₦airaland Forum

bionixs:
my brother, don't mind mr 1 jamb form. Pope just is just new comer in giving for charity. pastors have been Air-lifting logistics to troubled countries and communities for years and no one hears it. pope has just started. pastor haters, everything pastors do would always bring sleepless night and curse to them.

pope isn't a new comer in charity.

the Catholic Church is the largest giver of charity in the whole world... it is the pastors who are new comers

principi:
It is obvious that you are a Catholic hence the need to DEFEND your Church.
Instead of allowing your emotion to cloud your thinking, I humbly suggest that you make more research on Martin Luther's 95 theses. I'm not against any church. Learn to be objective sir.

I have read the 95 thesis, all of it, even Catholics agree with some of it, and changed whatever wrong activities some minister were performing.

but the correction is on point, forgiveness wasn't sold,alms was preached as a way of covering sins and that is biblical

correction

the Catholic Church said alms giving removed the punishment for sins, not selling forgiveness as you claimed.

the Catholic teaching is based on passages like

Let my counsel be acceptable to you, and redeem your
sins with alms, and your iniquities with works of mercy
to the poor: perhaps he will forgive your offenses. Dan.
4:24. [In the NIV see Dan. 4:27 . And see NAB footnote 6.]
In this present time let your abundance supply their
want, that their abundance also may supply your want. 2
Cor. 8:14 .
He that shows mercy to the poor shall be blessed. Prov.
14:21 .
Whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones
a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, amen
I say to you, he shall not lose his reward. Matt. 10:42 .
"[A]lms atone for sins. He who does a kindness is
remembered afterward; when he falls, he finds a
support." Sirac 3:29b-30 NAB.

Nodogragra4me:
Anastasius III (911-13) and Lando (913-14). Falling in love with a priest from Ravena, she maneuvered him also onto the papal throne. That prostitutes determined who would be pope could hardly be "apostolic succession"! Of this remarkable mother and daughter Edward Gibbon wrote in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: The influence of two prostitutes, Marozia and Theodora, was founded on their wealth and beauty, their political and amorous intrigues. The most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman mitre.... The bastard son, the grandson, and the great grandson of Marozia-a rare genealogy-were seated in the Chair of St. Peter.9 Alberic, another of Marozia's sons, with his armed thugs, literally controlled Rome. He made the Roman leaders swear to elect his son (Marozia's grandson), Octavian, not only as his successor to the Imperial throne but, upon the death of the pope, to that supreme religious office as well. And so it happened that Octavian called himself Pope John XII, while at the same time retaining the name Octavian as prince. Thus both the civil and ecclesiastical thrones were joined in one man. John XII (955-63) was obsessed with illicit sex even more than he was with power. Though he had many regular mistresses, they were not enough. It was no longer safe for any woman to come into St. Peters! Bishop Liudprand of Cremona, papal observer and chronicler of that time, tells that the pope "was so blindly in love with [one mistress] that he made her governor of several cities-and even gave to her the golden crosses and cups of St. Peter himself." Roman mobs that had supported him and cared nothing about his amorous affairs were angered by the loss of properties which Romans had looked upon as part of their heritage

so because pope Francis is selling his gift for the poor? a simple act of charity pained you so much you decided to look for any thing wrong from popes of over 500yrs ago even lies that can't be substantiated so that you'll use it as excuse to insult the current Pope.

chai, is it that you hate charity or you just hate the Pope?

Nodogragra4me:
Anastasius III (911-13) and Lando (913-14). Falling in love with a priest from Ravena, she maneuvered him also onto the papal throne. That prostitutes determined who would be pope could hardly be "apostolic succession"! Of this remarkable mother and daughter Edward Gibbon wrote in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: The influence of two prostitutes, Marozia and Theodora, was founded on their wealth and beauty, their political and amorous intrigues. The most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman mitre.... The bastard son, the grandson, and the great grandson of Marozia-a rare genealogy-were seated in the Chair of St. Peter.9 Alberic, another of Marozia's sons, with his armed thugs, literally controlled Rome. He made the Roman leaders swear to elect his son (Marozia's grandson), Octavian, not only as his successor to the Imperial throne but, upon the death of the pope, to that supreme religious office as well. And so it happened that Octavian called himself Pope John XII, while at the same time retaining the name Octavian as prince. Thus both the civil and ecclesiastical thrones were joined in one man. John XII (955-63) was obsessed with illicit sex even more than he was with power. Though he had many regular mistresses, they were not enough. It was no longer safe for any woman to come into St. Peters! Bishop Liudprand of Cremona, papal observer and chronicler of that time, tells that the pope "was so blindly in love with [one mistress] that he made her governor of several cities-and even gave to her the golden crosses and cups of St. Peter himself." Roman mobs that had supported him and cared nothing about his amorous affairs were angered by the loss of properties which Romans had looked upon as part of their heritage

all this long story because you can't show the so-called stolen artifacts?

Nodogragra4me:
The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office [not the holiness of his life], when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful ... he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable ... in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. ... the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention ....8 Obliged to submit to their bishops' decision. .. submission of the will and intellect must be given ... ! That gives Rome incredible power over devout Catholics. That every Catholic does not obey is not the point; the point is that such wording is the unchangeable teaching and intent of the Church, not only for its members but for all mankind. While many Catholics rebel against certain Church doctrines, they remain nominally attached to the Church, though they may only attend on Christmas or Easter. When it comes, however, to their hope of someday being released from purgatory and getting to heaven, no Catholic can question the Church or he would cease to be under its protection and thus be damned. Vatican II clearly says: This holy Council teaches ... that the Church ... is necessary for salvation.... Hence, they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.9 Remember that Hitler and Mussolini remained Catholics to the end and were never excommunicated from the Church. So did thousands of the worst Nazi war criminals, whom the Vatican smuggled out of Europe into safe havens in South America. Such archcriminals are honored with Catholic funerals and, like Mafia members, die with the assurance that their Church will continue to say Masses in order to get them out of purgatory and eventually into heaven. It is an insurance policy that very few allow to lapse completely.

is this the stolen artifacts?

Nodogragra4me:
The Vatican puts out an official list of the popes, arbitrarily beginning with Peter and continuing to the present. There have been several such lists which were apparently considered accurate at one time but subsequently had to be revised-and now conflict with each other. The earliest lists come from Liber Pontificalis (Book of Popes), presumably first composed under Pope Hormisdus (514-23), yet even the Catholic Encyclopedia casts doubt upon its authenticity, and most scholars today agree that it mixed fact with fiction. Who the actual Bishops of Rome were cannot be known with any certainty at this late date. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia, published by the Catholic University of America, acknowledges this f

after claiming the Vatican arbitrary puts up list of Popes you go and contradict yourself after showing that the list of Popes is also seen in the writing of the early Christians... so decide for yourself which is it, is it arbitrarily put forth by the Vatican or is it also found in the writings of the early Christians?

Nodogragra4me:
The claim that the popes are the successors of the apostle Peter is the cornerstone of Roman Catholicism, without which that Church would lose its uniqueness and could not function. We must therefore spend further time to examine this claim carefully. Is there actually an unbroken line of 262 popes succeeding Peter? For apostolic succession to occur, each pope must choose his own successor and personally lay hands on him and ordain him. This was the procedure when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the church at Antioch on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:3). Timothy's appointment to the ministry was also by the elders laying hands upon him (1 Timothy 4:14), as did Paul when he imparted a special spiritual gift to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:6). This biblical procedure, however, has never been followed with regard to successors of the bishops of Rome or the popes. A pope's successor is chosen not by him, but after his death by others; and it has most often been done in the most ungodly manner, as we shall see. Furthermore, there is no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, and therefore no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200), provided a list of the first 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus was the first. Peter's name does not appear. Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of church history, never mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome. He simply says that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. Paul, in writing his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but not Peter. That would be a strange omission if Peter had been living in Rome, and especially if he were its bishop!

this only happens when people like you who haven't read ireanaeus start talking about what they don't know.


1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every
Church , who may wish to see the truth , to
contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles
manifested throughout the whole world; and we are
in a position to reckon up those who were by the
apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to
demonstrate] the succession of these men to our
own times; those who neither taught nor knew of
anything like what these [ heretics] rave about. For if
the apostles had known hidden mysteries , which
they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect"
apart and privily from the rest, they would have
delivered them especially to those to whom they
were also committing the Churches themselves. For
they were desirous that these men should be very
perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they
were leaving behind as their successors, delivering
up their own place of government to these men;
which men, if they discharged their functions
honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church ], but
if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such
a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all
the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who,
in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing,
by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion,
assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I
say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the
apostles , of the very great, the very ancient, and
universally known Church founded and organized at
Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and
Paul ; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to
men , which comes down to our time by means of
the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of
necessity that every Church should agree with this
Church , on account of its preeminent authority, that
is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition
has been preserved continuously by those [faithful
men] who exist everywhere.
3. [b]The blessed apostles , then, having founded and
built up the Church , committed into the hands of
Linus the office of the episcopate . Of this Linus,
Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To
him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third
place from the apostles , Clement was allotted the
bishopric . This man, as he had seen the blessed
apostles , and had been conversant with them, might
be said to have the preaching of the apostles still
echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his
eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many
still remaining who had received instructions from
the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small
dissension having occurred among the brethren at
Corinth , the Church in Rome dispatched a most
powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to
peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the
tradition which it had lately received from the
apostles , proclaiming the one God, omnipotent , the
Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man , who
brought on the deluge, and called Abraham , who led
the people from the land of Egypt , spoke with
Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and
who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels .
From this document, whosoever chooses to do so,
may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ , was preached by the Churches, and may also
understand the tradition of the Church , since this
Epistle is of older date than these men who are now
propagating falsehood , and who conjure into
existence another god beyond the Creator and the
Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there
succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus;
then, sixth from the apostles , Sixtus was appointed;
after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred;
then Hyginus ; after him, Pius ; then after him,
Anicetus . Soter having succeeded Anicetus ,
Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the
apostles , hold the inheritance of the episcopate . In
this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical
tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the
truth , have come down to us. And this is most
abundant proof that there is one and the same
vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the
Church from the apostles until now, and handed
down in truth .[/b]


http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm


if you understand English then you'll see that the Roman see has primacy and is established by peter and Paul.

Nodogragra4me:
Keep receiving yourself ...Christ establish a criminal hang that is yet to apologise to their victims even today

Contrary to what Roman Catholics are taught, the papal office did not originate with Peter. It was centuries before the Bishop of Rome attempted to dominate the rest of the Church, and many centuries more before this primacy was generally accepted. Leo the Great's letter to Flavian in 449 was not accepted until the Council of Chalcedon had approved it. "[Pope] Leo [I] himself acknowledged that his treatise could not become a rule of faith till it was confirmed by the bishops."11 There were eight councils of the Church before the schism in 1054 split it into Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, when the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated each other. None of these eight councils was called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the emperor, who also put his stamp of approval upon their decrees. As for papal authority, one Catholic historian reminds us: Pope Pelagius (556-60) talks of heretics separating themselves from the Apostolic Sees, that is, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria plus Constantinople. In all the early writings of the hierarchy there is no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, nor yet the special name of `Pope.' . . . Of the eighty or so heresies in the first six centuries, not one refers to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, not one is settled by the Bishop of Rome.... No one attacks the [supreme] authority of the Roman pontiff, because no one has heard of it.
12 The Easter Synod of 680 called by Pope Agatho was the first ecclesiastical body that asserted the primacy of Rome over the rest of the Church, but this was not an ecumenical council of the entire Church, so its decision was not generally accepted. As Catholic historian Peter de Rosa points out:

in case you are ignorant the Church has apologized for whatever atrocities some of her ministers may have committed in her name.


your long post above only proves that the early Church is the Catholic Church and the Protestant enterprise is a new invention.
funny enough every ancient Church even the Orthodox Church agrees that the office of the pope comes from Peter and the Roman Church has primacy.

you still haven't been able to show the so-called stolen artifacts.

SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

so after the death of the apostles the gate of hell prevailed against the Church.?

SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

so after the death of the apostles the gate of hell prevailed against the Church.

Nodogragra4me:
I am not a sheeple like you. I know the catholic church history better than you ..I have collection upon collection even into the modem day and they are not idle .I read them

If your pope wants to show live ,the should start by apologising to the million the church murder and confiscated their property and then use the trillion dollar artifacts to set up free universities in every city of the word where those atrocities took place

sorry dear, I'm not a sheeple, I know the Church established by Christ, the Catholic Church, I know the good she has done in the world and the atrocities some of her ministers have committed in her name. I also know that even through those bad minister God has not abandoned his Church and has continued to sanctify her through those centuries. the gates of hell tried but didn't prevail.



my question still remains what stolen artifacts are you talking about?

jagugu88li:
Let the Pope "charitize" his golden stick, the swiss bank accout, the golden chairs and all inside the vetican then we can later talk of charity. Pretenders everywhere

so u will be happy if your Church sells it head quarters abi?

sorry Catholic Churches are consecrated, as far as they are in use they can't be sold.

Nodogragra4me:
Moreover, for more than a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church exercised both religious and civil control over the entire city of Rome and its surroundings. Pope Innocent III (11981216) abolished the secular Roman Senate and placed the administration of Rome directly under his command. The Roman Senate that had governed the city under the Caesars had been known as the Curia Romana (Roman Curia). That name, according to the Pocket Catholic Dictionary, is now the designation of "the whole ensemble of administrative and judicial offices through which the Pope directs the operations of the Catholic Church."6 The popes' authority even extended to large territories outside Rome acquired in the eighth century. At that time, with the help of a deliberately fraudulent document manufactured for the popes known as The Donation of Constantine, Pope Stephen III convinced Pepin, king of the Franks and father of Charlemagne, that territories recently taken by the Lombards from the Byzantines actually had been given to the papacy by the Emperor Constantine. Pepin routed the Lombards and handed to the pope the keys to some 20 cities (Ravenna, Ancona, Bologna, Ferrara, lesi, Gubbio, etc.) and the huge chunk of land joining them along the Adriatic coast. Dated 30 March 315, The Donation declared that Constantine had given these lands, along with Rome and the Lateran Palace, to the popes in perpetuity. In 1440 this document was proven to be a forgery by Lorenzo Valla, a papal aide, and is so recognized by historians today. Yet allegedly infallible popes continued for centuries to assert that The Donation was genuine and on that basis to justify their pomp, power, and possessions. That fraud is still perpetuated by an inscription in the baptistry of Rome's St. John Lateran, which has never been corrected. Thus the Papal States were literally stolen by the popes from their rightful owners. The papacy controlled and taxed these territories and derived great wealth from them until 1848. At that time the pope, along with the rulers of most of the other divided territories of Italy, was forced to grant his rebellious subjects a constitution

where is the stolen artifacts.

you like to scatter talk but won't answer simple questions.

Nodogragra4me:
Rev father and defender of the catholic faith:

the name of Christ, who had no place on this earth that He called his own, this incredibly evil Borgia pope, claiming to own the world, drew a north-south line down the global map of that day, giving everything on the east to Portugal and on the west to Spain. Thus by papal grant, "out of the plenitude of apostolic power," Africa went to Portugal and the Americas to Spain. When Portugal "succeeded in reaching India and Malaya, they secured the confirmation of these discoveries from the Papacy...." There was a condition, of course: "to the intent to bring the inhabitants ... to profess the Catholic Faith."4 It was largely Central and South America which, as a consequence of this unholy alliance between church and state, had Roman Catholicism forced upon them by the sword and remain Catholic to this day. North America (with the exception of Quebec and Louisiana) was spared the dominance of Roman Catholicism because it was settled largely by Protestants. Nor have the descendants of Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas forgotten that Roman Catholic priests, backed by the secular sword, gave their ancestors the choice of conversion (which often meant slavery) or death. They made such an outcry when John Paul II in a recent visit to Latin America proposed elevating Junipero Serra (a major eighteenth-century enforcer of Catholicism among the Indians) to sainthood that the pope was forced to hold the ceremony in secret.

I asked you what stolen artifacts are you talking about? your response above doesn't even name a single artifact.

or do you wish to concede that accusation.

ehikwe22:
OMG!!! Nigerians are so ignorant. Y'all should do a little research about the history of Catholic papacy and understand what a pope is. They're wolves in sheep's clothing. They appear solemn but are tiger in secret. Catholic Church holds more secret than the Illuminati and free mason. Aww!!! It's an arm of free mason. The Vatican has more gold in it's many countries in this world combined and many of them came from the poor just like every other pastors. Go to Catholic Church and they collect offering 5 times and pay tithes too. They do every other things our Pentecostal pastors are doing. The Pope has their percentage. They endorsed slave trade and colonialism and supervised execution of Africans. The papacy has mastered the Machiavellian acts of power and they use it with all perfection. They're not different from our pastors rather more demonic than them

hey see lies and conspiracy theories.

in offering in Catholic Church goes to the diocese and every diocese is financially autonomous. the pope doesn't have a percentage in the offerings in parishes.

one can't be a Catholic and a free Mason, it is a sin in catholicism,the punishment is excommunication..

The Catholic Church first prohibited Catholics from
membership in Masonic organizations and other secret
societies in 1738. Since then, at least eleven popes
have made pronouncements about the incompatibility
of Catholic doctrines and Freemasonry. [1] From 1738
until 1983, Catholics who publicly associated with, or
publicly supported, Masonic organizations were
censured with automatic excommunication.[2] Since
1983, the prohibition on membership exists in a
different form. [3][2][4] Although there was some
confusion about membership following the 1965
Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), the Church
continues to prohibit membership in Freemasonry
because it concluded that Masonic principles and
rituals are irreconcilable with Catholic doctrines. The
current norm, the 1983 Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith's (CDF) Declaration on Masonic associations ,
states that "faithful who enroll in Masonic associations
are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy
Communion " and membership in Masonic associations
is prohibited.[6] The most recent CDF document about
the "incompatibility of Freemasonry with the Catholic
faith" was issued in 1985.

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


you can't be a Catholic and a Mason.

dandollaz:
Abeg softly Pope dey fly commercial plane?

yes pope flies commercial air line airitalia.

Nodogragra4me:
This is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt ...Even the people who gave him the car knows he would not be able to use it ....It is not even a stately car... If he is serious about helping return christians in Iraq he knows what to do ,Sell those stolen artifacts hidden in Europe and Asia, they are worth trillions of dollars , and use the proceed for those courses.


Families were render useless for believing differently.

what stolen artifacts are you talking about.

mexxmoney:
If Catholics can tell me where they got their doctrine of Mary being the Queen of heaven and Mediating for us from the Bible, then I will withdraw my assertion that they are practicing idolatry

been able to show it is one thing,whether you will agree is another.

johnw74:
truly uben, when Jesus said to His apostles, "do this in rememberance of me"
He wasn't saying, "physically eat my flesh and physically drink my blood in rememberance of me"


He was saying, "meet together like this, eat and drink and fellowship in rememberance of me"

truly uben, that's what communion is:

communion

G2842

κοινωνία
koinōnia
koy-nohn-ee'-ah
From G2844; partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: - (to) communicate (-ation), communion, (contri-), distribution, fellowship.
Total KJV occurrences: 20

you rc's uben, repeat your twisting - lies, as much as you repeat the hail mary

Jesus said his flesh is real not figurative food and we should eat it.


brocab say no don't eat it

weldone

otr1:
I don't expect any less from a follower of the Pope. There everyone was a Catholic before reformation, how come the Roman Church killed so many souls just for owing a copy of the Bible?
I was expecting you to quote the verse where any apostle recognised and mentioned Catholic Church in the scripture. You might want to check the book of revelation on 7 churches mentioned for you to know that the 7 churches are not Catholic Churches. Churches in the early times are different with different doctrines from Catholic. You have to provide an evidence if you think otherwise, not just make wild statements.

you have been misinformed.

The state prosecuted people who knowing wrongly translated the Bible or distributed those wrong translation..

example, Martin Luther invented a doctrine called faith alone, he then went and wrote his own Bible where he wrote, " the just shall live by faith ALONE" THE addition of alone isn't in any manuscript yet he put it there to support his new teaching. such addition was deceptive and criminal especially when people purposely change the word of God to fit their heresy.

since you are looking for a verse where an apostle call the Church Catholic maybe I'll give it to you when you show me where a apostle call the follower of Jesus a Christian or show me the word Bible in the Bible. yet you call followers of Jesus a Christian even though no apostle did that.

the 7 Church in revelation are located in Asia minor the place where apostle john taught before he was exiled, they weren't different denominations with different doctrine you ask how I know they were Catholic, it is simple, the early Christian from around that era say so.

brocab:
It is you arguing, and calling me out-isn't the right term I would use, calling the Word of God out, yes these are on the lines I would use.
Uben Balls you want, I don't need balls to fight my battles, I need the Word of God, it's His Word that fears you, you don't agree with it, only because I have been sent here to help you see the kingdom of God open up before you.
God is calling His beloved Children, so when its our time, we will spend eternity with Him in all His glory.
Uben we could stand together..

nah... what you've gat is your usual untruth and then pride which prevent you from correcting yourself.

brocab:
Can you prove it to be a lie? All you aren't sure, it is a lie?

I remembered rebutting you about this before.

oh I am happy to show you lied, before the Protestant translation of Luther in the 16th century the Catholics had translated the Bible severally.



There are still approximately 1,000 manuscripts or
manuscript fragments of Medieval German Bible
translations extant.[1] The earliest known and partly
still available Germanic version of the Bible was the
fourth century Gothic translation of Wulfila (c. 311–80).
This version, translated primarily from the Greek,
established much of the Germanic Christian vocabulary
that is still in use today. Later Charlemagne promoted
Frankish biblical translations in the 9th century. There
were Bible translations present in manuscript form at a
considerable scale already in the thirteenth and the
fourteenth century (e.g. the New Testament in the
Augsburger Bible of 1350 and the Old Testament in the
Wenceslas Bible of 1389). There is ample evidence for
the general use of the entire vernacular German Bible
in the fifteenth century. [1] In 1466, before Martin
Luther was even born, Johannes Mentelin printed the
Mentel Bible, a High German vernacular Bible, at
Strasbourg . This edition was based on a no-longer-
existing fourteenth-century manuscript translation of
the Vulgate from the area of Nuremberg. Until 1518, it
was reprinted at least 13 times. In 1478–79, two Low
German Bible editions were published in Cologne , one
in the Low Rhenish dialect and another in the Low
Saxon dialect. In 1494, another Low German Bible was
published in the dialect of Lübeck , and in 1522, the
last pre-Lutheran Bible, the Low Saxon Halberstadt
Bible was published. In total, there were at least
eighteen complete German Bible editions, ninety
editions in the vernacular of the Gospels and the
readings of the Sundays and Holy Days, and some
fourteen German Psalters by the time Luther first
published his own New Testament translation.[1] An
Anabaptist translation by Ludwig Hetzer and Hans
Denck was published at Worms in 1529.

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


I remember you made such silly claims in another thread, I rebuted you and as usual you can't take corrections and you are back to making the same wrong argument again.

brocab:
I like this, You never be the one to tell any truth..
Quote" nope, there used to married bishops though, some centuries ago but the Church learnt from experience what the apostle Paul meant when he said a married man gets distracted by his family.
They get distracted alright, but not from their own families, nor their Church, but from other families priest molest their Children.
In all honesty the rest of your story doesn't line up, why the bishops priest don't get married..
God ordained marriages, Paul said: if we burn of passion it is best to marry, priest these days burn with passion for Children and gay men, it would be better for them to marry, so they don't deceive their wife's and Children etc..

again you show your ignorance.

the church ruled against married bishops over 900yrs ago and it had nothing to do with child abuse. if you claim that was the cause then I challenge you to provide historical proof of it....brocab lying as usual.

God ordained marriage he also ordained celibacy as best for the ministry.

otr1:
Neither Paul, nor Peter founded the Roman Church. I wonder where you get your evidence, while even the Bible states otherwise. If you read your Bible very well you'll see that there were believers in Rome before the apostles made a visit. And there is no evidence that Peter stayed long or ever became a Bishop in Rome. It's one of the lies from the Roman pit.
And if you'd agree with me, evident in the Bible itseif, Rome was never a prominent Christian center, at least, not until after the last chapter of the Bible was written.
And I asked again, was Jesus referring to different branches of Catholic Churchtthehis message to the seven churches in the book of revelation? Please note that all the churches mentioned were in Asia minor.

both Paul and Peter were in Rome and they died there, the apostle peter was responsible for ordaining bishops for the Church in Rome. this is attested to by every early Christian historic source. I am surprised you are ignorant of this.

Rome was a preeminent Christian center even in the first century, again historic Christian writing from that era buttress that fact.

the Bible doesn't record the fact that Antioch and Alexandria were preeminent Christian centers yet both of us agree that they were even though the Bible doesn't record it. The Bible only record the time Jerusalem was the preeminent Christian center... it doesn't record every thing that happened in the first century.

if you want to use Bible alone then the only preeminent center was Jerusalem, but that isn't the whole story, Antioch and Alexandria later became preeminent Christian centers and Rome became THE preeminent Christian center before revelation was written.


since some one already quoted tertullian as a early Christian, I'll also quote him, he clearly writes that peter and Paul were in Rome and died there



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



the 7 churches in revelation were churches in Asia minor where the apostle John preached before he was exiled not different denominations. John was the apostle who preached there he mentioned the different towns in Asia minor he was addressing not different denominations.

brocab:
How long has it been Uben, we are doing the same old, arguing over the Word of God, and still we haven't come up with any solution, unless the lord intervenes there's nothing we can do to change that, so until then, or we can do is sit back and wait..
Wait for what, you may ask, well I will tell you, I am expecting us to wait on God, unless you have a better idea" while we pray, we must know, no-one could answer this as good as He can, so it wouldn't be worth it, asking outside the square.
I am not going to tell you how to pray, I already know, whom to pray too, you pray to her, Mary, and I will pray directly to Him, Jesus.

nah,

this isn't me arguing with you, I am calling you out as a bias insincere person who lack the balls to acknowledge when he is mistaken and lack the humility to correct himself.

brocab:
As I have said: believe where your mind takes you to believe, you are mistaken I listen to the Word of God, apostles that wrote the bible, who weren't born in the 16th century as you believe, the 16 century was the time Latin was translated into other languages, and the bible was sent to every nation, and because Catholicism tried to steal the Word, God out smarted Rome, He opened a door so every Man Woman and Child around the world were set free by the Word of God and believed..
There's nothing to be proud off Uben, matter of fact the Catholic Church doesn't have a great story we could be proud off and boast, thank God for these men and women who risk their lives to help save another.
Christians lived by faith, believed in Christ, and died trying to send the message out unto everybody around every nation.
The Catholic Church believed murdering these men and women, would shut them up, so no-one will receive the word of God, Catholicism wanted to claim all God's Word under lock and key, for money power and control.
And God found faithful men and women who risk their lives in the name above every other name, Jesus.
The Catholic Church had hidden agenda's, which caused confusion between Romes Pagan religion and Christianity, Christ separated Himself from the Mosaic Law, both religions couldn't mix, and still today we can't mingle.
Peter was crucified, because Rome couldn't accept Christ to be head of the Church alone, Rome needed their pagan god's to stand with Christ.
And you are right nothings changed from the past, "inside the Catholic Church statues of pagan god's standing along

ong side Christ.
I suppose this is something they won't remove, like the past, the Church will always bow down to something that's dead, before they bow down to the living.
Does this mean you won't answer my question, is the black African under the constitution?

you are back with your untruths and half truths.

of course you are back to your usual ways.

JMAN05:
Yap, singleness offers less distraction. But can a bishop in your church marry now?

right now? nope, there used to married bishops though, some centuries ago but the Church learnt from experience what the apostle Paul meant when he said a married man gets distracted by his family.

you can't send a married man out as a missionary in dangerous places, you'll be uprooting his whole family and putting them in danger.... there is a long story there but the problem became worse since the married bishops tried to use Church funds to ensure their families were stable after their death, some gave church lands to their kids etc. as the years went by it became necessary to appoint Bishop from non married celibate men to avoid the wahala that came with married bishops.
so today you won't find a married bishop even though there are married priests. I think the last married pope was Pope st Felix III about 800AD some 1200yrs ago... married bishops may be more recent.

brocab:
See it as you see it, it doesn't mean you are right to judge, this priest is from the Catholic Church and decided to tell his story.
Already the priest had caused problems with you, but that doesn't say, he had caused problems with other religious believers, I myself don't like what I am hearing, nor do you, but what can we do about it, he wrote it, as he had meant it.
I posted it, to give an example-this is some of the rubbish we hear that's coming out of the Catholic Church, and with this sort of junk no wonder people like myself don't agree with Catholic beliefs; "You can't change that, neither can I, this priest wanted to spread his news across the net for everybody to see..
It doesn't matter if this is true or false-Read it once more...
{In the other hand I suppose you maybe right, priest are now turning to marriage-after searching the net I manage to find this--Priest claims Church could accept gay ‘marriage’: ‘It would be wrong to fight against it’ TORBAY, Newfoundland, June 30, 2017 (LifeSiteNews)
A Catholic priest helping to run a gay-Pride ‘multi-faith service’ says that the Holy Spirit could direct the Church under Pope Francis to change its teaching on marriage and sexuality to accept gay “marriage.” And, if the Holy Spirit did so, “it would be wrong to fight against it,” he said.
“It's not like this was a teaching that was established in the time of Christ, or in the first three centuries, or by the Council of Nicea, or even by the Council of Trent,” said Fr. Paul Lundrigan, a pastor in active ministry at Holy Trinity Parish within the Archdiocese of St. John’s, Newfoundland, to LifeSiteNews.

As we can see, if this above is right, and the priest do have a positive attitude towards marriage, than the next question is, to whom and what sex? Gay marriage will be legalised in every country, and what Pope Francis believes Christians and Muslims are all brothers, and all those in favour put up your hands, will the Church marry Children too, Like the Muslims do..
I have followed Pope Francis travel's, he bowed down to the Muslim god, trying to bring all religion to reunite back to the Catholic Church..
For Pope Francis to be recognised to other religions around the world, he must first deny Christ, Muslims don't believe Jesus is the Son of God let alone He is God, expecting everybody to be reunited in one Church, everyone must first believe in the same One God? "Not god's..

this isn't about causing problems with me. the sinfulness of homosexuality is a dogma in the Catholic Church, it cannot be changed. a pope cannot allow homosexuality because Catholic dogma are irreformable.

of course that too is all over the news but you only chose to read the issue of the erring priest because of your bias.

of course you are back to your conspiracy theories about one world religion.

brocab:
If I wanted to bash Catholic's, I wouldn't have to leave my home, nor spend most of my time sharing the Word of God over the net.
If you are interested in my protestants comrades, trying looking for my name in the tithing section, you will see, I have also written to many protestants that tithe.
I am not against you, I have been sent to witness the Word of God, praying it will someday open your eye's, because whom you worship is a false god, and your religion won't take you anywhere near to be with the Lord.
Believe if you will, but the truth will set you free..
I am not lying, the truth is Uben, God doesn't know you, and you don't know God, if you knew Him, we wouldn't be having this discussion.. And I would like to add, Repent before the Lord asking Him for your forgiveness, and turn from your foolish way..

you have set yourself up as a judge, hahaha.

of course now your silliness is showing, you now are a judge for my soul and a judge for God since you claim to know who knows God and who God doesn't know.



have you ever considered that u are the person who doesn't know God?

brocab:
Why is it, with you Uben, is it just you, all is it every Catholic, everybody I have written too about anything to do with the Word of God, always come back, with a complaint, brocab hates us, I write because I care, you have no idea where you, and the rest that deny the Word of God are heading, believing in another doctrine is not the best road to take.
Believing all in Christ is..
I am up for a descent discussion, religion isn't your topic, if you are willing, lets try talking about something else, I asked on another page, does Africa have the same constitutional rights as the white people, I ask this because in my country, we don't have the constitutional rights, when it was written my elders were slaves, and slavery didn't come under the constitution.

lol,

your bias is crystal clear. my doctrine is same with the early Church, my interpretation of scriptures is same with the early Church, you should be afraid, you follow teaching made up by men in the 16th century, and interpretations that can't square up with historic Christianity.

SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

name a member of this non Catholic true Church from the 2nd to 10 century.