italo:

He said he is sincere.

What kind of sincere person dreads simple questions?

PastorOluT: u guys should keep being selective whiile u seek evidence which is everywhere, providing evidence in history u guys would definitely still see something to say in defense. I said lets look at the present while u all neglected that, u claimed u want the past to reflect the present, then I said ow about the bible to judge? u still neglected that, i think dis thread is fast loosing its purpose even before starting.

NB Italo, if u want me to continue, then lets look at the scriptures (for history u all seek) that we both believe in to judge some of the practices listed.

Bidam:

PastorOluT: u guys should keep being selective whiile u seek evidence which is everywhere, providing evidence in history u guys would definitely still see something to say in defense. I said lets look at the present while u all neglected that, u claimed u want the past to reflect the present, then I said ow about the bible to judge? u still neglected that, i think dis thread is fast loosing its purpose even before starting.
NB Italo, if u want me to continue, then lets look at the scriptures (for history u all seek) that we both believe in to judge some of the practices listed.

italo:

Thanks for your reply. Just to let you know that I have no problem whatsoever with people with differing opinions from mine. What I have a problem with is insincerity and hypocrisy.

Allow me to ask you more questions based on this reply of yours.

1. When you say the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed, you agree it was founded by Jesus Christ?

2. You claim the Church was good until the Papacy ruined it. When did this happen? Give us a date or a timeframe at least...and tell us where you got the information from.

3. Are you serious and sincere when you say "anyone" against the papacy was burned? If you are, please give us the date the papacy went bad and I will provide evidence that what you said is false.

4. You said idolatry came in with veneration of saints. Give us the date when this came in.

5. where did you learn that Mary and statues take God's place...and who told you that prayers must pass through Mary to be legitimate and that she became more important than Christ to the Catholic Church? Pls tell us where the Catholic Church teaches that?

6. You said "The bible no longer became the final authority." Please tell us the date the bible came about, who brought about it, and when was the Bible ever the final authority?

Thanks.

This is funny, asking me to provide dates n time to all these well known facts? Anyways ow I got to know them is not hearsay bt what I read myself over the years, i have read different write ups over the years bt would mention the few I remembered. The foxes book of martyrs among many others, bt as for the acts of the papacy, got info from many different places even online.

Ubenedictus: i'm sure italo wouldn't mind if you answered the question.

PastorOluT:

U see urself? after neglecting what i said about d first questio about the name catholic, n d further suggestions i gave.

Keep being religious defending with all ur might

PastorOluT: u guys should keep being selective whiile u seek evidence which is everywhere, providing evidence in history u guys would definitely still see something to say in defense. I said lets look at the present while u all neglected that, u claimed u want the past to reflect the present, then I said ow about the bible to judge? u still neglected that, i think dis thread is fast loosing its purpose even before starting.

NB Italo, if u want me to continue, then lets look at the scriptures (for history u all seek) that we both believe in to judge some of the practices listed.

italo:

1. When you say the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed, you agree it was founded by Jesus Christ?

You did not answer this question. Please do so in the spirit of sincerity.

2. You claim the Church was good until the Papacy ruined it. When did this happen? Give us a date or a timeframe at least...and tell us where you got the information from.

You said you got this from several places online. Pls show us these sources and when they say the Papacy went bad.

3. Are you serious and sincere when you say "anyone" against the papacy was burned? If you are, please give us the date the papacy went bad and I will provide evidence that what you said is false.

Please show us evidence that everyone against the papacy was burned if you are sincere.

4. You said idolatry came in with veneration of saints. Give us the date when this came in.

Veneration of Saints was before the Church compiled the Bible. So if veneration of Saints came from an evil or erroneous Church, the Bible also did. How then can the Bible be trusted?

5. where did you learn that Mary and statues take God's place...and who told you that prayers must pass through Mary to be legitimate and that she became more important than Christ to the Catholic Church? Pls tell us where the Catholic Church teaches that?

You still can't answer these.

6. You said "The bible no longer became the final authority." Please tell us the date the bible came about, who brought about it, and when was the Bible ever the final authority?

Please answer this if you are sincere.

italo:

How many Churches did Jesus found...one or many?

Is it the Church Jesus founded that turned into the Catholic Church...

Or the Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church?

PastorAIO:

I think that you've conflated Italo with other people who jumped on the thread. We are guilty of muddying the waters. I think that Tobechi was the main culprit. But that shouldn't stop you from focusing on your discussion with Italo.
After your first response in which you said the Catholic church was founded by Jesus the following is Italo's reply. this is when he asked for historical dates. There is nothing selective there.




You also said this:


To return to my Robbery analogy, if a detective knows for sure that a house has been burgled does that make it irrelevant to try to ascertain the time of the break in? Will that be useless to his inquiry?

Asking for the time something happened has no bearing on whether it happened ... unless of course it didn't happen at all.

4. You said idolatry came in with veneration of saints. Give us the date when this came in.

italo:

The man is trying hard to dodge my questions because he is not sincere in his claims.

Simple.

JMAN05:

I know this will arise. Even if he answers, Italo will keep firing until he fades up, then he will use it against him. If you can read the handwriting...

PastorAIO:

I think that you've conflated Italo with other people who jumped on the thread. We are guilty of muddying the waters. I think that Tobechi was the main culprit. But that shouldn't stop you from focusing on your discussion with Italo.
After your first response in which you said the Catholic church was founded by Jesus the following is Italo's reply. this is when he asked for historical dates. There is nothing selective there.




You also said this:


To return to my Robbery analogy, if a detective knows for sure that a house has been burgled does that make it irrelevant to try to ascertain the time of the break in? Will that be useless to his inquiry?

Asking for the time something happened has no bearing on whether it happened ... unless of course it didn't happen at all.

PastorOluT:

That's sure a wrong analogy 'cos the proof really is the then n the now which even if the exact time wasn't given it change nothing. Ok, i said something was definitely wrong 'cos things have changed, now u asked when things changed? Does that make any difference as to when bt it has, this is simple 'cos when we compare the past as against the future, then sure things are different.

I need not talk much anyways, I even mentioned Foxes book of Martyrs as to one of my sources. So why not try to say something about that if truly u are sincere?

Comparing the past (when i say the past i meant that in the bible) with the future shows that there is something definitely wrong.

PastorAIO:

I think I get your point. However these are my points:

Every thing is subject to change. Everything in this world.

So the question we should be asking is not whether it changed, but rather whether it has been Corrupted. Ie. whether there has been a change for the worse.

As a genuine christian who cares about the gospel if we find that it has been corrupted in anyway I imagine that the next question should be 'When and How did the corruption take place?'.

How else can you start trying to fix the problem? If you go to the doctor and you are sick, before trying to give you any medicine or cures surely the doctor will first ask where you fell ill, what were the circumstances, in other words he will first make a diagnosis. If you then tell him that you remember eating something dubious last night at 8pm then he can now administer a cure for Food poisoning taking into account all the information you gave him.

So you see, if you can tell us a date wherein corruption entered the church that would show that you actually care rather than just slinging mud.


I haven't heard of that book you mentioned and to be honest, i don't mean this to be rude, I'm unlikely to go out and buy a book just because of this matter. If you can show us some links or quotes from the book then that would be helpful. Also who was the author of the book, are they qualified historians, did they undergo a rigorous study of the Catholic church's history? These are all pertinent questions.

PastorAIO:

I think I get your point. However these are my points:

Every thing is subject to change. Everything in this world.

So the question we should be asking is not whether it changed, but rather whether it has been Corrupted. Ie. whether there has been a change for the worse.

As a genuine christian who cares about the gospel if we find that it has been corrupted in anyway I imagine that the next question should be 'When and How did the corruption take place?'.

How else can you start trying to fix the problem? If you go to the doctor and you are sick, before trying to give you any medicine or cures surely the doctor will first ask where you fell ill, what were the circumstances, in other words he will first make a diagnosis. If you then tell him that you remember eating something dubious last night at 8pm then he can now administer a cure for Food poisoning taking into account all the information you gave him.

So you see, if you can tell us a date wherein corruption entered the church that would show that you actually care rather than just slinging mud.


I haven't heard of that book you mentioned and to be honest, i don't mean this to be rude, I'm unlikely to go out and buy a book just because of this matter. If you can show us some links or quotes from the book then that would be helpful. Also who was the author of the book, are they qualified historians, did they undergo a rigorous study of the Catholic church's history? These are all pertinent questions.

PastorOluT:

Never heard of the book? No problem, bt u betrayed ur sincerity with d questions, are they qualified historians? And the likes.

As for the name, his name is George Fox (though not hundred percent sure about the first name), and I will provide a link maybe when I go online with a better device.

John Foxe (1516/17[1] – 18 April 1587) was an English historian and martyrologist, the author of Actes and Monuments (popularly known as Foxe's Book of Martyrs), an account of Christian martyrs throughout Western history but emphasizing the sufferings of English Protestants and proto-Protestants from the fourteenth century through the reign of Mary I. Widely owned and read by English Puritans, the book helped mould British popular opinion about the Catholic Church for several centuries.[

Foxe resigned from his college in 1545 after becoming a Protestant and thereby subscribing to beliefs condemned by the Church of England under Henry VIII

Foxe based his accounts of martyrs before the early modern period on previous writers, including Eusebius, Bede, Matthew Paris, and many others. Foxe's own contribution was his compilation of the English martyrs from the period of the Lollards through the persecution of Mary I. Here Foxe had primary sources of all kinds to draw on: episcopal registers, reports of trials, and the testimony of eyewitnesses, a remarkable range of sources for English historical writing of the period.[47]

Foxe's material is more accurate when he deals with his own period, although it is selectively presented, and the book is not an impartial account.

Foxe often treated his material casually, and any reader "must be prepared to meet plenty of small errors and inconsistencies."[50] Furthermore, Foxe did not hold to later notions of neutrality or objectivity. He made unambiguous side glosses on his text, such as "Mark the apish pageants of these popelings" and "This answer smelleth of forging and crafty packing",[51] as Foxe's age was one of strong language as well as of cruel deeds.[52] The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica went so far as to accuse Foxe of "wilful falsification of evidence."[53]

After his death, Foxe's Acts and Monuments continued to be published and appreciatively read. John Burrow refers to it as, after the Bible, "the greatest single influence on English Protestant thinking of the late Tudor and early Stuart period.

the book's credibility was challenged in the early nineteenth century by a number of authors, most importantly, Samuel R. Maitland.[72] In the words of one Catholic Victorian, after Maitland's critique, "no one with any literary pretensions...ventured to quote Foxe as an authority."[73] Further analysis of Maitland's criticism in the twenty-first century has in the words of David Loades, that Maitland "deserves to be treated with genuine, but limited, respect. His demolition of the martyrologist's history of the Waldenses, and of some of his other medieval reconstructions, was accurate up to a point, but he never addressed those parts of the Acts and Monuments where Foxe was at his strongest, and his general conclusion that the work was nothing but a tissue of fabrications and distortions is not supported by modern analysis."

PastorAIO:

Thank you for the name. I googled it and actually it's John Foxe. Now, how is asking for someone's credentials as an history betraying my (in)sincerity. I believe you are trying to say I'm insincere rather than sincere.

Actually I am sincere in the question, and of course it's an obvious question to ask. Would you take serious medical advise from someone who wasn't a medical doctor?

As it happens, John Foxe was an historian. Let's take a closer look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foxe













You can also get a pdf of the book here: http://ihtys.narod.ru/foxes_book_of_martyrs.pdf


Now, all in all, nothing that I've read so far tells me when the church that Jesus founded became corrupted. As far as I can tell Foxe is a man immersed in the Wars of Religion that were tearing Europe apart at the time and his account of things cannot really be seen as anything other than propaganda. That is not to say that nasty things weren't done to protestants by Catholics and Church of England-ers, but that the facts would have been presented in a biased way, and there would obviously be no mention made of the atrocities of the Protestants.


Bros, When did the Church of Christ become corrupt? What happened and when did it start to happen?

PastorAIO:

Thank you for the name. I googled it and actually it's John Foxe. Now, how is asking for someone's credentials as an history betraying my (in)sincerity. I believe you are trying to say I'm insincere rather than sincere.

Actually I am sincere in the question, and of course it's an obvious question to ask. Would you take serious medical advise from someone who wasn't a medical doctor?

As it happens, John Foxe was an historian. Let's take a closer look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foxe













You can also get a pdf of the book here: http://ihtys.narod.ru/foxes_book_of_martyrs.pdf


Now, all in all, nothing that I've read so far tells me when the church that Jesus founded became corrupted. As far as I can tell Foxe is a man immersed in the Wars of Religion that were tearing Europe apart at the time and his account of things cannot really be seen as anything other than propaganda. That is not to say that nasty things weren't done to protestants by Catholics and Church of England-ers, but that the facts would have been presented in a biased way, and there would obviously be no mention made of the atrocities of the Protestants.


Bros, When did the Church of Christ become corrupt? What happened and when did it start to happen?

SalC:
1000 likes!
I recognise proper unbiased and balanced analysis when I see one!

PastorOluT:

Smile, do u realize that dis say nothing in a whole lot of evidences available on the man? It suits u 'cos that's what u were expecting anyways.

PastorAIO:

Thank you for the name. I googled it and actually it's John Foxe. Now, how is asking for someone's credentials as an history betraying my (in)sincerity. I believe you are trying to say I'm insincere rather than sincere.

Actually I am sincere in the question, and of course it's an obvious question to ask. Would you take serious medical advise from someone who wasn't a medical doctor?

As it happens, John Foxe was an historian. Let's take a closer look. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Foxe













You can also get a pdf of the book here: http://ihtys.narod.ru/foxes_book_of_martyrs.pdf


Now, all in all, nothing that I've read so far tells me when the church that Jesus founded became corrupted. As far as I can tell Foxe is a man immersed in the Wars of Religion that were tearing Europe apart at the time and his account of things cannot really be seen as anything other than propaganda. That is not to say that nasty things weren't done to protestants by Catholics and Church of England-ers, but that the facts would have been presented in a biased way, and there would obviously be no mention made of the atrocities of the Protestants.


Bros, When did the Church of Christ become corrupt? What happened and when did it start to happen?

PastorOluT:

Smile, [b]do u realize that dis say nothing in a whole lot of evidences available on the man?[/b It suits u 'cos that's what u were expecting anyways.

JMAN05:

I said the question is not for evryone.

In other words, I am saying that the context of the questions is with pastorolut in mind. If he had me and my belief in mind, the questions wouldn't have been so.

Ubenedictus:

he probably will ask you why you think the arian were the real christians.

That is a story for another day.

JMAN05:

That would have been wrong too.

Ubenedictus: so what would be right? What happened to the church founded by christ and the apostles?

PastorOluT: What's there to dodge in the questions? The only reason I am yet to visit this thread is chance, keep ur mind at rest 'cos I will duly do that as a sincere man.