₦airaland Forum

Roman Catholics can lie sha; dem take am do them!

Anyway, they were killing one another to become "pope" and when they become "pope" finish the so-called "popes" were rap.ing people, committing in.cest, selling and buying the position of "pope" and other lunacies. Before we talk of modern day wey dem no leave the yanshes of small pikins alone!

Dem come tell us say na that one be the "only" "church" wey be Jesus' church? Na so!

Oh by the way, the word 'Bible' can be found in the Bible --- by those who know where to look.

And here, just one example of Jesus Church that existed before either "The Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church.* That Church was in Rome for that matter --- loooong before there was such thing as "The Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church.* (In fact there are two "churches" mentioned in the passage but for now I only need the bolded)

Romans 16
3 Salute Prisca and Aquila my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles: 5 and salute the church that is in their house. Salute Epaenetus my beloved, who is the first-fruits of Asia unto Christ.

* Meanwhile for the meaning of "The Catholic Church" and its difference from the Roman Catholic Church, see this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

EDIT By the way you will also see in the above thread that the Roman Catholics are LYING anytime they say they "compiled" the Bible.

^^^^ See here https://www.nairaland.com/393253/rhapsody-realities-daily-devotional/9#8071513

The Giving That Stands You Out – Thursday April 7, 2011 – Pastor Chris

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:36-37).

It’s impossible for a Christian who only gives his tithes and offerings to feel like an accomplished giver, but the Bible lets us know these aren’t enough. Your tithes for example belong to God, and He expects you to give them to Him anyway. The man who does otherwise is a robber: “Will a man rob God: Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings” (Malachi 3:8 ).

God is not a man (Numbers 23:19); He’s God. So you MUST give Him your tithes and your offerings, as God. Actually, you pay your tithe; you don’t give it, as you would your free-will offering. So your tithe is not a gift, because you don’t pay a gift. Your offering on the other hand isnt just a donation made to the Church, but a sacrifice offered to a divine being. God actually demanded for it in Exodus 23:15: “…None shall appear before Me empty-handed” (AMP).

So, beyond your tithes and giving your offerings, which are compulsory for every believer, you have to go the extra mile by getting financially involved in the spread of the Gospel. This type of giving is special because it isn’t a compulsion, but is done out of your love and commitment to the Gospel. 2 Corinthians 9:7 (AMP) says, “Let each one [give] as he has made up his own mind and purposed in his heart, not reluctantly or sorrowfully or under compulsion, for God loves (He takes pleasure in, prizes above other things, and is unwilling to abandon or to do without) a cheerful (joyous, “prompt to do it”) giver [whose heart is in his giving]. This is the giving that stands you out.”

Remember it’s in your interest and in your favour when you give to the Lord, for He has promised great returns and mighty harvest of blessings for the giver. So be sure to be counted among those who give financially towards the things of God. In our Ministry, we have several platforms through which we reach millions of souls around the world every day with the Gospel. Locate such opportunities and participate big-time. That’s how to get relevant in the Kingdom and make your life count.

Prayer
Dear Father, thank you for the available opportunities I have to give towards the work of the Kingdom today, realizing that they’ve been put in place for me to make my relevance and impact in world evangelism felt through my giving. Thank you Lord, for continuously increasing my capacity to give, in Jesus’ Name. Amen,

Further Study
Luke 8:2-3
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Daily Scripture Reading
1 Year Bible Luke 11:14-36
Reading plan Judges 3-4

2 Year Bible Matthew 27:55-66
Reading Plan Leviticus 7

Rhapsody of Realities Pastor Chris Oyakhilome
----------------------------------------------------


Any time Joagbaje in particular talks his deceitful nonsense, shove this in his face.

^^^ Don't stress yourself. Hold on fast to what you know. It is clear as day from the Bible that Jesus is God the Son.

Here is another one I made earlier https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic#15219843

Before any of the things/events which the Roman Catholics claim to be where they set "the Canon" of the Bible, the Eastern Orthodox people had already looooong identified "the Canon" of the Bible.

The things events claimed by the Roman Catholics as where "they" established "the Canon" of the Bible are:

1. Council of Rome 382; this has been questioned and the supposed list of Bible books identified with it shown to be a forgery or at least a document produced hundreds of years later; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

2. Synod of Hippo 393 --- this was actually simply a regional synod of African churches!

3. Synods of Carthage 397 etc --- again these were regional synods of African churches!

4. Council of Trent 1546 etc --- this is truly where the Roman Catholics set their canon, at least finally; see how late, how recent i.e. 16th century!

Compare with Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter of AD 367 --- at least 15 years before number 1 above (Rome 382); this is also before one goes to study the contribution of people like Origen also of Alexandria going back nearly 200 years even earlier!

Part of Athanasius' Letter of 367 http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Some of the matters highlighted below are the reasons why the Roman Catholic claims must be confronted ---- especially when they are doctrinally detrimental and/or false!

adsonstone: ... These clearly suggest the 'Catholic Church' has more authority than recorded words of Christ in the Bible

Yep, for example Jesus says "I am the Way" to be saved; Roman Catholics say a person must submit to the "pope" to be saved"

This one clearly says you only believe the bible because the catholic church told you to believe it....meaning if you are told to disbelieve in it tomorrow by the catholic church, you will.

Almost unbelievably, this is true! If Bergoglio were to be filled with the Holy Spirit and organise Vatican III to take Vatican II further and undo the lunacies of Trent and especially Vatican I, and tell them to call us brothers and not "separated brethren" anymore, I expect they will comply. The only problem Bergoglio would face is that he would have to openly admit that Roman Catholic claims of "infallibility" are hogwash; something that Vatican II just couldn't bring itself to do even though it did change things from Vatican I. (Although people like Ratzinger would say it only "clarified" some things about Vatican I; na so!)

Now we can determine who the liar is.

Now let me put this straight to you...I also need a straight and definite answer
Which is more superior? The words of the head of the Church (Christ) recorded by the apostles in the bible or the words said by the Catholic Church?

I am happy to supply an example for this test!

Roman Catholic Church

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. (‘Pope’ Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; statement made ex cathedra, thus ‘infallibly’!)

Versus

Jesus Christ

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

You're the one going in circles with the excuse that the Catholic Church compiled the bible. Well, the good news is that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER WROTE IT....and definitely, they don't have the authority to change or twist it, there's a punishment for that (Read Revelation 22:18-19)

They never wrote it! They did NOT even compile it! They are LYING when they claim to have "compiled" the Bible!

No, I do not. Do you also believe the whole world should should adhere to the scripture interpretation of the catholic church?

Heart of the matter.

My aim of reasoning with you?
I wouldn't have even reasoned with you if you had not first replied my post on page 7 of this thread.

It's not even only about reasoning. It is also, if not more, about countering the falsehoods they are trying to spread! They were spreading poisonous propaganda right from page 1 that the only way for there to be Christian unity is if every one submits to the Roman catholic "pope".

In Roman Catholic documents and theology, this is called "universal jurisdiction". Meanwhile one of the better Bishops of Rome who they call "pope"* i.e. Gregory I said that any bishop who claims to be universal bishop is a precursor of antiChrist. Yep, a Roman Catholic "pope" said so!



* The word "pope" is actually not different from some expressions that we often disparage like "papa" (it does mean papa) or "Daddy G.O."

Just to tone things down a little for the benefit of more moderate and reasonable Roman Catholics out there.

I have said before on many other threads that this is not personal and in fact I used to beg the more belligerent or "cantankerous" Roman Catholics that we should keep things civil. I even reminded them that even while they were being aggressive, I myself was then trying very hard to maintain a respectful attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church.

So, for the avoidance of doubt, my grouse with Roman Catholics is about some claims and not just claims but false claims that they make which fly in the face of what informed people know about the history of the Roman Catholic Church. The worst of it is the divisiveness of some of the claims. I make no apology about challenging such false claims and will always continue to challenge them.

On the other hand, it would be churlish to deny that the Roman Catholic Church has also done many good things in its history. In fact some of these were the reasons why I kept quiet here for years about what I know of the Roman Catholic Church ---- until the arrogance and conceit of some of their representatives got to the level that their pomposity had to be punctured

Anyway, as I have already said on this very thread, every denomination (even including abominations) each has its own share of responsibility for the visible disunity that exists.

My own personal commitment is to the catholic Church, i.e. to the universal Church, i.e. to the Christian Church.


As I once said: https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/10#12159778

"We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church."

Oh well, as the Roman Catholics have been saying that any person who claims to be a Christian must submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope", then .....

Anyway, here is a bonus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism

"Nepotism
Nepotism is favoritism granted in politics or business to relatives regardless of merit. The term originated with the assignment of nephews to cardinal positions by Catholic popes and bishops. ....

The term comes from Italian word nepotismo,[1][2] which is based on Latin root nepos meaning nephew.[3] In the Middle Ages some Catholic popes and bishops, who had taken vows of chastity, and therefore usually had no legitimate offspring of their own, gave their nephews such positions of preference as were often accorded by fathers to son.[4]

Several popes elevated nephews and other relatives to the cardinalate. Often, such appointments were a means of continuing a papal "dynasty".[5] For instance, Pope Callixtus III, head of the Borgia family, made two of his nephews cardinals; one of them, Rodrigo, later used his position as a cardinal as a stepping stone to the papacy, becoming Pope Alexander VI.[6] Alexander then elevated Alessandro Farnese, his mistress's brother, to cardinal; Farnese would later go on to become Pope Paul III .[7]

Paul also engaged in nepotism, appointing, for instance, two nephews, aged 14 and 16, as cardinals. The practice was finally ended when Pope Innocent XII issued the bull Romanum decet Pontificem, in 1692.[4] The papal bull prohibited popes in all times from bestowing estates, offices, or revenues on any relative, with the exception that one qualified relative (at most) could be made a cardinal.[8]"


"Apostolic succession" pffft

@lacum

To say thanks for noting that slip of hand, here is more about our friend "pope" John XII -- who was of the Pornocracy era of the "pope" business.

EDIT in fact our original friend was John XXII but slip slip, I have now spoken about John XII! Oh well.

For now I will use a Roman Catholic source http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm

"The younger Alberic, after the downfall of his mother, Marozia (932), was absolute ruler at Rome. Before his death he administered an oath (954) to the Roman nobles in St. Peter's, that on the next vacancy of the papal chair his only son, Octavius, should be elected pope. After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955, and took the name of John. The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person — a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. War and the chase were more congenial to this pope than church government."

"On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simony, perjury, murder, adultery, and in.cest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. Refusing to recognize the synod, John pronounced sentence of excommunication (ferendæ sententia) against all participators in the assembly, should they elect in his stead another pope. The emperor now came forward to accuse John of having broken the agreement ratified by oath, betrayed him, and called in Adalbert. With the imperial consent the synod deposed John on 4 December, and elected to replace him the protoscriniarius Leo, yet a layman.

"John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumour, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery. Luitprand relates that on that occasion the devil dealt him a blow on the temple in consequence of which he died."


Great "pope"; very great "pope"; eminentissimum occupant of the "chair of Peter".

lacum: haba, oga enigma, POPE JOHNPAUL XXII?
when will u stop deceiving people. we dont even have johnpaul III

Ah, thanks for bringing that to my attention; obvious slip of hand. I will go and edit the original.

So OK in Quia Quorundam "pope" John XXII made mockery of the idea of papal infallibility.

Ukuts gp: tell me also the reason u are cleverly avoiding questions posed to u by enigma and not reading the numerous links he gave u? Anyway, is like u dnt hv answers to my questions. No problem.

Nah, wetin concern am? Instead, like the liar that he is, he falsely accused me of only half quoting Ignatius.

Meanwhile, I once pointed out to him that the fraudulent Roman Catholic church denomination also half quoted Ignatius --- and the RCC denomination did so fraudulently.

Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1104124/problem-catholism-an-introspection/22#15211441

Now, I've been accused .... of only quoting part of Ignatius' statement on "catholic Church"; I was even called a "fraud" for it.

Now look who has done exactly the same thing? It is only the Roman Catholic Church"! Oh, and it only did it in its Catechism!

"830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense: (795, 815-816)

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation”308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia."


So who is the fraud now?

And, truly, there is indeed an element of fraud in the use of Ignatius' statement in this quote above.

Augustine of course knows who is the Boss --- who is the Rock!

"This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced "blessed," bearing the figure of the Church, holding the chief place in the Apostleship, a very little while after that he had heard that he was "blessed," a very little while after that he had heard that he was "Peter," a very little while after that he had heard that he was to be "built upon the Rock," displeased the Lord when He had heard of His future Passion, for He had foretold His disciples that it was soon to be. He feared lest he should by death, lose Him whom he had confessed as the fountain of life. He was troubled, and said, "Be it far from You, Lord: this shall not be to You." Spare Yourself, O God, I am not willing that You should die. Peter said to Christ, I am not willing that You should die; but Christ far better said, I am willing to die for you. .....

Let us, looking at ourselves in this member of the Church, distinguish what is of God, and what of ourselves. For then we shall not totter, then shall we be founded on the Rock, shall be fixed and firm against the winds, and storms, and streams, the temptations, I mean, of this present world.

Let me add the preceding part of the quote above from Augustine's Sermon 26.

"1. The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea; and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church.

For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, "But whom say ye that I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but My Father which is in heaven." Then He added, "and I say unto you." As if He had said, "Because you have said unto Me, 'You are the Christ the Son of the living God;' I also say unto you, 'You are Peter.'" For before he was called Simon.

Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ.

"Therefore," he says, "You are Peter; and upon this Rock" which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;"

that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you."


Like say na after Trent and Vatican I, dem for don anathematise, excommunicate, apostasise Augustine tay tay!

And no be only him oh! I still dey come with Jerome dem and co.

Sal C: My seperated brother, am used to you trolling, that not a problem.

My seperated brother, you caused the division by getting yourself seperated from me in the first place.

I tried going through the link you gave but can't figure out your ^^^ quote there. All I saw was the Cardinal's biography.

When did I separate from you?

I don't remember ever separating myself from you!! You are the one insisting I am only a "separated brother". So you are the one causing disunity!

The sad thing is that you are doing it because others especially the Roman Catholic church denomination told you to do so?

Would you rather follow despicable people like Boniface VIII etc than the words of your Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ?

Encroyable!

@Sal C

Do you notice that the Roman Catholic Church denomination of today especially after Trent and Vatican I would have also excommunicated Augustine for agreeing with the argument I have presented on this thread and always in debates with you Roman Catholics?

Hear again what he said (and I will post more from it later sef!)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

"For men who wished to be built upon men, said, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas," who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."

Sal C: Enigma my seperated brother.
Rephrasing you question now doesn't make a difference.

If you want the "seperated" removed, Come back home.

^^^ So you see now that you and the Roman Catholic church denomination are the ones causing division in the body of Christ!

And sorry my sister you may see this as "trolling" but I want to remind you:

Anyway here is what someone who himself very nearly became a "pope" said:

Per "Cardinal" Baronius

"The chief lesson of these times is that the Church can get along very well without popes. What is vital to the Church's survival is not the pope but Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope."

@adsonstone

I ignored one matter you were discussing with one of the Roman Catholics yesterday because there were other pressing matters.

That issue is whether the apostle Peter was ever at Rome. The truth is that there is no concrete evidence for it really.

And as for the claim that his reference to writing 1 Peter from Babylon was using Babylon as code for Rome, well it is only or mostly Roman Catholics who claim this. The fact is the interpretation of that word Babylon in that specific passage has been debated for a long time.

See for example here http://beggarsallreformation..co.uk/2006/08/babylonrome-some-opinions-on-1-peter.html

One view from link (out of many other similar views)

"Lorraine Boettner
“…Paul's work was primarily among the Gentiles, while Peter's was primarily among the Jews. Peter ministered to the Jews who were in exile in Asia Minor, "to the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (I Peter 1:1) , and in his journeys he went as far east as Babylon, from which city his first epistle (and probably his second) was addressed to the Jewish Christians in Asia Minor—She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Peter 5:13). As most of Paul’s letters were addressed to churches he had evangelized, so Peter wrote to the Jewish brethren that he had evangelized, who were scattered through those provinces. While there is no Scriptural evidence at all that Peter went west to Rome, here is a plain statement of Scripture that he did go east to Babylon. Why cannot the Roman Church take Peter’s word to that effect? But his testimony, of course, must be circumvented by those who are so anxious to place him in Rome, and they take a curious way to do it. The Confraternity edition has an introductory note to I Peter which reads: "The place of composition is given as 'Babylon'...a cryptic designation of the city of Rome."

But there is no good reason for saying that "Babylon" means "Rome." The reason alleged by the Church of Rome for understanding Babylon to mean Rome is that in the book of Revelation Rome is called by that name (Rev. 17:5 ; 18:2 . But there is a great difference between an apocalyptic book such as the book of Revelation, which for the most part is written in figurative and symbolic language, and an epistle such as this which is written in a straightforward, matter of fact style. In regard to Peter's assignment to work among the Jews, it is known that there were many Jews in Babylon in New Testament times. Many had not returned to Palestine after the Exile. Many others, such as those in Asia Minor and Egypt, had been driven out or had left Palestine for various reasons. Josephus says that some "gave Hyrcanus, the high priest, a habitation at Babylon, where there were Jews in great numbers" (Antiquities, Book XV, Ch. II, 2). Peter's assigned ministry to the Jews took him to those places where the Jews were in the greatest numbers, even to Babylon. "

^^^ You see am?

Of course e get K leg; e get Y leg sef!

Hello woky my brother, good morning! And good morning too to Sal C my sister.

Good morning and happy weekend to all my brothers and sisters on this thread.

woky: RUBBISH.!!
No wonder my fellow brothers has been ignoring ur post since all dis while.
But let me make it clear to you.

As a faithful Catholic which i am and(by God grace)wil ever be.
I accept the one faith of the Catholic Church and REJECT the non-catholic beliefs

CASE CLOSE!

Ah, so now you even reject Ambrose of Milan who is a Roman Catholic "church father"?

Let me show you another interesting thing. Even the Roman Catholic Catechism says the following:

424, Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

I know that it contradicts para 881 of the same, but hey na dem wahala be that!

@woky

Are you building Peter on Jesus the Rock or are you building Jesus the Rock on Peter?

Now listen to the Rock speak:

Luke 6
47 As for everyone who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice, I will show you what they are like. 48 They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock.

Matthew 7
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Do you see that? The foundation better be on a rock; better still it had better be on the Rock!

And do you not see that in those passages Jesus Christ is the Rock?

Now listen to Augustine of Hippo and see if there is an important lesson to be learned. See also whether he does not condemn the reason why you cannot call people who confess Christ --- your brothers and sisters.

Ask yourself if Augustine knows anything about "separated brethren".

Notice also that I am actually using a Roman Catholic source on this occasion: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160326.htm

"For men who wished to be built upon men, said, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas," who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, "But I am of Christ." And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."

^^^ In other words, are you agreeing with the mumus, erm, people who made "Vatican I" that people who do not submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic "popes" are heretics?

Meanwhile as to this your statement "The lord said to Peter. Your ar Peter and upon this rock i wil build my church and the gate of hell wil not come over it":

Even some very senior Roman Catholics including Roman Catholic "church fathers" say that the "rock" is Peter's confession of faith. Going to the "church fathers" more generally (i.e. including those who are NOT Roman Catholics) you will find a division of opinion: some say the rock is Peter's confession of faith; others say the rock is Jesus Christ Himself.

I can give you lots of examples but for now think about this statement --- from a Roman Catholic "church father".

Per Ambrose of Milan:

"He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. ...

This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. ...

Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies."


Now see one more thing that he says; I pick this because it is what I have been telling you as the basis on which a Christian can call another Christian --- brother!

".... this general faith – that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary."

You see! Nothing to do with any "popes"!

Well since I mistakenly gave the wikipedia link earlier, here is the extract from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Damasus_I

"On the death of Liberius on 24 September 366, one faction supported Ursinus (or Ursicinus), who had served as deacon to Liberius, while another faction, previously loyal to the Antipope Felix II, supported Damasus. The upper-class partisans of Felix supported the election of Damasus, but the opposing supporters of Liberius, the deacons and laity, supported Ursinus. The two were elected simultaneously (Damasus' election was held in San Lorenzo in Lucina) in an atmosphere of rioting. Supporters already clashed at the beginning of October. Such was the violence and bloodshed that the two prefects of the city were called in to restore order, and after a first setback, when they were driven to the suburbs and a massacre of 137 was perpetrated in the basilica of Sicininus (the modern Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore), the prefects banished Ursinus to Gaul.[7] There was further violence when he returned, which continued after Ursinus was exiled again."

Actually, let us have a play with this "pope" Damasus fellow.

From http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.html?term=Ursinus,%20antipope

Hear one Roman historian

Per Ammianus Marcellinus

"The ardour of Damasus and Ursinus to seize the episcopal seat surpassed the ordinary measure of human ambition. They contended with the rage of party; the quarrel was maintained by the wounds and death of their followers, the prefect . . . being constrained by superior violence to retire into the suburbs. Damasus prevailed: . . . 137 dead bodies were found in the basilica of Sicininus, where the Christians hold their religious assemblies; and it was long before the angry minds of the people resumed their accustomed tranquillity. When I consider the splendour of the capital, I am not astonished that so valuable a prize should inflame the desires of ambitious men and produce the fiercest contests. The successful candidate is secure that he will be enriched by the offerings of matrons; that as soon as his dress is composed with becoming care and elegance, he may proceed in his chariot through the streets of Rome; and that the sumptuousness of the imperial table will not equal the profuse and delicate entertainment provided by the taste and at the expense of the Roman pontiffs. How much more rationally would those pontiffs consult their true happiness if, instead of alleging the greatness of the city as an excuse for their manners, they would imitate the exemplary life of some provincial bishops, whose temperance and sobriety, mean apparel and downcast looks, recommended their pure and modest virtue to the Deity and His true worshippers!"

Ukuts gp: dont u think that those link u provided is a waste of time, as they wud nt even bother to look at it Cos they dnt want to learn and acquire knowledge?

Bros, yes as far as the liars and crybabies are concerned it might be a waste of time (but who knows, it might not).

The point of posting is not really for them --- you might have noticed that they are not talking to me and I don't particularly care to talk to them either.

The key thing is to counter their fraudulent arguments for the benefit of whoever may read this thread whenever.

That is the sense in which it is not a waste of time, bros.

[quote author=Tropical_Dr]Christ establish a book, but He established a Church. Christ did not leave us any book, but He left us His Church

Before a line in the New Testament was written
1; Christ established the Church
2; Apostles preached and taught the Gospel
3; Peter had converted 3000 Jews
4; The Council of Jerusalem had assembled
5; The Jewish ceremonial laws abrogated

Before the last book of the New Testament was written
1; The Catholic (Universal) Church had celebrated 100 years
2; Eleven Apostles had died.

Christianity existed and thrieved morte than 300 years without the Bible.

In 367 AD Pope Damasus compiled the books which he felt were genuine and divinely inspired (after the Council of Laodecia were permited to produce the first canon of books) and order St. Jerome to translate them to Latin the official language of the Roman Empire. It took St. Jerome 30 yrs finish and he called it the "Latin Vulgate". In 397 AD Pope Sirius name the canon of books the "Bible". Few of the books like the Revelation/ Apocalypse were not accepted by all Early Christian scholars as genuine but infallible decision of Pope Damasus made them acceptable by all.[/quote]At the Blue Bolded: now if this is referring to the Christian Church or the catholic i.e. universal Church, it is OK. BUT if it is referring to either "The Catholic Church" (capital C) or the Roman Catholic Church ---- then it is false.

All the red bolded, among other things, are false! (EDIT)

Christianity started with the Hebrew Bible. The first book to have the title "The Bible" is The Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover the New Testament of the Bible started to be written within a few years of the day of Pentecost and were completed by AD 100 (according to most scholars)

"Pope" Damasus did not compile anything in AD 367 at all -- though in fairness he encouraged Jerome in his translation work.

It was Athanasius who was NOT a Roman Catholic who in AD 367 presented a list of the Bible canon which he said had been handed down as accredited and divine. So it was not even he who decided their status --- he simply presented what had been handed down.

Athanasius' presentation of the canon in AD 367 came beofre anything that the Roman Catholics can claim as where they set a/their canon.

The Roman Catholic church denomination speaking with two mouths: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic#15210206


In the Introduction to Ut Unum Sint, we read;

The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.

What is the point of speaking of one Church, when you say there are other "Churches" (capital) and you say yet others are not even Churches at all but merely "ecclessial communities"?

Pointless!

God help us indeed!

Compare and contrast!

Roman Catholic Church

Also well-known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved [without] the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior." (per "pope" Pius IX; this time let Roman Catholics themselves tell us whether this statement was made fallibly or ‘infallibly’)

Versus

Jesus Christ

“For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." (Matthew 18:20)

Follow up

Also please don't let them mislead you that Roman Catholics compiled the Bible in some 4th century. It is a LIE.

We have debunked that lie on various threads and I posted some of the material on the previous page.

See especially these three threads

https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic


Summary:

1. The Roman Catholics did not finally decide on their own Bible until as late as the 16th century around AD 1546. Because it is an undeniable historical fact, the Roman Catholics sometimes gently admit this but try to twist other facts and things.

See an example of Roman Catholics admitting with style style that their own Bible was only finalised as late as the 16th century.

The statement below is taken from them very own Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia.

"The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." {Note the "Tridentine Council" took place from AD 1546 onwards. }


2. This second one is more important than when the Roman Catholics made their own Bible. The point here is that by the end of the first century approximately, the books of the Bible had already been written and were already being "compiled" --- by Christians. At this time there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church". What we had then was the Church of Christ or the Christian Church. As an aside you may find it helpful to skim the Wikipedia entry on the Christian Church (well let's hope the Roman Catholics are not allowed to manipulate it beyond the pale with their propaganda).

This Christian Church is universal and thus catholic in that small 'c' sense meaning "universal". But the Christian Church had loooooooong been in existence before either the Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

To further simplify things, here is a statement I made in one of my older posts:

From here https://www.nairaland.com/1104124/problem-catholism-an-introspection/20#15107836

We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

adsonstone: .... I'm sure some books were have been removed. 7 books or thereabout..

Don't let them mislead you! Even one of their "popes" said that the Apocrypha do not belong in the canon; even "their" Jerome" said the same thing. Even their "Bishop" Cajetan (Luther's opponent) said the same thing.

If those people had lived after the Roman Catholic denomination's idiotic Vatican I and Trent, all those people would have been declared "anathema" and excommunicated.

cntabs: Y av d catholic guys been ignoring enigma? D guy has some points

Because they are liars and pitiful crybabies; they are also zombies esconced to the fraud of their Roman Catholic denomination.

tete7000: The word 'CATHOLIC' means universal and the word 'CHURCH' means body of believers. So Catholic Church means a universal body of believers. The appendage ROMAN was introduced after the Reformation by a one-time Catholic Monk. It was simply intoduced by the Protestants to Identify the Church from whom they broke away. The original Church stood and remains while the Lutheran Church continues defragmetizing and resulted in many denomination we have today. Many denominations apart from Anglican and East orthodox Church which still share semblance with Catholic Church started after the Reformation. Maybe you have never even heard of Reformation. Kindly read up

So if "catholic" means universal body of believers, then my little fellowship of five people who believe in Jesus Christ is also part of the catholic Church, is it not?

It also means that the Eastern Orthodox is part of the catholic Church, is it not?

It also means that the Oriental Orthodox is part of the catholic Church, is it not?

It also means for example that Billy Graham's church is also part of the catholic Church, is it not?

My friend, you really need to educate yourself on that my thread! Here again: https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic