«Home

What Brought Us Here? A Defense Of Christianity

Ok, I know a lot of people here believe all manner of stuff about Christianity. What I want to do here is offer the true history which should explain why there's so much noise about "types and modes" of Christianity, Bibles etc

I will be starting from where it started i.e. the Ascension of Jesus. I will also try to avoid using the Bible as its own witness and let history and reason work it out. I welcome all questions "after the fact" e.g. after I say "I'm a man", ask me "whats my name" rather than the thread derailing confusing trend of asking before the fact.

Back in a few with my first submission.

Avatar
Newbie
60 answers

How does this Christianity defense apply in the thread below :

http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-372836.0.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

Num 23:19 says He is not a man that should lie. Key word - LIE.

My post did not say He lied. It said He answered another name. Would you like other examples from the OT of differing names/titles applied to the same GOD? Your other point would be He was a man. But remember, whist I am reading your post, you are not the letters I'm seeing -they just represent you. Jehovah retains the right to represent Himself in whatever form He wishes. That does not make Him that form!

In effect, you've said and achieved nothing with your response. ANSWER MY QUESTION AND SHOW YOUR PROOF! Thats what I asked after answering your questions.

Calling a business man Leo a Christian because he was pope is like saying when you stand in a garage, you become a Cadillac. People go to church for different reasons and such reasons include prosperity and a search for power. Church BTW, is not necessarily where you find Christ.

0
Avatar
Newbie

1. Who was the first "pontifex maximus?"

0
Avatar
Newbie

@ nuclearboy

Yaramyah (Jeremiah) 23:26-27 How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that prophecy lies? Yea, they are Prophets of deceit of their own heart (Jer 17:9)  which think to cause My people to Forget My NAME  YAHAWAH(YHWH)  by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, as their fathers have forgotten My NAME for BA’-AL.( LORD)

Ex 3:6 Moreover He said, "'AYAH (I AM) The FATHER of your father-- The FATHER of Abraham, The FATHER of Yahtzak(Isaac), and The FATHER of Yahqob(Jacob)." And Masha (Moses) hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon YAHAWAH

Ex 3:13 Then Masha (Moses) said to YAHAWAH, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Yisrayl and say to them, The FATHER of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"

The meaning of The Creator's NAME YAHAWAH (YHWH) can be found in the Book of Exodus (Wa-alah Shamot) Chapter 3:14

AYAH ASHAR AYAH in Amharic or Ancient Hebrew– I AM WHO I AM AND I CAUSE TO BE WHAT WILL BE

Ex 3:14 And YAHAWAH said to Masha (Moses) "AYAH ASHAR AYAH (I AM WHO I AM AND I CAUSE TO BE WHAT WILL BE)." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Yisrayl, 'AYAH (I AM) has sent me to you.' " 

Ex 3:15 Moreover YAHAWAH said to Masha(Moses), "Thus you shall say to the children of Yisrayl: YAHAWAH The FATHER of your fathers, The FATHER of Abraham, The FATHER of Yahtzak, and The FATHER of Yahqob, has sent me to you. This is My NAME forever, and this is My memorial to all generations

Bros NO JESUS in Here!

Does the Letter “J” exist in Hebrew, Latin or Greek?

The answer to this question is no. In fact, there was no letter ‘J’ in  any language prior to the 14th century in England. The letter did not become widely used until the 17th century.

The Encyclopedia Americana contains the following quote on the J: “The form of ‘J’ was unknown in any alphabet until the 14th century. Either symbol (J,I) used initially generally had the consonantal sound of Y as in year. Gradually, the two symbols (J,l) were differentiated, the J usually acquiring consonantal force and thus becoming regarded as a consonant, and the I becoming a vowel.

It was not until 1630 that the differentiation became general in England.” Note in the original 1611 version of the King James Version of the Bible there was no “J” letter in this Bible for because it did not exist. James was spelled Iames. Jesus was spelled Iesous.

In the Hebrew alphabet there is no J letter or sound and it is shown follow: Read form right to left.”

In the King James Version of the Bible,  Psalm 68:4 clearly reveals  that the shortened  form of the Father’s name is “Jah.”  King David writes: “Sing to God, sing praises to His name; Extol Him who rides on the clouds, By His name JAH…” Since there is no j in Hebrew then “Jah” should be spelled Yah or Iah.

The error of changing Yah to Yeh is due to the manmade tradition of the Jewish priests. Their reverence for the holy name caused them to believe that it was too sacred to pronounce.  So they changed the vowel points from a to e in the Tetragrammaton YHWH. This changes the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The letter “a” was the correct vowel to be inserted between the YH obtaining YaH.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Before you leave this page, start your "persecution" thus

No more smileys. No more sarcasm. No more insults. Lets now use your TRUTH if indeed it is truth and doesn't require crutches to make you feel good

Prove that your last quote - Mal 2:2 "If you will not hear, And if you will not take it to heart, To give glory to My Name," Says YAHAWAH of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, because you do not take it to heart." does not refer to Jesus.

The one thing I expect is for you to ask where the name Jesus Christ appears in the OT or in that quote. Don't try that except if you can show me YAHAWAH in Jhn 6:54. Lets see you apply your rules to yourself

As you are wont to say,

Salamah

0
Avatar
Newbie

@yisraylite:

Okay, so now I am your life.

To help, you'll find me at AUTOS, RELIGION and BUSINESS.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Comeback? Curse God? People classification? Sunday?! Respect for RCC? Seems throwing everything plus your obvious physical disabilites and the waste your mind so readily conjures up makes you feel manly and believe you've reached an imaginary audience! Was a time I felt there was more to you but you are trying very hard and succeeding in showing your emptiness.

You give the impression that you're content with the belief system you have. Why then show so much vituperation at everyone? Your past posts show not much more than an immature probably impotent guy reduced to getting his kicks from being a nuisance. You'd probably fit the profile of a serial Molester. Not one single post in your infamous past here provides any link to more than a sick desire to annoy, infuriate and get under the skin of others. Since I now am target, you support Chukwudi44. Yet, the same guy was a target for you prior to now.

You stand for nothing and like nothing, you get nowhere. In sincerity though, your nuisance level here has been commendable. Better get on your knees and ask your impotence be cured! With renewed manliness will come a smile and zest for life

0
Avatar
Newbie

That was rather obvious from the onset.

A Christian wouldn't deny Christ, would he? That was why I sounded you out by calling you "Jew" or your memory doesn't serve you that far back? Whatever you call yourself, Christian cannot be applied to you.

Also, Chukwudi44 isn't a Christian. He's a Catholic, a son of that church. Which is why I said you'd join forces.

Isn't it instructive that its Christ that is always the problem. Maybe cos you all have the same father, the original liar!

Funny you speak of busting, fraud and lies. That is the trademark of your guiding spirit.

0
Avatar
Newbie

You flatter and celebrate me!

So now you go around seeking my posts? You call Jesus fake, claim the NT is a fake and then when I suggest the impetus is cheap brandy, you follow me around and claim redress for insults real and imagined!

I wonder what in my posts is so important that you leave your empty life to follow me around seeking that I continue to converse with you. Anyways, welcome to this thread. Now the one claiming his "form" of Christianity created the Bible, named the books therein and is Divine is in touch with the one that claims all of those books and the system behind them are a lie.

But I wager none of you will notice the other who ought be your natural enemy. Its true apostolic belief that will come under attack. So join forces and prove that Christianity's greatest enemies wear the robe and answer the name whist denying the essence.

Let the barking begin

0
Avatar
Newbie

When God allowed Satan to test Job, He had a purpose. Same with when Jesus was nailed to the cross. Yet in your blind devotion, you do not see God's hand behind the putting together of the Bible and claim it belongs to the RCC. You are very wise! Same for the naming of the "gospels". What you do not realize is that just as satan did not become "godly" when he "arranged Job's trials and the crucifixion of Jesus, the RCC does not have claim to divinity or godliness because it put together the books in today's Bibles. Or we could put it thus: The RCC is as godly for putting together the Bible as Satan is for killing Jesus and bringing the purpose of God into reality.

Satan has always been a tool in God's hands. Its after the fact that he usually realizes he's been outwitted yet again and then he goes berserk yelling insults, killing people and making noise. That is why I will not bother to call you names. Its obvious you're carrying multiple demons which have taken over the faculties in you that would otherwise have made you realize you've played so well into this threads purpose and shown everyone what drives you is power, lust and anger. You show no maturity, manners or upbringing. Rather, your demeanor is that of a demon whipped by Angels and who, needing to express its anger, bites itself in the arm to show its manliness.

Now I command you, bark some more

0
Avatar
Newbie

I sill insist you are a fool and a big one for that matter.Since the RCC is corrupt a s you said why don't you reject all the heritage you inherited from them including the bible.

by the way were in the scripture was it written that mattew,mark,luke or John wrote any gospels .Was it not the same cathlic church that named this gospels.If you don't beleive in the divinity of the church why don't you reject these books .

Even books like hebrews almost didnt make it because of confusion over it's authourship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilegomena

Whether you like it or not the RCC virtually decided basic christian doctrines in place today.No other christian denomination in history has contributed so much to the faith like the RCC.

If you came to this website expecting to have afree reign dishing out lies about the church ,then you re in for a big shocker

0
Avatar
Newbie

Its regrettable people see truth as hatred. You don't even deny your atrocities (obviously you can't) but rather justify them by pointing out the faults of others. Were I to call you a fool now, could I justify that before the Lord who said that was tantamount to murder by saying you did it 2ce? But then, you are of your father, Satan the Pope, so you needs must be murderous and hope your hatred will kill me and mine.

My generation is of those who serve God not human institutions who try to change the laws, seasons and purposes of God. When we exist no more, the moon, sun and stars will no longer give their light

You've served your purpose here. Go play elsewhere.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@nuclearboy

Do you know that the ancient Isrealis committed far more atrocties than the catholic church have ever done.

Of all the kings isreal had how many were faithful to God.Only David ,Solomon,hezekiah,Josiah and a few others more than 80% of them were worshippers of baal and committed countless atrocities.Does that mean they weren't the chosen race ?

Whether you like it or not no religious sect in history is free from scandals.Not even you holier than thou protestants.

Insert Quote

If I had any doubts you re a fool this just confirmed it.You arguments are just baseless and borne out of intense hatred for the RCC.

I have bad news for you,the RCC is still kicking and not showing any sign of slowing down.It is going to outlive you and your generation.(that is if you will have any)

0
Avatar
Newbie

Do you know why all the quotes that defend your "form" are so readily available to you? Because rather than the Word of God, you have fed on the Word of your form of "christianity"? Every argument that tries (yet fails) to portray the RCC in a perfumed light as in your arsenal. Why can't you use the Word of God to defend yourself except Matt 27 for Matt 13? You speak of my quote as though your "Canon choosers" had a spirit that could discern the truth? When was the Bible put together? When did reality make it obvious a prophecy had been fulfilled? Why can't you do the math?

And now you present wikipedia and wikipedia and again wikipedia as the Holy Infallible scriptures to defend the lies you were fed and brought up on and then confirm the murderous pedigree of your "form" by not only calling a dissenting voice a fool but then judging that you are right. Since you claim your "form" is divine, I guess you also stand in the place of God.

Better wake up and face God rather than man. and leave the stories aside. Only point here worth both your while is if your "form" is following Jesus Christ's teachings of fulfilling the laws and seasons and times AND NOT adding to them?

Time to move ahead with this thread. You've served admirably well in passing the point across as to how Christianity has misrepresented by seekers of wealth, power and earthly power.

0
Avatar
Newbie

If I say yore a fool it would not be an insult but rather a fact,the same RCC that was allegedly exposed in the books of Revelation was the one that decided the canon and included the book of Revelation in it. Do you reason at all ?Did you know the book of revelation almost didn't make the canon,even after it's canonisation people like martin tried in vain to have it removed,it was this same RCC that fought to have it in the canon

[i]Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James "an epistle of straw," finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. [b]He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it."[[/[/b]i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

pope Paul VI was not the first pope to be harrased or even killed .Most of the popes in the first 300 years were killed. Even the death of pope paul VI never slowed down the catholic church in the 18th century

Your problem is that you hve made up your mind in the negative direction about the RCC.What about the atrocities committed by protestants after the reformation.

Protestants were killing roman catholic s and even killing their fellow protestants.

catholics vs lutherans, lutherans vs anabaptist e.t.c.Why don't you talk about the thirty years war and other atrocities pepetrated by protestants? does that now mean that christianity is an apostate religion.

Martin luther wrote one of the worst anti-semitic literature the world has ever seen.His work on the jews and their lies inspired the worst genocie in human history-the holocaust.

Luther advocated an eight-point plan to get rid of the Jews either by religious conversion or by expulsion:

"[i]First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. , "

"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. , "

"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. , "

"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. , "

"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. , "

"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. , Such money should now be used in , the following [way], Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount], "

"Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."

"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive the[/i]m out like mad dogs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

No christian sect is immune from scandals in the history not even the new one that are only a few decades old.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@viaro

I would not want to further discuss the apostolicity of Paul as it had no importance either in this thread or the formation of the RCC.

viaro viaro viaro !!! how many times did I call you,is zoroastrianism older than judaism ?,I never claimed that the RCC is the oldest religion in the world ,All I was trying to say is that it is the longest surving christian organisation in the world.

It is apostolic in orgin,even surviving apostolic churches like the oriental and eastern orthodox churches broke away from it.The catholic church virtually decided the shape of christianity today.

The Bible clearly stated that churches were founded in a no of countries like Isreal,Egypt,turkey,greece,macedonia,jordan,syria,armenia,spain ,italy e.t.c what happened to these churches? .How did they disapear within a few decades and where in the scripture were that prophesied?

how come it was the so called apostate church that was left to defend the faith and decide the canon

0
Avatar
Newbie

The beauty of this conversation is that our readers can see why there are many "christianities". As I have earlier said and still maintain, God is not the problem. Neither is Christianity. However, some people would sit on thrones at any cost. Enter the combination of state and power. Why do you not provide us another example in history where any system held such claim of state and divinity yet emanated from God. Nebuchadnezzar? Alexander? The Caesars? Attila the Hun? You can't Bro, but you are showing us your "form".

The only problem I still see is your newly broadcast claim of the divine nature of the RCC. I'm surprised an educated person would suggest that longevity translates to Divinity. Take a look at Satan, Chukwudi44 and consider he has been around at least 6,000 years. Is He too Divine/of God?

Let me use the bible to explain your RCC. "One of the heads seemed to have a fatal wound, but the fatal wound was healed. The whole world was astonished and followed the beast. Men worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked 'Who is like the beast? Who can make war against him'" Rev 13:3 & 4. After Bertier the French General pulled the pope off his throne in the 18th century and had him quartered, the idea was that the RCC was dead. Enter the early 20th century and it was resuscitated. All that simply brings to fulfillment a prophecy. Your only claim to divinity is that it lasted 2000 years. Doesn't the above explain it away? I'd rather be mortal and truly affiliated to God than an infernal damned immortal "mortal". At least the Apostles were mortal and never claimed the divinity you now ascribe to your "form".

0
Avatar
Newbie

If that argument stands, your Catholic institution is a new comer - Zoroastrianism is far older than Catholicism. Please stop using these very, very puerile arguments as crutches to defend what you cannot defend, especially when you're at pains to deny what is written in your own Bible (remember Acts 14:14?).

0
Avatar
Newbie

The Roman catholic church is not a human institution.That's why it has survived for 2000 years now .The institutions that are human are the ones that came afterward.

The catholic church has a divine origin.

0
Avatar
Newbie

did you not read in the first chapter of acts that judas was replaced with mathatias ,even two people was nominated and only one was chosen just to make up that number.

should we also say Jesus was speaking symbolically im mattew 19:28 when he said to the twelve

And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, That you which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, you also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The number twelve is definite.Mind you am not trying to belitle the personality of St Paul of tarsus or his tremendous contribution to christianity.St Paul was a great man of God and among the greatest figures in christian history,but that should not mean he was among the twelve.Remember during the election of mattatias to replace Judas it was stated that the person that was to be chosen must be one who had been with them even during the time of Jesus.

To summarize ,Jesus had many disciples but only twelve apostles

0
Avatar
Newbie

If the catholics destroyed the so-called historical documents why didn't they destroy the scriptures or are trying to say that the scriptures were corrupted.I have said it before that the difference between the protestants and the muslims is that why muslims say the church and the scriptures were corrupted ,the protestants said the church was corrupted.

In truth ,the church cannot be corrupted leaving the scriptures untainted,if indeed the church was corrupted as you protestant s claim.Then the muslims will be right since the scrptures ought to be corrupted with them.

The bible made it clear that the apostles founded churches in Isreal,syria,egypt ,turkey,italy spain,Jordan,greece,macedonia,cyprus e.t.c you people want me to beleive that these churches all disapeared within a few decades without any traces?So in essence God could not even preserve any one of these churches abi?

Talking about the burning at the stakes and other cathoic atrocities are you protestants not equally guilty.Catholics were hounded and killed in protestant countries like England,scotland.,holland,protestant parts of Germany,sweden and other countries where the reformation was succeessfull.Martin Luther even advocated the killing of Jews saying "we are at fault in not slaying them".So talking about atrocities no denomination in christianity is exempted not even the pentecostals who arose in modern times

Mind you during these 1500 years ,the roman form of cathlicism was not the only form of catholicism that existed.In 451CE,at the council of chalcedon,countries like Armenia,Egypt and Armenia pulled out of the  roman catholic church. These churches called the oriental orthodox churches are sill in existence today.Also in 1054CE,eastern part of europe like russia,ukraine ,greece,turkey,romania,bulgaria e.t.c pulled out of the roman catholic church ,these churches called the eastern orthodox churches are also still in existence.There are about 300million members of these churches today and constitute the secnd largest denomination in christendom today.

So in the 500 years just before the reformation there were chuches operating independent of Rome.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Why? A health issue?

I had a medical bann from booze bout ten years ago when i had a heart problem. I fired on with the booze. . . so irresponsible. . . thank God sha. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

I could not have said this better. . .brilliant.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Well, what can I say? I feared from the onset that this thread would polarise towards a issues certered around Catholcism.

Dear chukwudi44, I now understand that as Catholic, you're passionate to defend your group-identity. That's no problem to me at all. However, it is quite worrisome that your defence rests on very weak inferences and shallow conjectures that are uninformed. Please don't read that as accusatory; but let me draw just one example out of several -

There are two arguments in one statement you have put up there:

(a) Paul was not among the Twelve

(b) Paul was not an apostle

The first statement in (a) above is true, that Paul was not numbered among the Twelve. However, the second statement in (b) is patently false, for Paul was an apostle. Your argument to the contrary makes us wonder what you make of the fact that we often read of Paul as an apostle in the New Testament. In fact, Acts 14:14 there were two who were named apostles besides the twelve - "the apostle[b]s[/b], Barnabas and Paul" (note 'apostles' is in plural and applies to them both, Barnabas and Paul, which if added to the Twelve brings the number to fourteen).

Your argument denying the apostleship of Paul is twofold:

(i) that there were Twelve apostles - which means there could not have been more than twelve; and if that is the case, then the argument is refuted by Acts 14:14 that recognizes both Barnabas and Paul, making the number of apostles up to fourteen (and there are many more);

(ii) that the names of the twelve apostles are inferred in Revelation 21:14, and therefore there could not be more than 'twelve'? That again is does not mean that only twelve apostles existed all through the Christian Church, for a number of reasons:

~ the apostles which are gifts to the Church according to Ephesians 4:11 are said to be after the resurrection; the Twelve we read of were called in the Gospels before the Crucifixion;

~ Revelation is not speaking literally but rather symbolically; so there's no reason to think that there were literally twelve apostles, otherwise also in that Revelation 21 we should say that the Lamb is to literally marry a city according to verse 9 and 10.

~ even more to the point is that in the Gospels 'the Twelve' apostles included Judas; in which case, in as much as Peter recognized this fact in Acts 1:17, are you saying that Judas was one of the names of the apostles in Revelation 21:14?

All this just shows that your arguments are quite strained and your defences are weak since you're using very untrue assertions to make your point in favour of Catholicism. One would have hoped that you could hold your views about your own church soundly without denying what is so, so obvious.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Chukwudi44:

Strange that your defense is of man and not God. But I forget the Pope is the representative of God on earth. The Vicar of the Son of God. You sit self-righteous claiming no-one stood against your "form" of christianity for 15 hundred years forgetting that those who history documents as doing so died at the stake, or were used for arrow target practice or boiled alive or had stones tied around their necks and drowned. Ever heard of the Dark ages and the inquisition?

I still maintain this thread is meant to show that there remains a true Christianity practiced by the Apostles and early Christians which didn't involve swords or the combination of Religious and Political Power as your Mother church exhibited.

Why are you so fraudulent about those who were with Jesus, I quoted Matt 13 and you now tell us who was with Jesus in Matt 27. Where do you find Mark 15 in my post? Or Luke 24? Or John 19? Is it possible you use the bible to show me that it was the wife of cleopas in Matt 13. Hey, I just remembered. It was a number of Pigs that were with Jesus when the Gadarene Demoniac was cured. Maybe their leaders were the ones nailed to the left and right of Jesus. Those pigs were thieves too, you know, as they stole the man's demons and ran off clapping with them! Maybe it was the leader of the pigs called "chuks4ever" that was crucified on the left of Jesus just as the wife of Cleopas is suddenly transubtutated (?) to Matt 13! One can never trust the Bible to tell the truth about the real people with Jesus, you know! Only the RCC can interpret.

And unlike the Popes, I know no-one who lived in the 1st 4 centuries. These "successors" to His Holiness, Pope Simon Peter the Immaculate disciple of Jesus knew those who lived then and boiled them all alive destroying all their testimony so mainly only the writings the Holy Killers allowed to remain stayed. They are your church fathers including such as the celibate Borgia Pope who fathered such as Lucrezia.

Finally yes, Paul was not among the 12. Judas Iscariot was the 12th and his name is written in your Rev 21:14. Hopefully and IJN, you'll be under Judas wing and share his room in the hereafter as his PA, abi?

0
Avatar
Newbie

ol boy if you want us to argue this till thy kingdom come then I am very ready for you,and I can assure you I have enough weapons in my arsenal for this.Atheists and muslims were created by the sme God as us and they will face the same judgementa s us if they like they can ridicule their own God.

Insert Quote

The dogma of papal infallibility does not mean that the pope is immune from sin or making mistakes,to understand the implication of this dogma see the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

0
Avatar
Newbie

I will address these with these bible quotations by considering the women that where with Jesus at the ntime of his cruciication and death

in mattew27;54

we have mary magdalene,mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of zebedee

in mark 15:40 we have Mary magdalene,mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph and salome.

in luke24;10 we have mary magddalene,and joana and mary the mother of James

in John 19:25 we have his mother,and his mothers sister MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS

From the foregoing you can see very clearly that the mother of James,joseph and their brothers was actually MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS,THE SISTER TO THE MOTHER OF JESUS AND NOT THE MOTHER OF JESUS HIMSELF.So in reality ,James,Joseph and their brothers were actually cousins of Jesus and not his uterine brothers .The word brother was used because there was no greek word for cousin then .

0
Avatar
Newbie

ol boy,the facts are very clear,the early church fathers who gave us the bible has said it all,if you have your facts you can challenge their writings on wikipedia ,that's what makes it an interesting website.Otherwise just keep your mouth shut.Your claim that constantine was the first pope has been defeated because obviously he was never pope and never pretended to be one,besides the seat has existed for almost three centuries before his ascention tas emperor of the roman empire.

To challenge their writing you will have to quote someone who lived in the first four centuries of christianity challenging the position of Peter as the first bishop of Rome.It was universally acknowleged in the first 1500 years of christianity that Peter was the first bishop of Rome before martin luther challenged in in the 16th century.No body challenged that claim not even in the 1st and 2nd centuries which was just decades after his death and which had living witnesses of these events

The authourity of the church was vested in the person of st Peter in mattew 16:18 Jesus specifically told him " You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it,I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on eart is loosed in heaven.

Also in John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Thus the authourity was on Peter and not Paul or any other apostle

0
Avatar
Newbie

Chukwudi. . . just as an aside, considering the history of the church can you justify the dogma of papal infallibility. . .

0
Avatar
Newbie

The acts of the apostles had it that both Peter ,Paul and the rest of the apostles actually ministered to jews and gentiles alike,Peter actually preached in lydda and Jopa,antioch,Rome and other gentile territories.Paul himself preached in jerusalem and also preached to the jews in gentile teritories.

So in the real sense no one can be said to be restricted to only jews or gentiles.Mind you st Paul of tarsus despite his enormous contribution to christianity was not actually among the twelve and can not be said to be an apostle.

James the just,the supposed brother of Jesus was even more influential than Paul in the first century.

in Rev 21:14 the walls of the city has twelve stones on which was written the names of the twelve apostles of the lamb.

AS you can see from the above quote ,the no of the apostles was definite twelve and not thirteen

0
Avatar
Newbie

Simple question the child Mary gave birth to was it Man or God?

When a woman gives birth to a baby she is called the mother of the child ,when Mary gives birth to God(Jesus),why should she not be called themother of God The only way mary would not be called the mother of God would be if Jesus ceases to be God.

By the way who told you Jesus was not worshipped even before his crucification?It was recoded in the gospel of mattew that he was worshipped by the three wise men in matt 2:11.

Where did you get the impression Jesus refused worship before his resurection,?you are trying to bring up another form of heresy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Chukwudi44:

I thought you said Mary was the mama of the Lord God Almighty. How is that possible if Yaradua's mummy is not the mama of Nigeria? Mary gave birth to the Human "fleshed" Jesus who refused worship till he rose again; as Mavenbox would call it, the actor Jesus, a mirror image (lateral inversion, if you like) not the Spirit and Power of Creation.

Your official list of Popes is interesting. However, the Bible says that Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Considering that every single "pope" has been a gentile, Paul ought to be the first pope. But you wanted a claim to the keys of the kingdom of heaven so Peter it had to be!

Did you notice your comment about the RCC "form" of Christianity? Thats the problem here. There are no forms of Christianity. This thread said the RCC created its own form. You rejected that assertion. Yet now and in even stronger words, you state it yourself. And you mention the Nicolaitans, Marcionites, etc. Some historical literature state that the Bishops of Rome had not only their leaderships and manifestations wiped out but even 3 of the ten tribes of Europe as well. You guys had military power that you utilized and now you say they disappeared because they were not of God. But they did cos they were not of the RCC "form"

I would like to keep this thread on track. However, if you would like to see a true attack on your RCC, I will oblige you. Again I say, it is not right we allow atheists and Muslim ridicule the God we serve because of our own pride. Accept that you formed your own particular style and felt naming Peter as your founder/first pope gave you a feeling of legitimacy or do not even accept. But please allow us show there is only one way that Christ showed and it is not found in ANY denomination or "form". It is an individual Spiritual worship of God "for such does the Lord seek".

Let me return to the issue of Mary's Children: Mark 6:3 says "Isn't this the Carpenter?Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James and Joseph? Aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him".

Take a look at Matt 13: 55- 56.

Then at Luke 8: 19 -20.

Then at John 2:12.

Twould be nice to see what the Vulgate has to say about this?

0
Avatar
Newbie

I don't know what You mean by dilution and distortion of christianity,but know this by the second century the catholics were not the only christian sect existing,they were the only ones that survived. Between the first 400 years of christianity we had sects like the nicolaitans,marcionites ,valientinians,montanists,arians,donatists e.t.c

By the second century major groups like the marcionites -followers of Marcion of Sinope and the valentinians -followers of valantinus were serious rivals to the catholic church.Also in the 3rd and 4th century sects like the donatists and the arians seriously competed with the catholic form of christianity.

Just like gamaliel told the pharasees in acts,whatever is not of God will ultimately disapear,these groups withered away and finally died off after the deaths of their founders.

Even after the so called reformation has the catholic church really slowed down?70% of catholics todays are in nations that were evangelised after the reformation.

The catholic form of christianity (Roman and orthodox) still constitute almost 70% of the world'schristian population,

what happens is just that the opposition to catholicism keeps changing with each one claiming to have been selected by God.

Between the time of moses to the comming of Jesus was less than 1400 years,but from the death of the last Apostle to the protestant reformation was more than 1400 years ,and this is after the death of the messiah that was supposed to liberate us from bondage.

Are you people now implying that the messiah now came to increase our sufferings? were in the scriptures was this foretold? The babylonian exile that was to last just 70 years was foretold by daniel ,how come Jesus did not say anything about the supposed destruction of the church just few decades after his death ? why did he say that in mattew 16 that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church when he knew the church would only last for a few decades?

The Roman catholic church is either divine or diaboical and if diabolical nothing good is expected to come from it and this include the scriptures or anything that has to do with it.It remains a historical fact that no other christian sect has contributed to christianity like the roman catholic church.

The catholic chuch has not been perfect any way,so was the ancient isreal,the chosen race, they committed worse atrocities than the catholics ever did ,yet that did not take away the promise of God to Jacob.

Almost all the Isreali kings were worshippers of baal or other gods .On the other with the exception of a few popes more than 80% of the popes were faithful to the true teachings of christ.

The catholic church is not perfect so is the other christian denominations including the pentecostals that makes the highest noise

The few mistakes the catholic church has done over the ages will not take away Jesus's promise to Peter.

0
Avatar
Newbie

For the official list of popes se the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes

0
Avatar
Newbie

I never in my analogy stated that Yaradua's mum is the mother of Nigeria.

Please Jesus was the only child Mary Had.

James the just and his brothers were children of mary's sister not biological children of Mary.

James the just,the author of the epistle of James in the bible and the first bishop of Jerusalem was one of the most influential christian leaders of the first century,Paul called him alongside Peter and John the pillars of the church.

His younger brother Jude another supposed brother of Jesus in the epistle of Jude called himself the brother of James and a slave of the Lord Jesus.Note here he did not say he was the brother of Jesus and James,but rather the brother of James and a slave of the Lord Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

0
Avatar
Newbie

Like you said the web actually allows anyone to put up anything that's why wikipedia is regarded as the most reliable website in the world because it's contents can be chalenged by any one with facts ,it is also open to thelogians both catholic and protestant alike.To find out who was the first pope we have to go back to the writings of the early church fathers who gave us the bible.

Ireneaus of lyons was an early christian bishop of lyon in today's france,he is regarded as an unbroken link in the apostles heritage since he learnt from Polycarp of smyrna who was privilged to hear from the apostle John himself.

Writing in 175CE more than 100 years before the birth and ascension of emperor constantine states in his work Against heresies

:

When the blessed apostles had founded and built up the Church, they handed over the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy. Anencletus succeeded him. After him Clement received the lot of the episcopate in the third place from the apostles. He had seen the apostles and associated with them, and still had their preaching sounding in his ears and their tradition before his eyes -- and not he alone, for there were many still left in his time who had been taught by the apostles. In this Clement's time no small discord arose among the brethren in Corinth, and the Church in Rome sent a very powerful letter to the Corinthians, leading them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which they had recently received from the apostles, which declared one almighty God, maker of heaven and earth and fashioner of man, who brought out the people from the land of Egypt; who spoke with Moses; who ordained the Law and sent the Prophets; and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. Those who care to can learn from this Writing that he was proclaimed by the churches as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so understand the apostolic tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is older than those present false teachers who make up lies about another God above the Demiurge and maker of all things that are. (3.3[/i],

,

[i]"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 pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (160-220 CE)

writes

"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John (the Baptist, by being beheaded

dionosius bishop of corinth in 170CE writes

You (Pope Soter) have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid

-st ignatius of antioch to the smyrmeans 107CE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

This is more than 200 years before the ascension of constantine

cyprian of carthage writing in 256CE STATES

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." [/i]Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

[i]It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days of our Saviour to our own; and to relate the many important events which are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing, When Nero was in the eighth year of his reign, Annianus succeeded Mark the evangelist in the administration of the parish of Alexandria, Linus , was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,1:1,2:24, (A.D. 325

Is Jesus not God,if mary is the mother of Jesus then it threfore follows that she is the mother of God,it is just like saying Yaradua's mother is the mother of yaradua but not the nother of a president.Afterall Elizabeth under the influence iof the holy spirit called Mary the mother of my Lord

did the same torah not tell you that God commanded moses to make GRAVEN IMAGES of the bronze serpent and the winged creatures?Did Solomon not decorate the temple with winged cratures and his throne with graven images of lions

could you please describe the appearance of the holies of holies,did it not contain winged creatures.

God merely commanded us not to WORSHIP graven images ,he never meant we should not make graven images.

By the way if you go to the national stadium in lagos you will see graven image of sam okwaraji,does it mean nigerians now worship images ?

Abot purgatory, like the trinity it was not explicitly stated but was implied in a no of bible passages most especially1 pet 3:19,1 cor 15:29 ,e.t.c

for more see

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

About the eucharist besides the fact that it was explicitly stated in the gospel of John and the epistle of paul let me give you this quote from st ignatious of Antioch who was privileged to hear from the apostles .

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1[i][/i]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

for more on eucharist see the link below

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

0
Avatar
Newbie

Viaro &Illusion: I am sorry if you didnt seem to get me. The OUTLINE helps to answer questions via comparison of human experience of Love with the Divine experience, and not that the ANALOGY has fine print answering all questions. Similar to how the Old Testament is an outline that helps to understand God's plan, but is only a shadow until the NT explains it all. If the OT is a map telling where to find the panacea of salvation, the NT yields THAT panacea. I hope you understand. Thanks.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Lol, I had a premonition that you would not be done until 'tithes' featured in your replies. The Biblical faith is far more than worries over that - and when one subject becomes the bigger issue that defines a believer's faith, something is wrong somewhere.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Lol, nuclearboy, I don't think this is the way to go. I had a hunch earlier that it seems this was polarising towards a fist against Catholics; and (hoping I was wrong) it should not necessarily serve that end. This was why I earlier hinted that - the Christianity that the 'Apostles practiced'.

I'd wager that many of us do not even know what 'Apostolic Christianity' actually is - and we can only be content with what has come down to us today. Let me even go as far as to say that we should sometimes have respect for the Catholic institution today: there's no denying the fact that Catholic scholarship has proven to be immensely beneficial to many of us who would have been groping aimlessly in our faith without such invaluable heritage from them.

Let's no turn this thread into another 'us versus Catholics' saga - there are several threads already where such wrestlings have been staged ('staged' - perhaps for the entertainment of bemused onlookers who wonder how the 'children of God' could drop all grace and trade fists on one another's faces). Instead, we might share on the subjects you had highlighted about relationships. What do you say?

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Chukwudi44:

Hello there. I've been expecting you'd get here sooner or later. I actually wished for sooner as it provides a prompt opportunity to present information, not only to yourself but a lot of other readers.

I want you to know I do not belong to ANY Church system. I'm not protestant or Seventh-day or pentecostal or whatever. I am a believer and NO ONE stands between me and God as mediator.

I know you're Catholic and needs must defend that faith. But you and other readers might want to take a look at the following and make up your minds as to the role the RCC has played in Christianity

WAS CONSTANTINE POPE?

http://www.reformation.org/pope-constantine.html

http://www.themillennialdispensation.org/kcttaoc.html

http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question36118.html

NEGATING PETER BEING THE FIRST POPE

http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm

Now lets suppose the version you heard puts another name as the second pope after Peter. The web after-all allows anyone put whatever information they wish on it.

Where did anyone get the idea that Peter was pope? What about the changes you have today in your ten commandments which differ from what the Torah, its source says? The canonization of human beings? Your decision that Mary is the Mother of God. The Idols you set up everywhere when plainly the Torah states "MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGES"? Your insistence that a wafer is the actual flesh of Jesus simply because a Priest mumbled over it? Where do you get purgatory from? And there are dozens more of issues like this

Give a scriptural backing for ANY of the above or else you just accepted that you guys created a new brand of Christianity separate from what the Apostles practiced which is simply what this thread is about. You sought to change the WORD OF GOD, HIS LAWS and THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES. You also brought in DOCTRINES UNKNOWN TO THE APOSTLES.

0
Avatar
Newbie

This is the most ridiculous post of the year,the roman emperor constantine the first pope ??!!!

Did he ever sit on that seat ?

I ve said it over and over again ,the office of the bishop of rome and the catholic church has existed centuries before the birth and ascension of this man constantine.It is erroneaously beleived by sme protestants that this man constantine empowered the church of rome and corrupted christianity,this is very far from the truth.

constantine was never pope and he did not even pretend to be one.

The council of nicea did not discuss the canon of the scripture,it was not even mentioned in that council,the bible was decided about sixty years after the death of the emperor constantine by the synod of hippo in 393 CE and the council of carthage in 397 CE.

@NUCLEARBY

STOP FEEDING PEOPLE WITH LIES,I VE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE BEFORE. IF YOU WANT AUTHENTIC INFORMATION GO TO WIKIPEDIA,THERE ANY INFORMATION PASTED CAN BE CHALLENGED AND ERRONEOUS ONES REMOVED

0
Avatar
Newbie

how then do we authenticate ur so called \"genuine Christianity established by the apostles \"?

The point is that ur so called analogy is fraudulent.

1. The historical path to the genuine teachings of the apostles is not a highway. There are several divergent views on it all. . .how and why should anyone take the OP or ur submissions as a true or final authority? why should anyone believe the analogy on this thread? why are the other versions of history on this subject false? why is urs alone right?

2. The teachings of the apostles can be found in the bible. . . .some of them have written gospels or letters which are part of the bible.

But the core teaching of the apostles is a Christ-like life which explains the continuous emphasis on the scriptures about Jesus. anyone looking for the core teachings of the apostles does not need this thread. . .the bible contains sufficient information.

3. u call all other versions of Christianity false and call urs right simply because u choose to include the poor, widowed and fatherless (while u have no sufficient proof to show that others are ignoring this creed of Christ). Good. . . .but the essence of Christianity is fellowship with fellow saints in God and NOT a one man crusade like u try to make it. From that point of view, ur attempts look more hypocritical than genuine IMO.

4. apostle Paul took this same route that u (kunleOshob) are taking. . . . .but He planted churches that fellow-shiped with other xtians every where he went to, while emphasizing the need to give to the poor and needy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@maven

pls check our blackboard.Im waiting

0
Avatar
Newbie

A sort of apologetics? Okay, let's keep the thread going.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Viaro: I dont think you understand me, yet. When I speak of relationships, I was referring to unions that are geared towards marriage. Then I compared it to a Christian's union with Christ, also geared towards marriage. If one cannot understand the kind of love that Christ has for the church, he cannot understand the kind of love (relating the spiritual to the physical) that is necessary to have a fulfilled romantic relationship. It seems words often fail me *sigh* Thanks.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Nuclearboy: Yes. For instance, a friend, a medical doctor, who was my college friend, asked me some months ago what He ought to do when his girl was misbehaving and just being difficult. As simple as that analogy above is, you can see what he OUGHT to do, in light of how God treats us patiently when we are stubborn and running against his Will. It's dead easy, but for those who try to make things complex, it goes over their heads.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@nuclearboy, I get what you're trying to convey and appreciate your efforts.

However, I meant 'simplistic' (not 'simple') in the sense of something being 'characterized by extreme and often misleading simplicity'.

Which was why I wondered that the simplistic generalizations we often make about relationships in Christ may not serve well, especially when we think that such generalizations could answer 'ANY question about relationships in Christianity' - clearly, they do not. They may make some sense; but they do not answer to just 'any question' one may have about relationships in Christianity.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@Viaro:

This thread is meant to educate ourselves and readers, not wonder what happened to the peoples in ages past? And yes, the analogy is simple but makes sense. No-one can read it and make a case for pre-marital sex. [size=8pt][size=8pt]Ehm, actually, we all can (as a function of our lusts but not with Biblical support)[/size][/size]

0
Avatar
Newbie

Lol, that analogy is simplistic. There are very many questions about relationships in Christianity that cannot be answered by that comparison. What about the saints who lived before the Incarnation? They surely cannot be termed 'Christian' or be said to have Jesus' teaching to live as example, no? Are those also outside of the 'Bride' of Christ?

I think we should be careful in making very polarised statements. Just my observation.

0
Avatar
Newbie

A 'purely Biblical perspective' - That sounds quite ambitious. IMO, I don't think any single Christian (theologian or lay) could give a 'pure' perspective on any subject of the Bible where loopholes are absent. What you may be able to do is give your own understanding - which again cannot serve as standard for all Christians.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.