debosky:

'Saint Peter himself' - I guess that is supposed to make some people jealous

why is he a 'saint' and I or you not? or doesn't the bible refer to us (Christians) all as saints?

Shut up! You follow people wey dey claim say Assyrians be Protestants/Evangelicals?

I-man abeg o!

I no dey involved in that at all, Me I just be 'siddon look' oh

It's you guys who are obsessed with Catholics, not the other way round.

debosky:

I-man abeg o!

I no dey involved in that at all, Me I just be 'siddon look' oh

Arse-anal get "connections" for UEFA Bucharest and Sparta ? Unbelievable!

Tommorow,I will get to the root of this Assyrian connection with Evangelical/Protestantism. Everyday,person dey learn new things for NL

whoever posted this topic, hmmmmm i sorry for u o! i am very very sorry for u. like them talk befor i go sidon dey look

After reading some text from pilgrim 1 and others, i have decided to stay back in nairaland. If Seun is opportuned to read this, please you have watch what is being posted here so that other people's feelings will not be damaging. I have a friend that stopped visiting nairaland, because nairaland caused the breaking up of her relationship.

@smile4kenn,

Great to have you back. I'm still smiling for you.

pilgrim.1:

@smile4kenn,

Great to have you back. I'm still smiling for you.

When you finish smiling,go and answer my queries! You never find where I talk say Catholicism be the only church till 5th or 15th century?

I suppose you still haven't found justification for citing the Assyrian Church to refute my claims that Protestants/Evangelicals didn't exist for 1400 years.If you haven't in either or both cases,then have the graciousness to withdraw your claims,that is the mark of a true Christian.

Now I-man, I didn't expect you to be so cheap and play predictably to the dishonest attitude you displayed in the other thread. However, as I promised, I've come here to answer your worries.

1. When did the Catholic Church begin?

The Catholic Church did not begin at Pentecost, in as much as Catholics have severally and often claimed that Peter was the first Pope. My point of reference to clear this issue was the PAPACY - and I asked repeatedly that you and other Catholics who were interested should kindly show indeed that Peter was the first Pope.

Since you were unwilling to oblige, my simple answer to your refusal to engage in the discussion was: "I don't know." Wahtever you claimed on that did not mean anything - for I clearly showed that is the typical response I offer people who argue endlessly to no avail; and I simply wanted to end your continued humour that said nothing tangible to the point.

Does it then mean that I've no clue what I was talking about as regards the origin of the Catholic Church? I've my answers, certainly - and as time went on, even you had to refer to a weblink that showed right from the 2nd century, there was at least the Assyrian Church that was NOT Catholic.

If that didn't go down well with you, I let it go.

2. Following on from the above, even though I was being facetious, I had occasion to refer to that same link to demonstrate the same point you had raised. Since it seemed to you that there were certain issues that I was mixing up, I had to be concise and point out directly what I was about. It still didn't go down well with you - which was why you came to the other thread and did whatever you did.

Here, once again, I outline the concerns that I found in your previous entries - to which I responded again and again:

(a) "Actually, try find PROTESTANTS as well" --

I-man:

Try and find Redeemed,Fire On The Mountain,Winners Chapel.e.t.c Actually,try and find Protestants as well

. . . in quoting the same BBC link you referenced earlier, I offered that there are PROTESTANTS in the places you had mentioned including IRAQ:

pilgrim.1:

I visited the link you offered (seen it before) and this is what they have there on Iraq:

"The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East, also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church -
traces its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

Iraq also has communities of Syrian Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Copts, Armenian Orthodox, Armenian Catholics,
Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics, as well as Anglicans and Evangelicals."

Source: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4499668.stm#iraq)

Did you say "Actually,try and find Protestants as well"? Well, I wonder if you hurriedly skimmed through to have missed them in the above excerpt. "Anglicans and Evangelicals" - are those also "Catholics". . or is there yet another term by which you magically describe them other than Protestants?

Now, the one thing I tried to point out was that there were indeed PROTESTANTS in IRAQ - which is what is meant by the mention of ANGLICANS and EVANGELICALS.

If you didn't agree, no worries. But as far as I know, Catholics have never denied that Anglicans and Evangelicals are PROTESTANTS. From then on, whatever else you wrote back, I was being facetious until I left at close of work for me yesterday.

I visited the thread this morning as saw you'd taken what I pointed out to stretched meanings. That's the reason why I simply replied to smile4keen and didn't make any attempts to keep up the jokes.

Second, your concern was that I had referred to the Assyrian Church as "Protestants" - which I don't remember having done so. I simply quoted the excerpt from the website and made the point that the bottomline simply showed that the Assyrian Church was NOT Catholic - teasing further about the issue between the 5th and 15th century.


You went in a huff that I supposedly alleged that you I-man in particular have blown smoke in people's eyes that no other Church existed between those centuries:

pilgrim.1:

Catholics like you have always tried to blow smoke in everyone's face that no other church ever existed apart from the Catholic Church up until past the 5th century (uhm. . did you say it was the 15th century?). Fact is, it's either you didn't quite do your homework well enough; or, you couldn't hide the facts from others - and now yawa don blow!

Now, if you take that personally, I can understand where you're coming from. That the point I made in general was that Catholics often make such claims hasn't been soundly refuted by any Catholic on this Forum - and perhaps, that's the reason why not even YOU I-man has even defended the origins of the Catholic Church on the basis of the PAPACY!

If issues like you are things that help you act the way you do, I can understand why so. However, my points are made - and until any more intelligent Catholic comes forward to defend their practices from the Bible they said "Catholics wrote", I don't see how the Catholic position anywhere stands Biblical integrity.

Cheers.

@Pilgrim.1

I asked  you 2 simple questions:

1=Where did I claim that only Catholicism existed untill the 5th century or the 15th century?

2=What has the Assyrian Church got to do with Protestantism/Evangelical?

Your response has been an exhibition of obfuscation,inanity and downright dishonesty

The first question was in response to this comment:

Catholics like you have always tried to blow smoke in everyone's face that no other church ever existed apart from the Catholic Church up until past the 5th century (uhm. .  did you say it was the 15th century?).   Fact is, it's either you didn't quite do your homework well enough; or, you couldn't hide the facts from others - and now yawa don blow!

The above will be pretty clear to any discerning mind  as to infer that the addressee(me)  was culpable for such dishonest claims.What else could "Catholics like you" mean?What else could ,"it's either you didn't quite do your homework well enough; or, you couldn't hide the facts from others", also mean?   

Your desperate attempts to retreat from the above accusation by suggesting that you were refering to Catholics in general is comical.Your remark came in the course of a repartee  between the 2 of us.Somehow, you now want us to believe that "you" didn't mean I-man but some other unascertainable Catholics.It is either an admission that you are grammatically challenged or a lame attempt to retreat from a mendacious statement,I know it is the latter.

The second question was in response to your citation of the BBC link which you cited in order to refute my claim viz that there were no Protestants/Evangelicals  in the first 1400 years of Christianity.Your response to my claim was to refer me to the Assyrian Church,a Church which has no links to Protestantism/Evangelicalism.What then was the point of mentioning them in response to my claim?

To refer me to the Assyrian Church ,in response to my claim as to the non-existence of Evangelicals/Protestants, infers that the Assyrians were what they weren't-Protestants/Evangelicals.That could only be the rational implication.

Drawing your attention to the obvious fatuousness of the Assyrian reply,you now respond with a staggeringly vacuos reply-that you were simply drawing my attention to the fact that they were Non-Catholic.Which begs the question-what does that have to do with non-existence of Protestants/Evangelicals until the 15th century?Does non-Catholic mean Protestants/Evangelicals? Your attempts at sophistry are farcical.

Let me quickly address some of the more comical non-answers you provided.Asked "When the Catholic Church began";your response was "The Catholic Church did not begin at Pentecost" and "My point of reference to clear this issue was the PAPACY".Neither of these 2 irrelevant assertions answers the question-When did the Catholic Church begin"?

Pressed on the matter,you eventually said "I don't know" which you purport was another one from your  armada of meaningless comments.In effect,"I don't know" definitely doesn't mean that you don't know but that you couldn't be bothered to answer.A vainglorious attempt to hide your ignorance of the answer. 

Does it then mean that I've no clue what I was talking about as regards the origin of the Catholic Church?

So far. . . . .your cluelessness has been glaring.Check this out:

I've my answers, certainly - and as time went on, even you had to refer to a weblink that showed right from the 2nd century, there was at least the Assyrian Church that was NOT Catholic.

My link tells us nothing for the Assyrian Church was part of the Catholic Church untill the  Nestorian schism in 431 AD.Your desperate attempts to clutch to the Assyrian Church like a tabular in naufragio does nothing to rescue your apparent ignorance,unbridled oafishness and mind numbing mendacity.

. in quoting the same BBC link you referenced earlier, I offered that there are PROTESTANTS in the places you had mentioned including IRAQ:

Except for the obvious factor that nobody claimed that there weren't any ,only that they were near totally absent.

Your unimpressive farrago of hare-brained excuses,lame attempts at sophistry and reckless disregard for historical truths left me underwhelmed.The sooner you imbibe the virtues of graciousness and honesty,the quicker you are on the road to being a good Christian.For now,you strike me as a dishonest popinjay.I'm done with you.

this might help out for those who are inquisitive.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp

It will definately help. Lets address the issues after going through this link.

I-man,

I-man:

For now,you strike me as a dishonest popinjay.I'm done with you.

No wahala. . that's simply what you've been itching to say all this while. You don belle-full now?

This is quite a simple issue, but if it is rather not to you, no worries all the same. I'll just re-address the two concerns you said were your worries:

I-man:

I asked you 2 simple questions:

1=Where did I claim that only Catholicism existed untill the 5th century or the 15th century?

If I made that claim at all, I've said I was being facetious. Please go check the word, since you're taking it too seriously and it's beginning to cause you headaches. That was the one reason why I stated that my having initially ignored making any further input thereto, and the reason I left you a "tongue" smiley because I knew you'd predictably make issues out of it.

However, even on the face of it, claiming that I've asked that you offer what you know to be the origin of the Catholic Church - which up until now you have refused to address. If you did, perhaps I missed it. Do you care to show me, please?

I-man:

2=What has the Assyrian Church got to do with Protestantism/Evangelical?

I'm still searching to find where I made reference to the Assurian Church being Protestant/Evangelical. What have I been saying as regards "Anglicans" and "Evangelicals"? You asked this question:

"Actually,try and find Protestants as well"

. . . and I poined them clearly from the same website which you had offered. If your allegations are saying that "Anglicans" and "Evangelicals" are not PROTESTANTS, please let us know when the position of the Catholic Church on this changed.

I-man:

The second question was in response to your citation of the BBC link which you cited in order to refute my claim viz that there were no Protestants/Evangelicals in the first 1400 years of Christianity.

That is simply not true. Your direct quote has been givne again and again:

"Actually,try and find Protestants as well"

. . . and where that now turns to 'there were no Protestants/Evangelicals in the first 1400 years of Christianity' is turning back to deny you actually had asked to find "Protestants" in the places you mentioned! IRAQ was one of them - and I showed that the BBC article mentioned Prostestants as well among others. You later came back claiming that they are a "fringe" minority among indigenes.

I-man,

I-man:

My link tells us nothing for the Assyrian Church was part of the Catholic Church untill the  Nestorian schism in 431 AD.Your desperate attempts to clutch to the Assyrian Church like a tabular in naufragio does nothing to rescue your apparent ignorance,unbridled oafishness and mind numbing mendacity.

The rants aside, let me once again quote the excerpt from that link:

"The Assyrian church - the Ancient Church of the East,
also sometimes referred to as the Nestorian church - traces
its roots back to 2nd Century Mesopotamia and is not Catholic.

Source: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4499668.stm#iraq)

The same excerpt over and over again - unedited - which you have offered, says that the Assurian Church traces its roots back to the 2nd Century (not "431 AD" - and is NOT Catholic. That was not my thesis - that was the excerpt from the link YOU left! If your link tells us nothing, there was little wonder that you offered it in the first place! Unless you want us to now believe that the Catholic Church dates back to the 2nd century, rather than to the 1st century - since Catholics claim that Peter was their first Pope.

Now, dear I-man, perhaps you need to check carefully your claim above that "the Assyrian Church was part of the Catholic Church until the Nestorian schism in 431 AD". No wahala with that, except that most documented evidence and articles do not support that claim!

Let me leave you just a few that you could check out for verification at your leisure:

(1) From a Wikipedia artcile on the "Origin and Expansion of the Church of the East":

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the appellation “Nestorian, after
the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic
in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman
See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical,
political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew
itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.

It was rather known as the Church of the East, or Easterns, to distinguish it from the Greek and
Latin churches in the West which were divided by subtle theological controversies little appreciated
by the Eastern Christians. It also came to be known as the Assyrian church because of the location
of its successive headquarters, and also as the Luminous Religion, especially in China.

This ancient church claimed a first-century origin and developed almost wholly apart from the Greek
and Roman churches. It did not embrace the heresy of which Nestorius was accused, though it endorsed
his opposition to the Roman doctrines of purgatory and Mariolatry, especially her title as “Mother of God.”
For at least twelve hundred years the church of the Easterns was noted for its missionary zeal, its high
degree of lay participation, its superior educational standards and cultural contributions in less developed
countries, and its fortitude in the face of persecution.

Source: Wikipedia - A History of the Eastern Christianity in Asia


Nonetheless, we gather from other sources that the Assyrian Church is not to be confused as part Catholic Church from their beginnings, although some Catholic groups still retain the title of "Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East". Some other groups bear similar appellation that should not be consfused, since they do not identify the same denominations. An example would be the "Armenian Apostolic Church" which many have confused for the "Armenian Catholic Church" (same as the "Eastern Catholic church".

The point here is that the Assyrian Church which some date back to the 1st or 2nd century does not identify itself as having been originally part of the Roman Catholic Church. This persuasion seems to be strengthened by the official website of the Assyrian Church:

(1) "The Church of the East began during the missionary activity which took place in the Apostolic Age.
Written records have been traced to the late second century of the Christian era. The numbers of
people who belonged to the Church at that time, and the broad area it covered, would indicate that
there had been a long period of development and growth, possibly reaching back into the first century
and the time of the Apostles. Tradition in the Church of the East dates its founding in the middle of
the first century."

Source: (http://www.assyrianchurch.com.au/historyintro.htm)


(2) "The Assyrian Church of the East began to grow at an enormous pace. By the year 325, the episcopacy
of the Assyrian Church—variously known as the ‘Church of Persia’ since it was the only Christian Church
within the limes of the Persian Empire—was organized around Papa, the bishop of the royal cities of
Seleucia-Ctesiphon. In 410, the first synod of the Persian bishops took place under the presidency of the
Catholicos Mar Isaac. It was at this council that the Creed and canons of the Councils of Nicea (325) and
Constantinople (381) were received by the Assyrian Church. The Church was by now distributed in all parts
and major cities of Mesopotamia. It was still within the limits of the [b]Persian Empire. It enjoyed close
ecclesiastical ties with the see of Antioch, which was the nearest, major Christian See existing within
the Roman Empire."

Source: (http://www.assyrianchurch.com.au/historyancient.htm)


The basic question here is that the claim you had made as to the Assyrian Church being part of the Catholic Church is simply not true - and the official documents of the Assyrian Church itself further disproves your claim.

I think you've gone on and on, and yet unable to acknowledge the simple issues here - not even when I pointed out I was being facetious initially. Although it was difficult for you to acknowledge my offer that I'd answers to discuss the origins of the Catholic Church, it may not have been well received by you. We haven't yet discussed that; and I still await your courage to take the challenge to discuss the PAPACY - which is my reference point of entry to that debate.

Anyhow, the core issues of Catholics defending what they think they know from the same Bible they claim they "wrote" still need to be defended. And that's what I've been hoping you guys (including you I-man) should address. If you can't deal with that, no wahala all the same - I wait to see how others attempt to defend Catholicism from the Bible.

Cheers.

@Pilgrim.1

I thought I add this little piece of information to your meagre pool of knowledge:
     
The Assyrian Church was split from the Catholic/Orthodox Church (the undivided Church of the East and West prior to the Great Schism of 1054) as a result of the Nestorian schism in 431, .Source-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East

They split from people they had nothing to do with in the first place?

I-man,

I made the point that there are many claims and counter-claims being offered to make it sound like the Assyrian Church actually originally was part of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not so, although I do respect whatever the Wikipedia source says in their own rights.

However, please keep constantly in mind that the Assyrian Church is not to be confused for what many have mistaken as part of the Catholic Church. WHY so? For these reasons:

(a) Many believe that it dates back to the 2nd century, was NOT Catholic, and it developed almost apart from the Greek and Roman Churches:

pilgrim.1:

(1) From a Wikipedia artcile on the "Origin and Expansion of the Church of the East":

Strangely, the church which spread throughout most of Asia bears the appellation “Nestorian, after
the fifth century patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius, who was condemned by Rome as a heretic
in A.D. 430. The name is actually a misnomer which became current in the West; the Roman
See had sought to discredit this church, which had renounced Rome's primacy for geographical,
political, linguistic, and doctrinal reasons. Nestorian was not the name by which the church knew
itself., nor was it so commonly designated in Asian lands.

This ancient church claimed a first-century origin and developed almost wholly apart from the Greek
and Roman churches.

(b) the Assyrian Church officially does not recognise her origins as having been part of the Roman Catholic Church - for their development from the PERSIAN empire is not to be confused with the existence of the Church in the ROMAN empire:

pilgrim.1:


   The Church was by now distributed in all parts and major cities of Mesopotamia. It was still
   within the limits of the Persian Empire. It enjoyed close ecclesiastical ties with the see of
   Antioch, which was the nearest, major Christian See existing within the Roman Empire."

   Source: (http://www.assyrianchurch.com.au/historyancient.htm)

  (c) Certainly, many authors confuse the fact that the Assyrian Church is NOT to be confused for the popular idea that it is "Nestorian" - even as some other authors acknowledge that as a misnomer.


Now, the question still needs to be asked: what is meant by the Assyrian Church dating back to the 2nd century? Does that mean that the Catholic Church dates back to the 2nd century as well?

Please have the grace to ponder over these issues.

Cheers.

The Catholic Assyrian Church of the East and the Roman Catholic church separated from each other after the Council of Ephesus in  431 CE. Source:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_meta.htm

The first great rupture in the Catholic Church followed the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), which affirmed the Virgin Mary as Theotokos. The majority of those who refused to accept this Council were Persian Christians, a Church now known as the Assyrian Church of the East. -http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-catholicism-catholic-church.htm


The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes considered an Oriental Orthodox Church, although they left the Catholic and Apostolic Church before the Council of Chalcedon and revere Saints anathemized by the previously mentioned Churches.http://www.fact-index.com/o/or/oriental_orthodoxy.html

Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
"The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes, although incorrectly, considered an Oriental Orthodox Church. Being largely centered in what was then the Persian Empire, it separated itself administratively from the Church of the Roman Empire around AD 400, and then broke communion with the latter in reaction to the Council of Ephesus held in 431-http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:NVMKDiQ1BsMJ:ecumenism.net/denom/orthodox.htm+Assyrian+Church+of+The+East+schism+of+431&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=77&gl=uk

431 The Assyrians and Chaldeans broke from what was to become the Roman Catholic Church over a theological dispute.- http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qjRWSv95T98J:timelines.ws/countries/VATICAN.HTML+Assyrian+Church+of+The+East+schism+of+431&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=277&gl=uk

There is no apparent contradiction between the links I have cited and yours.The contradiction exists solely in your mind.Here is an excerpt from your link:

This ancient church claimed a first-century origin and developed almost wholly apart from the Greek
   and Roman churches.

It never stated that it developed wholly apart but [b]almost wholly apart.[/b]If it never had anything to do with Catholicism,where does the caveat "almost" come in? Obviously,it was part of Catholicism untill the schism of 431AD after which it developed apart from Catholicism . 

You have chosen to inteprete the information the way you prefer,casting doubts about the schism of 431 AD.Are you saying it never happened?What actually were you blithering about?

I-man,

I-man:

You have chosen to inteprete the information the way you prefer,casting doubts about the schism of 431 AD.Are you saying it never happened?What actually were you blithering about?

I did not interprete it personally - we're all adults who can read and understand.

"This ancient church claimed a first-century origin and developed almost wholly apart from the Greek and Roman churches."

Do I take it then that the Catholic Church was also known as the Greek Church from which sprang the Assyrian Church?

I wonder that the Assyrian Church itself does not claim to have been part of the Roman Catholic Church originally. The Assyrian Church is regarded as dating to the 2nd century and I asked you a simple question: does the Catholic Church date to the 2nd century as well?

It's really funny how you keep alleging matters and we don't read answers from you to clarify these issues. I'm really interested in discussing the origins of the Catholic Church - and I've asked that you engage a discussion on the PAPACY. What's been holding you back from that?

Up until now Catholics would not tell us anything about the origins of Catholicism, or about the origins of calling Mary "the Mother of God" (which is not taught anywhere in the Bible which Catholics have claimed theyr "wrote", and other issues we continue to ask about as regards Catholicism. What is so mystifying about the Catholic Church that you guys would be so silent about and keep hiding behind the excuse of the schism of 431 AD? Does the Catholic Church assume itself to have been the very same thing as the Assyrian Church which dates back to the 2nd century?

The issues here are quite simple. Rather than assume I was interpreting the information personally and casting doubts on the schism of 431 AD (as if Catholcism began in 431 AD), you'd need to clarify the issues as to several sources dating the Assyrian Church to the 2nd century instead of the 431 AD! If the Assyrian Church had seen itself as having originally been part of the Roman Catholic Church, would we have to then assume that the Catholic Church was also the very same thing as the Greek Church from which emerged the Assyrian Church in 431 AD? How then do we reconcile the Assyrian Church dating her origins to the 2nd century rather than to 431 AD?

I've tried calling your attention to the fact that not all sources see the Assyrian Church as having originally been the same as the Catholic Church before the schism of 431 AD. Before that schism, the Assyrian Church is claimed by several sources to have dated from the 2nd century! I hope you can appreciate that fact, instead of alleging that was my preferential interpretation of all info gathered.

However, just so that the point is clear about various sources making various claims (even in official capacities), I'd like you to see another source for a diagramtic presentation of these issues. Please note: I'm not making this out to be the Assyrian Church; rather, I'm asking that you see just one more source making quite a different claim.



Source: (http://www.aramnaharaim.org/English/film_arameans.htm)


I-man, all things considered, would you kindly have the grace to review these matters? I've not been trying to fascinate you with stretched claims of my own. Rather, I've only been presenting matters for your consideration, in order that we may dialogue and come to a point of reference for a discussion on the origins of the Catholic Church. I know many sources would like us to think that Catholicism was the original and only Christian practice dating to the 1st century with Peter as the first Pope. Up until now, Catholics have been shying away from discussing the origin of the church and its tenets.

The bottomline is that we would like to see Catholics themselves defending their position and beliefs BIBLICALLY if they care to do so. I hope that is not so mystifying a request? Could the real Catholics please step forward and let's have a discussion on Catholicism and see you defend your tenets and practices from the same Bible which some Catholics have said they "wrote"?

Regards.

am just passing through here.

lovemajek:

am just passing through here.

May you find blessings as you pass through.

Amen. thank you.

@Pilgrim.1

The Catholic Assyrian Church of the East and the Roman Catholic church separated from each other after the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE. Source:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_meta.htm

The first great rupture in the Catholic Church followed the Council of Ephesus (AD 431), which affirmed the Virgin Mary as Theotokos. The majority of those who refused to accept this Council were Persian Christians, a Church now known as the Assyrian Church of the East. -http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-catholicism-catholic-church.htm


The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes considered an Oriental Orthodox Church, although they left the Catholic and Apostolic Church before the Council of Chalcedon and revere Saints anathemized by the previously mentioned Churches.http://www.fact-index.com/o/or/oriental_orthodoxy.html

Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
"The Assyrian Church of the East is sometimes, although incorrectly, considered an Oriental Orthodox Church. Being largely centered in what was then the Persian Empire, it separated itself administratively from the Church of the Roman Empire around AD 400, and then broke communion with the latter in reaction to the Council of Ephesus held in 431-http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:NVMKDiQ1BsMJ:ecumenism.net/denom/orthodox.htm+Assyrian+Church+of+The+East+schism+of+431&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=77&gl=uk

431 The Assyrians and Chaldeans broke from what was to become the Roman Catholic Church over a theological dispute.- http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qjRWSv95T98J:timelines.ws/countries/VATICAN.HTML+Assyrian+Church+of+The+East+schism+of+431&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=277&gl=uk

The Assyrian Church was split from the Catholic/Orthodox Church (the undivided Church of the East and West prior to the Great Schism of 1054) as a result of the Nestorian schism in 431, .Source-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Church_of_the_East

Ok.You don win. The Assyrian Church never split from Catholicism in 431 AD,contrary to all other evidence I may have cited.Carry on being an ignorant historical revisionist  No point in debating further

PS:There are Assyrian Churches in London,I think there is one in Westminster,you should pop in one day to teach them their history 

I-man,

I-man:

Ok.You don win. The Assyrian Church never split from Catholicism in 431 AD,contrary to all other evidence I may have cited.Carry on being an ignorant historical revisionist No point in debating further

I didn't write those articles, dude. Nor did I revise anything I quoted for your review. I asked questions - I haven't read your answers. There's a difference between claiming to have dated from the 2nd century and another source claiming they "split" in 431 AD. Unless you just want to force the idea that the Catholic Church dates back to the 2nd century before splitting up in 431 AD. So, which is it?

There's no need for me asking if you trace the origins of the Catholic Church to the 2nd century (certainly you'll still be mute on that). But, at least, for the sake of your convent and your quizzed brethren, offer something 'intelligent' to demystify this aspect in your piece.

Fact is that just as the Catholic Church continues to shroud her own history and rather appeal to "schisms", so we should be considerate in giving a hearing to those who identify themselves as the Assyrian Church. As such, I don't remember the Assyrian Church claiming to date its origin to 431 AD, but rather much earlier than that - to the 2nd century (some say to the 1st century). Besides, several other sources affirm the same thing - as the article from the BBC website that you offered.

If you care to check for clarification and verification, could you please go to an official source of the Assyrian Church and offer us something to demonstrate that they themselves affirm that they were actually part of the Roman Catholic Church. Any such source of your own would do. And then we can take it from there and share both ways as to the systems and patterns BEFORE the 5th century schism of 431 AD. Just a small request.

I-man:

The Assyrian Church never split from Catholicism in 431 AD,contrary to all other evidence I may have cited.

In all fairness, you may hold that as your own conclusion - since I never said anywhere that they "never split". The issues I've presented is that the Assyrian Church itself (if she's allowed to speak for herself) does not claim to have originated from the "split" of 431 AD. People pushing that idea must necessarily have to settle the question of the claim by the Assyrian Church herself to have dated her origins MUCH EARLIER!

Secondly, I'd like for you (if it's not asking too much) to help us understand if what you're saying is that there was no other expression of Christianity (no other independent group/church) apart from the Roman Catholic Church up until 431 AD. Just another small request to demystify this enigmatic claims of Catholics on this 'dating' issue. Could you do that for us? Thank you.

Cheers.

always say I have finished with you but I am innately a debating pugilist.Ok,this is the last one

There's no need for me asking if you trace the origins of the Catholic Church to the 2nd century (certainly you'll still be mute on that). But, at least, for the sake of your convent and your quizzed brethren, offer something 'intelligent' to demystify this aspect in your piece.

There is no mystery to it.The "problem" resides in the lacuna in your knowledge.To use political analogies,the Church then had a "federal" structure to it for reasons of convenience.Nobody disputes that the Assyrian Church predates 431AD.Unlike you,I don't dispute historical facts.

To say that the Assyrian Church dates back to the 2nd century is not to say it was a wholly independent Church.Not even one single one of your sources makes such a misleading claim.However,having started then,it remained in communion with Rome untill the schism of 431 AD after a doctrinal dispute.

That was why your link noted that it developed almost wholly apart from the Roman Churches and the Greek Churches.You seem incapable of construing the implication of the above.Being ignorant,you were puzzled as to what the "Greek" Church meant.It refers to varied Eastern  Churches,most of  which  finally  seperated  from Catholicism after the Great Schism of 1052.

Where there  Churches/groups independent of Catholicism prior to 431 AD? Of course there were.Any person barely knowledgeable knows that but the Assyrian Church was not one of them.

PS:I noted that there are Assyrian Churches in London.If you sincerely want to learn more,you can make time to visit one of them.I'm truly and finally done with you  Next thing,you might start to argue over whether the Pope is a Catholic or a Roman Catholic instead  ;DYou might even find me there,Catholicism recognises its rites and hence allows us to worship there. 

I-man,

I-man:

There is no mystery to it.The "problem" resides in the lacuna in your knowledge.To use political analogies,the Church then had a "federal" structure to it for reasons of convenience.Nobody disputes that the Assyrian Church predates 431AD.Unlike you,I don't dispute historical facts.

What historical facts have I disputed by simply asking you to clarify issues? The issue has been quite simple - but for some reason Catholics have tried to make it look like the Roman Catholic Church was the "mother" Church from which the Assyrian Church emerged. If that were the case, we would not be speaking of a claim for 2nd century origin of the latter. That was the point I wanted you to  clarify.

That the Assyrian Church predates 431 AD does not mean that they were under the orders of the Roman Catholic Church before the "schism" of the 5th century. The reason why I'd wanted you to be clear on that is so that no one is left confused about the acclaimed "schism" of 431 AD - as if to say that the Assyrian Church "broke away" from the Roman Catholic Church. People should carefully examine the issues surrounding the 'schism', and then try to also consider the defence of Assyrian Church on the matter, so we don't confuse the idea that the latter was under the orders of the Roman Catholic Church prior to the 5th century.

It is for this reason that I'd offered an invitation to discuss the PAPACY and several other Catholic tenets. So far, that continues to be so mystifying for you - and I'm not pressing that you enter into that dialogue if you are unwilling and unable. I still keep my fingers crossed for any intelligent Catholic who would like to step forward and put their worries to rest.

Regards.

Lets pray for all lost soul to Idolatary.

Catholicism is idolatory, pure and simple.
, The worship of Mary and the god-incarnate Jesus originated with the pagan worship of Semiramis and her god-incarnate son. Numerous Babylonian monuments depict the goddess-mother Semiramis with her son in arms. The image of the mother and child was so firmly entrenched in the pagan mind that when Christianity appeared on the scene these pagan statues and paintings were merely renamed and worshiped as the virgin Mary and her god-incarnate son Jesus,
For more,
http://bupc.montana.com/whores/worsemi.html
cheerio

hi, this may not be a very warm welcome , sincerely speakin I was tryin 2 post my own message when I came by this.
For starts, I'm a catholic n don't like it when people just say things let alone quote others from out of the blues, let alone attack my faith. U may have your own beliefs - enjoy! But live others to have theirs. I'd just refer you to an encyclopedia to check the dictionary meaning of some of the words u used.
A church is an association of people who share a particular belief system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church
I'd love to rest there for now.
Cheers!

@ktmadu

Your points sounds ignorant of what is going on, We are not trying to crucify the Catholic people all we are trying to do here is to bring to awareness what has been going on in the catholic circle. It is not enough to say i was born a Catholic and i remain as one. Check for yourself if what you practice conform with the scripture. The Bible says " If any man nor angel come to you with another doctrine apart from what we have received we should not accept it". The doctrine of Mary being a virgin for life and the praying to her and the Images you bow down to is in conflict with the word of God.

I do not know what you think about this anyway.

@wakiri

Thanks for this great link it was a big blessing to me personally, But I hope the Marianist read it too.

Is either the church is this or that (the church gives you sleepless night; Sorry o!!!)

The most puzzling thing about this catholic church which is been castigated by some people because of ignorance, hatred, envy and selfish interest because of the members they want to win for themselves and not Christ, but still this same church wax stronger and stronger and no gate of hell prevails against it.

Glory to Jesus, honour to Mary.

The Devil himself dwells in the Catholic Church why will he fight against it. " A kingdom divided against itself will not stand" The anti Christ will emerge from the Catholic church. ( The Pope have started the campaign already)

THE WORSHIP OF JESUS AS GOD IS NEVER IDOLATRY THERE IS WHERE IN THE BIBLE THAT MARY WAS TO BE WORSHIPPED. THE WORSHIP OF MARY IS DEMONISM IN THE HIGHEST ORDER.

THE WORSHIP OF JESUS IS HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD.

Mary is a brethren. Jesus is brethren friend and GOD 100%