truthislight:

Did not the word "catholic" came up and in use after Apostle Peter had died?

The coining of the word catholic was after the dead of all of christ apostles and the person that coined it was not an apostle.

Going by these same reasonoing before the word 'bible' came about the apostles were long dead.Even before the Bible was compiled and the Anonymous gospels were given the names they now bear the apostles were long dead.Should we now say the bible is invalid?

Should we?

@truthislight.

babaearly:

how did you know God didnt talk to any of the pope or priest to start creating idols? it must be written down in the bible for you to believe?

Babaearly, I'm as sure as the fact that, God is not under a perpetual flux.

chukwudi44:

Don't mind him.He seems to reason through his bombom.His arguments are so illogical that you begin to wonder if you are chatting with a ten year old kid.

Ad hominem.

chukwudi44:

I don't need to read up anything as I am already conversant with the history of martin luther and the protestant reformation.I still do not see what that has got to do with the compilation of the bible which happened 1100 years before the reformation.

Do you really mean to tell me that peter was actually the first pope of the catholic church yet he was not catholic? Do you reason @ all?

How many times do I have to repeat this before you get the point? Peter as Pope, was popular among all christains of his time. He presided over the entire christain faith, neither did he segregated. So, your analogy does not fit in.

chukwudi44: @Reginus

You claimed you do believe in the apostles and nicene creeds yet you question the propriety of saying the rosary.

What do you really understand by these stanza of the creeds.

"I believe in the holy catholic church.....the COMMUNION OF SAINTS.....

Do you believe in the communion of saints? Yes or No

Yes. Chukwudi, seems you don't even understand what that line means. The implication of that line is this: ' I believe in the assembly of the brethren'. 'Saint' there is used in the metaphoric language. It tells us how christ-like we're expected to live our lives once in christ. Your version.

truthislight:

I have not even seen it standing, let alone it making sense.

Seems that's the best you can go now. Truth, with all sincerity, your explanation is not strong enough to make me discard the concept of purgatory.

So far, italo has not given me an answer from the biblical angle. He enjoys it better to attack my person. So much for the conviction I seek.
Chukwudi has being busy with red herrings. Wrong way to justify a belief system. He likes me better if I'm an impostor.
Truthislight's explanation is not convincing. He tried though, but his explanation is totally out of the reach for me.
Ijawkid. This man! He sounds like one already made up on how not to analyse.
Rich4God, so many questions. Re:'my problem with atheism'. He's being away for too long now. He sounds calm though.
I thank you guys for your effort so far.
Chukwudi, italo, Rich4God, I'm for real. I just want to understand the errors in what you see I believe to be true.
My Pentecostal brothers, what do you think of the 1 Peter 3:18-20.

Rich4God, so many questions. Re:'my problem with atheism'.

What do you mean by that...?

Reyginus: Yes. Chukwudi, seems you don't even understand what that line means. The implication of that line is this: ' I believe in the assembly of the brethren'. 'Saint' there is used in the metaphoric language. It tells us how christ-like we're expected to live our lives once in christ. Your version.

@bolded... This got me cracking... Is that what Communion of Saints mean in your own version of the creed...

Rich4god:
What do you mean by that...?

Like, the inverse. To get the answers I seek, I'm being fed, the other man's job.

Rich4god:
@bolded... This got me cracking... Is that what Communion of Saints mean in your own version of the creed...

Hmm. Don't get cracked up yet. Your version?

Reyginus: How many times do I have to repeat this before you get the point? Peter as Pope, was popular among all christains of his time. He presided over the entire christain faith, neither did he segregated. So, your analogy does not fit in.

You are getting it wrong... You should go and ask those who reformed against the church why they left the church that Peter was presiding over. No one is saying that the early christians called themself catholics, but from the way things turned out now, its as good as saying that they were catholics.

Reyginus: Like, the inverse. To get the answers I seek, I'm being fed, the other man's job.

Still confused...

Reyginus: Hmm. Don't get cracked up yet. Your version?

I have no other version other than the catholic version...

Rich4god: but from the way things turned out now, its as good as saying that they were catholics.

This, I want to know, how exactly?

chukwudi44:

Going by these same reasonoing before the word 'bible' came about the apostles were long dead.Even before the Bible was compiled and the Anonymous gospels were given the names they now bear the apostles were long dead.Should we now say the bible is invalid?

Does the name given to the sixty six little books determine who is a christian?

Why not say that the early christians compiled the bible?

Why catholic and not christian? Why claiming the fellowership of christ to yourself?

Presumptiousness, dont you think so?

Afteral the word christian is in the bible, why change it?

Even the person that change it is not an apostle and the word has nothing to do with following christ.

Well, the bible had warned us already:

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." (Acts 20:29-30).
................................

^^^
Take note ^^^.

You have been warned!

Rich4god:
I have no other version other than the catholic version...

Sensible belief systems are not backed up like that. If you hold anything to be wrong, the validity does not depend on only holding it is, but on showing how it is. Once more, your/catholic version?

In the absence of the bible as at AD 40, a Church still subsisted, that only implies the primacy of the Church over the Bible

Also the Church is "inspired" to provide the correct rules of interpretation of the Bible. It draws the context and degree in which words and sentences in the Bible are to be read. An example is the Commandment "thou shall not kill" a literal reading suggests an absolute BAn on killing, even non humans, which God himself violates.

Reyginus: Seems that's the best you can go now. Truth, with all sincerity, your explanation is not strong enough to make me discard the concept of purgatory.

All men on their own.

Whatever you wish to belief is your call.

@ Truth... Why catholic and not christian? Why claiming the fellowership of christ to yourself?

No one is claiming the fellowership of christ to his/herself... What we are saying is that the very church you are criticizing is the very one whose past leaders/clergies cannonized the bible.

Rich4god:
No one is claiming the fellowership of christ to his/herself... What we are saying is that the very church you are criticizing is the very one whose past leaders/clergies cannonized the bible.

Thats your headech.

Am interested in what the words of the epistle of the apostles of christ says.

Good... Since its our headache, leave us to handle it.

truthislight:

Thats your headech.

Am interested in what the words of the epistle of the apostles of christ says.

truthislight:
Thats your headech.

Am interested in what the words of the epistle of the apostles of christ says.

It was the Church that told us the Authors of the books, that's why we believe it.

Let me ask you:

How do you know that Mark wrote the book of Mark and that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit?

My answer: because the Catholic Church told us so.

Your answer?

Reyginus: So far, italo has not given me an answer from the biblical angle.

That is because we have not come to an agreement on what the Bible is, who compiled, created, canonized, named and gave it to the world. When it was created and by what spirit and authority it was compiled and created. Who has the authority to interprete it.

When we sort these out, you would no longer have those questions, but if we don't, no amount of explanation will be enough for you.

Reyginus: Sensible belief systems are not backed up like that. If you hold anything to be wrong, the validity does not depend on only holding it is, but on showing how it is. Once more, your/catholic version?

Brethren who through their way of life have made it to heaven/eternal life and who together with the angels lay the prayers of the Christians on earth at the feet of God; that is, they are praying for them and acting as intercessory/intermediaries.
Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4

truthislight:

All men on their own.

Whatever you wish to belief is your call.

Really.

italo:

That is because we have not come to an agreement on what the Bible is, who compiled, created, canonized, named and gave it to the world. When it was created and by what spirit and authority it was compiled and created. Who has the authority to interprete it.

When we sort these out, you would no longer have those questions, but if we don't, no amount of explanation will be enough for you.

Okay. So, where do you suggest we begin?

Rich4god:
Brethren who through their way of life have made it to heaven/eternal life and who together with the angels lay the prayers of the Christians on earth at the feet of God; that is, they are praying for them and acting as intercessory/intermediaries.
Revelation 5:8 and 8:3-4

This is an entirely new problem you're about to create. Irrespective of our goodness, we don't go to heaven immediately after we die. God has set aside a day for the judgement of mankind, after which, we go to our place of reward.

Reyginus: This is an entirely new problem you're about to create. Irrespective of our goodness, we don't go to heaven immediately after we die. God has set aside a day for the judgement of mankind, after which, we go to our place of reward.

Oh realy...

Rich4god:
Oh realy...

You don't think so?

Reyginus: Okay. So, where do you suggest we begin?

You have talked about many instances where you THINK the Catholic Church is engaging in practices that are not in the Bible and contrary to Bible teachings.

No Catholic teaching or practice is contrary to Bible teaching - though you obviously disagree. However there are Catholic doctrines and practices that are not explicitly stated in the Bible... And there is nothing wrong in that. The Bible is not the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine. Even the Bible derives its authority from the authority of the Church that produced it. If the Catholic Church had no authority to create, compile and canonize the Bible, we wouldn't accept it as such. There is only one doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ and the responsibility rests on the Church to interprete the Bible and teach us that doctrine. It is because you people feel that anyone can interprete the Bible any way you please that we now have millions of people teaching millions of different doctrines and claiming they are all from the ONE Holy Spirit.

Then again, God's word wasn't passed down to us ONLY by Sacred Scripture. It is also passed down by Sacred Tradition. That is why St. Paul said "brothers, hold fast to the TRADITION we have handed to you, either by written letter (books of the Bible) or by WORD OF MOUTH." So the Church recognizes God's word in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Even the Bible, which you take as the final authority came from Church Tradition. Nowhere in Scripture were the Apostles or anyone else instructed to create or compile the Bible. The word "Bible" is not even mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere is anyone told to regard the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine, so to say that something is wrong because its not in the Bible is unbiblical. Rather, the Bible says "the Church (not the Bible) is the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of truth. It is because we believe all these that we accept and believe when the Catholic Church told us that the book of Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there is nothing in those books that suggests that those were the authors and they were inspired by the Holy Spirit so how do you know that?

I can go on to show - one by one - that in all the instances you raised, the Catholic Church is NOT going contrary to the Bible if you want me to start after reading all that I just said.