nuclearboy:

Give a scriptural backing for ANY of the above or else you just accepted that you guys created a new brand of Christianity separate from what the Apostles practiced which is simply what this thread is about. You sought to change the WORD OF GOD, HIS LAWS and THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES. You also brought in DOCTRINES UNKNOWN TO THE APOSTLES.

Lol, nuclearboy, I don't think this is the way to go. I had a hunch earlier that it seems this was polarising towards a fist against Catholics; and (hoping I was wrong) it should not necessarily serve that end. This was why I earlier hinted that -

IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent

. . and by extension, I'm persuaded that many of us outside the Catholic system have our own problems or areas of departure from what we idealize as the Christianity that the 'Apostles practiced'.

I'd wager that many of us do not even know what 'Apostolic Christianity' actually is - and we can only be content with what has come down to us today. Let me even go as far as to say that we should sometimes have respect for the Catholic institution today: there's no denying the fact that Catholic scholarship has proven to be immensely beneficial to many of us who would have been groping aimlessly in our faith without such invaluable heritage from them.

Let's no turn this thread into another 'us versus Catholics' saga - there are several threads already where such wrestlings have been staged ('staged' - perhaps for the entertainment of bemused onlookers who wonder how the 'children of God' could drop all grace and trade fists on one another's faces). Instead, we might share on the subjects you had highlighted about relationships. What do you say?

viaro:

Lol, nuclearboy, I don't think this is the way to go. I had a hunch earlier that it seems this was polarising towards a fist against Catholics; and (hoping I was wrong) it should not necessarily serve that end. This was why I earlier hinted that - . . and by extension, I'm persuaded that many of us outside the Catholic system have our own problems or areas of departure from what we idealize as the Christianity that the 'Apostles practiced'.

I don't think the problem is only the catholic church, but the catholic church is the first major and biggest christian denomination that started the dilution and distortion of true christianity as inspired by christ and started by the apostles. These distotrtions grew over the centuries and some of their heretic teachings came to be established as doctrine over a long period of time, a good example of this is the false doctrine of tithes introduced to christianity in 585AD and was distorted from the biblical example and used to extort money from believers. This heretic practise has gained popularity in several churches and some are nore arguing wether it should be before or after tax and whether it should include other incomes ot not and even gifts. Of cos these arguments would always come up becos it is not grounded in sound scripture. That apart even as we speak charlatans especially in the pentecostal/ word of faith movement continue to introduce all sorts of heresies into christianity everyday claiming Go spoke to them directly to introduce those jargons. A good example of this is annointing oil popularized by Oledepo a few years ago cand selling it at a premium to the gullible public claiming God revealed it to him. Some sell "miracle handkerchiefs" claiming God directed them to, others insist all members must speak in twisted tongues whether they have the gift or not, others routinely give false/ vague prophesies and of course "prosperity gospel" which people like as been firmly established in christiandom as unbiblical as it is. The rot goes on so that is why a movement must be started to return christians to christ devoid of church establishment who have completely lost there focus.

Mavenb0x:

All right, bro. I may not write a lot at the moment but I can say a bit for now:
From a bird's eye view, the simplest perspective to Christian relationships is to compare with God's relationship with man
Wooing => Jesus' teaching, living by example
Proposal => Jesus' death and resurrection, offer of eternal life
Acceptance => Salvation by faith in Christ
Courtship => A steady walk with the Holy Spirit
Going out, spending time together to understand one another => Diligent Word Study
Constant communication => Prayer
Marriage => Jesus' return for the Church

Nice try. . .you left out consummation of the marriage?What is the analogy to that ?

Nice try. . .you left out consummation of the marriage?What is the analogy to that ?

@illusion2: LOL the consummation of the marriage? I must confess I cannot say that in specific detail, as the details of our fellowship with Christ at the end of time are not known, at least to me. Cheers.

Mavenb0x:

@illusion2: LOL the consummation of the marriage? I must confess I cannot say that in specific detail, as the details of our fellowship with Christ at the end of time are not known, at least to me. Cheers.

Probably earthly marriage isn't entirely analogous to the relationship btw the church and christ then ?

illusion2:

Probably earthly marriage isn't entirely analogous to the relationship btw the church and christ then ?

Another fine point I had imagined about the analogy earlier: 'There are very many questions about relationships in Christianity that cannot be answered by that comparison.'

KunleOshob:

I don't think the problem is only the catholic church, but the catholic church is the first major and biggest christian denomination that started the dilution and distortion of true christianity as inspired by christ and started by the apostles. These distotrtions grew over the centuries and some of their heretic teachings came to be established as doctrine over a long period of time, a good example of this is the false doctrine of tithes introduced to christianity in 585AD and was distorted from the biblical example and used to extort money from believers. This heretic practise has gained popularity in several churches and some are nore arguing wether it should be before or after tax and whether it should include other incomes ot not and even gifts. Of cos these arguments would always come up becos it is not grounded in sound scripture. That apart even as we speak charlatans especially in the pentecostal/ word of faith movement continue to introduce all sorts of heresies into christianity everyday claiming Go spoke to them directly to introduce those jargons. A good example of this is annointing oil popularized by Oledepo a few years ago cand selling it at a premium to the gullible public claiming God revealed it to him. Some sell "miracle handkerchiefs" claiming God directed them to, others insist all members must speak in twisted tongues whether they have the gift or not, others routinely give false/ vague prophesies and of course "prosperity gospel" which people like as been firmly established in christiandom as unbiblical as it is. The rot goes on so that is why a movement must be started to return christians to christ devoid of church establishment who have completely lost there focus.

Lol, I had a premonition that you would not be done until 'tithes' featured in your replies. The Biblical faith is far more than worries over that - and when one subject becomes the bigger issue that defines a believer's faith, something is wrong somewhere.

Viaro &Illusion: I am sorry if you didnt seem to get me. The OUTLINE helps to answer questions via comparison of human experience of Love with the Divine experience, and not that the ANALOGY has fine print answering all questions. Similar to how the Old Testament is an outline that helps to understand God's plan, but is only a shadow until the NT explains it all. If the OT is a map telling where to find the panacea of salvation, the NT yields THAT panacea. I hope you understand. Thanks.

^^^No problem. Let's progress the thread.

Now lets suppose the version you heard puts another name as the second pope after Peter. The web after-all allows anyone put whatever information they wish on it.beings

?


Like you said the web actually allows anyone to put up anything that's why wikipedia is regarded as the most reliable website in the world because it's contents can be chalenged by any one with facts ,it is also open to thelogians both catholic and protestant alike.To find out who was the first pope we have to go back to the writings of the early church fathers who gave us the bible.

Ireneaus of lyons was an early christian bishop of lyon in today's france,he is regarded as an unbroken link in the apostles heritage since he learnt from Polycarp of smyrna who was privilged to hear from the apostle John himself.

Writing in 175CE more than 100 years before the birth and ascension of emperor constantine states in his work Against heresies

:

When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles. He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes -- and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement's time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, which declared one almighty God, maker of heaven and earth and fashioner of man, who brought out the people from the land of Egypt; who spoke with Moses; who ordained the Law and sent the Prophets; and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who care to can learn from this Writing that he was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is older than those present false teachers who make up lies about another God above the Demiurge and maker of all things that are. (3.3[/i],
,
[i]"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (160-220 CE)
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

dionosius bishop of corinth in 170CE writes

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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid
-st ignatius of antioch to the smyrmeans 107CE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

This is more than 200 years before the ascension of constantine

cyprian of carthage writing in 256CE STATES

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." [/i]Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

[i]It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing, When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria, Linus , was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325

Your decision that Mary is the Mother of God

Is Jesus not God,if mary is the mother of Jesus then it threfore follows that she is the mother of God,it is just like saying Yaradua's mother is the mother of yaradua but not the nother of a president.Afterall Elizabeth under the influence iof the holy spirit called Mary the mother of my Lord

The Idols you set up everywhere when plainly the Torah states "MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGES"? Your insistence that a wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus simply because a priest mumbled over it ? Where do you get purgatory from? And there are dozens more of issues like this

did the same torah not tell you that God commanded moses to make GRAVEN IMAGES of the bronze serpent and the winged creatures?Did Solomon not decorate the temple with winged cratures and his throne with graven images of lions

could you please describe the appearance of the holies of holies,did it not contain winged creatures.

God merely commanded us not to WORSHIP graven images ,he never meant we should not make graven images.
By the way if you go to the national stadium in lagos you will see graven image of sam okwaraji,does it mean nigerians now worship images ?

Abot purgatory, like the trinity it was not explicitly stated but was implied in a no of bible passages most especially1 pet 3:19,1 cor 15:29 ,e.t.c
for more see
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

About the eucharist besides the fact that it was explicitly stated in the gospel of John and the epistle of paul let me give you this quote from st ignatious of Antioch who was privileged to hear from the apostles .

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1[i][/i]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

for more on eucharist see the link below

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

Viaro:

I get your point and accept much of your correction

However, why do we have people defending church doctrines rather than Christ? Seems to me the height of insincerity. I agree the RCC made its own contributions and today, they remain the greatest "helper" ministry on earth providing livelihood, scholarship etc to a myriad of young people. And there was the assertion that I was lying - Is it possible yesternight was Judgment day and Chukwudi44 was Jehovah Almighty?

Still, it needs be said that it was under their "reign" that most of the other movements started and that mainly to protest so many issues. This thread was meant to show that whist we all seem to have our own "Christianities" today, the beginning was united and the Word of God is one.

Chukwudi44:

The above clarifies my desire for this thread. I will answer only one of the defenses you've just put forward now. Mary the Mother of God issue - True, Yaradua's mum is mother to the President but she is not the mother of Nigeria. Do you see the difference? Sweeping statements like the Mother of God issue are making Christianity a subject of scorn. Remember that Mary gave birth to other Children. I can just imagine Tudor showing up here and saying Joseph cuckolded God. That is the result of such statements

viaro:

Let's no turn this thread into another 'us versus Catholics' saga - there are several threads already where such wrestlings have been staged ('staged' - perhaps for the entertainment of bemused onlookers who wonder how the 'children of God' could drop all grace and trade fists on one another's faces). Instead, we might share on the subjects you had highlighted about relationships. What do you say?

Oga mi: I concur

Mavenbox: We're waiting on you. And whist yes, you've not specified consummation within the scope of your notes on relationship, I think you've at least shown one area that we can accept as "settled" i.e. premarital sex.

So yes, let's progress the thread

nuclearboy:

Mavenbox: We're waiting on you. And whist yes, you've not specified consummation within the scope of your notes on relationship, I think you've at least shown one area that we can accept as "settled" i.e. premarital sex.

So yes, let's progress the thread

Who said pre-marital sex was settled

Yaradua's mum is mother to the President but she is not the mother of Nigeria.

I never in my analogy stated that Yaradua's mum is the mother of Nigeria.

Remember that Mary gave birth to other Children.

Please Jesus was the only child Mary Had.

James the just and his brothers were children of mary's sister not biological children of Mary.

James the just,the author of the epistle of James in the bible and the first bishop of Jerusalem was one of the most influential christian leaders of the first century,Paul called him alongside Peter and John the pillars of the church.
His younger brother Jude another supposed brother of Jesus in the epistle of Jude called himself the brother of James and a slave of the Lord Jesus.Note here he did not say he was the brother of Jesus and James,but rather the brother of James and a slave of the Lord Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

For the official list of popes se the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

I don't think the problem is only the catholic church, but the catholic church is the first major and biggest christian denomination that started the dilution and distortion of true christianity as inspired by christ and started by the apostles

I don't know what You mean by dilution and distortion of christianity,but know this by the second century the catholics were not the only christian sect existing,they were the only ones that survived. Between the first 400 years of christianity we had sects like the nicolaitans,marcionites ,valientinians,montanists,arians,donatists e.t.c

By the second century major groups like the marcionites -followers of Marcion of Sinope and the valentinians -followers of valantinus were serious rivals to the catholic church.Also in the 3rd and 4th century sects like the donatists and the arians seriously competed with the catholic form of christianity.

Just like gamaliel told the pharasees in acts,whatever is not of God will ultimately disapear,these groups withered away and finally died off after the deaths of their founders.

Even after the so called reformation has the catholic church really slowed down?70% of catholics todays are in nations that were evangelised after the reformation.

The catholic form of christianity (Roman and orthodox) still constitute almost 70% of the world'schristian population,
what happens is just that the opposition to catholicism keeps changing with each one claiming to have been selected by God.

Between the time of moses to the comming of Jesus was less than 1400 years,but from the death of the last Apostle to the protestant reformation was more than 1400 years ,and this is after the death of the messiah that was supposed to liberate us from bondage.

Are you people now implying that the messiah now came to increase our sufferings? were in the scriptures was this foretold? The babylonian exile that was to last just 70 years was foretold by daniel ,how come Jesus did not say anything about the supposed destruction of the church just few decades after his death ? why did he say that in mattew 16 that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church when he knew the church would only last for a few decades?

The Roman catholic church is either divine or diaboical and if diabolical nothing good is expected to come from it and this include the scriptures or anything that has to do with it.It remains a historical fact that no other christian sect has contributed to christianity like the roman catholic church.

The catholic chuch has not been perfect any way,so was the ancient isreal,the chosen race, they committed worse atrocities than the catholics ever did ,yet that did not take away the promise of God to Jacob.
Almost all the Isreali kings were worshippers of baal or other gods .On the other with the exception of a few popes more than 80% of the popes were faithful to the true teachings of christ.

The catholic church is not perfect so is the other christian denominations including the pentecostals that makes the highest noise

The few mistakes the catholic church has done over the ages will not take away Jesus's promise to Peter.

@Chukwudi44:

I thought you said Mary was the mama of the Lord God Almighty. How is that possible if Yaradua's mummy is not the mama of Nigeria? Mary gave birth to the Human "fleshed" Jesus who refused worship till he rose again; as Mavenbox would call it, the actor Jesus, a mirror image (lateral inversion, if you like) not the Spirit and Power of Creation.

Your official list of Popes is interesting. However, the Bible says that Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Considering that every single "pope" has been a gentile, Paul ought to be the first pope. But you wanted a claim to the keys of the kingdom of heaven so Peter it had to be!

Did you notice your comment about the RCC "form" of Christianity? Thats the problem here. There are no forms of Christianity. This thread said the RCC created its own form. You rejected that assertion. Yet now and in even stronger words, you state it yourself. And you mention the Nicolaitans, Marcionites, etc. Some historical literature state that the Bishops of Rome had not only their leaderships and manifestations wiped out but even 3 of the ten tribes of Europe as well. You guys had military power that you utilized and now you say they disappeared because they were not of God. But they did cos they were not of the RCC "form"

I would like to keep this thread on track. However, if you would like to see a true attack on your RCC, I will oblige you. Again I say, it is not right we allow atheists and Muslim ridicule the God we serve because of our own pride. Accept that you formed your own particular style and felt naming Peter as your founder/first pope gave you a feeling of legitimacy or do not even accept. But please allow us show there is only one way that Christ showed and it is not found in ANY denomination or "form". It is an individual Spiritual worship of God "for such does the Lord seek".

Let me return to the issue of Mary's Children: Mark 6:3 says "Isn't this the Carpenter?Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James and Joseph? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him".
Take a look at Matt 13: 55- 56.
Then at Luke 8: 19 -20.
Then at John 2:12.

Twould be nice to see what the Vulgate has to say about this?

Yeah chukwudi, you really have a lot of explaining to to do i hope you don't resort to pentecostal tactics of twisting scripture to justify a position

I thought you said Mary was the mama of the Lord God Almighty. How is that possible if Yaradua's mummy is not the mama of Nigeria? Mary gave birth to the Human "fleshed" Jesus who refused worship till he rose again; as Mavenbox would call it, the actor Jesus, a mirror image (lateral inversion, if you like) not the Spirit and Power of Creation

Simple question the child Mary gave birth to was it Man or God?
When a woman gives birth to a baby she is called the mother of the child ,when Mary gives birth to God(Jesus),why should she not be called themother of God The only way mary would not be called the mother of God would be if Jesus ceases to be God.

By the way who told you Jesus was not worshipped even before his crucification?It was recoded in the gospel of mattew that he was worshipped by the three wise men in matt 2:11.
Where did you get the impression Jesus refused worship before his resurection,?you are trying to bring up another form of heresy.

Your official list of Popes is interesting. However, the Bible says that Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Considering that every single "pope" has been a gentile, Paul ought to be the first pope. But you wanted a claim to the keys of the kingdom of heaven so Peter it had to be

The acts of the apostles had it that both Peter ,Paul and the rest of the apostles actually ministered to jews and gentiles alike,Peter actually preached in lydda and Jopa,antioch,Rome and other gentile territories.Paul himself preached in jerusalem and also preached to the jews in gentile teritories.

So in the real sense no one can be said to be restricted to only jews or gentiles.Mind you st Paul of tarsus despite his enormous contribution to christianity was not actually among the twelve and can not be said to be an apostle.

James the just,the supposed brother of Jesus was even more influential than Paul in the first century.


in Rev 21:14 the walls of the city has twelve stones on which was written the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb.

AS you can see from the above quote ,the no of the apostles was definite twelve and not thirteen

Chukwudi. . . just as an aside, considering the history of the church can you justify the dogma of papal infallibility. . .

Did you notice your comment about the RCC "form" of Christianity? Thats the problem here. There are no forms of Christianity. This thread said the RCC created its own form. You rejected that assertion. Yet now and in even stronger words, you state it yourself. And you mention the Nicolaitans, Marcionites, etc. Some historical literature state that the Bishops of Rome had not only their leaderships and manifestations wiped out but even 3 of the ten tribes of Europe as well. You guys had military power that you utilized and now you say they disappeared because they were not of God. But they did cos they were not of the RCC "form"

I would like to keep this thread on track. However, if you would like to see a true attack on your RCC, I will oblige you. Again I say, it is not right we allow atheists and Muslim ridicule the God we serve because of our own pride. Accept that you formed your own particular style and felt naming Peter as your founder/first pope gave you a feeling of legitimacy or do not even accept. But please allow us show there is only one way that Christ showed and it is not found in ANY denomination or "form". It is an individual Spiritual worship of God "for such does the Lord seek

ol boy,the facts are very clear,the early church fathers who gave us the bible has said it all,if you have your facts you can challenge their writings on wikipedia ,that's what makes it an interesting website.Otherwise just keep your mouth shut.Your claim that constantine was the first pope has been defeated because obviously he was never pope and never pretended to be one,besides the seat has existed for almost three centuries before his ascention tas emperor of the roman empire.

To challenge their writing you will have to quote someone who lived in the first four centuries of christianity challenging the position of Peter as the first bishop of Rome.It was universally acknowleged in the first 1500 years of christianity that Peter was the first bishop of Rome before martin luther challenged in in the 16th century.No body challenged that claim not even in the 1st and 2nd centuries which was just decades after his death and which had living witnesses of these events

The authourity of the church was vested in the person of st Peter in mattew 16:18 Jesus specifically told him " You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it,I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on eart is loosed in heaven.

Also in John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Thus the authourity was on Peter and not Paul or any other apostle

Let me return to the issue of Mary's Children: Mark 6:3 says "Isn't this the Carpenter?Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James and Joseph? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him".
Take a look at Matt 13: 55- 56.
Then at Luke 8: 19 -20.
Then at John 2:12

I will address these with these bible quotations by considering the women that where with Jesus at the ntime of his cruciication and death
in mattew27;54

we have mary magdalene,mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of zebedee

in mark 15:40 we have Mary magdalene,mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph and salome.

in luke24;10 we have mary magddalene,and joana and mary the mother of James

in John 19:25 we have his mother,and his mothers sister MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS

From the foregoing you can see very clearly that the mother of James,joseph and their brothers was actually MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS,THE SISTER TO THE MOTHER OF JESUS AND NOT THE MOTHER OF JESUS HIMSELF.So in reality ,James,Joseph and their brothers were actually cousins of Jesus and not his uterine brothers .The word brother was used because there was no greek word for cousin then .

I would like to keep this thread on track. However, if you would like to see a true attack on your RCC, I will oblige you. Again I say, it is not right we allow atheists and Muslim ridicule the God we serve because of our own pride

ol boy if you want us to argue this till thy kingdom come then I am very ready for you,and I can assure you I have enough weapons in my arsenal for this.Atheists and muslims were created by the sme God as us and they will face the same judgementa s us if they like they can ridicule their own God.

Insert Quote

Chukwudi. . . just as an aside, considering the history of the church can you justify the dogma of papal infallibility

The dogma of papal infallibility does not mean that the pope is immune from sin or making mistakes,to understand the implication of this dogma see the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

@Chukwudi44:
Strange that your defense is of man and not God. But I forget the Pope is the representative of God on earth. The Vicar of the Son of God. You sit self-righteous claiming no-one stood against your "form" of christianity for 15 hundred years forgetting that those who history documents as doing so died at the stake, or were used for arrow target practice or boiled alive or had stones tied around their necks and drowned. Ever heard of the Dark ages and the inquisition?

I still maintain this thread is meant to show that there remains a true Christianity practiced by the Apostles and early Christians which didn't involve swords or the combination of Religious and Political Power as your Mother church exhibited.

Why are you so fraudulent about those who were with Jesus, I quoted Matt 13 and you now tell us who was with Jesus in Matt 27. Where do you find Mark 15 in my post? Or Luke 24? Or John 19? Is it possible you use the bible to show me that it was the wife of cleopas in Matt 13. Hey, I just remembered. It was a number of Pigs that were with Jesus when the Gadarene Demoniac was cured. Maybe their leaders were the ones nailed to the left and right of Jesus. Those pigs were thieves too, you know, as they stole the man's demons and ran off clapping with them! Maybe it was the leader of the pigs called "chuks4ever" that was crucified on the left of Jesus just as the wife of Cleopas is suddenly transubtutated (?) to Matt 13! One can never trust the Bible to tell the truth about the real people with Jesus, you know! Only the RCC can interpret.

And unlike the Popes, I know no-one who lived in the 1st 4 centuries. These "successors" to His Holiness, Pope Simon Peter the Immaculate disciple of Jesus knew those who lived then and boiled them all alive destroying all their testimony so mainly only the writings the Holy Killers allowed to remain stayed. They are your church fathers including such as the celibate Borgia Pope who fathered such as Lucrezia.

Finally yes, Paul was not among the 12. Judas Iscariot was the 12th and his name is written in your Rev 21:14. Hopefully and IJN, you'll be under Judas wing and share his room in the hereafter as his PA, abi?

Well, what can I say? I feared from the onset that this thread would polarise towards a issues certered around Catholcism.

Dear chukwudi44, I now understand that as Catholic, you're passionate to defend your group-identity. That's no problem to me at all. However, it is quite worrisome that your defence rests on very weak inferences and shallow conjectures that are uninformed. Please don't read that as accusatory; but let me draw just one example out of several -

chukwudi44:

Mind you st Paul of tarsus despite his enormous contribution to christianity was not actually among the twelve and can not be said to be an apostle.

There are two arguments in one statement you have put up there:

(a) Paul was not among the Twelve

(b) Paul was not an apostle

The first statement in (a) above is true, that Paul was not numbered among the Twelve. However, the second statement in (b) is patently false, for Paul was an apostle. Your argument to the contrary makes us wonder what you make of the fact that we often read of Paul as an apostle in the New Testament. In fact, Acts 14:14 there were two who were named apostles besides the twelve - "the apostle[b]s[/b], Barnabas and Paul" (note 'apostles' is in plural and applies to them both, Barnabas and Paul, which if added to the Twelve brings the number to fourteen).

Your argument denying the apostleship of Paul is twofold:

(i) that there were Twelve apostles - which means there could not have been more than twelve; and if that is the case, then the argument is refuted by Acts 14:14 that recognizes both Barnabas and Paul, making the number of apostles up to fourteen (and there are many more);

(ii) that the names of the twelve apostles are inferred in Revelation 21:14, and therefore there could not be more than 'twelve'? That again is does not mean that only twelve apostles existed all through the Christian Church, for a number of reasons:

~ the apostles which are gifts to the Church according to Ephesians 4:11 are said to be after the resurrection; the Twelve we read of were called in the Gospels before the Crucifixion;

~ Revelation is not speaking literally but rather symbolically; so there's no reason to think that there were literally twelve apostles, otherwise also in that Revelation 21 we should say that the Lamb is to literally marry a city according to verse 9 and 10.

~ even more to the point is that in the Gospels 'the Twelve' apostles included Judas; in which case, in as much as Peter recognized this fact in Acts 1:17, are you saying that Judas was one of the names of the apostles in Revelation 21:14?


All this just shows that your arguments are quite strained and your defences are weak since you're using very untrue assertions to make your point in favour of Catholicism. One would have hoped that you could hold your views about your own church soundly without denying what is so, so obvious.

viaro:

Well, what can I say? I feared from the onset that this thread would polarise towards a issues certered around Catholcism.

Dear chukwudi44, I now understand that as Catholic, you're passionate to defend your group-identity. That's no problem to me at all. However, it is quite worrisome that your defence rests on very weak inferences and shallow conjectures that are uninformed. Please don't read that as accusatory; but let me draw just one example out of several -

There are two arguments in one statement you have put up there:

(a) Paul was not among the Twelve

(b) Paul was not an apostle

The first statement in (a) above is true, that Paul was not numbered among the Twelve. However, the second statement in (b) is patently false, for Paul was an apostle. Your argument to the contrary makes us wonder what you make of the fact that we often read of Paul as an apostle in the New Testament. In fact, Acts 14:14 there were two who were named apostles besides the twelve - "the apostle[b]s[/b], Barnabas and Paul" (note 'apostles' is in plural and applies to them both, Barnabas and Paul, which if added to the Twelve brings the number to fourteen).

Your argument denying the apostleship of Paul is twofold:

(i) that there were Twelve apostles - which means there could not have been more than twelve; and if that is the case, then the argument is refuted by Acts 14:14 that recognizes both Barnabas and Paul, making the number of apostles up to fourteen (and there are many more);

(ii) that the names of the twelve apostles are inferred in Revelation 21:14, and therefore there could not be more than 'twelve'? That again is does not mean that only twelve apostles existed all through the Christian Church, for a number of reasons:

~ the apostles which are gifts to the Church according to Ephesians 4:11 are said to be after the resurrection; the Twelve we read of were called in the Gospels before the Crucifixion;

~ Revelation is not speaking literally but rather symbolically; so there's no reason to think that there were literally twelve apostles, otherwise also in that Revelation 21 we should say that the Lamb is to literally marry a city according to verse 9 and 10.

~ even more to the point is that in the Gospels 'the Twelve' apostles included Judas; in which case, in as much as Peter recognized this fact in Acts 1:17, are you saying that Judas was one of the names of the apostles in Revelation 21:14?


All this just shows that your arguments are quite strained and your defences are weak since you're using very untrue assertions to make your point in favour of Catholicism. One would have hoped that you could hold your views about your own church soundly without denying what is so, so obvious.

I could not have said this better. . .brilliant.

Oh boy. See as katakata dey burst for this thread. LOL. Make I siddon look,   

noetic15:

I could not have said this better. . .brilliant.

Lol, please excuse the typos. . . I'd had too much carbonated drink for the yuletide, as long as the message I was trying to convey was clear.

@all:

I had half hoped the specific last three posters wouldn't notice this little altercation. One thing that gets under my skin is men worshiping other men and human institutions.

I find myself guilty of as it were, helping derail this thread somewhat though again, our "fight" may have informed a few people out there about the realities of our history and that its not Christianity that has issues but its "supposed" adherents creating their forms of it.

@Viaro:

You must be the 9th wonder of the known world - never heard of carbonated "booze" drink intoxicating anyone 

nuclearboy:

@Viaro:

You must be the 9th wonder of the known world - never heard of carbonated "booze" drink intoxicating anyone

Hahaha. . I knew that was coming. Actually, I'd been banned from booze and had the 'carbo' instead - lots of schwepps - and was belching and typing those lines. Almost every post I made last night had typos in them. Yay - that must've been a wonder!

viaro:

Actually, I'd been banned from booze

Why? A health issue?

I had a medical bann from booze bout ten years ago when i had a heart problem. I fired on with the booze. . . so irresponsible. . . thank God sha. . .