@ Pilgrim

Wait let me go through my bible. I want to make use of my bible now.

ebos:

@ Pilgrim

Wait let me go through my bible. I want to make use of my bible now.

@ebos,

I was actually monitoring this thread and waiting for you to come and edit some particulars in your rejoinder to Ndipe.

But while you're consulting your Bible, let me quickly drop this one gbam for your consideration as well.

ebos:

Now I can take my bible:  Listen, in so far as Jesus regards the institution of marriage as a great calling, so also he regards Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom as a great calling.  Hear Jesus “not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.  For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made Eunuchs by others and there are Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.  Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matt 19:11-12)  Along the same vein, St. Paul the Apostle who did not marry says:  “I wish that all were as myself am.  But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.” (1 Cor. 7:7).

Jesus never taught that the Catholic or any Church should go about and make eunuchs of anyone. Paul was not married; but rather than recommend celibacy to those who were to be ministers, he precisely admonished that such should be married (1 Tim. 3:2).

ebos:

I believe the change does not rule out St. Peter as first Pope.  Note, the word Pope simply means a Shepherd, Leader, Bishop etc. So, nobody can argue this simple truuth.

Now it is interesting that you mentioned that Pope simply means 'bishop' among other things. Please read 1 Tim. 3:1-2 again: "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach."

There - it precisely says that a "Bishop" is to be the husband of one wife (unless there's another way to define 'husband' to mean celibacy and eunuch). Since you've raised the issue that a Pope simply means a 'bishop', let's see if this matches with your idea, if we instead use your prefer term "Pope" --

"A Pope then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,"

. . . and what would be wrong with that? I have news again for the Pope: LET THE POPE GO GET MARRIED - that's the WORD of God!

So, you can't argue that the Catholic Church had to "change" any part of anything and then call it the 'teaching of Jesus Christ'. It is simply flogging one's self and asking for sympathy.

ebos:

Now, we all know that St. Peter married but as things progressed Catholic now made a change and adopted the teaching of Jesus Christ to enable the Priests devote their time for Kingdom Service.  So, it was just a constructive change to serve God better.

Please observe that at any given time, there were always SEVERAL bishops in the churches. You can read it for yourself in the following:

Php. 1:1 -- "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons."

Now, let's again use your preferred term 'Pope' in place of 'bishop' --

". . . to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the POPES and deacons."

What again would be wrong with that, my dear ebos? Is there a clever way yet to deny that there were several "popes" in Philippi? Why is it that the Catholic Church today has ONLY ONE Pope at any give time over all the Catholic churches worldwide?


Hehe. . . make I make you laugh small

When you refer to Peter as the 'first Pope', would it be correct then to infer by the same stretc of your meaning that Peter was the 'first bishop' or 'shepherd'? No, I am not arguing with this "simple truth" (and neither should you). But I just want to know the simplicity of that truth - was Peter the first Pope'bishop'. . . or the Pope'shepherd' . . . or the first Pope'leader'?!?

Or again, was Peter the only 'bishop', leader, or 'shepherd' in his day? Does Scripture not clearly show us that there were several BISHOPS and/or SHEPHERDS while Peter was still alive?

Let's look at this more closely:

In Acts 20 when the apostle Paul was about to leave Ephesus for Jerusalem, he called the elders of the Ephesian church (vs. 17), and among the things he said to them was this:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with
his own blood." (vs. 28, KJV).

The word "overseers" in Greek is episkopos (επισκοπος) is the same word translated in other verses as 'bishops' (Php. 1:1, KJV). Or, as we find in the ASV of Acts 20:28 as "bishops" ('. . the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord. .').

The point is simply that:

(a) there were several elders who were being addressed in Acts 20 (see vs. 17)

(b) these several elders were called "bishops" at the same time (vs. 28)

So, would we be correct to say that if we used you prefered term 'Pope' in that verse (Acts 20:28), we would still be saying the  same thing? Let's see:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you POPES,
to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with
his own blood." (vs. 28, ebos' translation).

If you feel otherwise, why would it be inaccurate to use the term 'Pope' in place of 'BISHOPS' or 'overseers' in Acts 20:28?


Peter was not a Pope, for there was no papacy system of Catholic Church in the Bible (OT or NT). The irony of it all is that, while the Catholic Church has named Peter the first Pope by its own tradition, the dear apostle Peter himself referred to the Lord Jesus Christ as 'the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls' (1 Pet. 2:25). If Peter did not address himself anywhere as a 'Pope', can we say that he meant to call Jesus Christ 'the POPE of your souls'?


My dear Catholic friends, make una softly dey parade this Catholic tradition. The more you try to defend what is indefensible even from Scripture, the more the evidence will leave you tongue-in-cheek!

@ Pilgrim 1

I said Images are used to increase understanding about God. I have given you references in the bible, yet you still ask me to show you specific instruction. Now, I want you to sincerely tell me if you don’t have Jesus Christ Pictures in your house. What does your mind explain to you each time you see Jesus Christ picture in a book? I believe that your mind tells you that the picture is Jesus. If your answer is positive that you have Jesus Christ Picture in your house, then, is picture not an image? Why do you have Jesus pictures hanging in your house? Why practicing what you have condemned? I hope you are getting the point I’m making here? Let me tell you the mind of every Catholic now, we don’t worship idols, only the Living God we worship.

Now about Pope, Pilgrim I quote you “The leaders are several at any given time, and you can read who those leaders are in 1 Corinthians 12:28. There is NO MENTION of ANY Pope among those whom GOD Himself set as leaders in the Church.”

While we had many Bishops or Elders at the time of St. Peter, we also read that all the Bishops were not taking presiding sit at any gathering. It was only St. Peter who presided every meeting they had. This is an indication that while we had many Bishops St Peter was no doubt the Head of the Christians even there is no word like Pope in the bible, we also have no word like “bible” in the bible, but we know scripture means the same as bible. As I said earlier, Pope simply means a shepherd and he succeeded St Peter. John 21:15-17, Luke 22:32) In these portions Christ made St. Peter the Shepherd of the whole flock when He him (Peter) three times, do you love me and Christ said “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, and then commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers. Besides, Matt 16:18:19) says “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld can never prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made Eunuchs by others and there are Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matt 19:11-12). The bold phrase proves that some eunuchs are made by others. So, Jesus Christ and St. Paul encouraged celibacy. I repeat, for Christ Church to be one, it must be united under one visible head, which Pope or Bishop or even Vicar of Rome is the visible Head. Christ cannot allow His Church to scatter without hierarchy. I know I have not been steady today because of what I'm trying do. I will make more research probably today or next to convince you, if only you will accept.

@ Pilgrim 1

Today is so tight that I have not been able to relax for 1 hour. Probably, you can notice it from my post. Just having visitors discussing one thing and the other.

Lol, @ebos. . . thank you for responding. It is quite an interesting exchange we're having here - and I hope we can continue to do so amicably.

ebos:

I said Images are used to increase understanding about God. I have given you references in the bible, yet you still ask me to show you specific instruction. Now, I want you to sincerely tell me if you don’t have Jesus Christ Pictures in your house. What does your mind explain to you each time you see Jesus Christ picture in a book? I believe that your mind tells you that the picture is Jesus. If your answer is positive that you have Jesus Christ Picture in your house, then, is picture not an image? Why do you have Jesus pictures hanging in your house? Why practicing what you have condemned? I hope you are getting the point I’m making here? Let me tell you the mind of every Catholic now, we don’t worship idols, only the Living God we worship.

Unfortunately, I don't have any said 'pictures' of Jesus in my house. None whatsoever. And if I could speak for myself, my faith has been continually challenged, refreshed and blessed as I read God's WORD. It is remarkable how the Holy Spirit reveals Christ to the beluiever without any such images or pictures.

ebos:

Now about Pope, Pilgrim I quote you “The leaders are several at any given time, and you can read who those leaders are in 1 Corinthians 12:28. There is NO MENTION of ANY Pope among those whom GOD Himself set as leaders in the Church.”

While we had many Bishops or Elders at the time of St. Peter, we also read that all the Bishops were not taking presiding sit at any gathering. It was only St. Peter who presided every meeting they had.

Lol. . . my goodness, I don't know how this happens, but I had the premonition that you would come back with those precise words in the second line! Amazing!

Anyway, I disagree with your summation. First, unless I had unwittingly missed it, it would be interesting if you could offer a reference for that.

However, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that several leaders (apostles and elders) were gathered to consider a matter in Acts 15. Indeed, 'Peter rose up' to present his own side of the matter before those gathered (vs. 7-11); but it was rather JAMES who gave the verdict in that meeting (vss. 13 & 19) --

"And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: . . .
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God "

Not only so, when Paul wrote to the Galatians, he recognized several leaders as "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem; and noticed that he mention JAMES before Peter:

"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given
unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen,
and they unto the circumcision. " (Gal. 2:9)

It's a hard case to establish in the face of Scriptural evidence that Peter presided at every or any meeting.

ebos:

This is an indication that while we had many Bishops St Peter was no doubt the Head of the Christians even there is no word like Pope in the bible, we also have no word like “bible” in the bible, but we know scripture means the same as bible. As I said earlier, Pope simply means a shepherd and he succeeded St Peter.

It is true the word Pope does not appear in Scripture; but as long as you infer (and rightly so) that it simply means 'BISHOP', the case is clear that Peter was not the ONLY bishop (or "POPE" in the Church. Second, there is no verse to suggest that Peter was the Head of the Christians. Rather, in every place we read that Christ is the HEAD of the Church (Eph. 1:23; 5:23 - "Christ is the Head of the Church".

ebos:

John 21:15-17, Luke 22:32) In these portions Christ made St. Peter the Shepherd of the whole flock when He him (Peter) three times, do you love me and Christ said “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep, and then commanded Peter to strengthen his brothers.

Those texts do not suggest that Christ made Peter the Head/ the Shepherd of the whole flock. There are two reason why that idea is untenable:

    (a) while Peter was yet alive, the Holy Ghost also made several elders "overseers" (or, "BISHOPS" over the flock of God
          - - -  Acts. 20:28

    (b) even Peter himself acknowledged Christ as THE SHEPHERD and BISHOP of our souls (1 Pet. 2:25)

It is a weak idea to use John 21:15-17 as the proof text for assuming Peter was a Pope.

ebos:

Besides, Matt 16:18:19) says “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld can never prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

There again, the Church was not built on Peter. You may care to see why this is so from Ephesians 2:20-21:

"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints,
and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone."

And again, 1 Cor. 3:11  --

"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

There's just no way anyone can find a pretext to make Peter the foundation upon which the Church is being built.

ebos:

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made Eunuchs by others and there are Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matt 19:11-12). The bold phrase proves that some eunuchs are made by others. So, Jesus Christ and St. Paul encouraged celibacy.

In the first place, you're wrong - they did not encourage celibacy. Rather, from 1 Tim. 3:2, it is clear that the apostle Paul recommended marriage instead. The Lord Jesus Christ knew that Peter was married (Matt. 8:14), and yet chose him as an apostle unto whom He committed the keys of the Kingdom.

A bit more: in the case of the apostle Paul, he clearly stated that he did not wish that anyone made a eunuch or married man out of him:

1 Cor. 9:5 & 15 --
"Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren
of the Lord, and Cephas? . . .But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things,
that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my
glorying void."

Paul did not write that, in order to serve the Lord as an apostle, an elder, overseer, bishop (or even "Pope", then someone should make him celebate (neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me). If anything, Paul was resolute that he was an apostle solely by God's calling - and not by what any man made of him:

Galatians 1:1-2
"Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father, who raised him from the dead"

I hope this is clear now.

ebos:

I repeat, for Christ Church to be one, it must be united under one visible head, which Pope or Bishop or even Vicar of Rome is the visible Head. Christ cannot allow His Church to scatter without hierarchy. I know I have not been steady today because of what I'm trying do. I will make more research probably today or next to convince you, if only you will accept.

I'd be delighted to read the outcome of your research (I've been busy as well today). But I'd even more appreciate that your research and findings should be clearly enunciated from Scripture, and not contrary to it.

Cheers.

ebos:

@ Pilgrim 1

Today is so tight that I have not been able to relax for 1 hour. Probably, you can notice it from my post. Just having visitors discussing one thing and the other.

Lol. . . you can also notice how busy I am as well, because it seems to take me forever to post my rejoinders. Anytime. Blessings.

@Pilgrim 1

Yes, I agree with you that Christ is the head of the church, but who is the visible head of the Church on earth? This is the question you are tactically playing around the answer. I don’t want you to arrive at the point where references in the bible are forgotten, and becomes completely immersed in you knowledge, then one begins to ask, is this what the Pastors are teaching? Just carefully mirror on the points you are making because I believe most of it have been on shaky ground. Those bible portions I stated earlier are more than enough to prove that Christ appointed St. Peter to head His Church on earth. There were other Apostles, yet Christ didn’t instruct any of them to Feed his lambs, feed His Sheep etc. Now, do you mean Christ flocks could be left without a leader? Should that happen, disorderliness will unarguably take its position! That means Christ prayer for oneness is completely defeated. Though, the vital point I want you to accept is the issue of Pope taking Peter’s place. A good example is the fact that, no man or woman can claim to be the founder of Catholic Church today. Other Churches know and have their founders. But Catholic Church traces its origin to the time of the Apostles. But we know that most churches pulled out from the Catholic while some of those mulish churches that pulled out gave unwanted and regrettable births to other churches. Another good example to prove to you that Pope succeeded St. Peter and that Catholic Priests are the real anointed men chosen by Christ, and is the only Church that has its root to the Apostles is that of the granting of absolutions by the Catholic Priests. No other Church can grant absolutions because they know quite well that the power has not been given to them. Never will they try it. But we know that Christ gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins, so, how come it is only the Catholic Church that does this? Let those Pastors try it and see what the consequence will be.

As for Celibacy, St Paul openly encouraged it when he said “I wish that all were as myself am (1 Cor. 7:&. We saw the result of St. Paul’s celibacy, because of all the Christ’s disciples (even the twelve apostles inclusive) he devoted more time for God’s work than the rest. Let us not miss the real point, the Christ we are following did not even marry, should it not be wise to be like the Master hence He (Christ) did make mention of Celibacy for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven? What do you have to say about this?

Still on Images, you rightly said you have no Jesus pictures in your house. Well, nobody is there to with you, so you can still tell us that your mind never one day got the impression that the picture or icon drawn on the poster is Jesus. Maybe each time you see Jesus picture or icon anywhere, your mind reminds you of someone else, and certainly not Jesus. Pilgrim, you dey try.

@ebos,

ebos:

Yes, I agree with you that Christ is the head of the church, but who is the visible head of the Church on earth? This is the question you are tactically playing around the answer. I don’t want you to arrive at the point where references in the bible are forgotten, and becomes completely immersed in you knowledge, then one begins to ask, is this what the Pastors are teaching? Just carefully mirror on the points you are making because I believe most of it have been on shaky ground.

Lol. . . I don't know what the "pastors" are teaching in every corner of the earth. But the texts I discussed with you cannot be written off as if the "pastors" themselves wrote those verses!

More to the point is that there is nothing like "visible" and "invisible" Head of the Church. That would be saying that there are TWO Bodies of Christ - one "visible Body" (with a visible Head); and the other an "invisible Body" (with an "invisible Head")! Even though you are 'invisible' to me right now, you're still the same "ebos" - there can never be two of you (a "visible ebos" and an "invisible ebos"! There's no such thing in God's WORD lai-lai!

There's only one Body - and only one Head of that Body (Eph. 4:4)! ANy other 'Head' of that ONE Body is em. . . er. . monstrous!

ebos:

Those bible portions I stated earlier are more than enough to prove that Christ appointed St. Peter to head His Church on earth. There were other Apostles, yet Christ didn’t instruct any of them to Feed his lambs, feed His Sheep etc.

Lol. Please don't make Peter get worried over your assertions. Christ already chose Peter as an apostle (Luke 6:13 & 14); and there's no place where He chose that apostle as a "Pope" or a "visible head" over the Church. I've already offered that Peter did not take precedence over other apostles - see the case again for apostle James in Acts 15.

ebos:

Now, do you mean Christ flocks could be left without a leader? Should that happen, disorderliness will unarguably take its position!

C'mon ebos! Even with Pope Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Catholics are having a most difficult time keeping their socks together! Actually, there's no portfolio for a "POPE" in God's WORD.

ebos:

That means Christ prayer for oneness is completely defeated.

Just because you can't find Pope in God's WORD? Lol. Christ's prayer was not ineffective - and the sooner Catholics realize, the better for Rome.

ebos:

Though, the vital point I want you to accept is the issue of Pope taking Peter’s place. A good example is the fact that, no man or woman can claim to be the founder of Catholic Church today. Other Churches know and have their founders. But Catholic Church traces its origin to the time of the Apostles.

Catholics like to claim that their Church dates back to Acts 2 - the very birthday of the NT Church. Sorry, so many bolts and screws are missing to sustain that claim.

Protestant churches as well make that claim - and the whole drama is laughable, because we are talking from both sides or our mouths while shouting and hooting for our team players.

As for me, it is a simple thing. There is only one Body of Christ from Acts 2 till tomorrow when I come back to my office! There can't be TWO of them - and for any segment of Christianity to claim exclusively that they are THE Church or Body, such a segment would need to write their own Bibles and let us know when their own crucifixion would take place!

ebos:

But we know that most churches pulled out from the Catholic while some of those mulish churches that pulled out gave unwanted and regrettable births to other churches. Another good example to prove to you that Pope succeeded St. Peter and that Catholic Priests are the real anointed men chosen by Christ, and is the only Church that has its root to the Apostles is that of the granting of absolutions by the Catholic Priests.

For the Protestants to have broken away from Catholics is fair proof that the Catholic Church midwifed the first schism in Christian history! NO?

Second, please edit that idea of absolutions. That is the very ingredient that the Catholic priests have used behind the counter to play with young girls and made babies.

ebos:

No other Church can grant absolutions because they know quite well that the power has not been given to them. Never will they try it. But we know that Christ gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins, so, how come it is only the Catholic Church that does this? Let those Pastors try it and see what the consequence will be.

My dear ebos. . I'm really enjoying this!

In the first place, Protestant Pastors do not need to practise absolutionism. Why? We know the consequences even before we begin. What's the point absolving people's sins and still require purgatory of them?!? Oh goodness me. . . there is nothing like absolution in the WORD. A person asks God for forgiveness, and God freely forgives. The intituted rites of absolution, penance, purgatory, etc., are an unnecessary burden that Christ did not pass on to anyone.

ebos:

As for Celibacy, St Paul openly encouraged it when he said “I wish that all were as myself am (1 Cor. 7:&. We saw the result of St. Paul’s celibacy, because of all the Christ’s disciples (even the twelve apostles inclusive) he devoted more time for God’s work than the rest. Let us not miss the real point, the Christ we are following did not even marry, should it not be wise to be like the Master hence He (Christ) did make mention of Celibacy for the sake of Kingdom of Heaven? What do you have to say about this?

What I have to say is this:

That Christ did not marry is not proof that the Bible encourages celebacy among ministers in Christianity.

Second, since we often want to force this idea of celibacy out of context, let me ask YOU a pointed question:

HOW did you come into this world?

Waiting for your honest answer.

ebos:

Still on Images, you rightly said you have no Jesus pictures in your house. Well, nobody is there to with you, so you can still tell us that your mind never one day got the impression that the picture or icon drawn on the poster is Jesus. Maybe each time you see Jesus picture or icon anywhere, your mind reminds you of someone else, and certainly not Jesus.

Why I go lie again about ordinary picture wey I no get? Lol. . . true, I don't have any such picture; and even then, I don't lack anything in my faith in Christ.

ebos:

Pilgrim, you dey try.

Lol. . ebos, you're making me like you small-small. You do well O!

@ Pilgrim,
While asking how was your night and health? I can’t dispute the point you made that Christ is the Head of His Church, but, saying there is nothing like visible head is quite hilarious. Now, you have pointed out purgatory (another topic). So, you have forgotten that we have three Churches and Christ is the head of it all. Sounds incredible! (1)Triumphant Church (2) Militant Church) (3) Suffering Church. So, Triumphant Church is the one in heaven with the Angels and Saints. Militant Church is for those of us here on earth, you’re among – we are in the war front battling with Satan- winning the battle here will then mean joining the Angels in heaven later. Suffering Church: is for those in Purgatory, they will be there to purify their souls hence Christ said nothing impure will enter heaven. These souls in purgatory need our prayers. Now, Is Purgatory in the bible, and are sins not equal? You must have asked! Remember Catholic preaches that some sins are graver than others and that is why we agreed that those souls that died in venial sins would be in Purgatory. I want you to know that some may die with venial sins without going for confession, and that is why despite granting absolution to others, purgatory is required of such souls. Don’t forget the references in the bible I’m about to give. (1 John 5:16 to down) says not all sins can lead to death, but there are sins that lead to death (mortal), and some will not (venial), but pray that you do not commit any. So, my question is, where will those souls that died with the sins that cannot lead to death or hell go to, hence the bible has made it clear that nothing impure WILL enter heaven? Take note, they died with those sins that cannot lead to death or hell. A question that beg for an answer. Pilgrim, just give me the answer and don’t twist it! There are more references on the Purgatory issue which I may bring up later.

As for granting absolution –a Priest forgiving sins without offering advice on how to prevent such occurrence will not help issue. This is why the concerned person has to confess his her sins and penance given. A Priest having babies from the young girls, Hum, you only know can explain it to me.

How I came to this world. I was born like you and it was possible due to the Institution of the Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a great calling just as Celibacy is a great calling. Christ has established them. Again, you said that Protestants still claim that there churches dates back to the time of the apostles. Even your own Church claims that too? Well, whatever is the answer, good for Pilgrim. So, I still want to know your denomination (Church).

@ebos,

ebos:

While asking how was your night and health?

My brother, I'm doing good. . . my nights this week will be spent working (and partly playing) as I'm on the night shift.

ebos:

I can’t dispute the point you made that Christ is the Head of His Church, but, saying there is nothing like visible head is quite hilarious. Now, you have pointed out purgatory (another topic). So, you have forgotten that we have three Churches and Christ is the head of it all. Sounds incredible! (1)Triumphant Church (2) Militant Church) (3) Suffering Church. So, Triumphant Church is the one in heaven with the Angels and Saints. Militant Church is for those of us here on earth, you’re among – we are in the war front battling with Satan- winning the battle here will then mean joining the Angels in heaven later. Suffering Church: is for those in Purgatory, they will be there to purify their souls hence Christ said nothing impure will enter heaven. These souls in purgatory need our prayers.

Unfortunately, these all again are the traditions of men. I respect the views of others; but the WORD of God does not teach that there are three Churches. There is only ONE Church expressed by many local churches which constitute the ONE Body of Christ (Eph. 4:4). Second, aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a church in purgatory, to assume it so would only contradict the value of Christ's vicarious sacrifice.

ebos:

Now, Is Purgatory in the bible, and are sins not equal? You must have asked! Remember Catholic preaches that some sins are graver than others and that is why we agreed that those souls that died in venial sins would be in Purgatory. I want you to know that some may die with venial sins without going for confession, and that is why despite granting absolution to others, purgatory is required of such souls.

I'm quite familiar with most Catholic doctrines; and here again the Bible does not teach any such thing as purgatory

ebos:

Don’t forget the references in the bible I’m about to give. (1 John 5:16 to down) says not all sins can lead to death, but there are sins that lead to death (mortal), and some will not (venial), but pray that you do not commit any. So, my question is, where will those souls that died with the sins that cannot lead to death or hell go to, hence the bible has made it clear that nothing impure WILL enter heaven? Take note, they died with those sins that cannot lead to death or hell. A question that beg for an answer. Pilgrim, just give me the answer and don’t twist it! There are more references on the Purgatory issue which I may bring up later.

Heb. 10:26 & 27
"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."

ebos:

As for granting absolution –a Priest forgiving sins without offering advice on how to prevent such occurrence will not help issue. This is why the concerned person has to confess his her sins and penance given.

Again, no penance for Bible O! Confess you sins straight to God in your bedroom, and He will forgive you straight (1 John 1:7 & 9) - He does not serve anyone 'penance'.

ebos:

A Priest having babies from the young girls, Hum, you only know can explain it to me.

Dem plenty O! Wetin you want me to "explain"? I dey there when he comot im cassock for a brief for minutes?

ebos:

How I came to this world. I was born like you and it was possible due to the Institution of the Holy Matrimony. Marriage is a great calling just as Celibacy is a great calling. Christ has established them.

The bottomline was that celibacy did not bring you into this world. And that should make us think if it was correct to assert that the Lord Jesus and Paul were encouraging celibacy - they were NOT!

ebos:

Again, you said that Protestants still claim that there churches dates back to the time of the apostles. Even your own Church claims that too? Well, whatever is the answer, good for Pilgrim. So, I still want to know your denomination (Church).

Suffice for now that I'm a Protestant. And my local church does not pride itself as being the "true Church" dating its birthday to Acts 2. We're grateful to rejoice in His grace given from the very moment the Body of Christ came into existence.

Regards.

Night shift could be tough, but wish you well.
Now, listen Pilgrim, just answer me these questions, those souls that died with sins that cannot lead to death (hell), where would they go? Quoting 1 John 5 : 16 to down.

Now, I ask you again, do you condemn celibacy? If yes, how can you reconcile your condemnation with Christ teaching on the eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made Eunuchs by others and there are Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matt 19:11-12). Even that of St. Paul teaching on it!

Though, I speak well of your unyielding position, that’s actually nice of you, hence you are entitled to your belief, but I wish you rather give me satisfactory answers on the above two questions. Pilgrim, could you?

Hi ebos,

ebos:

Night shift could be tough, but wish you well.

Thanks. I'd actually completed my shift; but was offered to stand in for someone who called in sick. Lol.

ebos:

Now, listen Pilgrim, just answer me these questions, those souls that died with sins that cannot lead to death (hell), where would they go? Quoting 1 John 5 : 16 to down.

I'd have simply quoted the texts I have in mind; but perhaps it would require a bit of explanation. If a believer died, he does not go to purgatory - whether or not he/she sinned. Let's understand this carefully.

1 Cor. 11:30 -- "For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep."

Paul noted that the reason why some of the believers at Corinth had died was because they were misbehaving in the matters of the Lord (the Supper). But it is clear that he did not mean by that to say that they were going to hell or purgatory. In 1 Corinthians 5, he dealt with the matter of someone who was actually involved in sexual sins, and here is what he said:

1Co 5:4 & 5 -- "In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

He did not consign the sinning believer to hell or to purgatory. We note, however, that the person in question was led to deep repentance afterwards - and was consequently restored to fellowship (2 Cor. 2:1-8).


Further, in 1 Cor. 3:11-15, the apostle warned that everyone will be rewarded according to what they deserve. But if anyone was actually not building with the right materials, what then? Hear him:

"If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (vs. 15)

The 'fire' in that verse does not point to purgatory as some have supposed. It is rather figurative speech pointing to divine scrutiny that leaves nothing uncovered or unconsidered when being examined by the Judge - nothing will escape His notice, not excusable! This is why Jesus said:

Mark 9:49 -- "For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt."

Now, if EVERYONE shall be salted with FIRE, does that mean that everyone shall pass through purgatory or go through a literal infernal region before being admitted to heaven? What then would be the purpose of His perfect sacrifice (Heb. 10:14)?

In the book of Revelation, this figurative speech of being salted with fire as pointing to divine scrutiny is yet again and again explicated this way:

Rev. 1:14 -- "His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire"

Rev. 2:18 & 19, 23 -- "And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. . . I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

All these should make us see the meaning of such figures of speech; and not in one instance would anyone mistake them for purgatory.

ebos:

Now, I ask you again, do you condemn celibacy? If yes, how can you reconcile your condemnation with Christ teaching on the eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made Eunuchs by others and there are Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven? Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matt 19:11-12). Even that of St. Paul teaching on it!

I don't condemn celebacy; rather, I'm of the persuasion that it is NOT a commandment to be imposed on anyone. I also shared how Paul clearly enunciated that he did not wish anyone to make a celibate or married man out of him; for he was an apostle called by God, and not by man.

As to the question of others making men eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, please refer again to the recommendations for Christian ministers - they were to be married men (1 Tim. 3:2 and Tit. 1:6). How do you reconcile this with a commandment of celibacy, ebos?

ebos:

Though, I speak well of your unyielding position, that’s actually nice of you, hence you are entitled to your belief, but I wish you rather give me satisfactory answers on the above two questions. Pilgrim, could you?

It's always refreshing to have amicable dialogues with people even though we may be operating at different wavelengths. All the same, blessings.

@ Pilgrim

The point to note in this Celibacy issue is this, before you become a Priest, you already has it in mind. No one forces you to go ahead. Priesthood is what you decide and nobody makes the decision for you. So, you are not forced to be a Priest. I was there, but I said no way, I can’t go ahead, not that I was not doing well. Even in 1998, I was asked again to accept a scholarship to be trained as a Missionary Priest because I was like then putting everything in the bible in the brain even to the extent of mentioning the lineage of Jesus Christ from Adam to Jesus by heart. Upon all that, I knew my deficiency, so, I didn’t have to deceive myself hence I knew I might fall by the way side. The point is that every Priest accept Celibacy wholeheartedly. As for Purgatory issue, I will come up with some bible references before today runs off. Pilgrim, hope say you dey follow the gist? Best of Luck.

Hi again ebos,

I dey follow your gist closely.

But let us understand that every Christian today is a priest:

1 Pet. 2:9
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people;
that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into
his marvellous light:

Rev. 1:6
"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion
for ever and ever. Amen.

I have no problems with people seeing their own different priesthood; or may I say, I've no problem with anyone having a different understanding of NT priesthood. However, there's no denying that every Christian is a priest in the Body of Christ.

Blessings.

@Pilgrim

Can you act movie? I have a story and good comedies I’m trying to put together. The Comedies are better than that of Basket Mouth, Okey Bakassi etc. The movie will be titled ANCIENT JUDGMENT. Though, it will take me a little time to put it together. And I have problem in plotting, that is, not all that good in plotting but can create good stories different from what we have been watching.

Wow! That would be awesome. I may not be so good at acting (I could audition for a role and see how it turns out). But perhaps, I could help with a bit of the scripting?

M-e-n. . don't joke with that aspiration! I encourage you, GO FOR IT!! In whatever little ways I can help, I'll make myself available.

Cheers.

Thanks for your encouragement. I know my being not serious and lack of concentration has been my major setback. Many people have told me that I’m wasting my talents, but to put myself together is a problem. Right now the story has been typed and we will soon start the plotting. Some reliable guys that saw it were really impressed and they suggested buying the script from me or taking it to someone. Though, I trust them but the third party that will come in is not trusted. The comedies are quite ok – very nice and I’m making preparation to get them typed. However, I get to keep contact with you as we progress.

I encourage you more. GO FOR IT!!

I'll definitely be in touch. More blessings.

pilgrim.1:

I encourage you more. GO FOR IT!!

I'll definitely be in touch. More blessings.

Ok, thank you. I will be going out now, till tomorrow. Just have a wonderful night. Bye!

Bless you. . . and I do wish you the very best of the evening.

@ebos and pilgrim,
Is like both of you have dominated the thread? Cheers! Even with long and cordial discussions had, no one has agreed with each other’s belief is the best. I followed all your posts, rather discussions and it was pretty good. But when will the 666 be?

seeu:

@ebos and pilgrim,
Is like both of you have dominated the thread? Cheers! Even with long and cordial discussions had, no one has agreed with each other’s belief is the best. I followed all your posts, rather discussions and it was pretty good. But when will the 666 be?

She’s really good. Though, a rigid in one ear - stiff resistance, but always a song in the other - delightfully fabulous

hi ebos u are one ofa kind - a true catholic! i am a catholic too and i am quite impress about ur views and logic ,whicvh are true about the catholic faith.keep it up and thanks for the enlightment ,,but u what happened to the 666 post ,letshave more of it

@ebos,
Would the 666 be selected by God to punish people?

@Seeu,
I cannot explain about the 666, only waiting for the time it will come. Only God knows best and I can’t explain what I find it difficult to understand to avoid literal explanation. That is the very reason I didn’t talk much on the 666.

Okeys,

Thank you very much, but you can help out on the 666 issue

ebos:

She’s really good. Though, a rigid in one ear - stiff resistance, but always a song in the other - delightfully fabulous

Lol, you made my day. It's true that I fight a good fight and put up a "stiff resistance" ('rigid. . . hmmm, I don't know). As for the end words above. . . I'm just lost for words! Thank you again

May I also say I immensely enjoyed discussing with you. We may not have agreed on many points, but few are the guys who have a heart of gold - and you happen to be one of those few! Thank you again for your friendship!

@Pilgrim,
You are welcome, as I said earlier, you are really good, love that seriously and however enjoyed the discussions I had with you. I just came back from where I went. Though I signed in since. Now, honestly, I have been hearing about the 666 right from childhood and I know my own views on 666. Could you explain 666 the way you understood it to my people here? They really want me to talk on it. I reserve my comment on it now. Just go ahead first.

@Pilgrim
Doesn't know much about 666? That’s much confusing.

@ebos,

I'm sorry to have taken your time - I was on threads dealing with Tithes and Tithing.

There are a few things I could offer readers on the subject of the thread - 666 and all. I'll try and do so during the week when I put my notes in order on the subject.

Thank you again for being the gentleman you are.

@Pilgrim
Really, get your points. Lets hope till then. Thank you.

Thanks@pilgrim, for including the Biblical Verse that talks about us being a Royal Priesthood.

Cheers.