christemmbassey: that is d greatest tragedy when a man dos'nt know who he is. M if u r not a xtian how can u understand what we r talking about? That was y i sugested that u should leave this section earlier mr go 2 islam, animist, cults infact there is a thread on church of satan u can join them cos u r not making meaning here.

and are the catholic brethen xtain in your view? If yes then im christain too

mkmyers45: and are the catholic brethen xtain in your view? If yes then im christain too

My ppl perish 4 lack of knoledge. Do u know who u r?

souldust: its was an all boys and yes the principal was a priest and there was no record of things like that. Pls dont say i am not saying the truth because rumurs do spread. If it happened, we would have known

u know u r not speaking d truth. How old r u , which set (yr) and which school? Pls lets leave this, we all know that sodomy is a big problem among d priests in rcc. That is y they r conducting gay mariages

christemmbassey: My ppl perish 4 lack of knoledge. Do u know who u r?

answer my question....

mkmyers45: answer my question....

who is a xtian?

frosbel:

The catholic church did not write the bible , they did not inspire it, they were only involved at certain stages in the recommendation on which scripture to add or remove from the final version.

It is obvious that they removed quite a few key biblical statements and added a long list of heretical gnostic books called the apocrypha .

Enigma:


A lot also depends on how one interpretes "catholic Church" . The Roman Catholic Church (now sometimes misleadingly called the Catholic Church) is not the same as the [b]c[/b]atholic Church (note the small C). Beyond that there are other Christians who call themselves too "Catholic" but who are different from the Roman Catholic Church (though some in communion with the RCC) and who date back at least as far and if not even beyond the Roman Catholic Church.

There have been a number of schisms in the catholic Church. The first major one I think was due to the argument over the nature of Christ. Monophysite vs something else (duophysite?).

There was a Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century where there was a big argument about whether Jesus was Fully God and Fully Man at the same time thus having a dual nature, or whether he was a mixture of God and Man.
For me personally when I hear arguments over seemingly irrelevant details like that it suggests that something else is going on, maybe a political power struggle where doctrine is been used as the excuse to fight.

In the end sha the Alexandrian and the Ethiopian Church split off from the main body of Catholicism. Thus the Catholic body was split into the Chalcedonian churches and the african (non chalcedonian) churches. However none of the points of attacks on RCC are practiced differently by the Non chalcedonian churches. They pay reverence to Saints etc, the use Icons in worship etc. And also their bible contains 81 books. These are the OT plus the books of Enoch, Jubilees and Meqabyan. Their new testament also includes the Book of the Covenant, and the Letter of Peter to Clement.

The Ethiopian Church is recognised as the First Gentile Church ever. It started when Philip converted an ethiopian Eunuch. The details of this are found in Acts. I mention that in case the issue of legitimacy and apostolic tradition comes up.


The next big schism in the Catholic Church (what was now known as the Chalcedonian church) was the split between what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1054. The issues here were plainly political. The eastern churches conducted themselves in greek while the western church was latin. In fact the divisions reflected the division of the Roman Empire. The east of the Empire was richer, greek speaking and safer. Western europe was poor, latin and had being ravaged by Barbarians and reduced to the dark ages.

Again none of the things that the RCC are been attacked for are different for the Eastern Orthodox Churches. They have veneration of saints, they have icons, they have a bible that contains the books of apocrypha and Wisdom, and Sirach and Prayer of Manasseh in the old testament. They even have a Psalm 151.


All these Churches, RCC, eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox etc etc were the original catholic Church and the only churches that can make claim to an apostolic succession. The pompous upstart evangelicals that enjoy attacking other people have absolutely no foundation to stand on. They might attack Roman catholics but because they actually emerged as a reaction to RCC they find themselves even more dissimilar from the other Apostolic traditions than they are to RCC.

Churches that claim the historic episcopate include the[b] Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Independent Catholic, the Anglican Communion, and several Lutheran Churches (see below).[/b] The first five churches listed above teach that the apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles or at least to leaders from the apostolic era.[36] The Anglican Communion (see below) and those Lutheran Churches which claim apostolic succession do not specifically teach this but exclusively practice episcopal ordination.
These churches generally hold that Jesus Christ founded a community of believers and selected the apostles to serve, as a group, as the leadership of that community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession

christemmbassey: u know u r not speaking d truth. How old r u , which set (yr) and which school? Pls lets leave this, we all know that sodomy is a big problem among d priests in rcc. That is y they r conducting gay mariages

they dont conduct gay marriage. Anybody who knows the RCC can easily pic up the church's document and confirm you to be wrong. Must you invent lies to vilify others?

in all of my honest search i have just come to know the truth about the rcc and also the propaganda. I think the reason why many pentecostals refuse to accept that the rcc compiled the bible is that: their view of the rcc is the stereotype and propaganda against the church. They are like: 'can this holy book come from this church that negativity is said of?'
but what does it matter if the church did it?

I have spoken to my church members and other pentecostals and its shocking the stereotype among them against the rcc. When you tell them that the teaching of the trinity actually started with the rcc, they find it diff to believe even though they have lil knowledge of history

souldust: in all of my honest search i have just come to know the truth about the rcc and also the propaganda. I think the reason why many pentecostals refuse to accept that the rcc compiled the bible is that: their view of the rcc is the stereotype and propaganda against the church. They are like: 'can this holy book come from this church that negativity is said of?'
but what does it matter if the church did it?

I have spoken to my church members and other pentecostals and its shocking the stereotype among them against the rcc. When you tell them that the teaching of the trinity actually started with the rcc, they find it diff to believe even though they have lil knowledge of history

you might find this thread interesting.
https://www.nairaland.com/921352/wars-religion

souldust: in all of my honest search i have just come to know the truth about the rcc and also the propaganda. I think the reason why many pentecostals refuse to accept that the rcc compiled the bible is that: their view of the rcc is the stereotype and propaganda against the church. They are like: 'can this holy book come from this church that negativity is said of?'
but what does it matter if the church did it?

I have spoken to my church members and other pentecostals and its shocking the stereotype among them against the rcc. When you tell them that the teaching of the trinity actually started with the rcc, they find it diff to believe even though they have lil knowledge of history

Would you kindly clarify what you mean by the RCC.

When did it come into existence?

{How} would you distinguish it from The [i]C[/i]atholic Church? (Pls note italicised capital C)

{How} would you distinguish it from the [b]c[/b]atholic Church? (Pls note bolded small C)


PS we can ignore what "Pentecostals" think --- I am not one and I am not even "Protestant" either.

mkmyers45:

Huh? care to explain? Chukwudi's definition was right

yes am back.

The word bible is taken from the greek word "biblia".

And the greek word "biblia" means little books

and we know that the bible is made up of "66 little books"

this word byblos/biblia is another name for the people of "Gebal" mention in Ezekiel27:9. Synonimouse for papyrus writing material.

Thanks for the good question.
Peace

chukwudi44:


























You just confirmed yourself as an olodo.Multiple christian sects existed with their separate scriptures eventually the RCC came up with their own sect of scriptures which they called bible.You do not believe the RCC yet you cling tenaciously to the set of scriptures they compiled. You are here quoting Nathan for me because it was canonized.Why don't you quote other books like Enoch which was not canonized

its like you have not been reading well on this thread.

Thanks for the insult.

Pls, stick to you beliefs.
Peace

This thread was an agonizing read. Is it really Christians who are interpreting 1 Cor 15 like that? And deciding that the Bible backs purgatory? And teaching that fallen angels slept with human women? Terrible!!! This is an awful thread, to put it mildly.

souldust: when paul wrote that thesalonians you quoted, the book of rev was not written at that time. So if the books paul said the christians accepted are the only ones that are scriptures then the book of rev shouldnt be in the bible! Rev was written about 98AD

apostle paul recognise the apostle authrity in Jerusalem according to acts15
:13

The statment is not just for paul since it was a plural.

It covers the writings of the apostles that makes up the NT.

Was John not one of the apostle?
It does not mater when an apostle did the writing as long he is one of them that christ choose.
Peace

[/quote]105. Enigma(m): Quote Post

souldust: in all of my honest search i have just come to know the truth about the rcc and also the propaganda. I think the reason why many pentecostals refuse to accept that the rcc compiled the bible is that: their view of the rcc is the stereotype and propaganda against the church. They are like: 'can this holy book come from this church that negativity is said of?'
but what does it matter if the church did it?

I have spoken to my church members and other pentecostals and its shocking the stereotype among them against the rcc. When you tell them that the teaching of the trinity actually started with the rcc, they find it diff to believe even though they have lil knowledge of history

Would you kindly clarify what you mean by the RCC.

When did it come into existence?

{How} would you distinguish it from The Catholic Church? (Pls note italicised capital C)

{How} would you distinguish it from the catholic Church? (Pls note bolded small C)


PS we can ignore what "Pentecostals" think --- I am not one and I am not even "Protestant" either. [quote]

Enigma do you really mean to tell me u did not understand pastor AIO's explaination above.As he rightly said prior to the council of chalcedon,the catholic church had existed as one monolithic entity under the bishop of rome(pope).However christological disagreement @ the council of chalcedon 451 CE led to the fist major schism in the catholic church(disregarding the donatist and other minor schisms)the churches of egypt,ethiopia and armenia broke away from the catholic church and are today referred to as the oriental orthodox churches.Another major schism occured in 1024 CE leading to the breakaway of the chhurches of eastern europe to form the eastern orthordox churches.All the other churches still under the authourity of the bishop of rome are called the roman catholic church.The catholic church actually comprises of both the RCC and these orthodox churches.all of them are apostolic and share similar modes of worship including mass,use of images ,veneration of saints and special devotion to mary.Today we have about 300 million orthodox christians world wide.

To answer your other questions.All apostolic churches had existed since the first century CE but were all then under one umbrella prior to the council of chalcedon.There is nothing like small or capital letter catholic church.most times the term catholic church is used to describe the RCC but in actual sense it actually comprises of all churches of apostolic origin

@chukwudi44

Read these below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century.[17] The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole".[18] "Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) first appears in a letter of St Ignatius written in about 110.[19] In the "Catechetical Discourses" of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Catholic Church" is used to distinguish it from other groups that also call themselves the church.

This according to the same Ignatius who coined "the Catholic Church" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_the_doctrine_of_Papal_Primacy

For Ignatius each church under a bishop is complete – the original meaning of "catholic". For Ignatius the church is a world-wide unity of many communities. Each has at its center a bishop "who draws together the local community in the Eucharistic celebration."[13] This then is the unity of the church – each church united to its bishop -each of these churches united to each other. There is no evidence of him accepting a single supreme bishop-of-bishops as the bishops authority is localised to a particular church.

Note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

In the Apostolic Age (largely the 1st century) the Christian Church comprised an indefinite number of local Churches that in the initial years looked to the first church at Jerusalem as its main centre and point of reference. But by the 4th century it had developed a system whereby the bishop of the capital of each civil province (the metropolitan bishop) normally held certain rights over the bishops of the other cities of the province (later called suffragan bishops).

Check where Christians were first called "catholics"
ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Bishop_of_Rome#Relationship_with_bishops_of_other_cities

Rome was not the only city that could claim a special role in Christ's Church. Jerusalem had the prestige of being the city of Christ's death and resurrection, and an important church council was held there in the 1st century. Antioch was the place where Jesus' followers were first called "Christians" {7} (as well as "Catholic"[48] and, with Alexandria, was an important early center of Christian thought.

Again, note this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

The term Christian Church as a proper noun refers to the whole Christian religious tradition through history. The term does not correctly refer to a particular "Christian church" (a "denomination" or building).

. . . .

In the New Testament, the term ἐκκλησία ("church" or "assembly" is used for local communities as well as in a universal sense to mean all believers.[2] Traditionally, only orthodox believers are considered part of the true church, but convictions of what is orthodox vary.

The four traditional "notes of the Christian Church" or descriptors of the church, first expressed in the Nicene Creed are unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity.[

1. Do you still want to say there is no such thing as the c[/b]atholic Church (small C) i.e. the universal Church?

2. When the Bible was being "compiled" did the catholic Church (deliberate small C) or even the Catholic Church (capital C) consist of just the RCC?

3. Was the Bible "compiled" before or after the Chalcedon that is being trumpeted here?

4. How would you classify the Eastern Orthodox churches?

5. Did the Eastern Orthodox church/es play a role in the "compilation" of the Bible or not?

[b]6. Which See was first established: Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome?

Ihedinobi: This thread was an agonizing read. Is it really Christians who are interpreting 1 Cor 15 like that? And deciding that the Bible backs purgatory? And teaching that fallen angels slept with human women? Terrible!!! This is an awful thread, to put it mildly.

I thought I read that in the Bible someplace?

chukwudi44: To answer your other questions.All apostolic churches had existed since the first century CE but were all then under one umbrella prior to the council of chalcedon.There is nothing like small or capital letter catholic church.most times the term catholic church is used to describe the RCC but in actual sense it actually comprises of all churches of apostolic origin

^^^^
error

read Acts 15 there and then you know were the seat of authority was as of time of the apostles.

Even paul travelled to meet the body of other apostles and older men and other responsible men in Jerusalem to help resolve the issue of circumcission that was splitting the church to to get it resolved.

Which Rome in 1ce?

^^^ I have even seen it argued that the Roman Catholic Church started at Pentecost!

I wonder which true Christian church in that sense did not start at Pentecost; cf e.g. the arguments of Anglicans and evangelicals on apostolic succession.

At the risk of offending my nna Chukwudi, I guess some will go as far as saying that even Jesus Christ Himself was a Roman Catholic!

And then we get the obfuscation with Chalcedon - Chalcedon ko, Chalcedon ni.

Meanwhile I speak as a person with very strong Roman Catholic credentials and connections --- and who has actually defended the Roman Catholic Church on this very Nairaland occasionally since 2005.

MyJoe:
I thought I read that in the Bible someplace?

he does not read his bible that is why he does not know what the Angels did in Noah's day.
GENESIS 6:1-3

Bottom line sha, there are different compilations of different books to form the various Bibles that are used by various churches which have apostolic lineage. That high horse that evangelicals like to sit on and condemn RCC is nothing but a phantom. I see the issue as arising from bitterness of the history and all the wars that were fought in europe for religious freedom. The issue is not grounded in any real theological superiority.

My own inside all this is that I don't like to see anyone deriving their sense of holiness or superiority by attacking other people's religion or other people's church. Before anyone attempts this they should look at the history of the church and the foundations on which they say their faith is based.

People should stop spreading the falsehood (born of ignorance or poor learning) that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible -- yada yada. That is the real bottom line for this thread.

@engma

I had always seen you as one of the brilliant minds on this section and I still sincerely think you are.I just hope that your bias against the RCC is not begining to becloud you judgement.I had explained everything to you in my post yet you are still feigning ignaorance.

When the church started there was never any intent to create denonimations hennce churches were not given names like redeemed,wimnners e.t.c.churches were only named after the towns were they were sited like church of ephesus,church of rome e.t.c.when the term catholic was first used to describe the church by st ignatius in his letter to the philipians on his way to matyrdom in 107CE,it was only used as a term to incorpaorate the global christian community and not as a denmination.However when multiplen gnostic sects arose later in the second century,the term catholic came to be used to describe the orthodox church which had their authourity @rome.

The churches of rome,alexendria,geece and other churches directy founded by the apostles are still existing in both todays roman catholic church and the eastern and oriental orthodox churches

@ Chukwudi44

Nna Bros

NOPE!!! I do not have a bias against the Roman Catholic Church.

I have just stated that I even have strong Catholic credentials and connections.

I say again that on one of the earliest anti-Catholic threads on this forum in 2005 I was one of those defending the Catholics. Edit I have also defended the Catholic Church on other occasions.

I am not one of those who will tell you that Catholics are not Christians.

I am nether "Pentecostal" nor even "Protestant" so I am not bothered about all those nonsense about 'upstart evangelicals'; that is the problem of those who are interested in that.

The point is not about antagonism of the (Roman) Catholic Church --- the point is about being truthful and realistic on the history of The Christian Church. Please note the importance of that deliberate expression --- The Christian Church.

1. Do you still want to say there is no such thing as the catholic Church (small C) i.e. the universal Church?

The term catholic church as I earlier said comprises of both the RcC and the orthodox churches

When the Bible was being "compiled" did the catholic Church (deliberate small C) or even the Catholic Church (capital C) consist of just the RCC?

The bible was compiled when the entire catholic church was under the authority of the bishop of Rome.The canonization of the bible was ratified by popes Damasus 1 and innocent 1 before they became binding.

How would you classify the Eastern Orthodox churches?

Like i told you earlier the eastern orthodox like the RCC all has apostolic origin and similar modes of worship.

5. Did the Eastern Orthodox church/es play a role in the "compilation" of the Bible or not?

I think I have answered this question already.Some of the bishops of the rome before the schism hailed from eastern europe.The catholic church was one monolithic entity and not seperate organisations as we have today.The questions of the eastern orthodox church didnot arise.Assumin pastor bakare compiled the bible when he was still in redeemed and ratified by adeboye would you now tell me it was the later rain church that compiled the bible

. Which See was first established: Jerusalem, Antioch or Rome?

Everone knows the church of jerusalem was first to be estabished on pentecost day,antioch came probably next and maybe other churches including rome although the bible was no detailed enough on that.

FYI Rome is the seat of the RCC today not because it was the first to be established but because it was the last see of the apostle peter.It might interest you to know that Peter was the first bishop of antioch befre being bishop of rome.HOWEVER ROME AND NOT ANTIOCH IS THE SEAT OF THE CHURCH

The point is not about antagonism of the (Roman) Catholic Church --- the point is about being truthful and realistic on the history of The Christian Church. Please note the importance of that deliberate expression --- The Christian Church

why dontyou google the origin of the christian church or probably the history of the chrisian church in the first four centuries and tell me what you come up with.

^^^ But I already alluded to the history of The Christian Church earlier and even previously gave the following link!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

chukwudi44: . . .The bible was compiled when the entire catholic church was under the authority of the bishop of Rome.The canonization of the bible was ratified by popes Damasus 1 and innocent 1 before they became binding. . . . .

^^^

Edit PS Not everyone accepted the "authority" of the Bishop of Rome; some simply accepted it as having some kind of preeminence and they saw it otherwise as equals with the other Sees hence the expression "primus inter pares".

chukwudi44:

why dontyou google the origin of the christian church or probably the history of the chrisian church in the first four centuries and tell me what you come up with.

Throwing away political correctness , I can tell you that the true church is not the RCC but the church which has it's foundation on Christ not on Peter , and which has it's head as Christ and not the Popes.

God's church is the invisible conglomeration of all races, nationalities and tribes of people that are born again and practise righteousness.

To be a member of this church , You must be born again.

ST Augustine of hippo who was one of the conveners of the church council that decided the books of the bible was a major proponent of the petrine doctrine and a key authourity in the roman catholic church.Would you now imply that st Augustine was not roman catholic.Like I told you earlier the term roman catholic are used to describe those catholic churches today under the authourityb of rome.This definition would make all those churches under rome b4 the schism as roman catholics as well.The key defining factor is the belif in the petrine supremacy

Pastor AIO: Bottom line sha, there are different compilations of different books to form the various Bibles that are used by various churches which have apostolic lineage. That high horse that evangelicals like to sit on and condemn RCC is nothing but a phantom. I see the issue as arising from bitterness of the history and all the wars that were fought in europe for religious freedom. The issue is not grounded in any real theological superiority.

My own inside all this is that I don't like to see anyone deriving their sense of holiness or superiority by attacking other people's religion or other people's church. Before anyone attempts this they should look at the history of the church and the foundations on which they say their faith is based.

gbam!!!!!!

MyJoe:
I thought I read that in the Bible someplace?

No sir, I doubt very much that you did. Nowhere in the Bible from Genesis to the Revelations did any spirit or extra-material being of any sort consort with a woman in the sexual way. I am open to disagreement. But I can assure you that such a teaching will not hold up under scrutiny.