₦airaland Forum

truthislight: desperation!

Is the word Catholic in the bible?

The fact that the word "Catholic" was not in the Bible does not mean that The early Church was not Catholic. Otherwise, you would also say that the Bible is not scripture because the word "Bible" is not in the Bible. Do you see the uselessness of that kind of reasoning. It was the same Church that named itself "Catholic" that selected the Scripture they wanted and called it "Bible."

truthislight: What has that to do with the apostles?

The apostles were the first leaders of the Church which was later called Catholic to distinguish it from heretical groups.

truthislight: Keep deceiving yourself.

There is nothing that RCC will not do to keep people in bondage and blind them to the truth of God's word as contained in the bible by dilutting its efficacy.

This is just a blind accusation without proof.

truthislight: The NT are the words and writtings of the apostles, what has that to do with RCC "gave us the NT" (bible) ?
*sigh*

How do you know that Mark wrote "Mark" and Luke wrote "Luke" and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit? This is the second time I'm asking you this simple question.

ciphoenix: PHILIPPIANS 2:12 tells us to work out our OWN salvation. If i do bad, die, and they pray for me and i'm forgiven. Have i worked out MY OWN salvation? Or has someone worked out my salvation FOR ME? ponder

Ukeme453: Guys, no amount of prayer can change the place a dead person will spend his eternity. After dead is judgement. No more pardon 4 4giveness of sin. Heaven or Hell, period. Kkk

I am not interested in proving to you anymore that Jesus preached to the dead. You should take up your shameful argument with Jesus or Peter who wrote it.

Have you ever said "may his/her soul rest in peace" or have you responded "amen" to that before?

YES or NO?

Aha! That's the twin brother.

They use many words. Put up many posts. Make no sense. Sometimes, I even suspect they are the same person.

Boomark: Concerning the catholics, am not concerned about the people but what they are practicing. If you you love Christ, i will say your making sense but if you say you want to pick Him..., i will not join u on that. So its not about you.

Okay, you that loves Christ that Catholics don't love. Can you please help me ask this Apostolic Faith people if their Church can possibly be wrong on any of its teachings?

Don't be a hypocrite like them o. You know your beloved Jesus dislikes hypocrites. Look at what he told them in Matthew 23.

alexleo: Where did i say that we are wrong? I said we keep seeking to know more of God and as we know more of him we keep adjusting where we are found wanting. In other words as we keep knowing him, we keep growing in various areas of our work and teaching. Growth is part of life and it is when you dont grow where you are supposed to grow that is an error.

alexleo: Point out any error you ve seen in our teaching and support it with the bible then we take it from there.

The word "HYPOCRITE" is written all over you.

I am asking: CAN YOUR CHURCH BE WRONG?

You are saying : SHOW ME WHERE WE ARE WRONG.

I am not even judging your "church" to be wrong, but you seem to be judging your "church" to be wrong already.

The answer to the question is YES or NO. If you can't answer this which other one can you answer?

Perhaps I should wait on salt 1 to see if he'll be a bit more honest than you or who knows, maybe this hypocrisy is widespread and acceptable in your "church."

Zikkyy: Scores are not based on the ultimate objective/aim of the participants (whatever that may be). Scores are based on how well the participants are able to tackle the question. Italo responded well to the question even though he was the one that raised it (no wuru-wuru for there), alexleo was just dancing atilogwu round the question without touching it.

Thank you o. Some of these people just think that they win an argument or make sense by using many words or posting many times.

So to boomark, because you do not like the Catholic Church, no Catholic can make sense in any religious discussion anymore. Anybody arguing against a Catholic is right and the Catholic is wrong.

Just imagine the kind of people that call themselves "Christians."

salt 1: Transubstantiation right? You are a Roman Catholic and I know there is no argument that can convince you on why this teaching (and a few others like purgatory, infallibility of the Pope) is wrong unless you have a direct experience with God on the issue. So instead of engaging in arguments which will achieve very little, I want to thank you for visiting this thread and for having an enquiring mind.
Just for your info, these are the Bible doctrines that Apostolic Faith teaches
1. One must be born again, sanctified and receive the Holy Ghost baptism with scriptural evidence of speaking in tongues
2. No divorce and remarriage
3. Christians make restitutions asking for forgiveness where they wronged people or returning what they stole or defrauded people to get
4. Literal second coming of Christ, eternal heaven and hell, white throne judgement and new heaven and new earth
5. Millenial reign of Christ with the overcoming saints
6. God heals all manner of diseases
7. Baptism by immersion, breaking of bread (Holy Communion) and washing of saints' feet
Actually, I pray for all christians asking God to accept our devotions and qualify us for heaven, because the truth is that there is no APOSTOLIC FAITH, ROMAN CATHOLIC or any other denomination in heaven. It is the mystical body called the Body of Christ, the Church of the Firstborn

This thread is not about the Catholic Church and has absolutely nothing to do with it. It doesn't even matter whether I am a Catholic or not. It is about The Apostolic Faith Church and Alexleo invited anyone who had any questions or issues about your "church" to come up with them. Unfortunately, or shamefully both of you have been dodging the number one question that I have asked about three times. Now you are trying to dodge by bringing in the Catholic Church and accusing me of arguing when I only asked the question I was invited to ask. If you want to raise your issues about the Catholic Church, there is a thread for that 'ask any questions about the Catholic Church" where I have answered every single question I have been asked. I have not hypocrytically dodged any question, not least, a simple one like this. Why can't you just answer yes or no?

Can your Church be wrong on its teaching on any matter of faith and morals?

A. Yes, it can be wrong. B. No, it can never be wrong.

Since you are interested in Holy Communion, let me ask you another simple question:

When Jesus says "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you," what does your "church" teach that he meant by "flesh" and "blood?"

Zikkyy: Appears you ticked option (A).

@italo, the man believes some of his church teachings are (could be) wrong, so over to you

I'm sure its obvious to you that the man is trying to sit on the fence and be elusive. He is being dishonest in his approach. It makes you wonder the kind of people who call themselves "Christians." People who can't let their yes be yes and their no be no.

But let me assume that you got him right, then my issue would be:

If the Apostolic Faith Church teaches error in any matter of faith and morals, then it cannot be God's Church or part of God's Church. The Church, the body of Christ cannot teach error.

Teaching error would mean that the Church might be teaching people things that can even lead them to hell. I will give an example: Jesus said “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." Some people teach that this "flesh" and "blood" is Holy Communion which is actually Jesus. Others teach that it is Holy Communion but it is only a symbol of Jesus. Yet, others say it is Jesus is not asking you to eat and drink anything, only to believe in him. Yet there is a consequence: if you do not do exactly what Jesus wants, "YOU HAVE NO LIFE IN YOU!" And how can you go to heaven if you have no life in you?

So if a Church can teach error on a matter like this, it could possibly be leading people to hell. And Christ's Church cannot teach what will lead people to hell.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]And what are you talking about exactly? Perhaps you guys seem to hold me in much higher regard than I probably deserve.[/quote]Perhaps.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I will always maintain that the bible has the final say for me, and where I find myself in error, I am not ashamed to correct myself as many times as necessary until I am in perfect alliance with scripture and the leading of the Holy Ghost.[/quote]Is that what the early Christians did? Did they take the Bible as the final authority or the Church? Did each person interprete the Bible on his own and come to his own conclusion of what the Bible says or did they let the Church teach them? How can you know if you are in error or not since you are fallible? Yesterday, you thought you were not in error on the topic of this thread, today you think your yesterday's position was errorneous and your new position is not in error. This means that tomorrow, you might decide that today's position too is errorneous. You will never be certain of the truth till Jesus comes. Don't you see the chaos and confusion you are in?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am not and have never claimed to be your teacher. The reason I post on NL is so that together we can study scripture and not so that we can flex and compare our puny little theology muscles[/quote]You actually teach too. You tell people what you think is right, as though you were sure it was right.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I submit myself totally to God's word and I will advice you to do the same.[/quote]You don't submit yourself totally to God's word. You submit yourself totally to your FALLIBLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, which could be wrong. You do not even submit your self to God's word that comes to us through ORAL tradition, as St. Paul advised in 2 Thess 2:15: "15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." - Or do you?

Ihedinobi: But more importantly, no Christian can come into perfect understanding or appreciation of Christ in any matter wholly by himself. The fullness is in the Church as a whole.

The fullness is in The Catholic Church.

Ihedinobi: And once there are at least two believers together, the fullness of Christ, the full authority of the Church is immediately present with them. It is together that we apprehend the fullness of Christ in any matter.

That would mean that every single one of the 40,000 "churches" in this world are teaching the fullness of truth, since they all have "at least two believers together". Of course this is totally WRONG, as we know they teach contradictory doctrines...and Christ cannot contradict himself.

Ihedinobi: Our walk with Christ is from grace to grace, from glory to glory, always toward greater apprehension of Jesus Christ.

The walk can actually lead towards less or even a wrong comprehension of Jesus. Depends on which way you are working.

Ihedinobi: It is acceptable that our understanding be constantly changed. "When I was a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish things behind me." We will continue to increase in understanding until we see Him face to face.

It is acceptable that our understanding be constantly improved but it is not acceptable that our understanding be changing haphazardly between contrasting positions without being even sure of the former or latter position.

Ihedinobi: The safeguard for false doctrine is how the doctrine holds Christ and the willingness of its holder to submit it to examination by other believers.

Perhaps, you'll be willing to submit your doctrine for examination.

alexleo: Cross check what we are teaching and point out the one that runs contrary to the bible. If you convince me i ll raise it in the church. We are all human and no one is infallible thats why we rely on the Holy Spirit to interprete the bible. God's word is perfect and beyond what the human mind can perfectly inteprete without the Holy Spirit. If you go through our practices as i outlined them you will see that it is void of personal interest, greed or personal glory of any pastor or overseer as we see in some churches today. And it is only when a church base their teachings on the Holy Spirit guidance that self does not take the centre stage.

I will raise my specific concerns but first I think its important to get a clear answer to my question. And I am still finding it difficult making out whether you think your/your churches teachings can possibly be wrong or not.

To put it simply:

Is it possible that some of what you/your "church" teach are wrong?

A. YES, it is possibly that some of our teachings are wrong.

B. NO, all our teachings are definitely right. It is not possible that even one of our teachings is wrong.

ijawkid: Let's read romans 5:14.....

New International Version (©1984)
even over those
who did not sin by breaking a command,

Hmm...so there are THOSE (plural) that did not sin. What are their names?

ijawkid: Everybody died including elijah and enoch......

It seems you have forgotten that we all came from adam.....

Abi elijah and Énoch evolve from fish??

My friend, the Bible says that Enoch and Elijah were taken up to heaven. Thank you.

engrtee: D last tym i cheked, Elijah was caried by a chariot to heaven

My brother, I tire. Help me use machine drill drill am inside the guy skull.

Enigma: ^^^ And that "Catholic Church" is to be distinguished from the Roman Catholic Church. The people whose works helped the most to shape the New Testament Canon were NOT Roman Catholic; most of them were from places like Alexandria, Antioch, Hippo etc e.g. Origen, Athanasius, Augustine etc.

Even the Roman Catholic's Council of Trent came when? ------- Looooong after, centuries after the non-Roman Catholics had already basically established the New Testament canon.

A little more of both clarity and honesty is required in relation to what is meant by the "Catholic Church". And I repeat that the Roman Catholic Church is not the catholic Church.

The issue has been discussed more extensively on another thread https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing like "Roman Catholic Church", I only know "The Catholic Church." It was protestants who added "Roman" in order to legitimize themselves and make it look like they are part of a wider "Catholic Church" and that the "Roman" one is only one branch. The Catholic Church is The Catholic Church.

I was on that thread and saw how Chukwudi44 debunked your position time and again but you refused to concede.

She raised a good point. She said the woman cannot be the Church because it is Christ that gave birth to the Church and not the other way round. The I.chuka came and bamboozled her with lengthy rubbish, then she accepted it, because it is contrary to the position that Mary gave birth to Jesus. She will believe any explanation but the Catholic one.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]My brother sorry for the delay, I know I promised for last weekend, unfortunately I am not prepared enough yet. Funny though is that the more I study the bible, the more I tend to agree with you.

I was formerly of the opinion that after death is a completely unconscious state (sleep) until resurrection to glory or judgement but right now, with the studying I have done and I am still doing, I can no longer hold on to that position. I am now quite convinced that after death is a holding place (different places for the righteous and the wicked) after which is resurrection to either glory or damnation.

I am in the process of preparing a long sermon detailed post on why I am convinced that this is so. The post however will take some time in coming I am afraid.
I really don't want to be rash and be too quick to declare something that isn't true. Please bear with me.[/quote]So your doctrine has changed, abi?

Yesterday, it was 'that'

Today, it is 'this'

Tomorrow, who knows what it might be 'after more study'

As Truthislight said, it means you have been teaching falsehood. How do you feel about that? That even people who might have known the true doctrine of Christ, you have been trying to convert them (maybe even succeeded with some) to false doctrine.

This, my brother, is the danger in private interpretation of scripture. No matter how much you study, you are still liable to make mistakes.

Why don't you turn to the infallible Church and read and digest that piece I posted from the Catechism of The Catholic Church. Why don't you save yourself from all this anarchy and confusion? Why hinge your eternal destiny on uncertainty? I know that you are a reasonable man (at least to a large extent), that's why you can even admit to your error here in public. People like Frosbel, Ijawkid etc will rather cook up rubbish to try to justify an obviously errorneous position. You acceded to the infallibility of the Catholic Church when they said Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. There's nothing in those books that tell of the origin or authorship or inspiration behind those books. You acceded to the infallibility of the Church when it said 'The Acts of Peter' 'The Gospel of Barnabas' etc were not inspired but 'Matthew' 'Ephesians' etc were inpired. Why don't you then accept when it gives you the interpretation of what is written therein? Can a fallible Church write and compile an infallible book?

But then, I'm probably wasting my time.

That's why I stopped discussing with her. I don't find anything meaningful from her posts so I'm always tempted to insult... Better I safeguard my soul.

She probably will prove me right after this post.

That's why I stopped discussing with her. I don't find anything meaningful from her posts so I'm always tempted to insult... Better I safeguard my soul.

alexleo: Kindly point out any of our teaching that you think is wrong lets take it from there pls.

My question is very simple.

Everything you and/or your "church" teach/say on faith and morals is based on YOUR/THEIR FALLIBLE INTERPRETATION of the Bible, which could be wrong, YES or NO?

Or are you and/or your "church" claiming infallibility?

That would be contrary to salt_1's position.

@ VickyO,

Boomark didn't answer my questions.

So you see how unreasonable your position is. That is what is making you unable to answer my question.

To answer it honestly would mean that Jesus' body is Jesus.

To answer it dishonestly will make you look stupid and bring a curse upon your head.

Next time you run your mouth, be careful. You might have to defend your utterances.

[quote author=bbpreye.]May God deliver you from the shackles of stupidity! That's all I can say to you! God says all men are sinners and you "ITALO" say one person is not a sinner..

So dicombobulating![/quote]God says "all men must die" and I, ITALO say "2 people (Enoch and Elijah)" never died.

Who needs to be delivered from the shackles of stupidity?

@ Truthislight,

The early Church was the Catholic Church so all the apostles were Catholic. It was only to differentiate the Church from some heretics also calling themselves "church" (as we have today) that they started using the word "Catholic" to distinguish. So the Church wrote the NT, that's why they had the authority to compile and arrange the Bible. There were many books that the Catholic Church did not include in the NT. Why would they have the authority to choose which is scripture and which is not if they didn't write scripture?

The books of Mark and Luke nowhere state that Mark and Luke were the authors or that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. How do you then know this? Because the Catholic Church told you. Why do you believe them? Because the Church is infallible. Why is it infallible? Because it is guided by the Holy Spirit so cannot teach error.

Femmymata2: @italo, thats why i said jesus is a lucky boy or which of the trinity or angels can point to his/her father in heaven. Jesus can feel parental love from jehovah and mary even though they're not married couples. Will it not annoy mary to continualy call her a virgin(she's a mother), i thought the angel said all generation will call her Blessed not 'Virgin'. So when i want to pray, i can say "please saint timothy can u help me find my car keys" thanks.

It won't annoy Mary because she is a perpetual virgin.

...And yes, you can ask St. Timothy to pray for you to find your keys.

Your problem is that you see the Saints as dead but Jesus doesn't.

He said "he who lives and believes in me will never die."

He even went on to add "DO YOU BELIEVE THIS?"

Obviously, YOU don't. We Catholics do.

Where's HerexG?

Has he realized that Jesus preached to the dead and quietly withdrawn to save his face and name?

Wise man.

@Ijawkid,

So it was Angels that were disobedient and perished in the flood in the time of Noah (1Pet 3:20)?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

saintvc: IN ESSENCE, ALL NON CATHOLICS WHO DONT WANT TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH MARY SHOULD HAVE NOTING TO DO WITH JESUS BLOOD.

Lwkmb

Is that the best way you can mentally process that post?

[quote author=O.M.E]ermm...sorry that didn't make any sense..pls explain[/quote]Google...

Femmymata2: This is why trinity is being promoted, Virgin mary is the mother of jesus (God the sön) and jehovah is the father. Jesus have a mother and father in heaven. So when a catholic wants to pray,he venerates/reverence virgin mary(mother of God) and ask her to convey his request to her son jesus for quick answer instead of asking jesus directly. Virgin mary is the mother of God on earth and in heaven, when jesus wakes in the morning and sees virgin mary he'll say mum goodmorning. Jesus is very lucky, srry i forgot he existed b4 is mum

We don't go to Mary INSTEAD of going to Jesus directly. We go to Mary and/or the other saints and/or our fellow brothers and sisters here on earth IN ADDITION to going to Jesus directly. Just like you tell other people to pray for you. Hope you get it now.

Even though he existed before his mum, at least you still called her his mum.

Mother na Mother. I don't think Jesus has forgotten who carried him in the womb, bore him, breastfed him, kept him warm when he was cold, nurtured him till he became an adult and continued to love and care for him even until his death on the cross.

Jesus is not as irresponsible as some of you.

frosbel: and you too !

May I add a qualification to my last statement , I don't mean you are a Dunce overall, only where it concerns Mary worship.

Well, nobody takes you seriously, so I shouldn't.

Afterall, you don't even make up your mind if Jesus is God or Man.

Last week you said we worshipped Baal, this week its Mary again. Next week it will be the Pope, the next it will be candles.

I think its wise to just take you as a comedian and give you your reward: 'laughter!'

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sure you're satisfied.

ijawkid: It is you who is having a blurred vision......

Did 1 peter 3:19-20 ever tell you that the ""spirits"" were spirits of the dead??...

Now that is the question I have been asking you....but no answer.....

Since it is hard for you to allign scriptures so that they don't contradict each other then you need some help.....

I just showed you who the"" dead "" that was mentioned in 1 peter 4;6 were and you are laughing .........

Literally dead people are DEAD......they neither can learn nor be preached to......its useless and baseless......only those who are spiritually dead can be preached to and then giving"" LIFE""

you have also refused to read jude 6 and 2 peter 2:4 to see which "spirits" were chained and imprisoned.....

Keep deluding yourself with ""Purgatory""....

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So the people that were disobedient in the time of Noah were not literally dead at the time Jesus went to preach to them, abi? They had lived for 2500years. They had outlived Metuselah.

My brother let me just laugh so that I won't describe or address you with the exact words that you deserve.

frosbel: Dunce !!

Thank you. God bless you.

[quote author=O.M.E]fact remains that Mary was a sinner by birth because of her human nature but yet the bible said Jesus had no sin....how possible??.. your argument is baseless #no offence[/quote]Mary wasn't a sinner. She was preserved from original sin and actual sin all her life.