₦airaland Forum

If I were you, I would not be so keen to be cutting and pasting the arguments of early church fathers. I do respect their opnions; but in many cases, we have to understand that not everything that they said on record is actually what happened or what Scripture teaches.

I give you an example: have you read the early church father who said that he was the Word of God? Not many people see this, but I often like to start by asking that question to people who use such arguments to see what they really now about the early fathers.

Anyhow, Irenaeus is attributed with so many quotes that we no longer know what his original thoughts are. Against Heresies 3:3:3 does not have [of Rome] in the original - that is a false and forced interpolation by whoever translated it into English. Meanwhile, we see again that Biblically speaking, apostolic office is not transferred or handed down from person to person - God Himself calls and equips people, and leaders in Church were appointed by the apostles to several capable leaders and not just one individual!!

Thirdly, the episcopate is not something that the RCC has mis-defined today. Quoting church fathers in disregard of what is read in Scripture is not the same thing as establishing one's proper understanding of the Word.

O jare, get to your point already. . . .If you say that Peter was not Bishop of Rome and I say he was the Bishop of Rome, what then?  You did not prove anything.  Bottom line, the early christians, all of the apostolic churches (russian, greek, ethiopian, indian, chaldean, assyrian, coptic, etc.) unanimously agree that Peter was bishop of Rome.  The above churches that I mentioned are not part of the Catholic Church (Latin tradition) and claim that Peter was Bishop of Rome.   And you want me to go with what you guys are saying (posting arguments from anti-catholic websites) as gospel truth, lol (too funny).  I have my own eyes and I'm reading the same things you guys are reading and I disagree.  Thats ok, my salvation is not based on the fact of Peter being bishop of Rome.

Omenuko that is the problem, all those are "assertions" by men who definitely had a catholic agenda. Where is the biblical proof? Paul certainly would have known better than Irreneaus and co who was Bishop of Rome. Its absurd that he wrote to the Romans, regularly preached to them and completely ignored the man he supposedly built the church along with.

I'll believe the testimony of the early church christian over yours. You yourself, showed no proof that Peter did not got to Rome or was not Bishop of Rome. Lets agree to disagree. If ever you manage to prove that Peter was not Bishop of Rome what is your driving point?

See bold below:

Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], [b]having founded and built up the church[/b] [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth


"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).


Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ,  ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


Epiphanius of Salamis


"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

That again is an attempt to muddy the waters because my assertion has never been that Peter did not go to Rome at some point. The issue is WAS PETER BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN ROME?

YES! Peter was Bishop of Rome

@pilgrim.1

What are you leading your readers to believe by that inference? The thing is that you're using fallacious arguments in support for your doctrine of equating the Roman Catholic Church with Rome. If that was not anything to make us think, I don't see how you could have been using that reference to argue for the origins of the Catholic Church. As long as you did, and the context in which it was presented, it only leads one to check those references in Revelation and see that your "Rome" (aka Babylon) is a system under divinde suveillance. Please check it again.

[list]
[li]The official name of my church is the Catholic Church (not the roman catholic church)[/li]
[li]The Latin Church (one of many churches within the Catholic Church - Greek, Russian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Assyrian, Chaldean, etc.) is where I worship[/li]
[li]Babylon does not refer to the Catholic Church but to the ancient roman empire[/li]
[li]You go and check it again[/li]
[/list]

I think it is clear that Peter did not equate "Babylon" to Rome in his epistle. If he did, please read the referneces in Revelation yourself and see that you're confirming that Rome is a despicable hold of demonic spirits. How do you weave out of that?!? Undecided

You do well to think. . . .and I think that it is clear that he is referring to Rome in his epistle.

I think it is clear that Peter did not equate "Babylon" to Rome in his epistle. If he did, please read the referneces in Revelation yourself and see that you're confirming that Rome is a despicable hold of demonic spirits. How do you weave out of that?!? Undecided

Yes, those passages from Rev. are referring to ancient Rome. The capital of the pagan Roman Empire. My sister, I don't need to weave anything. Get to your point already.

Hmmm, this is terrifying, to say the least. I very much doubt that those who hold this interpretation that Babylon is the code name for Rome actually have not carefully weighed the import of what they were stating. Now, let's simply quote the references again:

            Revelation 14:8
                     'And there followed another angel, saying,
                      Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city,
                      because she made all nations drink of the wine
                      of the wrath of her fornication


            Revelation 17:5
                     'And upon her forehead was a name written,
                     MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
                     AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.'


            Revelation 18:2
                     'And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying,
                     Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become
                     the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit,
                     and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.'


Now, if by implication you're saying that Babylon is Rome, hmmm. . . this is something that should make us shudder. Does this not clearly show that your interpreters are saying in no uncertain terms that Rome is the mother of harlots and the stronghold of demonic spirits? Was that what Peter the apostle was commending in his epistle? Undecided  This is serious!!

Did not the Romans persecute the early christians?  Where are you going?

True, that's why i wonder why Paul greets 27 important brethren in the Roman church and ignores his lea

This argument is kind of weak.  Did the author of Hebrews greet the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. In any case, Peter may not have been there at the time.

So, what do you think of the early christian testimony I posted asserting that Peter was in Rome?

that is all they are . . . "assertions" not proof.

Yours nko?  It no be assertion?

One thing you have to contend with is the fact that those men were catholics and it was to the interest of the church that the unproven claim of Peter's bishopric of Rome be upheld at all costs. How do we infact know that their "evidence" (not historical at all) is without bias?

Finally you have acknowledged it. . . .they indeed were Catholics.  What is your evidence to the contrary?

The bible does not say that Peter was not in Rome.

Neither does it say he was.

So, you acknowledge that Peter could have been in Rome because the Bible is silent in either case?

You've even done worse. Try to force babylon as code for Rome when it is not. You have defended an assertion that is nowhere supported in the bible.
Where in the bible was Peter Bishop of Rome or ever heard of the Roman church?

Are you telling me that of all the references of Babylon in the New Testament, none of them are referring to Rome?

The issue is not whether Peter was ever in Rome. The issue is this, was Peter ever BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF ROME?

Now I understand, will you at least acknowledge that Peter may have been in Rome.  I will acknowledge that the Bible does not say Peter was Bishop of Rome.

Was Peter just being a coward or was Peter ever Bishop of Rome at all? I would consider it  slight for Paul to be writing to a church with a Bishop and never acknowledge him even once!

No, Peter was not a coward, he was the first Pope and Bishop of Rome.  Peter was the leader of the Apostles. . . .Paul wrote many more letters to the faithful other than the ones in the New Testament.  So, what do you think of the early christian testimony I posted asserting that Peter was in Rome?  These same people (early christians) had access to the same epistles of Paul that you are quoting from and still acknowledged that Peter at one point was in Rome.  Their letters attesting to Peter's presence in Rome should be viewed as historical evidence or should be considered.  The bible does not say that Peter was not in Rome.  Show me in the Bible were it says Peter was not in Rome.  The most you can do is infer from the omission of Peters name in any one verse of the New Testament that explicitly states that he was in Rome.  So, stating that the Bible is silent of Peter being in Rome does not prove that he was not in Rome or that he never went to Rome.

1 Pet. 5:13 - 2 I write these few words to you through Silvanus, who is a trustworthy brother, to encourage you and attest that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!  13 Your sister in Babylon, who is with you among the chosen, sends you greetings; so does my son, Mark.  14 Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to you all who are in Christ.

In the greeting at the end of Peters first letter (see above) he states or implies that he is writing from Babylon.  Where is Babylon?  Well if we use the Bible and the testimony of the early church fathers (see below) it becomes clear.   Babylon is a code-word for Rome.  It is used that way multiple times in works like the Sibylline Oracles (5:159f), the Apocalypse of Baruch (2:1), and 4 Esdras (3:1).  Eusebius Pamphilius, in The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that “It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon.  This code name for Rome can also be found in Rev. 14:8; 17:5; and 18:2.

now lets look at your pope list - If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 32AD - 67AD and Apostle Paul, whom even Peter acknowledged as a trusted chief missionary to the gentiles was jailed n Rome and killed by Nero around 64-67AD . . . where was Peter all this while?

Look, the authorities knew that Peter was a leader of the Church, and the Church, under Roman law, was considered unlawful. They (Romans) considered the worship of any other gods other than the Roman ones as atheism and atheism was against the law.  You ask where was Peter in all this, I don't know, but I do know that Peter would do himself, not to mention those with him, no service by advertising his presence in the capital.  Letters were routinely read by Roman officials.  Peter was a wanted man, as were all Christian leaders. 

Let me post some of the early Christian testimony (take note of the dates):

Ignatius of Antioch

"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth

"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.

Irenaeus

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ,  To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).

Gaius

"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).

Clement of Alexandria


"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Tertullian


"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).

"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

@Davidylan,

Have you herd of St. Peter's Basilica? 

The Basilica of Saint Peter (Latin: Basilica Sancti Petri), officially known in Italian as the Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano and commonly known as St. Peter's Basilica, is located within the Vatican City. It occupies a "unique position" as one of the holiest sites and as "the greatest of all churches of Christendom".[1][2][3] In Catholic tradition, it is the burial site of its namesake Saint Peter, who was one of the twelve apostles of Jesus and, according to tradition, was the first Bishop of Antioch, and later first Bishop of Rome and therefore first in the line of the papal succession. While St. Peter's is the most famous of Rome's many churches, it is not the first in rank, an honour held by the Pope's cathedral church, the Basilica of St. John Lateran. (See: Status)

Catholic tradition holds that Saint Peter's tomb is below the altar of the basilica. For this reason, many Popes, starting with the first ones, have been buried there. There has been a church on this site since the 4th century. Construction on the present basilica, over the old Constantinian basilica, began on April 18, 1506 and was completed in 1626.[4]

I will come back later to address:
[list]
[li]Peter apostle to the Jews?[/li]
[li]Is the Bible silent about Peter being in Rome?[/li]
[/list]

Question: When I come back and address these issues what will it prove?  You still won't believe the Catholic church is 2000 years old.  You still won't believe in apostolic succession.  You don't even trust that the list I posted of popes is authentic.  Lets start from ground zero: Do you believe Peter was the leader of the early Church?

you make the claim, i simply disproved it by virtue of the fact that it doesnt hold water. its up to you to prove it.
Just a simple question . . . when was Peter Bishop of Rome? I happen to remember that many of Paul's letters were from prison in Rome, how come "Bishop" Peter left him in prison?

One more question - You say the cathlic church has been around since the time of Christ? Where?

Oh one last one . . . remember Paul specifically describing his calling as to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews?

I hope the list of Catholic Popes (below) will answer your first and second question. . . .I will try to answer you third question later.

   1. St. Peter (32-67)
   2. St. Linus (67-76)
   3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
   4. St. Clement I (88-97)
   5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
   6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
   7. St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
   8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
   9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
  10. St. Pius I (140-155)
  11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
  12. St. Soter (166-175)
  13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
  14. St. Victor I (189-199)
  15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
  16. St. Callistus I (217-22) Callistus and the following three popes were opposed by St. Hippolytus, antipope (217-236)
  17. St. Urban I (222-30)
  18. St. Pontain (230-35)
  19. St. Anterus (235-36)
  20. St. Fabian (236-50)
  21. St. Cornelius (251-53) Opposed by Novatian, antipope (251)
  22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
  23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
  24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
  25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
  26. St. Felix I (269-274)
  27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
  28. St. Caius (283-296) Also called Gaius
  29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
  30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
  31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
  32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
  33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
  34. St. Marcus (336)
  35. St. Julius I (337-52)
  36. Liberius (352-66) Opposed by Felix II, antipope (355-365)
  37. St. Damasus I (366-83) Opposed by Ursicinus, antipope (366-367)
  38. St. Siricius (384-99)
  39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
  40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
  41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
  42. St. Boniface I (418-22) Opposed by Eulalius, antipope (418-419)
  43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
  44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
  45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
  46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
  47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
  48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
  49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
  50. Anastasius II (496-98)
  51. St. Symmachus (498-514) Opposed by Laurentius, antipope (498-501)
  52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
  53. St. John I (523-26)
  54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
  55. Boniface II (530-32) Opposed by Dioscorus, antipope (530)
  56. John II (533-35)
  57. St. Agapetus I (535-36) Also called Agapitus I
  58. St. Silverius (536-37)
  59. Vigilius (537-55)
  60. Pelagius I (556-61)
  61. John III (561-74)
  62. Benedict I (575-79)
  63. Pelagius II (579-90)
  64. St. Gregory I (the Great) (590-604)
  65. Sabinian (604-606)
  66. Boniface III (607)
  67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
  68. St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
  69. Boniface V (619-25)
  70. Honorius I (625-38)
  71. Severinus (640)
  72. John IV (640-42)
  73. Theodore I (642-49)
  74. St. Martin I (649-55)
  75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
  76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
  77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
  78. Donus (676-78)
  79. St. Agatho (678-81)
  80. St. Leo II (682-83)
  81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
  82. John V (685-86)
  83. Conon (686-87)
  84. St. Sergius I (687-701) Opposed by Theodore and Paschal, antipopes (687)
  85. John VI (701-05)
  86. John VII (705-07)
  87. Sisinnius (708)
  88. Constantine (708-15)
  89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
  90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
  91. St. Zachary (741-52)
  92. Stephen II (752) Because he died before being consecrated, many authoritative lists omit him
  93. Stephen III (752-57)
  94. St. Paul I (757-67)
  95. Stephen IV (767-72) Opposed by Constantine II (767) and Philip (768), antipopes (767)
  96. Adrian I (772-95)
  97. St. Leo III (795-816)
  98. Stephen V (816-17)
  99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
100. Eugene II (824-27)
101. Valentine (827)
102. Gregory IV (827-44)
103. Sergius II (844-47) Opposed by John, antipope (855)
104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
105. Benedict III (855-58) Opposed by Anastasius, antipope (855)
106. St. Nicholas I (the Great) (858-67)
107. Adrian II (867-72)
108. John VIII (872-82)
109. Marinus I (882-84)
110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
111. Stephen VI (885-91)
112. Formosus (891-96)
113. Boniface VI (896)
114. Stephen VII (896-97)
115. Romanus (897)
116. Theodore II (897)
117. John IX (898-900)
118. Benedict IV (900-03)
119. Leo V (903) Opposed by Christopher, antipope (903-904)
120. Sergius III (904-11)
121. Anastasius III (911-13)
122. Lando (913-14)
123. John X (914-28)
124. Leo VI (928)
125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
126. John XI (931-35)
127. Leo VII (936-39)
128. Stephen IX (939-42)
129. Marinus II (942-46)
130. Agapetus II (946-55)
131. John XII (955-63)
132. Leo VIII (963-64)
133. Benedict V (964)
134. John XIII (965-72)
135. Benedict VI (973-74)
136. Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
137. John XIV (983-84)
138. John XV (985-96)
139. Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
141. John XVII (1003)
142. John XVIII (1003-09)
143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
144. Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
145. John XIX (1024-32)
146. Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
147. Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
148. Benedict IX (1045)
149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
150. Clement II (1046-47)
151. Benedict IX (1047-48)
152. Damasus II (1048)
153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
154. Victor II (1055-57)
155. Stephen X (1057-58)
156. Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
157. Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert ("Clement III", antipope (1080-1100)
159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
161. Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf ("Sylvester IV", 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
162. Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin ("Gregory VIII", antipope (1118)
163. Callistus II (1119-24)
164. Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
165. Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti ("Victor IV" (1138), antipopes (1138)
166. Celestine II (1143-44)
167. Lucius II (1144-45)
168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
171. Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius ("Victor IV" (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
172. Lucius III (1181-85)
173. Urban III (1185-87)
174. Gregory VIII (1187)
175. Clement III (1187-91)
176. Celestine III (1191-98)
177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
178. Honorius III (1216-27)
179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
180. Celestine IV (1241)
181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
183. Urban IV (1261-64)
184. Clement IV (1265-68)
185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
187. Adrian V (1276)
188. John XXI (1276-77)
189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
190. Martin IV (1281-85)
191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
193. St. Celestine V (1294)
194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
196. Clement V (1305-14)
197. John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
199. Clement VI (1342-52)
200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
203. Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII", antipope (1378-1394)
204. Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva ("Clement VII" (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII" (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII" (1400-1415), antipopes
205. Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII" (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII" (1400-1415), antipopes
206. Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna ("Benedict XIII" (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa ("John XXIII" (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi ("Alexander V" (1409-1410), antipopes
207. Martin V (1417-31)
208. Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy ("Felix V", antipope (1439-1449)
209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
210. Callistus III (1455-58)
211. Pius II (1458-64)
212. Paul II (1464-71)
213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
216. Pius III (1503)
217. Julius II (1503-13)
218. Leo X (1513-21)
219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
220. Clement VII (1523-34)
221. Paul III (1534-49)
222. Julius III (1550-55)
223. Marcellus II (1555)
224. Paul IV (1555-59)
225. Pius IV (1559-65)
226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
229. Urban VII (1590)
230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
231. Innocent IX (1591)
232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
233. Leo XI (1605)
234. Paul V (1605-21)
235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
237. Innocent X (1644-55)
238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
239. Clement IX (1667-69)
240. Clement X (1670-76)
241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
244. Clement XI (1700-21)
245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
247. Clement XII (1730-40)
248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
251. Pius VI (1775-99)
252. Pius VII (1800-23)
253. Leo XII (1823-29)
254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
256. Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
258. St. Pius X (1903-14)
259. Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
260. Pius XI (1922-39)
261. Pius XII (1939-58)
262. Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
263. Paul VI (1963-78)
264. John Paul I (1978)
265. John Paul II (1978-2005)
266. Benedict XVI (2005—)

@Davidylan,

1. there was no catholic church in the time of Jesus.
2. No catholic church existed in the days of the early apostles.
3. The catholic church isnt 2000 years.

Desist from decietfully misappopriating what isnt yours.

My brother, I say we agree to disagree here.  If not, prove me wrong. . . .

@Nimshi,

This is somewhat related: there's clearly dissent within the Catholic church. Has the Vatican changed positions on the use of contraceptives? Has there been a revision of the practices regarding pedophile priests? (Cardinal Bernard Law is still a wanted man from authorities in the Boston area; he is at the Vatican. Many Catholics are outraged at the fact of his being housed at the Vatican. Just to mention two contemporary issues, ).

My friend, there has always been dissent within the Catholic Church, starting from the time of Jesus.  Throughout the 2000 years of church history the Catholic Church has experienced many ups and downs, dissent, controversy, intrigue, heresy (you name it), but fear not because the bible says:

Mathew 16:18

Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'  17 Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.  18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.  19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.'

The teachings of the Catholic Church in regards to contraception still stands.  As far as the priest scandal, I believe the higher ups have developed programs to prevent and combat it.  I guess we will have to wait and see to determine if its successful or not.  I'm not to knowledgeable on that issue though. . . .Regarding Cardinal Bernard Law, I'm not too familiar with the goings on of that issue either.

@Nimshi

Don't you think the practice of requesting the dead to pray on behalf of the living could be incompatible with the bible? Let me here declare my ignorance about the Catholic Church's teaching about Mary's current status. Could you tell? This will be important in evaluating this situation. But your comments as above, are clear: praying at a grave, I'D suppose, is to the dead. (Jesus is believed to be alive after the ressurection, so praying to God through Jesus is clearly understanding in the context of the belief). But praying to the dead? That's a tough one. I'D withold comments until you (or a knwledgeable Catholic) clarifies the current status of Mary (and other Saints in general): is she alive right now, in heaven, or not? Is she dead and awaiting ressurection? My understanding of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and a few other bible books clarifies how to treat the dead.

Mathew 27:52-53

And suddenly, the veil of the Sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom, the earth quaked, the rocks were split,
52 the tombs opened and the bodies of many holy people rose from the dead, 53 and these, after his resurrection, came out of the tombs, entered the holy city and appeared to a number of people.

Many of the saints (presumably includes Old Testament Saints) were raised from where they were (however you define it; heaven, hell, purgatory, some other place) and went into the city to appear and interact with the people, just as Jesus did after His resurrection.  Did the people conjure up these saints? No. . . .It is only by the power of God for this miracle to have occurred.  Again, the Catholic Church does not teach the faithful to conjure up the dead to obtain information from them.  But, the dead may interact with the living whenever God so wishes (not by our own power).  When catholics say, 'we pray to the saints', it only means that we ask them (i.e., saints, holy ones, angels) to help us by praying to God for us and with us (through Jesus Christ).  We believe that just as our living brothers and sisters in Christ can pray or intercede for us, so can our brothers and sisters who are in heaven.  Jesus himself, converses with Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration:

Matt. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31

1 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain by themselves.
2 There in their presence he was transfigured: his face shone like the sun and his clothes became as dazzling as light.
3 And suddenly Moses and Elijah appeared to them; they were talking with him.

This tells us that:
1. Jesus conversed with Old Testament Saints
2. Definition of converse (conversed, conversing, converses) - To engage in a spoken exchange of thoughts, ideas, or feelings; talk.
[list]
[li]Moses and Elijah had some idea of what was going on here on earth[/li]
[/list]

Peter then says:

4. . . .'Lord,' he said, 'it is wonderful for us to be here; if you want me to, I will make three shelters here, one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.'

Peter proclaimed that what was taking place was wonderful and offered to build them shelters.  Why did Peter not shout out that this was against the Old Testament customs/laws?  They knew Moses and Elijah were dead, abi?  Or did they not?. . . .

So, to answer your question. . . .no, I don't think asking the saints to pray for us is incompatible with the Bible.  On the contrary, I believe God commanded us (the church) to pray for one another.  I believe the practice is very Biblical.  I believe that those who are with God in heaven are more alive then we on earth and because of that they are most righteous.  In the Catholic Church one is not required to pray to the saints at all.  But to us, it would be like me never asking anyone alive to pray for me.  When we use or say the term 'pray' as in, "pray to the saints" we only mean to use it in a secondary since:

To ask (someone) imploringly; beseech. Now often used elliptically for I pray you to introduce a request or entreaty: Pray be careful.

And since saints and angels are in heaven we believe that their prayers are very powerful.  The Bible says that the prayers of the upright are very powerful. We ask them to beseech God (through Jesus Christ) to help us in our times of need.

James 5:16

So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another to be cured; the heartfelt prayer of someone upright works very powerfully.

Here is Hebrews 11:39-40 again 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Those verses are talking about a PROMISE not a REWARD. It is failure to carefully read what the bible actually says that makes us quote nonsense. Where did it talk of recieving a greater reward there?

Verse 39 said the heroes of faith recieved not the promise . . . what promise? If you bothered to read from Heb 6 at least (like i've been saying all along rather than relying on footnotes) you shld be able to decipher that it was the same promise Isaiah prophesied about in Is 9:6.

Now verse 40 says we obtained the promise (God provided a better thing for us) . . . what was it? Same thing the OT heroes missed! The perfect sacrifice of Christ's blood on the cross of calvary.

I reiterate, read through the entire chapter of Hebrews . . . from begining to the end it talks about why the promise of Christ's sacrifice on the cross was needful and why we shld be grateful, those of us who have been counted worthy to have recieved this promise that men like Abraham did not get.

Are you saying Abraham is not in heaven? When I say reward/promise I mean to say that they are in heaven. When Paul was writing this letter (Hebrews) the aforementioned Old Testament heroes are where?

A. Heaven (Jesus is risen)
B. Hell
C. Some other place

Which is it? And if they were in heaven when Paul is writing his letter are not they (Old Testament Heroes) part of the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrew 12:1? What exactly are you saying? I'm simply saying that they have received their promise after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Before the resurrection they had not received it. After the resurrection they received it. Paul did write this epistle/letter after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, right?

davidylan:
I remember a simple prayer by the publican in the bible . . . Luke 18:13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Simple, sincere, from the heart and it was accepted of him. What is the biblical significance of using beads to "meditate"? What is the spiritual significance of the recitation of standard prayers? Counting the number of prayers? Where did Christ teach this?

How can you be "encouraged in your faith" by something that is clearly frowned upon by the bible?

good. Question 3 crossed out.

My brother, I told you before the Rosary is not an obligatory prayer for Catholics.  But the rosary is a powerful prayer against ekwensu (the devil).  Regarding the use of the beads; you don't have to use them to meditate on the Gospel.  You can use your clock, fingers, rocks, sticks, toes etc., to keep track of the time.  Have you herd of devotional prayers?  Better yet, have you ever just read the Gospel to meditate on the significance of what Jesus has done for us.  That is exactly what the rosary is.  The significance of the rosary prayers is to meditate on the gospel. 

"What is spiritual significance. . . .Counting the number of prayers?  Where did Christ teach this?"  What, are you serious?  What kind of questions are those?  Get to your point already.  Did Jesus teach us to celebrate his birthday?  Did He teach us to celebrate his birthday on Dec. 25, when scripture scholars have largely agreed that Jesus was not born anywhere near the month of December?  I don't understand these question you are asking me.  I mean, you can quite easily answer them yourself.  Again, the rosay is comprised of a series of prayers; whereby, we meditate or use the gospel as a devotional tool to contemplate the life of Jesus.

@Nimshi,

Welcome to the thread.  This is what you posted:

Saul the King of Israel consulted a spirit medium at Endor; or, didn't he?

He must have known that the practice existed; the Israelites knew as Leviticus and Deuteronomy makes clear.

Deut. 18:10-15 - "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed"

Read those verses again.  What does God forbid?  What do Catholics actually practice.  Give your interpretation of the parts of Deuteronomy and Numbers that condemn prayer to the saints. The Bible teaches us that God has forbidden the practice of conjuring up the dead or necromantic practices.  More to the point, God indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information. We are to look to God's prophets instead. The Catholic Church condemns the above practice of necromancy or calling upon dead people in order to obtain information.  In other words, one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, "Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now." The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf.

@~Lady~

Those are the same questions I'm asking of Davidylan.  Where in the Bible does it say what scriptures are inspired?  Once we can answer that question then we can move on.  Because my Bible and his Bible are different.  He then posted Tim 3:16.  Davidylan, maybe its me and my eyes are failing me.  But, did you read Tim 3:16?  Let me post it:

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Where in that verse does the Bible tell me what books are inspired?  Siimple enough question.  Please answer. . . .Just like your celebration of Christmas (no where in the Bible), your celebration of Easter (no where in the Bible), your worshiping on the 'Day of the Sun' (no where in the Bible).  So, in other words. . . .you are following the traditions of men.  Show me where these things are found in scripture.  I don't want essay, biko.

1. however i still am a bit puzzled as to where in the scriptures specific prayers are asked of us and are supposed to be counted on beads.

2. there is talk that St Mary appeared to St Dominic to encourage its use, do you know the biblical stance on the dead appearing to the living?

3. Isnt prayer a form of communication with God and not a strict form of ritual?

Answer 1:  The beads are to keep pace of the time period used to contemplate/meditate on a particular mystery.  It also is a way to count the number of prayers the individual wishes to pray.

Answer 2:  Catholics are not required to believe in any post Bible apparitions or appearances of saints.  I personally don't put to much stock into appearances by saints.  But, many people do and are encouraged in their faith and that is always good.

Answer 3:  Yes

You read your own nonsense and ask yourself why you deserve a greater reward than Abraham, Elija, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, John the Baptist, Isaiah . . . men who actually did something more than just sit on nairaland misquoting the bible.

So because our reward is greater than those of the Old Testament, they do not receive there reward at all.  Look, in the passage they already have their reward, they are in Heaven.  But because we are Christian and presumably persevere till the end our reward will be greater.  What are you talking about?  My original statement still stands.

Old Testament Heroes ----> Jesus Resurrection -------> Old Testament Heroes receive reward (we will receive greater) -------> Hebrews written

I don't understand what your saying. I see you didn't go and check what other scholars had to say about that passage, lol fine.

Where is the rosary commanded in the bible?

The rosary is not an obligatory prayer in the Catholic Church.  One does not have to pray the rosary to make it to heaven.  It is only a devotional tool and prayer (among many) that some people use to reflect on the Gospel.  Nothing more, nothing less.

ROTFLMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

omenuko, don't mind David, if you ask him question now he won't know how to answer, all he knows is to start rouble and misinterpret the Bible.

I DON'T KNOW WHY I EVEN BOTHER WITH A MAN THAT SAID THERE ARE NO LONGER 10 COMMANDMENTS, AND THAT THE APOSTLES DIDN'T TEACH CHRISTIAN VIRTUES.

Tell him to produce the scripture that Jesus and the apostles used to preach the gospel, he won't because he cannot.
Watch him skip over bringing scripture, instead he's going to go on asking the same questions.

I know. . .

@Davidylan,

Just as you will not find the word 'trinity' in the Bible, likewise you won't find the word 'rosary' in the Bible.  The Rosary prayer are comprised of a series of meditation/contemplations on the Gospel.  Basically, we call them mysteries.  The mysteries are as follow: Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious, and Luminous.  Each Mystery calls us to reflect on the Gospel.

2 tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It is possible that we do not have "ALL scripture" . . . but God is faithful in that we are only judged on the revelation available to us at this time. I reiterate . . . Lazarus the beggar could probably not afford his own torah, Abraham didnt even have any laws to live by and yet God was faithful to keep them.

Are you kidding me?  So Tim. 3:16 tells me what scriptures are inspired.  Tim. 3:16 tells me what books in the New Testament are inspired.  It tells me what Old Testament Books are inspired.  My friend, go and find the correct passage, I beg.

Because the bible is the work of man. God didnt commission the compilation. God didnt tell Paul or Peter to do so. He merely moved on them to write letters to the church which man now put together in one volume . . . why then do you expect such instruction in the bible?

No ma'am . . . to claim that reading the bible is the traditions of men is FALSEHOOD. Its like saying that Shakespeares works are no longer his since he didnt compile it into one volume himself. That is laughably stupid and a lie of the devil.

I say it again, throw away your bible and simply pick the parchments of the dead sea scrolls, you'D be virtually reading the same thing. I know you can't understand, You're basically "asking" pre-programmed questions.

I beg, show me Bible verse and stop writing essay.

I worship everyday. We gather together on one generally accepted day . . .

Accepted by who. . .Men (Traditions of Men).  Show me Bible verse.

@Davidyland,

I'm a man not a woman.

no, because i don't believe in reading the bible in isolation. Remember that the division into chapters was essentially not by Paul but made by those who "compiled" the bible.

don't read Heb 12 until you have at least read from Heb 6. It is one smooth flowing story . . . its not long . . . perhaps that way you get the full picture rather than building a theology on Heb 11:40b!

You haven't said anything new but rehash what i just said. the old testament heroes did not receive the promise of Heb 11:39 because they died before the perfect sacrifice. We who come after the perfect sacrifice are the ones who receive the promise even though we arent dead yet Heb 11:40.

What is new?

Ok, since you are stubborn, go and read any Bible commentary on those verses and come back and present what you found.  Are you saying that Paul (at this moment) believed that the Heroes of the Old Testament were not in Heaven at the time he was writing this book (after the resurrection of Christ)?

All the passage is saying is that we as Christian (so long as we persevere in the faith) will have greater reward in heaven than those of the old testament.

Rubbish my dear . . . rubbish. Did Luke 15:7 tell you that those rejoicing in heaven over the salvation of one person on earth where dead saints?
You're basically linking 2 completely unrelated verses together to force a false theology.

I think once you go and read other scripture scholars take on the Hebrews passage you will have a different take.

where is the use of the rosary sanctioned in the bible?

It seems you're confused because you're asking for two things:
- doctrine of trinity (rosary)
- where in the bible does the word "trinity"("rosary) appear.

Where did God expressly tell you to go compile a bible and put so and so books there?
this is a plainly dishonest question catholics have been trained by rota to repeat like a broken record (lady, imhotep all rushed to grab the same questions each time they were faced with their questionable dogma).

I said it and i repeat again . . . if i throw away my bible and simply have the dead sea scrolls available to me i believer strongly that i will be judged based on the word that was available to me at the time. The thief on the cross read not a shred of the torah or the gospels neither did he go listen to Christ yet he made heaven.

Keep asking the questions that hold no water.

How is the question dishonest?  Ok, let me rephrase my question, how do you know the books in your Bible are inspired?  

The bible is a compilation . . . it is the letters that make it up that are more significant. Christ had only the law and the prophets in his days. the early apostles had the law, prophets and the epistles . . .

man's compilation is of no consequence to God. period.

More non-scriptural support.  Just say it, the Bible doesn't say which books should be in the Bible, simple.  In other words, you are following the traditions of men.

Point of correction . . . i don't PRACTICE a holiday, i observe a holiday officially set aside to remember an occassion that is supposed to be part of your daily work with God. I mentioned earlier . . . the communion is VERY BIBLICAL . . . we are not expressly told what and what dates to observe it so we do it when and as often as we want . . . IN REMEMBRANCE OF HIM. The spiritual significance is what matters.

don't worry for my soul, be worried about urs.

Blah blah blah, you observe a holiday that is non-biblical.  And you worship on the day of the Sun,  when pagans worshiped the sun god.

Here it is again - where is the use (term) of the rosary (trinity) sanctioned in the bible?

Go back and stop quoting halfway - Heb 11:39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

My friend, Hebrews was written after the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  So, you go back and read your bible.  They received their promise after the resurrection.

Old testament Heroes (OTH) ----->resurrection of Jesus-------> OTH receive promise  --------> Book of Hebrews written

Make sense?

the bible was silent on that . . . it is you who is forcing your interpretation into that. Who were those God was talking to in Gen 1 when He said let us make man in our own image? Where there saints there already?

God was talking to (Himself, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit).  Now you want to say the Bible was silent.  So you can't link read Luke 15:7 and Hebrew 12:1 together?  Why not pray to God and ask him to reveal to you what he meant in those passages, since you say the Bible is silent.

I will oblige you with more than 1, my sister:

- John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

- John 14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?

- Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

- Up to this point we are clear that the "child" or the "Son" are one and the same with the Father. How about the Holy Spirit?

- Romans 8:11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

- Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

- Ah how could ananias have lied unto God and the Holy Spirit at once if they were different entities?

now we know that the Spirit of God is the same Holy Ghost that dwells in us. So the Spirit of God is God Himself who is the same as the "child" (everlasting Father) that we were given in Isaiah 9.

Brother John then caps it up here - 1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Trinity as a word isnt in my bible . . . i don't need it . . . my bible is sufficient to tell me that the three are one.

My brother, nowhere in those passages do I see 'Trinity'.  I said show me where the doctrine of the Trinity can be found in the Bible.  I don't want any allusions or un-explicit readings or personal interpretations.  I want to see the verse where it says the "Trinity is, "

The bible as a compilation is man's labour. It is the letters, the epistles, the laws . . . that were God inspired Holy men to write for our examples. I quoted a verse earlier where Paul admonished the Laodecian and Colossian brethren to exchange his letters and ensure they are read in the church. The didnt carry around the bible as we have it today, but God sustained them through those very letters . . . if i throw away my bible today and simply make a photocopy of the dead sea scrolls i wont lose anything. I'D still have God's words to read.

So, in other words you can't show me the Book, Chapter, and verse of the answer (from the Bible).  I don't want the answers of men.  Show me where is says this book and that book she be part of the bible.  Come back to me with the answer when you find it.  I won't take your personal opinions.

hat is none of my business . . . i am more interested in the letters of inspired men of God and the Spirit of God who drove them to write down the very words that sustain our walk with God today.

Oh ok, so the Bible doesn't say when it was compiled.  Tough, you don't want to put your personal opinion for this question?  No answer, fine.

. Not everyone celebrates them.
2. they are merely "official" days by which we remember an event that the genuinely born again christian is supposed to make the cornerstone of his very life.
3. Remember Paul admonishing the brethren on remembering the Lord's death in the breaking of bread? The significance was not in the date or how many times they did it, rather it was in the fact that in doing so they focused on the spiritual significance of His death and resurrection.

Oh my, so you mean to say you practice holidays (based on pagan holidays: winter and summer solstice) and your fine with that.  You celebrate holidays that are totally non-biblical and you are fine with that.  My friend, I worry for you soul.  Traditions of men.

when i was born i met it that way. Everyday is my day of worship, sunday is merely a symbolic day we all come together as brethren to fellowship with one another. The early apostles actively encouraged communal fellowship (iron sharpeneth iron) . . . i'm not sure they cared very much about the day of the week.

Another tradition of men.  Show me scripture please.  I don't want your opinion.  

next?

Yes, next indeed.  Show me these things from the Bible.  I'll help you out, you don't have to use my bible (Catholic one), you can use yours (Protestant one).

John 2:1-11

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.  Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding.  When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come."  His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you."  Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons.  Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim.  Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter."  So they took it.  And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now."  Jesus did this as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his glory, and his disciples began to believe in him.

Heb 11:39-40

Yet all these, though approved because of their faith, did not receive what had been promised.  God had foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made perfect

"So that without us they should not be made perfect."  What this is saying is that the heroes of the Old Testament obtained their recompense only after the saving works of Christ had been accomplished.  In other words, they arleady enjoy what Christians who are still struggling do not yet have.

then we have Hebrews 12:1-2:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us 2 and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith. For the sake of the joy that lay before him he endured the cross, despising its shame, and has taken his seat at the right of the throne of God.

It says we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses who are the saints/holy-ones/heroes-old who are in heaven.

Luke 15:5-7

And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, 'Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.'  I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

Who are those that will have joy over the repentance of one sinner?

davidylan:
you wont catch me on websites. I only read what you have to say and go search my bible whether those things are there. simple. Ee kwa my father abi?   The man is a fine example of a christian i hope to emulate, he's not a mule even though he can be stubborn.

you people keep saying "if you have question ask", i've been doing that since the last 2 pages. All i get for "answer" is tons of pages refering to everything else but the question i asked. What shld i do?

Ok, you keep saying "where is that in the Bible"?  How much clearer do I need to be.  Not everything we do and practice is written explicitly in the Bible.  Let me ask you some questions since you don't want to be reasonble:

1.  Find me the verse (just one verse) where the bible talks about the doctrine of the Trinity (I'm sure our muslim brothers would appreciate it)?
2.  Show me in the Bible where it says the number, names, and types of books that are supposed to comprise it?
3.  When was the Bible compiled?
4.  Why is my bible different from yours (I have the catholic bible, and you the protestant one)?
5.  Why do you practice non-scriptural Holidays such as Christmas and Easter (and nowhere in the bible does it say we should celebrate them)?
6.  Why on earth do you worship on Sunday (Day of the Sun: a pagan day)?

Answer me these questions and then we can come back and talk, full stop.

@Davidylan,

davidylan:
Nothing was clarified . . . please don't abuse that word. Open the bible and clarify it for me, i just got bored chasing shadows and talking with mules.

Talking with mules, ee kwa?  Your father.

Confession

John 20:22 - And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

As you can see the apostles were given the power to forgive and retain sins.  Note, that the only other time that God breathes on man is Gen 2:7.  These instances mark times when significant transformation takes place.  In Genesis, the Lord breathes divine life into man.  You may not agree with my interpretation of whats going on in these verses but you would really have to stretch the truth to read anything else into them. 

After, you whan bring wahala with mother Mary; ok fine, we clarify am, finish.

Read this thread . . . is that your idea of "clarify am finish"?

Ok, what else do you want to know about the Blessed Virgin Mary?  She is a created being just like you and me.  She was a holy and devout woman of God.  She was greeted by the angel as "hail, full of Grace".  The holy Spirit came upon her and she was overshadowed by the Power of the Most High.  She conceived and gave birth to 'God the Son'.  Therefore, she is the mother of 'God the Son'.  She is the daughter of 'God the Father' and she is the spouse of 'God the Holy Spirit. 

God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother, She is the true mother of God and bearer of God, Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc.  For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus, not two Christs, just as your son is not two sons, even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone.

Guess who, (The founder of the Reformation)-----Martin Luther On the Councils and the Church (1539)

She was prefigured in the 'Protoevangelium' (latin for 'first Gospel) in Genesis 3:15:

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.

In addition, because of her intercession Jesus began his ministry and revealed his glory (John 2:1-11).  She also suffered at the crucifixion of her Son:

Luke 2:34-35 - Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is destined for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be contradicted (and you yourself a sword will pierce) so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed."

She is the champion of saints and intercedes on our behalf.

Communion of Saints

where did the bible tell you to "pray to holy ones"?

Eph. 3:14-15 - For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named

Every family: in the Greek there is wordplay on the word for the Father (patria, pater). The phrase could also mean "God's whole family"

The body of Christ is one family in heaven and on earth.  Those who have died in Christ are not separate children from us, we are united together.  This is why, in the Apostles Creed, we profess a belief in the "communion of saints."  Our family members who are in heaven (we call them holy ones, aka saints) and those who are here on earth constitute this 'communion'.  Those who are in heaven are concerned about those who are here on earth:

Heb. 12:1: Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us while keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith.

The "cloud of witnesses" refers to the saints who are not only watching us from above but cheering us on in our race to heaven.  There cannot be a "communion" if there is no union.  Loving beings, whether on earth or in heaven, are concerned for other beings, and this concern is reflected spiritually through prayers for one another.  We ask the 'holy ones' to pray for us to God.  And they do:

Rev.5:8 - When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.

I'm  not saying all this to convert you to Catholicism, what I would like for to do is the take the time out to listen to what people have to say.  Please don't go to anti-catholic websites and post nonsense and lies about catholics.  If you have a question, ask.  If you don't agree with what they are saying, then prove your case.  But don't stoop so low as to start distributing insults because of disagreement.  Thats no way to dialogue.