₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU: Check the suggested link below for the differences.

http://www.mtc.org/dtrcc.html

you know what? You never cease to amaze me, i ask where you get the idea that catholic dont believe that Jesus is God and what i get is all crap, a website that doesnt even talk about the trinity, the protestant who owns that site really needs to do some reading into catholic doctrine before he start talking crap, he really needs to be able to learn and understand because i seriously question is ability to reason and lastly he needs to open his bible ask for the holy spirit. Actually the first time i ever thought that you were matured enough or maybe ready to let your maturity show, i get a site that is off topic and doesnt know the abc of theology.
Thank you for graciously insulting me.

FXKing2012: So he is only doing it for selfish purpose, not really for justice. Then who is committing the bigger crime? Is it not the lawyer?
Why did u cut off the part where I said tens of thousands of children get slapped in Nigeria everyday. Since when is slapping a child a crime in Nigeria. Do u want to tell me u have never slapped a child (thatz if u r in Nigeria)? Corporal punishment is not a crime in Nigeria and it's used daily by millions of Nigerians.

nobody slaped children and boast about it on youtube. Oyedepo did slap and boast on youtube. That is the difference. He made a wrong decision when he decided to go on youtube.

buzugee: GENTLEMEN, i think i may have cracked the case.So a couple of weeks ago i treated myself to a KJV bible. i am looking at it now and at the back of the book of hebrews it says WRITTEN TO THE HEBREWS FROM ITALY BY TIMOTHY. so there you have it, it wasnt appollos or barnabas or paul or whatever name yall came up with. it was TIMOTHY.

this is a good one but it wont stand the light. History will reject it. Non of the early christains ever thought that hebrew is from timothy your idea will be treated as an unfounded theory because it doesnt have a source.

Goshen360: First I didn't say the book was "exclusively" written to the Hebrews. Maybe you misunderstood the context of my words. You know Christianity/body of Christ is made up of the Jews and Gentiles right. So what am saying is that, the book was "primarily" NOT "exclusively" written to the Jewish Christians who came to Christ but still considering Judaism. I also said, NOT only the Jews but all those who comes to Christ by faith. See the quote below and the highlights.



Second. I believe and can also prove to you and everyone that Paul wrote this book of Hebrews. Here is my thought:

Peter primarily ministered to the Jews ONLY that became Christians while Paul was primarily sent and ministered to the Gentiles ONLY who became Christians (Galatians 2:7 ). Peter when he wrote to the Jewish Christians he was primarily sent to and ministered to made mentioned about an epistle written by Paul to the Jews (2 Peter 3:15-16) different from Paul's usual epistles that are primarily to the Gentiles. Take a look at this:

And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16 Kjv.

This is the parallel line. "Written unto you....according to wisdom" in comparison with "As also in....". Read from different translation and see the sense that "this certain/specific writings of Paul" is different from his usual "all other epistles". Now, we all know the root of the Jews is Abraham who is called Hebrew and from which God's covenant began with the Jews. I also showed you a verse where God himself called Himself the God of the Hebrews. I did not say it was exclusively written to them but primarily because of the OT content of the Jewish people heavily drawn from. Am not arguing for the title here anyway because I do not query the names of books of the bible as deemed fit by the Holy Spirit.

i will like to chip in, though peter spent most of his ministry with the jews his concluded his ministry with the gentiles, to claim that peter was a jew only apostle isnt very accurate .
Thanks

Lordave: It is pellucid that the two words are used interchangeably, but I doubt the authenticity of one them. The Oxford advanced learners English dictionary defines ghost as the spirit of a DEAD person that a living person believes they can see or hear, & defines spirit as the part of a person that includes their mind, feelings & character rather than their body. I am now thinking Holy Ghost is a wrong word since ghost has to do with a dead person, & it is utterly absurd to tag a Spirit from God a ghost. Please what is your take on this? If you can elucidate with genuine reasons why this words can be used interchangeably I will be grateful.

the use of both words spirit and ghost is from the old english which doesnt see any difference between them. A believer using any of them is ok, as far as he knows what he means.

obetodun: Do you know the names of any real men of God. Men that preach about salvation and has a passion for the unsaved souls. I have not heard that real thing in a long time I would like to listen to the real thing. I'm tired of listening to prosperity advocates and motivational proponents.

Please let me know if you have the names of any men of God like that and how I can listen to their sermon online. It does not have to be Nigerian pastors only.

I have heard of Gbile Akanni and the likes;

I really desire to listen to people that preach and don't ask for seed at the end of the sermon. Pastors that present the heart of the Father as it really is.

Thanks.

enter any catholic church, or you can get benedict xvi on net. If you want a protestant pastor, try kobus van rensburg

obetodun: Do you know the names of any real men of God. Men that preach about salvation and has a passion for the unsaved souls. I have not heard that real thing in a long time I would like to listen to the real thing. I'm tired of listening to prosperity advocates and motivational proponents.

Please let me know if you have the names of any men of God like that and how I can listen to their sermon online. It does not have to be Nigerian pastors only.

I have heard of Gbile Akanni and the likes;

I really desire to listen to people that preach and don't ask for seed at the end of the sermon. Pastors that present the heart of the Father as it really is.

Thanks.

enter any catholic church, or you can get benedict xvi on net.

Good points [quote author=Mr_Anony]Well since we agree that by hierarchy we don't mean superior christians, let us leave it at that. But let every christian who regards himself as the superior of another christian be condemned.[/quote]amen to this. Let God judge those who are his, let him reward accding to his riches. I think paragraph 872 of the cathechism of the catholic church agrees with you.

I am very sure that the criteria for entering the kingdom of God won't be whether you were a member of a catholic or protestant church or any church at all but whether you have done the will of God.

as a catholic i say amen to this. God has establish a sure way of salvation thru christ but that doesnt mean it is impossible for him to save those who do his will.

Now you are getting me confused. I first said that your popes are not infallible because they sinned and you replied by saying that the doctrine is infallible but the man can be fallible. I agreed with you that this is so. Now you are turning around to say that the man also must be infallible if the scripture written is infallible. You are contradicting yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

your point has been noted. Actually i meant that God can use a falliable human like paul or peter or benedict to proclaim infalliable doctrine.

It is not my homework, it is a challenge to you which you are shying away from.

get serious, do you know how long it will take for me to search this thread? If you really want those quotes you need to look for them.

OLAADEGBU: If you had stuck to the Scriptures in the first place instead of paroting the 'oneness doctrine' there would have been no need for any emotional outburts.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/is-jesus-god

I can also say that the word 'grandfather' is never mentioned in the Bible, does that mean no such person exists therein?



Scriptures also indicate there is three-in-oneness in the godhead. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructed the disciples, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The word name is singular in Greek, thereby indicating God’s oneness. However, the definite articles in front of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (in the original Greek) indicate they are distinct personalities, even though there is just one God.

These distinct personalities relate to each other. The Father and the Son, for example, know each other (Matthew 11:27), love each other (John 3:35), speak to each other (John 11:41-42). The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Luke 3:22), He is called another comforter or helper (John 14:16), He was sent by the Father and Jesus (John 15:26), and He seeks to glorify Jesus (John 16:13-14).



You are confusing the doctrine of the trinity with polytheism. The Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods who headed up a pantheon of many other gods and these constituted 3 separate gods, which is utterly different from the doctrine of trinity. The doctrine of trinity, if you may know, maintains that there is only one God with 3 Persons within the one Godhead.

A simple analogy of the trinity which may help you understand it is that God is like a triangle that is one figure yet has three different sides (or corners) at the same time. So there is a simultaneous threeness and oneness. Of course, no analogy is perfect since in every analogy there is a similarity and a difference. The difference here is that "sides" or "corners" are not persons. Nonetheless, the triangle does illustrate how there can be threeness and oneness at the same time. While there is one God, there are three persons within the One God. QED.



The bolded above is where we differ from the RCC. They and some other cults believe that Jesus Christ is divine but not deity. Check up on this before you swallow it hook, line and sinker.

wow, good post. Your last paragraph talks about the differences, can you explain more? What do you mean by 'diety' and 'divine'. Jesus ofcourse is God, he possess the divine substance, so where did you get the idea that catholic dont belief that Jesus is God?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]As I said earlier, I am a biblical Christian and I see no such ranking of the apostles in my bible. I have made my argument clear with Italo. There is a difference between responsibility/duty and hierarchy in the sense that one man's word is exalted above others and is revered without question. There are no superior christians. All christians are equal.[/quote]i believe you are confused. Did i say there are superior xtains? My bible lets me know that in the early church there were different offices, these different offices is what i called heriarchy, different responsiblity and authority sufficient in carrying out those responsibility. My bible also let me know that when the presbyters and bishops gather and make a decision it is binding and unquestionable. Read the council of Jerusalem. To some christain a different authority has been given just as Jesus gave his apostles power to bind and loose.

You mistake the church for a man-made organization bearing a particular name and that is wrong. The church is the collective of christians earnestly serving God irrespective of denomination and this is what the gates of hell will never prevail against.

that is you definition. For me the church was instituted by christ while on earth and he gave charge to peter to feed his sheep. He who does not belong to that church instituted by christ is on his own. Christ didnt say the gates of hell will not previal against a body of contradicting people, he said the gate of hades will not prevail against his church, which he built on peter.

I thought we had been through this before. It is God's Word that is infallible and not the hand that holds the pen.

hahaha, this is a round arguement, if the men that wrote the word of God makes mistakes that means they could write a mistake in the bible. God rendered them infalliable, there is no way around it. If the writters of scripture werent infalliable that mean what they wrote is also not infalliable. Falliability begets faliability.

It must have escaped my notice, Please if you would be so kind to repeat those quotes I will be grateful

it seem you are asking me to do ur homework for u, sorry but u have to do it urself.

Your knowledge of history is pitiable

belabela: @ frosbel,

The church of Jesus Christ is holy and "catholic" i.e universal. The Roman catholic church is another thing entirely it means a church of roman origin that is universal.

not true, the church is the 'catholic church' the word roman was only added in the 18th century because anglical were claiming catholicity. In case you dont know the word 'roman' has been officially dropped, so to be simply call her 'the catholic church'.

The Nicene creed is agreed upon by most believers in Jesus Christ even some of those the Roman catholic church killed believe in it. And if I may tell you the Nicene creed summaries the christian faith as written in the new testament.

and incase you dont know, it was catholic bishops who formed the niceae creed, not protestant pastors.

The resurrection not the rapture is the hope of believers. in fact tell me what is wrong in the Nicene creed from scriptures.

nothing is wrong with the creed.

Again that some people were murdered because they refuse to believe "trinity"doctrine does not necessarily make both arguments right.

I don't support witchcraft yet I don't support the burning of witches. So would you now say witchcraft is good because witches were persecuted by the same roman catholic church that persecuted Christians?

hahaha, where did you get the idea that the catholic church persecuted xtians? My friend only heretic were persecuted.

Frosbel If I may say you are the one trying to hold unto your belief and depart from scriptures. the bible is clear that the being Jesus is different from the being the father and is different from the being the holy Spirit. I think it is people like you who do not understand what the church mean when it talks about trinity that are quick to commit another heresy by claiming God the father is thesame person transforming into Jesus and transforming into the HolySpirit.


Have you asked yourself who was God talking to when he said "let us make man in our image"?

Who does Jesus refer to as father?

From your logic you are saying when Jesus promised that he would sent the Holy Spirit he actually meant that he, Jesus, would actually change himself into the Holy Spirit.

frosbel I think you should study the bible for understanding and not lean on your logic.

very true

frosbel: bump

im aware that you hate the catholic church but if anything this is a good discription of the trinity. It is called the athanasian creed. http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Ptolomeus: Jesus never spoke of the existence of a trilogy.
Nor did his disciples.
The concept trilogy (Father, son, and holy spirit) starts to apply in the Catholic Church in 325 after the death of Jesus, to be held in the Council of Nicea. In the council convened by Constantino, discussed the "Arrian controversy" that is, the possible divine origin of Jesus.
This is not my personal opinion, but what is accepted and documented by the Vatican.

wow are you joking? A council does not invent a new belief, it only defends true doctrine. To claim that the trinity started in niceae is ignorance, niceae simply defended the doctrine against heresy.

I recommend reading on this subject, as the trilogy is very long after the death of Jesus, so that biblical quotations that have been published on this subject, are absolutely wrong and misleading.
I do not mean to offend anyone, simply provide documentation to clarify the issue.
My respects.

you think that the trinity began in the 4th century, i can provide proof that xtain belief in the trinity is as old as the belief in christ Jesus .

Enigma: ^^^ The confusion in part arises from a lack of understanding or misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The Bible says (a) the Father is God; (b) Jesus is God; and (c) the Holy Spirit is God.

That already tells us that there is something to grapple with beyond normal human perception.

From a purely intellectual (rather than a spiritual) perspective, a proper understanding of the concept of consubstantiality can be of considerable help.

By the way, the Trinity doctrine is indeed a catholic doctrine but not simply a Roman Catholic doctrine. To say it is a c[/i]atholic doctrine simply means it is a doctrine of the [i]universal church. Check the following link to see how far back the Trinity doctrine had been recognised in one form or another waaaay before the Roman Catholic Church. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.64.html#msg7181702

i think you are joking. It is stupidity that will make someone say that a doctrine was proclaimed before the catholic church.

1bible
2christian tradition
3the church.

joe4christ: You must be high on something to have said the bolded, what version of the bible do you read at all?
It was rather the penticostal church that was established and formally known as the 'people of the way' that was even after the ascention of christ ti heaven, go read your bible, among all denominations which one amongs them trully practises the doctrine of the bible other than a man made doctrine if not the penticostal church.

I'm not gonna argue with anyone on this, but we all will see the truth for ourselves on the last day!

hahahahahahaha taqatara, i seems im laughing in tongues. Hahatapa, where did you get the idea that the protestants were mentioned in the bible? Are you ignorant of the fact that the protestant church began in the 16th century when luther rebelled? Are you ignorant of the fact that you are following in the footsteps of luther? Are you ignorant of the fact that for 1500yrs of christainity no protestant church existed?

@italo, i saw that you posted a thread from catholic answers, i have been in the forums for some months now. If you are there too pls give me your username, i'll like to send you a request.

mollie12: I've just been reading comments and I'm so weak.

So Catholics actually open and read their bibles Wow. How someone can see how antichrist and satanic their religious system is and still remain in it is a HUGE mystery for me.

Catholics, just face up to the facts - a lot of your doctrines are highly unbiblical. And stop trying to point out specks in other denominations - every Christian with his/her brain rightly screwed on knows the churchworld is in a big mess. But your denomination will have to take the greatest blame because its been around the longest.

For those smirking about the bible being in the charge of the RCC and other christians having to feed on their dirt, well I'll let you know God is powerful enough to keep His Word pure and preserved- even in the care of corrupt persons. Before Christ came, the Israelites, and the books of the Old Testament by extension, were captured and put under the control of Babylonians, Assyrians (I think) and Grecians. Yet when Jesus Christ came he freely made reference to these texts, giving us a clear sign that they were still intact.

Catholics, my heart bleeds for you all! I was part of that system for a short period of time, but even as a child (which I was then) a lot of things didn't add up scripturally for me and I left. Its not about who's wrong or right - practically every denomination has its own shred of CRAZY, but having it SO entrenched and going as far as to use eternity to back it up (saying the rest of us are LOST) is just too much! And this is not exonerating the other churches. Especially Pentecostals - a lot of you guys need Jesus - the real one! Please lay off all the foolishness masquerading as spirituality in your congregations.

Please, just please, make up your mind to love God - love Him more than anything else - and let Him lead you in His truth. Human understanding will so fail you - you can whip up all the historical texts you want to prove that you guys are the real deal (and you'll probably have an edge there since the system is so old) but if God says its not of Him, it simply isn't. And its best to make that discovery on this side of eternity. God bless.

i think you have placed you sympathy in the wrong place. I read my bible well, any catholic who understand the teaching of the church will agree that the church never contradicts scripture. To be sincere, my heart goes out to you too, you can see the truth but you just cant recognise and accept it.

4evergod3: [b]Does Catholicism still teach that it is the one true Church founded by Christ? Many think not, but there is no denying the church's official position:

"This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic." Pg. 214, #811

Referring to the Catholic church, the Catechism pronounces:

"In fact, in this one and only Church of God..." Pg. 216, #817

"First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church." Pg. 220, #830

This "one true church" doctrine can be traced to one verse of Scripture, which, when compared with other Scriptures, is found not to teach this doctrine at all. When Jesus asked his disciples who He was, Peter responded:

"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16"

Then Jesus answered Peter:

"... thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18

Catholicism contends that the Lord was referring to Peter as the rock, and has since built the entire Catholic religion upon that premise. But all other pertinent Scriptures declare that Jesus was referring to Himself as the rock, not Peter:

"... for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

Jesus is not only the rock, He is the chief cornerstone of the church:

"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" Ephesians 2:20

Back in the Old Testament, it was prophesied that Jesus, whom men rejected, would become the cornerstone of the church:

"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." Psalm 118:22

Even Peter, allegedly the first pope, confesses that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the church:

"...by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth... This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner." Acts 4:10-11

"... the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner," 1 Peter 2:7

According to Scriptures, Peter is NOT the rock:

"For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31

"... I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock..." Deuteronomy 32:3-4

"Truly my soul waiteth upon God... He only is my rock..." Psalm 62:1-2

"But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge." Psalm 94:22

Who is the head of the church

Despite all these Scriptures, Catholicism still claims that Peter was the rock and his successors are the head of the church:

"The sole Church of Christ (is that) which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successors of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 215, #816

But the Bible declares that Jesus Christ, not Peter or his successors, is the head of the church:

"And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he (Christ) might have the preeminence." Colossians 1:18

"And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him (Christ) to be the head over all things to the church," Ephesians 1:22

"But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephesians 4:15

The biblical "church"

When the Bible uses the words "the church," it always refers to all those who trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, not just to members of the Catholic church:

"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord..." 1 Corinthians 1:2

The Apostle Paul wrote:

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians 5:25

Paul was not a Catholic, yet he knew that Christ loved him and died for him. Certainly, no one would dare say that Paul was not a Christian because he was not a Catholic.

Would anyone suggest that God only loves Catholics?... or that He only died for Catholics? Such would be the case if the Catholic church was the only church.

Paul also proclaimed:

"And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us..." Ephesians

do you even have a copy of the cathechism? You are simply misinterpreting it. Please present one point and one quote at a time and i will give you the full context. Nothing makes me more angry than a liar.

4evergod3: The catholic church never decided the books of the bible. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married."

In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38 ).

The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

please dont be ignorant, the word 'bible' cant even be found it the bible, so only a stupidman will be angry if he cant find the word 'catholic church' in d bible. And go and learn history, it is a fact that the church canonised the scriptures in the council of hippo. Make research before you critisize.

4evergod3: If the Bible was given to us by the Catholic church then why is the same people against their teachings? Read below;

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

if you wanted an answer you would have asked one question at a time, but it seems you aim is to critisize. I would gladly answer ur questions if you can ask on at a time, learn before you critisize.

frosbel: The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. 1 Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom and priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21), and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3), deacons (1 Timothy 3), bishops (Titus 1:6-9), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholic do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins, and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, e.g. the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises, or even hints, that the authority to forgive sins would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. Jesus’ promise was specifically directed to the apostles. (3) The New Testament nowhere states that the apostles would even have successors to their apostolic authority. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. 1 Timothy 2:5, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”


Got Questions

all you questions on the priesthood has been answered here: www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

jenny b: me tink thers no prblm in confessin ur sin to a man weda a priest or anybody as long as both of u will join faith togeda and pray for forgivenes, d bible says we shuld confess our sins one to another, now my problm is d contuinty in dis cofession to d priest cos if u knw u r truely sorry for a particular sin why go bak to it? true confession is repentance and desistance. thers a problem with dis kind of confession.

actually there is no problem with it, by confession you make a promise to God that with the help of his grace you will not commit those sins again, those who donot mean this promise, lack an essential thing called 'contrition and amendment' the absense of the above may render a confession invalid, the same applies to those who lie in confession.

sammaking: "Confess ya fault one to another"
This simply means "Acknowledge ya faults, show remose ( say im sorry) n repent from it". Among you

hypocrite, that passage said confess, it seems you missed it, do you obey ur bible? Do you confess to another?

This is the biggest fairy tale of the century.

Redhot111: as 4 y d Roman catholics were unable 2 infiltrate d Bible with their doctrines is dis; The bible, though originaly written in hebrew n greek language respectively late came out 2 b in latin language though latin ws no longer popular. So d priest wld read it n tell d congregation wat dey(priest) want d congregation 2 bliv cos den latin ws already a dead language n only e few pple understand it. So dey didnt change it cos dey felt it ws needless since pple dnt understand it.

this is ignorance, catholic didnt have anything to do with infiltrating the bible and the most common language then in europe was latin because it was the official language of an empire, to claim that when the bible couldnt be understood in latin in ancient times is ignorance.

But i will say it ws God's makin cos b4 long some persons like martin luther, john wycliff, jerome etc started translatin d uncompromised bible in2 our present day languages, english in particular.

hahahahaha, what a joke, the latin bible you just insulted was translated by st jerome, incase you dont know jerome was alive before the church canonise the bible and it is an insult to rank Jerome and matin luther together.

D pope n priest fought against dis fiercely 2 an extent dat dey manipulated d powers dat b n possession of a bible became a capital offence punishable by death either by hanging or being burnt in d open 2 serve as deterant 2 odas who may own a copy. At a tym dey disposed of over 2million copies of d bible in d red sea cos since it ws 2 late 2 change sum of its content dia aim nw ws 2 wipe away d word of God in its entirety.

hahaha, another lie, the states punished production of unauthorised bibles, it was a capital crime. Nobody was prosecuted for lawfully owning or lawfully traslating the bibles, all adulterated bibles were distroyed.

But who can fight against God n overcum. But through human instruments, by divine encouragement God still preserved his words.
Not withstanding wen d sin still weighs u down with guilt as a young bliver, tellin a friend(not neccessarily a priest) cld help lift ur spirit.

this is ignorance, the bible would have been long lost, if God hadnt used the catholic church to preserve it, it is a pity you have wrong information.

Willzkid: where the early apostles catholic priests?

ofcourse

Jesus left his church in the hands of jewish men, how did the church become ROMAN catholic?

it seems you missed it when the bible shows how the gospel was brought to rome. Besides the my church is called 'the catholic church' the word roman was around the 18th century used to differentiate her from anglicans wu claimed to be catholic.

Ask ursef these questions before bringing in emotional arguments

my dear friend all my points are well considered.

frosbel: "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22

I guess you have some confession to make to your priest for calling me a FOOL , just make sure he has received clearance from the child molestation squad

it seems you didnt read my previous posts, the sacraments are not dependent upon the holiness of the priests.

4evergod3: The answer to all this in the study of the word of God. The bible clearly answers this question. The issue now is if Catholics [who are the reason for this topic] actually study the bible in the true light.

HEBREWS CHAPTER 4 BELOW ANSWERS THIS QUESTION.

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

[b]8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

[/b]

my dear friend this verse isnt against the catholic church.

I find you post totally insultive and ignorant.

the planmaker: Well d poster most likely is α jehovah's witness because of his style of interpretation. But 4 points about the catholics shud stand out.
1) Dey hav no regards 4 d bible

this is a very big lie, im sure you cant prove it, i can provide you over 200 church documents that prove you wrong, please make research.

2) They hold church traditions and belief (tradition of men) higher than d bible

another lie, sacred tradition, simply put are the teaching of the apostles that has been passed down, and the bible makes it clear that any good christian must hold those tradition, it seem you dont read your bible.

3)The pope is α semi god to them

another lie, the pope simply put is the bishop of rome and his work is to support the servants of God, that is why he is called 'servant of the servants of God'. Make research and stop using hearsay.

4)Almost all their doctrines can be traced to roman pagan or pre christian origin,which r in direct conflict wit d bible
So its futile arguing bible truths with α catholic,

the only reason it would be futile debating the scriptures with a catholic is because you are not qualified.

shanicemel: pls only God will hear our confessions and forgive us, no man or priest should even listen to your confession.

it seems you have never read the bible, or did you miss the passages that were quoted?

[quote author=sharp_shap]Why should I confess to a mere mortal man who is not even sure if he is going to make heaven? That's bullshit[/quote]you should confess to a mortal because the bible says so, and more specifically u should confess to a priest because God has given them the power to tell you 'you are forgiven'.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]It's been quite some time I've been away @Italo and @Ubenedictus I simply can't go through all your replies so I'll just tackle the last one




Now I think we have veered off a bit. The original challenge to you both was to provide me with a written document at the time of the early church that promotes Mary's immaculate conception. I am sorry but I simply can't accept unverifiable oral tradition as doctrine.[/quote]ha! You are the first christain i have ever discussed with who is ignorant of the heriarchy in the early church, so you havent come across presbyter, or episkopus, or apostles. Or you just forgot that a episkopus (bishop) is higher than a presbyter(elder) or are you also ignorant that the 12 were ranked higher than the presbyter or that it is peter's work to support his brethern? Eh?
No sinner, no matter his denomination can see God, very true, and the gates of hell will never prevail against the church, this is something you need to learn.
God my dear friend thru the work of the holy spirit can render man infalliable, the bible is an example.
The quotes you are asking for has already been provided by italo in this thread, it will be useless repeating them.

frosbel: You really think the thousands of paedophile priests are holy enough to forgive sins ,

it seems you dont read the bible at all. He didnt say 'if you are holy u can forgive sins, or if you are holy u can preach' the righteousness of the most holy man on earth is a filty rag before God. My dear no body is holy enough. Before a priest performs any of the sacrament even confession he himself has to confess his own sins. And even then Gods forgiveness is dependent on the repentance of the penitent and not on the holiness of any priest because no one is holy enough. So mentioning pedophile priest is non-seqiter because forgiveness isnt about the holiness of a priest.

Man can forgive sins against Man , but ONLY GOD can forgive sins against Man and God.

it seem you dont know your bible at all jn20:23 show the real picture. Whatsoever sins you forgive are forgiven, that is why he breathed on them.

For starters , priests are not born again if they do not believe in John chapter 3 and are therefore worthy of death, how can someone worthy of death forgive on behalf of a Holy God another being worthy of death.

hahahahahahaha i just cant stop laughing, the problem i find with protestants who talk about born again is that the dont know the meaning, to be born again, or born anew or born from above is 'to be born of water and the holyspirit' my dear friend priest are born again, it is a pity you dont know, the very fact that you are really are christian mean you are born again, of water and spirit, are you born of water? Are you born of the spirit? My dear catholic believe firmly in john3, that is one of the bedrocks of christain doctrine. My bible says to those that believe he gave power to be sons, it says whoever believes in him will not perish be have life eternal, it says i come that they may have life and have it in abundance, it says i know my own i my own knows me, it say the sheep...will not perish, and that same bible tells us that Jesus gave his church the power to proclaim reconcilation, the power to forgive sins. Sorry, but that is what my bible says.

This reminds me of the blind leading the blind and them both falling into the ditch !!

this is a conclusion based on wrong premise, do not criticise what you dont know.