The Bible is a library were catholics kept the scriptural records written in scrolls . The scrolls were turned into books when Printing press came around the 14th century. Catholics wrote the Bible from the traditions.


After a child or two you can start practicing celibacy like the Krishna consciousness people. It is not catholics early practice but was introduced to keep the priests from worldly things.

There is no spiritual sin with sex. People were trying to bring moral into religion and they interpret the bible to their on thinking.
Sex has been with us and nobody is clean from this effect. Rev. Fathers too are human being they are free to have sex because they became priest base on their free will. If they are tempted they can fail but that can never stop them from their role. They can always confess their sins.
Remember the protestant bible was a summary of only things that Luther felt are good for their teaching.
Oh men of little faith keep your ignorant. Read and search for the truth, never be shallow of knowledge.

@Hnd-holder,

Long time no see, no hear, no read. . ! It's all good.

Hnd-holder:

The Bible is a library were catholics kept the scriptural records written in scrolls . The scrolls were turned into books when Printing press came around the 14th century. Catholics wrote the Bible from the traditions.

Be careful small-small. Catholics did not "write" the Bible - unless you're saying that Moses and the prophets were 'Catholics'.

@ Lady,

You are really off point on a whole lot of things. folks here have tried correcting you but you seem adamant on your believe. The Roman Catholic church is not and cannot be the TRUE CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. God bless!

pilgrim.1:

@Hnd-holder,

Long time no see, no hear, no read. . ! It's all good.

Be careful small-small. Catholics did not "write" the Bible - unless you're saying that Moses and the prophets were 'Catholics'.

Catholic church is not the same as Roman catholic church. We still have the traditional catholic.
Pilgrim 1 I miss u send your ID to me I love to contact you. Please note that the old testament scriptures were quoted freely in the new. All the scriptural records are with the catholic and the Jews. Christianity was viewed as fulfilment of Jewish religion.


.

naomijt:

@ Lady,

You are really off point on a whole lot of things. folks here have tried correcting you but you seem adamant on your believe. The Roman Catholic church is not and cannot be the TRUE CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. God bless!

Take fanatics away from here and search from the truth the truth will set you free.

Hnd-holder,

i don't get your point!!!

Hnd-holder:

The Bible is a library were catholics kept the scriptural records written in scrolls . The scrolls were turned into books when Printing press came around the 14th century. Catholics wrote the Bible from the traditions

are you for real??

Sex has been with us and nobody is clean from this effect.

So what you're saying is sex is unclean?

Rev. Fathers too are human being they are free to have sex because they became priest base on their free will. If they are tempted they can fail but that can never stop them from their role. They can always confess their sins.

You just committed catholicide!!!!! They are free to have sex? enh enh. i been no know o!

Oh men of little faith keep your ignorant. Read and search for the truth, never be shallow of knowledge.

You wan yab and you no dey hear English

naomijt:

Hnd-holder,

i don't get your point!!!

@naomijt
His point is: pedophilia's perfectly okay for priests. They'll confess after the act, "that grace may abound".

Another point is make you no dey shallow of knowledge, and keep your ignorant

*sista, i like that your reply for class o. on Paul's sufferings.

Carmelily,

u use style bad o . . .

GET A LIFE, AND STOP BEING JEALOUS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Its no use running when you are on the wrong road.

My point exactly.

Then answer the question?

@ Lady,

You are really off point on a whole lot of things. folks here have tried correcting you but you seem adamant on your believe. The Roman Catholic church is not and cannot be the TRUE CHURCH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. God bless!

You opinion has been duly noted, now answer the questions.
Simply making statements does not work.
If we are so lost, show us the way by answering questions.

We have answered everyone's questions now answer ours.

Ahn ahn for people that are not lost, you certainly don't know how to show people the way.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

HERE THEY ARE:



1) Did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to Peter or not?
2) What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven?
3) Did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to anyone other than Peter? If not, why not?
4) When Jesus asked Peter to feed his sheep three times? Was he reinstating Peter as the leader of the apostles or not?
5) Was Peter's name Peter before Jesus called him Peter when he gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven? If not, why then did Jesus call him Peter, what does it mean?
6) Why is it that they had to lay hands on the apostles before they were sent out? What's the significance on that and why is it that no random person could feel the Spirit and then start a church somewhere else as is done today?
7) Why is it that the apostles warned that the Church stay true to what they heard from the apostles or what has been handed down (tradition)?
Can God have anything to do with the sinful?
9) If Mary was sinful when she conceived Jesus, how then can Jesus dwell in her, isn't he God? Once agains can God have anything to do with the sinful?
10) What does full of grace mean?
11) Was Jesus divinity ever separate from his humanity?
12) To make 11 clearer was Jesus' divinity ever separate from his humanity, ever?
13) If Jesus divinity was never separate from his humanity and Jesus is God, how then can Mary not be the Mother of God?
14) If you are still on the argument that Mary is not the Mother of God? Did your mother give you your soul? If not why then call her your mother?
15) If you still do not understand and are going to give the argument that Mary is not the same as your mother, then did Mary push Jesus out of her mouth or her vagina like your mother?
16) Now there are those of you who will make the argument that Mary had nothing to do with the forming of Jesus, which really won't make any sense, because that would only raise the question of why did Jesus have a mother then?
17) Why didn't God just drop him on the face of the earth as a full grown man or why wasn't he made into flesh as Adam was made into flesh, after all he is the New Adam?
18) Why did he have to come from the womb of a woman?
19) Do you even know what the womb of a woman is?
20) Why did Elizabeth call Mary the Mother of My Lord?
21) Who is the Lord she was talking about? Why did she even use the word "Lord" and what "Lord" was this? Was it the regular lord as you may use for a king or for landlord or is it "Lord" as in "Adonai"?
22) If Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of "Adonai" wouldn't it mean that she was calling Mary the Mother of God, or was "Adonai" used to call other lords?
23) If infact Mary is the Mother of ADONAI as Elizabeth called her (unless you will claim that that pasage is lying) then isn't she worthy of honour or praise?

carmelily:

are you for real??

You wan yab and you no dey hear English

@naomijt

*sista, i like that your reply for class o. on Paul's sufferings.

I am a YORUBA man and a PhD holder in Engineering. I obtained a post graduate Diploma in Hydraulics from an English University and Top manager I do not need to hear English because English people refused to hear my language.

Sex is a known language in USA. Please leave catholic priests alone. As one time lecturer in a Seminary we understand we should leave people like you alone. But you need not to be a fool since silence is the best answer for fools who just love making noise. I know some people just want to use nairaland to kill loneliness

Dear Icoman, now that you know, you should reject outright their key unbiblical doctrines including the change of God's holy sabbath day from saturday the seventh day to sunday the first day of the week. See daniel 7; 25  daniel prophesied about the coming of the papacy and the things the papacy will do.

1. And he shall speak great words against the most High

2. and shall wear out the saints of the most High

3. and think to change times and laws:

About  think to change time and laws, check it out in  'A DOCTRINAL CATECHISM BY STEPHEN KEENAN' page 174.

question: Have you any other way of proving that the church (ROMAN CATHOLIC) has power to institute festivals of precept?

ANSWER: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her- she could not have substituted the observance of sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptual authority.

QUESTION: which is the sabbath day?

ANSWER:Saturday is the Sabbath day.

QUESTION: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?

ANSWER: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (AD 364) transfered the solemnity from saturday to sunday (see also  the convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine page 50, third Edition)

The prophecy of Daniel in Daniel 7;25 fulfilled here. The changed of the day of worship from saturday to sunday was don by the same Catholic Church.

That shows that the change is man made. So JESUS SAYS IN MATTHEW 15;8, 9. THAT ALL THOSE WHO OBEY MAN MADE LAWS INSTEAD OF THE LAW OF GOD ARE WORSHIPPING GOD IN VAIN.

Now, that you have known that the same authority you called a "modernised way of idolatry", also changed the sabbath day of God, what are you waiting for? reject them and their man made day of worship. Say to hell with popular opinion. God does not care about popular opinion.

Hnd-holder:

I am a  YORUBA man and a  PhD holder in Engineering. I obtained a post graduate Diploma in Hydraulics from an English University and Top manager I do not need to hear English because English people refused to hear my language.


Sex is a known language in USA. Please leave catholic priests alone. As one time lecturer in a Seminary we understand we should leave people like you alone. But you need not to be a fool since silence is the best answer for fools who just love making noise. I know some people just want to use nairaland to kill loneliness

I hope you studied in Yoruba since you do not need to "hear" English And the English people refused to learn your language? Didn't you tell them the uncountable benefits for them if they speak Yoruba? LOL
Are you announcing that you're lonely that's why you're here? and why don't you heed your seminary's warning to avoid topics like this? it will do you good. At least, you won't expose your ignorance too much
Anyway, we're going off topic.

@~Lady~

~Lady~:

Then answer the question?

I've tried to avoid you like i was warned to do. But you always seek me out OK, why do you insist that i be the one to answer your questions? please go back and read through my posts and tell me why you are asking me to answer for issues i never contested with u. whether your opinions on them are right or not. i didn't and still don't know your opinions on them. only thing on your list i talked about was your "keys to the kingdom" obsession. You explained that. touche! Even though it doesn't answer how come Peter's the first POPE, does ROCK translate into POPE? or the election of the Pope by cardinals, the Pope being God incarnate, the regalia, the involvement in politics and wars and racism all that. How does Peter meaning Rock explain all these? Those were the issues I raised. Your solve-all answer is "God gave Peter the keys" You ignore other issues i raised and believe you've answered all "our" questions by proving the existence of the "keys to the kingdom"

I don't know where you are going with this, but read my posts and tell me where my assertions tally with your questions and i will be glad to answer.

@imhotep
If Peter looked anything like your pope looks in that pic, he'D never have been able to deny Jesus a good three times. unmistakable outfit

LOL,

The Catholic Church lost it.

The Devil crept it and destroyed real values

Lets just keep praying for em so the blinders fall off

It is a pity for those that can not seek for the truth.
Keep to your protesting faith.

I've tried to avoid you like i was warned to do.

Why? I am seeking the truth just as you all have asked me to. Now that I am asking questions all of a sudden cat got your tongue.
What are those people afraid that you might learn the truth and you might actually see reason and logic behind the Church's teachings?
If we don't teach the truth and if we don't understand the Bible then what's the harm, at worst I could learn "the truth"

When you were having fun asking questions no one said I will avoid you, but now that we are asking questions you refuse to answer. It only says hypocrites.
If you truly are a truthful person, you would answer the questions. It is not about me, I could care less if you avoid me, but at least answer the question out of fairness.

But you always seek me out OK, why do you insist that i be the one to answer your questions? please go back and read through my posts and tell me why you are asking me to answer for issues i never contested with u. whether your opinions on them are right or not. i didn't and still don't know your opinions on them. only thing on your list i talked about was your "keys to the kingdom" obsession

The questions are not for you alone. They're for everyone to answer. I did not single you out in all honesty when I posted the questions the names I called are David and AKO, I never said your name.
But you like going on a rampage on insulting people you do not know. I could care less anyway, I just want you to answer the question.
For someone who seems to know the truth you avid spreading the truth. Will it kill you to answer the question? Me think not.
At least be fair and answer the question. All you do is show that your motives are deceitful.
If you feel the only question that is single out to you is the ne of the keys to the Kingdom of heaven having to do with Peter then answer it.
If you feel that my questions are not fair, then say so.
Would it be better if I post scriptural reference to the Catholic belief and then have you interpret it for me?
Which ever way is best, I am willing to go that route.
I just think it's hilarious that those who have claimed to know the Bible cannot even answer simple questions dealing with the Bible. It becomes a taboo to ask a question. It is never taboo to ask a question, you never know who is reading they might gain some knowledge.
So spread the knowledge and in all fairness answer the questions. You can't bash us and make comments without backing it up.

Even though it doesn't answer how come Peter's the first POPE, does ROCK translate into POPE? or the election of the Pope by cardinals, the Pope being God incarnate, the regalia, the involvement in politics and wars and racism all that

Actually it does answer how come Peter's the first Pope. The Pope is the leader of the Church, hence when Christ said and upon this rock I will build my church. Rock does not translate into Pope, and maybe that has been the problem, the word POPE is what's bothering you, would it be better to call him "The One Christ gave the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to"? Fine that's what he would be called.
How does that mean that the Popes are successors of Peter? Because Christ said that the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church. Meaning it will last for ever. You don't appoint a leader to a position and expect the position to die off when the person dies. If so then Christ didn't plan on his Church lasting till the end time.
It only makes sense that when he positioned the apostles he planned on having successors to those positions, hence why today we have the Apostles who are priests, missionaries, bishops, archbishops, sisters, and so on. These people are sent out to spread the gospel, that's what apostle means.
Why do we take apostolic succession so seriosuly, there's a passage by St. Paul (I can't think of it right now, I'll look it up for you) that spoke of those who were christians who were supposedly preaching the gospel to the churches and St. Paul basically stated that those people weren't "sent out" by any of the apostle, meaning no random person can wake up and walk into a church and start preaching.
We also see in the acts of the apsotles that before anyone was sent out they had to receive blessing from the apostles, basically being ordained to spread the gospel. On several occasions apostle Paul talks about sending someone out to the Churches. That also showed that they were very organised and it wasn't a bunch of Churches on their own just doing whatever they want, they were united with the other churches that were founded at that time already.

Lol, the Pope is not God incarnate that's just you adding your own in there, he is the Vicar of Christ, i.e. and Ambassador of Christ, and from the Power of the keys that were handed over to the office of Vicar of Christ, the Pope can certainly make decisions and as Christ said "whatsoever he binds on earth can be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he looses on earth is loose in heaven"

What is wrong with the regalia is that bothering you? Those are vestments and they have several appropriate for the seasons of the liturgical year or for the appropriate mass that is being celebrated. For example for a funeral, black is worn.
You all dress yourselves up, is it wrong for him to dress too? At least you all get to choose what you wear, he doesn't.

Okay the Pope is not involved in world politics. He condemns actions of heads of state that are immoral for example the Iraq war and he meets with them because guess what, people live in those nations and Catholics live everywhere even in the middle east (they're running for their lives for their belief in christ) but they live there. The Church condemns the death penalty because we believe in sanctity of life, we beg the heads of state to care for the people and help in alleviating the ailment of the poor. And things of that sort. I think if people actually get to know what it is the Pope discusses they won't give the man such a hard time. He knows that these leaders have the power to change the world and he hopes that they have enough respect for him and Christ that they will listen and start helping people.

All Catholics are called to be active in the politics of their nation so that laws can be passed to help people rather than condemn them, laws can be passed to respect the sanctity of life, marriage, and so on.
We know that our faith doesn't just stop in church, it continues in school, at work, at the market, wherever we may be.
Our faith isn't to just go to church, and let me get me and my own salvation and go home and do whatever. No we are to show the love of Christ to everyone, everywhere even to those who threaten us. We are to stop complaining, join our suffering to the sufferings of Christ on the Cross for the salvation of souls.

If only you all will take your time and learn truly what the Church teaches you won't have a problem with us. You misunderstand us, and to be truthful when I have conversations with people who are sincere and they are saying things out of ignorance when they actually take their time to learn about the church and her teachings, they become catholics themselves.
Why do I call a lot of people on this board deceitful, because they don't want to know what the church teaches, they just want to start strife, and you can tell who these people are because they are quick to ask questions and when questions are thrown at them they run and hide, and then say o you're asking the wrong questions, and that's irrelevant. There is no such thing as an irrelevant question. That says something about who they are, they cannot face the truth and they refuse to be fair. The next day up comes another bashing moment.
Ask them to interpret certain passages they go an quote another passage, how is that interpreting?

My thing is if you want to attack the Church, fine, but be willing to answer questions yourselves. It only shows cowards and deceitful people.

Peter meaning rock explains that Christ created the position of the leader of the apostles, the Vicar of Christ, whom today we call Pope. Peter's name was changed from Simon to Peter for a reason, God doesn't just change a name for the sake of it, we see that in Abraham and in Jacob whom he called Israel. If Christ was changing Sions name to Peter meaning rock and then saying that on that Peter he wil build his church, I thought it would be clear to you that Christ created the position that we call Pope today, he wasn't called Pope in the beginning, until later on a couple of centuries later i believe, it's actually Papa meaning father, as in the father of the church (NOT GOD THE FATHER). But the head of Christ's church on earth.
And then Christ went on to give him the Rock the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and gave him the power to bind and loose on earth.
All that shows that Christ did create this position that we call Pope today. And as it is an office, it always has a successor.

What pains me so much is when people say that the Catholic church killed off the true Christians, because in that statement they say that Christ's church wasn't strong enough, and that when Christ said that the gates of hell will never prevail against his church, he didn't mean it. I mean Christ didn't mean what he said?
It's so silly that in their hatred and blindness and contempt for the Church they claim that those who were killed basically those who said that Christ isn't God and that his human nature is separate from his divine nature were the true Christians.
It's just sad that people have so much hatred in their heart that they will go so far as to deny Christ's divinity. Granted they don't realise that they're doing so, but it's sad all the same.

I don't know where you are going with this, but read my posts and tell me where my assertions tally with your questions and i will be glad to answer

Like I stated above the quesions weren't posted towards you alone. Don't be offended, that is not my intent. Just answer the ones you feel you can answer.

I keep saying it if heaven and hell turn out to be true, my ass would not be toasted alone I am going down there with 29999 sects of christianity that were wrong. Lol

@~Lady~
we're back to square one. I don't know why you miss the point. I'm saying you NEVER "answered" OUR own "questions" (you're the one calling them that). We make undisputable claims about RCC and the next thing we see are your 101 questions phrased from your RCC viewpoint. Frankly, how does answering all of your questions clear the facts we pointed out about the RCC? I repeated the isues you avoided in my last post and your inevitable reply is still "The one Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to". is that the only area you dispute: pope's legitimacy?. In fact, you were the one who brought up this "keys, keys, keys" thing at all. And it's taken you over. You sound like a broken record.

Please go read your post from yesterday then repeat that you never singled me out to answer your pointless questions.

Also, you've taken great pains to show that Christ's church will never peter out (forgive the pun). But how does that prove the RCC is Christ's church? If Jesus were here today, would he be a Roman Catholic? Or even a "christian" for that matter? I don't believe so for certain reasons which i've pointed out and which you are yet to address (even though i don't need further info on them)

Right from my response to your first post directed at me, i've said i find the "christian" label dubious and i don't ascribe it to myself , even though i respect the wishes of people who choose to. Jesus wasn't a "christian" and i prefer to follow Him and His teachings rather than any "organised religion". That has been my standpoint from the start. You can go and check. The Protestants and Pentecostals you allude to subtly in your last post are not any less guilty than the RCC in drifting away from Christ's teaching. This thread is not for issues relating to those "denominations" and i've stuck to the issue at hand: the RCC. Check my postings on other threads and you'll see my opinions on them.

I've not even hinted that you or anyone else should leave the RCC. It's not my business where anyone worships. whatever makes u happy, do it. I just pointed out FACTS which you can take or leave.

Shalom

@ lady
Do you know that carmelily is aged 102, May I advise you ignore her and please stop arguing with a critic on Catholicism?

Hnd-holder:

@ lady
Do you know that carmelily is aged 102, May I advise you ignore her and please stop arguing with a critic on Catholicism?

You no get elders for your village enh?
LOL LOL

@~Lady~
we're back to square one. I don't know why you miss the point. I'm saying you NEVER "answered" OUR own "questions" (you're the one calling them that)

1) I know I answered your questions, it may not be what you wanted, but you received an answer nonetheless.

2) You may be new to this board, but the questions that were posted by David and co have been asked over a million times, and they have been answered. That's the problem that we have. There are people here who don't want answers, all they want to do is start strife. It's not the first time seeing those questions from the same people, the problem is you came in without knowing the history of this topic of Catholicism.
All those questions have been answered, those people just recycle them a million times over. Maybe I ignored a few because they have already been answered before, time and time again.

Frankly, how does answering all of your questions clear the facts we pointed out about the RCC?

The problem is that non-catholics misinterpret things, so bringing it from a different view point might, help hence the questions. Also a lot of people here already know the truth to the RCC and they've been refuted many times, but pride refuses to let them say the truth. All they do is run and hide. Hence why there haven't been answers to the questions. It's not the first time asking questions, the problem is everyone abandons ship and goes to start trouble elsewhere. They won't answer the questions, because they know they're deceitful.

Also the facts that you pointed about RCC are very wrong, they're your misconceptions and nothing else. If you knew the truth or understood the teaching, you won't have those misconceptions.
Sometimes my response comes in the form of a question, not to dodge your question, but I've noticed in dealing with situations like this, it is best if you give the answer. A lot of people end up answering their own questions and see that they've had the wrong idea about RCC all along.

I repeated the isues you avoided in my last post and your inevitable reply is still "The one Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to". is that the only area you dispute: pope's legitimacy?. In fact, you were the one who brought up this "keys, keys, keys" thing at all. And it's taken you over. You sound like a broken record.

First of all I thought your only issue was about the Pope and so I stuck to that, and talked about it.
If you asked a question, I answered it, unless you skipped through parts of the post.

Please go read your post from yesterday then repeat that you never singled me out to answer your pointless questions.

Please go through all my posts and see if you were the only one I asked to answer the questions. If you were not the only one, I didn't single you out.
Even the original post of questions did not include your name and when I reposted it, it wasn't in reply to you.

Also, you've taken great pains to show that Christ's church will never peter out (forgive the pun). But how does that prove the RCC is Christ's church?

Because Christ founded one church (body of Christ). Not several different bodies, he also willed unity. Unity in heart, unity in belief. There is only one Church on this earth that can prove that it was founded by Christ, and that has the unity in belief and heart, and that's the RCC. Everyother one is founded by Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII and many more.

If Jesus were here today, would he be a Roman Catholic?

I think the problem here is that you think that the RCC is a denomination It is not. The only denomination out there are everybody else. The Church was not founded to be divided or to be in denominations. There is no need for Christ to be a member of the RCC, he is the RCC. There is only one body of Christ and not 30000 bodies of Christ.

I don't believe so for certain reasons which i've pointed out and which you are yet to address (even though i don't need further info on them)

You only do not believe so because you have the wrong information on the teaching of the Church. If you knew the teaching of the Church you would believe so.

Right from my response to your first post directed at me, i've said i find the "christian" label dubious and i don't ascribe it to myself , even though i respect the wishes of people who choose to

If you are not a Christian, then you are not a follower of Christ. The first place the apostles and disciples or the Church were first called Christians was in Antioch: Acts 11: 26 "and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."

Unless you disagree with the passage above, you are Christian.

i prefer to follow Him and His teachings rather than any "organised religion".

then you do not go by the Bible, even the church back then was very organised. In the way they acted and preached. They didn't just follow what they thought was right, they all believed the same and they guarded the belief and it exists till today in the Catholic Church.
They didn't all pick up the Bible (which wasn't existing at that time) and read and decided what they wanted to follow.

I've not even hinted that you or anyone else should leave the RCC. It's not my business where anyone worships. whatever makes u happy, do it. I just pointed out FACTS which you can take or leave

If you want to ask me questions about the belief of the RCC, then by all means go ahead. I would actually like to answer your questions and reason with you without distractions from many others. Maybe that was the problem, there were too many distractions, too many people posting things, and when I formulated my questions it was general.

Point of correction you never pointed out FACTS, you pointed out OPINIONS.

I can point out FACTS to you if you wants

Now if you really want to have a discussion about RCC in a mature manner, I am willing to engage in that discussion with you.

I keep saying it if heaven and hell turn out to be true, my ass would not be toasted alone I am going down there with 29999 sects of christianity that were wrong. Lol

Ok this sounds funny, but I know better so I won't laugh.

You know very well that heaven and hell is real. Even if one leaves the Catholic faith they do not abandon God, there's too much evidence about God. The Church knows so much about him because he has revealed everything to us, the only thing we do not know is the second coming of Christ. No one knows that except the Father, and anyone who claims to know is dead wrong, and anyone who is trying to figure it out will never get it.

There's too much evidence of the existence of God in the Church for you to not believe.

You never even told me why you lost faith. SO why did you? If you don't want to discuss it here, you can e-mail me.

But you know I'll always keep you in my prayers

[qoute]« #673 on: October 14, 2008, 10:29 AM »
@Hnd-holder,

Long time no see, no hear, no read. . ! It's all good.


Quote from: Hnd-holder on October 14, 2008, 10:11 AM
The Bible is a library were catholics kept the scriptural records written in scrolls . The scrolls were turned into books when Printing press came around the 14th century. Catholics wrote the Bible from the traditions.

Be careful small-small. Catholics did not "write" the Bible - unless you're saying that Moses and the prophets were 'Catholics'.
[quote][/quote]

Just wondering aloud; could protestant have "written" the Bible - unless Moses and the prophets (AS) were 'protestant'. Just wondering aloud. You can fault a dude for doing a little wondering.

the return of uncle Dauda. . .

Lady is still spamming the threads as usual with nonsense . . . just look at this heresy she said here . . .

AND YES GOD TELLS US EVERYTHING.

Here is what the bible says - Matt 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh

Maybe God has told Lady when He is coming.

I decided to humor Lady by "answering" her frankly stupid questions . . .

So here goes nothing.

1) Did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to Peter or not? - What "keys"?

2) What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven? -Are they physical "keys"?

3) Did Jesus give the keys to the kingdom of heaven to anyone other than Peter? If not, why not? - this is a repeat of ques 1.

4) When Jesus asked Peter to feed his sheep three times? Was he reinstating Peter as the leader of the apostles or not? - At no time did Christ ever choose a "leader" among the disciples. Read Christ's response when the mother of the sons of Zebedee asked that her sons be leaders . . . what of the disciple Christ loved the most? It certainly wasnt peter. James "fed the sheep", Paul, Timothy, John, Andrew, Philip all did . . so who is now the "leader"?

5) Was Peter's name Peter before Jesus called him Peter when he gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven? If not, why then did Jesus call him Peter, what does it mean? - Peter means "rock". Abraham's name also changed, ditto for Jacob . . . where are their own "keys"?

6) Why is it that they had to lay hands on the apostles before they were sent out? What's the significance on that and why is it that no random person could feel the Spirit and then start a church somewhere else as is done today? - According to the bible, every spirit-filled christian has the power to lay hands and impart the Holy Spirit unto others . . . Read John 1 before behaving like John McCain.

7) Why is it that the apostles warned that the Church stay true to what they heard from the apostles or what has been handed down (tradition)? - The apostles said no such thing and certainly NEVER meant "tradition" in the unbiblical, evil way ur church uses it.

Can God have anything to do with the sinful? - Yup. Ask David after his escapade with Bathsheba. Ask Zacheus. Ask Matthew.

9) If Mary was sinful when she conceived Jesus, how then can Jesus dwell in her, isn't he God? Once agains can God have anything to do with the sinful? - God spoke through Balaam's ass.

10) What does full of grace mean? - It means "full of grace".

11) Was Jesus divinity ever separate from his humanity? - No.

12) To make 11 clearer was Jesus' divinity ever separate from his humanity, ever? - You simply repeated ques 11 and added "ever" twice.

13) If Jesus divinity was never separate from his humanity and Jesus is God, how then can Mary not be the Mother of God? - Fallacy. You cant be using a ques to formulate another. By this warped logic, Balaam's ass is the donkey of God.

14) If you are still on the argument that Mary is not the Mother of God? Did your mother give you your soul? If not why then call her your mother? - Fallacy again. You seem to be arguing with urself.

15) If you still do not understand and are going to give the argument that Mary is not the same as your mother, then did Mary push Jesus out of her mouth or her vagina like your mother? - Maybe her nostrils.

16) Now there are those of you who will make the argument that Mary had nothing to do with the forming of Jesus, which really won't make any sense, because that would only raise the question of why did Jesus have a mother then? - It raises no such serpentine "question" because it was simply fulfillment of prophecy, something that another poster has exhaustively dealt. Go read it.

17) Why didn't God just drop him on the face of the earth as a full grown man or why wasn't he made into flesh as Adam was made into flesh, after all he is the New Adam? - Because prophecy had to be fulfilled as spoken by old testament prophets - "unto us a Child is BORN!

18) Why did he have to come from the womb of a woman? - Same as ques 16 and 17. Redundancy is the forte of those who seem to be struggling to convince themselves.

19) Do you even know what the womb of a woman is? - Is it somewhere in her toes?

20) Why did Elizabeth call Mary the Mother of My Lord? - Because an angel had revealed to her who Mary was carrying.

21) Who is the Lord she was talking about? Why did she even use the word "Lord" and what "Lord" was this? Was it the regular lord as you may use for a king or for landlord or is it "Lord" as in "Adonai"? - The Lord Isaiah prophesied about earlier

22) If Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of "Adonai" wouldn't it mean that she was calling Mary the Mother of God, or was "Adonai" used to call other lords? - Same as ques 22.

23) If infact Mary is the Mother of ADONAI as Elizabeth called her (unless you will claim that that pasage is lying) then isn't she worthy of honour or praise? - Show us where Christ or the disciples considered her worthy of honor and praise and it sufficeth us.

[size=14pt]This woman needs serious prayers.[/size]

Hi @Viable,

Viable:

See daniel 7; 25 daniel prophesied about the coming of the papacy and the things the papacy will do.

1. And he shall speak great words against the most High

2. and shall wear out the saints of the most High

3. and think to change times and laws:

The prophecy of Daniel in Daniel 7;25 fulfilled here. The changed of the day of worship from saturday to sunday was don by the same Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, even though we may all have differing views on certain issues in our Christian faith, I don't see how one may use Daniel 7:25 to refer to the Catholic Church as fulfilling the prophecy in that verse. Changing times and laws is not perculiar - because so many denominations also have changed so many things as well; and why are they not also said to be fulfilling the prophey of that verse?

It is easy for people to snatch verses here and there and arrive at some ideas that they can use to disdain others that belong to another group. Of course, Catholicism has several matters that we may not agree with; and as well, there are other issues in Protestanticism that we can't defend Biblically either (yes, I'm a protestant). . . and there are so many things that Adventists and sabbatarians cannot defend from the same Bible. However, it would be our happy privileg to carefully seek to understand the Word of God and not use it as a battering ram against others just because they don't fit into our own perceptions. What you don't find as a Biblical practice in Catholicism, you can share them without pushing just about any verse to draw a conclusion that is far removed from what is being taught in God's Word.

Shalom.

~Lady~:

1) I know I answered your questions, it may not be what you wanted, but you received an answer nonetheless,

what was the answer again? i never asked you any question! i'm beginning to worry for you.

2) You may be new to this board, but the questions that were posted by David and co have been asked over a million times, and they have been answered. That's the problem that we have. There are people here who don't want answers, all they want to do is start strife. It's not the first time seeing those questions from the same people, the problem is you came in without knowing the history of this topic of Catholicism.
All those questions have been answered, those people just recycle them a million times over. Maybe I ignored a few because they have already been answered before, time and time again.

was this number 2 meant for me?

Also the facts that you pointed about RCC are very[b] wrong[/b], they're your misconceptions and nothing else. If you knew the truth or understood the teaching, you won't have those misconceptions.

What exactly are these wrong facts? Catholic priests' pedophilia? the Vatican's active involvement in wars and racism? priests' celibacy? please be specific about my "wrong facts". And when you say "wrong facts" it's a contradiction in terms.

First of all I thought your only issue was about the Pope and so I stuck to that, and talked about it.

Haba.

Because Christ founded one church (body of Christ). Not several different bodies, he also willed unity. Unity in heart, unity in belief. [/b]There is only one Church on this earth that can prove that it was founded by Christ, and that has the unity in belief and heart, and that's the RCC.

where do RCC charismatics fit into this "unity in belief"?

I think the problem here is that you think that the RCC is a denomination It is not. [b]The only denomination out there are everybody else.

I won't attempt to deprive you of your delusions

The Church was not founded to be divided or to be in denominations. There is no need for Christ to be a member of the RCC, he is the RCC.

Gee! Christ was Roman?? Get serious.

~Lady~:

If you are not a Christian, then you are not a follower of Christ. The first place the apostles and disciples or the Church were first called Christians was in Antioch: Acts 11: 26 "and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."
Unless you disagree with the passage above, you are Christian.

Did the Early Church refer to itself as "christian"? Did the word "christian" have the connotations it does today back then? connotations like a fragmented body of people with wildly different beliefs professing the name "Christian"? Do your RCC beliefs and those of the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons, Deeper Lifers and Anglicans match? Yet y'all claim to be Christians. I don't believe in the doctrines you guys propagate and yet i should join you in using that label? what kind of confusion is that? It's either all of y'all denominations are wrong or ONLY one is right. simple.The question then is which one walks in Christ's footsteps?
By the way, if Christ is RCC why weren't the apostles referred to as RCCians? while we're on it, did Christ have a BIBLE? What version?

even the church back then was very organised.

i am yet to make up my mind on whether to be amazed or amused by this comment. you do not recognise the difference between "organised religion" as in orderly religion and "Organised Religion" as in the world's major faiths?? I honestly hope it was my blunder in not capitalizing the initials that threw u off o.

If you want to ask me questions about the belief of the RCC, then by all means go ahead.[/b] I would actually like to answer your questions and reason with you without distractions from many others. Maybe that was the problem, there were too many distractions, too many people posting things, and when I formulated my questions it was general.

Thought you said i already asked? anyway, maybe i'll take you up on that offer someday

Point of correction you never pointed out FACTS, you pointed out OPINIONS.

opinions like pedophilia, warmongering etc? I must be pretty influential to get world media and even the pope himself to accept my "opinions" as "facts".

Now if you really want to have a discussion about RCC in a mature manner, I am willing to engage in that discussion with you

what have you been doing all along?

@~Lady~
I hope David's answers to your questions aptly point out how silly i've been trying to tell you they are. The phrasing of those questions are bizarre at best. Questions 15 and 16 are cases in point. simply pointless.

~Lady~:

How does that mean that the Popes are successors of Peter? Because Christ said that the gates of hell shall never prevail against his Church. Meaning it will last for ever.

the problem is you "understand" a lot of peripheral hubris but fail to understand the real nitty gritty details. Yes Christ made that statement but the real ques is WHAT DID HE MEAN BY "CHURCH"?

If you carefully read thru the bible (you know that one you "compiled", no where is "church" refered to as an organised form of religion. You hear stuff about the "church in wilderness" (Acts 7:38) . . . that was in the old testament when the Jews knew nothing about salvation, grace and were still under the law. Romans 16:3-5 talks about the "church" in the HOUSE of priscilla and Acquilla . . .

Do you really understand what the term "church" really means?

~Lady~:

You don't appoint a leader to a position and expect the position to die off when the person dies. If so then Christ didn't plan on his Church lasting till the end time.
It only makes sense that when he positioned the apostles he planned on having successors to those positions

Someone else brought this up earlier, your posts are full of man's fallible "wisdom" and very little to do with the gospel at all. According to man's wisdom, a church can only last as long as you have a "leader"?

~Lady~:

hence why today we have the Apostles who are priests, missionaries, bishops, archbishops, sisters, and so on. These people are sent out to spread the gospel, that's what apostle means.

That is another false statement. The apostles of the bible are so far removed from those idolatrous folks who wear cassocks and other uniforms of organised religion in your "church".

~Lady~:

Why do we take apostolic succession so seriosuly, there's a passage by St. Paul (I can't think of it right now, I'll look it up for you) that spoke of those who were christians who were supposedly preaching the gospel to the churches and St. Paul basically stated that those people weren't "sent out" by any of the apostle, meaning no random person can wake up and walk into a church and start preaching.

This again highlights the serious problems with people who call themselves "christians" and have a very limited knowledge of the bible they claim to have "compiled".

This is Romans 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

Did you even read the earlier verse? (since you couldnt even quote this correctly how can you even remember to read it IN CONTEXT!)

1. Paul was not remotely refering to anyone being "sent by the apostles".

2. Right from verse 1 of Romans 10 we already know whom Paul was talking about - 1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

3. The entire chapter 10 is centered around an appeal to the jews to salvation in the blood of Jesus Christ rather than clinging unto the law.

4. Verse 14 is the prelude to verse 15 and this is what it says - 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

- We dont see anything about anyone being sent by any apostle there. Enough of building a theology on falsehood and deliberate misapplication of the gospel.

~Lady~:

We also see in the acts of the apsotles that before anyone was sent out they had to receive blessing from the apostles, basically being ordained to spread the gospel. On several occasions apostle Paul talks about sending someone out to the Churches. That also showed that they were very organised and it wasn't a bunch of Churches on their own just doing whatever they want, they were united with the other churches that were founded at that time already.

Carmelilly spoke about this earlier but it seems you prefer to tie your ankles around your own unbelief. There is a difference between being "organised" and "organised religion" as we have it today. Timothy was "ordained" to minister to the greeks right from when he was not yet a teenager . . .
Just as similarly as the Lord would pick men who followed Him in their hearts in the old testament so it was with the new testament christians.

The new testament church ordained apostles, pastors, teachers, bishops, helpers . . . nowhere do we see them "ordaining" nuns, celibate priests (actually EVERY CHRISTIAN is a priest unto the Lord), popes and the other nonsense.

~Lady~:

Lol, the Pope is not God incarnate that's just you adding your own in there, he is the Vicar of Christ, i.e. and Ambassador of Christ

what is the meaning of this heresy? Every Christian bears Christ in them. Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Where in the bible did the apostles appoint an ambassador for Christ?

~Lady~:

and from the Power of the keys that were handed over to the office of Vicar of Christ, the Pope can certainly make decisions and as Christ said "whatsoever he binds on earth can be bound in heaven, and whatsoever he looses on earth is loose in heaven"

Yet more nonsense . . . EVERY CHRISTIAN has the power to bind and loose too. This false power of the pope cannot have come from the same bible we read . . . oh sorry you dont even read it at all or you would have seen this - Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

What power then has the pope that you as a christian do not have? What "decisions" is he making on your behalf? did you read Matthew 18:19? It says if ANY TWO OF YOU shall agree on earth as touching ANYTHING, it shall be done unto you . . . so what is the role of the pope now?

You know, reading the above i lost complete interest in exposing the rest of your heresy.

You might want to pick a copy of the bible and start prayerfully reading it . . . will serve you better than just foaming in the mouth about "questions". Its apparent you really are not saved by grace.

Here is what the bible says - Matt 25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh

Maybe God has told Lady when He is coming.

You may have missed the part of my posts that said the only thing that God has not revealed to us is the second coming of Christ. Before you make claims, why don't you read first?

~Lady~:

You may have missed the part of my posts that said the only thing that God has not revealed to us is the second coming of Christ. Before you make claims, why don't you read first?

Before you make such fatuous comments why dont you read the bible first?

Rev 10:4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.

- Unless of course God has specially revealed to your pope those things that John heard on the island of patmos.

Dont lets waste time, God does not reveal EVERYTHING to us . . . your claims are factually unbiblical.

1) Did Jesus give the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven to Peter or not? - What "keys"?

The simple answer would be yes or no. WHEN YOU STOP BEING A COWARD AND START ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, THEN YOU CAN GET SOMEWHERE.

As usual you don't answer the question.
I guess when Christ was saying this he was lying abi.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

What keys? The keys to the kingdom of heaven. What was Jesus saying in that passage?

2) What are the keys to the kingdom of heaven? -Are they physical "keys"?

How does this answer my question. Did you tell me anything about the keys to the kingdom of heaven? When will you stop being a coward.

At no time did Christ ever choose a  "leader" among the disciples. Read Christ's response when the mother of the sons of Zebedee asked that her sons be leaders . . . what of the disciple Christ loved the most? It certainly wasnt peter. James "fed the sheep", Paul, Timothy, John, Andrew, Philip all did . . so who is now the "leader"?

Wrong after giving Peter the name of Rock and telling him that he would build his Church on that Rock (Peter) he told Peter three times "FEED MY LAMBS" "TEND MY SHEEP" "FEED MY SHEEP" John 21:15-17. Christ did not found a Church that was to have no leader on earth. He didn't leave them all to fend for themselves.

Well seeing that they all answered to Peter and that Peter was the one that always spoke on behalf of everyone and when he spoke they all listened, I believe that signifies leadership. Or do you have a different understanding of what leadership is?

Peter means "rock". Abraham's name also changed, ditto for Jacob . . . where are their own "keys"?

When will you start answering the questions oga? The name changes are respective to their roles given to them. Abraham was to mean the father of nations and Jacob's was changed to Isreal the nation of God, Isreal produced the nation of God (the 12 tribes of Israel) Peter's means rock on which Christ builds his Church.

According to the bible, every spirit-filled christian has the power to lay hands and impart the Holy Spirit unto others . . . Read John 1 before behaving like John McCain

1) John 1 does not say that Every spirit filled Christian has the power to lay hands and impart the Holy Spirit. Don't add jara into it.
2) Going by the actions of the apsotles they laid hands on people before they sent them out as apostles. This is very evidenced in acts of the apostles even when there were some "Spirit - filled" Christians preaching, the apostles had to send apsotles to correct the errors of "Spirit-filled" Christians.
Acts 15: 22-25
22 Then the apsotles and prebyters, in agreement with the whole church, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. The ones chosen were Judas, who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers.
23 This is the letter delievered by them: "The apostles and the prebyters, your brothers, to the brothers in Antioch, Syrai, and Cilicia of Gentile origin: greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some of our number who went out without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturned your peace of mind.
25 we have with one accord decided to choose representatives and to send them to you along with our beloeved Barnabas and Paul.

I'm sure those without a mandate were "filled with the Spirit" too.

Look sir it is full in the New Testament that apostolic succession is needed.

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you throught he prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyters.

Notice it wasn't random people who were "filled with the Spirit" that imposed hands.

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands.

Notice that Paul had to impose his hands on Timothy who was to take over Paul's office as a minister.

2 Timothy 4:1-6

Paul charges Timothy with his office as he says

1 I charge you in the presence of God and Chrit Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearance and his kingly power:
2 proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
3 For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiousity, will accumulate teachers
4 and will stop listening to the truth and be diverted to myths.
5 But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelists; fulfill your ministry.

Notice he also said there wil be a time people will not tolerate sound doctrine. I think he was about you.

Now I can go on and on and on showing you in he Bible that the apostles believed in apostolic succession.

The apostles said no such thing and certainly NEVER meant "tradition" in the unbiblical, evil way ur church uses it.

You wanna bet?

Here's my favorite

1 Timothy 6:20

O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.

Oga there are many more. The traditions you speak of are made up in your mind and are not in the Church. You know nothing of the Church's tradition.

God spoke through Balaam's ass.

So did God dwell in balaam's ass?

It means "full of grace".

If an American asks you what is ogbonno soup, will your answer to him be "ogbonno soup" how then is he supposed to know what ogbonno soup is.
ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION CANNOT BE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION OR DID THEY NOT TEACH YOU THAT IN SCHOOL?

No

Then how come according to you, Mary gave birth to the human Jesus and not the divine Jesus if his divinity and humanity were never separate?

You simply repeated ques 11 and added "ever" twice.

I know the second ever was to emphasize the first ever, I should have put it in bold.

Fallacy. You can't be using a ques to formulate another. By this warped logic, Balaam's ass is the donkey of God.

No, God never dwelt in balaam's ass, you're comparing apples and oranges here.

It raises no such serpentine "question" because it was simply fulfillment of prophecy, something that another poster has exhaustively dealt. Go read it.

No that poster simply did the old routine of "you can't ask such questions" when they couldn't comprehend and come up with an answer.
I know it is a fulfillment of a prophecy, but why did God have that prophecy to be of a woman. He could have equally dropped from the sky or just showed up as God has done before (when he appeared to Abraham as his guest) and then brought about salvation. Why did the prophecy have to be Jesus being born of a woman? Why couldn't the prophecy have just been that God would create a New Adam (which is who Jesus is) from the dirt and breathe in his nostrils. After all it would have had the same outcome. Jesus would be human as Adam was human, and he would be sinless because God didn't create Adam to be sinless, and he would have still died.
So why not go that way?

Because prophecy had to be fulfilled as spoken by old testament prophets - "unto us a Child is BORN!

But why that prophecy? Why isn't the prophecy that he would create a New Adam as he did the other?

Same as ques 22.

It is question 22. And the question was different. Here it is again: 22) If Elizabeth called Mary the Mother of "Adonai" wouldn't it mean that she was calling Mary the Mother of God, or was "Adonai" used to call other lords?

Show us where Christ or the disciples considered her worthy of honor and praise and it sufficeth us.

I won't just show you Christ's and the disciples, I will show you the angel and elizabeth too.

Luke 1: 28 And coming to her he said, "Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you."

Luke 1: 42" Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb.

John 2:3-7
Mary asks Jesus for wine and he honoured her petition and turned water into wine.

He handed her over to his most loved disciple as his mother at the foot of the cross.

Now unless you're trying to say that Jesus and his disciples dishonoured Mary.