₦airaland Forum

shadeyinka:
I asked you a question which you didn't touch...I don't know why?

How does a person get born of water?
How does a person get born of the spirit?

John 3:
Explains how to get born again.
The key to understanding it is to look at Numbers 21:8-

The lesson there is that "If anyone believes in Gods solution" such would not die of snake bite.

Jesus said,

Just as Moses raised up the Serpent in the Wilderness, so also the Son of Man shall be lifted up..."If anyone believes in Gods solution" (atonement of sin through Christs blood) such would not die of sin nature...but have eternal life (with God).

The Bible says:
Eph2:8
By grace you have been saved through Faith it is not of yourselves, not of works lest anyone should boast.

Let's look at these scriptures you quote


So, who saved us through the washing of regeneration?
Christ or the Priest/Pastor. Verse 6 actually confirms this. It is the Baptism of Christ (spiritual) not of water

If this was Christ washing us, my dear, it is not water baptism



Note:
I said, Water Baptism is meant only for those who have received the spiritual Baptism (born again). Except you can find a scripture in discord with this.

Hence, the book of Romans 6:1- is speaking of those who were already saved.

The bolded will confirm to you that Water baptism isnt what does anything but a testimony before the Church.

If you are to recon yourself as dead after baptism, does it not connote that you are not yet dead (to sin) but a symbolic representation of the fact that you should live your life like one dead to sin?

Look at the word likeness of His death. Is this not symbolic? Unlike when Paul said "I have been Crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live...yet not I..the life I live in the flesh, I live by faith...".

.

Let's say I am on a plane flight and I preached to the atheist beside my seat and he believed and said " Lord Jesus, I know that I have been rebellious and far away from you, I believe you died on the cross for my sin..please write my name in the book of life...".

If the plane crashes before we reach our destination, will such a man be saved?

If he will be saved, does it not negate that "Water Baptism is Salvation/BornAgain?"

Born of Water and spirit is simply water baptism in the name of the father, son and Holy spirit. That is the ancient faith passed on by the Apostles and preserved by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Not the these novel ideas that arose in the 19th Century Protestant America
Even Jesus was baptised to fulfill all righteousness
The Question is Why does he have to fulfill all righteousness?
Does it not show that Baptism is the gateway to our righteousness before God and out faith.
Christ did not start His ministry withoutwithout being baptised. Even though he was God. He Knee he came as a man and has to be like a man .He humbled himself to be baptised, Why would he do that if not to teach man that we must start our Christain Journey with a Clear conscience before God which baptism does for us by the Cleansing of our original and actual sins(the Washing of regeneration) Indicating it is the gateway to our faith.
Between which comes first between Water and Spirit, there is no order. It is as God pleases
This is the Faith of the Apostles
This is the Faith of the Catholic Church
And I ll Choose this ancient original faith to the reformed 19th Century theology

shadeyinka:
Check again!
The thief on the cross never asked for forgiveness!
He asked "remember me when you get to your kingdom".
Which is like asking " write my name in the book of life or make me a candidate of heaven..". And Jesus said, today today, you will be with me in Paradise. The thief was born again simply because he requested/ asked for the free gift of eternal life.




Peter knew that some of you will mix this scripture up and that is why he didn't stop at "Baptism, which now saves you" BUT "the answer of a qood conscience to God".

What does that mean?
It means we are not saved through water baptism but " a Baptism which has nothing to do with water- that produces answer of a good/clean conscience/spirit".
Emphasis are mine because I have to beak it down for your understanding.

I believe you have heard of "Baptism of the Holy Spirit"..this is what makes us to say to God " Abba Father". This is what makes you born again.

Apart from the scripture 1Pt3:21 you quoted (which of course is subject to interpretations,) can you find a similar scripture?

Baptism is a rite performed only for the one who is (already) Born Again (who has believed) not the other way round. The Etopian Eunuch and Paul are examples.





Water Baptism is just an outward /physical reflection of what has taken place in the Spirit.

I'm I saying Water Baptism is not relevant or important? Certainly NOT! Water baptism is like the Ordinance of the Holy Communion. What saves you is Gods Holy Spirit giving you an answer of a good question because you have believed.

Like I said earlier
Being Born Again is NOT responding to an alter call. There are several who came out for alter calls that are not born again.
Being Born Again is NOT water baptism. Millions have been baptised with water yet on their way to hell.

I believe that even the Catholic church Fathers knew this enough to create room for Indulgences, Prayer for the dead, Purgatory etc. If someone is truly Water Baptized, why does he need all these?

Jesus Clearly said that Born again is to be born of WATER and SPIRIT. U ve decided to Accept the Spirit and throw the water out. U have relegated baptism to Works Something the Apostles and the Church Fathers didn't do. U fell into the error of martin Luther. Paul distinguishes baptism from works and asserts that it partakes in our salvation.

he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3:5
Gods mercy, the washing of regeneration (which is Water baptism) and renewal in the holy spirit( baptism of the Holy spirit)
Paul also States the unity we have in Christ when we are baptised into Christ


Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:3

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Romans 6:4

If baptism was works and why will Paul Advocate it and the Apostles uphold it. Why did Christ include it in the great Commission

Once Again. Born again is BAPTISM

solite3:
there is nothing like born again catholic or the word bornagain has lost its meaning.
If you talk of born again catholic then also talk of born again Moslems, born again Hindu, born again Jehovah witness, bornagain, sabath, bornagain African traditional worshipper, bornagain Buddhist bornagain Rastafarian, bornagain satanist, bornagain luciferian etc
Bornagain has suffered. Everybody wants to associate themselves with Christianity but rejects the narrow door.

Thank you. We prefer Baptised Catholics, that way we keep it original and distinguish ourselves from Heretics and schismatics

shadeyinka:
You seem not to know what the Church of God is. The church is not a denomination or a system of organisation of Christians. The church is the assembly of those who are saved by the Blood of Christ.

Remember what Jesus said: "wherever two or more of you shall gather, there I will be". Roman Catholic church is just ONE of the denominations within the Church of Christ. BTW, I know several Catholics who are born again (in the proper sense). A catholic getting Born Again doesn't have to leave the Catholic church unless he is convinced otherwise.

If the thief on the right hand of Jesus is Born Again, what do you think being born of the water and the Spirit mean?

The Bible says, " grieve not the Holy Spirit, by whom you are sealed till the day of redemption.". Can you show me how to receive the Holy Spirit as a seal through Baptism?

Jesus said "How much more your heavenly Father who will give the Holy Spirit to them who ASK of Him". Salvation is by asking not doing.

Jesus was baptized (with the baptism of Repentance of John) to fulfill all righteousness.

By grace you have been saved through faith (not baptism), it is not of your selves...not of works (baptism is works) so that no man shall boast.

Jesus explained how to be born again by tieing it with the serpent in the wilderness: do you understand Jesus message?

Born again is baptism
Baptism is received through faith and not of works
Jesus Explained that to be born again is to be born of water and spirit.
The thief in the Cross only asked for forgiveness and was forgiven. How he is saved without baptism is left for God.
But Baptism saves u as the Bible Clearly says in

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 3:21
All the Apostles did baptise even Paul, he. Didn't call it works but understood what it meant to be baptised into Christ. If Baptism was works, Paul will not Advocate it, Peter will not say it saves us

shadeyinka:
Forced celibacy in the sense that to become a priest, you have to be celibate. Can a married man become a Catholic priest?

Born Again is NOT baptism!
To be Born Again is to "specifically" come to Jesus for the Salvation of ones Soul through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross.

The Thief on the Right hand of Christ on the Cross was Born Again BUT was not Baptized.

A person doesn't get born again through Alter Calls: but through this person asking Christ Jesus

"I know that I am a sinner...write my name in the Book of life. I promise to live the rest of my life for You.."

Baptism is a public confession before the church of Christ as a testament that you will follow Him and such live a new life.

With the heart, a man believes but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Jesus said "How much more your Father in Heaven who will give the Holy Spirit to them who ASK of Him"

At salvation, you are given the Seal of God: the Holy Spirit.

Baptism is not Salvation (Born Again)


The Holy Spirit will not lead the church into error but are we sure some of these traditions are from Him?

Born again is to be born of water and spirit. Which is baptism . this is the reason Christ was baptised to show us we must start our Christains life with baptism. That is the reason Christ told the disciples to baptise everyone who believes in the name of the Trinity, he did not tell them " tell them to ask me into their lives with their mouth" the disciples didn't teach that nonsense either and the tradition of the Apostles was to baptise after repentance. That is the faith of the Church that is the faith of the Apostles and so we believe in baptism as the beginning of our Christains Journey.
Christ promised that the gates of hell will not prevail over his church and that he ll be with us until the end of time. We rest our faith on that and the Bible says that the Church not the bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth. 1tim 3:15

Wiseman5:
when your mind is twisted everything that doesn't model after it will seem twisted to you. you better educate ur mind with bible classes for you to live.

Continue twisting scriptures. U can't deceive everyone

shadeyinka:
And maybe he is no more Catholic: is he still bound?

Is he still Catholic?

Did he tell u he left the Catholic Church?

shadeyinka:
The only problem other Christians have with the Catholic Church are some of the scripturally unsupported traditions such as
1. Veneration of Mary
2. Veneration of the Saints
3. Bowing/Worshiping before Images
4. Lack of Emphasis on "Being Born Again" as a perquisite for Salvation instead, being a faithful member of the Catholic church is preached
5. Forced Celibacy of the Priesthood etc


Most of these traditions cannot be traced to either Jesus or His direct Apostles.

Nothing like forced celibacy and born again means baptism not Alter calls
And for the others we don't care if its scriptural or not. The Holy spirit will not lead the church into error. The gates of hell will never prevail

shadeyinka:
Maybe he realized that it was a vow made in ignorance and error.

Can I as a person reascend on a vow I made to make ALL my children celebate to God?

Fr Patrick wasn't a child when he took the oath of celibacy. He wasn't below 25 and was probably older than you when he took the vow. So I don't see a reason for this paediatric analogy

shadeyinka:
Maybe he realized that it was a vow made in ignorance and error.

Can I as a person reascend on a vow I made to make ALL my children celebate to God?

U can't make such a vow on behalf of ur children. Let them make the vow themselves when they come of age

shadeyinka:
OK. Then we are on the same page.

His vow of celebacy was to the Catholic church
His vow of fidelity to his spouse
His vow of Faithfulness to God

The most important thing is for Father Patrick to serve God in faithfulness and purity.

And us too o!
What profits a man who gains the whole world but looses his
soul.

Shalom

Well u didn't take the vow for him and definitely don't get to choose whoose name he vowed to. He is a Catholic that knows the Catechism and he knows he made a vow to God period

shadeyinka:
Interestingly, you do not know whatever his conversation with God is on this issue.

Do you sincerely think Father Patrick has abandoned Jesus?

Who said he has abandoned Jesus. I only said he broke his oath. The oath of Celibacy and now he is taking another oath of fidelity

nwamehn:
Lol. I knew u would refer to Acts 15, but truth is that u totally misunderstood my point in 1 there, that someone sends somebody to the elders in Jerusalem or Antioch to help him out on an issue he was not clear about doesn't mean he was answerable to Jerusalem. That Acts 15 clearly stated that there was confusion on doctrines and they had to seek understanding from Jerusalem and Paul and others were sent to gain more knowledge on a subject matter.
These days men of God from different churches consult each other on so many spiritual matters but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to each other. A local church in our area still sends her pastors to Word of Faith Bible Institute of the Winners Chapel for trainings, but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to Oyedepo or Winners Chapel.
But within the same denomination, the pastors or reverend fathers ar answerable to the headquarters or general overseers or Pope, as the case may be. Antioch was not answerable to Jerusalem on how they did their things, Jerusalem helped Antioch spiritually at some matters and Antioch still helped Jerusalem spiritually and even financially at some matters, so would u say that Jerusalem was financially dependent on Antioch to function since Antioch at a point in time helped them financially?
Were u not the person that confirmed that after Paul's rebuke, there stopped anything like segregation based on uncircumcision in the Jerusalem church and even other churches? Would u also say that Jerusalem was answerable to Antioch since after Paul's rebuke, that their practice stopped?
Do u know how many theological sessions that ar being organised for more education of the ministers of God in so many Pentecostal programs yearly, would u say that for any Pentecostal pastor to attend any of the ministers' programs and undertake the scriptural guiding there that it means that his church is founded by and is under the one coordinating the program?
Or if my church is confused over an issue and I and two of my elders consult a group of Anglican reverends who I believe know the Bible well for clearance on the issue, would u still say that my church is Anglican?
There is a program called God of Abraham hosted yearly by one of the Anglican churches in Anambra, during the program, several people including ministers from various churches come and sit under the ministration and tutorship of the ministers of the Anglican church and the archdeacon throughout the days of the program, would u say that all the churches whose ministers attend the program ar all Anglican churches?
That Paul sought clearance from Jerusalem over a doctrine just as he once rebuked Jerusalem over a doctrine too doesn't mean Jerusalem founded his church or dictated how he ran his church to him.
He sought help from them same way he once rendered help to them, and ministers today seek and render help to fellow churches and ministers, so if u say that there was nothing like Antioch church or Jerusalem church but one single Christian church because of the transmission of helps, then there is also nothing like Anglican, Winners etc today but one single Christian church.

2. Peter was not a Pope, made by any person, saying that Peter was a pope is just like saying what the Bible never said and trying to force it into the Bible by all means because Bible never recorded that he was made a pope. Bible recorded so many things Peter did, being a fisherman, following Jesus, going on evangelism etc but never said he was made a pope by any group of people anywhere. Even if Peter was in charge of the church at Antioch before it became answerable to a Pope later, at least the church would be termed Peter's Church before it now becomes any Roman Catholic church that they began obeying much later.
But the truth is that the church at Antioch was not under any Pope, Bible didn't record such. Barnabas and Paul established the church at Antioch a period that Peter was in Jerusalem and finally entered prison, Bible clearly recorded that Barnabas and Paul started the church, nurtured and grew the church for up to a year - Acts 11 vs 26, a period Peter was in Jerusalem and even entered prison sef, Bible never said that Peter for that whole year was dictating the practices of Paul and Barnabas or the practices of the Antioch church through Paul and Barnabas even though they both came from Israel just like Peter. Worst still the church at Jerusalem had strong battles they were fighting with Herod then sef when the wicked man killed James and took Peter.
Paul and Barnabas for that whole year were totally in charge of the church at Antioch but it didn't mean that they were barred by God from seeking or rendering help, whether spiritually or physically from or to Judaea or Cyprus or Cyrene, which bible rightly said that they rendered help to Jerusalem through the elders. 
So, why not call the church Paul and Barnabas Church for the whole year before any other thing?

That Rome at a point in time forcefully seized churches and compelled them to pay allegiance to them doesn't mean we should throw away the histories of those churches given to us in the Bible and then believe whatever Rome says.

Bible never said that Peter was a pope, Rome said. 
Bible never said that the church at Jerusalem was Catholic church, Rome said.
Bible never said that the church at Antioch was Catholic church, Rome said.
But where did the histories of Peter, church at Antioch, church at Jerusalem start? Their histories started from the Bible, yet we have to ignore what the Bible said and only believe what Rome said? Lol.

Truth is, for some reasons or the other, there is nothing each of us can actually do to convince one person to believe the other. In this Peter and church issue, I believe Bible more than I believe Rome, and u believe Rome more than u believe Bible, so, do u still think there is really any point, boss?

he Bible is Rome's Child
The Bible says that the Church and not the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth 1st Timothy 3:15

The Bible is Rome's Child
The Bible days the Church and not the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth 1st Timothy 3:15

[quote author=shadeyinka post=65878521]You think people are ignorant of the catholic faith.
Once a Pope its till death.
A Pope swears at his installation doesn't he?

Its like you saying an African king goes on retirement![/quotle]
After Election the Elect is asked if he accepts the position. If he says yes he becomes Pope. If he refuses the Conclave continues. There is no oath

Wiseman5:
Please and please do not quote the scriptures out of context,those eunuchs Christ was referring to in Matt 19:12 are the singles ones that couldn't marry beacuse they were immature for marriage. BTW that passage was talking about divorce not celibacy.
For a clearer understanding lets use Message translation ;Jesus said, “Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn’t for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you’re capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it.”
Matthew 19:11‭-‬12 MSG
carefully note the last part, if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it. that means when you come up to maturity stage; where you handle all issues about marriage then get married. To prove that to u rewind to verse 5&6, He said the creator of man, as in producer or owner of man in his original plan (blue print) made one man, one woman therefore every man should marry.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Matthew 19:4‭-‬5 KJV
Now this father and mother here is same as the family you quoted in Luke 9:61&62, leaving them here is not the same as abandoning family but not allowing them to dictate your actions, which also talks about maturity. The young man that wants to follow Jesus (not as a priest ) was going to seek for consent from his family and that is a sign of immaturity. that's why Jesus cautioned him against procrastination in making up his mind knowing that his family plays a part in his making up his mind.

Now this is totally out of context. Jesus is talking about Eunuchs not imature marriage. U r trying to twist scriptures.
Jesus meant that its okay not to marry if u can bear it

shadeyinka:
Did he tell you his abandoning Jesus or the Catholic church

Didn't Pope Benedict do worse than him?

Pope Benedict was not under oath to remain pope

First he takes a vow of celibacy before God and breaks it
Now he is taking a vow of fidelity to one woman before God
. Well God is Merciful, but our Works are filthy rags before him

damosky12:
https://www.nairaland.com/4397144/daddy-freeze-reacts-shina-peller


The link above leads to the thread that surfaced on the front page earlier today in which the controversial OAP, Freeze, was quoted to have made a rather unfounded assertion that Jesus drank alcohol. He was quoted thus:


When Jesus was alive he drank alcohol and was accused to be in the presence of sinners (possibly in Night Clubs) so enjoying a bottle of Champagne or Henny with coke and ice at quilox in responsibility and moderation is actually Christ like.
-
◄ Matthew 11:19 ►
NIV
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' ----- What could he have been drinking that they labeled him a drunkard? Lucozade boost?
-
More so, another reason to patronize them lies in the fact that the club employs people who earn a living through it and it pays taxes as instructed by our first pastors, the disciples; something most pastors and churches are blatantly disobeying.


He seemed to have made this statement to advertise for the patronage of a nightclub and to call for a neglect of the church under the guise of contributing to the society.

He spoke of the nightclub to be responsible for employing people without pausing to consider that churches and institutions founded by churches (libraries, schools, housing estates,ets) provide far more employment than any nightclub.

The debate of who or who doesn't provide more employment is not the crux of this response, but to correct the rather heretic view that Jesus took alcohol.

Freeze quoted from Matthew 11:19 NIV

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."

and followed it up with a lame and uncritical commentary

that could he have been drinking that they labeled him a drunkard? Lucozade boost?
With a statement like this, he uncritically assumes the position that the accusers were right to have called Jesus a drunkard.
If this assumption is to be taken as true, that will mean they were right as well with other positions that they made in that portion of scripture. Let's check it contextually.


Matthew 11:18-19
[18]For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
[19]The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

Jesus was clearly not presenting the people as truth speakers but rather haters of the truth. Hence, since they could FALSELY accuse John whom Jesus himself praised as the greatest of prophets (in verses 12-14 of the same chapter) of having a devil, their allegation against Jesus as a drunkard could NEVER have been true.

In other words, if Jesus took alcohol (as Freeze's logic leads him), then John the Baptist, the fore runner of Jesus had a devil, since the allegations came from the same source.

The tone of Jesus quote in itself is that of despair rather than passive. Why would Jesus have to say they called Him a drunkard if He really was? Its simple logic.


Where did the allegation against Jesus come from?

Matthew 9:10-13
[10]And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat (eating) in the house, [/b]behold, [b]many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
[11]And when the Pharisees saw it, [/b]they said unto his disciples, [b] Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
[12]But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
[13]But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


As revealed above, Jesus once sat IN HIS HOUSE, eating (not in "Night Clubs" as Freeze suggests) and had the Sinners COME TO HIM. He didn't reject them(as the Pharisees would) but accepted them and shared HIS MEAL with them.

Note the immediate response of the Pharisees: "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?". There was no alarm about Jesus being a drunkard. Of course, if they had seen Jesus drinking alcohol, they would have been quick to point that out.
But all they saw there is Jesus sharing His meal with them. Not drinking alcohol.

So, when Jesus said: "The Son of man came eating and drinking", any literate person can see that he wasn't, by the use of 'drinking', referring to alcohol. He was referring to eating and drinking as that which you do when you take your usual meal.


Besides, what did Jesus' Apostles teach about alcohol?

1 Corinthians 5:11
[11]But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard , or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
[10]Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Galatians 5:21
[21]Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Romans 13:13-14
[13] Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and [b] drunkenness, [/b]not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
[14]But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.


Why would such "red light signals" be given to Christians as regarding alcohol if Jesus was himself a drunkard?


Be watchful of Freeze's leaven if you are a lover of Christ.

1 Peter 5:8
[8]Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

I didn't need freeze to tell me that Jesus drank Alcohol. It is clear in the bible. U just went through great length to obscure the truth

nwamehn:
Hahahah. E don reach insults? I never quoted u, u quoted me to begin ur argument yet u can't defend what u have been saying since. The first churches that existed which were the churches at Antioch and Jerusalem were never Catholic before or after the schism but they were both Orthodox after the schism and I guess u don't know that one. Google it, bro.
U claim that Catholic was the first church and Peter was the Pope, I asked u who was the Pope of the Catholic church at Rome overseeing the activities of the church at Antioch in Syria where the followers were first called Christians but up till now u couldn't answer, and now u have resorted to insults.
Pls, don't quote me next time oga. I don't do insults. I know why I chose to respond to u after ignoring ur mention before.
Have a nice day.

Nobody insulted you. You are looking to score Cheap points. Ur questions were duely answered but u obviously don't like the truth

nwamehn:
Nnaa mehn, try as much as u can not to quote me wrongly. I never said I don't believe in religion, nor church nor whatever. Kindly go over my posts and reread pls. Christ never established Christianity irrespective of whether u and I believe in it or not.
What I believe in has no bearing to whether Christ established it or not. I believe in Education, did Christ establish Education?
That I believe in Christianity or Judaism or whatever doesn't mean that Christ established Christianity or Judaism. Ur religion cannot take u to heaven, only ur belief in and followership of Christ can.
Christ never established any religion nor church on earth, if u say He established religion, which religion did He establish? If u say He established a church before He died, what is the name of that church? Catholic church? Hahahah.

You are peter and on this Rock , I will build my church. Argue with ur village ppl

U don't believe in Religion or the Church but u Believe the Bible which is a Product of the Church/Christains religion
Let me ask you, Did Christ Establish the Bible?

If Christianity is a faith, Islam, Buddhism are also faiths too. No difference

nwamehn:
I didn't say only belief in Christ, I also said following His principles. U ar mistaking belief in Christ and following His footsteps with Christianity as a religion. Can u name one single church in ur so-called Christianity that follows completely Christ's footsteps and not add or subtract from it?
Maybe, u have not understood that Christianity as a religion differs completely from belief in Christ and following His footsteps. Check the doctrines of several churches in the so-called Christian religion starting from Catholic church and check the teachings and life of Christ, u will realise that there ar a lot of differences between the two, plenty of them. If u think that being a Christian is a guarantee that u ar on good books with Christ, then who am I to discourage u? But the truth still remains that Christ didn't establish any religion nor church denomination on earth, and a man can go to heaven by just following Christ without having to identify with any religious affiliation.
Or, ar u in anyway trying to say that Christ established Christianity? Hahahah. Can u show me the verse in the scripture where He established Christianity before He died pls?
Anyway, that's by the way, it's not the bone of contention here, let me concentrate on the main issue.

My argument still centres on the fact that Christ didn't establish any Catholic church or Anglican church or whatever and He didn't make any Peter or Paul pope of any Catholic or Anglican church. If u still want to convince me that Christ established Roman Catholic church as the first church and made Peter the pope, then answer me, who was the pope of the Roman Catholic church at Rome that was overseeing the activities of the Church at Antioch in Syria when the followers of Christ were first called Christians?
I still have another question to ask u on this but it will be when u must have answered this one first.

The disciples were first called Christains during the Pontificacy of Peter
And Religion is all about Beliefs and following Principles , no difference

nwamehn:
That's the point boss, Christ didn't establish any religion on earth whether Christianity or Judaism. It was outsiders that were even calling the followers Christians because they were behaving like Christ. And the so-called Christians have always adopted Christ as the person they follow.
Christ has no church nor religion, that's why ur religion or church cannot take u to heaven but ur belief in Him and ur ability to keep His words.
I can believe in Christ, follow His ways but not affiliate myself to any church nor religion. And u wouldn't say that everyone that believes in Christ must be called a Christian because the Bible never said I must be forced to answer the name Christian before I can follow Christ.

Christ said, on this Rock I ll build my CHURC. He established a church period. U said Christianity as a religion ll not take u to heaven, only a belief in Christ, but what u don't get is that Christianity is a belief in Christ so its the same thing and u have just subscribed to religion even though u try to deny it

nwamehn:
In Christianity, there ar so many denominations, of which Roman Catholic, Anglican etc ar among. U have rightly said that Christianity didn't start as denominational, and that denominations began when the church started separating from each other. That's the point. Christianity began as Christianity and not as Roman Catholic church or Orthodox or Judeo-christianity or whatever we feel like calling it.
These other groups u ar talking about were churches spread across the entire East and West then and all of them made up the body of Christ which u refer to as the Church. And this body of Christ started first at Jerusalem, then Antioch and the rest, they even later had the church at Rome which was established by Paul, church at Corinth, other churches at greek established by Andrew and so may other churches.
The church at Antioch in Syria wasn't called the Catholic church in Syria neither was the church in Jerusalem called Roman Catholic church of Jerusalem. The church at Antioch in Syria was simply called the church at Antioch in Syria.
If the church at Antioch in Syria and the church at Jerusalem were never called Catholic churches, then I wonder how u will be saying that Jesus or Peter established any Catholic church in Jerusalem.
Jesus didn't establish any denomination, He didn't establish any church to put any person as the pope. And u will now go and bring the name of a denomination that was coined in 108 AD as u said which was so many years after Jesus died and say that it is the denomination that Jesus established, shebi? Lol.
Regarding that number 3, I asked u to tell me who was the Pope of the Catholic church in Rome that was overseeing the activities of the church at Antioch in Syria when the followers were first called Christians then. What u gave there isn't the answer. Or do u mean that Clement was the Pope when the church at Antioch in Syria was founded?

OK. Let's say u are right. The disciples were first called Christains in Antioch not in Jerusalem. That means Christianity began in Antioch and not Jerusalem. This is ur logic and that also means that Christ didn't establish Christianity either since it was some people that started using the term "Christianity"

nwamehn:
So, from ur response, I want to believe u mean that the Roman Catholic church forbids such scolding or challenging of a Pope in public.
I also believe that all Reverend Fathers and bishops ar trained to have this respect for the Pope, who is the head of the Roman Catholic church.
See, boss, Paul scolded, challenged and rebuked Peter in the public, Galatians 2 vs 11 - 14. Peter was the supposed Pope of the Roman Catholic church and Paul would be regarded as an ordinary Reverend Father or at most, a bishop of a diocese, so what punishment did the Roman Catholic church give to Paul for such disrespect towards Pope Peter? Did the Roman Catholic church even condemn him for such attitude towards the Pope?
My point is this, Peter was not even head over Paul and the churches Paul established let alone being head over all the Christians and all the churches established by the apostles, reason Paul could rebuke him anyhow and wasn't seen as having done something wrong.

Now if u still claim that Peter was the Pope of the Roman Catholic church then and that Roman Catholic church was the first church to have existed, I have three questions for u:

1. When the followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch in Syria, was the church there called Roman Catholic church in Syria or the church in Antioch in Syria?

2. If it was called Roman Catholic church in Syria, can u give me link from the Bible to prove this?

3. Who was the Pope in Rome then that was overseeing the church activities in Antioch in Syria then?

Pls, boss, just answer me the questions straight, u wouldn't need to gather a lot of literatures to answer.

Heck that Paul rebuked peter doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. This same Paul also called The Galatians foolish
This does not remove the Keys from Peter. It was given to him by Christ.
Christ knew his Church will be built upon simon which was why he named him Peter. Not even Paul Challenging him or Protestants Protesting it can Change that
Coming to your question
1. Christianity did not start as denominational . the Church was the Church, it was only when Spurious groups started sprouting up that the Word Catholic was used to distinguish it from other gnostic groups. Ignatius of Antioch 108AD, is the first to have used the word Catholic. Still the Church has always been Catholic not Roman Catholic. Protestants like adding the word Roman to Confine it to Rome but. Rome is simply the Apostolic see of the Catholic Church. Our Creed still says One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church and not Roman Catholic church. The Antiochan Churches, Alexandrian Churches, Greek Churches still Profess One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church too.
3. Early Christains History shows The 4th Pope Clement in his Letter to the Corinthians (see 1st letter of Clement) admonishing the Church in Corinth and Instructing them

nwamehn:
The Simon Magus story, I honestly don't have much evidence to prove it right or wrong because the story is not accepted by all histories, I don't really like talking things I am not sure of.
But I want to ask u, I believe u ar a true Roman Catholic, is it lawful according to Roman Catholic rules for a cardinal or a bishop or Reverend father to scold, challenge or talk back at the Pope in the public?

Is it lawful to Scold your dad in public?
Is it lawful to scold your mother in public?
Is it lawful to scold your pastor in public
There is something Called Respect .

nwamehn:
Mehn, this Simon Magus story get weight die. But u know, some of these things that didn't appear in the Bible ar always very hard to prove right or wrong.
My point according to that post is still that Roman Catholic church wasn't the first church. Jesus never even established any church sef let alone placing Peter or any person in charge.

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


When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
John 21:15

A second time He said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
John 21:16

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And He said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
John 21:17
Here it is Proof that Christ established a church and assigned it to peter to be His Vicar

The Simon Magus Conspiracy theory is Bogus and only appeals to biased mind

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


When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
John 21:15

A second time He said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
John 21:16

He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And He said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
John 21:17
Here it is Proof that Christ established a church and assigned it to peter to be His Vicar

The Simon Magus Conspiracy theory is Bogus and only appeals to biased mind.

Arondizuogu:
True but Rome wasn't the primus interested pares as you put. The Bishop of Rome has equal powers with ghetto Bishop of Alexandria who sometime might be king(always known as Constantine). The schism was partly due to the large amount of the Roman Empire and who was the true head of the Church. These two people, West and Easy spoke different languages so Rome wouldn't be primus interested pares because it doesn't make decisions alone. Nice write up tho.

The Eastern Orthodox Church also uses the term "first among equals" in regard to the Bishop of Rome during the first thousand years of Christianity.[4] Whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople is now considered first among the Orthodox patriarchs, the Orthodox Church considers the Bishop of Rome (regarded as the "Patriarch of the West" the "first among equals" in the Pentarchy of the Patriarchal Sees according to the ancient, first millennial order (or "taxis" in Greek) of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, established after Constantinople became the eastern capital of the Roman/Byzantine Empire.[4][5] The Bishop of Rome no longer holds this distinction in the Orthodox Church because, following the East–West Schism, he is no longer in communion with the Orthodox Church.[6]


Source: wikipedia

Arondizuogu:
True but Rome wasn't the primus interested pares as you put. The Bishop of Rome has equal powers with ghetto Bishop of Alexandria who sometime might be king(always known as Constantine). The schism was partly due to the large amount of the Roman Empire and who was the true head of the Church. These two people, West and Easy spoke different languages so Rome wouldn't be primus interested pares because it doesn't make decisions alone. Nice write up tho.

Rome was referred to as the Apostolic see, founded on the blood and sweat Of the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul. For the Early Christains, the church was the final arbiter and primus inter pares