pilgrim.1:

Some of you folks should learn to prayerfully study your Bibles before seeking out 'pilgrim' - this subject is not about me nor anyone else. If you are averse to tithing, keep it to yourself; and then allow others to do what their hearts reveal to them.

That said, indeed Paul fended for himself - but not at all times. There are many instances where he actually demanded his expenses to be sorted out by several churches, especially the churches he was responsible for. Do you want examples?

Dear faith69, it's useless being reactive just because you find someone quoting verses against church leadership. You didn't take time to prayerfully study your Bible and started out sounding like apostle Paul never received any financial help from the churches, or that the only source of funding his expenses was through fending for himself. If you want numerous other verses where he went so far as to both receive financial assistance from Churches as well 'demanded' that they foot his missionary bills, just gee me a call. Celebrating ignorance is now common place - and if that's what you're all about, enjoy plenty.

When paul fended for himself why didnt he lambast them for not paying tithes

Kunle abeg tell them
@ Pilgrim please where are you ,could you please educate us on why Paul fended for himself when he copuld have helped himself with tithes

pilgrim.1:

@faith69,

I know your quote has appeared several times in my replies - there's a reason why I thus used it to point out something vital to others I was responding to. However, as soon as I have answers to my request, then I'll answer your question about "when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom". Take care.

I can't wait to hear from you on how and when Roman catholicism was created

pilgrim.1:

And Omenuko has no right to discuss in this thread? What is so disturbing about discussing what Omenuko broached for consideration that you've not been calm to reason along with others? Why this repeated dismissive attitude?

It is clear that unbiased history does not make the 'Nestorian' Church a part of the Catholic Church - that is why you should not assume that the BBC "needs to do a better research because it lacks logic" - what logic? The logic of falsehood? Would it be 'logic' if they had stated what you had wanted to see by dragging the Nestorian Church into Catholic origin in the 2nd century? No - the BBC quite clearly and succinctly captured the essence of true and scholarly reports on the History of the Nestorian Church. The reason why Catholics typically react the way you did is not strange - because the Catholic Church has been trying ever so hard to discredit them on unfounded reasons:

[list][/list]

Why do Catholics (not all Catholics though) behave in such a manner - to seek a way of discrediting what does not follow their own ideology? I'm just wondering, because this whole drama would have been unnecessary if you'd calmed down and reasoned issues through and not being reactive unnecessarily.

You're the one trying ever so hard to "make them Catholics" - just because they were present at some councils? This is what the link says about Ephesus - "431 Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorius as a heretic" - and yet, the 'Nestorian Church' did not know itself by such a name, because it was a misnomer. The reason why they came to be known as such is partly due to Rome seeking persistently to discredit them for the reason that they held the view that Nestorius was not a heretic. More to the point was that this Church had its own See and were not under the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Any ideas about why the same link states that "School of the Persians in Edessa first closed by Romans" in just about the same period?

I doubt you "very well did", considering the way you kept charging full speed and yet missing the point. I just outlined it once again in my reply just above.

Please see my reply above.

____________________________________

Just because they were present at the Council of Nicea does not "make them Catholic" - that is simply laughable. Mar Aprim was the representative of the Assyrian Church in the first ecumenical council at Nicea in 325A.D., but it does not make the Assyrian Church a Roman Catholic church - rather, the Roman Catholic Church "recognized" his great role in the literary and religious life of all Christians until today. Just being present at a Council does not in itself constitute "origin" of a Church from Catholicism.

sorry to disappoint you young lady at the council of nicea the church the was one anyone in that council was roman catholic.

also somewhere ealier you said christianity preceded roman catholicism,please i would like you to educate me on when roman cathiolicism was formed and by whom

FOR MORE ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCHES OF ETHIOPIA,ARMENIA AND EGYPT .SEE THE LINK BELOW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

PENTECOSTALS CLAIM THAT CATHOLICS ARE SO DEVOTED TO MARY,BUT THEY THEMSELVES ARE SO DEVOTED TO MONEY ,THEY ALMOST WORSHIP MONEY AND THEIR PASTORS.

LET ME SAY HERE THAT THE CATHOLICS ARE NOT AS DEVOTED TO MARY AS THE PENTECOSTALS ARE TO MONEY AND THEIR PASTORS.

THEY ONLY THING THEY KNOW HOW TO DO IS TITHES,SEED SOWING ,FIRST FRUITS E.T.C

tpiah:

Jagunlabi, are you saying the Jewish Torah was written by the Catholic church?

from idolatry to defining who wrote the bible- all in one day.





Can you people do your homework before logging on the web.

You've never heard of the Greek Orthodox church?

The Ethiopian Church? The Egyptian Coptic church? The Armenian church?

Better go and study the history of the church ,the ethiopian egyptian and armenian churches were part of the catholic church until the council of chalcedon in 451AD ,it was after that council that they left the church.
The Greek orthodox church with the other eastern orthodox churches left in 1054AD.