Enigma's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Enigma's Profile › Enigma's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (of 198 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 2:35pm On Sep 24, 2013 |
debosky: OK I'll do it now.For me the principles are simple. 1. If a person says s/he has decided and chosen to tithe ----- I cannot argue with them, let alone to "insult" them. 2. If a person says others are "stealing" by eating "God's tithe" ---- I think it is reasonable to call the person too a "stealer" or a thief or at least a Bible-twister. 3. If a person says "tithes should not be given to the poor" ---- ok we might refrain from calling the person a "stealer" or thief but the view point should be challenged vigorously.  1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 1:26pm On Sep 24, 2013 |
Alwaystrue: .....@Enigma, My question 1 is as clear as day... you even quoted it specially yet you ask me for clarity for number 1 again. Lol. You can chose to answer the question one you quoted or leave it. Thanks. I am not even bothering you to answer it but still you won't let it be.....Whenever you are ready and if you are able, tell us which one is "God's tithe" that people are stealing when they eat it. Define "God's tithe" and your question will be answered. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 10:43am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Alwaystrue: @Enigma,Alright, let us test your honesty! Set out this your number 1 question again ---- clearly. And I will answer it. What is more if you mean this question: 1. Is this the same tithe as the one ordained in Numbers which Paul bore witness off? You will still need to provide clarification: specifically, where and how did Paul bear witness of this "tithe" that you speak of: perhaps 1 Cor 9 as Candour noted -- easy peasy or perhaps you mean something stronger.Do clarify and I will answer you on that specific point. Meanwhile I am so far refraining from accusing you of the same thing you are charging me with. And I am also letting you know that I am so far overlooking the snide undertones of the comments you are addressing to me.  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Apostle Peter And The Pope by Enigma(m): 10:30am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Leo Adewale: Fellas, I've been pondering lately about the connection Apostle Peter has with the Pope but I seem not to have found any. All I see is a big difference. Your opinions about this matter will be highly appreciated.There are big big big differences. Huge! Leo Adewale: The things I need enlightment about are:You see am! Peter referred to himself as a fellow elder when speaking to other elders and when speaking to other Christians, he called them people of like precious faith. Of course you do not see any of the pompous rubbish associated with Roman Catholic "popes". What is more the "popes" gave themselves those nonsense titles in the quest for power both over state governments and other Christians! Leo Adewale: 2) Is the Pope Peter's descendant? If so, how?I think you mean "successor"; I will say No, or not particularly, or not necessarily. And when the time is right I will be willing to address that specific matter of "apostolic succession". Leo Adewale: 3) Why was Rome, Italy chosen as the sit of the Pope and not Jerusalem? Was it chosen by Apostle Peter? If so, why, since it wasn't stated in the Bible that he was in Rome?Politics, economics and circumstance. The canons of the ecumenical councils especially canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon and canon 3 (I think) of the Council of Constantinople let us know that one or even the major reason is simply because Rome was the capital of the empire until Constantinople started to challenge later on. Leo Adewale: 4) Why should the Pope have primacy, claiming to be Peter's successor? Remember that the other apostles NEVER treated Peter with primacy, if they do, they wouldn't have disputed about who is the greatest among them (Luke 22: 24-26).The Roman Catholic claim of primacy is a fraudulent nonsense. Actually, other Churches were/are even willing to grant Rome a "primacy of honour" but even that is not enough for the Roman Catholics who are actually contradicting Jesus Christ in their claim of "primacy"! Leo Adewale: 5) Since Christ is the head of the church, does he need successors since he lives forever and ever?Christ IS and will always be the Head of the Church. What He has given us are shepherds and administrators in the form of the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. Leo Adewale: 6) Why didn't (one of) the (past) Pope object to inhuman killings of about 20,000 men, women & children carried out by the Catholic crusaders on the Albigenses (a.k.a Cathari) and also the driving away of Muslims and Jews from Spain?I will let Roman Catholics answer this one. However, I will point out that historically some of their so called "popes" were sooooo bad that even some Roman Catholics called them anti-Christs! Leo Adewale: 7) During the medieval times, the Pope sold indulgences. Why should that be since even Jesus Christ drove away traders from the temple in Jerusalem?Historically, they not only sold indulgences. They were actually selling and buying the papacy itself! Leo Adewale: Why? Why?? WhyNo reason. It is not necessary and it is not even Christ-like. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 10:11am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Alwaystrue: ....1. Alright, please clarify for me: exactly what do you and Joagbaje mean by "God's tithe"? 2. Recap my point: if God's tithe is the one He said they should take to the place where he placed His name and chose to dwell --- then the tither is supposed to eat the tithe and share it with the poor. 3. If the tither is supposed to eat the tithe and share it with the poor, then it is a false teacher who says it is stealing to eat God's tithe or that it should not be given to the poor. 4. I apologise if I misunderstand your argument and if so please clarify so that I do not misrepresent you. Thanks. Alwaystrue: Did you address question 1 to me? If you have no answer then let it rest.Again, I prefer to seek clarification at this stage. Is it the one where I asked why you skipped verse 5 or more importantly is it the one where I asked whether tithing is an obligation for a Christian? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 9:41am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Alwaystrue: Hello @Enigma,Hello dear Alwaystrue 1. First of all, why did you skip verse 5? But you are to seek the place the Lord your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go 2. Is the tithe that we find in Deuteronomy 12 different from the one that we find in Deuteronomy 14? Deut 14:23 - Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the Lord your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the Lord your God always. 3. If that is the "God's tithe" that you and Joagbaje are speaking of --- did God not say that the tither himself should eat it and share with the poor. Then is it not a false teacher who says 'eating God's tithe is stealing' and (b) 'tithes should not go to the poor'? Alwaystrue: My questions:I will wait for you to address the points and questions I raised above first. Alwaystrue: 2. In that command by Moses, even tithes, vows and others were eaten. Do you eat your offerings as well with other people? If you do is it in the place that was commanded?Yes, why not? Harvest season is around the corner for traditional churches: someone brings an offering of a ram; another brings an offering of a bag of rice; I bring an offering of two bottles of oil though a more generous soul brings a gallon of oil and also peppers and salt. We pray over them during the service and after the service we cook and eat the lot for jollification.  Alwaystrue: 3. Did you notice that Moses gave this command especially telling the Israelites that this tithe should not just be eaten anywhere but in the place the Lord choses to cause his name to dwell so much so that Moses said if the place is far for them they will need to convert it to money? Meaning it could not have been the tabernacle? Infact the place to be chosen in one of the tribes and this is where this should be carried out?So which of today's tithe complies with Deuteronomy 14? Also please be clear about your position? 1. Is tithing an obligation[ for a Christian? 2. Does a Christian have a choice not to tithe? 3. Is a Christian who does not tithe sinning or breaking any covenant or covenant rule? 4. Are you suggesting or teaching tithing on the basis of Abram or of the Law or of a composite of Abram and the Law?] Edited |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Apostle Peter And The Pope by Enigma(m): 9:20am On Sep 24, 2013 |
The apostle Peter was never a "pope" anything! The Roman Catholics are simply spreading propaganda and falsehoods! And for people pondering these things with honesty, consider: - Was or was Peter not "bishop" in Jerusalem? That's where he started out afterall! - Was Peter ever Bishop of Jerusalem? This one helps us to start seeing the problems with the monarchical 'Bishop of X town' business! - Was Peter ever Bishop in Antioch? We know he was in Antioch. - Was Peter ever Bishop of Antioch? Again we know he was in Antioch and that he was there before going to Rome, if indeed he went to Rome? More questions: - When was Peter in Rome? - Who ordained him "Bishop of Rome"? - How was he ordained/appointed Bishop of Rome? - Was the apostle Paul also bishop in Rome? Even more: When Paul wrote the book of Romans, how come he did not mention Peter? Was he writing to a flock over which Peter was already "bishop"? When Paul was writing letters from Rome during his detention, how come he never indicated that Peter too was in Rome? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 9:00am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Interjection As aptly pointed out by debosky: "you are eating God's tithe that's stealing" ------ because of the Law and Malachi 3? "tithes shouldn't go to the poor" ---- clearly contradicts the Law; at best can be due to Abram/Melchizedek episode. So which then is the basis for the teaching of "tithes" by our tithe-monger friend? Is it the Law or is it Abram? Or is it simply a case of duplicity? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 8:55am On Sep 24, 2013 |
God said (again in another passage)! Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, 29 so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. A tithe-monging Bible twister says: tithes shouldn't go to the poor.  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 8:45am On Sep 24, 2013 |
God said: Deuteronomy 26:12 When thou hast made an end of tithing all the tithes of thine increase the third year, which is the year of tithing, and hast given it unto the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, that they may eat within thy gates, and be filled A tithe-monging Bible twister says: tithes shouldn't go to the poor. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 8:45am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Joagbaje: .... tithes shouldn't go to the poor. The ministers are anointed either in the old or New Testament to bless Gods people. The poor cant bless Gods people.  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 8:38am On Sep 24, 2013 |
@debosky Thanks for showing me the "tithes should not go to the poor" one. I missed it --- perhaps because I was skim reading. You see the very reason why people still argue with the tithe supporters? Again, if they say it is their own personal decision to "tithe" into a Church --- it is difficult to argue with that. But to be blatantly teaching falsehood? To be contradicting the Bible (both Old and New Testament) so blatantly and passing that of as "doctrine"? Lord have mercy! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: An Exclusive Interview With Pope Francis by Enigma(m): 12:06am On Sep 24, 2013 |
Cry babies united! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 11:42pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
If a person says: "it is my choice and my decision to tithe" --- of course it is difficult to argue with the person. But once someone starts saying 'non-tithers' are "stealing" or "robbing God", then unless we are convinced that the person is ignorant, I am minded myself to see that person as a thief. Imagine a "stealer" accusing people of eating and stealing "God's tithe"! 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 11:34pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
God said: Deuteronomy 14:23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. A tithe-monging Bible twister says: "You eat Gods tithe that's stealing"  2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 11:22pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
Joagbaje: ....... You eat Gods tithe that's stealing |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 6:34pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
Bidam: ..... One thing that is God’s is His tithe.Can that "tithe" be provisions, milk, gari, goats, egusi, spinach etc etc? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 4:57pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
@ Goshen360 It is truly a case of smh! Anyway, I will leave this other question for anyone who may be interested to think about it. Is this woman below a 'tither' and is she 'tithing' or is she robbing God? Mrs C is a seller of "provisions"; any time that she is going to buy stock, she buys 10% extra (e.g. instead of buying 100 cans of milk, she buys 110); she regularly takes the extra 10% to her local orphanage; she then gives about 5% of her net profits in/to "church". |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 2:37pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
Ihedinobi: @Enigma, big bro, I sent you an email a few days ago. Could you get back to me on it, please? Thank you, sir.Sorry, I did not know! I will look into it but it might be a little later, please bear with me. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 2:20pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
Goshen360: Olaadegbu will NEVER answer this question. Watch it, he will NEVER!!! And if he tries to, he will either go off the line the question asked or twist the line of question TO SOMETHING ELSE.Actually, I am deliberately waiting patiently. I also notice that Joagbaje too said something similar. So, I am waiting now for two (maybe three) people to answer those questions specifically i.e. Olaadegbu, Bidam and also maybe Joagbaje. The questions again: Are you also saying that "tithe" does not have to be money? Can a person "tithe" e.g. books, goats, gari, spinach, milk, egusi etc etc etc? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 1:55pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
OLAADEGBU: What stops you tithing your time, treasure and talent to God?Are you also saying that "tithe" does not have to be money? Can a person "tithe" e.g. books, goats, gari, spinach, milk, egusi etc etc etc? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: An Exclusive Interview With Pope Francis by Enigma(m): 12:01pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
Joavid: Whats my business with what the pope condemns or accept when i hav my bible by my side and the holyspirit to guide and teach me.Historically, their "popes" have always talked through their backsides; so, Christians should not consider themselves bound or necessarily even bothered about any nonsense fulminated by any "pope". Even when Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through Him, their "popes" have been still saying no one can obtain salvation unless s/he submits to their "pope". Na those kind people pesin go take seriously? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: An Exclusive Interview With Pope Francis by Enigma(m): 11:52am On Sep 23, 2013*. Modified: 1:18pm On Sep 23, 2013 |
italo: What Bible?The "Bible" that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled and canonized" was the one they made at the Over 1000 years before then, Christians (note NOT Roman Catholics but Christians) had already compiled and canonised the Christian Bible. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Extract from one I made earlier https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible#18265482 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. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Religion Complaints Thread (sticky) by Enigma(m): 6:21pm On Sep 21, 2013 |
Thanks, brah. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Religion Complaints Thread (sticky) by Enigma(m): 6:09pm On Sep 21, 2013 |
obadiah777: when you run across his post that is offensive, let me know sire. i would be glad to obliterate such postsThanks very much, brah. I never bother to complain about such things and I don't think I am about to start. My suggestion, is that perhaps the Mods need to look more carefully at what they will consider "offensive" and perhaps also make this clearer for the sake of posters. Would it be "offensive" to say that the Roman Catholic Church is idolatrous for example. Brah, I do not mean to put you on the spot and I do not wish you to answer the question here and now. Just food for thought for the Mods. Thanks. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Religion Complaints Thread (sticky) by Enigma(m): 6:00pm On Sep 21, 2013 |
Complaint Sorry last post went through before I'd finished. As the Mods have acted, I will not stress the matter. However, the same complainant goes about calling other peoples' churches "shops"; he also says the Anglicans are not Jesus Church. His own organisation i.e. the idolatrous Roman Catholic Church goes about saying other people e.g. Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans let alone Pentecostals are not "Churches" but merely "ecclessial communities". |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Catholic Church Compiled The Bible by Enigma(m): 5:36pm On Sep 21, 2013*. Modified: 6:07am On Sep 22, 2013 |
Once again from the mouths of the Roman Catholics themselves. From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm "An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase." 1. First of all the Roman Catholics like to spread a particularly bad lie that they had set the canon at "the Council of Rome" in 382 based on a document that is now held to be a forgery! If they had set the canon in 382, why was Jerome in 391 and later still saying that the Apocrypha was not canonical?  2. Again we see Roman Catholics themselves admitting that Jerome and others did not accept the Apocrypha as canonical. {They try to say that Jerome and the others were too rigid in respect of what to regard as canonical}. 3. Again, we see the view that the Apocrypha may be good for edification but are not for the confirmation of the doctrine of the Church. 3. What we see there is what many Christians who are NOT Roman Catholics have held for a long time. 5. This can be said to be the position of even the King James Version (before the Apocrypha was completely removed in later |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Catholic Church Compiled The Bible by Enigma(m): 2:29pm On Sep 21, 2013*. Modified: 6:01am On Sep 22, 2013 |
I said earlier that the OP contains lies. Let us look at just one of the lies for now. The OP accuses Luther of removing books from 'the Bible' "without any authority whatsoever". Meanwhile let us hear what the chief Roman Catholic theological opponent of Luther, during the Reformation, himself said about the Apocrypha. Per "Cardinal" Cajetan "Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." Note a few things: 1. Apocrypha books are not truly canonical for confirming matters of faith; they may only be for edification 2. He suggests this is what Council of Carthage decided; which means that what the Roman Catholics did hundreds of years later at Trent does not even agree with Carthage. Yet the Roman Catholics declared "anathema" those who take the position of Cajetan! Is Cajetan now also "anathema"? What irony! 3. Cajetan completely contradicts the lie that Roman Catholics spread today by confirming what some of us have been saying: Carthage was merely a provincial council! 4. If Carthage was authoritative or had truly been "ratified" by Rome, why then did Rome need Trent to finalise its "canon"? 5. If Rome already had a settled canon in the 4th century how come it needed to establish a canon hundreds of years later in the 16th century? 6. Was any of Rome's claimed canons ever binding on the other people who set out canons e.g Athanasius etc? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Catholic Church Compiled The Bible by Enigma(m): 1:32pm On Sep 21, 2013 |
Actually, when modern Roman Catholics swear at people who do not agree with them, we should not be surprised because that has always been the way of even their Roman Catholic "Church Fathers" e.g. the "Tridentine Fathers". In fact, dem dey even swear for dem own people too when dem get different point of view. For example, in the 16th century when the Roman Catholics finalised the canon of their own Bible, they 'swear' for everybody who disagreed with them or at least they described such people as "anathema." Meanwhile, considering that both Jerome and their own "pope" Gregory I had views on the canon different from what the Roman Catholics decided at Trent, are Jerome and Gregory also "anathema too?  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Catholic Church Compiled The Bible by Enigma(m): 1:12pm On Sep 21, 2013*. Modified: 5:58am On Sep 22, 2013 |
Hear a couple of Roman Catholics speaking on "The Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonicals" ---- (meanwhile Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have different meanings of 'deuterocanonical').* Jerome: "As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” * One day I might just take time to provide detail explanation/clarification of this issue of Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals. Meanwhile, once again, I say that the Christian Church had long written and begun "compiling" the Bible before there was such a thing as either the Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church". |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Catholic Church Compiled The Bible by Enigma(m): 10:14am On Sep 21, 2013*. Modified: 10:35am On Sep 21, 2013 |
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 Although, with typical propaganda and falsehood, the Roman Catholic Church is now trying to present itself as "The Catholic Church". Meanwhile there are others also laying claim to the word "Catholic" with the capital 'C'. Chief of these is the Eastern Orthodox but there are actually a number of other groups also calling themselves 'Catholic' and who are not even in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. And in any event the Christian Church is the catholic or universal Church; this small 'c' catholic Church is superior to either "The Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is the catholic aka universal Church. It does not know and is not bound by denominations. Hence Christians who are NOT Roman Catholics can say without problems: 'I believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church'. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 (of 198 pages)