the charge to "feed my sheep" by Christ. He's also the only one told by Christ to strengthen his brethren, he's also the only one that the whole church prayed for when he was imprisoned. Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel (Acts 2:14).
Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority (Acts 5:3).

So you see dear there is overwhelming evidence in the Bible that Peter was the leader of the apostles, check with biblical scholars and they will tell you that. Since he's the leader of the apostles, it means he's the first Pope.

That was no "overwhelming" evidence to make Peter the leader of the apostles. First, the reference you quoted (Acts 15:12) said that the multitude kept silent so as to listen to Barnabas and Paul, not that the verse made Peter leader of the apostles. Infact, it was not even Peter who presided at the Jerusalem council - it was the apostle James, marked by his statements:

       "James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me" (Acts 15:13)

       "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them" (Acts 15:19)

Peter did not preside over that meeting. . . nada. However, even Paul himself did not place Peter as first in those he mentioned as "pillars" in Galatians 2:9 - he rather mentioned JAMES before Peter and John; and he made clear that he was speaking of all three of them, and not just about one person when he used the term "pillar[b]s[/b]".

~Lady~:

However all you guys do is make claims upon claims upon claims and throw your own opinion in there as if your opinion is perfect on the matters of faith

Sorry if that bothers you, but we don't try to make our opinions or anybody's "perfect" on matters of faith - neither is yours. The point in all this is simple: Catholics make assertions, have not been able to show them from the Bible, some who try yet do not come even close to proving their point, and we are still waiting for answers to be forthcoming. The claims made by many Catholics for Catholicism are erroneous, and that is why people still ask questions and offer their own pointers.