I'm sorry for the way I addressed you but if you want me to be civil you should also be careful about the way you talk about Popes, Priests, The Church...these are things that I hold sacred. Every man has a beast in him.

I have not insulted your church or your popes, I have only continued to assert that they are not infallible and to argue that they are means that they must subject to biblical scrutiny and not be found wanting

I never said that your saying that you were wrong is the basis for saying I am definitely right. I said and still say that I am definitely right because I am telling you the teachings of the Catholic Church. You saw that and you probably ignored it, yet you call me dubious.

This is why I say you are being dubious: I ascribe truth to the Holy Spirit not the catholic church. to claim that you and the catholic church are true your teachings must align with the bible (at least we both agree that the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit).

I said since you say that you may be wrong (or right - which means that you are not sure - which in-turn means that you don't know), it then means that YOU ADMIT that I might be right.

So I can infer that you say that I might be right, but I SAY that I am definitely right.

So if you don't know (since you are not sure if you are right or wrong) why are you trying to teach me what you don't know which may be wrong and be the road to hell, especially when I am certain about my position?

The line of logic you have presented here doesn't follow. I said (paraphrased) I could be wrong but the Holy Ghost is definitely right this would imply that I know what I am talking about but my authority is not final. It must be confirmed by the Holy Spirit through scripture.
You totally ignored that but jumped on the soundbite "I could be wrong" and you now tried to make it say you were right and the Catholic church is right and the Holy Ghost agrees. Your claim cannot be true until your church satisfies the conditions of biblical scrutiny.

And don't say again that you didn't try to teach me anything. With due respect, that is a big lie.

You tried to teach me how to determine whether Jesus was speaking literally or figuratively; you tried to teach me that baptism is only symbolic and not salvific; you tried to teach me the Characteristics of God's miracles (wrongly implying that it is always clear for humans to see); you tried to teach me the way to arrive at the truth (telling me to "forget popes, priests, the Church"... You tried to teach me many things that you yourself DON'T KNOW.

To be honest, whether you want to believe that something is literal of figurative is up to you and not really as important as comparing your church's doctrine with scripture to know whether it is really teaching the truth. I am only asking you base your truth on the word of God first before listening to people's interpretations. Everybody is fallible.

I am not saying that I am superior to you in anyway and you know that. Even Pope Benedict XVI wouldn't say that. What I am saying is that the doctrine that I preach is the True doctrine and is hence superior to every other doctrine (which are, of course, false). It is not by human power that the Church is infallible, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit which Christ has given to his Church.

As I have said, compare your doctrine to scripture. Christ didn't name any church in particular what Christ is interested in is not where you attend service on Sunday but whether you are keeping His commandments. That is the true church of God, those who obey Him

.......Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water tby the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
Ephesians 5:22-27

italo: @ Mr_Anony,

I have been examining and continue to examine my Church against Christ's teachings, and I have been asking and continue to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, I have been reading and continue to read the Bible with an open mind and I have been telling and continue to tell you that all these have revealed to me that the Catholic Church is the one true Church that Christ built to teach all truth to all men. What else do you want from me?

Now we know that Christ is the head of the Church and not the pope or any pastor for that matter (we are all equal in Christ Jesus) The true church can only be one without wrinkle and without spot.
This is what I want from you, compare the lives of your popes to Christ (remember the bible says by their fruits you shall know them).
Compare your life to Christ's.

Let Christ be our true head.


2Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.

Okay, first you said you could be wrong, then I put it to you that that implies that you don't know and one who doesn't know should not teach one who at least says that he knows. All of a sudden you are sounding like you are saying the opposite - that you cannot be wrong. I don't even know who I am dealing with anymore, so how can I have a honest discussion with you.

I ask you again:

Is there a possibility that you, Mr_Anony, can be wrong in your interpretation or understanding of God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition?

Just answer honestly. You won't die if you do.

italo: Okay, first you said you could be wrong, then I put it to you that that implies that you don't know and one who doesn't know should not teach one who at least says that he knows. All of a sudden you are sounding like you are saying the opposite - that you cannot be wrong. I don't even know who I am dealing with anymore, so how can I have a honest discussion with you.

I ask you again:

Is there a possibility that you, Mr_Anony, can be wrong in your interpretation or understanding of God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition?

Just answer honestly. You won't die if you do.

Why do you just want me to give you answer you can quote out of context?

I am human, I am not infallible,
no human being - including the pope - is infallible,
The Holy Spirit is right. Scripture is right.
Yes I can be wrong, Italo can also be wrong, the pope can be wrong,
whoever claims to be right must show me that his/her teaching is according to the bible else the person is wrong.
To prove me wrong, you must disprove me biblically.
I submit everything I have said to the scrutiny of scripture.

Now that I have answered you, Here are my questions:

Are your popes infallible?

Is the description of your church the same as the one described in the book of Acts?

Is your doctrine the same as the one preached by Jesus Christ and the apostles?

Mr_Anony:

Why do you just want me to give you answer you can quote out of context?

I am human, I am not infallible,
no human being - including the pope - is infallible,
The Holy Spirit is right. Scripture is right.
Yes I can be wrong, Italo can also be wrong, the pope can be wrong,
whoever claims to be right must show me that his/her teaching is according to the bible else the person is wrong.
To prove me wrong, you must disprove me biblically.
I submit everything I have said to the scrutiny of scripture.

Now that I have answered you, Here are my questions:

Are your popes infallible?

Is the description of your church the same as the one described in the book of Acts?

Is your doctrine the same as the one preached by Jesus Christ and the apostles?

Why don't you just answer for yourself rather than answering for the popes.

I don't see the reason for going around in circles and asking questions I have already answered clearly.

Yes to all your questions.

So if you admit that you can be wrong in interpreting or understanding God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition, how can you then be in the position to tell me the method to determine what is truth and what is error?

How can you know for sure if the popes are fallible or not?

How can you know if scripture is right, when you are not even sure what is scripture and what is not (remember I asked you how did you know that the books of Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and you had nothing meaningful to say)?

You could be wrong in all these things after all, as you admit.

Lastly, when you say you submit everything to the scrutiny of scripture, I have already found you to be saying something contrary to what is in the Bible on a number of occasions. E.g, you erroneously implied that we are wrong in calling Priests "father", but I showed you where Jesus, Paul and Steven called men "father". You also said miracles are always clear to see, but I showed you evidence to the contrary.

But anytime I do so, you just pretend not to see my response and come up with other flimsy accusations for me to debunk.

Do you now agree that there is nothing wrong in calling men "father?"

And do you now agree that miracles are not always clear for all to see?

Or do you still maintain your position out of pride - not wanting to concede defeat even though it takes as much deception as possible?

I hope my six questions are not too difficult to answer...and remember...honesty pays.

So if you admit that you can be wrong in interpreting or understanding God's teaching using scripture and/or tradition, how can you then be in the position to tell me the method to determine what is truth and what is error?

You commiting the fallacy of making "I could be wrong" sound like "I know absolutely nothing". The scripture is quite clear

How can you know for sure if the popes are fallible or not?

Because the scripture will make it obvious. the bible says that by their fruits you shall know them

How can you know if scripture is right, when you are not even sure what is scripture and what is not (remember I asked you how did you know that the books of Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and you had nothing meaningful to say)?

The contest isn't about who exactly wrote scripture but whether the scripture is true.

You could be wrong in all these things after all, as you admit.

I could be wrong about the color of boots Wayne Rooney wore today when he played for England. Does that automatically mean I didn't watch the match? (the only way I can be corrected is by watching the match again and not shouting a counter claim)

Lastly, when you say you submit everything to the scrutiny of scripture, I have already found you to be saying something contrary to what is in the Bible on a number of occasions. E.g, you erroneously implied that we are wrong in calling Priests "father", but I showed you where Jesus, Paul and Steven called men "father". You also said miracles are always clear to see, but I showed you evidence to the contrary.

The fact that I didn't respond doesn't mean I agreed, it only means I didn't think it necessary. Now about calling people father, rabbi or teacher Jesus was preaching about humility and against hierarchy in church and this was what I was pointing to (Matthew 23:8-12). The example you gave as one of God's not-so-clear miracles was Jesus Christ Himself this is a bad example considering the fact that Christ did so many miracles and also resurrected from death. How much more clarity do you need? but that's by the way.

But anytime I do so, you just pretend not to see my response and come up with other flimsy accusations for me to debunk.

Some things appear so obvious to me that when I see your reply, I wonder whether you are just purposely misunderstanding me so I decline from arguing over it.

Do you now agree that there is nothing wrong in calling men "father?"

The point is not what you call the man but the form of power you attribute to the title

And do you now agree that miracles are not always clear for all to see?

If a miracle is not clear enough to see, how can we honestly call it a miracle? You are yet to show me a biblical miracle that wasn't clear to see. Jesus life was full of signs and wonders plus he rose from the dead, these were clear enough. Please show me one miracle performed in the bible like the one you are claiming i.e. where the sick are healed but remain sick or where the dead are raised but remain dead or where water turns to wine but still looks and tastes like water.

Or do you still maintain your position out of pride - not wanting to concede defeat even though it takes as much deception as possible?

Here again you have asked leading questions hoping to lead me into the answer that you want even accusing me of deception for effect. I laugh in Swahili

I hope my six questions are not too difficult to answer...and remember...honesty pays.

Are you sure it is honesty you want?

[quote author=italo]

Why don't you just answer for yourself rather than answering for the popes.

I don't see the reason for going around in circles and asking questions I have already answered clearly.

Yes to all your questions.

Are your popes infallible? you answered yes.........How about the ones that committed adultery, murdered people and sentenced men to death? (something Christ would never do). Were they also infallible? Isn't being pope a political position? for instance, at a point three different people were all claiming to be pope at the same time. Which of them was infallible or were they all infallible?
Some popes have accused other popes of heresy is there such a thing as an infallible heretic? Some popes have changed doctrines of their predecessors. Does it mean the truth changes? and the church must remain infallible no matter what?

Is the description of you church the same as the one described in the book of Acts? you answered yes..........Was there a hierarchy in the early church? were there any superior christians whose word was law and not to be disputed? Are your bishops allowed to marry? Does your church believe in the baptism of the Holy Ghost and speaking in tongues? Did the members of the early church kneel or bow down to any images of Jesus or Mary or any dead saint? Did the christians of the early church pray to any saints dead or alive?

Is your doctrine the same as the one preached by Jesus and His apostles? you answered yes............Did Jesus or the apostles institute a system of priests and nuns not to talk of forbidding them to marry? Where did the teaching of "don't eat meat on fridays" come from? The disciples preached that only Jesus mediates for us to God. where does Mary or any other saint come in? If Peter the apostle is the rock on which Jesus will built His church, how come Peter and Paul describe the rock on which the Church is built as Christ? (1 Peter 2:4-6, Ephesians 2:20)
Lastly, Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
how does your church's doctrine of icons and bowing and kneeling before images tally with that verse (mind you the apostles never made or knelt before any images even of Jesus Christ for that matter)

Please defend the truth of your church. Remember; according to you it was the catholic church that compiled the bible. This is more reason why you should not contradict it in doctrine.

Mr_Anony:

You commiting the fallacy of making "I could be wrong" sound like "I know absolutely nothing". The scripture is quite clear

I don't say that you know absolutely nothing for sure. But if you say you can be wrong in your understanding or interpretation of God's teaching using Scripture and Tradition, then I believe that cuts across. In what aspect then can I trust you to be inerrant. If you can be wrong in one part of God's teaching, then you can easily be wrong in any other part, that's only logical and easy to figure out, isn't it? So I can infer that you can not be certain about anything in God's teaching.

Saying the scripture is quite clear counts for nothing because you are not even certain about what is scripture and what is not, or are you just taking the Catholic Church's word for it when they say the new testament scripture is exactly the 27 books we know today? So if you are not certain what is scripture and what is not, how can you know if scripture is clear or unclear?

Mr_Anony:
Because the scripture will make it obvious. the bible says that by their fruits you shall know them

Like I said above, you don't know for sure what is scripture and what is not, so you cannot know whether the scripture will make anything obvious or not. Besides, when the Bible says "by their fruits, you shall know them", it does not have the same meaning as "scripture will make it obvious"' so stop trying to force the Bible to say what you want it to say.

Mr_Anony:
The contest isn't about who exactly wrote scripture but whether the scripture is true.

How can you know whether it is truly scripture when you dont even know who wrote it, it's origin and whether the person was inspired by the Holy Spirit or not?

Mr_Anony:
I could be wrong about the color of boots Wayne Rooney wore today when he played for England. Does that automatically mean I didn't watch the match? (the only way I can be corrected is by watching the match again and not shouting a counter claim)

It could also be that you didn't watch the match. So the only way I can know for sure that you watched the match is if you give me concrete proof that you did. In the same way, I ask for concrete proof that you know for sure what is scripture and what is not. E.g by telling me the origin, author and inspiration of the books of Mark and Luke.

Mr_Anony:
The fact that I didn't respond doesn't mean I agreed, it only means I didn't think it necessary. Now about calling people father, rabbi or teacher Jesus was preaching about humility and against hierarchy in church and this was what I was pointing to (Matthew 23:8-12). The example you gave as one of God's not-so-clear miracles was Jesus Christ Himself this is a bad example considering the fact that Christ did so many miracles and also resurrected from death. How much more clarity do you need? but that's by the way.

You will be well advised to keep quiet rather than arrogantly exposing the pathetic level of your deficiency in the knowledge of Christian doctrine. Is there no Heirarchy in you Hillsong Shop? Do you not have pastors?

The example I gave is not a bad example. It is the same thing: Even the bread is Jesus himself. At let us determine whether you were wrong when you said "when God performs a miracle, it is ALWAYS clear for all to see". I gave you an example that wasn't clear for all to see, so do you agree that when God became man, it was a miracle and it wasn't clear for all to see? Yes or no! Even his disciples and the religious leaders didn't know that he was God.

Here's biblical proof that The Church is Hierarchical

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests ("presbyteroi" and the bishops ("episkopoi" of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi" who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi" who serve the bishops.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi". Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

You just keep jumping from fallacy to fallacy, lie to lie, heresy to heresy.

Mr_Anony:
Some things appear so obvious to me that when I see your reply, I wonder whether you are just purposely misunderstanding me so I decline from arguing over it.

How is it possible to misunderstand rubbish? It doesn't make sense, period! It cannot be misunderstood.

Mr_Anony:
The point is not what you call the man but the form of power you attribute to the title

My God! Why are you making a mockery of yourself this way?

You talk about power? Then read this:

Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

In Acts 5, when Ananais and his wife lied to Peter and the apostles, Peter said they had lied to the Holy Spirit and they fell and died. Talk about attributing power to a man... It is not Catholics that do it, it is Christ who does it.

Mr_Anony:
If a miracle is not clear enough to see, how can we honestly call it a miracle? You are yet to show me a biblical miracle that wasn't clear to see. Jesus life was full of signs and wonders plus he rose from the dead, these were clear enough. Please show me one miracle performed in the bible like the one you are claiming i.e. where the sick are healed but remain sick or where the dead are raised but remain dead or where water turns to wine but still looks and tastes like water.

John 1: 14: "and the word became flesh and lived among us"... John 1: 10: "he was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.

Inference: God made the word become flesh (miracle), but the world did not know him (it wasn't clear for all to see). Thank you very much.

Mr_Anony:
Here again you have asked leading questions hoping to lead me into the answer that you want even accusing me of deception for effect. I laugh in Swahili

Are you sure it is honesty you want?

You cannot decide how I'll ask my questions. It is either you answer or you don't. And if you answer, it is either you answer honestly or you answer in your normal fashion. If you answer honestly, you will disprove you position yourself, but if you answer dishonestly, you will keep making a fool of yourself. But whichever way you go, no one will kill you on nairaland for it, so feel free.

My words in red

italo:

I don't say that you know absolutely nothing for sure. But if you say you can be wrong in your understanding or interpretation of God's teaching using Scripture and Tradition, then I believe that cuts across. In what aspect then can I trust you to be inerrant. If you can be wrong in one part of God's teaching, then you can easily be wrong in any other part, that's only logical and easy to figure out, isn't it? So I can infer that you can not be certain about anything in God's teaching.
Wrong assumption, you refuse to test my words by the authority I have ascribed to which is the Holy Ghost. You are making your judgement based on a claim by someone else (insert your church) who claims he is certain and you take his word for it without testing it yourself (which is all I have been asking you to do). Perhaps I should have just made a fanatical claim that I am definitely right. Would you have believed me without question?

Saying the scripture is quite clear counts for nothing because you are not even certain about what is scripture and what is not, or are you just taking the Catholic Church's word for it when they say the new testament scripture is exactly the 27 books we know today? So if you are not certain what is scripture and what is not, how can you know if scripture is clear or unclear?
Again another fallacy. If I am quoting from the Nigerian constitution, it is irrelevant if I know or not the exact number of sections it has. What is important is if my claim is true or not


Like I said above, you don't know for sure what is scripture and what is not, so you cannot know whether the scripture will make anything obvious or not. Besides, when the Bible says "by their fruits, you shall know them", it does not have the same meaning as "scripture will make it obvious"' so stop trying to force the Bible to say what you want it to say.
This is a silly comparism on your part. For instance, if I accused a senator of breaking the law, his defence is not whether he co-wrote the law or not or if I know all the sections of the law. His defence is to show me from the law how he is not an offender


How can you know whether it is truly scripture when you dont even know who wrote it, it's origin and whether the person was inspired by the Holy Spirit or not?
Again you continue your invalid defence. Unless you are about to claim that the bible is not indeed the word of God, this line of reasoning holds no water


It could also be that you didn't watch the match. So the only way I can know for sure that you watched the match is if you give me concrete proof that you did. In the same way, I ask for concrete proof that you know for sure what is scripture and what is not. E.g by telling me the origin, author and inspiration of the books of Mark and Luke.
Knowing who exactly wrote Luke and Mark is still irrelevant. The books may as well have been titled Jackson and Chukwuemeka. what matters more is the truth of the gospel written in them. As for Rooney's boots, the best concrete proof still remains watching the match for yourself and you know it

You will be well advised to keep quiet rather than arrogantly exposing the pathetic level of your deficiency in the knowledge of Christian doctrine. Is there no Heirarchy in you Hillsong Shop? Do you not have pastors?
Of course we have pastors and we forever question their authority using scripture

The example I gave is not a bad example. It is the same thing: Even the bread is Jesus himself. At let us determine whether you were wrong when you said "when God performs a miracle, it is ALWAYS clear for all to see". I gave you an example that wasn't clear for all to see, so do you agree that when God became man, it was a miracle and it wasn't clear for all to see? Yes or no! Even his disciples and the religious leaders didn't know that he was God.
One thing that was clear to everyone was that this man was not a common man, they couldn't deny it. How is you bread and wine uncommon apart from that you claim it is? It looks and tastes like bread and wine, it digests and gets excreted like normal bread and wine. If you drank enough of this miraculous wine you would still get drunk. If your bread was some how corrupted in the baking, it would still give you a running stomach. If the bread and wine were poisoned, they would still kill you. What exactly makes it uncommon other than someone said it is a miracle?

Here's biblical proof that The Church is Hierarchical

Matt. 16:18; 18:18 - Jesus uses the word "ecclesia" only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.
ecclesia simply means church. "hierarchical" and "authoritative" are adjectives you invented

Acts 20:17,28 - Paul refers to both the elders or priests ("presbyteroi" and the bishops ("episkopoi" of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.
Again you have added "priest". Elders and priests are two different things entirely. Paul never mentioned priests and elders as being similar. in fact Peter calls all Christians a royal priesthood in 1Peter 2:9, bishops oh yes, but did you notice how "bishop" was rendered as a job description and not a political office 1Tim 3:1. same with deacons. Also notice how your version of bishop tallies/does not tally with the biblical version

1 Cor. 12:28 - God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.
Please read 1Corinthians 12 properly then from what you have read, please go ahead and explain to me which positions are higher than which.
.................If you had read that chapter carefully, you would notice that Paul was talking about how all the members of a body are equal even though they have different functions

Eph. 4:11 - the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.
Good, now place apostles, prophets, teachers, pastors in order of seniority and hierarchy. What you are doing is like saying that the striker, defender, midfielder and goalkeeper in a team are in hierarchical order.

Phil. 1:1 - Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.
And so what if they can trace there lineages? How does that make them special? I have never argued against the existence of a bishop or deacon, I have only argued on their authority.

1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 - Christ's Church has bishops ("episkopoi" who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.
there is a big difference between authority and duty

1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 - Christ's Church also has elders or priests ("presbyteroi" who serve the bishops.
I have always agreed with the prescence of elders or bishops. That is not the debate. The question is can there authority be questioned? the biblical answer is yes.

1 Tim. 3:8 - Christ's Church also has deacons ("diakonoi". Thus, Jesus Christ's Church has a hierarchy of authority - bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

There is no question of offices and duties and functions in the church. The question is about authority and hierarchy i.e. a chain of command. this you haven't been able to show through scripture.
The reason I bring this up is because your church declares the pope infallible when he is a mortal man as sinful and in need of salvation just like me and you and all your priests

You just keep jumping from fallacy to fallacy, lie to lie, heresy to heresy.
If I was really lying, why would I keep wanting us to base our argument on scripture? It is the honest man who is willing to be examined while the dishonest one wants to hold on to an unbacked claim and call it "word of mouth tradition"


How is it possible to misunderstand rubbish? It doesn't make sense, period! It cannot be misunderstood.
Yeah the dictionary definition of rubbish: anything that doesn't make sense to Italo, Italo is the final authority on what is or isn't rubbish oh yes.


My God! Why are you making a mockery of yourself this way?

You talk about power? Then read this:

Jesus said to Peter in Matt. 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
If that power was so unique to Peter as you seem to claim, why would Jesus say the same thing to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18? Funny enough Matthew 18 talks about humility if you read it.


In Acts 5, when Ananais and his wife lied to Peter and the apostles, Peter said they had lied to the Holy Spirit and they fell and died. Talk about attributing power to a man... It is not Catholics that do it, it is Christ who does it.
They died because they lied to the Holy Ghost and not because they lied to Peter. They would have equally died if they had told the same lie to Matthias or Thomas or Bartholomew

Now let me tell you something that may shock you a bit: when Christ said "upon this rock, I will build my church", the rock he was referring to was not Peter literally as you may believe but upon the revelation of Him being the Christ. That is what the church is built upon. That Jesus is truly Christ. and not Peter and I can show you this from the bible if you are willing


John 1: 14: "and the word became flesh and lived among us"... John 1: 10: "he was in the world, and the world came into being through him; yet the world did not know him.

Inference: God made the word become flesh (miracle), but the world did not know him (it wasn't clear for all to see). Thank you very much.

But it was clear to all that Jesus Christ was an uncommon man (what was not clear is whether He was from God or not). A miracle is always clear for all to see what may not be clear is the power behind the miracle. If your claim that the communion s actually a miracle then you cannot fault false prophets who claim that people have been healed when it is clear they are not. Case in point: Enebeli/Fireman would be another perfect example of one of those special "unclear miracles"

You cannot decide how I'll ask my questions. It is either you answer or you don't. And if you answer, it is either you answer honestly or you answer in your normal fashion. If you answer honestly, you will disprove you position yourself, but if you answer dishonestly, you will keep making a fool of yourself. But whichever way you go, no one will kill you on nairaland for it, so feel free.

I didn't fail to notice how you refused to answer the questions posed at you or address the main objections I have been raising anyway, I believe we are arguing over more or less the same thing on two different threads. I think we should move our debate into the other thread as we have answered the question for this thread already but our argument only serves to derail this thread.

Feel free to refer to this debate and take quotes from it as we continue in the other thread.

So let's continue at https://www.nairaland.com/936926/mother-us-all/10

wakagirl: [i][/i]
I have Ruth, Michael, Deborah as well as Fatima, Sikiru, Habeeb etc as cousins, uncles, aunties so I respect everyone’s belief. Thank you.

Eiyaah. What a pity. So sooorryyy.