₦airaland Forum

@Image123

I was not quoting you directly, I summed up what you were saying, which really is "it doesn't matter what church you belong to" when you stated that being a protestant or catholic isn't what will get u to heaven. And I was stating that while that may sound like a good speech, it is unbiblical. It does matter, being in the church Christ founded does matter, as long as you choose to be a Christian. Christ prayed for ONE CHURCH, with ONE BELIEF, not different Churches with different belief.
You also mentioned that it is about you yourself, and that in itself is unbiblical, we are called to be a christian community. What you speak of is selfishness, one that focuses on his own salvation alone is selfish.

He prayed and taught that believers should be one,not that believers and unbelievers should join hands together in ecumenism.When people do not believe the same things especially about God and the way of salvation,they're not likely to walk together.I don't remember saying the boldened phrase above

How are the believers supposed to be one if they do not join hands together in ecumenism? Not joining hands together in ecumenism is not being one, and that is exactly what Christ prayed against.
How are people supposed to have the same belief about God and the way of salvation if everyone is going their own way and doing their own thing, and telling themselves that it doesn't matter if they are protestants or catholics (i wonder do u know what catholic is?)

If those traditions, as practiced by the RCC were in keeping with scriptures, then we wouldn't be having these discussions

On the contrary those traditions do keep with the scriptures, you however lack knowledge of what's in scripture and that's why you think they do not line up. I also notice that you failed to answer the questions posted by myself and Omenuko about 1Peter, about where those souls were.

You will have to prove that the RCC removed the 2nd commandment. Show us the commandments by the RCC and tell us how the 2nd commandment was removed.

Mary isn't worshipped, unfortunately you need something to bang your head against, so bang away, you delude yourself only.

The eucharist? In the Bible you can only find how God said don't drink blood.

So when Jesus said "Take and eat, this is my body" and "All of you drink from this; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is being shed for many unto the forgiveness of sins" Matthew 26:26-28
He didn't actually mean his body and blood, he didn't actually say his body and blood, he was only joking abi?

He didn't say this is a representation of my body and blood, he said "THIS IS MY BODY AND BLOOD"

When he spoke of us eating his flesh and drinking his blood, some disciples turned away, they knew exaclty what he was saying, if he didn't mean it that way, why didn't he explain himself to them. Infact he uses literal words. as in literally you will be eating my flesh and drinking my blood. Don't forget that Jesus is the Pashal lamb, what was done with the pashal lamb?

Purgatory? The word and concept are not in the Bible.

So where was the antedilluvians that Christ preached to? An answer is greatly needed, thank you.

What does Jesus say about Tradition? "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? Ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites."
--Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:3, 6, 7)

In the above verses Jesus is addressing you. One of your traditions tampered with, and removed one of God's holy commandments. Jesus also said these words, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men,

Actually he's talking about you, you guys abandoned the true teachings of Christ and created your own to convenience yourself.
I already showed you how sola scriptura is unbiblical. Next stop, once saved, always saved.

So which is more important your sacred traditions which were invented by mere men, or God's immutable words?

Sacred tradition are God's immutable words.

I do not trust such readings. Besides, discernment doesn't come from traditions, but from God's Spirit

Dude you are shooting yourself in the foot, if discernment comes from God, and the Catholic Church discerned the canon, how can it be the LovePeddler of Babylon?

Who said I didn't read them. Remember that both Daniel's and Revelation's predictions were not only centered around Catholic tyranny and murders, but included other characteristics that point to the RC church. I have listed quite a few in this thread before. Yes other denominations in history displayed similar atrocities, but they wouldn't qualify to fulfill the other prophetic characteristics that reveal the Anti-Christ

oh os u get to decide which one will qualify
ah i see.

One thing u should know is that when talking about protestants, u can't group them all under one system of belief.This is because they don't all believe or practice the same things.

So everybody is just going by their own interpretation and what they think is right?
So which one of you preaches the truth when you all contradict each other and fight each other for the true christians?
So much for bible-believing christians, that contradict each other? If you are all bible-believing christians and your doctrines contradict each other, wouldn't that mean that the Bible is contradictory?

I love that movie.
I think it has a good story line and has a lot to teach people. I certainly was not expecting the end. If it wasn't a good movie, it wouldn't have been featured on nairaland. Everyone is talking about it.

KunleOshob:
@Lady
I said it is not complete becos there were some books such as the book of enoch which was considered scripture by the early christians is conspiciously missing from the bible and we all know from the book of genesis tht enoch was very close to God. The book of enoch is included in the ethopian bible. There are several other books considered scripture in the bible that are not included as well. I could supply you with a list if you so desire

Are you confusing the Church of Ethiopia with the Coptic Church?
The Coptic Church is the one that has existed since the time of the apostles, from the apostle Mark (I tbelieve that's the one)
But the Ethiopian church claims that it was founded by the eunuch that was baptised by Philip. Those are different churches, although they came to an agreement later.
That church was not included in THE CHURCH, they are monophysites (research that and the come back and tell me what you found about their belief)


And I am telling you that the only real canonized books of the Bible are those canonized by the council of carthage. Ethiopia canonized its own set of books in addition to those that were canonized by the Church (East and West).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

As I stated there was no Bible until it was compiled and canonized by the Church (East and West) remember at that time there was no schisms between east and west so everyone was in union with Rome, including the Ethiopians. Each region went by the traditions of the apostles that founded them, and the writings of the church fathers in their regions. at the councils that were held that discussed the bible all these books were disputed and then decided upon by unanimous vote.

As for the book of enoch it is neither found in the Alexandrine Canon or the Palestinian canon. So who knows where it came from. Like I said be very careful. Do some more research on the belief of the coptic church, God bless them, we love them, and we all hope to be united soon. no more schisms, please.

@Lady, I'm enjoying your write-ups,

Why thank you, I am also enjoying yours, I was wondering where you were though.
Thanks for clarifying the woman in Revelations well for Bobbyaf, I was seriously trying to figure out how to explain typology and all that to him, but I doubt he'll get it. Dude is hell bent on being blind. May God removed the scales from his eyes as he did the blind man.

Give the time and place if you please, and the circumstances that might have logically led to their persecutions. When you're done doing that I will give you mine. Besides, there can be no comparison between what Catholic leadership and members did to innocent bible-believing Christians who posed no threats at all, to Catholics who reaped their rightful judgments.

Please go and do your research, and I already provided you with examples. You guys persecute us till this day.

That is because all you're capable of doing is trivializing the loss. Do you not recall the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France? Did you know that the orders to kill the protestants was given by the court spiritual adviser which incidentally was a Jesuit priest. Why kill innocent people?

How do you know they were innocent, and haven't innocent Catholic blood being shed by protestants. Read on Henry VIII and Elizabeth.

Yet you have the audacity and gaul to talk about atrocities committed against Catholics, as if you are not the least educated to say why. Persecutions can come upon anyone for different reasons. That is why I ask you to name the time and place so that history and geography will justify why they were persecuted.

YES WE HAVE THE AUDACITY TO TALK ABOUT ATROCITIES COMMITED AGAINST CATHOLICS, WHY WERE CATHOLICS PERSECUTED? IT IS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY BELIEVE?
WE ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRUTH THAT THE CHURCH HAS DONE WRONG IN THE PAST EVEN IF IT IS JUSTIFIED, AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT PROTESTANTS TOO HAVE DONE WRONG TO CATHOLICS AND NO THEY WEREN'T JUSTIFIED. HENRY VIII KILLED CATHOLICS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO SLEEP WITH A WOMAN, TELL ME IF THAT IS REASON ENOUGH TO KILL PEOPLE. HIS DAUGHTER ELIZABETH KILLED CATHOLICS BECAUSE SHE WANTED TO CARRY ON HER FATHER'S LEGACY, TELL ME THAT IS REASON ENOUGH TO KILL PEOPLE.

GET THE HATRED OUT OF YOUR HEART AND THEN YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH. YOU FEED YOURSELF WITH HATEFUL THINGS AND THEN YOU COME HERE AND ACT HOLIER THAN THOU. NONSENSE.

And I guess the above-mentioned organizations wrote history, huh? Hahahaha!

The history that they want you to believe? Absolutely, did they tell you about the Protestants killing Catholics? If they didn't they weren't telling you the full history.

They are saints all right, but none that were canonized by popes, and none that are prayed to and asked for intercession like the pagans did, but these were those who came out of great tribulation, some of whom were persecuted by your organization. These were the redeemed that were taken to heaven at the 2nd return of Jesus Christ.

They were canonized by the Pope, keep up with your delusions, we can all tell you want to believe, so continue and God will show you the truth one day.

As for Mary being in heaven shouldn't it even strike you that the very 12th chapter of Revelation doesn't even mention her name? Such an important woman! Such a highly exalted woman! "The Mother of God!" Wow. It has not occured to you either that a few verse down in the same chapter pictures this woman still on the earth being persecuted by the dragon.

None of the apostles were mentioned by name yet we know they're the elders sitting upong the thrones in the temple of God. Seriously dude, please tell me you're not that stupid.
The woman is not still on the earth still being persecuted by the dragon, her children are on earth being persecuted by the dragon. Get it right. The dragon waged war against her seed.

How could you people use the first wondrous object that John saw above the earth in vision, and assume that that means she is in heaven, and not agree with this verse which I will quote below that she didn't go to heaven after her child went to heaven? John also saw this in vision too, "6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days."

Ok seriously he explained all this did you even take the time to read it?
Is it that you just can't accept that the woman could be Mary?
The woman is the Church, she is also Mary.
Also because the sig that appears in revelations also corresponds to the sign spoken of in Isaiah.

Isaiah said, "The Lord shall give you a sign, a virgin shall give birth" it corresponds to the sign in revelations which says "A sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun with the moon under her feet."

The sign in Isaiah is Mary, the sign in revelations has to be Mary. Both women give birth to the messiah, who is the mother of the messiah?

Ok let me take this one by one, verse by verse.

Revelations 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.

Who is this woman?
Who is the son?

Did you notice that poster? She went straight into the wilderness right after she had her baby. She had a place prepared of God it says, and she was fed for how long? 1260 days or in prophetic terms 1260 years. Got that poster? 1260 years God's church dwelt in the wilderness, while the counterfeit church flourished. That is what I am talking about. The word of God said that the beast in Revelation 13, or little horn as found in Daniel 7 would rule for a certain time period, and history has made that abundantly clear what that religio-political organization is.

Ok so why is the "counterfeit" church still flourishing? where is the real church? which church is the real church? when did the protestant reformation take place? does that amount to 1260 years?

You say my hate for all things catholic has made me bias, and I say your love for all things pagan has clouded your spiritual eyesight. My words may seem graphic and strong, but they are true. The truth has an uncanny way of making people think, and I am sure that you Catholics have been thinking twice since you began reading these posts, correct?

um the truth always seem unreal, the truth is accused of being in unity with the devil, remember Christ was also accused of using devilish powers.

Sounds all fancy and nice, but still doesn't answer why the woman was left in the wilderness in the earth for 1260 years.

prophetic term doesn't say that days are years. i don't know how you managed to covince yourself of that, but whatever floats your boat.

If there were no Hebrew people through whom God established the promise, there could have been no Messiah. The church through different dispensations existed long before Jesus incarnated. Jesus was symbolized in their worship format. The word church means "the called out ones", and in every generation God always had His "Called-out-Ones" with whom He deposited His divine oracles. How else would an evil and adulturous generation have come to know The Creator of heaven and earth? In fact from the moment our first parents sinned God spoke of the plan of salvation to Adam and Eve, telling them of the conflict to expect between good and evil, and that one day through the church, or woman, the Messiah would come to destroy the works of Satan that serpent

There are types of Church (typology), however, Christ's church was not established until after Christ's crucifixion, so how did the Church give birth to Christ? If Christ's church existed before, there would have been no reason for him to come and establish his church?

All bible-believing Christians have used the day-year principle for prophecy studies. If the principle applies to some prophecies, it applies to all, including the one revealing your organization. When God called Ezekiel to prophesy against Israel he appointed him 1 day for a year.

I will go into more details next time.

And all "bible-believing" christians have proven themselves wrong time and time again. We're still waiting for the "real" church to emerge, it's been 2000 years now, way past 1260, what happened?

davidylan:
na wa o see textbook. How you people cope is amazing . . .

I am practising for my dissertation, I am hoping you will be a good christian and encourage me to practice writing dissertations so I can do well ehn

viee:
hey Lady, sup dear. .

they were excommunicated because they didnt get Papal blessing before their ordination
there were 3 of them.
only one of them made the comment about the holocaust victims . . . . . .
i dnt knw the full details of excommunication and whether personal opinion can actually lead to excommunication. . . i will find out thou
i read somewhere that the Vatican has asked the Priest to retrieve his statement abt the actual number of victims and the gas chamber.

i will try and follow the matter more now. . . .

Hi Viee, how are you?

the criteria for excommunication is dependent on the reason the person is being excommunicated, so it various and isn't clear cut as it may seem.
But there are plenty of people who have personal statements that aren't good, but are still not excommunicated. Excommunication is a big deal, and doesn't come so easily.
But I am aware that the Pope wants him to check his statement on the holocaust.

@ KunleOshob

Sorry I forgot to touch on this point you made. You said something about the Bible being incomplete.
The Catholic Bible is complete, the Protestant Bible isn't.
Remember there really wasn't a Bible until the Church put it together. So to say that the Bible or the Catholic Bible is not complete is to say that the Bible as we know it today was in existence before the Church put it together, as in it was already called the Bible before the Church put it together and we know that isn't correct.

Just wanted to point that out.
Ok have a blessed day.

@Image123

Well see that sounds really good and all, and while I agree that even though you are in the Church it doesn't mean you are being a true christian, but the whole it doesn't matter, it relly does, especially since the Church isn't about individualism, it is about being a community. Yes you as an individual have to make sure that you are always in the State of Grace with God, but you also have a duty to the community, and this community that Christ prayed for is the Church and he prayed for unity. He prayed that the Church may be ONE. Even St. Paul speaks of the Church being one, and he tells us that the Church is the body of Christ, and in a body you don't have different beliefs. A leg cannot say I want to believe in A and then the arm say I want to believe in B. Look at it like this, we have different blood types, type A, B, O (I think that's correct) well, a leg cannot have type A while the arm has type B. I hope you see what I am saying.

So while it's a good speech to say it doesn't matter what Church you belong to, all that matters is that you're a good Christian, it doesn't agree with Christ's prayer and Paul's teaching.

quote]@Lady
Thanx for your response, i was able to learn a thing or two from your post, however it still remains a fact that the ethopian church and the coptic church precede the roman catholic church and there bibles are substantially different from the bible passed down by the catholic church.

[/quote]You're very welcome. Maybe we're seeing it differently, but let me explain to the best of my ability why the Church in Rome is the primacy. It is not because the Church in Rome was founded before the other Churches, it is because that is the See of Peter, and it is where he died. It has nothing to do with timeline. Now you're seeing it from the point of timeline as to which church came first, I and all Catholics are seeing it from the unity point, where regardless of when the Church was found the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven was given to Peter and Jesus appoints him as the head of the apostles, so if Peter stayed in Antioch (Peter's first See) and died there it would be known as the Antioch Catholic Church (ACC) today. What matters is the successor of Peter. Christ gave the Keys to a person, not a place, and that power is with the person and not a place, and it is the successor of the person that holds the keys and not a place.

Actually for some more history, back in the day, the See was moved and papal decrees were issued from there and were still valid (can't remember where it was moved to and what Pope moved it), it was later moved back to Rome, so it is not the place that matters, it is the Office that matters. The Papal Office is valid no matter where it is in the world. Up until 1054, the Eastern Orthodox was united with Rome.

But I am glad you learned something. God bless.

[quote]I know for a fact from bible history and evidence within the bible it self that several books were deliberately left out of th bible for political reasons when it was being compiled by the catholic church

It wasn't for Political reasons, it's not like it's some sort of conspiracy theory, having examined these books myself, most are incomplete, most were not written by the people that it claims as its author, and most were written well after the 1st century. Also there were gnostic writings as well, and the Church ofcourse had to check these writings and make sure that they are in line with the traditions that the apostles taught them. The gnostic writings are not in line with the traditions of the apostles, and they can be very convincing so when you read them be careful.

This books remain in their archives in the vatican till this day. I also learnt that over thirty gospels of christ were written but only four found there way into the bible. For people suspicious of the catholic church, i would expect you would want to know why these other books were excluded. (that is apart from the story we were told that the editors of the bible did not deem them as divinly inspired)

ok seriously these books are online, so it's not hidden in a secret archive in the Vatican, if I can get access to them you can. You know about them because the Vatican isn't trying to hide anything from anyone, that's why protestant theologians have copies of them. They're very much accessible.

If anything the Catholic Church has been nothing but truthful. People need to stop looking at the Vatican as some kind of secret service agency, it is not the FBI, and does not intend to be. It really is not that serious.

If you can't find them they are nonexistent. Remember that the dead sea scrolls were found recently, I bet people that lived before then were saying the same thing as you are, "the vatican has them hidden somewhere" and what happens? they're discovered

And others by the millions are likewise following suit, especially ever since the sex scandals that is still rocking the organization to date.

Sweetie you might want to check again the Church is growing, evangelicals are flocking to the Church.

People are realising that the RCC has always taught what Christ and his apostles teaches, and what they believe too. They realise that they're the ones who have the wrong impression of the RCC. They realise that what they thought the RCC teaches, the RCC doesn't teach at all.

I provided a link about a former preacher named Scott Hahn who was doing the exact same thing you're doing, and was trying to "save" Catholics and expose the Church and then ended up finding out that all evidence of the truth points to the RCC, and now he is one of the best Catholic apologetics you will ever find.
Another one that I can tell you of is Alex Jones, who was also a preacher, and embarked on the same journey as you, and when he discovered the truth, he told his congregation and most of them abandoned him.

Here's his story. Watch and listen to it, and see why he gave up his own ministry, that has got to be hard. Your mind may not be changed but you will certainly get a lot from it. If you feel you know the truth, watch it, it wouldn't affect you any kind of way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MvfAJ7ap8s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m7ViOYaQNI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNfhDGRJFSI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkg29C5MUWs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QEwhiyH4&feature=related

majority of those converting to the Catholic Church are preachers and theologians, especially when they set out on a journey to save Catholics. But really one has to be open to the truth, the Holy Spirit.

It takes decades for some to come to grip with it, they struggle and fight it, but truth always prevails, like Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and "If they persecuted me, how much more will they persecute you"

There is a reason the devil wants you to think the Church is the devil, it doesn't want you to know the truth. But if you are really a truthful person, you will become Catholic when you see the truth. I did.

Is persecuted a better word? So who were those bible-believing Christians who were burnt at the stake may I ask? Who were those Christians that were tied up in dungeons to rot for their faith? Who were those Christians who were torn apart on the racks? Who were those Christian mothers who had their unborn cut from their bodies? Who were those Christian children and wives who were fed with their father's flesh? Were they Roman Catholics? Listen carefully Lady you have not the slightest clue as to what God's true church went through during the middle ages. Now let me give you some biblical proof from John's words as to what God's church will pass through before reaching heaven:

Oh I am so glad you're asking this question. The answer is heretics, and no they didn't believe in the Bible, the Bible was not compiled at that time. Infact their belief was that Jesus wasn't God and man. It was either he was God or man, some said he was only God and never man, others said he wasn't God but only man.
Remember we're talking about before the Bible was put together, so how were they "Bible-believing" Christians when the Bible was not defined as the Bible at that time?

Those "persecuted" were the gnostics, agnostics, and such. It is a fact of history that the burning at the stake that took place was done by the Romans, and the Jews, and that those that were truly persecuted were the Catholics, yes that's right the Catholics. Get your facts correct mister.

By the way you noticed nothing was mentioned of Mary,

First of all this is not the only verse in the Bible. Just because she wasn't mentioned here doesn't mean that she wasn't mentioned at all in the Bible or the book of revelations. Mary was not mentioned here, because John had not seen her at the time. Notice that the apostles were in heaven, so much for no one is in heaven.

As was mentioned to you before that woman in prophecy means church, God's true church in this sense. It was shown clearly that for 1260 literal years which is symbolized by the expression time, and times, and half a time

And as usual, picking and quoting to suit yourself, what did that chapter say before this?
As was mentioned, that is the correct interpretation by the Catholic Church, but also remember as was mentioned to you that Mary is a type of the Church. Tell me that the ark of the covenant that is now a woman, who gives birth to the messiah could not be Mary, and then explain how it couldn't be Mary.

Have you ever heard of typology? Look it up.

The dragon represented pagan Rome which passed its authority to papal Rome. In other words the popes replaced the Caesars whose doctrines were rejected by the true church that was persecuted for not paying homage to edicts and dogmas. This LovePeddler which sits on top of the waters controls the nations today as it did then. This great apostate movement called the Roman Catholic church cannot hide because history is there to reveal what she did in the past, while prophecy is there to reveal what she intends to do in the future. Your own pope confessed to the persecutions

Ok now I see you like making claims, but here's something about claims you have to prove it, if you cannot prove it, then please know that you are a liar and are spreading false things. Prove to us that the Pagan Rome is the Papal Rome. And I mean bring us history and documents, not just random writings from uninformed anti-catholics. Bring unbias sources and prove your point.

No one is infallible but God. Not even the apostles claimed infallibility. As I have said before on more than one occasions, that God used people from the RCC to have collated and put together a canonized standard of the scriptures. If there were no scriptures there could have been no canonization in the first place, but that does change the fact that the RCC in general is an apostate movement.

Um the Church is infallible, Christ himself said so, he who abides in him will never loose his salvation, the Church is the body of Christ. The Pope is infallible, no not the Pope himself as just a man, but the Pope as the Vicar of Christ is infallible, the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven doesn't lead astray. God wouldn't give the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to a man that will declare evil as the truth.

You have it backwards if there was no canonization there would be no scripture. It is only through canonization that we have scripture. If the Gospel of Matthew was not canonized you wouldn't call it scripture, if the book of Revelations wasn't canonized you wouldn't call it scripture. Paul wrote several other letters e.g the letter to the laodecians, they were not more or less important than the ones that we call scripture today but we do not call it scripture today, why? because it wasn't canonized. Canonization leads to scripture. Before canonizations these the books of the New Testament were not considered infallible and were not considered scripture, they were just letters that were written to communities, it was canonization that defined them as scripture. Get it in the proper order.

God would not use the devil and his agents to put together his Word that all people in all generations would consider infallible. Therefore the RCC is an agent of God's truth.

When St. Paul said that all scripture is given by inspiration of God what was he talking about? The parchments, and apostolic letters are all scriptures. Anything that is written is called scripture. I thought you knew that. The only difference is that these scriptures came about by inspiration. The minds of men were illuminated by God's Spirit to have written down what God inspired them to.

Um sir anything that is written IS NOT CALLED scripture. Do you call The Lord of the Rings scripture? Scripture is holy, my accounting textbook is not holy. It is not for a religious purpose and it is not authoritative.
The letters that Paul wrote that was not included in the Bible is not inspired? How so, did God inspire him when he wrote to the Corinthians and not to the Laodecians? Please explain.

I am not interested in what successors had to say. I only go by what inspired writers had to say by way of the scriptures.

And how do you know the successors were not inspired? God stops inspiring people to write things down? Did you know that these successors wrote as early as 70 AD? If their writing was included in the Bible you would consider it scripture and infallible?
How do you know the books of the Bible are truly inspired?
Why do you believe in the Bible?

On my part I don't believe that people after death go to heaven, or hell

Then where do they go to?

Notice something here, Paul used this example from the pagans in 1 Cor. 15:29, when he said, ", if the dead are not raised, then why are they baptized for the dead?" Paul did not say we.1 This is significant because the Christian church was not practicing baptism for the dead, but the pagans were.

1) Paul was not speaking of the Pagan people.
I will provide you with the preceeding passages that deal with the issue of resurrection of the dead.

It starts off at 1 Corinthians 15:12

12 But if Christ is preached as not raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?

Paul specifically points out that it is people from the Church in Corinth that are preaching so he is talking to the people.

13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised

14 And if Christ has not been raised then empty is our preaching; empty, too your faith.

15 Then we are also false witnesses to God,, beacuse we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead were not raised.

16 For if the dead were not raised, neither has Christ been raised

17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins

18 Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished

19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep

21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being

22 For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life

23 but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ

24 then comes the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has destroyed every sovereignty and every authority and power

25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death

27 for "he subjected everything under his feet." But when it says that everything has been subjected, it is clear that it excludes the One who subjected everything to him.

28 When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

29 Otherwise what will people accomplish by having themselves baptize for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?

Paul was speaking to the Church about what people in the Church were preaching, it had nothing to do with paganism. Infact the baptism for the dead was used as a practical argument to prove that there is resurrection of the dead?

This was a practice among some Christians. The they he was referring to are the people in the Church who preached that there isn't resurrection. He is basically saying, how can they practice baptism for the dead if they don't believe the resurrection of the dead? These are Christians.

Pagans do not believe in the resurrection of Christ, and the dead, that's why they're Pagan and not Christian.

Again I tell you stop assuming that you are right. You believe that the practice of baptism for the dead was not done by the early christians, this verse proves you wrong. Try seeing what the Bible says, and stop seeing what you want to see. You have no proof that the early christians did not practice baptism for the dead, you just assume they wouldn't do that, you assume they would think and practice what you think and practice, what you think practice is wrong. In making that assumption, you miss their actual practices, stop assuming you are right.

The act of baptism is not salvivic. No one can be saved by baptism alone.

Not baptism of water alone, you need both baptism of water and baptism of the Spirit. You need both. Baptism of water washes away the sins, and then you receive the Spirit. Baptism requires the use of water and the work of the Spirit.

In the Jordan Jesus was baptised of the water and the Spirit, after being baptised of the water the dove descended upon him and annointed him as the Son of God.

Even the apostles were baptised of water and then of the Spirit.

In Acts 1:5 Jesus says to his apostles "for John baptised with water, but in a few days you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit"
Baptism is salvific and it is not of water alone, it is of both water and Spirit.

Jesus wouldn't have asked the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit if it wasn't needed and if it was just a symbolic ritual. There would be no point in it if it isn't slavific, Christ wouldn't have stressed it. He wouldn't have said unless a man be baptized of both water and Spirit he will not be saved, he speaks of two baptisms for salvation, he didn't speak of one as symbolic and the other for salvation, he spoke of both for a person to be saved, that is to enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Baptism is both of water and Spirit. Both are needed.

I prefer quoting from the KJV which says,

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Actually it is pretty straight forward. Paul is talking about the gospel ministry that he is involved in. He is saying that those who come after him should take heed not to add what will not strengthen the ministry, and each addition's true colors will be revealed after being tested. He's not ruling out those failed cases because God uses difficult circumstances at times to save each and everyone of us.

And at what time will he be using difficult circumstances to save each and everyone of us? When will the true color's be revealed after testing. When will this testing take place?

The grammar didn't say that.

I am very glad that you are the one who posted that verse, so I will post exactly what you posted.

1 Peter 3:18-20
18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

Who is the he that went and preached to the spirits in prison?

There is only one Spirit of God that has been convicting men to follow God. What Peter was saying is that this same Spirit that quickened Christ, or as it were brought back life to Christ, was the same Spirit that appealed to the antediluvians.

Ok so why did you say of the past? In saying that you reference another spirit.

Bear in mind that in other verses Peter made mention of the world that was destroyed by a flood. He referenced that event to show that God's Spirit that appealed to the people before the flood is the same Spirit that quickened Christ from the dead. Logically Jesus was not yet manifested in the flesh at the time of the flood, but His Spirit was very much apart of plan of salvation in convicting the world then and now to repent

Oh I am not disputing that the ones in prison were the people that died back in the day, infact that is my point. How is it that they were able to be saved, what and where is this prison that they were in?

You see the bible does not and cannot contradict itself. The teaching of Christ and His apostles clearly state that after death comes the judgment. There can be no more repentance in the grave. Why would Paul say in quoting the scriptures, "today if you hear my voice harden not your hearts" "Now is the day of salvation" if he knew that if a person died whose sins were not forgiven by God, could be placed in purgatory to be given another chance.

The whole idea of the teachings of Christ and His apostles/Disciples was to call people to repentance before it was too late.

Ok I see the misconception is that you think that in purgatory one can repent. No that is not the concept of purgatory at all. Purgatory is for those who are definitely going to heaven. It is not for those who did not repent and accept Christ. Those in purgatory have already accepted Christ.
So you see it is the teaching of Christ and his apostles.

The issue is, Is there a place that the dead go to that is not hell or heaven? The answer is yes, there is such a place, and it is that place that Christ preached when he descended unto the dead, sheol. That place is what we call purgatory.

See I told you you're fighting your own belief.

The 8 people mentioned were Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives who were the only righteous ones left from the flood. My argument was not addressing them, but those who refused to enter the ark of safety

Ok I see we're both misunderstanding each other here. My argument is addressing them, because the Bible is addressing them. Now the questions is, if they were in "prison" as the Bible states, where and what is this prison?
This prison cannot be hell, no one can get out of there, it isn't heaven because they are in prison, heaven would not be referred to as prison, and Christ preached to them, there would be no need of preaching to those in heaven, they already made it whoo hoo. So what is this prison?

And that is because they were saved from the flood, as well as when they died. They were righteous before the Lord.

I agree, the Catholic Church agrees, but we know they weren't in heaven or hell, so where were they?

I'd advise you to take a serious look at what the RCC has done in adding and subtracting from the very bible they canonized. All those things that we have pointed out to you have fallen on deaf ears it seems.

I will repeat what I have said multiple times on this forum. All Catholics and non-catholics believe what the RCC teaches, the difference is that Catholics are aware that they believe what they RCC teaches and the non-catholics are not aware that they believe what the RCC teaches.

So what say you now that you see that you believe what the RCC teaches?

ttalks:
sigh!

@lady,

This is all I will be saying here.

The answer u seek is already in the verse u quoted above:

2Thessalonians 2:15
(15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I can't imagine why u can't see that the verse above is asking to hold unto one particular thing/message; not different things,but different mediums of communication(by word or our epistle).
It simply means that the same message;communicated by word or by letters(epistles),have to be held unto.It doesn't mean that the message delivered by the differing mediums differ in one way or the other;or that the medium used introduces different stuff from the other medium.
Which simply takes us back to what we've been saying all along that any tradition called Christian must be supported 100% by the bible.Anything not supported or backed by the bible is false.
And a lot of Catholic tradition have been found wanting by the bible.They've all been stated one way or another through Bobbyafs thread.

Conclusion:
Scripture alone is perfectly fine cos we are assured that it contains all we need and also contains everything which was taught orally by the apostles(2 thessalonians 2:15).

sigh!
@ ttalks

You know very well that the passage doesn't put a cap on things that are taught.
There were things taught by the apostles and Jesus that were not put into the Bible. And those things are oral tradition.

Yes it is talking about different mediums, and that is exactly my point. You protestants believe in sola scriptura (one medium) this verse prove 2 different mediums, and this verse proves that reading the Bible isn't the ONLY way to get the Word of God. That is my point and you guys proved it for me thank you.

But let me tell you where you erred in your posts, not everything taught or done by the apostles or Jesus Christ was written down. But they are all implied in scripture. We know that not everything was written down because St. John tells us that.

John 21:25 There were many things that Jesus did, but if these things were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world contain the books that would be written.

So you see there were other things taught but not written, just because they weren't written down does not mean that they are less the Word of God or they are irrelevant.

Also every teaching of the Church is rooted and found in scripture. You guys are the ones misinterpreting it, and seeing what you expect it to be. You already have it in your mind that there are certain things that are absolutely impossible, that even if it were to be shown to you, you wouldn't see it.

For example, you already have it made up in your mind that God cannot have a mother, that idea is just not something that could be comprehended, and therefore must be impossible after all God has been there from the beginning, and no one could have possibly given birth to him, and even though someone did, you can't call her his mother because God cannot have a mother. You make this statement without being able to prove it from the Bible.

That is the reaso why I started this thread. You guys say Catholics cannot prove their belief from the Bible, but you've never once thought that maybe you can't prove your belief from the Bible.
And that's why I want you guys to sit back and prove your belief from the Bible. You say God cannot have a mother, then prove it, you say we must go by Bible ALONE, then prove it, actually you just proved that the doctrine of Bible ALONE is unbiblical.

have a good night, I am off to doing my homework.

Circumstantially, the true church of God was suppressed under Catholic rule, hence God used good scholars from the catholic church to have simply collated scriptures, but that is all they did, and I wouldn't say it was done infallibly either.

The true Church of God would not be able to be surpressed, it was to be a light on the hill, light doesn't hide, it doesn't get surpressed. If the true Church got surpressed, Christ was lying.

If the Catholic Church did not infallibly define the books of the Bible, then the Bible isn't infallible. The New Testament books were not written to be scripture. Therefore when the Church defined the books of the Bible as scripture, She infallibly did so, or else the Bible wouldn't be infallible.

There is no proof of that.

There is a whole lot of proof, do research on Jewish history. Remember the Jews were dispersed all over, and they had Torahs everywhere. Before the time of Christ, there was the Alexandrine Canon, the Pharisess and Saducees revised the canon, and refused to allow the Deuterocanonical books because they weren't written in hebrew or they weren't written in Palestine. They had four criteria for creating their revised Jewish Canon 1) They had to be in harmony with the Pentatuech 2) They had to have been written in the time of Ezra 3) They had to have been written in Hebrew 4) They had to have been written in Palestine.

Judith, Tobit, and parts of Daniel and Esther were written in Aramaic and probably outside of Palestine, Wisdom and 2 Maccabees were written in Greek, Baruch was written outside of Palestine, and Sirach and 1 Maccabees were written after the time of Ezra. Notice that none of them were removed because they were in conflict with the Pentateuch.

Thus the Palestinian Canon was created, but it wasn't until after the death of Christ did every Jew start using the Palestinian Canon. Jesus himself used the Alexandrine Canon.

You can read more about the difference between the Palestinian canon and the Alexandrine canon here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

I believe we both know them, so save the fora the trouble.

I know them, however you do not. If you did you wouldn't have made the statement that they are additions by the Church for the salvation of souls.

Factually, that doctrine was invented by the RCC. None of the apostles of Christ, or Christ Himself taught it. It is a fabrication invented by the church to have robbed poor people of their hard-earned money. That doctrine was associated with the indulgencies.

Factually the apostles taught Purgatory. I will only present to you biblical passages, but also keep in mind that the successors of the apostles in their writings also acknowledged prayer for the dead because of their stay in purgatory.

1 Corinthians 15: 29
Otherwise what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why having them baptized for them?

To give a background of what is going on in this chapter. Paul is disputing the heresies of no resurrection of the dead. But notice that he mentions baptism for the dead. The normal protestant view is that once you're dead, you're going to hell or to heaven, no purgatory, but we know that in heaven one wouldn't need baptism because they are already saved, and in hell one cannot be saved, so no baptism there. So why would Paul speak of baptism for the dead? Why would the dead need baptism? There's no hope for them after deat right?
This passage also proves that baptism is salvific, it is not just merely symbolic, as several other passages state also

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
10 According to the grace of God given to you, likewise a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how h builds upon it.
11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, r straw
13 the work of each will come to light, for the day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage
15 But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved but only as through fire.

How would you interpret the above passage?

1 Peter 3:18-20
18 "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."

This has been one of the most misunderstood passages in the bible, largely because people tend to take out of context what was being said, or they usually fail to capture the grammatical syntax. If you read the grammar carefully you'd notice that it didn't say Christ went to preach, but rather that the Spirit by which He was quickened, was once used by Christ in the past , to reach out to the antediluvian. Their spirits were disobedient it says in those days, and not that the Spirit of God, or Christ after His death was now dealing with those persons who had already died.

Logically speaking if those antediluvians were rejected by God before, then why would God have to go in search after their souls, since their probabtion would have been closed there and then. The bible teaches that after a person dies the judgment follows which is a universal principle that isn't affected by time lines.

first of all it says "he went and preached to the spirits in prison" so Jesus did go to preach to thoe who were in the land of the dead.

second, what spirit was used by Christ in the past?
How many spirits did Christ use? Did he use a different spirit while he was alive or what? explain that to me.

third, that verse proves that their probabtion wouldn't have been closed there and then, that verse proves your point to be false. If it was closed they wouldn't have been saved. Notice that is says "eight souls were saved by water" they were saved after their death. You assume that you hold the correct position when you say that their probabtion had been closed there and then. That verse is telling you that you are wrong.
You assume that no one can be saved even after death, that verse is telling you that 8 people were saved after death. You saw what you wanted to see, you didn't see the truth here.

So instead of taking what you believe and inserting it into the Bible, let the Bible tell you what it is actually saying. The problem is that protestants already have constructed what they believe and anything contrary would be wrong, therefore their interpretation of the Bible must fit their belief and not their belief fitting the Bible, it doesn't work that way. In this interpretation you contradicted the Bible verse.

The difference lies in God's own motives for commanding those constructions. Moses was directly under God's instructions. God knows however, that when men make graven images outside of His instructions and supervision, their intentions are different. How else would we be justified in denouncing pagan images and icons if it were ok for all and sundry to up and make images for their own purposes?

In this statement you are claiming that God would contradict himself. You're ultimately saying that it is ok to have graven images and bow before it or look up to it as long as God instructs you to, even though he already gave the instruction not to make any graven images.
God wouldn't contradict himself. Lol, you know you just reminded me of something Olabowale, muslim, on this board said to me one day. Here's the story.

I was speaking to Olabowale one day on the phone and as usual we were discussing our religions. He then said to me that if a muslim is facing death, and those who wish to kill him want to kill him because he's a muslim, if he isn't ready to die it is ok for him to say that he is not a muslim, but if he is ready to die he can say that he is.
SO I asked him, "wouldn't that be lying?"
Olabowale said no, it wouldn't because Allah said so.
So apparentl as long as Allah said it's ok to break one of his commandments it is ok.

My dear Bobbyaf, do you see the connection between your statement and his? to both of you as long as God says so, it is ok to break his commandments.

(Are you Olabowale pretending to be a muslim, because I remember telling you you were making statements as a muslim would a while back)

Now that doesn't see like what God would do now does it?

What that commandment tells us is that we should not put anyone or anything in the place of God or above God. Even things that are not physical can be a graven image and can be bowed to. You can place money and sex above God.
When the center of your life is no longer God, then you have violated the first commandment. You have chosen whatever occupies your time as your god.

As for the statues, they are not worshipped, neither are they viewed as God. God is still and will always be very much the central figure in a Catholic's faith, if this changes they are no longer Catholic.

Let me prove to you that Mary is worshipped, for if she weren't then Catholic leaders would not have placed her in such high esteem by teaching what Christ, nor His apostles have never taught  The scriptures say "For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Timothy 2:5

And that is why She is not God nor equal to God. SO no the Catholic leaders did no such thing. I know this because I have the church documents, it is there for everyone to read, so you don't need to go to anti-catholic websites to tell you what it is, you can go straight to the source, you can read the actual documents. You however are confused on what the terms used in the documents mean. Mary is not our mediator between God and man, also don't forget Jesus is God, and she can definitely ask something of her Son, and that is called mediation or intercession, actualy each one of us are mediators, as long as you can pray for me you are a mediator for me. So your point only shows your lack of knowledge on the meaning of the term mediator.

To your point about Mary being on a high esteem, how do you expect the Mother of God to be treated, what role do you expect her to play, do you understand motherhood at all. Would you appreciate it if one of your friends were to say your mother is irrelevant in bringing you to the world or were to say your mother is irrelevant at all?

And just so you know God places Mary on a high esteem and we follow suit. Luke 1 26-28
26 In the 6th month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And coming to her, he said "HAIL, FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH YOU"

Angel Gabriel here speaks for God as God is the one that sent him, and he HAILS her, that alone puts her on high esteem, God himself is giving Mary a ROYAL GREETING.

The word for full of grace in greek is Kecharitomene, and it is used for only one other person in the Bible, Jesus Christ. The same word used to describe Jesus Christ is the same word used to describe Mary, this is not of our doing, it is straight from the Bible.

Mary herself esteemed herself when she said "ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED"
Is she arrogant, absolutely not, for God himself gave her a royal greeting.

Notice also that she said ALL GENERATIONS, and not some generations or my generation, no, she said ALL GENERATIONS WILL CALL ME BLESSED, so why don't you call her blessed?

To assume that she is now queen of heaven, and co-redemtrix without one ounce of biblical proof is tantamount to Marian worship.

What would you call the mother of a King? a random woman, an irrelevant vessel to bring the King to the world to rule a kingdom and then relegated to the background.

Well sir Jesus isn't just any King, he is the King of the Davidic Kingdom, he sits on the throne of David forever Luke 1:31-33
31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus
32 He will be great and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father
33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom will have no end.

Now let us see who is queen in the Davidic Kingdom.

1 Kings 2:19
Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand.

Notice that the Queen sits on the right hand of the King and not just on any chair, she sits on a throne. In the Davidic Kingdom the mother is Queen. Jesus is King of the Davidic kingdom, Mary his Mother is Queen.

Remember also that God gave her a ROYAL GREETING. The word "HAIL" is not used for someone who is not of a royal household, it isn't even used for anyone but the reigning King or Queen.

This is not our doing, but God's doing. You can deny it till they kingdom come, it will never change. God doesn't change to fit our minds, our minds change to fit God. I know it is a hard pill to swallow but it is the truth. If Jesus sits on the throne of David, then his mother Mary is Queen, for the Mother reigns as Queen in the Davidic kingdom.

Now for co-redemptrix, have you ever heard of a co-pilot? Is he or she ever equal to the Pilot?
Well I've flown in planes too many times to know that and know enough about aeronautics to know that the co-pilot is never equal to the Pilot. Co does not insinuate equality.
Each one of us can be co-redemptrix, for we all play our part in building up the Church, and bringing souls to God.

Only if I thought for one second that she wasn't in her grave awaiting the last trump. My anger rests with the level of deception that has gripped you and those who think like you.  Its called holy indignation

Well I am sorry that you do no understand the Bibel, but there is no way Mary is in her grave. God isn't disrespectful to his mother. His mother isn't full of sin, she is ful of grace. As in she has complete grace, we all have partial grace and we won't have complete grace until we are in heaven, but she had complete grace on earth, and she had it even before she gave birth to God.
That sanctifying grace that we are all striving for after his birth and death and resurrection, she had it before he was born. She had every grace that can be given, she had it all. No one who is full of grace, the grace that she and Jesus have will  be in the grave.

If so then God's complete grace isn't able to save.

Every normal human being takes action based on the thought that emanates from the heart. If it not so, then, the psychologist will declare you as mad. That means that your heart cannot think diferently and your outward actions exhibits differently.

If I think of dreadlock, I will make it on my head. I will be a mad person if am thinking of dreadlock and cutting my hair decently low as a man

While this may be true, you cannot tell me there are girls who cover up but in secret are vulgar and wild. The outward appearance does not always reveal the heart. I may smile at you, but in my heart I may hate you. This is very true and is proven by humans, psychologists cannot deny that.

Not everyone who covers up is doing it because it is the right thing to do and it is what their heart believes. Most muslim girls I know cover up because they don't want their family to think they are wild, but come to Florida A&M University and I will point them out to you. Those girls party hard, and I don't mean in moderation or causally, I mean they PARTY with sex oozing out of their pores and guys taking them home. Believe me just because a girl covers up doesn't mean that that's what's in her heart.

What the scriptures said is "born of water and born of the spirit"(symbolic language) not baptism by water. Another example of interpretation problems we have in the church. I would post a link that further underlines this mis-understanding shortly.

Whoa, slow down, what?

Symbolism?

So what was John using to baptise?
What did he use to baptise Jesus?
What they were never really baptised? What did the Gospels do, tell that Jesus and all those that were baptised in the Jordan weren't really baptisd by water? because the Jordan really isn't a body of water, and they just stood there pretending to be using water. It was just symbolism?

WHAT?
Seriously Kunle, you are going to have to explain this one to me.

Agbelepawo:
i most tell u the truth, their is no any churches there! if u need evidence u can request for it.

Dude we got it, did you see anyone insisting that there is a church there? After you posted everyone got it. Chill.

If it "made sense" all scientists, philosophers and nobel laureates would be christians today. Did the phrase "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in John 6 make sense to the disciples? Paul was a "learned man" but he had thought Christ was a heretic until his journey to Damascus, Peter was a mere fisherman, an illiterate and yet he understood the gospel well enough to give his earthshaking speech on the day of pentecost. Faith cannot be obtained by logical reasoning . . . the bible says that much.

You need the Holy Spirit first

Ofcourse you need the Holy Spirit first and then after that does it contiue to not make any sense?

pray tell, what does the bible tell you to take along with scripture? history? Provide bible verses to support this pls. Remember Joshua's command to the jews . . . this book of the law (the books of Moses) shall not depart out of thy mouth . . .

Dude I asked you a question, you siad you would answer so please answer.

Does the Bible say we should go by scripture ALONE?

Now not to be redundant but I already provided that for Bobbyaf

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

So you see we should go by what they said not just what they wrote. Not everything they said was written was it?

I'm trying . . .

Really? by not answering the questions?

This is my last post here

thank God.

she's not asking anything new, its the same recycled falsehoods.
She's not the type open to alternative viewpoints . . . i wonder how her husband (if she has one) copes with her . . . i'm out of the thread as well. Good luck finding "answers" lady

thou hypocrite, when you guys start 10 new threads on bashing Catholics you are quick to jump in and bash catholics with the same redundant falsehoods, but when questioned about your own faith you simply allude it to the same old questions.

Why haven't you been able to stand firm in the faith and answer questions, you do the same thing over and over again David it is a pattern and everyone knows it now. When asked todefend your belief, you simply turn around say the other person is the problem, David answer the questions.

Did the verse in 2 Timothy say that we should go by Bible ALONE?

Does any verse in the Bible say we should go by Bible ALONE?

You want to follow Bible ALONE, prove that it is biblical, and when you are able to do that, I will gladly follow Bible ALONE. And yes I will accept defeat. Can you prove that Bible ALONE is biblical?

So when you were asking for my input to this thread did you not expect me to have posted in it? So what is this utter nonsense about my not respecting your request for not posting in your thread?

Dude I specifically asked you not to post, because David already started posting and I wanted it to not get off track. If you'd posted first, David would have been asked not to post. But he beat you to it. Simple.

But since you insisted on posting, answer the questions.


You guys have a nice way of avoiding the issue and facing the truth. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

1. Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God's curse. (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19)

If you trust the Roman Catholic Church to have infallibly defined the books of the New Testament what makes you think we got the Old Testament wrong?

FYI, the apocrypha were not taken out by the Jews until after the death of Jesus Christ. The book Christ himself studied and quoted from includes the deuterocanonical books known to you as the apocrypha.

If Roman Catholicism is under a curse because of the books it defined as scripture, you have knowingly put yourself under the same curse by accepting the books that the Roman Catholic Church defined as scripture.

2. Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse. (Galatians 1:6-10)

Do you mind telling me what the sacraments are?
Purgatory is in the Bible, go and actually read your Bible, and don't just browse through it like a magazine or read it to see what you want to see, ask God to open your eyes. Purgatory is in the Bible dear.
So what are you supposed to do? Bad works?

They believe purgatory is a place where a person is purified of sins – even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says, when a person dies their eternal home is sealed – heaven or hell – there is no place in between like purgatory. (Hebrews 9:27) The word "purgatory" and its concept is not found in the Bible.

And yet Christ himself had to descend unto the place of the dead to release the souls in prison, I pray thee what is that place?

They believe in worshiping images of Mary, crucifix, saints, angels, etc. The Bible speaks out against this. (Exodus 20:4-5)

First of all we don't worship Mary and the saints, secondly, why did the God command that no graven image should be made of everything in heaven or hell or on the earth, and then command that an image of the cherubim be constructed for the ark and that moses should raise a bronze serpent in the desert and that the Isrealites should look up to it and they will be saved, and why did Christ say that he is like the serpent that was raised, why would he be like a graven image?

They believe in repetitious prayer to Mary, saints and angels. The complete Rosary involves repeating the Hail Mary 53 times, the Lord's prayer 6 times, 5 Mysteries, 5 Meditations on the Mysteries, 5 Glory Be's, and the Apostles' Creed. The Rosary did not come into general use until after the beginning of the thirteenth century, and not officially sanctioned until after the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. The concept of praying to Mary, saints, and angels is not found in the Bible; on the contrary, we are directed to pray to our Father. (Matthew 6:9-13) In the Rosary, Mary is prayed to almost 9 times for every prayer directed to God. The Bible speaks out very clearly against praying in vain repetitions as the heathens do.

My dear what are the mysteries of the rosary that we meditate on?
Is the Our Father wrong, and is the hail Mary wrong also, is the glory be wrong too, and what about the apostle's creed. Please write every single one of them out and then point us to what is wrong in them.

In "The Holy Father's Prayer for the Marian Year [1987]," John Paul II asks Mary to do what only God can do – comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect "the whole of humanity , " His prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey of faith and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation." (4/97, Berean Call).

Amen. Are you angry because you think Mary doesn't pray for you, don't worry she does pray for you and she loves you. And yes Jesus wants you to stop disrespecting him by disrespecting his mother.

There used to be Churches there, but they took it, there can't be a Church in Saudi Arabia, not as a building and not as people. So says the Prophet Muhammad
But there are churches in the middle east, they've been existing since the apostles, and most of them speak arabic because they were forced to, it was a way of taking away their identity. Arabic is used today in worship. Sometimes it is mixed with greek. You can find these churches in Lebanin, Syria, Iraq (although they were millions, they are now reduced to the low thousands because of persecution).

You have so much to ask me yet I must only follow, and not post?

oh so that's what you were talking about. I used the plural "you". You Bobbyaf was standing for all protestants at that point.

When I made the other statemen I already started the thread, which states that only one protestant is needed. But I see you posted there anyway, and I obliged to respond to you. But please have respect for the thread, and the readers. I don't want it derailed with rubbish and insults from protestants and catholics as well. That's why I initially wanted only one protestant posting. I also didn't want redundancy which tends to happen with more than one poster from each side, and that makes a thread boring, I want it to be invigorating and fruitful. I want people to learn from it.

I'd have to agree with you that faith isn't illogical. In fact it does require a degree of intelligence to understand what is required to trust God completely. The bible says "faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God."

thank you.

Not directly, but neither do the scriptures direct us to follow tradition

actually it does.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

Notice Paul speaks of traditions, then notice that he mentions that these people were taught the traditions orally as well as by a letter, the letters are what you read in the New Testament today, well some of them are there which proves that these letters weren't written to be scripture otherwise they would all be contained in the New Testament today. So if we have the letters today what happened to the oral tradition that he asks us to hold on to?

While I appreciate that there can be sound traditional values that have passed down from one generation to another, one must realize that Satan can influence men to introduce traditions that run contrary to God's instructions

And that is why you stay in the Church whose doctrine can NEVER be influenced by the devil. The Church that Christ found, the Catholic Church, the Universal Church. THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH. The Church which he said the gates of hell shall never prevail against and that the Holy Spirit will lead to all truth.

God can express Himself outside of written scripture. He can do it through special revelation as well. When He gave the heathen king of Babylon a dream, that was one example of God operating outside of His typical revelation methods. But to be honest with you, that has never been an issue with Christians, because we are very much aware that God can do what pleases Him

So you don't believe in Sola Scriptura.

Another example is Jesus teaching the apostles and the apostles teaching the early christians.

I see people don't know how to follow directions. I specifically wanted to keep this thread on track and away from any distractions.

Bobbyaf, I asked you to please not post, a true christian would respect that.

@ KunleOshob you are even more Catholic than you think.

Protestants do not acknowledge the See of Peter anywhere, not just in Rome, anywhere.

The Churches you named above are the eastern orthodox church, their beliefs are still very much ours, the only problem is the Prmiacy of Rome as ultimate, they do acknowledge the Prmicay of Rome (St Peter) they only hold that each See is individual and equal with the See of Peter being the first among equals. They still acknowledge Peter as the one given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, as the Prince of the Apostles, and as the leader of the Apostles, and as the Pope in Rome, they do not dispute that the See of Peter is in Rome. That has never been disputed by the Orthodox Churches.
They still attend the synods of Bishops under the Western Church, and are currently gradually working towards unity.
But to correct you, the Churches split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, before then they were still united with the Church. Their orders are valid, apostolic succession and all, and that is why we do not inculde them in the term "Protestants" they are still part of THE CHURCH by Christ. WE DO NOT DENY THAT, AND THEY DO NOT DENY THAT, WE ACKNOWLEDGE EACH OTHER IN THE CHURCH.

It is the anglicans, lutherans, clavinist, baptists, and others that came after that that are referred to as Protestants. Infact the Churches mentioned above do refer to you all as protestants.

I forgot to mention another difference, is that they do not believe Mary to be Immaculately conceived, although they do believe her to be the New Eve or the Second Eve, which doesn't make sense to me, if the Old Eve was immacultely created, how can the New Eve not be immaculately conceived. But that's besides the points, they also hold that Mary is the theotokos "Mother of God" and that above all other saints she holds a higher reverence.

So really the differences are not so big. They too defend the Church from protestants.

I do agree with you however that Jesus did found ONLY ONE CHURCH, but you fail to realise that the Church is to exist forever. I say this because of this statement you made

It is my humble belief that all churches have derailed from the original teachings and commandments of our lord Jesus Christ, this derailment started with the RCC so in that sense they are protestants as well

On the contrary, Jesus told the Church that the Holy Spirit will lead them into all truth, which means that what the Church teaches WILL be truth, that is why we have not changed a teaching for 2000 years, it's not that we don't want to which we really don't, but it is that we CANNOT change the teaching. Also Jesus promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church, if your statement is true then Christ was lying.
Were there things that were practiced by the Church that shouldn't have been practiced, absolutely, were those things doctrinal or dogma, absolutely NOT. Even if a Pope were to want to declare something, if it is against the Holy Spirit he cannot declare it, we know this because a Pope tried and failed, and everyone just waited around for his happy death.

Before the schism with the Eastern Church, the RCC was known as THE CHUCH, after the protestant reformation it became known as the Catholic Church as a common term, but it is still THE CHURCH. We are called these names to identify ourselves. The Church isn't a denomination, denominations exists because people broke away and a name was needed to identify THE CHURCH, that's all.

Apostle paul already warned us about dividing the church they founded evidently our so called christian leaders refused to adhere to this instruction.

This was exactly what Pope Julius II told Martin Luther when he decided to split from the Church. And as we all know now, he was correct. Reformations needed to happen, but Luther went about it the wrong way and he was also wrong in his doctrine. There were other reformers but they didn't change the doctrine of the Church because they knew the doctrine wasn't wrong, it was some of the leaders and their practices, and so they reformed the Church from within, still keeping the Unity that Christ wanted and the ONE Church that he founded.

By the way, it wasn't a doctrine to sell indulgences, and it was done by one man, when it got to the Pope he excommunicated the Priest that was doing so. Unfortunately the news already spread that it was a doctrine to sell indulgences.

Bobbyaf:
@ lady

I wish you'd take time to proof read your own posts. Does the above in bold make sense to you?

and sometimes I really wish you would learn to understand english. Go to the thread and you will see why I said don't post. I asked for only one protestant, and david is the protestant asking. I asked you to follow as in you can READ the thread, but don't POST. Does one have to post in order to follow a thread? Can't one be reading along and still be following thread as n keeping up with the thread?

viee:
hey Lady!
just pick a date and venue
cake small sef

and yes, lent is my fav, i alwyas seem to go the extra mile during lent.

@chukwudi, i dnt knw much abt others Holy Fathers but i just love Pope John Paul.
for me, i wont exactly say he is the greatest but i do know that i love him.

@Lady, politically incorrect? now, thats really funny lol
you are absolutely correct. that is exactly the kind of thing that makes headlines u'knw.
i read an article on sunday Punch i think, it was calling for the Pope to resign. I said to myself, what has resignation got to do with all these? A half page of article and i still cldnt make sense of what the authour was hinting. . .

which brings me to this: whats your take on the Pope and Holocaust issue? it seem to be the issue making headlines, should there be conditions for such thing?

Ok I will

Wait o who's calling for the Pope to resign? I haven't read much about the issue with the Pope and the holocaust, but I thought he lifted the excommunication off for the SSPX and that one of them doesn't acknowledge the holocaust, what I want to know is what does that have to do with his excommunication being lifted. I didn't know personal opinions of priests were a matter of excommunication.

But I'll look up more on it.

Bobbyaf:
@ Lady

The argument as to whether protestantism is biblical can be discussed here. Logically it makes sense, because it will be seen as an attempt at discounting all the arguments against Catholic traditions that are not in keeping with the bible. In fact there are very few true protestants left anyway. Most denominations have already sold out to the Catholic church anyway. So big deal!

Well the thread has been started, please don't post as David has already started answering the questions, but you are very free to follow. I ask that no one else post so as not to cause confusion on the thread, because I really want that thread to be meaningful, free of insults and ridiculous posts, and I really mean that.

1. The idea that the bible can be understood by logic is itself false doctrine - Job 11:7 Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection?
Neither Lazarus the begger nor Zaccheus were logical thinkers. Leave logic in the hallways of schools, christianity demands wholesome faith.

The idea that faith is illogic is unbiblical and is in itself a fasle doctrine. David you established an excuse not to make sense of anything. The Bible makes sense.

2. I firmly believe in sola scriptura because Christ declared Himself as THE WORD in John 1.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Ok, for those who do not know what sola scriptura is, it means solely by scripture or scripture alone or that we should go by scripture alone.

Does the Bible tell us that we should go by scripture ALONE?
I am glad you cited 2 Timothy for me, while Catholics do agree with 2 Timothy, I should go ahead and say that we agree with everything written in the Bible, does that verse indicate that God does not deposit faith or expresses his Word to us without scripture, and does that verse state that we should go by Scripture ALONE?

What did Paul mean by "all scripture"? Did He include catechisms and papal decrees?

He means the book or letter of the Bible that have been defined as scripture.
At the time Paul was writing this letter, was 2 Timothy considered scripture?
Did Paul write 2 Timothy to be scripture?
In fact he very well could've included Papal decrees, don't forget that Peter the first Pope wrote letters also, and those letters would be decrees, and we know very well that there are letters written by Peter in the Bible and is defined as scripture?

P.S. Please be specific and respectful in answering my questions. I didn't start this thread for you or anyone to use as a bash anything Catholic or bash anything Protestant. It is started strictly for Protestants to answer questions. Thanks.

bawomolo:
so do you think the death penalty is wrong?

Yes.

Why is the atheist here?

Davidy I was so happy to see your post. Why is No2atheism posting, will he be the one to take on the challenge?
Can the moderator delete the posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic please? I don't want the thread to get derailed. Thanks.

@ David

I will take on Sola Scriptura first.

Do you believe in Sola Scriptura? If so, Why? And can you prove that it is biblical as well as logical?

Bobbyaf:
@ lady

So do you need another thread for serious discussions, other than what we already have in this thread? Listen! Any thread that is started by any Catholic will warrant similar responses based on similar issues that exist between Catholic and protestant teachings. There is no problem discussing any issue in this thread along the lines of what is already being discussed here.

So are you saying that the moderator for this thread cannot be trusted? Interesting!

Yes I do, in case you haven't noticed the discussions for this thread will be different from the discussions for the other thread. It is also misleading the readers.
This topic is about Catholic tradition, the topic I already started is not about Catholic tradition vs. the Bible.

The thread started is Protestantism: Biblical?
If you read it you will see why I don't want to continue it on this thread.

I would prefer Seun because he is not religious.

I am starting this thread because I believe that the Protestants need to clarify their beliefs. As you all very well know, the protestants have attacked the Catholics for what they think the Catholics believe.
So I think it will be only fair for protestants to explain their beliefs based on what they belief.
But here's how this will run. Only ONE protestant is needed to answer the questions. I am doing this to be fair and to keep the thread clear of all insults and ridiculous statements. I have noticed that when people randomly post things the point of the thread gets diminished, and there is no outcome of the thread, and it become meaningless, and I would like this to be a very respectful thread.

So I am asking that either A_K_O or Seun moderate this thread without bias. The only ones allowed to post are myself and the Protestant who takes up the challenge, every other post should be deleted. I really want this to be very fair and just.

I will be the ONLY Catholic asking the questions.

So can the moderator agree please and can the protestant accept the challenge?

Thank you

Bobbyaf:
@ Lady

Continue here! This thread is already about Catholic beliefs versus what others believe. So by all means continue.

It would be very misleading, and away from the topic. Plus I want it to be a very serious discussion thread not one where any dysfunctional individual can post in.

I want someone to take up the challenge. So I will start another one, and get Seun to be the moderator of that particular discussion thread. I trust him to be unbiased. He doesn't care for religion.