₦airaland Forum

Nodogragra4me:
See how you have held on to King James for survival instead of new Jerusalem and good news that actually stated that it he meant scar
NJB, Galatians 6:17: "17 After this, let no one trouble me; I carry branded on my body the marks of Jesus."


GNT, Galatians 6:17: "17 To conclude: let no one give me any more trouble, because the scars I have on my body show that I am the slave of Jesus."

I don't need to hold on to KJV, I already pasted over 10 translation that translated stigmata as Mark... the Catholic versions below say.


Douay-Rheims Bible
From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me;
for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body.

NJB, Galatians 6:17: "17 After this, let no one trouble me; I carry branded on my body the marks of Jesus."



GNT, Galatians 6:17: "17 To conclude: let no one give me any more trouble, because the scars I have on my body show that I am the slave of Jesus."



among those 3, 2 of them translate it as mark, only good news says scar.

PrecisionFx:
Ritual.

and so?
I was baptised, that is a ritual, hands were laid on me...ritual Communion... ritual going to Church... ritual praise and worship before preaching... ritual... palm Sunday... ritual Pascal... ritual

who did it kill....
of course there are rituals in Christianity deal with it

PrecisionFx:
It's a ritual.

and so?

Nodogragra4me:
Ubenidictus is acting like someone in the employment of satan to defend his kingdom here on earth. It is not my first encounter with him here....every satanic doctrine appeals too him

nah, you just enjoy making your false accusation like the accuser of the brethren, you have jumped to rash judgement over a case you know nothing about and go about accusing someone you do not know of demonic possession simply because you are ignorant of their own experiences and you have done all this without bothering to investigate the particular case. you are simply a computer warrior sitted behind his keyboard and typing obscenities about people you don't know.


for me I am skeptical, I don't know what it is yet and until I do investigate or hear the findings of a reputable sources, I am not a party to demonizing someone I don't know nor am I jumping into any positive conclusion.

Nodogragra4me:
This is how that pope almost ruined Christianity by re writing the bible to accommodate Satan's agenda .... the bible says and declares itself as the book of instruction, correction , example to every believer who will walk in righteousness but here you are, presented with a case without scriptural example and rather than denounce it so the demons knows no one is fooled , you are cuddling it with the funny excuse that the bible is not complete .... not everything the apostles did entered the book Bla bla ..... Anyone adding to the scripture is cursed says John and also anyone deducting from it is also cursed for it is complete as a guide....cult is formed when scriptural errors are defended.... A cult will soon be formed to defend this error, that is of one doesn't already exist.

So as important as blood is to God, you imagine that thee would have been an occurrence that is related to it being spilled that he allowed to be omitted..... Why would God allow someone go through that suffering without a clear message to his people.


As for taking pastor there, I can tell you for free that because you people have elevated that woman to a passion of celebrity within your rank, her will will not easily align with Deliverance. She enjoys a special status amongst you and I can imagine how ignoramuses would be making a pilgrimage to her home for prayer and fortune telling.


Deliverance is preached. That is what the Bible says. Go preach to her that she is actually under affliction. You didn't waste over ten years in seminary memorising your church version of world history.

Go use you apostolic unction on her.

you seem to have a problem with reality, I never claimed that I have spent anytime in a seminary.

secondly the Bible is not a catalog of all Christian experiences, it doesn't even cover fully the life of Jesus talk less of every instance of blood.

thirdly there is no hero there, the Church hasn't even acknowledged there is anything going on there, her diocese doesn't even recognise such talk less of special status.

you are the one who seem sure she has a demon without investigation, enjoy taking your pastor there for her deliverance.

Nodogragra4me:
See how you have held on to King James for survival instead of new Jerusalem and good news that actually stated that it he meant scar
NJB, Galatians 6:17: "17 After this, let no one trouble me; I carry branded on my body the marks of Jesus."


GNT, Galatians 6:17: "17 To conclude: let no one give me any more trouble, because the scars I have on my body show that I am the slave of Jesus."

the word there is stigmata meaning mark, some simply assume they know the mark in question, if you are looking for translation enjoy

New International Version
From now on, let no one cause me trouble, for I bear
on my body the marks of Jesus.

New Living Translation
From now on, don't let anyone trouble me with these
things. For I bear on my body the scars that show I
belong to Jesus.

English Standard Version
From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear
on my body the marks of Jesus.

Berean Study Bible
From now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear
on my body the marks of Jesus.

Berean Literal Bible
Henceforth, let no one give to me troubles, for I bear
on my body the marks of Jesus..

New American Standard Bible
From now on let no one cause trouble for me, for I
bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus.

King James Bible
From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in
my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

Christian Standard Bible
From now on, let no one cause me trouble, because I
bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

Wiseman5:
Since you have the original text Paul wrote,paste it here let's translate it ourself. I am sure Google is also ur friend. But if u don't understand greek language better respect urself and accept the truth to be free of idol worship bondage.
To dazzle you further, bible said in the mouth of two witnesses (translators) a matter is established. Read amplified classic:
From now on let no person trouble me [by making it necessary for me to vindicate my apostolic authority and the divine truth of my Gospel], for I bear on my body the [brand] marks of the Lord Jesus [the wounds, scars, and other outward evidence of persecutions–these testify to His ownership of me]!
Galatians 6:17 AMPC
Paul said those wounds are evidence of persecution and u people are busy celebrating people that have evidence of the curses their fore parents brought upon them by declaring let the curse of killing the innocent Christ be upon them and their children (Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
Matthew 27:25 KJV) so sympathetic. ..you've a chance of propagating the gospel of Christ to her, Jesus can set her free, if she can believe.

the word Paul used in Greek is
στίγματα
it is pronounced as stigmata, it means mark, brand mark of a slave, scar mark...or any general mark. Paul didn't write what mark in particular apart from the fact that it was the mark of the Lord. personally I don't care how you interpret it, my response was to someone who said stigmata isn't found in the Bible.

s translator isn't a witness... certainly not above the plain word used by Paul

JMAN05:
You don't need to read a papal bull. This is history. We read:

addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the "Indulgences for the Dead" became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

You can quote a papal bull contradicting your encyclopedia.

.

unless you lack understanding and comprehension

the text you quoted simply says pope Leo was unable to guide the Church in the height of the crisis....

it never said the Pope authorized any sales, the archbishop of mainz was authorized to preach that donations to st peters was indulgenced, and his diocese was allowed to receive a percentage... no sale was authorized by Leo,... he was simply unable to guide the church during the crisis..

still waiting for the bull that authorised the sale of indulgence.

live4dgospel:
In Book II chapter 22 he declared that Christ was more than 50 years before he died, he supported his argument with this, "Your father
Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham ?" (John 8:56-5). According to him such a reply as "you are not yet fifty years old" is appropriate to someone who is close to 50 years old or perhaps in his 40s. This is an illogical conclusion, since even for Jesus to see Abraham he must be very very old according to the thought of Pharisees, hence they replied "you are not yet fifty years". So even if they had said "you are not yet 130 years old" It's not even enough age to see Abraham since he existed thousands of years before Christ came. I mean, the statement does not in any way relate to actual age of Jesus Christ but rather it is a statement that shows that Jesus must be very old to see Abraham.

I wish I could create time to read the whole book, but since what he believes is the same as your faith I will continue to reference it to judge your faith as we go on.

chapter 22 again you got it wrong,
he was rebuking some heretics who among other thing claimed that Jesus died when he was 30 years old in other to make some weird point about aeons.

Ignatius held that Jesus was past 30 and less than 50

let me quote him,

He did not
therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the
twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the
thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one
year, unless indeed, among their Æons , there be so long years
assigned to those who sit in their ranks with Bythus in the
Pleroma; of which beings Homer the poet, too, has spoken,
doubtless being inspired by the Mother of their [system of]
error :—

live4dgospel:
Just as his book is voluminous, so are the heresies. I have lots to say about the book but let me start here in Chapter 16 Book IV "Perfect righteousness was conferred neither by circumcision nor by any other legal ceremonies. The Decalogue, however, was not cancelled by Christ, but is always in force: men were never released from its commandments." This means he took the circumcision literary not knowing the spiritual significance of it. As Paul said in Romans 2:29 ".. and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." He also maintained that law is still binding the believers, but see what the Scriptures say in Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." and in Galatians 2:22 " "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”
What do you say about the law and righteousness that can lead believers to the Kingdom of God?
, .

it seems you didn't click to read the chapter, this is the chapter



1. Moreover, we learn from the Scripture itself, that God gave
circumcision , not as the completer of righteousness, but as a
sign, that the race of Abraham might continue recognisable.
For it declares: "God said to Abraham , Every male among you
shall be circumcised ; and you shall circumcise the flesh of
your foreskins, as a token of the covenant between Me and
you." Genesis 17:9-11 This same does Ezekiel the prophet say
with regard to the Sabbaths : "Also I gave them My Sabbaths ,
to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I
am the Lord, that sanctify them." Ezekiel 20:12 And in Exodus,
God says to Moses : "And you shall observe My Sabbaths ; for it
shall be a sign between Me and you for your generations."
Exodus 21:13 These things, then, were given for a sign; but
the signs were not unsymbolical, that is, neither unmeaning
nor to no purpose, inasmuch as they were given by a wise
Artist; but the circumcision after the flesh typified that after
the Spirit. For "we," says the apostle, "have been circumcised
with the circumcision made without hands." Colossians 2:11
And the prophet declares, "Circumcise the hardness of your
heart." But the Sabbaths taught that we should continue day
by day in God's service. "For we have been counted," says the
Apostle Paul, "all the day long as sheep for the slaughter;"
Romans 8:36 that is, consecrated [to God], and ministering
continually to our faith , and persevering in it, and abstaining
from all avarice , and not acquiring or possessing treasures
upon earth. Matthew 6:19 Moreover, the Sabbath of God
(requietio Dei ), that is, the kingdom, was, as it were, indicated
by created things; in which [kingdom], the man who shall have
persevered in serving God (Deo assistere ) shall, in a state of
rest, partake of God's table.
2. And that man was not justified by these things, but that
they were given as a sign to the people, this fact shows —
that Abraham himself, without circumcision and without
observance of Sabbaths, "believed God , and it was imputed
unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of
God ." James 2:23 Then, again, Lot , without circumcision , was
brought out from Sodom , receiving salvation from God . So
also did Noah , pleasing God , although he was uncircumcised,
receive the dimensions [of the ark], of the world of the second
race [of men]. Enoch , too, pleasing God , without circumcision ,
discharged the office of God's legate to the angels although
he was a man, and was translated, and is preserved until now
as a witness of the just judgment of God , because the angels
when they had transgressed fell to the earth for judgment, but
the man who pleased [God] was translated for salvation .
Moreover, all the rest of the multitude of those righteous men
who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who
preceded Moses , were justified independently of the things
above mentioned, and without the law of Moses . As also Moses
himself says to the people in Deuteronomy: "The Lord your God
formed a covenant in Horeb. The Lord formed not this
covenant with your fathers, but for you." Deuteronomy 5:2
3. Why, then, did the Lord not form the covenant for the
fathers? Because "the law was not established for righteous
men." 1 Timothy 1:9 But the righteous fathers had the
meaning of the Decalogue written in their hearts and souls ,
that is, they loved the God who made them, and did no injury to
their neighbour. There was therefore no occasion that they
should be cautioned by prohibitory mandates (correptoriis
literis ), because they had the righteousness of the law in
themselves. But when this righteousness and love to God had
passed into oblivion, and became extinct in Egypt , God did
necessarily, because of His great goodwill to men , reveal
Himself by a voice, and led the people with power out of
Egypt , in order that man might again become the disciple and
follower of God ; and He afflicted those who were disobedient,
that they should not contemn their Creator; and He fed them
with manna , that they might receive food for their souls ( uti
rationalem acciperent escam); as also Moses says in
Deuteronomy: "And fed you with manna , which your fathers
did not know, that you might know that man does not live by
bread alone; but by every word of God proceeding out of His
mouth does man live." Deuteronomy 8:3 And it enjoined love to
God , and taught just dealing towards our neighbour, that we
should neither be unjust nor unworthy of God , who prepares
man for His friendship through the medium of the Decalogue,
and likewise for agreement with his neighbour — matters
which did certainly profit man himself; God , however, standing
in no need of anything from man.
4. And therefore does the Scripture say, "These words the
Lord spoke to all the assembly of the children of Israel in the
mount, and He added no more;" Deuteronomy 5:22 for, as I
have already observed, He stood in need of nothing from
them. And again Moses says: "And now Israel , what does the
Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God ,
to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul?"
Deuteronomy 10:12 Now these things did indeed make man
glorious , by supplying what was wanting to him, namely, the
friendship of God ; but they profited God nothing, for God did
not at all stand in need of man's love . For the glory of God
was wanting to man, which he could obtain in no other way
than by serving God. And therefore Moses says to them again:
"Choose life, that you may live, and your seed, to love the Lord
your God , to hear His voice, to cleave unto Him; for this is
your life, and the length of your days." Deuteronomy 30:19-20
Preparing man for this life, the Lord Himself did speak in His
own person to all alike the words of the Decalogue; and
therefore, in like manner, do they remain permanently with us,
receiving by means of His advent in the flesh, extension and
increase, but not abrogation.
5. The laws of bondage, however, were one by one
promulgated to the people by Moses , suited for their
instruction or for their punishment, as Moses himself
declared: "And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach
you statutes and judgments." Deuteronomy 4:14 These things,
therefore, which were given for bondage, and for a sign to
them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. But He has
increased and widened those laws which are natural, and
noble, and common to all, granting to men largely and without
grudging, by means of adoption, to know God the Father , and
to love Him with the whole heart, and to follow His word
unswervingly, while they abstain not only from evil deeds , but
even from the desire after them. But He has also increased
the feeling of reverence; for sons should have more
veneration than slaves, and greater love for their father. And
therefore the Lord says, "As to every idle word that men have
spoken, they shall render an account for it in the day of
judgment." Matthew 12:36 And, "he who has looked upon a
woman to lust after her, has committed adultery with her
already in his heart;" Matthew 5:28 and, "he that is angry with
his brother without a cause , shall be in danger of the
judgment." Matthew 5:22 [All this is declared,] that we may
know that we shall give account to God not of deeds only, as
slaves, but even of words and thoughts, as those who have
truly received the power of liberty, in which [condition] a man
is more severely tested, whether he will reverence, and fear ,
and love the Lord. And for this reason Peter says "that we
have not liberty as a cloak of maliciousness," 1 Peter 2:16
but as the means of testing and evidencing faith.







do you think the circumcision of foreskin in the old testament made people righteous?

do you think Christians are now free to kill ,steal, serve idol dishonor parents etc or does the new Convenant teach against those sins in the old?

nwamehn:
Lol. I knew u would refer to Acts 15, but truth is that u totally misunderstood my point in 1 there, that someone sends somebody to the elders in Jerusalem or Antioch to help him out on an issue he was not clear about doesn't mean he was answerable to Jerusalem. That Acts 15 clearly stated that there was confusion on doctrines and they had to seek understanding from Jerusalem and Paul and others were sent to gain more knowledge on a subject matter.
These days men of God from different churches consult each other on so many spiritual matters but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to each other. A local church in our area still sends her pastors to Word of Faith Bible Institute of the Winners Chapel for trainings, but it doesn't mean they ar answerable to Oyedepo or Winners Chapel.
But within the same denomination, the pastors or reverend fathers ar answerable to the headquarters or general overseers or Pope, as the case may be. Antioch was not answerable to Jerusalem on how they did their things, Jerusalem helped Antioch spiritually at some matters and Antioch still helped Jerusalem spiritually and even financially at some matters, so would u say that Jerusalem was financially dependent on Antioch to function since Antioch at a point in time helped them financially?
Were u not the person that confirmed that after Paul's rebuke, there stopped anything like segregation based on uncircumcision in the Jerusalem church and even other churches? Would u also say that Jerusalem was answerable to Antioch since after Paul's rebuke, that their practice stopped?
Do u know how many theological sessions that ar being organised for more education of the ministers of God in so many Pentecostal programs yearly, would u say that for any Pentecostal pastor to attend any of the ministers' programs and undertake the scriptural guiding there that it means that his church is founded by and is under the one coordinating the program?
Or if my church is confused over an issue and I and two of my elders consult a group of Anglican reverends who I believe know the Bible well for clearance on the issue, would u still say that my church is Anglican?
There is a program called God of Abraham hosted yearly by one of the Anglican churches in Anambra, during the program, several people including ministers from various churches come and sit under the ministration and tutorship of the ministers of the Anglican church and the archdeacon throughout the days of the program, would u say that all the churches whose ministers attend the program ar all Anglican churches?
That Paul sought clearance from Jerusalem over a doctrine just as he once rebuked Jerusalem over a doctrine too doesn't mean Jerusalem founded his church or dictated how he ran his church to him.
He sought help from them same way he once rendered help to them, and ministers today seek and render help to fellow churches and ministers, so if u say that there was nothing like Antioch church or Jerusalem church but one single Christian church because of the transmission of helps, then there is also nothing like Anglican, Winners etc today but one single Christian church.

2. Peter was not a Pope, made by any person, saying that Peter was a pope is just like saying what the Bible never said and trying to force it into the Bible by all means because Bible never recorded that he was made a pope. Bible recorded so many things Peter did, being a fisherman, following Jesus, going on evangelism etc but never said he was made a pope by any group of people anywhere. Even if Peter was in charge of the church at Antioch before it became answerable to a Pope later, at least the church would be termed Peter's Church before it now becomes any Roman Catholic church that they began obeying much later.
But the truth is that the church at Antioch was not under any Pope, Bible didn't record such. Barnabas and Paul established the church at Antioch a period that Peter was in Jerusalem and finally entered prison, Bible clearly recorded that Barnabas and Paul started the church, nurtured and grew the church for up to a year - Acts 11 vs 26, a period Peter was in Jerusalem and even entered prison sef, Bible never said that Peter for that whole year was dictating the practices of Paul and Barnabas or the practices of the Antioch church through Paul and Barnabas even though they both came from Israel just like Peter. Worst still the church at Jerusalem had strong battles they were fighting with Herod then sef when the wicked man killed James and took Peter.
Paul and Barnabas for that whole year were totally in charge of the church at Antioch but it didn't mean that they were barred by God from seeking or rendering help, whether spiritually or physically from or to Judaea or Cyprus or Cyrene, which bible rightly said that they rendered help to Jerusalem through the elders. 
So, why not call the church Paul and Barnabas Church for the whole year before any other thing?

That Rome at a point in time forcefully seized churches and compelled them to pay allegiance to them doesn't mean we should throw away the histories of those churches given to us in the Bible and then believe whatever Rome says.

Bible never said that Peter was a pope, Rome said. 
Bible never said that the church at Jerusalem was Catholic church, Rome said.
Bible never said that the church at Antioch was Catholic church, Rome said.
But where did the histories of Peter, church at Antioch, church at Jerusalem start? Their histories started from the Bible, yet we have to ignore what the Bible said and only believe what Rome said? Lol.

Truth is, for some reasons or the other, there is nothing each of us can actually do to convince one person to believe the other. In this Peter and church issue, I believe Bible more than I believe Rome, and u believe Rome more than u believe Bible, so, do u still think there is really any point, boss?

1. the issue in act 15 wasn't about rendering help, this was a doctrinal decision and Jerusalem gave a rule and claimed that the decision is from the holy spirit so no one will disobey, they wrote, "it seem good to the holy spirit and to us". that is what still happen today in the Catholic church when there are thorny issues a council is called and decision given... there were no denominations in the early church.

Paul didn't correct the church in Jerusalem because since Cornelius issue the Jerusalem church accepted gentiles it was Peter who was corrected for joining the Jews during supper, the church always provided financial help in times of need...but the decision body, the place people go to receive the hand of communion and have issues settled was Jerusalem.

2. Peter was made leader of the apostles read up matt 16,15-19, that was his ministry, each apostle was responsible for the church he ministered while Jesus gave Peter the responsibility of confirming his brethren that is what it means to be Pope. each bishop even today is responsible for the day to day functioning of the church under him but just like in the early church he too know where to go to receive the hand of fellowship like Paul did in Galatians and where to address dispute like in acts 15.

the church under Paul was always in communion with Peter because Paul clearly told us in gal that he went to Jerusalem and got the hand of fellowship from Peter and James... that is why when Peter went to Antioch he didn't go and found a new Church like you Protestant do today, he went to the church that Paul was preaching among, because he had already given the hand of fellowship to Paul... it wasn't a new denomination but the same church.

Rome didn't forcefully size the church of Antioch, which power will they use? in 107 when Ignatius was repeating the fact that Rome presided, the Roman Christians were still under severe persecutions and been killed so how will they forcefully take over Antioch that was far away unless you are ignorant of what you're talking about.

lastly the Bible is clear, it totally reject divisions and fraction as found in Protestantism, the Bible teaches that there is one faith, one baptism and one Lord, even Paul tells us in gal he went to Jerusalem and got the hand of fellowship, he too took the dispute in the churches under him to Jerusalem to be settled... that is clear. if you wish to go on with your denominations and fraction please don't claim it was taught and sanctioned by the Bible

Emmanystone:
You wish.

This is where satan stands to keep you under his grip enjoy.

But, know you'll never see Mary when you die. Her heart must be breaking to see the evil that is being committed against her name.

now you have decided to seat as God and judge others... it will shock you on that day when you'll see Catholics going to heaven while proud and arrogant people like you who decided to condemn others before God even judged them will get rewards for your pride.

live4dgospel:
What is the ultimate goal of any religion? Is it not to be sinless and live with that supreme being in heaven forever? Yes it is, you know already. Now can salvation( that required 'sinless state') be found in other religions apart from your Christian religion? If you say Yes, you have contradicted the Bible in (Acts 4:12), if you answer No, then it means that true Christianity (the one that give that required sinless state) is not a religion, I.e Christianity cannot be grouped alongside Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam etc. The only way Christianity can be a religion is to believe that salvation is found in other religions as well otherwise you are still supporting my words.

all your managed to say is that Christianity is a religion that fulfill its goals while the others don't... the point still remains that Christianity is a religion.

paxonel:
You are very much on point bro

thanks dear , I just don't get the need to create a false dichotomy

live4dgospel:
If you would like to read, read my previous comment about the heresy I revealed to you: he said the law is still binding to believers even as they have faith in Jesus Christ. Do you want to give you the chapter where he said that? This is what you should have known if you are the fellow of his belief! However, I will provide you with chapter and read further since you said it's not a book review. I will revisit the site...

lol, I see you have decided to quote him, let me go direct to that.

some people no like good thing, its the community that would have benefited if the university was finally opened.

live4dgospel:
Apostle Peter is never a pope, this is simply the designation of Roman Catholic Church. Because Christ promised to build His church on the "rock", they claim that Peter was their first pope. Christianity can never be above the world the reverse will always be the case. I mean Christians will always suffer persecution from this devil dominated world. In the nearest future as I have made known in my other topic, the world will unite and persecute the true Christians, all the heretical Christians will certainly join force with the world to persecute the true saints of Christ. That Roman Catholic Church is powerful and influential in the worldly affairs like politics is a strong indication that it has compromised with the world.

actually the Pope is simply bishop of Rome and the historical case is clear that Peter was bishop of Rome and established the bishopric there.

now tell me you are joking

solite3:
the church at Jerusalem was the first. Roman catholism is not a christian church, it is a creation of the roman government

sorry dear the church in Jerusalem and Rome is one not different denominations

BluntTheApostle:
I employed the word "Roman" to clarify a point. It is not to create a debate.

My point is, there was no "Roman" Catholic Church until after the split.

The Catholic Church (the "Roman" ) did not happen until after the split. Before the split, there was a single church which would split into two.

If you have materials supporting the claim that there had been a conscious Catholic Church (as of today) before the split, I would like to read it. Until then, my argument remains that the word "Catholic" identified a single assembly which would later split into the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

Even today, just as the Catholic Church claims to be the Church that Christ established in Jerusalem, the Orthodox churches do too.

there was already a Catholic church before the split
read up the early church themselves



Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus
Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would
the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you
would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting
the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s
sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one
that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person
authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all
his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there
is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110 ]).
In like manner let everyone respect the deacons as they would
respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a
type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and
college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a
Church. I am confident that you accept this, for I have received
the exemplar of your love and have it with me in the person of
your bishop. His very demeanor is a great lesson and his
meekness is his strength. I believe that even the godless do
respect him (Letter to the Trallians 3:1-2 [ A. D. 110 ]).
The Martyrdom of Polycarp
When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who
had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk,
distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic
Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So
they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a
great Sabbath (The Martyrdom of Polycarp 8 [A.D. 110 ]).
Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith
throughout the whole world, as we have already said ( Against
Heresies 1:10 [A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to
seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the
Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his
money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things
pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can
draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life;
all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are
bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining
to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the
tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there
should arise a dispute relative to some important question
among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient
churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse,
and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the
present question? For how should it be if the apostles
themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary
[in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they
handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?
(ibid. 3:4).
Tertullian
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous
student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of
Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago
– in the reign of Antoninus for the most part – and that they at
first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in
the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed
Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity,
with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than
once expelled (The Prescription Against Heretics 22,30
[A.D.200 ])

shadeyinka:
Placebo has taken care of that. It means not spiritually damning yet not scriptural. There are several traditions like that.

no I mean implicitly scriptural,

live4dgospel:
Is this not a book review? Do you expect me to read the review of his book, reviewed perhaps by your church member? However, I saw lots of heresies even from the book review. For instance, he said that the force of the law is binding to believers, in order words if a believer fails in the law he will be punished by God even though he believes in Christ. This contradicted thear verses "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Romans 10:4) and "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain"( Galatians 2:21)
I heard lots of 'proof of so and so', I will need the book itself let me validate the proofs.

it is not a book review, those are the works of iraeneus, chapter and books, click the chapter and read. don't lie about the guy, if you want to criticise him do well to quote what he wrote. don't lie about him.

shadeyinka:
It seems to me that you are saying that all traditions are valid expressions of the teachings of the apostles!?

Are there traditions that have no basis with the Apostles.

Are there writings of some Apostles that were not canonized?

If these traditions were so important how come ALL writer of the New Testament missed them?

If Apostle Peter was sharply corrected by Paul, does it not invalidate the fact that the Pope is infallible?

If Mary was that important, how come ALL the letters missed it?

Was the veneration of the saints commanded by the Apostles? If yes, which of the apostles commanded it? (Even Stephen was not venerated as the first martyr)

It looks like most of the traditions came well after the death of the Apostles.

1.2. nope, some people founded their own tradition and even their own scriptures and got excommunicated as heretics, not every tradition is right tradition... but there is tradition committed to the church, that the whole church bears witness to... the church itself was very quick in anathematizing false opinions of men and transmitting right tradition.
3. actually there are some which were lost and never made it to the canon, besides none of those letters were meant as a catalog of all Christian doctrines

4. because none of the new testament writers was trying to form a compendium of every important stuff, and even the important stuff they wrote will make no meaning to you unless you know the context in which they were writing... I gave you an example with the communion issues, it is in the Bible yet for Luther it is the presence of Jesus a most important issue while for Zwingli is was just a mere symbol. even what is there in ink makes different meaning to different Protestant the moment it is divorced from its context.

5. no sir, popes get corrected all the time that is normal for every human, even the apostles. a Pope in himself isn't infallible, Catholics don't believe that. instead it is his magisterium that is. so when he declares what is believed in the whole church for all times from the apostles then that teaching is infallible.... not the man, but the apostolic teaching he is confessing. I don't know if you get it... Peter wasn't always well behaved but whenever he is teaching that which he received from the lord like in act 15 or in 1 pt and 2nd pt he is teaching infallible doctrine.
6. what if it is right there in the letters but you missed it because you don't have the eyes to see it.

7. to this I'll answer yes and all the apostles teaching it because all the Christian churches both Rome, Ephesus, Antioch etc all honored the saints st Paul. adds remember your leaders those who preached the word to you, remember the outcome of their lives.

these practices were seen in all churches from antiquity not invented in some place as Protestant doctrines

Nodogragra4me:
The man himself called the letter large ... Gal 6:11


If none of the apostles experienced it , if nobody manifested it in the scripture then it is satanic manifestation and manipulation. What the woman needs is not to promo like she is some goddes but help.


Her condition and those crying images or status in your church are devilish device to keep the people in awe and perpetual boundage ... they are ungodly....same goes for your Mary that roams about with an infant child. Since your church opened the gate way with sculptors everywhere , these demons decided to take advantage and indwell them for worship

If you people pay less promo attention to that woman and tell her that Jesus Christ finished the work . Let her take a stand against the devil .....that her condition is not part of what Christ redeemed into ...she will be delivered by morning .....Satan thrives on your ignorance


Bishop Oyedepo famous quote: no mountain anywhere , every man's ignorance is his mountain.
The woman should ask herself who her suffering is modelled after. On what word is her affliction founded ...she is supposed to have Life abundantly...John 10:10 ...not affliction abundantly


Go help her ... you are a rev father , do your work

lol from oyedepo the tithe guy, let him remove the log in his eyes.

you guys are the ones making these assumptions, the Catholic church hasn't even looked at the case...there is no promo here it is bloggers carrying the story not the church.it

your ignorance about images and their legitimate use is what is affecting you and of course your funny Protestantism that allocates everything to demons.

do you have a catalog of everything the apostles experienced... or does you Bible tell you that if the apostles didn't experience it no Christian can.... you guys enjoy making silly assumptions.

since you are so sure it is demons then take your pastor there and pursue the demons.

Nodogragra4me:
You see, you have consdionee yourself to believe that your popes were saints....to someone like you, the inquisition never took place or the church never had anything to so with it .... because that is what burnishes the image of your churc and make her saintly but the truth is the truth irrespective how it affects you.

You always have a version, deodorised one at that for every true account of church history even from sources within your church.


I asked you if Jeremiah is part of the Jewish Old Testament or Christmas Old Testament and by the way, all the prophecies of Old concerning Jesus Christ were they also Jewish or Christian Testament?

I never said the Pope were saints, I know of the Inquisition and the crusades...I have discussed both on nairaland.

the issue you raised was about sixtus who translated the Bible with some mistranslations but never published instead he started to correct his work before he died and Pope Clement published the corrected version.


the Christian old testament is simply the Jewish scriptures, Jeremiah is part of the Jewish scriptures, later adopted by Christians as part of the old testament.

Emmanystone:
Hahahahahaha. You are calling your Mary dirty?
Maybe you shd do a little research on Queen of Heaven whom you worship.

I'm calling your istar goddess dirty, Mary the mother of Jesus isn't dirty.


maybe you should do a research on using your common sense.

Nebuchadnezzar was called King of kings, does that mean each time a Christian says king of kings he is talking about Nebuchadnezzar?

solite3:
who called it catholic? In other words the roman catholic church is never the first church. the church at Rome is different from the church at Ephesus and others. The church is a group of believers in Christ not an organization. Every believer had the holy Spirit having the gift of the holy ghost, the preaching of the church centered around Christ and his work. Mary never held any prominent position. Is it not surprising that Mary the book of acts and of the apostles never mention any special role or position concerning Mary neither was praying through Mary , saints angels using incense candles making images having popes etc.

the church of Rome, the church of Ephesus, are part of the Catholic church, they weren't denominations in the early church.


I guess you are among the few ignorant Christians who think the Bible was written as a catalog of all Christian doctrines and practices....

nwamehn:
Boss, that the body of Christ can be referred to as the Christian church doesn’t mean that the churches didn’t have their distinct identifications and values. The churches at Jerusalem and Antioch were clearly called the churches at Jerusalem and Antioch respectively in the Bible and the Bible never said that the church at Antioch was not the church at Antioch but Christian church and should always be referred to as so. Some of those early churches still had distinct beliefs just as Catholic, Anglican, Winners, Deeper Life etc today have their distinct beliefs but they were/are all part of the body of Christ.
Catholic, Anglican, Winners, Deeper Life are all part of the Christian church, what make them different are their other beliefs in addition to the belief in Christ and who directs each of them. I mean, they all believe in one true God – Christ but have other beliefs they also attach as part of their doctrines and also follow the directives of different people, these ar all that differentiate them. For example, Catholics believe that Mary should mediate between them and Jesus, but Anglicans don’t. Anglicans and Catholics believe in child baptism but Winners and Deeper Life don’t. Winners believe that women can wear trousers to church but Deeper Life don’t even believe that women can wear trousers anywhere; and many more. So also the church at Antioch, the church at Jerusalem both believed in one true God – Christ, but also had other distinct beliefs in their practices. For example, the church at Antioch under Barnabas and Paul believed that once you received Christ u were ok, but the church at Jerusalem under James believed that even after receiving Christ u must be circumcised and if not circumcised, they wouldn’t have anything to do with u – Acts 11 vs 2, that’s why they questioned Peter after he went to meet the gentiles, they also preached the word of God to the Jews only – Acts 11 vs 19, but the church at Antioch didn’t follow that rule.
Peter was torn between following the doctrines of the church at Antioch and those of the church at Jerusalem. Even Paul rebuked him in Antioch – Gal 2 vs 11-12, when Peter started dissociating himself from the uncircumcised gentiles immediately he saw the members of the church at Jerusalem led by James approaching.
There were also another group of Christians called Judaizers who were fellowshipping in Jerusalem but were of the belief that even after receiving Jesus, u must also follow the laws of Moses. Some churches founded recently still follow the old doctrines of Judaizing eg Seventh-day Adventist church.
The church at Antioch was not under the church at Jerusalem and they didn’t have any general overseer or bishop or pope at Jerusalem whose command must be obeyed by the church at Antioch, worst still, the leader of the church at Antioch openly challenged some doctrines of the church at Jerusalem – Gal 2 vs 14.
The church at Antioch still gave the followers of Christ in Judaea some gifts at a point in time, same as how the general overseer of Winners pays tithe to Redeemed Christian Church of God at times and other men of God give gifts and offering to Winners during Shiloh. It doesn’t change the fact that they ar separate churches with distinct beliefs and who they follow directives from.
U see the clear distinctions, yet they professed the same Christ. If it were to be now, we would have easily called them denominations since they had some different doctrines and were never answerable to each other. The entire body of Christ has always been one with many distinct groups under just as the body of Christ is still one today with many distinct groups like Catholic, Anglican, Winners, Deeper Life, etc. If u think that there is any other thing that differentiates Deeper Life and Winners or Catholic aside their beliefs, doctrines and whose directives they follow, then u can tell me.
So, the original name of the church at Antioch was simply The Church at Antioch – Acts 13, the Christian church is just a name for the entire body of Christ which all churches irrespective of where they ar situated are part of.
If u say that in the early days there was nothing like church at Antioch or church at Jerusalem but just Christian church, then we can also say that today, there is nothing like Catholic church or Anglican church but just Christian church.
2. I believe u know the roles Barnabas and Paul played in the church at Antioch, they set the church up, nurtured it and the church followed their directives – Acts 11 vs 26. If u say that the church at Antioch was Roman Catholic because they began having communion with and paying allegiance to the Pope of the Roman Catholic church at a point in time in their history, in that case we will also say that the church at Antioch was first Barnabas and Paul’s church before they became Catholic church because they had been having communion with and following directives from Barnabas and Paul and their successors years before they switched allegiance to the Pope of Rome. Or do u suggest we eliminate that part of history and just start from when they began paying allegiance to the Pope?

1. there were no distinction in doctrines in the early church, at first the gospel was preached only to Jews... it wasn't just James in Jerusalem.... until Peter had a revelation and baptized Cornelius. that was how salvation was opened for the gentiles. until Peter got that revelation the entire church believed that one must be a Jew before becoming a Christian.

from that time, Peter accepted gentiles to the fold so too james , those who disagreed with the practice were the judaizers, their opinion was condemned in act 15 by both Paul, peter, James and the entire church.

act 15 shows us that all the churches were answerable to the church in Jerusalem, in fact Paul himself went to Jerusalem to make sure he was in tandem with the church and wasn't running in vain and when the issue of circumcision came up and some would not hear him, he took the issue straight to Jerusalem to be judged. what happened in gal 2 was Peter was insensitive and left the gentiles because his brother Jews had come and Paul rebuked him. you think if every body was allowed his own practices Paul would have rebuked him? the fact is after act 15 anyone who was judaizing got a rebuke and as Paul shows anyone who taught such a doctrine soon became anathema... they were excommunicated... the judaizers became the first heretics in the early church.

and yes as act 15 shows the entire church was answerable to the church in Jerusalem. it was not like the church today were everyone has his different contradictory doctrines in fact the Bible condemned all such fractions and division as we have in Protestantism today.

2. Paul and Barnabas WHO formed the church of Antioch were also in communion with Peter and James, after some years of commissioning he went back to Jerusalem to receive the hand of fellowship from Peter and James and to make sure he wasn't running in vain, there was never a time the churches Paul formed wasn't in communion with the Peter and the whole church. they were also in communion with the Pope... and since Peter went to Rome there was always communion between Rome and Antioch, that is why the successor of Paul in Antioch Ignatius in 107 would still write to the bishop of Rome as the church that presides over the whole church.
even today after the catholic patriarch of Antioch a successor of st Paul is chosen he still writes or go to Rome to receive hand of communion from the successor of Peter.

Wiseman5:
It's unfortunate that you claim you've been reading the bible yet u read without understanding. The marks, Paul talked about has no relationship with stigmata as we can verify from message translation of the same verse of the scriptures.
Quite frankly, I don’t want to be bothered anymore by these disputes. I have far more important things to do—the serious living of this faith. I bear in my body scars from my service to Jesus.
Galatians 6:17 MSG
These marks were the marks or scars he got from the several beatings he got in his service to Christ. Now the woman with the stigmata here, was the wounds on her gotten from any persecution in service to God?

sorry dear the written text doesn't say that it is from the scars he got, that is just what your translators added to the text.

Paul didn't write the message translation, he wrote in Greek and he never wrote that he was referring to the beatings.

he could be, but the text doesn't say so.

you guys just enjoy creating a false dichotomy, religion is believe in a supreme being and the practices associated with that belief, Christianity is exactly that a belief in a supreme being and it attendant practices... the simple deduction is that Christianity is a religion. there is no way to escape that truth.


you can differentiate it and say it isn't like other religions, for----- reasons. but it is still a religion.

solite3:
the church at Jerusalem was the first. Roman catholism is not a christian church, it is a creation of the roman government

the same church formed in Jerusalem also spread to Antioch and Rome, the same church not different denominations. and this church was called the Catholic church.

solite3:
[ you don't know what you are talking about.
You don't know what christianity is. Christianity can never be made a state religion because the ruler of this world is the devil. You have been deceived by believing roman catholism is christianiy.

state the evidence and it must not be from a roman catholic source.
Episcopal movement is the devils movement.
Do you know what a bishop is? Was peter a bishop or an apostle?

sorry Satan was the ruler of the world, Jesus has died and rose and taken all Dominion and power, he shall reign until he make all his enemies his footstool and the last been death.


the bishop is simply overseer, while the apostles were alive they sometimes took that ministry and over saw some churches, prominent in such was John who oversaw Ephesus for a long time.

BluntTheApostle:
SMH...

Before the split, we had the Bishops of Constantinople and those of western Rome.

There was no Roman Catholic Church (Perhaps, I ought to include "Roman" ) until 1054.

The popes in western Rome got powerful over time but that was all about it, it had nothing to do with divinity, and the bishops of Constantinople were always in constant frictions with them.

It was when the Church split in 1054, that we had the eastern half becoming the Orthodox Church and the western half becoming the Roman Catholic Church.

My argument is that before the split, there was no "Roman" Catholic Church (or what we know as the Catholic Church today).

there was the Catholic church, the "Roman" thing was an adjective the Anglicans started to use when they wanted to call themselves Catholics.

it was always the Catholic church and even before the schism was presided by the bishop of Rome.

before the split there was already the Catholic church presided by the bishop of Rome... if that is what you mean by "Roman" Catholic church... then it certainly existed before the schism.