₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: Even the origen you mentioned in your write up,was he not catholic? Origen irrespective of some of his erroneous views later condemned by the church remains one of the most influential figures in xtian.if not for some of the controversies associated with him. He would have been placed alongside the likes of the great St Augustine of hippo

Was he a Roman Catholic? To which See did he and his Church belong?

By the way, I notice you write "catholic" with small 'c', was that deliberate and /or do you mean by the word The Roman Catholic Church?

^^^ Was either the Synod of Hippo or the Council of Carthage (I've actually been to Carthage before ) a Roman Catholic affair?

Where is Hippo and where is Carthage? What Church was in Hippo and/or Carthage and to which See did these places belong ---- Rome?

Nice to 'see' you Jesoul and glad to know you are doing fine.

^^^ Patience, the OP said TBC!

The Old Testament Canon

In the West today, the Protestant Old Testament consists of 39 books while the Roman Catholics (and to some extent the Anglicans) tend to add a further seven books known either as the Deuterocanonical books or The Apocrypha.

Either way, the 39 books accepted by both Roman Catholics and Protestants (for present purposes, though not really accurately, including the Anglicans) come from The Hebrew Bible (basically the Bible of Judaism). These 39 books (sometimes numbered differently in other "Bibles" e.g. 24 in Jewish Bibles) cannot be said to owe their acceptance or even 'canonisation' to The Roman Catholic Church - no matter later claims (including claims based on what happened at the Council of Trent).

The 39 books were used by Jesus and the apostles way before anything that became known as The Roman Catholic Church. Further, they were preserved throughout the ages irrespective of The Roman catholic Church.

The further 7 books that the Roman Catholic Church accepts are based on the fact that the Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek) included these books. In this respect, the Roman Catholic Church has a point about the inclusion of these seven books because there is evidence (edit) some suggestion that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint. However, whether or not modern Bibles include the extra seven books, the main point is that the 39 or 46 books of the Old Testament in use in the West do not owe their acceptance or preservation to the Roman Catholic Church.


The New Testament

First thing is that the New Testament (or at least most of it) was not written by the Roman Catholic Church. The books of the New Testament are books believed to be written by or connected to at least one of the apostles and were mostly written before there was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, there were many books in circulation in respect of which issues then arose as to what was to be considered 'inspired/authoritative' or part of what is claimed to be New Testament canon.

Again, the earliest suggested canons for the New Testament were developed in the age of the universal or catholic Church (small c) of which what is now called the Roman Catholic Church was just a part. For example, Wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

By the early 200s, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the Catholic New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation,[7] known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[8] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.

TBC

EDIT On the difference between 'the catholic Church', "The Catholic Church" and the Roman Catholic Church, please see https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

EDIT On the difference between 'the catholic Church', "The Catholic Church" and the Roman Catholic Church, please see https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic


A series of threads recently have raised the particular question whether the Roman Catholic Church gave "us" the "Bible".

It seems the debates could do with some matters of clarification.

1. The Bible

By the Bible is meant a/the collection of books that Christians (deliberately excluding Judaism) of various ages, in different places and of different denominations (or "abominations") accept as the primary or definitive Scripture/s for their faith.

Our old favourite, Wikipedia, puts it this way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible:

The Bible . . . is any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity.

A notable implication of this is that it can be said that there are different "Bibles".


2. Canon of the Bible

By "canon" in this sense is meant roughly "yardstick", "standard", or "definitive" (or perhaps "authoritative" as Wiki uses). In relation to the Bible and Christianity in any event, by canon is meant the collection of books accepted by a particular Christian community or particular sets of Christians as definitely "sacred" Scriptures or the collection of books accepted as definitely "inspired".


3. The Canon of the Bible and the Roman catholic Church

There is a widespread falsehood, which is widely assumed by many to be true simply because it is often repeated, that the Roman Catholic Church is responsible for the canon of the Bible accepted by Christians.

This notion is borne of both ignorance and misunderstanding. Ignorance and misunderstanding of (a) the original meaning, different meanings and uses of the word "catholic" and of (b) the history of The Christian Church and even of the Roman Catholic Church.

4. In a number of places, I have already explained the significance and importance of the word "catholic" when written with a small 'c' as opposed to Catholic when written with a big 'C'.

See https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11813883
https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/7#11826930
https://www.nairaland.com/490515/holy-spirit-personal-sentient-being/2#6541713
etc


For clarity, when the word "catholic" was first and originally applied to The Christian Church, the word did NOT mean or refer to The Roman Catholic Church at all or as such! Rather the word was used with a meaning or a sense consisting of two aspects: universal and whole. "Universal" means basically the Church worldwide at all times (past and present) and in all places while "whole" means basically teaching wholesome i.e. complete doctrine which, as will be seen later, was later interpreted largely as meaning teaching the doctrine of The Trinity.

In the days when the Christian Church was seen as catholic (small C), The Roman Catholic Church (or what became the RCC) was just one part of that catholic or universal Christian Church.

The universal or catholic Christian Church can be said to have started in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. Thus the first Christian Church started in Jerusalem; what is called the first (great) Council of the Christian Church took place in Jerusalem i.e. that in which James spoke for the Church and where the apostles agreed not to place the burden of circumcision etc on gentiles.

One of the claims sometimes encountered is that the reason for the authority of the Roman Catholic Church over every other Christian or every other Christian group is that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that the popes are his successors. In that case, a natural reply is that even assuming that Peter was ever bishop of Rome, he was well before that bishop in Jerusalem; some even say he was first Bishop of Jerusalem. If that is the case, should not his successors as Bishop of Jerusalem or bishops in Jerusalem be the head/s of the Christian Church worldwide rather than the Bishop of Rome?

In fact, it is claimed that Peter was even first Bishop of Antioch before he was bishop of Rome. Again, in that case, does Antioch not have a claim to headship as that made by Rome?

TBC



Edited

Addendum: another set of questions that was posed in an earlier discussion touching on the problem of evil.

From https://www.nairaland.com/810960/god-evil#9636315

1. A tsunami occurs and 10,000 people die as a result. What is good or evil about this and WHY?

2. An aeroplane crashes with 500 people dead. What is good or evil about this and WHY?

3. A lion kills and eats a young kid goat. What is good or evil about this and WHY?

4.

. . . a trapped team of five spelunkers determine via radio contact with physicians that they will have starved to death by the time they are rescued, and thus elect to eat one of their party. Once the remaining four spelunkers are rescued, they are all indicted for the murder of their fifth member.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_of_the_Speluncean_Explorers

Full monty http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html

What is good or evil about this and WHY?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Interesting. Your understanding of the bible is poor or perhaps it is your understanding of language. evil is a quality and not an object. If I create a beautiful car, It does not mean that I created "beauty" and put it in the car. In the same way that damaging my car does not mean that you created "car ugliness" neither does driving the now ugly car automatically mean that I must have created "car ugliness" because I am using an ugly car.
If you can't grasp this analogy, then I am afraisd I really can't offer you much help.[/quote]This indicates that there is perhaps the need for a consideration of even more "basic" or fundamental issues e.g.

1. What is "evil"? Is it simply something "bad" or not "good" or "ungood"?

2. Is "evil" always "bad"?

3. Can "evil" be in fact "good"? (Consider a girl of 17 has an unwanted pregnancy out of wedlock affecting her chances of "further education" and "future prospects" ---- what happens say 25 years down the line? In one example, 25 years down the line, both are now graduates, have a good relationship and are often mistaken for sisters.)

4. If a person makes or leaves open the possibility of "evil" happening, has that person "created" evil or has that person "caused" evil? {A lady is doing the ironing in the same room where there is a 15 year old boy; she leaves the iron on the table while she pops into the kitchen; the boy in a fit of fancy decides to press his palm to the face of the hot iron. }

[quote author=MrNigeria.]jumoke ALAO OF AIT GBEDU ATTENDS MY CHURCH, SHE IS EVEN AN USHER IN MY ANGLICAN CHURCH AND NOBODY DE LOOK HER VERY BEAUTIFUL FACE AND EXTRA SMOOTH SKIN. INFACT NOBODY SEND HER SELF FOR CHURCH.[/quote]Den den, I know your church! I've been there several times, abi no be SP?

Ishilove: @Eni, you forgot this ""
I am very busy but I'll update The Chronicles asap.

Between, how are Eliza and Phill?

Ah, you see now! Na because many people (well we) dey salivate as we dey wait --- so e dey hard to remember ya excuse.

Eliza and Phil dey oooo; they were happy say I try for cheer Phil up after e spend time for hospital recently.

Ishilove: Err...The Wafi bible, I presume.

You wan contest me? You nefa see nothing --- in fact, some pipo don already transligamat, transulita, translatify erm abeg transfer some Bible passages into pidgin well well; some even dey this Nairaland sef --- google Psalm 23 pidgin and e suppose for comot.

By the way make I tell you two tori.

1. Some eons ago, I used to go around playing draughts at various venues. There were always various characters from different parts of the country. On one occasion, one guyman was reading Iwuayanwu's old newspaper called "The Daily Champion"; in comes this Ibadan guy who arrived at the games late and on seeing the paper said "Daily [b]S[/b]ampion"; na im one other guyman (whether from 'south-south' or that Benue side, I no remember now) begin laugh am and talk say "Look dis yeye man; e dey call [b]Y[/b]ampion, Sampion!"


2. Another time, I bin dey for that area of Lagos wey dem call Ike[b]y[/b]a when one guy bin get flat tyre and dey try jack hin car; as e dey do am now na im one Calabar guy hustler approached to help; but e be like the flat tire guy no too dey better mood and snatched the jack away almost hitting hustler Akpan for face. Na im Akpan shout one time: "look this man, e wan take [b]y[/b]ack [b]y[/b]ack my face!"

Zikkyy: This is what i read....

1.


. .and. .
2.


The baba no force anybody na.

Nna zikky, I hear you; also, make we no too pull the issue because as for me nowadays, I am far more reluctant to discuss these things in light of the current atmosphere and dynamics of this "Religion" forum.

mkmyers45: Ok that was funny...

Failing to draw a correlation from the analogy....

Jesus does not know the father's mind no?

Read and study Jesus' words in the book of Revelation and you will see that Jesus knows everything.

As I explained, the limitation was in terms of the human side of the incarnate Jesus.

mkmyers45: Well...i still dont get it...On his time on earth as man and god did he know? if yes why didn't tell? if no why?

I think it is very simple and perhaps if you spend 1/10 of the time exploring "wave particles" etc on studying the Bible, you will have not much difficulty understanding this ---- even if you do not accept or believe it.

Jesus walked the earth as man even though He himself was and is God ----- that is the mystery or the scandal of the incarnation,

He functioned as man for the most part even though there is no way He could ever be an ordinary man; in his function as man He deprived Himself (or was deprived) of some of His divine attributes; that is only logical and sensible. It was in that respect that He said He did not know the time or hour etc.

Now as to the "why" aspect of it ------ you think about it yourself: supposing Einstein (or whichever living scientist is considered today's equivalent "genius" can do a visual examination of a person's physique and from that can tell the exact day the person would die, would he go about telling people the day and date they would die?

^^^ I think the "I asked God", "God told me to ask you to partner" etc bits are extremely questionable ---- to put things mildly and kindly.

mkmyers45: He's hybrid right? So he's god side knew?

If you put it that way I won't object just for the sake of simplicity but, personally, I would express it differently.

Yes, as God Jesus knows everything. If you are in doubt, get a Bible with His words in red ----- and read his words in the book of Revelation. (For this purpose, even if you do not believe the Bible, you will have to agree that it is the reference point for this thread).

pastie: Hello my fellow naıralanders,there some facts ın the bıble that always confuse me when ı come accross them,the fact ıs that ın the bıble jesus chrıst says he ıs the lıght an the way,no one can see the kıngdom of heaven except through hım whıch he also say he and hıs father are the same,but what comfused me here ıs that jesus was ask by hıs dıscıple to know the day of hıs judgement ,but jesus reply them that hımself dnt know the day, only God knows the judgement day.and my questıon here, ıs he not thesame wıth hıs father to know the day
Pls shed more lıght to me,u knw there some fact ın the bıble whıch are dıfıcult to understand except ur wıth the holy spırıt.

First of all don't be misled by all kinds of things that you read here; what the Bible teaches is that Jesus IS God; he is God the Son where we also have God the Father and God the Holy Spirit all as part of One God The Trinity. ((This issue has been discussed extensively on other threads and if you want I can provide some links later )

Now to your question: the traditional Christian teaching and understanding is that whilst on earth Jesus was fully God and fully man ---- this is called the hypostatic union. However, Jesus had to do many things as a man ----in order to fulfil His purpose; in particular He had to die as a man; He can't die as God or even merely as "spirit" anyway.

So when Jesus says, He didn't know the day, time or hour etc ---- that was simply Jesus functioning as a man and with the limitations of functioning as simply a man in that particular respect.

Thanks Ishilove (quietly: _{e be like say you still dey keep many people in suspense about Wasimi or is it me not up to date?})

Re the sermon: one thing I find interesting is that while there were of course allusions to scripture, the case was made without particularly quoting scripture. However, as I read the piece, even some of the jokes reminded me of scriptural passages. Perhaps it is me, but I find myself sometimes having a comedic or even comical picture of even very serious passages in the Bible.

Take one example ---- when Jesus had preached some serious and hard stuff, some of his disciples couldn't take it and decided to leave saying ------- "Oga, dis one harrr o; dis thing wey you dey talk too hard!" then Jesus turned to the inner circle too (i.e. the apostles) and said "abi una too wan begin go - if de thing too hard for una?" And one of them reply ---- "Whosai we wan go? Na you when get the words of eternal life!"

Compare last line of the sermon:

Someone once said that the church of Jesus Christ is a great deal like Noah's Ark. The only reason you put up with the smell inside is because of the harshness of the weather outside.

with John 6

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

67“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

dorox: Crazyman deserves some credit for his effort if not his delivery. He was brave enough to step up to his self appointed challenge as mouthpiece of christians but failed miserably to deliver.
Mr Anony whom i disagree with on many issuesof faith gave a far more credible defence of God on a thread that wasn't his.
I am handicapped by my poor writing skill to mount a proper dedence of some of the questions our atheist "friends" throw at us.
Some of these questions like: Why did God not make his creature to be always good?surely one can excercise freewill in an infinte number good ways they would reply in answer to freewill defence. A friend of mine once asserted that God if he exist was evil to some extent because, he encompasses everything, the universal set if you will and every other thing a subset. That means that no thaught, action, material or indeed anything real or abstract can exist if it is not already part of god.
Questions like this are complex, as christians we should not shy away from them. finding answers to them deepens our understanding and helps us appreciate the God we serve all the more.

Actually, the Christians and theists have not shied away from these kind of issues; in relevant debates, the argument that the Christians and theists have put to the atheists is that in fact that which is known as the Problem of Evil actually proves the existence of God.

See e.g. threads including

https://www.nairaland.com/810960/god-evil

https://www.nairaland.com/934575/god-dead

https://www.nairaland.com/990487/morality-possible-without-authoritative-source

And of course, beyond Nairaland, these issues have been addressed by far far more devoted people (code for 'cleverer people') ----- whether satisfactorily or not.

^^^ Bros, I like your style.

One from common heritage

"The Church's One Foundation" (Tune = Aurelia)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=molBcp8S_Ng


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SpI1jCczao

Ihedinobi bros

Thanks and I'm glad you like it. We have a very rich heritage (yes even though 'flawed') and deep shared resources from which to tap.

God bless.

And finally . . . .

Close

These are the things we confess about the church. We admit that it is a mixed bag. Some day God will sort it all out. For now, we haven't got a clue. We see the church as visible and invisible. Which is fine, except it is in the visible realm that all the problems seem to reside. The church is one, even though it is divided. It his holy, even though it is made up of people like you and me. It is catholic, meaning it is universal. And, finally, apostolic, even though many in the church are running at rapid pace away from the apostolic tradition and legacy.

Not a pretty picture, is it?

All the same, the church is God's choice. It is his chosen vehicle for the spread and proclamation of the message of his Son, Jesus Christ. . . . . it is a wonder the kingdom survives. Yet that wonder is a testimony to God's grace and sovereignty. The church survives and prospers because God empowers and blesses it in spite of its weaknesses and faithlessness. And that leads me to share one final image that seems appropriate in closing. Someone once said that the church of Jesus Christ is a great deal like Noah's Ark. The only reason you put up with the smell inside is because of the harshness of the weather outside.

Haaaa, breathe out!

Apostolic

We affirm that the church is one, holy, catholic, and, finally, apostolic. The word "apostolic" is not found in this clause of the Creed. The reason is that the Creed itself fulfills what is intended by this word. The Creed is said to be the creed of the Apostle's. What is meant is that these truths we affirm are the core, the center, the heart of the message that was originally proclaimed by the Apostles themselves.

Enigma's addendum: the preacher is referring here to The Apostle's Creed; the Nicene Creed now specifically includes apostolic.

The Greek language made very important distinctions between the disciples and the apostles. In the ancient world, an apostle was someone who was sent out by a Lord, (i.e. a king or ruler) to represent him. An apostle carried great authority, for he represented the Lord. In contrast, the word disciple refers to one who was simply a learner, or a student, of a teacher. An apostle had the authority to represent his Lord, whereas the disciple had the responsibility to learn from his teacher.

In emphasizing the apostolic quality of our faith, we are confessing our conviction that the apostles were the true representatives of the Lord Jesus Christ. They gave to the church a faithful apostolic message, which is the historic core of what we believe and teach. In this sense, what we are confessing is that the church is tied to the apostolic message. We are not evolving into something new, we are guarding something precious and old. We are called to be a church that proclaims truth, not a university that debates it.

This is a very important point for us living in the modern world. I believe that the great threat to the modern church, particularly the church in Europe and North America, arises from the tendency to reject the apostolic faith.

TBC

catholic

The meaning of the word "catholic" in the Apostle's Creed may be the single most commonly asked question I receive as a pastor. Young people in Confirmation Classes are especially curious about it. “Why do we say that we believe in the Roman Catholic Church when we are Protestants?” they ask. The confusion arises because the word "catholic" is not in common usage in English today. Most people hear it used only in reference to the Roman Catholic Church. And so, when they read or hear the word "catholic" in another context, they assume it refers to the Church of Rome. But this is mistaken. "Catholic," in this context, means "universal" and is not a reference to the Church of Rome.

We are confessing that we believe in the universal church. What, exactly, is the universal church? The universal church is the company of God‟s elect. One of the Greek words used for the church is ekklesia. Ekklesia comes from the Greek meaning "to call." The church are those who have heard God's call. They are God's people who have been called out from the world. They are the ones who have heard God's voice.

The ekklesia then means the totality of God's people. They include the living and the dead, believers‟ world wide, from every tongue and nation, the entire company of God's elect. It even includes those who may disagree with us and so are in differing theological or ecclesiastical camps. This last is an important point.

It is the universality of the faith that provides one of the foundational motivations for the Christian missionary mandate. We send missionaries to proclaim the gospel, make disciples and encourage converts because our faith is catholic. It is universal.

TBC

On the one hand, the church is a mixed bag of good and evil, wheat and weeds. On the other, it is a combination of both the visible and the invisible, the seen and the hidden. Nonetheless, classic Christian theology has made four vital affirmations about the nature of Christ's church. Three of them are affirmed each time that we recite together the Apostle's Creed. The fourth is captured in the creed's name. It is the Apostle's Creed.

Enigma's addendum: The Nicene Creed (as amended/updated) now expressly adds the fourth: apostolic.

Four classic characteristics of the Church

One

. . . . The church is simply the aggregate of the people of God.

The first thing that is said is that the invisible church is one. God's people have a true unity. By God's power there is a true oneness to his church that unites his people with the whole company of the elect, in every time, in every place, from every tribe, tongue and nation.

In contrast to the invisible church, which is united, the visible church is deeply fragmented. In the visible church, we are divided. We are divided locally, according to geography. We are divided by the realities of theology, denominational structures, nationhood, ethnicity, personal rivalry, competition, history, which prevent us in the visible church from truly reflecting the unity we possess in Jesus Christ.

The Christian goal is not unity for unity's sake. Our union is in Jesus Christ. The path to follow to minimize the (apparently) natural Christian tendency to fragment and divide is to focus upon Jesus Christ and obedience to him. As we are draw to him we are drawn into greater communion with one another.

Holy

The first thing we say is that the church is one. The second is that it is holy. Like the church's "oneness", confessing that the church is "holy" seems, on the face of it, to be patently absurd. A survey of Church history reveals the commonness, the earthiness, of even the most renowned figures of Christian history. On the one hand we can say that Martin Luther was a great Protestant Reformer. On the other, we note that he too was an ordinary man. He once quipped that when he "breaks wind in Wittenberg they smell it in Rome."

Many today point out, rightfully, that the church is full of hypocrites. Or that church politics is no different than government or any other politics. If you want to know the real skinny on how to be ruthless in a fight then study the example of veteran church fighters. They know. Somebody once said that the church is the only army in the world that habitually shoots its own wounded.

The church is manifestly not a holy place. One reason for this is that the church is full of wounded people. . . . Another reason the church is not a holy place is that the church is full of people who are not what they should be. They are better than they once were – by the power of Christ – but they still are not what they should be. Jesus said that he would make us "fishers of men." It is obvious, I think, that you must catch fish before you clean them. The church is full of the partially sanctified.

The problem, of course, is in our understanding – or rather, misunderstanding – of the word "holy." The root of the word in Hebrew that gives us our word "holy" means "to cut." We think of holy as meaning white robes, halos, harps and never having to use the bathroom. The Bible makes clear that, in that sense, we will never be holy by our own efforts or in our own power in this lifetime. No, the church is holy in the sense that it is cut out from the rest of humanity. It is holy in that it has been set apart and given a sacred mission and task. It is the task of proclaiming Christ and of being faithful in worshipping and glorifying God the Father.

TBC

Extracts from an interesting sermon

http://www.fairviewpc.org/sermons/100711FPC_Sermonclub.pdf

Somebody once said that there are three great scandals associated with Christianity. There is the scandal of the incarnation: the idea that God would take on human flesh. There is the scandal of the cross: that God would sacrifice his Son for the redemption of people. And there is the scandal of the church: that God would entrust the spread, promotion and development of the faith to people such as you and me. C. S. Lewis was absolutely right when he said that you go to church on Sunday and you meet there the people you have been avoiding all week.

Jesus told the parable of the Wheat and the Tares, the good and the bad seed, the grain and the weeds. Unlike most of Jesus' parables, he thought this parable important enough to warrant an explicit explanation of its meaning. He did not wish us to miss the point. . . .

First, it tells us that no particular church here on earth is perfect. Some are better than others, no doubt, but none is perfect. The search for a perfect church this side of paradise is a quest for the holy grail, it is an impossible task. The perfect church, here on earth, is a figment of our imagination. I have a colleague who summed things up rather nicely I thought when he said of his congregation, this would be the perfect church, if it were not for the people, and if I were not the pastor.

The first thing to be said about the church is that there is no such thing as a perfect church. It is a mixture of the good and the bad. The second is that the church is both the invisible and the visible. . . .

As Christians we think of the church in terms of two spheres: the visible and the invisible. The local church is, obviously, the visible church. Warsaw International Church is a visible church. Our particular home churches are visible churches. The denominational communities we belong to are the visible church.

The invisible church is the church universal. It includes the church militant: God's people who are alive today, and the church triumphant: God‟s people who have died and now are in his presence.

There is an overlap to these two spheres, but they are not identical. There are those who are in the visible church who are not, in fact, part of the invisible church. They are the tares, the weeds, in Jesus' parable. Similarly, there are some that are in the invisible church that may not be in the visible church. These include, for example, isolated radio believers, or persons who have fallen, temporarily, out of fellowship with a local church body, or still others who have faith in Jesus Christ but are members of local churches whose teaching is outside the mainstream of Christian orthodox belief.

TBC

The phrase "he descended into hell" is most widely known from the "Apostles' Creed".

As modern translations of the Creed now shows, what is meant is in fact simply that "he descended to the dead".

In another manner, Christians seen as orthodox (i.e. non-heretical) can still say Jesus suffered "hell" in His agonies on the Cross.

However all of these is totally different from the Word of Faith heresy that Jesus went to "hell" where he was tortured by the satan and demons for three days.

^^^ +1

^^^ No problem at all; I just wanted to make sure.

^^ But do you now understand my post that you queried?

^^^ Look, when you do things like these you run the risk of receiving condescension.

See, the word "evolution" there simply qualifies the reference to posts i.e. posts on this thread.

In other words this is what I said: people who can follow the "evolution of posts on this thread" OR people who can follow the history of posts on this thread.

Read it again, in the light of what I've just written.

^^^ And where does that which you have quoted say that atheism = evolution?

^^^^ Please where on this thread have I stated that atheism equal evolution?

Very funny ha ha ha. Like you have ever been someone to take seriously?