₦airaland Forum

Sweetapple007: stop confusg urself the Roman catholic church is the first churcb! Calvinism ad luther are the fathers of pentecoastal churches ad they died mystersly. They were cursed by the pope f breakg away ad since then pentecostal contntnu to break away ad live in further confusn.

OK , I will take your advice to stop confusing myself!

Maybe, you can even help me?

This Roman Catholic Church that you speak about:

is it the same Church that we see discussing in Acts 15 when the apostle James spoke for the Church?
does it include the historic Church of Antioch where we know that the apostle Peter actually was for some time?
is it the same Roman Catholic Church that says no man can be saved outside that Roman Catholic Church?

Would you say that somebody like Athanasius or Cyril of Jerusalem or Polycarp of Smyrna etc etc etc is/was a member of this Roman catholic Church?


Meanwhile, if you need help with my question so that you can better help me to stop confusing myself please read the following thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

Sweetapple007: catholic is the first church founded by christ thru the apostles. So what re u sayg!

It's a lie, what of the Apostolic Church --- from the apostles? And what of the Pentecost Church from the day of Pentecost?

And which "catholic"?

Orthodox Catholic aka Eastern Orthodox?
Oriental Orthodox Church?
Old Catholic Church?
Independent Catholic Church?
Liberal Catholic Church?


Was/is the Church of Jerusalem that James spoke for "catholic"?

Was/is the Church of Antioch that Peter was part of and which originated the word "catholic" --- catholic? In other words, is the historic Church of Antioch "catholic"?

Ah, yes even the Liberal Catholic Church claims "apostolic succession".

So it is the Catholic Church; so it is Jesus Church. lol

Yeah right. The Eastern Orthodox is the Catholic Church, so it is Jesus' Church.

The Oriental Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, so it is Jesus' Church.

The Independent Catholic Church is the Catholic Church ......

The Old Catholic Church is the Catholic Church .....

Etc etc etc

Even Roman Catholic "popes" admit that the "popes" can and do teach errors.

In fact one "pope" went as far as to say effectively that the idea of 'papal infallibility' is not tenable --- in other words that papal infallibility is hogwash!

See the 'Bull' Quia Quorundam by "pope" John Paul XXII. (edited)

In fact some Roman Catholics consider that "pope" to be a heretic.

Yes indeed, Jesus founded only one Church. Jesus' Church is the Church of Christ or the Christian Church.

Although the Church of Christ is catholic, i.e. universal, the Roman Catholic Church is another matter altogether.

Oh by the way, when Roman Catholics today try to present their denomination as "the Catholic Church", they are perpetrating a blatant fraud.

I once pointed out the wonders of the fraudulent mathematics of Roman Catholics where five minus four equals five (5-4=5)!
----------------

From an old post of mine https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible#18266086


Now some may ask what is the difference between "The Catholic Church" and the Roman Catholic Church.

The difference between them can be described as that between 5 and 5 - 4 (i.e. 5 minus 4).

"The Catholic Church" = 5
The Roman Catholic Church = 5 - 4

"The Catholic Church" = Alexandria + Antioch + Constantinople + Jerusalem + Rome
The Roman Catholic Church = Rome

^^ Yep, even the Roman Catholics formally declared one of their own "popes" a heretic; a number of other popes are considered by some Roman Catholics to be heretics.

In any event, many of the Roman Catholic "popes" were worse than perverse and worse than "false prophets". This is a well known historical fact. Even Roman Catholics admit it, Even their Roman Catholic encyclopedia which generally tries to spin and stylishly cover up these things could not deny the perversion of some of the really terrible popes.

It is the province of the brainwashed to think or suggest that only one denomination or organisation does not have "false prophets" especially when undeniable history suggests otherwise, Is a "pope" who was engaging in simony by buying, selling, and re-buying the position of "pope" not a false prophet.

Is a "pope" involved or complicit in the murder of the previous "pope" not a "false prophet"?

kcjazz: The thread question is simple. Some folks have answered and there are no Catholic haters. The Bible talks about false prophets in the last days so why bother yourself over the pastors taking themselves to court?

No Christian will argue that every church is of God but most are, all we need is the gift of discernment. Again always remember the goal - the great commission.

Even in the Roman Catholic church, there are divisions past, present and future. Some the Church has taken responsibility and apologised (Read... Memory and Reconciliation, The Church and the past). In the USA there are churches still under RC with female priests, is that not division? Here in Nigeria, the Catholic Charismatics are always in trouble due to their perceived "pentecostal practices" . Recently a diocese rejected a new Bishop based on tribal sentiments. Do we now call them Devils cos of their disagreements?

The Bible says "For where two or three are gathered in My name, I am in there midst" -Matthew 18.20. Also where two or three are gathered disagreements happen. Let us avoid all this my church is better than yours arguments, the work is much. Focus!

Bros, forgive me but I am very curious! Are you a (Roman) Catholic?

@woky

Bros, I hope you will answer me one question. Again, this is meant to help us understand the causes of all this denominationalism.

Also please note that I will be most grateful to hear an answer that you have thought through yourself rather than one based on what any institution or body might have said historically.

Question:

Myself and two other friends believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God the Son born of virgin Mary.We meet regularly to pray and sing hymns together. Would you call us brothers or would you call us "separated brethren"?


{Please, kindly give reasons/explanation for your answer, thanks.}

okpurukata: My earlier response did not show. I said I asked the question first. However the denominations you mentioned are all churches, since they claim to profess Christ. But why the continued dis integration. I am unbiased but a bit bothered by the perpetual branching.

My dear sister, do you see now that between you and I and in our little single question and answer, we have already demonstrated at least how denominationalism can start!

You say that the Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists are Churches.

BUT some Roman Catholics, including at least three on this very thread, disgaree with you because they say that the Baptists etc are NOT Churches!

They will tell you that those people are only "ecclessial communities" or "Christian communities". And that is when they are being charitable! Otherwise they say those people are "religious institutions" or even "shops".

And you know why they do it? Because the Roman Catholic Church told them to. They cannot think for themselves.

My dear sis, I said I had more than one question but would only ask you one. I am now going to pose another question in a following post. I am going to direct it to woky because of some recent exchange between me and him.

Please let us together watch what happens after I ask him the question.

@okpurukata

Let me ask you a question (in fact I have more than one but I will ask just one for now). Please note that this is in an attempt for both of us to understand why we have different denominations and other problems.

Also please note that I will be most grateful to hear an answer that you have thought through yourself rather than one based on what any institution or body might have said historically.

Question:

Would you call any of the Baptist Church, the Anglican Church or the Methodist Church -- a Church?

{Please, kindly give reasons/explanation for your answer, thanks.}

Even the "churches" claiming to be "Catholic" (with the capital C) have been fighting each other for thousands of years such that they even declared one another anathema.

Now some of them claim to be the true or original "Catholic Church" or even to be the "only Church". lol

The Orthodox Catholic Church/es aka Eastern Orthodox claim/s to be the true Catholic Church keeping to 'orthodox' doctrine
The Oriental Orthodox Church/es also claim/s to be the true Catholic Church keeping to 'orthodox' doctrine
The Roman Catholic Church claims not only to be the only Catholic Church but also the only Church, simple!. Very laughable, lol Meanwhile it does not even make a strong case to be orthodox; since many know that many of its "popes" have historically pulled doctrines from their backsides.


In any case, the Christian Church is not about "Catholic" or "Protestant". It is about faith in Christ and discipleship. In other words, the Christian Church is not Catholic or Protestant; rather it is catholic i.e. universal. That is what Ignatius who coined the word meant mainly and he was building on Jesus' own words that wherever two or three are gathered in His name, He the Lord Jesus Christ is there in their midst. That is the catholic Church; that is the Christian Church.

The Church of Christ aka the Christian Church is one. It does not know denominations, whether it is the Roman Catholic denomination or organisation or "church" or whether it is Cutlass Sharp Sharp Ministry. They are all just denominations and things of human making.

The Christian Church consists of all Christians irrespective of which ever denomination in which they can be found.

Members of the Church in Corinth were not members of the Church in Thessalonica or Church in Ephesus or Church in Rome (based on the epistles in the Christian Bible); yet they were all members of the one Church of Christ ------ the same one Church of Christ to which even today's Christians belong. Hallelujah!

Meanwhile, according to the logic of "some people", even the apostle John was a junior to some Roman Catholic "popes".

According to "these people" some other individuals were "bishops of" Rome and "popes" even while the apostle John was still living. And since you must accept both the authority and infallibility of these "popes" and "bishops of" Rome to be a Christian or to be saved, it means that the apostle John could not have been a Christian --- unless he accepted both the authority and infallibility of the Roman Catholic "popes" that were "in office" while he was still living.

Clever, eh?

And Mary Magdalene submitted herself to the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope". She also accepted the "infallibility" of the Roman Catholic "pope".

Therefore, Mary Magdalene was a Roman Catholic. QED!

Therefore the "first" Christian was a Roman Catholic!

The place where you will find "God say" that people should not pray to or through Mary is the same place where you will find the lines bolded in red below

(From the Roman Catholic song 'Daily Daily Sing to Mary')

Advocate and loving mother,
Mediatrix of all grace:
Heaven's blessings she dispenses
On our sinful human race.

All our graces flow through Mary;
All then join her praise to sing:
Fairest work of all creation,
Mother of creation's King.


Meanwhile as for the Bible, Christians today are happy that other Christians who were mostly NOT Roman Catholics helped them to decide since as early as the end of the First century AD what books to regard as included in the Bible or collection whether even as part of the main canon or as just useful for reading.

1500 years later, the Roman Catholics too decided on their Bible ---- that one is their own business.

Ukuts gp: It is only those that are ignorant of the bible's teaching that will swallow their doctrines hook, line and sinker.

Don't mind them! In terms of "doctrine" (and aside from tithe frauds and WoF people) the Roman Catholic denomination or organisation or "church" is the most fraudulent manipulator of the Bible for its own selfish and even diabolical aggrandisement.

Oh and by the way, for the benefit of the ignorant, the word Bible can be found in the Bible --- by those who know where to look and what to look for.

And if anyone wants to know who gave the name 'the Bible' to the Bible, see here https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Also if people say because churches (NOT "religious institutions", NOT "ecclessial communities" or any such nonsensical Roman Catholic construct), that because churches have different "doctrines" they cannot be the Church or part of the Church, then the same thing can be said of the Roman Catholic denomination or organisation.

The Roman Catholic denomination or organisation clearly has doctrines that are not only contrary to the Bible but are even anti-Christ e.g. its doctrine that no one can be saved unless s/he submits to the Roman Catholic "pope". That particular doctrine is even more idiotic when we know that some of the Roman Catholic "popes" were not even Christians at all, some were never ordained as priest before they were made "pope", some were buying and selling the "pope" thing, some turned the "pope" palace and kingdom into a den of whoredom and debauchery.

These are the people claiming to be the "only Church". Yeah right! Utter nonsense.

There is nothing about the questions posed to Ukuts to scare a Christian or that is advantageous to the Roman Catholic Church.

It was Not the Roman Catholic Church that named the Bible as the Bible.

It was Not the Roman Catholic Church that said that the gospel of Mark is inspired and the Acts of Peter is not.

There is nowhere in the Bible that God asked anyone to pray to or through Mary. If some people want to 'Daily Daily sing to Mary, sing her praises due' then that is their problem.

^^^ Yep, the Roman Catholic Church is just another denomination. It is true that every one has a share of the blame for disunity but a huge part of the blame goes to the Roman Catholic Church for its unChristian and unGodly claims and discord sowing in its quest for both worldly and religious power.

This unGodly and unChristian quest for power led the Roman Catholic Church to say some terrible and clearly anti-Christ things e.g. no one can be saved unless he subjects himself to the Roman Catholic "pope". Having said such foolish anti-Christ things and because of claims of infallibility, the Roman Catholic Church is finding it difficult to pull back sufficiently. Their Vatican II did the best it could but it could only do so much and even at that the more traditional Catholics could not stomach it.

Then there are the outright lies e.g. that they "compiled" or "canonised" or "put together" or "named" or "originated" the Bible. These are all LIES.

Do not believe them; rather do a proper research of the history and origin of the Bible. I have discussed these matters in several threads here.

Also, here is a link which has a decent explanation/summary of the history/origin of the Bible: http://truthsaves.org/doctrine/bible-from-catholics.shtml



(Sorry woky; I am 'trying to try' but some things are just necessary)

woky: Enigma my brother, take am easy o

woky, my brother (and I do not just mean 'separated brethren'), I will try.

Cheers.

There are many reasons why "churches" have different "doctrines". Some of them are legitimate based on genuinely different perceptions as may even be culturally influenced.

Some are simply due to "flesh"; some are because the Christian Church has been infiltrated by 'enemies' and this has always been so even from the apostolic age.

Nevertheless the Christian Church is one. The Christian Church does not know denominations whether Roman Catholic Church or Cutlass Sharp Sharp Ministry. The Christian Church is not inhibited by "doctrinal differences" in the final analysis. See for example the points raised in this thread on the sense in which the Christian Church is infallible: https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach

It was the Christian Church (and absolutely NOT the Roman Catholic Church) that gave us the Bible. The Christian Church had given us the Bible by the end of the first century AD. The Roman Catholic Church did not finally settle its own Bible until as late as the 16th century. What the Roman Catholics like to claim about the 4th century is false and chicanery; and in any event even that is preceded by what other parts of the Christian Church had done. For example, Athanasius' list of AD367 came before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim --- even anything that they can claim falsely, like Hippo and Carthage.

As Christians, our focus is the Christian Church; the Roman Catholic Church is at best just another denomination or part of the containers of members of the Christian Church.

That is very nice Sal C; you are a good person.

Sal C: But in that aspect, na you troll pass sef.

True small, lol

But do you know that in all the time that I've been here, I never got into fights with Roman Catholics until last year?

The cause of the problems was that I explained the facts about the origin of the Bible in ways that contradict the argument of Roman Catholics and some of them turned me into a hate figure. For a long time, I was even begging them that we should not turn the matter into fight. (I can give you links to prove I was begging them not to turn the thing to fight)

Dem nor hear, and here we are!

woky: lolz wat ar u tryn to say?

That it is better to be one and united than to be fighting one another.

Compare with Ut Unum Sint!

Sal C: Yes it is,
Though I never cherished those arguments but it equally spur one to a greater knowledge of what he professes.
Good morning. Big Brother.

Those arguments or at least the fight aspects are not desirable. In fact, what we are doing is making some of the mistakes and re-fighting the fights of some other people that took place over hundreds of years.

Unfortunately, the arguments at least (and may be even the fights) became necessary ..............

Anyway, leave that matter for Matthias; hope you, woky and all the other participants continue to have an enjoyable and fruitful time.

@Sal C and woky

Isn't this better than all those "Us versus them" things?

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!"

Good morning to all.

Re Solution/Suggestion

In fact, I have just checked and the three threads with the highest views on current 1st page are: (edited)

1. Have you praised him today thread

2. the Christian Chat thread

2. The Bible Quiz thread

^^^
Solution/Suggestion

It is very simple; a general chat thread does not have to be a sticky. Let the people who want such a thread make one, keep posting on it regularly --- and that way keep it on top of the list of threads.

The Quiz thread was unstickied; the participants got and still get on with the thread. It is not currently stickied yet it is one of the threads with the highest views and visits; what is more, it keeps coming back to the top -- I guess until the participants lose steam.

^^ Well, 'youknowwho' is also a bigot and gasbag.

Pity both posts are likely to be deleted.

HumbledbYGrace: There is something Obadiah is missing, this section is not romance section, or literature section, or Celebrity section, There is no way, a general chatbox will solve things, it will only cause chaos around here.

Obadiah don't you like peace? The stability this section has had Do you enjoy unnecessary fights

Actually, I wish to say something about the bolded especially because some people like to shout that this place is the Religion section and not the Christian section.

The title may say "Religion" and it is true that there are now many different religions here now including paganism and evangelical atheism among others. However, when the section started, it was predominantly made up of Christian discussions with some Islamic and other religion discussions. It was Christian threads and Christian discussions that made this section and that made it attract traffic historically. In other words, historically this section was mostly a Christian section or, to be more accurate/pedantic, a Christian and other religions section.

Fair enough, the reality is that the Christians are leaving the section for those who want to make it what they want to make it. However, in the context of what I have explained and in the context of the history of the Christian Chat thread, having the Christian Chat thread specifically as a sticky is not out of place even in the present climate of the "Religion" section.

Clarification of Suggestion and Response to Mod

Actually, I think HBG has a point that there has been relative calm regarding the 'sticky' situation (no pun intended)!

Since the non-Christian sticky people were indulged, there has been calm; similarly with the 'Reference' thread even though its usefulness is really quite very limited.

The issue (no misuse of the abbreviation "ish" which unknown to some of its users is hip hop slang for 'shit'*) with Ajibam's 'Welcome' thread has been resolved. So perhaps to avoid rocking the boat, just leave the stickies as they are. I notice it does not even prevent having temporary stickies as is being done with one now.

Also, I agree with the decision that this thread should only be for complaints and suggestions primarily.



*Bonus

Clean/Radio edit of hip hop line: "Stay pretty and I ma stay dishy"!

Original/uncut of same line: "Stay pretty and I ma stay shitty"!