Reyginus: Ijawkid, are you playing games with me or you're serious? I don't get why you're deliberately finding it hard to appreciate the subordinate with the main clause. It's not a crime to claim you don't understand the verse. You can take your time. Please, this is a discussion, let's be sincere with ourselves.

I'm not playing any games.....all I'm doing is letting the bible interprete itself......can you do the same??..........can you support your understanding of 1 peter 3:20 with other scriptures??....can you??...........the crime here is when you pick up just one verse in the bible to explain a doctrine that contradicts the whole bible...........

Reyginus:
I don't even agree the catholic church gave us the bible. The 'Church' did. The Catholic Church is not as old as the church. They are two different things. That's by the way.
GOD transmit His word by many ways, but the thing is, none of these ways must contradict the ways He's already established.

Which 'church' is this that you claimed gave us the bible and how does their teachings differ from that of the catholic church.

Secondly which of the catholic teachings contradict the teachings in the bible?

ijawkid:

I'm not playing any games.....all I'm doing is letting the bible interprete itself......can you do the same??..........can you support your understanding of 1 peter 3:20 with other scriptures??....can you??...........the crime here is when you pick up just one verse in the bible to explain a doctrine that contradicts the whole bible...........

You people should be honest for once.That passage explicitly tells us they were the spirit of those who died during Noah's flood when only eight people were saved by water.Was it angels that Noah preaced to? Was it angels that died during Noa's flood?
I tire for unaooo.Even verse 6 of chapter 4 tells us why the good news was preached to those who are now dead.

chukwudi44:

You people should be honest for once.That passage explicitly tells us they were the spirit of those who died during Noah's flood when only eight people were saved by water.Was it angels that Noah preaced to? Was it angels that died during Noa's flood?
I tire for unaooo.Even verse 6 of chapter 4 tells us why the good news was preached to those who are now dead.

The spirit of those who die return to God(the giver of it) and not stored up in purgatory............that verse explicitly says spirits who were disobedient,not spirit of those who died who were disobedient..............

Stop forcing the useless doctrine of purgatory into that verse..................it contradicts the firmly established doctrine of ressurection and what really happens to man when he died........

Just use another verse either from genesis that would ryhme with your assertions.....from the bOok of genesis we read of the eight souls that survived and all who died in the deluge........genesis never for once told us of the spirits of those who died being locked up in prison..................spiritual prisons were always meant for the demons and not for humans...........


Even when Jesus made statements about noahs day he never told us that when the flood came and swept the wicked away,that the spirits of these dead ones were locked in prison for Jesus to later preach to them....

Matthew 24:37-39
________________________________
37 As it was in the days
of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son
of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood,
people were eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered
the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what
would happen until the flood came and took
them all away. That is how it will be at the
coming of the Son of Man
________________________________


You can't hold on to 1 peter 3:19-20 to prove that it was the spirit of the dead that were in prison.....use other scriptures to support your notion........oya!!!!..........

1 peter 4 :6...in no way suggests that literally dead persons could be preached to...........only the figurative dead ones can be preached to...those who are ungodly.......they can only be made alive through Christ..

Scriptures have consistently helped us see that the physically dead man is conscious of nothing at all...............can't be preaÇhed to........neither can the repent and be baptized........

Reyginus: Kay, the thing is, the moment we begin to focus on the roles the bible plays, and not as I put it, we deviate from 'my problem with catholism'.

NO! By talking about the role the Bible plays, you are hitting the nail right on its head...and you will find your arguments are baseless.

One question: what is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Reyginus:
I don't even agree the catholic church gave us the bible. The 'Church' did. The Catholic Church is not as old as the church. They are two different things.

Which "church" did, if not the Catholic Church?

How old is "the church" and how old is the Catholic Church?

Reyginus: That's by the way.
GOD transmit His word by many ways, but the thing is, none of these ways must contradict the ways He's already established.

What are these "ways?"

What "WAYS" are established and what ways aren't?

ijawkid: 1 peter 4 :6...in no way suggests that literally dead persons could be preached to...........only the figurative dead ones can be preached to...those who are ungodly.......they can only be made alive through Christ..

Scriptures have consistently helped us see that the physically dead man is conscious of nothing at all...............can't be preaÇhed to........neither can

ijawkid:
1 peter 4 :6...in no way suggests that literally dead persons could be preached to...........only the figurative dead ones can be preached to...those who are ungodly.......they can only be made alive through Christ..

Scriptures have consistently helped us see that the physically dead man is conscious of nothing at all...............can't be preaÇhed to........neither can the repent and be baptized........

the repent and be baptized........

How did arrive @ the conclusion that that verse was figurative? You people never cease to amaze me!! That passage was giving a further explaination to the spirits mentioned in 3:19-21

@op

You do not just become a catholic because you claim to be one.If you do not believe the words of the apostle and nicene creeds you are not a catholic shikena

Reyginus:
I don't even agree the catholic church gave us the bible. The 'Church' did. The Catholic Church is not as old as the church. They are two different things. That's by the way.
GOD transmit His word by many ways, but the thing is, none of these ways must contradict the ways He's already established.

Is there any part of your history that stated that the church of Christ went into extinction after cannonising the bible. Or do you mind telling us when the catholic church started and by who.

Reyginus: The last time I checked, Rev 22:18, never emphasized on adding of traditions to the bible, but on inculcating 'new' teachings, antagonistic to the ones prescribed in the bible.

Like i told you... Those are traditions that have been in place even before the bible were compiled...

Enigma: ^^^ Yep, it is very misleading and even fraudulent to say that the [Roman] Catholic Church "created" or "canonized" the Bible or whatever.

Tell us who did... Or did the bible fall from heaven.

truthislight:

I dont know where you got that ^^^

(1 Peter 3:19-20).
"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:19-20).
.....................

Na wao!
Smh.

As I said earlier, I wouldn't want this to be like an arguement, but a discussion. Unfortunately, the different versions of the bible is posing the problem of proper understanding.
Before I go any further, I'd like we employ a particular version of the bible. I'd prefer we use your version. What do you think?

truthislight:

which verse?

(1 Peter 3:19-20).
"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:19-20).

Check the previous post.

truthislight:

is good news bible not a catholic bible? Lol.
Smh.

Now i have learnt what they do to you people.

Lol. Don't sound sentimental please. I don't read it because it is a catholic bible, but because of how simple the language appears to be.

ijawkid:

I'm not playing any games.....all I'm doing is letting the bible interprete itself......can you do the same??..........can you support your understanding of 1 peter 3:20 with other scriptures??....can you??...........the crime here is when you pick up just one verse in the bible to explain a doctrine that contradicts the whole bible...........

I don't think their is any need to work with multiple verses when the scene being played out is not fulfilling a particular verse. When we begin to explain verses like this, we deprive every portion of the bible the previlege of independent meaning.

chukwudi44:

Which 'church' is this that you claimed gave us the bible and how does their teachings differ from that of the catholic church.

Secondly which of the catholic teachings contradict the teachings in the bible?

1. By the church here, I mean the totality of the children of God, under one umbrella. Let take this example. The church never segregated. The catholic church held that salvation can only be gained under its tutelage, neglecting the fact that all that matters is 'knowing' christ. This continued until the era of Pope John xxiii down to john paul ii.
2. Seriously? Check the first page

italo:

NO! By talking about the role the Bible plays, you are hitting the nail right on its head...and you will find your arguments are baseless.

One question: what is the pillar and foundation of the truth?

Which do you think is more tedious. To write down the whole truth, even when I know it can be found in a reference manuscript, or to pick a problem and derive how it doesn't correspond with the original manuscript?
To your question, the pillar and foundation of truth, is its source.

Reyginus: 1. By the church here, I mean the totality of the children of God, under one umbrella. Let take this example. The church never segregated. The catholic church held that salvation can only be gained under its tutelage, neglecting the fact that all that matters is 'knowing' christ. This continued until the era of Pope John xxiii down to john paul ii.

When did this "totality of the children of God under one umbrella" give us the Bible and under what umbrella was it?

So your Bible teaches you that "knowing" Christ will automatically guarantee you salvation?.. And Catholic teaching being contrary to that is wrong?

Have you noticed that you are not making sense?

italo:

Which "church" did, if not the Catholic Church?

How old is "the church" and how old is the Catholic Church?



What are these "ways?"

What "WAYS" are established and what ways aren't?

1. The catholic church is only a denomination of the church. As long as the catholic church doesn't house all christains, it cannot lay claim to compiling the bible. The church is as old as christainity, while the catholic church is as old as the great rebellion.
2. The bible will tell you.

chukwudi44: @op

You do not just become a catholic because you claim to be one.If you do not believe the words of the apostle and nicene creeds you are not a catholic shikena

I believe in the creed. What I don't believe in are the things I'm trying to understand here.

Rich4god:
Is there any part of your history that stated that the church of Christ went into extinction after cannonising the bible. Or do you mind telling us when the catholic church started and by who.

check my response to chukwudi. By the way, I'm good at asking questions too.

Reyginus:
To your question, the pillar and foundation of truth, is its source.

...And I believe the source of Truth is God. Infact Jesus is Truth himself.

God says through St. Paul in 1Tim 3:15 that "the CHURCH (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth."

The Bible says in 1Tim 3:15 that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Why are you then rebelling against God and his word by implying that it is the Bible?

How can you then use the Bible against the Church when the Bible clearly says 'go to the Church for TRUTH?"

italo:


When did this "totality of the children of God under one umbrella" give us the Bible and under what umbrella was it?

So your Bible teaches you that "knowing" Christ will automatically guarantee you salvation?.. And Catholic teaching being contrary to that is wrong?

Have you noticed that you are not making sense?

The question should be, when did the totality of christains give us the catholic church?
What do you understand by knowing christ to begin with?

italo:

...And I believe the source of Truth is God. Infact Jesus is Truth himself.

God says through St. Paul in 1Tim 3:15 that "the CHURCH (not the Bible) is the pillar and foundation of truth."

The Bible says in 1Tim 3:15 that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Why are you then rebelling against God and his word by implying that it is the Bible?

How can you then use the Bible against the Church when the Bible clearly says 'go to the Church for TRUTH?"

I don't understand how this amounts to rebellion against the church. What I think is happening is the catholic church's rebellion against the word of God.

Reyginus:
1. The catholic church is only a denomination of the church. As long as the catholic church doesn't house all christains, it cannot lay claim to compiling the bible. The church is as old as christainity, while the catholic church is as old as the great rebellion.

"Denomination" is a word that protestants like to use to validate themselves but that word doesn't exist in Christianity. There is only one Church that Jesus founded with one faith and one doctrine. All those other shops you call denominations were founded by men who sought their own agenda. And that includes every one of them.

So if the Catholic Church didn't compile the Bible, when did this your "totality of God's children under one umbrella" compile it?

When did this "great rebellion" happen and how?

Reyginus: 2. The bible will tell you.

Stop dodging. It isn't the Bible that is spewing bulls.hit, its you. I'm asking you a question about what you said.

What ways in which God transmits his word are established and what ways aren't?

Reyginus: The question should be, when did the totality of christains give us the catholic church?
What do you understand by knowing christ to begin with?

To answer your question, it was this your "totality" rubbish that gave us the Catholic Church... It was Jesus.

It is you who said just "knowing" Christ will take you to heaven automatically. I don't understand how it is me who now has to explain it. It should be you.

Now can you pls answer my very simple questions.

italo:


When did this "totality of the children of God under one umbrella" give us the Bible and under what umbrella was it?

So your Bible teaches you that "knowing" Christ will automatically guarantee you salvation?.. And Catholic teaching being contrary to that is wrong?

Thank you.

Reyginus: I don't understand how this amounts to rebellion against the church. What I think is happening is the catholic church's rebellion against the word of God.

'...what you THINK is happening...'

Shouldn't you be sure before spewing thrash in public?

I said you are rebelling against God and his word because God, through his word, tells you clearly to go to the Church for the truth...and that is not what you are doing, is it?

Rather you are telling God that the Church is not the pillar and foundation of the truth but it is the pillar and foundation of lies.

If this isn't rebellion, what is?

@ Reyginus, here's the Nicene Creed.

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

For you to claim that you believe the above and still say all that you have said indicates that you are either a liar or a fool. Sorry to say.

Kay 17:

However the Church came before the Bible

this ^^^ statement is made out of ignorance.

Reyginus: I don't think their is any need to work with multiple verses when the scene being played out is not fulfilling a particular verse. When we begin to explain verses like this, we deprive every portion of the bible the previlege of independent meaning.

For a teaching to be said to be biblical, it must flow from Genesis to revelation.

How can a doctrine like this just stand alone? When a teaching like resurrection flows from OT to NT.

Does it seem normal to you?

truthislight:

this ^^^ statement is made out of ignorance.

Hmmm

@regy and italo

The Church structure is still intact today in form of the Catholic Church. All other churches find their therefrom.