And yes Christ did establish a Church

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

Dnaz:

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

So, u mean that many major Churches of the East which claim to have been founded by the apostles: eg Antioch by Paul and others; Alexandria by Mark; Greek Orthodox church in Byzantium by Andrew (which was then under Heraclea, Turkey rulership before Constantine moved to Byzantium); Cyprus by Barnabas; Ethiopia by Matthew; India by Thomas; Edessa in eastern Syria by Thaddeus; Armenia by Bartholomew; Georgia by Simon the Zealot; Corinthian church by Paul, were all under the Catholic church? U mean to tell me that the church in Antioch in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians was a Roman Catholic church and it was under a Pope in Rome then shebi? So, as at the time the followers of Christ were first referred to as Christians at the church at Antioch in Syria, who was the Pope in Rome that was overseeing their activities in Antioch in Syria then? 
If u read and understood that Great Schism well, u wouldn't be saying all these.

For u to have said that there was nothing like Jewish Christianity shows that u have not read well. Pls, just google Jewish Christianity or Judeo-Christianity and educate urself.

U may also wish to find out what the group Judaizing was all about and whether they existed before Roman Catholic church or not by using Google too.

Point is, Greek and so many other Eastern Orthodox churches that were founded by different apostles as I listed above, Judeo-Christianity ie Jewish Christianity, and Judaizing (not Judaism) had existed before Catholic church was founded, but Jesus never founded any of these churches.

Have a nice day as u do ur research. I have no time to argue.

Dear Richie 44

It's simple...
If ur spirit rejects Catholic..then pls intensify your prayer for God direction. He knows best.

Only Him knows the right place He wants you fellowship....

Pls hold solemnly to God direction.

God bless

Dnaz:


Please I m interested I'm knowing the first church, which church is that?

The first and only True Church was established by Christ Himself. Early Christians mostly met in one another's houses and a gathering of believers was called a church. These churches were named after cities, for example, the Church in Antioch, which is believed to be the first Gentile church.

During this period, the Church was one and lived as one and worshipped God in spirit and in truth.

However the churches suffered a division in 451 AD in the Chalcedon Council. It was in this Council, that the churches split into The Oriental Orthodox Churches (which today still behave like the Apostles and in general, the earliest Christians) and the "Western Churches".

The Western Churches further split during the Schism of 1054 into The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.

So, you can see that the Roman Catholic Church is not the first Church, neither can anyone prove that it was the Church that Christ Himself established in Jerusalem.

nwamehn:


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

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

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

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

Bro, God never told these people to mould images. Whenever images were made under the command of God, they were momentary and symbolic and as soon as they had served their purpose, they were quickly done away with. For example, the bronze snake. And the bronze snake was not even to be bowed down to or worshipped.

And moreover, you can only find such incidents in the Old Testament which was basically a covenant between God and the Israelites.

As for the Clergy-Laity division, Paul never created such. Laity means laymen and that was never Paul's opinion of believers. As a matter of fact, you needn't go to a seminary to become a clergyman. There was virtually no division as we have today. Moreover, the Church was active and not passive, every believer was actively using his gifts for the edification of the church.

nwamehn:



So, u mean that many major Churches of the East which claim to have been founded by the apostles: eg Antioch by Paul and others; Alexandria by Mark; Greek Orthodox church in Byzantium by Andrew (which was then under Heraclea, Turkey rulership before Constantine moved to Byzantium); Cyprus by Barnabas; Ethiopia by Matthew; India by Thomas; Edessa in eastern Syria by Thaddeus; Armenia by Bartholomew; Georgia by Simon the Zealot; Corinthian church by Paul, were all under the Catholic church? U mean to tell me that the church in Antioch in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians was a Roman Catholic church and it was under a Pope in Rome then shebi? So, as at the time the followers of Christ were first referred to as Christians at the church at Antioch in Syria, who was the Pope in Rome that was overseeing their activities in Antioch in Syria then? 
If u read and understood that Great Schism well, u wouldn't be saying all these.

For u to have said that there was nothing like Jewish Christianity shows that u have not read well. Pls, just google Jewish Christianity or Judeo-Christianity and educate urself.

U may also wish to find out what the group Judaizing was all about and whether they existed before Roman Catholic church or not by using Google too.

Point is, Greek and so many other Eastern Orthodox churches that were founded by different apostles as I listed above, Judeo-Christianity ie Jewish Christianity, and Judaizing (not Judaism) had existed before Catholic church was founded, but Jesus never founded any of these churches.

Have a nice day as u do ur research. I have no time to argue.

U are not even Orthodox. How u claim to know their own history more than them. Antioch is under the see of Peter not Paul. And yes they all looked to the Church in Rome for guidance and all of them Profess to Believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Argue with history
During the Council of Chalcedony in 451 AD When the Confusion of the Nature of Christ, it was Pope Leo I statement that ended the matter.
After Pope Leo's Time was read. All the orthodox exclaimed
" This is the Faith of the Church, This is the faith of the fathers, So we Orthodox do believe. Peter has Spoken through Leo, so we orthodox do believe. Anathema to those who don't believe"
And that settled it. Those who opposed were anathemised and Excommunicated, these are the ones that are today known as Oriental Orthodox

BluntTheApostle:


The first and only True Church was established by Christ Himself. Early Christians mostly met in one another's houses and a gathering of believers was called a church. These churches were named after cities, for example, the Church in Antioch, which is believed to be the first Gentile church.

During this period, the Church was one and lived as one and worshipped God in spirit and in truth.

However the churches suffered a division in 451 AD in the Chalcedon Council. It was in this Council, that the churches split into The Oriental Orthodox Churches (which today still behave like the Apostles and in general, the earliest Christians) and the "Western Churches".

The Western Churches further split during the Schism of 1054 into The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.

So, you can see that the Roman Catholic Church is not the first Church, neither can anyone prove that it was the Church that Christ Himself established in Jerusalem.

U tried but u are still not getting the Clear picture
The Oriental orthodoxy split from the Catholic church because they didn't submit to the teaching of the Church as Confirmed by Pope Leo. This proves there was already a Pope in Rome and a Catholic church already in existence by the time of the Chalcedony Council and they split from it. Still the Catholic church was not western only. For only the see of Rome is western. Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem were all in the Eastern Roman empire and Schism only arose from Alexandria by 451AD. So after 451 the church in Alexandria was split into two, A faction loyal to the Catholic church and another known as the Orientals .but the Church was still both east and west until 1054 when the great schism split the Church into East (Greek speaking) and West(Latin speaking). Now both are truely ancient and truely Apostolic because they were all founded by the Apostles but lost communion mainly due to internal politics. However Pockets of the east returned to communion with Rome after the council of Florence in 1449. Reason u have the Ukrainian Catholic Church ,The Syriac Catholic, the Maronite Catholic, the Malankara Catholic Churches. now all these Churches are in Union with Rome under the Pope but do not use the Roman Liturgy, hence the are Catholics but not Roman catholic. Same faith, same doctrines,different liturgy . the Catholic Church is not just the Latin Churches but all Churches east and west in union with the chair of peter

BluntTheApostle:


Bro, God never told these people to mould images. Whenever images were made under the command of God, they were momentary and symbolic and as soon as they had served their purpose, they were quickly done away with. For example, the bronze snake. And the bronze snake was not even to be bowed down to or worshipped.

And moreover, you can only find such incidents in the Old Testament which was basically a covenant between God and the Israelites.

As for the Clergy-Laity division, Paul never created such. Laity means laymen and that was never Paul's opinion of believers. As a matter of fact, you needn't go to a seminary to become a clergyman. There was virtually no division as we have today. Moreover, the Church was active and not passive, every believer was actively using his gifts for the edification of the church.

Yea, u ar right that Paul never classified believers as lay men but I meant that Paul created a difference between apostles, bishops and other Christians, he gave rules which were specifically for apostles and bishops, unless that's not the context u ar taking it, then I may be misunderstanding u. But, do u know that even today, churches still have such divisions u pointed out to have been started by the Catholic church? People ar now required to go for pastoral schools, theological schools etc to become pastors. Is that not equivalent to going to seminary to become a clergy? Would u still say that these other churches ar false churches because of that?

Regarding moulding of images, u rightly said that God asked the Israelites to do all that for a reason, and when the reason elapsed, the images were phased out but u can't confidently say that God didn't also ask the Catholics to mould theirs and that the reason for their own has elapsed too, u can't say it naah because we don't know whether God did that or not.
You ar also right that God never commanded any person to worship any image but I doubt whether Catholics worship images, they bow down to them just as the people of Israel looked up to the serpent then but to worship the images, sincerely they don't. I bow to my uncle each time I want to greet him because of his traditional status but it doesn't mean I worship him.

This is exactly why I have chosen to just be a Christian, follow Bible and not be affiliated to any church cos all churches get their issues and if u should start unravelling their issues one by one, u will see that no single church would be worth going on earth.

Dnaz:

U tried but u are still not getting the Clear picture
The Oriental orthodoxy split from the Catholic church because they didn't submit to the teaching of the Church as Confirmed by Pope Leo. This proves there was already a Pope in Rome and a Catholic church already in existence by the time of the Chalcedony Council and they split from it. Still the Catholic church was not western only. For only the see of Rome is western. Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem were all in the Eastern Roman empire and Schism only arose from Alexandria by 451AD. So after 451 the church in Alexandria was split into two, A faction loyal to the Catholic church and another known as the Orientals .but the Church was still both east and west until 1054 when the great schism split the Church into East (Greek speaking) and West(Latin speaking). Now both are truely ancient and truely Apostolic because they were all founded by the Apostles but lost communion mainly due to internal politics. However Pockets of the east returned to communion with Rome after the council of Florence in 1449. Reason u have the Ukrainian Catholic Church ,The Syriac Catholic, the Maronite Catholic, the Malankara Catholic Churches. now all these Churches are in Union with Rome under the Pope but do not use the Roman Liturgy, hence the are Catholics but not Roman catholic. Same faith, same doctrines,different liturgy . the Catholic Church is not just the Latin Churches but all Churches east and west in union with the chair of peter

Bro, you missed the whole picture

There have always been a plurality of Popes. As a matter of fact, all the Bishops used to be called popes.

The Oriental did not split from the Catholic Church. There was not even a Catholic Church then. Just Bishops who were called popes.

BluntTheApostle:


Bro, you missed the whole picture

There have always been a plurality of Popes. As a matter of fact, all the Bishops used to be called popes.

The Oriental did not split from the Catholic Church. There was not even a Catholic Church then. Just Bishops who were called popes.

My dear . Pope is another word for papa. Even the bishop of Alexandria was called pope. The issue here is Primacy and all agreed even the Council of Chalcedony agreed on the Primacy of the Pope of Rome as first amongst equals
If u say there was no Catholic Church by 451AD, why then does the Nicene creed which was proclaimed 126 yrs before Chalcedony in 325 AD. The creed which the orientals still profess today. Why does it say " we believe in One Holy CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC church
Why does St Ignatius of antioch who died 108 AD write " wherever the Bishop is There is the CATHOLIC CHURCH "?

Truth may hurt but its still the truth

OfficialAwol:


No.

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

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

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

In other words, the Holy Spirit who is the voice of God in print, the custodian of the Church is not Capable of preserving this Word abi?

Do you know that this is exactly how the Bible was locked away from people until a Priest by the name of Martin Luther discovered it?

The Funny thing is, the Catholic Church intended to lock the Bible away so that they can comfortably replace Hellenism (Grego-Roman Pagan worship) with Christianity

The ones accusing others of error are the Masters of error. They claim she is the First church, but wouldn't follow the teachings of Christ. The Claim they gave the world the Bible, but won't practice what is written therein.

The Queen of Heaven you worship as Mary is Ishtar, the notorious female demon, the wife of Baal/Molech. You people blatantly worship this demon but deny any worship of her. Even when her status are every where and you guys bow and make prayers to her.

Do a little research, you'd discover that the Modus Operandi of the R.C.C is consistent with the Hellenistic Pagan religions, but far from Christianity.

Her priests and priestesses are celibate just like in Hellenism. But, no female was ever a priest in Judaisms and in Christianity, the other of the priesthood ended with Christ taking the place as an eternal High Priests.

Where did you people see infant baptism?

We can go on and on.

nwamehn:


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

Did you read what you typed? Did you go to 1Kings and 2Kings and you didn't see the acts of Jehoshaphat or Jehu?

Most of the acts are repeated in the books of Samuel, Chronicles and Kings. Go and read pls and stop looking for what is not lost.
Sir, pls find out why these books were left out. Did they meet the cretaria for Spirituality?

Inside the Catholic Bible which i have a Copy are those other books you are talking about.

Maccabees 1&2. These were books recorded events which took place during the reign of Alexander the Great's 4 generals and how they were very cruel to the Jews and how the Jews fought back.

The Reason for which the Catholic Church holds firmly to this books is because, it gives them validity to pray to the dead and pay money for the soul of their dead loved ones to enter heaven, as opposed to the warning of YHWH against Necromancy.

Judith- The events in the book of Judith contadicts other books. For instance, we are told that Nebuchadnezzar took the Jews Captive for 70 yrs, but Judith says, that didn't happen as she cut off the head of the Army General and all other soldiers ran away leaving the Jews alone.

Tobit (Sorcery). An Angel Raphael lied about his identity to Tobias. And later taught Tobit to practice sorcery. Can an Angel from YHWH do that?

Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Bel, your own version of Esther.

These writings can not corroborate any other Bible book.

They have no prophetic insights. No Messianic projections. There are just plan litteratures, and if all literatures shd be added because the Jews wrote them. Hmmm. E go be wa.

nwamehn:


Lol. Boss, u ar kind of dragging it to the extreme naah.

Catholic church, though some of their beliefs contradict with the ones of other present day Christian churches but it doesn't mean u can actually be linking Catholic church with Hellenism. Hellenism is polytheistic and it also believes in magic but Catholic church doesn't.

No, don't compare them with other Cbristian Churches, compare them with the Bible.

Look at them with mirror of the Word of God, you'd see them far from Christianity.

Have you seen Catholic priests carrying out Exocism? I mean casting out of demons. They copied from the book of Tobit where the said Angel Raphael taught Tobit to use sorcery to cast out a sex demon from Sarah. If that is not Magic, i don't know what is

Pls read Tobit.

Dnaz:

Tell us the first church then?

The First Church was:
"Jerusalem Catholic Church"
Much latter came the
"Roman Catholic Church"

Didn't Jesus ask His disciples to tary in Jerusalem until they are given the power of the Holy Spirit?

Emmanystone:

No, don't compare them with other Cbristian Churches, compare them with the Bible.

Look at them with mirror of the Word of God, you'd see them far from Christianity.

Have you seen Catholic priests carrying out Exocism? I mean casting out of demons. They copied from the book of Tobit where the said Angel Raphael taught Tobit to use sorcery to cast out a sex demon from Sarah. If that is not Magic, i don't know what is

Pls read Tobit.

Exorcism itself, refers to casting out of demons, and even in the Bible, they did cast out demons and what they did wasn't called sorcery.
But I do understand where u ar coming from well enough, those verses 7 and 8 of Tobit 6 ar two places I have issues with that book but my issue is different, my issue is with the fact that those verses advocated more for object reverence rather than reverence to the power of God but not that what was done there was sorcery. Angel Raphael kind of made it seem like the casting out of demons or healing the blind is entirely based on how u use the fish heart, liver and the gall, by saying that making a smoke from the heart and the liver would cast out any demons as if the power to cast out demons is in the heart and liver of the fish.
U know, if it's left for the act of burning incense of the heart and liver of the fish to cast out demons, it can't be called sorcery because the use of these material things that kind of sound superstitious to some of us doesn't entirely imply sorcery or magic. Jesus Himself in the book of John 9 vs 6-7 used sand mixed with spit and applied on someone's eyes to heal blindness. Will that be called sorcery too?
Burning of incense was done throughout the Bible till Jesus died and censing wasn't referred to as magic in the Bible.

What angel Raphael taught the boy in those verses to me cannot be classified as magic or sorcery but is more or less like the same object reverence we saw in the Bible where people were using handkerchiefs that have touched Paul to heal people as if the power to heal was in the handkerchief, and we still see same in churches today where church aprons and pastors' handkerchiefs ar believed to be capable of performing wonders.
U can say that the handkerchiefs and aprons ar different because they have touched the anointed of God, but don't forget that it also applies to the liver and heart of the fish which were also touched by Raphael, an angel of the Lord.

OfficialAwol:


No.

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

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

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

It was brought to notice that lawyers in Nigeria had been misinterpreting the constitution of Nigeria.

We have found that the best solution is to hide the constitution henceforth, only the executive will be permitted to have the constitution of Nigeria.

The rest of Nigerians and lawyers will follow whatever the executive says.

Isn't this a wonderful solution?

nwamehn:



Exorcism itself, refers to casting out of demons, and even in the Bible, they did cast out demons and what they did wasn't called sorcery.
But I do understand where u ar coming from well enough, those verses 7 and 8 of Tobit 6 ar two places I have issues with that book but my issue is different, my issue is with the fact that those verses advocated more for object reverence rather than reverence to the power of God but not that what was done there was sorcery. Angel Raphael kind of made it seem like the casting out of demons or healing the blind is entirely based on how u use the fish heart, liver and the gall, by saying that making a smoke from the heart and the liver would cast out any demons as if the power to cast out demons is in the heart and liver of the fish.
U know, if it's left for the act of burning incense of the heart and liver of the fish to cast out demons, it can't be called sorcery because the use of these material things that kind of sound superstitious to some of us doesn't entirely imply sorcery or magic. Jesus Himself in the book of John 9 vs 6-7 used sand mixed with spit and applied on someone's eyes to heal blindness. Will that be called sorcery too?
Burning of incense was done throughout the Bible till Jesus died and censing wasn't referred to as magic in the Bible.

What angel Raphael taught the boy in those verses to me cannot be classified as magic or sorcery but is more or less like the same object reverence we saw in the Bible where people were using handkerchiefs that have touched Paul to heal people as if the power to heal was in the handkerchief, and we still see same in churches today where church aprons and pastors' handkerchiefs ar believed to be capable of performing wonders.
U can say that the handkerchiefs and aprons ar different because they have touched the anointed of God, but don't forget that it also applies to the liver and heart of the fish which were also touched by Raphael, an angel of the Lord.

You seem to be justifying the use of unorthodox means of performing exorcism just because it is found in some uncanonized texts.

It could be that the texts were not canonized because they were not consistent with the apostles doctrines.

Come to think of this:
Did Jesus use fish hearts and liver to cast out demons?
How about the first Apostles, did they?
How about any of the first generation disciples like Stephen?

How old is the Book of Tobit relative to the Gospel and the Letters? Is it older than the book of Revelation? Who wrote the books of Tobit?

You'll agree with me that a point came in the history of the church when lies came in and such was documented as truth.

Emmanystone:

Did you read what you typed? Did you go to 1Kings and 2Kings and you didn't see the acts of Jehoshaphat or Jehu?

Most of the acts are repeated in the books of Samuel, Chronicles and Kings. Go and read pls and stop looking for what is not lost.
Sir, pls find out why these books were left out. Did they meet the cretaria for Spirituality?

Inside the Catholic Bible which i have a Copy are those other books you are talking about.

Maccabees 1&2. These were books recorded events which took place during the reign of Alexander the Great's 4 generals and how they were very cruel to the Jews and how the Jews fought back.

The Reason for which the Catholic Church holds firmly to this books is because, it gives them validity to pray to the dead and pay money for the soul of their dead loved ones to enter heaven, as opposed to the warning of YHWH against Necromancy.

Judith- The events in the book of Judith contadicts other books. For instance, we are told that Nebuchadnezzar took the Jews Captive for 70 yrs, but Judith says, that didn't happen as she cut off the head of the Army General and all other soldiers ran away leaving the Jews alone.

Tobit (Sorcery). An Angel Raphael lied about his identity to Tobias. And later taught Tobit to practice sorcery. Can an Angel from YHWH do that?

Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Bel, your own version of Esther.

These writings can not corroborate any other Bible book.

They have no prophetic insights. No Messianic projections. There are just plan litteratures, and if all literatures shd be added because the Jews wrote them. Hmmm. E go be wa.

Nnaa mehn, u sound like we de fight, but no be fight, pls. Don't ask me whether I read what I typed cos we ar not on a quarrel ground. If u have any disagreement with my view, u can state urs without making it seem like u ar scolding a younger one.

First, Book of Kings of Israel is different from 1 Kings and 2 Kings, Book of Kings of Israel was a book from which most of what was contained in 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles regarding the kings that ruled Israel were gotten. Even 1 and 2 Kings still made reference to the Books of the Kings of Judah. So, which book in the Bible is the Book of the Kings of Judah? Which other book in the Bible is the Book of the Kings of Israel? Or ar u saying that the books were mixed together to get 1 and 2 Kings, so why would the same 1 and 2 Kings be making reference to them?

Second, Chronicles of Jehu, son of Hanani was a book, part of the Book of the Kings of Israel. Maybe u ar mistaking this Jehu son of Hanani with the Jehu son of Nimshi who was a king of Israel, who killed Ahab's sons. No, they weren't the same person. Jehu, son of Hanani was a writer and a prophet who wrote Chronicles of Jehu, son of Hanani.

Third, for some reasons I didn't refer to the deuterocanonical books which Tobit, Judith etc ar part of when I was talking about the books which didn't make canonicity. I knew why I referred u to the Chronicles of Jehu son of Hanani which the Bible itself made reference to. Chronicles of Jehu son of Hanani among so many other books didn't make canonicity, thank God u also understand that some of them didn't have prophetic insights but had a lot of literatures and couldn't have all been included in the Bible even though they were scribed by the Jews, meaning that u recognised that some of them were left out for some reason or the other.

My point is not what those other books contained, whether they contained prophecy or literatures or not, my point is that so many of those books were left out during canonization for some reasons or the other, and u ar now giving me the reasons which include lack of prophetic insights, excessive content of literature, lack of Messianic prophecies, etc.

shadeyinka:

You seem to be justifying the use of unorthodox means of performing exorcism just because it is found in some uncanonized texts.

It could be that the texts were not canonized because they were not consistent with the apostles doctrines.

Come to think of this:
Did Jesus use fish hearts and liver to cast out demons?
How about the first Apostles, did they?
How about any of the first generation disciples like Stephen?

How old is the Book of Tobit relative to the Gospel and the Letters? Is it older than the book of Revelation? Who wrote the books of Tobit?

You'll agree with me that a point came in the history of the church when lies came in and such was documented as truth.

Jesus didn't use fish to cast out demons but He used soil and spit to heal the blind. That's not my problem.
Exorcism has no issue to me, but when u make object reverence like was done in Tobit instead of reverence for the power of God, that is where I have issues.
The power to heal or cast out demons shouldn't be ascribed to fish liver, handkerchiefs, aprons like it's done today in most churches. It should be ascribed to God, not material things. That's my point.

Whether lies came in at a point in the history of the church isn't what I can stand now to prove, cos I don't have any evidence that any book in the Bible was based on lies so I can't talk about that one.

nwamehn:

Nnaa mehn, u sound like we de fight, but no be fight, pls. Don't ask me whether I read what I typed cos we ar not on a quarrel ground. If u have any disagreement with my view, u can state urs without making it seem like u ar scolding a younger one.

Oh dear, i'm so sorry i came off like that. Pls forgive me.

nwamehn:

First, Book of Kings of Israel is different from 1 Kings and 2 Kings, Book of Kings of Israel was a book from which most of what was contained in 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles regarding the kings that ruled Israel were gotten. Even 1 and 2 Kings still made reference to the Books of the Kings of Judah. So, which book in the Bible is the Book of the Kings of Judah? Which other book in the Bible is the Book of the Kings of Israel? Or ar u saying that the books were mixed together to get 1 and 2 Kings, so why would the same 1 and 2 Kings be making reference to them?

Ask google you'd see there are the same. If there are auch books, Google will know.

nwamehn:

Second, Chronicles of Jehu, son of Hanani was a book, part of the Book of the Kings of Israel. Maybe u ar mistaking this Jehu son of Hanani with the Jehu son of Nimshi who was a king of Israel, who killed Ahab's sons. No, they weren't the same person. Jehu, son of Hanani was a writer who wrote Chronicles of Jehu, son of Hanani.

Google will know.

Besides, why do we need additiinal books when we have not been able to live by half of what we are given?
Read Mattew, if i can live by all Jesus taught in Matthew chapters 5 to 8, i will be a perfect human on the earth. I'm atill rising and falling on that. Why shd i ask for more?

nwamehn:

Third, for some reasons I didn't refer to the deuterocanonical books which Tobit, Judith etc ar part of when I was talking about the books which didn't make canonicity. I knew why I referred u to the Chronicles of Jehu son of Hanani which the Bible itself made reference to. Chronicles of Jehu son of Hanani among so many other books didn't make canonicity, thank God u also understand that some of them didn't have prophetic insights but had a lot of literatures and couldn't have all been included in the Bible even though they were scribed by the Jews, meaning that u recognised that some of them were left out for some reason or the other.

Oh yes, i know many write ups were left out. The Orthodox Jews still have them in their Tanakas, but those not necessary for us for we are Messianic Seed, just following the Jewish folklores.

I thought you'd be asking about accounts written by men after the Apostles. The early Church men (Whom the Catholics claim were Catholics, lies), wrote books too. But, based on the cretaria used in selecting which one to be included, were left out.

nwamehn:

My point is not what those other books contained, whether they contained prophecy or literatures or not, my point is that so many of those books were left out during canonization for some reasons or the other, and u ar now giving me the reasons which include lack of prophetic insights, excessive content of literature, lack of Messianic prophecies, etc.

Here are some Creteria used in deciding which book met the target.

1. Authorship--Who wrote the book? Some many chalatants were all over the place that period, hence, not everyone was taken seriously.

2. Local Church Acceptance-- In a community, people are known for what and who they are, that will determine if their words will be used as authority.

3. Recognition by Church Fathers--- Did the Elders then know who the author was, as to vouch for him? Integrity matters, incase there's an incident which may lead to the author being investigated.
4. Subject Matter---This is where the Messianic prophecies, moral teachings and real life instructional guides comes in. Following the Bible we have, you'd agree with me that the subject matter is maintained. The focus is, THE SEED which was to come, and the end of times.

Again, the books in the present Bible corroborated themselves. The New Teatament writers referred extensively to the Old Testament books. But, rarely will you find any references made to these left out books, because they were irrelevant.

5. Personal/Spiritual edificatiin--Does this book builts us spiritually? Is they any morals to learn from it?

Trust me, apart from this book of Jehu you talked about, i have tried my best to read these books and see why they were left out, and judging by the ceteria used, they failed.

Good morning.

nwamehn:



Exorcism itself, refers to casting out of demons, and even in the Bible, they did cast out demons and what they did wasn't called sorcery.
But I do understand where u ar coming from well enough, those verses 7 and 8 of Tobit 6 ar two places I have issues with that book but my issue is different, my issue is with the fact that those verses advocated more for object reverence rather than reverence to the power of God but not that what was done there was sorcery. Angel Raphael kind of made it seem like the casting out of demons or healing the blind is entirely based on how u use the fish heart, liver and the gall, by saying that making a smoke from the heart and the liver would cast out any demons as if the power to cast out demons is in the heart and liver of the fish.
U know, if it's left for the act of burning incense of the heart and liver of the fish to cast out demons, it can't be called sorcery because the use of these material things that kind of sound superstitious to some of us doesn't entirely imply sorcery or magic. Jesus Himself in the book of John 9 vs 6-7 used sand mixed with spit and applied on someone's eyes to heal blindness. Will that be called sorcery too?
Burning of incense was done throughout the Bible till Jesus died and censing wasn't referred to as magic in the Bible.

What angel Raphael taught the boy in those verses to me cannot be classified as magic or sorcery but is more or less like the same object reverence we saw in the Bible where people were using handkerchiefs that have touched Paul to heal people as if the power to heal was in the handkerchief, and we still see same in churches today where church aprons and pastors' handkerchiefs ar believed to be capable of performing wonders.
U can say that the handkerchiefs and aprons ar different because they have touched the anointed of God, but don't forget that it also applies to the liver and heart of the fish which were also touched by Raphael, an angel of the Lord.

Okay. I will leave it at that. But, like a said, corroboration. Scriptures lean on others, but that act in Tobit stands alone.

nwamehn:



Jesus didn't use fish to cast out demons but He used soil and spit to heal the blind. That's not my problem.
Exorcism has no issue to me, but when u make object reverence like was done in Tobit instead of reverence for the power of God, that is where I have issues.
The power to heal or cast out demons shouldn't be ascribed to fish liver, handkerchiefs, aprons like it's done today in most churches. It should be ascribed to God, not material things. That's my point.

Whether lies came in at a point in the history of the church isn't what I can stand now to prove, cos I don't have any evidence that any book in the Bible was based on lies so I can't talk about that one.

My point was that, there isn't any formulae for performing any spiritual exercise like healing and deliverance. Thus, the instruction of the so called Raphael is to be suspected just like that of Jubril to Mohammed

I am referring to The books of Tobit as "some of the lies that crept in and documented as truth"

What the Apostles said was:

Even if we (the apostles) or an angel (Raphael) should preach any other gospel other than what had been preached, let such be accursed.

shadeyinka:


The First Church was:
"Jerusalem Catholic Church"
Much latter came the
"Roman Catholic Church"

Didn't Jesus ask His disciples to tary in Jerusalem until they are given the power of the Holy Spirit?

Well then, the First Church was The Catholic church
The Church was always referred to as Catholic ,it was the Anglicans that added the prefix Roman

Dnaz:

Well then, the First Church was The Catholic church
The Church was always referred to as Catholic ,it was the Anglicans that added the prefix Roman

Sorry!
We know you as Roman catholic just as we know the Greek Orthodox church as greek

Check the dressing of the Papacy; does it in any way resemble Jewish dressings?

The scriptures were translated from Greek (common language spoken by commoners) to LATIN (spoken by Romans) . The church of Rome neither spoke Hebrew nor Greek; they spoke Latin.

No! It resembles Roman Aristocratic dressings.

Sorry Pls educate me:
The Anglicans called you Roman Catholic church and not Jerusalem Catholic Church: Why?

Emmanystone:

In other words, the Holy Spirit who is the voice of God in print, the custodian of the Church is not Capable of preserving this Word abi?

Do you know that this is exactly how the Bible was locked away from people until a Priest by the name of Martin Luther discovered it?

The Funny thing is, the Catholic Church intended to lock the Bible away so that they can comfortably replace Hellenism (Grego-Roman Pagan worship) with Christianity

The ones accusing others of error are the Masters of error. They claim she is the First church, but wouldn't follow the teachings of Christ. The Claim they gave the world the Bible, but won't practice what is written therein.

The Queen of Heaven you worship as Mary is Ishtar, the notorious female demon, the wife of Baal/Molech. You people blatantly worship this demon but deny any worship of her. Even when her status are every where and you guys bow and make prayers to her.

Do a little research, you'd discover that the Modus Operandi of the R.C.C is consistent with the Hellenistic Pagan religions, but far from Christianity.

Her priests and priestesses are celibate just like in Hellenism. But, no female was ever a priest in Judaisms and in Christianity, the other of the priesthood ended with Christ taking the place as an eternal High Priests.

Where did you people see infant baptism?

We can go on and on.

"To the one who doesn't believe, no explanation is sufficient, to the one who believes, no explanation is needed".

The above simply tells I'm not gonna spend my time trying to convince someone like whose mind is locked up

shadeyinka:

Sorry!
We know you as Roman catholic just as we know the Greek Orthodox church as greek

Check the dressing of the Papacy; does it in any way resemble Jewish dressings?

The scriptures were translated from Greek (common language spoken by commoners) to LATIN (spoken by Romans) . The church of Rome neither spoke Hebrew nor Greek; they spoke Latin.

No! It resembles Roman Aristocratic dressings.

Sorry Pls educate me:
The Anglicans called you Roman Catholic church and not Jerusalem Catholic Church: Why?

What concerns me. We call ourselves Catholic
Have u ever seen Something like St **** Roman Catholic church? Its always St **** Catholic Church
Besides not all Catholics follow the Roman (Latin) Liturgy
We have the Syriac Catholic
Melkite Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Malankara Catholic etc. All the same

shadeyinka:

Sorry!
We know you as Roman catholic just as we know the Greek Orthodox church as greek

Check the dressing of the Papacy; does it in any way resemble Jewish dressings?

The scriptures were translated from Greek (common language spoken by commoners) to LATIN (spoken by Romans) . The church of Rome neither spoke Hebrew nor Greek; they spoke Latin.

No! It resembles Roman Aristocratic dressings.

Sorry Pls educate me:
The Anglicans called you Roman Catholic church and not Jerusalem Catholic Church: Why?

Sorry to add, we know you and you know yourselves as PROTESTANTS. all u do is protest just like Satan who protested against God

Dnaz:

Sorry to add, we know you and you know yourselves as PROTESTANTS. all u do is protest ju
st like Satan who protested against God

Jus because my question carry fire!

Dnaz:

What concerns me. We call ourselves Catholic
Have u ever seen Something like St **** Roman Catholic church? Its always St **** Catholic Church
Besides not all Catholics follow the Roman (Latin) Liturgy
We have the Syriac Catholic
Melkite Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Malankara Catholic etc. All the same

Can you please answer the questions?

There are four of them

shadeyinka:


Can you please answer the questions?

There are four of them

1. The Bible says that the church and not the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15

2. Nobody says u can't go to God directly or that u must go through Mary. But there is nothing wrong in intercession as is evident in our daily life. Pastor prays for members instead of members praying for themselves. And Just as Mary did in the wedding at Cana
3.


If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:8

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 1:10

4
To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.
1 Corinthians 12:7

To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit,
1 Corinthians 12:8

to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
1 Corinthians 12:9

to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:10
All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as He wills.
1 Corinthians 12:11

Dnaz:


1. The Bible says that the church and not the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:15

Please when you quote, do it in context

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


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

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

Your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

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

Dnaz:

2. Nobody says u can't go to God directly or that u must go through Mary. But there is nothing wrong in intercession as is evident in our daily life. Pastor prays for members instead of members praying for themselves. And Just as Mary did in the wedding at Cana

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

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

Not a single Apostle taught this

Dnaz:

3. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1 John 1:8

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9

If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 1:10

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

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