₦airaland Forum

Heffalump:
Meanwhile, more Nigerians have gain citizenship of other countries, almost 3 times this figure brandishing here.

This shows that Nigeria is not an attractive destination for foreigners due to bad politics and government.

Data for 1 country in 2023 !!- gov.uk site
The top non-EU nationals granted British citizenship in 2023 were Indian (18,288), Pakistani (16,440), and [b]Nigerian (8,836) [/b]nationals. These 3 nationalities accounted for over one-quarter (28%) of grants to non-EU nationals in 2023.

InvertedHammer:
/
The Pope is the CEO of a global corporation called Catholic church. He gets the same protection as CEOs of Apple, Meta, Tesla, etc. He is voted in by Board of Directors (aka Cardinals). It is just a matter of semantics. It is a business entity. Poor people see it as a religious organization. Rich people and wealth managers approach them for the business side of the organization.

Why would someone doing God's work draw such a huge salary when he has no mortgages to pay nor wife and kids to take care of?

Pope: CEO
Cardinals: Board of Directors
Bishops: Regional Managers
Parish priests: Branch Managers
Catechists: Managers' Aides/ Special Assistants

/

In that case, presumably Apple, Google and all these other corporations have been going for 2000 years? Or perhaps you assume any global corporation today would last 2000 years?

Could there be more to the catholic church ,perhaps, that it's lasted so long?

In this day and age, the born again person would likely have a baptimal certificate showing the date they were baptised. Being born again is from water and holy spirit = baptism. This is clearly taught in John 3:5 and affirmed by early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus and still carries on to date in Catholic, Orthodox and even Lutheran churches. Evangelicals changed the meaning of being born again - this is a later development.

"there were 202,041 grants of British citizenship in 2023, 15% more than in 2022"!!!
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics?
Not sure what to think about our own 1006 in 8 years!!

Dtruthspeaker:
I thought you said we should not be based on sola scriptura? We know all the bible said about Peter and we know that Peter directly led the disciples and people who chose follow Christ Jesus in the territory of Isreal.

So now by valid evidence even if outside the bible when did that same Peter go to Rome and become a Roman?

And when did Rome become a Christian ground in the life time of Peter that could now go there to even sit at its head, when you yourself acknowledge that the Romans hated and pursued them?

For you err in thinking Peter was in Rome via 1 Peter 5:13 whereas he was not there but was only writing to all the churches in the area.

1 Peter 1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Thus, you still cannot show by valid and irrefutable evidence that Peter went to Rome.

Not going by sola scriptura means not going by written scripture only. It doesn’t mean you can't go to scripture at all - in fact it's where the basis of info sits. The fact is you need sacred tradition to fill in gaps that may not be in the written scriptures. E.g. what happened in the immediate aftermath of the death of all apostles and info about early christianity beliefs and interpretations.
I'll like to see which early church interprets Peter as not being in Rome. I think you need to re-read 1Peter 5 13. Where exactly was the babylon is referred to?

Who.said Peter was head of Rome? Peter was the chief apostle and he later moved to the see of Rome. This is clear from early christian church fathers. Please show where else Peter was at the end of his life. Which other city lays claim to Peter having died there?

All you have are horrible hearsay evidence of people who we cannot examine to see if they were lying.

Who else can you examine to see if the claims of the scriptures are true going by your logic? Please don't beat round the bush in responding

So now I challenge these old claims and obviously Lies and I have not seen anyone anywhere give valid proof and evidence.

You challenge these old claims ( and lies as you call them) based on what authority or what proof otherwise? Why do you even believe the scriptures at all, if the same church that told you they are scriptures is the one whose claims you challenge? i.e. Peter being at Rome.

See some church father quotes, please provides quotes that state otherwise
Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215)
(Quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.15.1)

“When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”

Ignatius of Antioch regarding Peter,- Letter to the Romans, c. 107 Ad:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a convict.”

Gaius c. 170AD speaking on Peter and Paul ( preserved by Eusebius)
“I can show you the trophies of the apostles. For if you go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this church.”

Peter and Pauls remains are still in Rome as of today.

Dtruthspeaker:
No human can change the past neither am I trying to.

Plus, you are changing the question and moving post to "bishops of Rome"/Pope later became bishop" instead of proving when and how Peter became a Pope of Rome, when he and all Christians were actually an enemy of the state of Rome.

And this is not sola scriptura but simple ordinary logic and natural common sense which sifts hearsay Lies from Truth.

So appealing to unchallenged Lies sold by the very people accused of Lying just proves that you guys are Lying.

In simple terms, Peter was clearly the chief apostle as he's mentioned more times than all the other apostles combined. Jesus gave him a unique role as per Matt 16 18 - 19 and John 21:15-17. Also in Luke 22:31-32, where Jesus singled Peter out and prayed for him strengthen the apostles.

Peter himself says he's at Rome using the coded word 'babylon'(1 Peter 5:13). Early christians referred to Rome in code due to persecutions.
Thr early church always knew the See of Rome was associated strongly with Peter as he was matryed there. Clement of Rome about 96AD confirmed Peter's matryedom in Rome, so did other church fathers.This is the main reason why church fathers would say that the church of rome is the one that presides in love e.g. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD). Thus, we see a seed form of the bishop of Rome,(the successors of Peter) becaming the defacto leader of the church. Eventually, the word 'pope' was used to describe this bishop.

Despite the Roman empire, Christianity carried on through persecutions and I already mentioned the highnumber of bishops matryed.
If you believe these are unchallenged lies, where is your prove otherwise 2000 years later? (Multiple denominations with differing beliefs- is that the truth?) Even the eastern orthodox church acknowledges the primacy of the see of Rome/ Peter/ successor popes although disagree on supremacy - east west politics. Your posts don't come even across like you're eastern orthodox and I don't know what unchallenged lies you refer to.
Been lieing for 2000 years you say and still standing solidly?!!! Lots of strong anticatholics have said the same and ended up becoming to catholics.

Dtruthspeaker:
Stop deceiving yourself.

Catholic church is a Roman creation created long after Peter, so when and how did he become a pipe to a Roman institution?

Secondly, the Romans hated Christians and sought to quench the increase and popularity of this sect so how could they now claim the same foreigner who they despised and hated to make him their Pope?

You people are exactly like the cult jws

All your anti catholic posts won't change christian history. Haven't you read that the bulk of Bishops of Rome were matryed in the first 3 centuries under the Roman empire when Christians were persecuted??! Don't you realise that the word "pope" later became associated with the bishop of rome. Not everything that happened in early Christianity was recorded in scriptures. Sola scriptura is a false doctrine.
You do realise that Peter's remains are within St Peter's Basilica in the vatican just as St Paul's remains are within St Paul's outside the Walls basilica.

You can deny all you want but the fact remains - you can't change christian history with your NL posts

Emaprince:
I am a catholic. Stop running away from the truth, just because it taints your image.

I was watching an interview on CNN after he passed, and it was said right there. He gave his consent to it.

You are no Catholic or a poorly cathecized one if you believe what you've posted.
Where is the link to the pope approving female ordination or same-sex marriage on CNN??!!!!

Try doing some more research and not rely on hear say.

Emaprince:
Even this pope that passed, I heard have given a go ahead for women to become priests. That means with time, we will have female popes. Something the Bible is against.

What we are seeing now are anti christs having a say in churches. They succumb to pressures. If not I dont see how a priest will Join a same sex marriage on the alter...

Might want to check your source again as this is false information. The Catholic church cannot ordain females as priests. You probably heard about another denomination.
Neither can the church approve same sex marriage.

santaclaws:
There is no concept of Pope in Christianity, it's a Catholic concept, that's all I know. This is all religion and tradition and it's to be separated from the Church.

Catholic is Catholic, Church is Church, don't mix it up! Thanks!

You'll need to do some research. Sola scriptura is a novel concept.

santaclaws:
You mean the Catholics, not "The Church"... All I see them do is traditions and rituals that have nothing to do with the bible... If you believe in that, you're on your own.

Well, the church has been known as catholic from the 1st century. What is man without rituals?! How exactly do you think Mattias who replaced Judas was chosen? I guess casting of lots is also tradition and a ritual.

Admire the process and let's give glory to God

SonofElElyonRet:
Bro Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 based on context clearly spoke of the children of the mother of Jesus but you are in denial.. is his mother not Mary and his brothers james joses etc? By simple rule of contextual interpretation it is overwhelming clear but you are in denial.
The other Mary also had children named james and joses but that was James the Less and not the brother of Jesus who was called James the Just or James of Jerusalem who Paul spoke about in Galatians and who wrote the book of James. It is that James the son of Mary that was mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55
For your additional info, James the brother of Jesus headed the church council in Jerusalem and was called James the Just or James of Jerusalem. He became a Christian (probably after Christ's resurrection which likely led to his conversion). Galatians 1:18-19, Acts 15, Acts 21:18
Don't be in denial bro

I'm in no denial and go with early christianity interpretation over yours 2000 years later. When did your interpretation first appear in christian history if you're confident of it?

So they just happened to mention “Mary’s sister, the mother of James and Joses” at the Crucifixion. Why, exactly? Just a coincidence?

So this James was Mary's son but couldn't care for her as required by Jewish custom?

SonofElElyonRet:
Extra biblical course when in conflict with scripture is null and void. Bible states that Jesus had brothers and not cousins.. new testament. Quote me somewhere in the New testament where cousin is referred to as brother. The Greek language is completely different from Hebrew or Aramaic. If NT calls cousins brothers it would've referred to John the Baptist as a brother of Jesus.. NT is very specific in describing affinity sir

Not extra-biblical because interpretation is within church own sacred tradition not speculation/personal interpretation outside context 2000 years later. The Catholic church rests on Scripture, Sacred tradition and the teaching magisterium.- This is hiw doctrine has been confirmed over the centuries.
You're avoiding the scriptural reference I already gave:
Regarding James and Joses, I've already pointed out that these brothers of Jesus have their mother listed as Mary of Clopas in Matt 27:56 and John 19:25. Please explain how they could then be Mary's children. Catholic church looks at the entire biblical context not a verse plucked out.
Jesus entrusting Mary to John against Jewish custom going by your claim. How do you justify this if Jesus had other biological brothers?

I've already explained that John was a more distant relative outside the household and his mothers relationship is stated as sungenes of Mary accordingly. Adelphos was typically used for closer kin or even extended ones not necessarily for relatives living apart.

Brothers (adelphoi) is used in many instances in the NT not necessarily cousins. Please deal with James and Joses first.
E.g. of adelphoi use for non siblings:
Acts 1:14–15
Romans 9:3
1 Corinthians 15:6

SonofElElyonRet:
Bro why are you in denial? You keep quoting extra biblical sources that are essentially from the Catholic church. Such evidence isn't reliable because it's bias. The new
New testament was written in Greek and not in Hebrew. The writers of NT never called cousins brothers. John the Baptist was never called the brother of Jesus. When the new testament called John and James Zebedee brothers, it meant same thing as the 4 brothers of Jesus born by Mary his mother. Mary was nowhere in the bible referred to as a perpetual virgin. Matthew 1:25
When Joseph woke up he did what the angel had told him. He married Mary, but had no intercourse with her until she had given birth to a son. This needs no special interpretation to know that Joseph slept with Mary after she delivered Jesus and she bore him 4 biological sons named by Matthew and Mark. Also James was named by Paul in Galatians.

Why do you trust the NT texts at all if you believe the Church that preserved, copied, and canonised them is not reliable? The same Church, whose so called "extra-biblical" sources you're dismissing, is precisely the body that affirmed the NT canon at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) councils before the printing press and long after the Apostles. The canon was later reaffirmed dogmatically at the Council of Trent in 1546. Without the authority of the Church, we wouldn't even have the Bible as you know it.

I'm not in denial at all but relying on the testimony of the church fathers closest to the events. They were taught by the Apostles' successors and affirmed Mary's perpetual virginity among many other teachings passed down in Sacred Tradition and defended it against challenges like those of Helvidius in the 4th century. Protestant reformers Martin Luther,Zwigli and Calvin also upheld Mary perpetual virginity.

Regarding the use of "brothers" of Jesus, this reflects a jewish usage of language. Yes the NT was written in Greek, but deeply Jewish in its worldview. Hebrew and Aramaic, spoken in Jesus' time, did not distinguish between brothers and close kin as you know. And there are several examples of brothers used for non siblings and fellow country men.

You haven't given a valid reason why Jesus would entrust Mary to John, instead of one of these supposed brothers nor have you addressed James and Joses mother being Mary of Clopas as per scriptures. It was clear the James.and John were Zebedees sons and nowhere do we see the "brothers" of Jesus described as Mary's sons. This aligns with early church teachimg that they were Jesus' close relatives. John the baptist was of a different household and a more distant relative and thus the word sungenes(relative ) to describe his mother's relationship to Mary.

As for .."knew her not her until she gave birth...",you're misunderstanding the Greek usage of heōs (until) compared to modern days. It doesn’t imply that the action must have changed afterward. The focus in Matthew is on the confirmation of virginal birth, not on what happened after. There are several examples in scripture where action doesn't change afterward:

- 2 Sam 6:23 – “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death.” That doesn't mean she had children after death.
- Deut34:6 – "No one knows his burial place to this day" doesn't mean someone eve[i]ntually found it later.
- 1 Cor 15:25[/i] – Christ "must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet" does that mean He stops reigning after that?

The Bible wasn't dropped from the sky. It came from within the church, interpreted in light of Sacred Tradition. Doctrines like the Trinity, two natures of Christ etc were clarified through centuries of scriptural study and Church teaching, not because they were spelled out word for word in Scripture, but because they were present in seed form, requiring faithful interpretation, so too was the church’s understanding of Mary’s unique role.

So again, where in early Christianity was it taught that Mary had other children? You won't find it because it wasn't believed.

SonofElElyonRet:
Don't start again .. I know the Catholic church and it's roots .. Queen of heaven and all..

Interesting, please research some more and you might get better context for the scriptures - old and new.

Easy to pick one topic out of context but do you also know the following about the catholic church?:
-Apostolic Succession
-Teaching Authority (Magisterium): Unified interpretation of Scripture and doctrine.
-Scripture + Tradition: Faith is rooted in both the Bible and the living Tradition passed down since the apostles
-Sacramental Life
- Evidence of actual miracles (research eucharist miraclea, tilma of guadalupe etc)
-Global Reach: Largest Christian body worldwide.
-Charity and Service: Largest non-governmental provider of education, healthcare and humanitarian aid globally.
- Spiritual Depth: Rich tradition of prayer, mysticism, saints and spiritual writings.
You may want to discuss these separately in relation to what the church should be.

SonofElElyonRet:
Your argument ignores facts and relies on assumptions.. were James and Joses, clearly mentioned in scripture as 2 of the 4 brothers of Christ in Mathew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 part of his disciples? The same James was referred to by Paul as "the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19. Jesus trusted John to take care of his mother because he was his disciple and the one Jesus loved the most out of them (John the Beloved)

"It's ironic that this argument is based on Sola Scriptura yet Scripture never actually says that's the reason Jesus entrusted his mother to John. It's your personal interpretation, not a direct scriptural statement. Reason why we need sacred tradition plus scripture.

SonofElElyonRet:
Your argument ignores facts and relies on assumptions.. were James and Joses (clearly mentioned in scripture as brothers of Christ) part of his disciples? He trusted John because he was his disciple and the one Jesus loved the most out of them (John the Beloved)

No assumptions but what has been taught since early christianity. I'll point out that there was universal agreement among church fathers closest to the time that Mary remained perpetual virgin. The use of "brother" (adelphoi in greek) in the scriptures is not exclusive to blood siblings alone but could refer to relatives or close kin(see Gen 13:8 ; 14:14 -Abraham calls his nephew Lot 'brother'), several other examples available.

Also, James and Joses are identified elsewhere as the sons of another Mary, the wife of Clopas (see Mark 15:40, Matt 27:56, John 19:25), not Mary the mother of Jesus. Tradition has it that there were sisters in law or cousins hence John 19 :25 calls them susters

Would Jesus really have broken Jewish custom by entrusting his Mother to a non relative?!! Wasn't it this same James that became bishop of Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, sola scriptura will limit your scope of discussion on this topic.

You may wish to open another thread to discuss this big topic.

SonofElElyonRet:
Ok Mr defender of the Catholic church... We've been at it for days now.. let's just say we have agreed to disagree

It's all good.
Hopefully someday you might consider looking beyond sola scriptura to better understand where catholics are coming from.

[quote author=SonofElElyonRet post=135238563]

Are you saying Catholics don't directly mention Mary's name and directly address her when kneeling before her statue? Come on bro...

Yes, Catholics do mention Mary's name and the names of other saints when asking for their intercession, however, icons are not idols but visual reminders of the holy lives we aspire to imitate. Having a photo of an ancestor or president on the wall doesn't mean you're worshipping them nor does a protestant worship the bible when it is raised or held in reverence. Catholics may kneel (not mandatory) before a statue while praying, but that posture is not exclusive to worship, it’s also a sign of reverence and petition.

Also, praying doesn’t automatically mean worship either. The older and broader meaning of "to pray" is "to ask." and worship in the Catholic understanding involves much more - sacrifice (which is reserved for God alone), adoration and the liturgy.

Catholics also believe in the communion of saints: the Church Militant (believers on earth), the Church Suffering (souls in purgatory) and the Church Triumphant (saints in heaven). Scripture supports this understanding of unity across heaven and earth( Heb 12:1 refers to great cloud of witnesses) showing that those who have gone before us are still spiritually connected to us.

The Catholic church's insistence on priests and nuns being celibate contradicts the teachings of both Christ and Paul who say it's voluntary..

please re-read my previous long post to understand what was stated!!! How does this church discipline contradict scripture?!!! And yes, celibacy is voluntary, some choose to practice it for the sake of the kingdom of God. To become a priest/ bishop you'll also be choosing to practice celibacy. Would be good to also see this within evangelical/ protestant churches.

Also why do Catholics claim that Mary remained a virgin until she died when she had James and Joses (with Joseph) after Jesus? Come on..

Now you're bringing up a new topic without concluding the current discussion and would be better you open another thread as this one as already been very well deralied.
This is a big topic, but I'll give a brief response:
Her role as new ark of the convenant (set apart and holy, just like the Ark in the Old Testament) meant it was fitting that she remained untouched.
Also, If Mary had given birth to James and Jose as you claim, why would Jesus entrust her to John? According to Jewish custom, that would’ve been unnecessary and against jewish custom, as care of widow would pass to the next eldest child, if widow had one.

SonofElElyonRet:
All the ones in the new testament nko?

,the Catholic church believes in the new testament and was very instrumental in the scriptures being available today, whether it was through the monks hand copying manuscripts on to scrolls through the centuries or canonising which books form the bible as part of its tradition, translating to common languages, adding chapter and verses, confirming who the gospel authors were through its own church fathers.

The fact remains that the apostlic age ended in the 1st century ,the early church continued functioning after the apostles death. Can you point to any writings from this "separate Church" that held different beliefs or practices than the Catholic Church of that time?. Have you got a list of their bishops say between 100AD and 200AD?

SonofElElyonRet:
I admire your sophistry but it's not working
Any one who wants to serve God in the sense of the priesthood/pastorate, according to catholic church MUST be celibate ... Nowhere in the old or new testament is that commanded.. you are permitted to marry according to the bible...

Well.. did the Israelites kneel and bow before the images of the cherubims? Did they pray to images? Naaaah

I don't see why you have an issue with celibacy in the church when Our Lord Jesus and Paul extol the virtues of being celibate for the kingdom of God.
The Catholic church (plus other apostlic churches ) has the authority to make celibacy a requirement for their bishops and priests(in the case of latin rite catholics), what's wrong with that? Whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" The fact is this enables them dedicate themselves more fully to God and the Church. Don't you think it'll be a good thing to see some celibate ministers in evangelical and pentecostal churches? The Catholic church values marriage highly and you’ll find that divorce & remarriage is not even permitted as per Jesus in Matt 19:6: “What God has joined together, let no one separate.” Everyone is called to their own vocation and as I mentioned before,there are several ways to serve in the church. As an aside, it's worth noting thatthere are a number of married priests even within the latin rite catholic church who've received special dispensation to be ordained. Celibacy is a gift and discipline, not doctrine.

Re.Israelites bowing before the ark, see below, they didn't worship the ark but worship God in its presence, just like catholics do not worship icons/images:

- Josh7:6 – Joshua fell face down before the Ark of the Lord.
- 1 Sam 4:3–5 – Israel shouted with reverence as the Ark entered the camp.
- 1 Kings 8:6, 10–11, 54 – Solomon knelt in prayer before the Ark during the temple dedication.
- 1 Chron 28:2 – David calls the Ark “the footstool of our God.”
- 2 Sam 6:13–15 – David worshipped with dancing and sacrifice before the Ark.

And to add, the apostles were given the power to bind and lose. This was passed to their successors (bishops) through apostolic succession. These bishops affirmed that icons can be used in aid of worship but not as objects of worship as per my previous comment. Research 2nd Council of Nicaea.

SonofElElyonRet:
You'll need to carry out your own research into the influence and "reforms" of the Roman empire that resulted in the Roman Catholic church. Practices that the apostles and early fathers neither approved nor adopted... queen of heaven/mariolatry, graven images in worship, celibacy as a command to priests, flagellation, and subsequent strange practices

Still awaiting a list of bishops from this 'separate' early church you refer to, or writings from any of the associated church fathers.

[quote author=SonofElElyonRet post=135226932]"

Whoever is able to receive it let him receive it" said Jesus. Not by compulsion as the Catholic church commands it's sisters and priests! that's why it is written that a bishop should be the husband of 1 wife!!! Several practices in the church have pagan origins..

This is the point, no one is forced to become a priest, sister/nun or brother/monk. - read the words before the verse you quoted - and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.
There are several other ways to serve, including non-celibate deaconate. Catholic Church chose to apply this criteria to selects its ministers and religious.

Re bishop with 1 wife - not a requirement to marry but emphasis laid on morality and fidelity during a time when people divorced and remarried regularly. A number of bishops were married initially but see my response above.

Also, you bow and kneel before images that you pray to and say that's not worship? Verbal/semantic/linguistic gymnastics!!

Why would catholics deny what it does or doesn't worship!! Images have always been an aids to devotion and teaching tools ( especially in an age where most people couldn't read).
Eg. of image use in scripture
Ex 25:18–20: God commands Moses to make golden cherubim (angels) on the Ark of the Covenant.
> "You shall make two cherubim of gold... at the two ends of the mercy seat..."

Worship/ adoration is given to Trinity alone( please attend a catholic mass to see an example. Honour is given to saints.

SonofElElyonRet:
You'll need to carry out your own research into the influence and "reforms" of the Roman empire that resulted in the Roman Catholic church. Practices that the apostles and early fathers neither approved nor adopted... queen of heaven/mariolatry, graven images in worship, celibacy as a command to priests, flagellation, and subsequent strange practices

It's amazing how history can be suddenly distorted to suit 21st century narratives!!
You'll find that the early church made decisions via councils; groups that didn't accept these decisions (e.g. oriental churches) split off from the original church known as catholic.
While Roman emperors tried to have their way ( e.g. Constatine II who tried to force Pope Liberius in 350s to sign up to the Arian Heresy by condemning Athanasius of Alexandria), ultimately it was the bishops of the church that decided doctrines as they have the power to bind and loose. The church decided at the 2nd Council of Nicaea that images can be venerated not worshipped (in response to the iconoclast controversy- ironically from some emperors)
Decisions around Mary's approved titles where in response to Arian Heresies and certainly to confirm the divinity of Jesus
Celibacy is not a dogma but a discipline to ensure priests are commited to their ministries amongst other reasons ( see Jesus talknabout this here Matt 19:10–12) . This discipline could be changed in theory - in fact, the Eastern Catholic priests are not obligated to be celibate if they've been ordained as married priests. By the way, the Catholic church isn't just Roman/Latin but includes many Eastern churches as well - e.g Syriac, Chaldean.

Please do your research and you'd find thatbthe Apostles also dealt with a major issue by calling a council (Acts 15). This practice has not stopped.

SonofElElyonRet:
Rome accepted Christianity in 313AD and it was after that time that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH was founded..
Regarding the "Saint" Prefix, you started it by insisting must attach same to Luke's name..

Christianity became state religion across the Roman Empire (East and West) after the Edict of Thesalonica 380. Are you stating that this Christianity was different from the christianity and church that already existed before the persecutions ended in 313AD? Where exactly did the bishops that came together at Nicea 325 come from?
Where is this different early church you seem to refer to?

SonofElElyonRet:
The Catholic church isn't the early church dude. The Catholic church is more accurately described as the ROMAN Catholic church and was established when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity. It was infused with elements of the other religions being practised at that time... you are the one that needs to do your research dude! You don't know your church. Nowhere in the bible do you have the prefix "Saint" in front of the names of the early church fathers!

You do realise that the Catholic church was never described as Roman Catholic until the Anglicans broke off after the reformation - 16th century? Where is the early church you refer to? They must have a different list of bishops than the catholic church ones, shay? Please enlighten us on the list of its bishops and reference to any of their writings in the 1st 3 centuries.

arantess:
I didn't say the religion, I mean the Man Christ, do you have a personal relationship with him, like he did with his Father while on earth?

Jer 33:3 says call upon me and I will answer and show thee great and mighty things which you don't know (about his purpose, your life, his will).
This is a call for personal relationship I was referring to.
my experience will be quite different from another but we all bound together in sonship and coheirs with Christ.

I'm not talking about going to church with congregation and clapping hands and sing and taking communion(that is a different matter).

Well, I get your perspective although I'll point out that 'personal relationship with Jesus' is a novel phrase of less than a 100 years. Relationship with Christ has always been in the context of the church notwithstanding each person's connection to Christ.

arantess:
yes I eat the body and drink His blood as recommended by Him.

it is written "I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the Father except by me. John 14:6.....do you know this verse in the bible if you have read one?

not by the pope or virgin mary, or saint peter.

if you don't know Jesus personally, sorry

Good to know that you believe the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ after consecration as opposed to differing beliefs among protestants. Although, taking the eucharist is not a mere recommendation but central to our Christianity - John 6:51-58 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

You really think the Catholic church doesn't believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and life?!! The fact is we also profess the communion of saints, as stated in the Apostles’ Creed. This isn’t something that takes away from Christ’s role as the one mediator. Rather, it highlights how we are all united in Him (living and dead) because God is the God of the living. The early Church clearly believed in this spiritual unity and we see the saints in heaven offering prayers before God (Revelation 5:8; 8:3-4). The pope is the head of the catholic church on earth just as any organisation would require a head.


Christianity was never set up as a personal relationship thing, it’s always been communal. Acts 2:42-47 ,1 Cor 12:12-27 show the Church as a united Body. Jesus didn’t come to start millions of individual relationships, He came to build His Church a living, spiritual family where we grow together in Him.

Your arguments have been debunked many centuries ago and are nothing new.

jesusjnr2020:
For all those who think the inverted cross has anything to do with Simon Peter, you should all know that you have been deceived and that's actually the concept.

It's the same cunning strategy they also used to deceive many catholics into believing that the carved idol they worship and pray to has anything to do with Mary, the mother of Jesus.

They're all demonically deviced using some of the most respected figures in Christianity to deceive gullible Christians.

God bless.

If the inverted cross is nothing to do with Peter, please tell us the history of it as related to the Catholic church.

jesusjnr2020:
Although there may still be some genuine Christians among catholics, the foundation of the Catholic church and its leadership is significant faulty hence why a lot of its traditional practices are demonic and idolic, such as, the worship of an idol they call Mary.

That's why you should beware if you're Catholic, because it's hard to be that and still a true Christian.

God bless.

Catholics do not worship an idol called Mary. The honour given to Mary is due to her special role in being the mother of Christ who is God.
Worship(Latria) is given to the Trinity alone. This has been the case for 2000 years.
Please mention the traditional practices that you believe are demonic and idolic.

arantess:
But do you have personal relationships with Jesus Christ.?
Abi una dey worship Mary shey?

Repent from idolatry

Where does it state that you need to have personal relationships with Jesus Christ? Presumably, you practice sola scriptura.
In any case, how more personal does a catholic need to get than eating the actual body and drinking the blood of Jesus Christ.
Do you eat the body and drink the blood of Christ?

Quelme:
occultism

Exactly what is occultic about it?
The other church ( Eastern Orthodox) traced back to the early church has very similar rituals/ liturgy.
You may need to study early christianity to better understand how things have been run.

All the 'fire, fire' of today would be unrecognisable to early christians as Christian worship.