₦airaland Forum

Nodogragra4me:
You did not interpret the passage but found it convenient as a support for upholding the satanic affliction of that woman as a replication of the passion of Jesus Christ. Your church didn't do that ...they never stated anywhere that Paul had this satanic affliction experience. But you have tried to input it to Paul simply because he said he has the mark of Christ on his body.


A man with a copy of the nail injuring on both palms of Jesus wouldn't have been able to write the lengthy letter he wrote and he said so that he wrote the Galatians letter himself ...


Read this passage .... .2 Cor 4:7-13

actually having those wounds won't stop him from writing 2 letter, st francis had wounds and wrote stuff.

you have concluded in your mind that it is satanic, argument won't help you... your mind is closed, you can carry your pastor there to do deliverance.

Nodogragra4me:
During the last two years of his pontificate, Sixtus V (158590) rewrote the entire Latin Bible, adding phrases and sentences at whim, leaving out entire verses, changing the titles of the Psalms, and inventing his own system of chapters and verses. In a Papal Bull Aeternus Ille (an allegedly infallible declaration on faith and morals to the entire Church), he declared by "the fullness of Apostolical power" that this new "translation" of the Bible must be "received and held as true, lawful, authentic and unquestioned in all public and private discussions, readings, preachings and explanations." Anyone who disobeyed was to be excommunicated. Of course, when the clergy saw the pope's astonishing handiwork, which instantly had made obsolete the Council of Trent's approved Latin Bible and all textbooks based upon it, they were horrified. Fortunately, Sixtus died a few months later and a cover-up was devised by Bellarmine. As de Rosa explains
[/i]




A Bible had been imposed with the plenitude of papal power, complete with the trimmings of excommunication, on the whole church-and it was riddled with errors. The academic world was in turmoil;



On 11 November 1590, Bellarmine returned to Rome.... Personally relieved that Sixtus, who had wanted him on the Index [of forbidden books and authors], was dead, he feared for the prestige of the papacy.... Bellarmine advised the [new] pope to lie. Some of his admirers have disputed this.


Their task is formidable. The options were plain: admit publicly that a pope had erred on a critical matter of the Bible or engage in a cover-up whose outcome was unpredictable. Bellarmine proposed the latter. Bellarmine and a group of dedicated scholars sworn to secrecy went to work and in about six months corrected the past pope's errors.


A new edition of the "Sixtus Bible" was published as though it were merely another printing of the same, and a massive effort was made to recover the original copies of the heretical publication, which were then destroyed. As one would suspect, a few copies escaped the search and have been preserved (one in the Bodleian Library in Oxford). These "Bibles" constitute one more proof that popes are not infallible and that to maintain this lie the Church is willing to tell other lies as wel[i][font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]

lol... I imagine that was your problem.

for those who may not know the story.

During the pontificate of Pope Sixtus V there were in circulation many editions of the Latin Vulgate some of which were unsuitable. Pope Sixtus V felt an urgent need to revise the text as did three of his predecessors (Popes Pius IV, Pius V and Gregory XIII) who were unable to get that task accomplished.

He established a commission consisting of Cardinals Allen,
Bellarmine, and Caraffa, to revise the Vulgate, an enormous
task. The short of it is Pope Sixtus V rejected their work and
decided to carry out the revision himself. That was a tall order even for a Pope, he was both translator, editor, supervisor etc and after 18 months he showed his cardinals what he has done...they were surprised because the work clearly showed that is was a one man thing, it had mistranslated sentences, pages in wrong places, typographical errors etc. Pope sixtus had drafted a bull to introduce this revised version.

Seeing the calamity Cardinal Robert Bellermine and others acted and their pressure caused the Pope to delay. Sixtus V abandoned his original plan to publish the bull, which had long been printed, and he set about correcting typographical errors.

It never happened! A vigorous, healthy, active Pope Sixtux V died on August 27, 1590 after a very brief illness.** The solemn promulgation of Pope Sixtus V’s Vulgate never took place.** The bull announcing it was never issued. At the
request of the new pope, Gregory XIX, under Cardinal
Bellarmine’s supervision, a new commission was formed to carry out the revision of the revision. Before Pope Gregory could release it, he died, and his successor, Pope Clement VIII had that honor. The version released by Clement bore the name of Pope Sixtus V. The new pope, Cardinal Bellarmine and others, who were directly involved in the project, wanted, out of charity, to preserve the good name of Pope Sixtus V and decided that the corrected version would be issued in his honor.”

again in this case the Pope translated the Bible with huge flaws, he was confronted and didn't publish, he started his correction but still couldn't publish before he died, at his death his work was continued by cardinal Bellarmine who completed during the time of Pope Clement, the revised version was published and named after sixus who began the work.no one was trying to rewrite the Bible to suit Catholic doctrines instead the Pope tried to translate the Vulgate and did it badly, his work was not published by the church but instead well corrected before published.

the issue has nothing to do with infallibility, the work was never published.

Nodogragra4me:
Is the book Jeremiah also part of your church declared Jewish Old Testament or part of the Christian Old Testament.


You keep using the word , Protestant and I am tempted to ask you this question: what were the people protesting

so you don't know that what we call old testament is simply the Jewish scriptures.


they were protesting the church, they later organized their own thing.

live4dgospel:
See what you take pride in presenting here. Even while the apostles were writing their books, others who went out from their true faith have started corrupting the gospel, I have given many examples of such as the case in Galatia and the seven churches of Asia in the book of Revelation. Are you then vindicating me? Didn't I tell you the absolute corruption(I mean corruption with impunity) of Christian faith started after the Edict of Milan in AD 313? All those figures(you claim to be your church fathers and Early Church members) you presented here, even though I desire not to know them in any way wrote all these before the AD 313, and you don't even know whether they are the true faith transmitters or corrupters! I would rather be happy if you can provide me with some books written by those people so that I can validate their faith by shining the light of the word of God. After the Second Vatican Council 1962-1965 Roman Catholic Church declared "There is salvation outside the church" even your present Pope is still advocating for that under religious harmony. Maybe I will give you time to read about the declaration of Second Vatican Council.

they were the transmitters of the faith, many bishops and clergy whose job it was to condemn heresy, in fact they were the guys who preached against the major heresies of their time.

if you don't desire to read up then you wish to remain in your ignorance, no wonder you imagine all these your fake stories.

I have read up on Vatican 2 council, I have the complete works of the council in two volumes, I don't need a jjc to tell me about it.

the church is the body of Christ, outside the body of Christ none is saved.


since you wish to criticise those guys, here is one of their writing

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm

this was written by iraeneaus bishop of Lyons against the heretics of the time, he examine the false doctrines and refutes them...you can criticise him if you find fault in his teaching.

JMAN05:
How can you say that the church never taught it while it was Pope Leo X that authorized its sell?

Pope Leo never authorized a sale... the Catholic church considered a sin to sell spiritual things that is simony. what was authorized and indulgenced was almsgiving... if you still feel Pope Leo authorized a sale then I'll ask you to quote the papal bull

There beneficial traditions, but when this so called tradition contradict the bible, it is thrown away. What happened in Jesus day shows that tradition can't have the same authority as the scriptures. And that errors can easily creep in if scripture is not used to filter so called traditions.

lol

who determines that the tradition is contradictory? for Zwingli the Lutheran tradition that Jesus is in the bread and wine contradicts scriptures, from Luther the zwinglian tradition that the bread and wine are mere symbols totally contradict scriptures... who among them determine what truly contradict scriptures.

for pastor chris the idea that only 144000 people will go heaven contradict scriptures, for jw the pastor Chris idea that all the saved will go to heaven contradict scriptures, so who decides what contradict scriptures among them.

I'm sure for you Catholic doctrines contradict scriptures, for them it doesn't, who are you to determine what is contradictory?

BluntTheApostle:
The Roman Catholic Church was not the first Church. The term "Catholic" had been used by the Christian Church as referral to her universality.

There was one Church and when it split, the earliest churches such as the Roman Catholic Church came to be.

All the cities had Bishops who were called Popes but all the churches were regarded collectively as the Christian Church.

not true either, the term Catholic was actually first used to distinguish the church from the heretics and schismatic who hadn't valid bishops. the entire church in communion with Rome was Catholic excluding the heretics and schismatics.

even before the split the church was already called Catholic and the bishop of Rome presided over the church.

even after the heretics at chalcedon were excommunicated, the church was still called Catholic, the excommunicated people called themselves Oriental, after the patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated the church was still called Catholic, the excommunicated ones started to call themselves Greek Orthodox. before the split the church was already called the Catholic church.

nwamehn:
So, my man, u mean that the headquarters of the Catholic church was at Antioch before it was moved to Rome when Peter went there, am I right?

2. The first time or times that the churches at Antioch, Jerusalem, Corinth, etc decided to be called Catholic church according to u, did they all agree in a meeting to be called Catholic church or did they decide to be called Catholic churches at different times in their separate histories?

3. U rightly said that the name Catholic church came into existence in 100 AD when they chose to be called Catholic church to distinguish from heretics, and that before then, they were just Christian church, so, what u mean is that there was Christian church before the name Catholic church came into existence, isn't it?

1. yes first in Jerusalem, later Antioch then Rome.

2. I don't know if they had a meeting, the first written documents that refer to the church as the Catholic church was written by Ignatius bishop of Antioch about 107 AD he wrote it as if everybody already knew that the church was called Catholic church... he wrote several letters one to Rome, one the the church in Smyrna the other to the Ephesians etc he was killed by the empire by been fed to beasts. all the Christian writings from around and after him from all over simply use the same Catholic church like every one already knew it not necessary at different times but more like they all knew it was the name of the church.

3. not true, I was called baby until 2 days after I was born the my parents named me ubenedictus does that mean the person called baby before is different from the person called ubenedictus? or are they different titles for the same person? I believe it is the same me first called baby now called ubenedictus.
the church used to called the way, then when it followers were called Christians in Antioch it started to be called the Christian church the same church was finally called the Catholic church, it doesn't mean the Catholic church came after the Christian church, rather the same church previously called the way was called Christian and later Catholic.

shadeyinka:
There are just three classes of Doctrines/Tradition
1. Scripture Based
2. Heretic
3. Placebo

then allow me to add the last class you seem not to know of

4. in conformity with scriptures, witnessed by tradition and believed in the church from antiquity

shadeyinka:
I understand you well.

Humans will always misinterprete even clear words to suit their selfishness, ignorance and greed. But, just as the can do that to a written constitution, they can do it to any scripture as well as any tradition. Its just human weakness in expression.

That is why we must have a written document/ constitution/scriptures so that if any misinterprets the scriptures, others can use the same scripture to correlate or contradict the interpretation.

and like any country, the history of Protestantism has taught us that a constitution without an authoritative interpreter is a junk document of good ideas because everyone will interpret his junk into the document. imagine that Nigeria is a country with a constitution alone and every body is to interpret it according to his patriotic spirit... the truth is that we will have anarchy. but we have a constitution, a supreme court to interpret it etc, when the apostles wrote the new testament, they had already taught the tradition in which context it is rightly understood and had a church capable of authoritatively interpreting the document. a Bible alone Christianity as history has shown us is simply Protestantism in anarchy.

It is important to note that the early Catholic church was highly instrumental in the canonization of the Bible. Some criteria was used (which seems sensible to me) and any holy writ that failed the set of criteria are discarded. Like all scriptures in the NT are not older than 70 AD. Hence, scriptures are linked directly to the apostles or their associates for credibility sake.

It is worse however for traditions because they could be smuggled in and once a precedence is laid, such tradition become the norm. Many tradition have no basis in the scriptures Eg. Purgatory, Indulgence, veneration of Mary

of course the early church was instrumental in the Canon, but do you know that the canon was not composed as an exegesis material but actually as a liturgical work? the canon was simply the books to be read in liturgy... not a compendium of doctrines and practice, in fact the opposite was the case the bishops of apostolic churches were the custodian and surety for correct practices Iraeneus of Lyons makes the points clearly... I understand you may not want to hear it so I won't quote...the scriptures were profitable for those things but if you weren't reading them with the church then you're doing your own thing.

funny enough the stuff you named is supported if scriptures is read in the early church, but if you are reading them according to your 21 century today ideas then you will imagine as you do now that they are unbiblical, whereas the only problem is that you have refused to interpret the scriptures in their context.

Erring on the side of safety is following the trusted written word. Is everything written down? Certainly not but we can get by

Some of the things not discussed are methods of doing thing
Evangelism
Holy Communion
Exorcism/Deliverance
Healing
etc


Here, every church and every believer develops their own method but as long as it doesn't contradict the written word.

It is also possible to create traditions out of the scriptures! However, whenever any tradition clash with scriptures, we should follow the scripture!

the so-called erring on the side of safety is an error, the Bible, the early church has given us the template for reading scriptures, it says hold the written and the unwritten, it shows us how to recognise the true unwritten, it says it was conferred to leaders in the churches and those were to teach other faithful men, it shows the church as a teaching authority... for me that is the safe side, the unbiblical idea of Bible alone causing thousands of denomination is for me the exact unsafe bet a rather big error.

live4dgospel:
How about the introduction of another heresy after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) when Roman Catholic Church declared "There is salvation outside the church"? Which contradicted what it's written in Acts 4:12. Is it a teaching of the Early Church before 313AD? I heard that in Heaven there are heaps of ears, these are the ears of those who heard the truth but rejected it and instead embraced falsehood. You hold Catholicism with passion not knowing that the Devil has committed all of you to it that you may be destroyed in the end. However, you have to believe what you choose to believe.

the church is the body of Christ, how can there be salvation outside that body of Christ....

the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church actually was clearly expressed by the early church before 313 ad


Saint Irenaeus (died A.D. 202): “[The Church] is the entrance
to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we
are bound to avoid them… We hear it declared of the
unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not
inherit the world of life which is to come… Resist them in
defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the
Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her
sons.” (Against Heresies , Book III)

Origen (died A.D. 254): “Let no man deceive himself. Outside
this house, that is, outside the Church no one is saved.” ( In
Iesu Nave homiliae )

Saint Cyprian (died A.D. 258): “He who has turned his back on
the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ;
he is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. You cannot have God
for your Father if you have not the Church for your mother.
Our Lord warns us when He says: `he that is not with Me is
against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.’
Whosoever breaks the peace and harmony of Christ acts
against Christ; whoever gathers elsewhere than in the
Church scatters the Church of Christ.” (Unity of the Catholic
Church )

“He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of
God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does
not hold life and salvation.” ( Patrologiae Cursus Completus:
Latina , Father Migne)

“Nay, though they should suffer death for the confession of
the Name, the guilt of such men is not removed even by their
blood…No martyr can he be who is not in the
Church.” (Ancient Christian Writers )

Bishop Firmilean (died A.D. 269): “What is the greatness of his
error, and what the depth of his blindness, who says that
remission of sins can be granted in the synagogues of
heretics, and does not abide on the foundation of the one
Church.” (Anti-Nicene Fathers )

Lactantius (died A.D. 310): “It is the Catholic Church alone
which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this
is the abode of the Faith, this is the temple of God; into which
if anyone shall not enter, or from which if anyone shall go
out, he is a stranger to the hope of life and eternal
salvation.” (The Divine Institutes )



and in case you are wondering what it means Wikipedia has an article to help you

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Ecclesiam_nulla_salus

Emmanystone:
Sir, you know that you worship the female Hellenistic goddess 'Primadonna'. She is the Queen of Heaven you are so proud of. The demon YHWH is against.

no it must be you who worship that goddess since you know so much about it. you can't force on me a dirty deity that I do not acknowledge. since you acknowledge her then I put it to you that you are her worshipper

solite3:
. See lies how is catholic the first church?

because it was, it began in Jerusalem and spread through out the world.


which church do you think was the first?

indulgence were never sold by the church even in the middle ages, instead alms was taught as something indulgenced, some preachers went on and overemphasized the money aspect as if it was a transaction. the church later found out and banned the practice, thus calling them to order.
this ended the practices of the unscrupulous preachers.

shadeyinka:
Of course indulgence was sold especially during the times of the Crusades.

If Peter was the first Pope, it can be showed that even Peter Erred. Hence Popes are not infallible. The last Pope but one is also an evidence of a Pope who was sincere to recognize his weakness and thus abdicate forbthe present pope. We also know popes who were said to sire some children.

it seems you have mistaken two different ideas, infallibility and impeccability. the doctrine of infallibility does not mean a Pope always lives a moral life or makes the Best decision or act rightly... sorry no Pope is impeccable, they are all humans, Peter the first leader of the church was so scared of his fellow Jews that he stopped eating with the gentile, Paul hit out against him, even our current Pope Francis was recently heavily criticized by fellow priests because they say he isn't "hard" enough on issues. Catholics don't believe that the Pope is unable to make mistakes... Pope make stupid decision sometimes, history is the witness.

what Catholics believe is that the gates of hell will never prevail against Christ's church and that by the help of the holy spirit she has the mission to bear witness to the good news for all times, so that when the Pope as spokesperson for the church after consulting scripture and tradition affirms belief held in the entire church from of old he is helped by the holy spirit so as not to teach heresy.

it means the Pope can't form new doctrines but he can clearly affirm the faith of the church against heresy in a definite manner, this is usually done normally by calling a council whereby the entire church bears witness to her faith and distinguish it from heresy, in rare cases where a council may be impractical, the Pope has the responsibility of asking all bishops to state the faith and he proclaim the same. this is seen in scriptures in act 15 the church of Jesus after consulting scriptures and the very experience of her leaders the apostles states that the decision of the council is the decision of the holy spirit.

My take against tradition is not against the Catholic church. I only used such examples because I know that you are Catholic.

Every tradition becomes "doctrine" to the adherents.
Like C&S and Celestial church of Christ will not putbon sandals into the church. Tithes are a must in some Pentecostal Churches, Deeper life bible church has instituted a modus operandi for female dressing, The Assemblies of God Church don't use musical instruments bin worship etc

The key point is:
Is the tradition contradicting the plain written Word of God?

If such tradition contradicts or is unfounded by the scriptures then it should be discarded.

I believe apostolic tradition never contradict scriptures but that it works hand in hand with scriptures and provide the right context for its interpretation. in fact I believe that any attempt to discard apostolic tradition is to do violence to scriptures because they form the basis for which scripture is written and make plain that which scriptures mentioned in passing.

I'll give you an example.

500 years ago Luther put his sola scriptures in motion, he read the last supper accounts and the writing of Paul that clearly says the bread we eat is a participation in the body and the wine a participation in the blood of Christ, he became convinced that when Jesus said this is my body, this is my blood he became literally present in the bread and wine for Luther this was a most important doctrine of Christianity and he taught same.
later came Zwingli he too a sola scriptures guy he too said he had the spirit, he too read those passages, unfortunately he believed that when Jesus said this is my body and blood it means Jesus was making them into symbols... that didn't make any sense for Luther, how can the Bible say people are condemned for eating mere symbols unworthily? Luther called Zwingli and both of them met and argued for hours, text upon text, exegesis upon exegesis, no solution, Luther excommunicated Zwingli and vice versa and when they left the meeting both refused to shake hands, both damn the other by anathema... that is the fruit of sola scriptura but if any of them had remembered to step back and remember that these letters were addressed to already evangelized Christians who pretty much knew what the apostles were talking about because they had already been taught orally they would have checked the faith of the early church and see what they believed, they would have found that the entire church from Antioch to Rome to Alexandria etc all taught the the bread and wine became Christ, plain and simply and that would have settled it...but no Luther and Zwingli disagreement still exist in their churches till date.

I could tell you another story about Luther and the Anabaptists but the issue is same, the Bible was never meant to be a stand alone book it was addressed to an already believing church and if you divorce it from its natural setting you will get a hopelessly fractured church with each person interpreting it his own way while claiming the spirit.

shadeyinka:
My take.

* its not my intention to attack the believes of the Catholics.


Following the Lord means exactly that: following the Lord
Following the scriptures cannot be the same as following the Lord
Following traditions is certainly NOT following the Lord.

The difference is just in safety.

The Scriptures is trusted: hence can be used as an operating manual in following the Lord

Traditions cannot be trusted (examples abound that can be proved to be insertions)

if you follow the scriptures rightly then you'll follow Christ, they may not be equivalent, but one is to lead to the other.

following apostolic tradition rightly is also to lead us into following Christ, it is that faith which the church has bore witness to even in centuries where it was impossible for everyone to have a Bible the gospel was still proclaimed in the church orally.

scriptures may very well be trusted but its interpretation by various teachers who seemingly answer only to themselves and their self acclaimed holy spirit cannot be trusted and God understood this that is why there exist a tradition in which scriptures is to be read and understood, the church.

nwamehn:
Lol. Boss, u didn't have to post all those literatures to prove ur point because ur points ar very clear. U mean that those churches were in communion with the Pope of Rome and for that were Catholics. I don't wish to enter that area of argument for now. My argument is that Catholic was not the first church and Peter wasn't the first Pope not whether the churches were in communion with Catholic at any point in time in their existence as u claim. Now my questions are these:
1. Before the church at Antioch began paying allegiance to the Pope of Rome according to u, what was it? Was it a Catholic church?
2. Before the church at Jerusalem were brought under the Pope of Rome according to u, what was the church at Jerusalem, was it a Catholic church?
3. Who was the Pope of the Roman Catholic church then overseeing the activities of the church at Antioch in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians?

the Christian church both in Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria etc was always one, no denominations just one church, by 100 AD the church called itself "the Catholic church" to differentiate the Christians from the gnostic heretics.

so all the church whether in Antioch or Alexandria or Rome were the Catholic church.

1. the head of the church was Peter while he was alive the headship of the church was once in Antioch but he Left for Rome and died there that is how church headship remained with the see of Rome as the cathedra of peter and the church of Paul. the church of Antioch was always the Catholic church, it always respected the Pope st Peter and from AD 60 when Peter was in Rome it has had all evidence to Rome.
2. the church in Jerusalem was the Catholic church, it was earlier under James, it was of course in communion with Peter, in 70AD the temple was destroyed and the church fled to the hills during the war and banishment of Jews, it was from here that the gospel spread, Jerusalem always had communion with Rome.
3. at that period the Pope was Peter, he wasn't yet in Rome.

live4dgospel:
I simply cannot stop having pity on your likes! What about now? Is Roman Catholic Church not being presided by Pope around the world now? I think you don't read. Read my previous comment again, I said churches existed before the Edict of Milan in AD 313. But after that Roman Catholic Church corrupted Christian faith by introducing many heretical doctrines. If you read further, I said Roman Catholic Church is a religion. And I said religion is a product of human thought with perhaps an addition of word of God. Roman Catholic Church is no longer Christianity when it has added men's thoughts to the word of God. I also think you are being fooled by this apostle's Creed “I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen"

the church before AD 313 was still the Catholic church, the teaching of the church before AD 313 are still the teachings of the Catholic church today. the church never mixed the Christian faith with anything, in fact it rejected all such mixing, it is your new age churches that seems to be confusing you.

a religion is belief in a supreme being, Christianity is a religion stop creating a false dichotomy and in Christianity, it original ancient and purest form is called Catholicism.

and yes I do believe in the holy spirit, the lord and giver of life WHO proceeds from the father and the son, with the father and son is worshipped and glorified, he it was who spoke through the prophets, I believe in the one, holy Catholic and apostolic church, the communion of saints, I profess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and eternal life to come.

Nodogragra4me:
So Paul was the first person to replicate the wounds of Jesus Christ, bah. No longer the man mentioned here by some of your brethren . It is now Paul according to your imputation.
From history account, including of your church no where has it been mentioned that Paul was bleeding or that the stripes of Jesus was supernaturally manifested on his body ... Paul made it clear that he had suffered persecution for the gospel sake ...physical harms not supernatural harms and affliction

When I return I will help you with the scripture in 1 Cor


This is how you people try to use the bible to defend the works of the devil. You guys will wake up and be praying to some dead man and be mixing the bible as supportive of such practices

I actually didn't bother to interpret the passage, you are the one drawing the varied interpretation.

someone ask about the stigmata in the Bible, well that is the Greek word Paul uses in describing bearing the marks of the Lord physically in his body, maybe he meant the scars he received in preaching the gospel... or some other mark that reflects on his body the wounds of Christ. the word is there, how you interpret it is your story.

Nodogragra4me:
Now I understand why one of your popes decided to re write the entire bible to suit your catholic doctrine .....the Bible is not agreeable to all Christians huh. Timothy suddenly no longer suit your argument and has become a Jew ...
What you have indirectly done is to tell Christians that Jesus Christ wasn't a Christian since the prophecy he spoke about were in the 'Jewish Old Testament'

no Pope rewrote the entire Bible that is your usual Protestant lie. the new testament hadn't been written when Timothy was a child, so he couldn't have been reading the new testament as a baby. what he was reading was the Jewish old testament not the Christian Bible you have today, just the old testament part of it. you seem ignorant that many early church converts were formerly Jews and would have read the Jewish old testament.


Christian means follower of Christ, how can Jesus be a follower of himself, Jesus is the founder of Christianity, the author and finisher of our faith, it is we his followers who are called Christians. that is simple English.

Emmanystone:
The operative word is [may]. My Pastor MAY BE dead in Sin, but have the chance or opportunity to ask for sanctification because [he that is joined to the living, there's hope. For a living dog is better that a dead Lion[/b] Eccl 9:4

Yes, Mary, the woman who submitted her will for YHWH to perform His purpose on earth, is in Heaven. because, she discovered her purpose on earth, which is to birth the Sviour, breast feed Him and release Him to mankind. That, she did and is waiting the resurrection of the saints.

But, the Queen of Heaven/Istar/Ashteroth/PriMadonna the Hellenistic goddess you worship in the place of Mary is not alive. She is a demon.

since you are so ashteroth conscious, it seems you are the one worshipping her, I Honor Mary mother of Jesus my savior, Lord and God.

if you are worshipping istar as part of your heretic church then please repent, I'll even pray for your soul.

Emmanystone:
Take your quarrel to YHWH here...[b]Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

you only forget to Read further as other heretic do for fear that their heresy will be discovered

And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent,
and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten,
when he sees it, shall live." So Moses made a bronze
serpent... Numbers 21:8-9

unless you think God is confused so he say don't make images and later says Make them or you will have to admit that God isn't against having images but instead against treating them as gods which is idolatry.

Yes, He ao venerated her here Matthew 12:46-50 Jesus' Mother and Brothers Jesus was still talking to the people when his mother and brothers arrived.

They stood outside, asking to speak with him. So one of the people there said to him, “Look, your mother and brothers are standing outside, and they want to speak with you.”

Jesus answered, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “Look! Here are my mother and my brothers!

Whoever does what my Father in heaven wants is my brother, my sister, and my mother.”

See? Here Jesus so venerated Mary that He errected her image and began praying her for us His followers to see.

And, He included the counting of Chaplets like the Pagans. Yeahhhh.


Why shd you be ashamed of worshipping your goddess? A servant loves hos master and shd not be ashamed to serve him/her.
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:. You'll follow the one whose voice you hear.
John 10:27
The voice of the stranger who leads them to disobey YHWH by worshipping idols, they will not hear.

Lolzzz. I don't treat Mary with disdain. You indeed do, you desecrete her name by associating it with demons.

I treat her as i will treat any saint saved by blood. because, before God, we are all servants working in His harvest field. She was fortunate to discover her calling and Purpose on earth, She fulfilled it. She is gone to glory. I shall meet and embrace her, telling her weldone sister Mary

But, you.... Hmmm. Trust me, you won't have the opportunity to see Mary, because she won't be in Pogatary or where those who reject Jesus and serves idols will be.


lolzzz.
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Philippians:3:2

Good News Translation Romans 16:17 I urge you, my friends: watch out for those who cause divisions and upset people's faith and go against the teaching which you have received. Keep away from them!
Romans 16:18 For those who do such things are not serving Christ our Lord, but their own appetites. By their fine words and flattering speech they deceive innocent people.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy:4:1

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1 Timothy:4:2

Forbidding to marry...
1 Timothy:4:3a


Guy, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

as usual even the devils quote scriptures I have responded to your main point the rest is your rantings unless you are willing to say Jesus disrespected his mother... until then you have no point.


lastly it seems you didn't recognise the scriptures you were quoting.


Good News Translation Romans 16:17 I urge you, my friends: watch out for those who cause divisions and upset people's faith and go against the teaching which you have received. Keep away from them!
Romans 16:18 For those who do such things are not serving Christ our Lord, but their own appetites. By their fine words and flattering speech they deceive innocent people.

[b]Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Timothy:4:1

it says in the last days, do you know when you church shop was founded by your pastorprenure? lol your church is a last day invention by men WHO have no connection to the apostles just interpreting scriptures to their destruction like the heretics they are and you area a baby heretic for the later days.

it even gets more interesting the Bible says

] I urge you, my friends: watch out for those who cause divisions and upset people's faith and go against the teaching which you have received. Keep away from them!

do you know how your Protestant churches were formed? by constant divisions.... you guys are the ones the apostle were warning about, false teacher WHO enjoy division and schism, go and ask your pastor which church he broke out from, schismatics and heeetice.

live4dgospel:
At least try not to make yourself a fool when commenting. Who is a Christian? Is it not someone who believes in the salvation of Jesus Christ or has that definition be changed by Catholic Church? Roman Catholic Church is a particular church. When Paul established Church in Rome he also established others churches in other regions. In fact, I Will have to repeat: The absolute corruption of Christian faith started after the Edict of Milan in 313AD, when then Catholic Church extended their power throughout Europe. Then Christianity remained in the Age of Darkness for about 1000 years during the dynastic rule of Catholic Church in Christendom. I mean from 313AD to today, Catholic Church is nothing but a mere religion created by human beings in disguise as the servants of God. So don't ever equate Roman Catholic Church to Christians as you have done in this comment!

so you finally realised you are a fool for thinking Catholics aren't Christians even though they believe in salvation wrought by Christ.

your ignorance only shows that you are not aware that the entire church was Catholic in belief from 100-1600 unless the heretics like the Arian's and the gnostics. the church in Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc were all Catholic and presided by the Pope, so if you claim the Catholic church isn't Christianity that means you think Christianity started with the Protestants in the 16th century with their varied contradictory sects.

BluntTheApostle:
The first and only True Church was established by Christ Himself. Early Christians mostly met in one another's houses and a gathering of believers was called a church. These churches were named after cities, for example, the Church in Antioch, which is believed to be the first Gentile church.

During this period, the Church was one and lived as one and worshipped God in spirit and in truth.

However the churches suffered a division in 451 AD in the Chalcedon Council. It was in this Council, that the churches split into The Oriental Orthodox Churches (which today still behave like the Apostles and in general, the earliest Christians) and the "Western Churches".

The Western Churches further split during the Schism of 1054 into The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches.

So, you can see that the Roman Catholic Church is not the first Church, neither can anyone prove that it was the Church that Christ Himself established in Jerusalem.

even before the council of chalcedon the church was already called the Catholic church since 107, at the council of chalcedon the church excommunicated the bishops of Alexandria because of the miaphyte heresy they teaching, those bishops form a faction called the Oriental Orthodox church, around 11th century the patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated and that led to him forming the Greek Orthodox church.

BluntTheApostle:
Don't make it look like churches broke away from you. The split produced what is today known as the Catholic Church.

You always make it look like there was a Catholic church and the churches split from it during the schism but that is not the truth.

actually there was a Catholic church even before others broke away, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Corinth etc were all regarded as Catholic and the Pope was presider over the church until some started to break away in schism.


that is the truth and I just posted several ancient bishop all across the world showing that it was 1 Catholic church before the schism.

nwamehn:
So, u mean that many major Churches of the East which claim to have been founded by the apostles: eg Antioch by Paul and others; Alexandria by Mark; Greek Orthodox church in Byzantium by Andrew (which was then under Heraclea, Turkey rulership before Constantine moved to Byzantium); Cyprus by Barnabas; Ethiopia by Matthew; India by Thomas; Edessa in eastern Syria by Thaddeus; Armenia by Bartholomew; Georgia by Simon the Zealot; Corinthian church by Paul, were all under the Catholic church? U mean to tell me that the church in Antioch in Syria where the followers of Christ were first called Christians was a Roman Catholic church and it was under a Pope in Rome then shebi? So, as at the time the followers of Christ were first referred to as Christians at the church at Antioch in Syria, who was the Pope in Rome that was overseeing their activities in Antioch in Syria then? 
If u read and understood that Great Schism well, u wouldn't be saying all these.

For u to have said that there was nothing like Jewish Christianity shows that u have not read well. Pls, just google Jewish Christianity or Judeo-Christianity and educate urself.

U may also wish to find out what the group Judaizing was all about and whether they existed before Roman Catholic church or not by using Google too.

Point is, Greek and so many other Eastern Orthodox churches that were founded by different apostles as I listed above, Judeo-Christianity ie Jewish Christianity, and Judaizing (not Judaism) had existed before Catholic church was founded, but Jesus never founded any of these churches.

Have a nice day as u do ur research. I have no time to argue.

all those Eastern churches were all part of the Catholic Church until the schism, they were all in communion with the Pope of Rome.

this ancient writings of eastern bishops proves my case.

ALEXANDRIA
St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):
Rome is called "the Apostolic throne." (Athanasius, Hist.
Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
The Council of Sardica (342 A.D.)
...A Council presided over by St. Athanasius of Alexandria:
"If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by
his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad
but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew
...***let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having
those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of
Rome***, so that if it seem proper ***he may himself send
arbiters*** and the judgment may be made again by the
bishops of a neighboring province." (Council of Sardica,
Canon 3, 342 A.D.)

in Alexandria the Pope of Rome was the final arbiter in cases relating to bishops, he was the Court of appeal.

ANTIOCH the church founded by Paul
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):

"I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy
and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power,
and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy
throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches
throughout the universe on many grounds." (Theodoret, Tom.
iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy
Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the
solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living
under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run
to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope
Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains
to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is
adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle
Leoni)
"For that all holy throne has the office of heading the
Churches of the whole world, for many reasons; and, above
all others, because it has remained free of the communion of
heretical taint, and no one holding heterodox sentiments ever
sat in it, but it has preserved the Apostolic grace
unsullied." (Theodoret, Epist Renato)
"Hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a
cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is
fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is
adorned with many priviledges. I have been condemned
without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See.
I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my
appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to
you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the
footsteps of the Apostles." (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113).
St. Eusebius of Doryleum (450): ...writing to Pope Leo:
"The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to
defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your
Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and
communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness
bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of
Doryleum to Pope Leo)

as you can see, the Pope of Rome is responsible for ordering bishops even in Antioch, to judge their cases and grant communion in the church.

JERUSALEM
St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638):
"Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and
driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy
Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables
and characters, I accept all his (the Pope's) letters and
teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the
Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace
them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of
Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the
heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of
our Catholic Church." (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)
"Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other
until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the
foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to
the most holy personages of that throne the questions
agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until
their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the
victorious judgment and destroyed from the foundation ...the
new heresy." (Sophronius,[quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora
to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, x., 893)
Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine (645):
The disciple of Patriarch Sophronius, ....
"And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head
and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of
a dove, according to holy Hugh, that we might fly away and
announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at
Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the
head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For
this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the
beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority,
because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was
clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of
heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to
believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the
Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to
feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,'
saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because
he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord
stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to
confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed
about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for
us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of
blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ
our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with
flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with
respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness
without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see,
where are the foundations of holy doctrine." (Sophronius, to
Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council, Mansi, x., 893)

CONSTANTINOPLE:
St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):
"For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it
received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in
the beginning. For it was right that she who was first
adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world,
should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But
though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to
the end, but gave him up to royal Rome." (Chrysostom, On the
Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating
Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168.
Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).
"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with
Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one
of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader
of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to
see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal,
to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as
the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the
presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the
denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If
you love me, preside over the brethren, ...and the third time
He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He
sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should
say, 'How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,'
this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter)
teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole
world." (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)
Eutyches the Monophysite (448): ....writing to Pope Leo the
Great:
"I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion
and abhorrer of such factions. ...I beseech you not to be
prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me,
but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right
upon the Faith." (Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep. 21. )
Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople (449): ...writing to Pope
Leo:
"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred
synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of
soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to
take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your
Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with
indifference ...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of
our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts.
...Further to issue an authoritative instruction ...so that a
like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an
united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the
laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done
amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly
wound. (Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo,
449).
The Council of Chalcedon (451) --composed of 600 Eastern
bishops, to Pope Leo:
"For if 'where two or three are gathered together in His
name' He has said that 'there He is in the midst of them," must
He not have been much more particularly present with 520
priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning
Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members,
showing your good will." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum
est Gaudio), November 451.
"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed
Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." ---
Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98


all those churches were Catholic and the Pope presided until they broke away

shadeyinka:
Over time, a lot of extra traditions came into the church and therefore, a purging of the system was needed.

Example:
-There was a time when indulgence for sin was sold to people
-Veneration of Mary (I know that as a Catholics you will reject this)
- Purgatory
- infallibility of the Pope ( I could be wrong)
etc.

The best way of sifting out what smuggled itself in was to look at the documents left by the Apostles (the New Testament). Anything not found in could be relegated to the realm of minor doctrine.

there was never a time when indulgence was sold, instead the Church preached that almsgiving was indulgenced and some preachers went and taught it in a monetarised manner.... purgatory is again part and parcel of the Christian faith, this is one point the early Church can help us in understanding. infallibility of the Pope is actually an expression of another ancient biblical doctrine I.e the indefectibility of the Church.


the problem is that you think they were smuggled into the Church, whereas if you read up the early Church you'll find that they were very quick in anathemizing any such innovation, and were alert to prevent such.
but more importantly this your opinion shows a lack of faith, you believe God preserved his written word but you don't believe God can preserve the apostolic tradition given to his church, you do not even believe the promise of Christ to preserve his Church from hades.

3. the Bible doesn't tell us that it contains all the"important" doctrine instead it tells us to hold both modes of the word as indispensable, the idea of throwing away apostolic tradition for Bible alone is alien to the Bible.

I blive different, I believe God protected his word and his Church by the action of the spirit, I believe there was never a time the Church taught heresy or allowed the creeping in of innovation.

nwamehn:
The churches that had existed before the Roman Catholic church include Jewish Christianity, Judaizing (not Judaism), Greek Orthodox church etc. Catholic church only came later and some of the members of Catholic church even where original members of some of these other older churches.

the Greek Orthodox are not before the Catholic Church, the Greek Orthodox churches were part of the Catholic Church, they broke away about 1000 years ago in a schism.

BluntTheApostle:
I agree with nearly everything you wrote up there but I don't agree that Catholicism is not a sect. The Catholic Church is unarguably the largest sect in the world.

the Catholic Church isn't a sect it is the Church... the sects are those who broke away in schism.

solite3:
catholicism is not Christianity just a reform paganism.
What most people don't know is that Christianity can never be a state religion.

says the ignorant Protestant who doesn't know that many Protestant churches were also state religion.

live4dgospel:
Yes, I would believe without any trace of doubt that Catholicism is not Christianity. I think it's best described as religion. Christianity is faith in the word of God but religion is a mixture of humans' thoughts with perhaps the word of God. For example, after the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) Catholic Church declared "There is salvation outside the church" whereas the word of God says in Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

that means there were no Christians from 100AD to 1600. actually I know different, the Catholic Church is Christianity in it original form while Protestantism that began 500 years ago is a new heresy made to delude the unsuspecting

Emmanystone:
My pastor is alive, Mary is dead.

your pastor may be dead in sin, but Mary is alive in Christ

solite3:
your question does not make any sense.
Where did I say the church ended? Read properly before you comment. The catholic church is just like pharisee council, who believed they were superior because they were the custodian of the law.

Let me chip in this Christianity can never be made a state religion.
But
Roman catholicism was adopted as a state religion
Whereas the true church was persecuted while the state religion was nothing more than a tool for persecution and control.
Do you know the first roman catholic pope?
Don't even mention Peter cause peter never knew of roman catholism.

the post was not for you but since you are intent on sticking yourself into it I'll respond.


Christianity can be made, was made a state religion, both the Church in Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem,... were all free from persecution and was later made a state religion... that was the true Church,


the historical case is clear Peter was the founder of the Roman episcopacy, the first bishop of Rome.

Emmanystone:
Who is a liar? He who stands absolutely by the Word of God, or he who disobeys God by doing what He says he shouldn't do?

Catholics worship idols. They worship demons who pretend to be dead Apostles.

They worship the the Queen of Heaven who is Ishta or Ashteroth, or Astarte in the Babylonian mythology and PreMadonna in Greek Mythology. She was the wife of Baal or Molech.The same demon YHWH commanded his people never to worship.
You shamelessly worship her and claim she is Mary Mother of Jesus. Funny enough the priests and priestesses of these demons are celibate just like the Catholic priests and Nuns.

What you can't point is where Mary was ever worshipped in the Bible. If she was ever venerated, it shd have been done by Peter and Paul and John the Apostles but they never did. Yet in a bit to worship Ashteroth, you wore her Mary's garment and name.


YHWH is waiting foe you people.

the liar is the heretic Protestant who seem unable to distinguish between a legitimate image and an idol.

the first person to venerate Mary is Jesus her Son, who went home with her and was obedient to her in all things, to venerate simply means to honor and Jesus who fulfill the law honored his mother. I simply did what Jesus did.

I shamelessly venerate her and the apostles, only the stupid and heretics will treat with disdain the mother of his saviour, lord and God or treat with disrespect the apostles who form the foundation of the Christian Church.

but of course protestants are heretics who follow an excommunicated heriach and were invented 500years ago without any link to apostolic Christianity, just as the Bible prophesied about the last days.