SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

Let me get this right , you mean Jesus allowed this church to exist for 1500 years before bringing protestanism (which within a few years became different denominations with differing doctrines - now over 30,000 denominations ? )

Do you have the same beliefs as the Lutheran church(effectively the 1st protestant church? )- you practice their liturgy?
How about the Calvinists - you believe in their doctrine of double predestination?

Ubenedictus:
did you live from the 2nd century to about the 10th century? sorry you are not an early Christian, you are a Protestant, you group began in the 16th century by a ex Catholic priest.


correction

tertullian in case you don't know is a Catholic theologian... he was naming how far the Church had spread in the world...he wasn't talking about a different denomination.

if you want me to show you that he was Catholic just ask.

It's convenient for you to call Churches in the first century, Catholic (just same way Mohammed called all biblical prophets, Moslems) even when we both know there was no Catholic Church at that time. What we had was Roman Church which metamorphosise into the Catholic Church. Sorry to burst your bubble, all those churches ain't Roman or Catholic by any standard. They are as different as their name implies. It was during the reign of Constantine, through the marriage of the Catholic church and Roman state, that all other churches were being coerced to be a subject of the Roman church.

otr1:
It's convenient for you to call Churches in the first century, Catholic (just same way Mohammed called all biblical prophets, Moslems) even when we both know there was no Catholic Church at that time. What we had was Roman Church which metamorphosise into the Catholic Church. Sorry to burst your bubble, all those churches ain't Roman or Catholic by any standard. They are as different as their name implies. It was during the reign of Constantine, through the marriage of the Catholic church and Roman state, that all other churches were being coerced to be a subject of the Roman church.

On your last point , I'll like you to read part of the letter written in AD 180 by Church father (Bishop of Lyon) Irenaeus . See link
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Please see excerpt:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally knownChurch founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.


He goes on to list the 12 Bishops of Rome(pope) to his time after Peter.

He also talked about Clement (pope ca 100AD) intervening in the Corinthian church .
So church of Rome didn't just gain preeminence after Constantine in the 4th Century. There are other examples as well.

Regarding your first point even Christianity wasn't named so at the very beginning, names change. We do know that Ignatius of Antioch refers to the genuine church as catholic ca 110AD to distinguish it from the heretical groups of the day.And one visible way to know this church was to look at the succession of bishops from the Apostles.

Try reading up on witnesses during the time , not all christian history is recorded in the bible.

btoks:

Let me get this right , you mean Jesus allowed this church to exist for 1500 years bringing protestanism (which within a few years became different denominations with differing doctrines - now over 30,000 denominations ? )

Do you have the same beliefs as the Lutheran church(effectively the 1st protestant church? you practice their liturgy?
How about the Calvinists - you believe in their doctrine of double predestination?

go back and reread my post.
Protestanism was a major breakthrough from the tyranny of Rome.
.it is not a rule that all protestant must have one doctrine, it is better to be divided in truth than to be united in error.
As long as Satan is the ruler of the world there will always be errors and false religion. So the fact that roman catholism has been in existence 1500 years proves nothing. There was darkness on earth before God called forth light, Sin came before the saviour, Israel.was in bondage to Egypt 400 years
before Moses was sent.

SAVIOURJESUS:
go back and reread my post.
Protestanism was a major breakthrough from the tyranny of Rome.
.it is not a rule that all protestant must have one doctrine, it is better to be divided in truth than to be united in error.
As long as Satan is the ruler of the world there will always be errors and false religion. So the fact that roman catholism has been in existence 1500 years proves nothing. There was darkness on earth before God called forth light, Sin came before the saviour, Israel.was in bondage to Egypt 400 years
before Moses was sent.

The problem with your post is one of theology.you are basically implying that Jesus lied when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church he built(Matt 16:18). If that's the case, Jesus could never be the saviour and our God. (Massive problem there)

The rise of protestanism started with a catholic priest who decided to go against church authority (while it was necessary to reform the excesses in certain parts of the church, this did not require a breakaway from the church).
He wasn't even a bishop so how could he have valid apostolic succession within the Lutheran church he set up. I bet you do not even agree with half of Lutheranism doctrines - so your 'divided in truth' holds no water at all and is not a doctrine set forth by Jesus. it's just modern day protestants' way of trying to explain the divisions. The fact is -you all have differing views on the most important topics - baptism, holy Communion, Trinity, faith/works, justification, etc even with your sola scriptura practice!

The established church with orthodox teaching was well known from the early days.Issues were resolved in church councils which are well documented. Is there any record of the so called true church that you claim in any of these early councils ?

As seen in the scriptures, the church is the pillar and bulwark of truth but you had to know which church amongst the different groups was the true church. I think you'll find people didn't have to wait 1500 years until protestantism came along before knowing this church.

It's very convenient to assume things after all the persecutions, councils,wars, letters etc.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant "- John Newman

It's worth studying christian history well , -please start with the church fathers who came after the apostles - Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr etc

btoks:


On your last point , I'll like you to read part of the letter written in AD 180 by Church father (Bishop of Lyon) Irenaeus . See link
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Please see excerpt:
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally knownChurch founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.


He goes on to list the 12 Bishops of Rome(pope) to his time after Peter.

He also talked about Clement (pope ca 100AD) intervening in the Corinthian church .
So church of Rome didn't just gain preeminence after Constantine in the 4th Century. There are other examples as well.

Regarding your first point even Christianity wasn't named so at the very beginning, names change. We do know that Ignatius of Antioch refers to the genuine church as catholic ca 110AD to distinguish it from the heretical groups of the day.And one visible way to know this church was to look at the succession of bishops from the Apostles.

Try reading up on witnesses during the time , not all christian history is recorded in the bible.

There is little point in claiming that a certain church or doctrine came down from the days of the Apostles. Sin came down from the days of the Apostles, and the devil also was active at that time and before. It's not so much what came down from the days of the Apostles, as what came down from the Apostles. Even in his days, apostle Paul wrote : 'The iniquity doth already work.'
The present can never be properly understood without correct information concerning the past. Those who have been taught falsified history or who have had their minds filled with twisted interpretations of events gone by, stagger like the blind with a darkened mind.
No, the evidence is very clear that, during the first century and the first half of the second, the two main Christian centers were Antioch, in Syria (between the Syrian population centers around Damascus and the Cilician province), and Alexandria. Later claims that Rome or Jerusalem ( founding-place of Christianity) were important early centers of Christianity, are later interpolations.
The Roman Church grew out of the orthodox Christian movement. A rigid hierarchy was built, with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, at the top, controlling doctrine. It grew into a vast juggernaut, however, and as is the nature of large bloated bureaucracies that outlast their usefulness, the Church grew cotruly ( this was due to the romance of the church with the Roman state power. We all know that Pope inherited the powers of Roman emperors together with their titles)
In the 11th century, the entire eastern Church broke away from Rome.
The Armenia church have been alone all along. So whenever someone is telling you that the Catholic Church is the first and the only church before the reformation, you know what to tell them.

otr1:

There is little point in claiming that a certain church or doctrine came down from the days of the Apostles. Sin came down from the days of the Apostles, and the devil also was active at that time and before. It's not so much what came down from the days of the Apostles, as what came down from the Apostles. Even in his days, apostle Paul wrote : 'The iniquity doth already work.'
The present can never be properly understood without correct information concerning the past. Those who have been taught falsified history or who have had their minds filled with twisted interpretations of events gone by, stagger like the blind with a darkened mind.
No, the evidence is very clear that, during the first century and the first half of the second, the two main Christian centers were Antioch, in Syria (between the Syrian population centers around Damascus and the Cilician province), and Alexandria. Later claims that Rome or Jerusalem ( founding-place of Christianity) were important early centers of Christianity, are later interpolations.
The Roman Church grew out of the orthodox Christian movement. A rigid hierarchy was built, with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, at the top, controlling doctrine. It grew into a vast juggernaut, however, and as is the nature of large bloated bureaucracies that outlast their usefulness, the Church grew cotruly ( this was due to the romance of the church with the Roman state power. We all know that Pope inherited the powers of Roman emperors together with their titles)
In the 11th century, the entire eastern Church broke away from Rome.
The Armenia church have been alone all along. So whenever someone is telling you that the Catholic Church is the first and the only church before the reformation, you know what to tell them.

At what point would you say the catholic church grew 'cotruly'?
Re. Armenia church , they were in communion with Rome and Constantinople until after the council of calchedon in 451AD. They along with other oriental churches did not agree with the definition of the nature of Jesus. Most other doctrines are very similar to this day. Interestingly, part of the Armenian church came back into communion with the catholic church in the 18th century (Armenia catholic church (Eastern rite)

I do know that protestants do not believe in Armenian church doctrines either

SAVIOURJESUS:
go back and reread my post.
Protestanism was a major breakthrough from the tyranny of Rome.
.it is not a rule that all protestant must have one doctrine, it is better to be divided in truth than to be united in error.
As long as Satan is the ruler of the world there will always be errors and false religion. So the fact that roman catholism has been in existence 1500 years proves nothing. There was darkness on earth before God called forth light, Sin came before the saviour, Israel.was in bondage to Egypt 400 years
before Moses was sent.

nah,
Protestantism is an invention of a ex Catholic priest, who went on to form a tyranny against anyone who wasn't a member of his new enterprise. His enterprise end up breaking into 30,000 confused, confusing and contradictory sects.


it is only people who believe that Jesus lied when he said the gates of hell will not prevail against the church who go and join themselves to a 16 century enterprise.

the church Christ established is the Catholic Church and I believe in the word of Jesus that the gates of hell will never prevail against her, I won't join a enterprise made by men less than 500yrs ago.


if you guys can't agree on doctrine then that tell me that the devil is at work among you, my God isn't a God of confusion.

otr1:

There is little point in claiming that a certain church or doctrine came down from the days of the Apostles. Sin came down from the days of the Apostles, and the devil also was active at that time and before. It's not so much what came down from the days of the Apostles, as what came down from the Apostles. Even in his days, apostle Paul wrote : 'The iniquity doth already work.'
The present can never be properly understood without correct information concerning the past. Those who have been taught falsified history or who have had their minds filled with twisted interpretations of events gone by, stagger like the blind with a darkened mind.
No, the evidence is very clear that, during the first century and the first half of the second, the two main Christian centers were Antioch, in Syria (between the Syrian population centers around Damascus and the Cilician province), and Alexandria. Later claims that Rome or Jerusalem ( founding-place of Christianity) were important early centers of Christianity, are later interpolations.
The Roman Church grew out of the orthodox Christian movement. A rigid hierarchy was built, with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, at the top, controlling doctrine. It grew into a vast juggernaut, however, and as is the nature of large bloated bureaucracies that outlast their usefulness, the Church grew cotruly ( this was due to the romance of the church with the Roman state power. We all know that Pope inherited the powers of Roman emperors together with their titles)
In the 11th century, the entire eastern Church broke away from Rome.
The Armenia church have been alone all along. So whenever someone is telling you that the Catholic Church is the first and the only church before the reformation, you know what to tell them.

this only shows your ignorance dear.

the Armenian Church was called the Catholic Church in Armenia, it wasn't alone, it was part of the Catholic Church and was in communion with the pope and other Catholic bishops. Their bishops fell into heresy and was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in the council of chalcedon, they were doubting the nature of Christ, apart from that they agree 90% with the Catholic Church, actually they recently cleared up their difference and are now part of the Catholic Church.

2ndly if you actually read up on early Christianity you would have found out that the first and most important Christian city about 40Ad was Jerusalem, that is where the apostles James and Peter sat, when Paul ran into trouble during his preaching and he was attacked by the judaizers he took the matter to Jerusalem to be settled in the council of Jerusalem... that was the main Christian center. after Paul began to preach he records that he went to Jerusalem to make sure he wasn't running in vain and he was received by Peter and James in Jerusalem.
soon after James was killed peter left Jerusalem for Antioch, he sent his disciple Mark to Alexandria and those places became the most important Christian centers,... finally apostle Peter and even Paul came to Rome, Paul was a prisoner but Peter wasn't, Rome finally became the most important Christian center as it was the church of the apostles... any church that had issues referred it to Rome... in fact there are letters available of the church of Rome intervening in Corinth in the 1st century. That prominence is recognized by all the early Church.

otr1:
It's convenient for you to call Churches in the first century, Catholic (just same way Mohammed called all biblical prophets, Moslems) even when we both know there was no Catholic Church at that time. What we had was Roman Church which metamorphosise into the Catholic Church. Sorry to burst your bubble, all those churches ain't Roman or Catholic by any standard. They are as different as their name implies. It was during the reign of Constantine, through the marriage of the Catholic church and Roman state, that all other churches were being coerced to be a subject of the Roman church.

it is not just convenient for me it is the Truth.


there were no Protestants until the 16 th century but we all have writing from the disciples of the apostles all saying that the Church is the Catholic Church.

it wasn't just the Roman church that became the Catholic Church, it was every authentic Christian Church all over the world, from Antioch to Alexandria, to France, from east to West.

even before Constantine those city Church were part of the Catholic Church.

SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

name a member of this non Catholic true Church from the 2nd to 10 century.

If Catholics can tell me where they got their doctrine of Mary being the Queen of heaven and Mediating for us from the Bible, then I will withdraw my assertion that they are practicing idolatry

Ubenedictus:


it is not just convenient for me it is the Truth.


there were no Protestants until the 16 th century but we all have writing from the disciples of the apostles all saying that the Church is the Catholic Church.

it wasn't just the Roman church that became the Catholic Church, it was every authentic Christian Church all over the world, from Antioch to Alexandria, to France, from east to West.

even before Constantine those city Church were part of the Catholic Church.

I don't expect any less from a follower of the Pope. There everyone was a Catholic before reformation, how come the Roman Church killed so many souls just for owing a copy of the Bible?
I was expecting you to quote the verse where any apostle recognised and mentioned Catholic Church in the scripture. You might want to check the book of revelation on 7 churches mentioned for you to know that the 7 churches are not Catholic Churches. Churches in the early times are different with different doctrines from Catholic. You have to provide an evidence if you think otherwise, not just make wild statements.

Ubenedictus:



this only shows your ignorance dear.

the Armenian Church was called the Catholic Church in Armenia, it wasn't alone, it was part of the Catholic Church and was in communion with the pope and other Catholic bishops. Their bishops fell into heresy and was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in the council of chalcedon, they were doubting the nature of Christ, apart from that they agree 90% with the Catholic Church, actually they recently cleared up their difference and are now part of the Catholic Church.

2ndly if you actually read up on early Christianity you would have found out that the first and most important Christian city about 40Ad was Jerusalem, that is where the apostles James and Peter sat, when Paul ran into trouble during his preaching and he was attacked by the judaizers he took the matter to Jerusalem to be settled in the council of Jerusalem... that was the main Christian center. after Paul began to preach he records that he went to Jerusalem to make sure he wasn't running in vain and he was received by Peter and James in Jerusalem.
soon after James was killed peter left Jerusalem for Antioch, he sent his disciple Mark to Alexandria and those places became the most important Christian centers,... finally apostle Peter and even Paul came to Rome, Paul was a prisoner but Peter wasn't, Rome finally became the most important Christian center as it was the church of the apostles... any church that had issues referred it to Rome... in fact there are letters available of the church of Rome intervening in Corinth in the 1st century. That prominence is recognized by all the early Church.

Neither Paul, nor Peter founded the Roman Church. I wonder where you get your evidence, while even the Bible states otherwise. If you read your Bible very well you'll see that there were believers in Rome before the apostles made a visit. And there is no evidence that Peter stayed long or ever became a Bishop in Rome. It's one of the lies from the Roman pit.
And if you'd agree with me, evident in the Bible itseif, Rome was never a prominent Christian center, at least, not until after the last chapter of the Bible was written.
And I asked again, was Jesus referring to different branches of Catholic Churchtthehis message to the seven churches in the book of revelation? Please note that all the churches mentioned were in Asia minor.

otr1:

Neither Paul, nor Peter founded the Roman Church. I wonder where you get your evidence, while even the Bible states otherwise. If you read your Bible very well you'll see that there were believers in Rome before the apostles made a visit. And there is no evidence that Peter stayed long or ever became a Bishop in Rome. It's one of the lies from the Roman pit.
And if you'd agree with me, evident in the Bible itseif, Rome was never a prominent Christian center, at least, not until after the last chapter of the Bible was written.
And I asked again, was Jesus referring to different branches of Catholic Churchtthehis message to the seven churches in the book of revelation? Please note that all the churches mentioned were in Asia minor.

both Paul and Peter were in Rome and they died there, the apostle peter was responsible for ordaining bishops for the Church in Rome. this is attested to by every early Christian historic source. I am surprised you are ignorant of this.

Rome was a preeminent Christian center even in the first century, again historic Christian writing from that era buttress that fact.

the Bible doesn't record the fact that Antioch and Alexandria were preeminent Christian centers yet both of us agree that they were even though the Bible doesn't record it. The Bible only record the time Jerusalem was the preeminent Christian center... it doesn't record every thing that happened in the first century.

if you want to use Bible alone then the only preeminent center was Jerusalem, but that isn't the whole story, Antioch and Alexandria later became preeminent Christian centers and Rome became THE preeminent Christian center before revelation was written.


since some one already quoted tertullian as a early Christian, I'll also quote him, he clearly writes that peter and Paul were in Rome and died there



Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained
from Paul; against what standard the Galatians
were measured for correction; what the
Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read;
what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to
whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the
Gospel and even sealed it with their blood
(Against Marcion 4:5:1



the 7 churches in revelation were churches in Asia minor where the apostle John preached before he was exiled not different denominations. John was the apostle who preached there he mentioned the different towns in Asia minor he was addressing not different denominations.

otr1:

I don't expect any less from a follower of the Pope. There everyone was a Catholic before reformation, how come the Roman Church killed so many souls just for owing a copy of the Bible?
I was expecting you to quote the verse where any apostle recognised and mentioned Catholic Church in the scripture. You might want to check the book of revelation on 7 churches mentioned for you to know that the 7 churches are not Catholic Churches. Churches in the early times are different with different doctrines from Catholic. You have to provide an evidence if you think otherwise, not just make wild statements.

you have been misinformed.

The state prosecuted people who knowing wrongly translated the Bible or distributed those wrong translation..

example, Martin Luther invented a doctrine called faith alone, he then went and wrote his own Bible where he wrote, " the just shall live by faith ALONE" THE addition of alone isn't in any manuscript yet he put it there to support his new teaching. such addition was deceptive and criminal especially when people purposely change the word of God to fit their heresy.

since you are looking for a verse where an apostle call the Church Catholic maybe I'll give it to you when you show me where a apostle call the follower of Jesus a Christian or show me the word Bible in the Bible. yet you call followers of Jesus a Christian even though no apostle did that.

the 7 Church in revelation are located in Asia minor the place where apostle john taught before he was exiled, they weren't different denominations with different doctrine you ask how I know they were Catholic, it is simple, the early Christian from around that era say so.

mexxmoney:
If Catholics can tell me where they got their doctrine of Mary being the Queen of heaven and Mediating for us from the Bible, then I will withdraw my assertion that they are practicing idolatry

been able to show it is one thing,whether you will agree is another.

otr1:

Neither Paul, nor Peter founded the Roman Church. I wonder where you get your evidence, while even the Bible states otherwise. If you read your Bible very well you'll see that there were believers in Rome before the apostles made a visit. And there is no evidence that Peter stayed long or ever became a Bishop in Rome. It's one of the lies from the Roman pit.
And if you'd agree with me, evident in the Bible itseif, Rome was never a prominent Christian center, at least, not until after the last chapter of the Bible was written.
And I asked again, was Jesus referring to different branches of Catholic Churchtthehis message to the seven churches in the book of revelation? Please note that all the churches mentioned were in Asia minor.

I’ll give you an analogy (although no analogy is perfect).

If I were to pull Nigeria’s 1963 constitution, you’ll find the basis of running the country – parliamentary system etc. What you won’t find in there is the entire history of Nigeria or any future developments. You won’t even find most of the current names of states in there.

If someone were to come in from outside Nigeria and point out that the states we have can’t be part of Nigeria because they aren’t listed in the 1963 Constitution, won’t you find that absurd?!!


There is rich Christian history that was recorded outside of the books of the bible. The bible is not a historical document that recorded everything that happened in early Christianity. Try studying the early church fathers to get more knowledge.

You won't find where all 12 apostles went to within scripture , you only find this within the tradition of the church.

Sola scriptura was never taught in early Christianity and is a relatively new invention after the protestant reformation.

SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

so after the death of the apostles the gate of hell prevailed against the Church.

SAVIOURJESUS:
the church was infiltrated after the death of the apostles.
Roman Catholicism ( cult of Mary) was created to counterfeit Christianity but it failed and will always fail.
There had always been the true church but they are scattered and few. The rise of protestanism was the hand work of God so that gentiles can see the light of christ.
Mr man seek Jesus, start reading the bible and learn to pray to God through Jesus alone. You will know the truth.

so after the death of the apostles the gate of hell prevailed against the Church.?

Ubenedictus:
been able to show it is one thing,whether you will agree is another.

Show me now. From the Bible o. I'll be waiting

btoks:

I’ll give you an analogy (although no analogy is perfect).

If I were to pull Nigeria’s 1963 constitution, you’ll find the basis of running the country – parliamentary system etc. What you won’t find in there is the entire history of Nigeria or any future developments. You won’t even find most of the current names of states in there.

If someone were to come in from outside Nigeria and point out that the states we have can’t be part of Nigeria because they aren’t listed in the 1963 Constitution, won’t you find that absurd?!!


There is rich Christian history that was recorded outside of the books of the bible. The bible is not a historical document that recorded everything that happened in early Christianity. Try studying the early church fathers to get more knowledge.

You won't find where all 12 apostles went to within scripture , you only find this within the tradition of the church.

Sola scriptura was never taught in early Christianity and is a relatively new invention after the protestant reformation.

Yeah, but when the so called tradition of the church is in conflict with scriptures, then which should supersede the other?
And by the way, except you're telling me that the word of God can be found elsewhere outside the scriptures then sola scriptura is the proper way to Go

btoks:

I’ll give you an analogy (although no analogy is perfect).

If I were to pull Nigeria’s 1963 constitution, you’ll find the basis of running the country – parliamentary system etc. What you won’t find in there is the entire history of Nigeria or any future developments. You won’t even find most of the current names of states in there.

If someone were to come in from outside Nigeria and point out that the states we have can’t be part of Nigeria because they aren’t listed in the 1963 Constitution, won’t you find that absurd?!!


There is rich Christian history that was recorded outside of the books of the bible. The bible is not a historical document that recorded everything that happened in early Christianity. Try studying the early church fathers to get more knowledge.

You won't find where all 12 apostles went to within scripture , you only find this within the tradition of the church.

Sola scriptura was never taught in early Christianity and is a relatively new invention after the protestant reformation.

Biblical records point to the fact that there were Christians in Rome before Paul and Peter ever went there. The book of Acts 18:2 led credence to this fact. So the claim that Peter founded the church in Rome or ever became a Bishop there can not be proven, not from the Bible, not from any other source. It's a wild claim by those who are only interested in claiming supremacy over the church of Christ even when it's clearly written in the scripture that Christ is the head of the church.
Well, the church of Christ can not likened to Nigeria in any sense. The Bible is clear on how we should worship God, and this, is not subject to change like our constitution. Christianity is a very simple religion and doesn't require all the complexities we're giving it. Early believers gather on Sabbaths worship God and pray together, they preached the gospel in pure form. Not adding their own knowledge or point of view. The Bible was their guide.
Scriptures would enable men to discern Satan's deceptions and withstand
his power. He opposed the wisdom and power of the word. The Bible would exalt God and place finite men in their true position; therefore he always sought to conceal and suppress its
sacred truths in the name of "church tradition ". This logic was adopted by the Roman Church. For
hundreds of years the circulation of the Bible was prohibited. The people were forbidden to read it
or to have it in their houses, and unprincipled priests and prelates interpreted its teachings to sustain
their pretensions.
When men abandon sound doctrines, they fall prey to fables. Apostle Paul warns
his brethren that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4, 7. Even at that
early date he saw, creeping into the church, errors that would prepare the way for the development
of the papacy. The mystery of iniquity attained perfection when the Papal church chose to exalt traditions of men over the scriptures.

Ubenedictus:
you have been misinformed.

The state prosecuted people who knowing wrongly translated the Bible or distributed those wrong translation..

The state? You mean the pagan Rome in conjunction with papacy? Since when has it become the role of the state to censor religious beliefs? Wrongful translation of the Bible, like changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Justifying the worship of images? Tell me who misinterprets the bible better than the Catholic Church?

since you are looking for a verse where an apostle call the Church Catholic maybe I'll give it to you when you show me where a apostle call the follower of Jesus a Christian or show me the word Bible in the Bible. yet you call followers of Jesus a Christian even though no apostle did that.

It's a common knowledge that the followers of Christ were first c alled Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Yes, bible simply means "book" which is exactly what it is, a book.

7 Church in revelation are located in Asia minor the place where apostle john taught before he was exiled, they weren't different denominations with different doctrine you ask how I know they were Catholic, it is simple, the early Christian from around that era say so.

Yes, seeing the way most of the churches were compromising with pagan doctrines, they must Catholics

mexxmoney:

Yeah, but when the so called tradition of the church is in conflict with scriptures, then which should supersede the other?
And by the way, except you're telling me that the word of God can be found elsewhere outside the scriptures then sola scriptura is the proper way to Go

Tradition does not supersede scripture. When issues arise, you go to the church (just as in Acts 15), the church is the one given the power to bind and loose. It is the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3) We've seen how the church has declared on several matters in the several church councils over the century (including the canon of scripture )

What a thread.

I have realized that some do place tradition/history over the bible.

All I know is the bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.If it can't be proven from the little scriptures we have then its not real .

If you don't follow biblical principles then you are wrong.

Its that simple.

hmmmm!!! just let us be

otr1:

The state? You mean the pagan Rome in conjunction with papacy? Since when has it become the role of the state to censor religious beliefs? Wrongful translation of the Bible, like changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday? Justifying the worship of images? Tell me who misinterprets the bible better than the Catholic Church?

actually till the 18th century it was the rôle of the state to support certain religious beliefs and sanction others,. even in biblical times, it was the job of the kings included supporting Judaism and stopping other religion... it is so even after Christianity became the religion of the empire, it was the duty of Christian kings to support the Christian religion and merely tolerate others. Even Protestant kings supported Protestant churches and had no problem dealing with Catholics. The Catholic Church didn't tamper with scriptures even the Sabbath laws are found in Catholic Bibles unlike you Protestants who removed 7 books from the old testament and condemned so new testament just to forward their false teaching.

It's a common knowledge that the followers of Christ were first c alled Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26). Yes, bible simply means "book" which is exactly what it is, a book.

yet there isn't a single place where a follower of Christ called himself a Christian nor is the Bible mentioned in the Bible.

Yes, seeing the way most of the churches were compromising with pagan doctrines, they must Catholics

. lol

so which Church was uncompromised ?

NoToPile:
What a thread.

I have realized that some do place tradition/history over the bible.

All I know is the bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and conduct.If it can't be proven from the little scriptures we have then its not real .

If you don't follow biblical principles then you are wrong.

Its that simple.

is there anywhere the Bible claims to be the final authority on rule and conduct?

These penticostals and freestyle are 5 & 6. You start a thread out of youthful exuberance, when the time come for them to stand their ground, they all run away.

More than 30 000 different contradicting belief, among themselves, yet looking for devil elsewhere. This is the home of the devil with its false teachings that will keep make them mushrooming about, bereft of foundation or structure.

You can imagine a scenerio of 30 000 different soldiers fighting themselves before their percieved enemy.

The Catholic church is spot on with theory of silence and allow kill themselves in her presence and pick up the pieces

In my opinion, this is already everyone's choice, and you don't have to judge someone for what they believe or do. I believe in God and the church. Until now, I was pretty skeptical, but I once visited them https://firstchurchlove.com, and I understood what freedom and love mean. I haven't felt so comfortable and safe in a long time, and that's the most important thing for a church to give you. So I don't think it makes sense to argue about something like that or to create unnecessary debates because that's not what life is all about.

So people will not mind their business