Mark 9;38-40 Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”
But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.

Enigma: ^^^ So, the book being used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible", then?

The non catholic christians are actually in the minority.Please check your demographics again.catholicism alone constitute little over 50% of the world christian population.when justapoxed with orthodox xtianity which also does not use just 66 books you will be talking about 65% of the christianity.You protestants constitule less than 40% of the world xtian population

^^^ Majority of non Roman Catholic Christians = more than 50% of non Roman Catholic Christians.

I don't particularly care about numbers or whether Roman Catholics are more than non Roman Catholics.

Kay 17:

But Apocrypha books are missing!

So any compilation by Christians which does not have the apocryphals/deuterocanonicals is not "the Bible"?

^^
And Mormons with their Mormon Bible? ?

^^ Are you now running from the question?

Have you not said above that the book or compilation used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible"?

Cos of the subtraction.

Please check out this my first post on a recent thread https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church#12067196

And this my last post on the same thread https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/12#13346747

After you have done that and maybe also a little exercise that should follow then come back and tell us what you understand by the expression "the Bible".

Zikkyy:
I don't think we should compare Church leadership of today to Christ (or even the apostles). Christ was talking about himself so how is it possible he will be wrong?

Maybe you should try telling this to Jesus. Just look at what he said:

Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And this power didn't end with the apostles...Jesus said "MY CHURCH"...and his Church has not ended. He also said:

Matt28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

"...TO THE VERY END OF THE AGE..."

Are the apostles still baptizing and teaching?

So who will he "be with" until the end?

Answer: their successors - the Church.

Enigma: ^^ Are you now running from the question?

Have you not said above that the book or compilation used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible"?

Kay 17 is right.The first book designated the term 'bible' had 73 books.Anyother thing other than that should be called some thing else

^^^ Na so! Let the Roman Catholics continue to deceive themselves.

Zikkyy:
No, i don't. i try to make my practice as simple as possible without introducing unnecessary complexities.

"Unnecessary complexities?!" What if your "simple practice" is against Gods teaching?

Jesus said "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you."

Some say eating his "flesh" and "blood" merely means to believe in him.

Others say it is eating "bread" and drinking "wine" which are mere SYMBOLS of his body and blood.

The Catholic Church says it is receiving the ACTUAL body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ in the Holy Eucharist which only remains under the appearance of bread and wine after consecration by a Catholic priest during mass.

What is your "simple practce" about this?

And are you not worried that if your simple practice is not God's teaching, you might not have life in you?

(Considering that your fallibility means you can NEVER be certain if your position is God's teaching)

Zikkyy: I see this as one of those unnecessary complexities. what is my business with purgatory. My brother am interested in the final destination and not some imaginary bus-stop deduced from some ancient practices.

What you call "unnecessary complexity" was revealed to us by God.

1Cor 3:15 says: "If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames."

Read the passage and tell me where one will be saved as one escaping through fire. Heaven?! There is no fire in heaven. Hell?! No one will be saved from hell. So if not Purgatory, where and how?

God said "man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that comes out of the mouth of God."

Zickky says: "not every word. Some of God's words are "unnecessary complexities."

Enigma: ^^^ Na so! Let the Roman Catholics continue to deceive themselves.

Na so naa.The term 'bible' is a catholic brand joor!! Make una go find una own name to name your hybrid canon which you stole frm both the hebrew canon and the catholic NT

chukwudi44:

Na so naa.The term 'bible' is a catholic brand joor!! Make una go find una own name to name your hybrid canon which you stole frm both the hebrew canon and the catholic NT

When we say Roman Catholic arguments use fraud and deceit you people will start crying; I recognise that some of you repeat the arguments out of ignorance.

Well, (in the Judaeo-Christian sense) "the Bible" was in fact first used for The Septuagint which of course did not have the New Testament.

As I said before, let the Roman Catholics continue to deceive themselves.

Zikkyy:
So you believe the concept of infallibility is for our salvation? lol my brother, the pope no just want too much argument and i have to admit that it worked sha. if not the church would have been smaller today.

I meant that the reason I'm discussing infallibility with you is for our salvation...and not because I wanted no confusion, like you said.

And it isn't the pope that wanted it that way. Which of the popes? Was it a pope that said "whoever hears you hears me?" Was it a pope that said "what ever you bind or loose on earth is bound/loosed in heaven?"

Zikkyy: YES. That's my position. The Holy Spirit will guide only if you allows it to. Everybody says they are being guided by the spirit, and we have all sort of practices from Catholic - Anglican - petecostals - 'cele' - JW; who do i believe.

Believe the one Jesus founded 2000yrs ago and gave the Holy Spirit to guide it to all truth. Believe the one that has being passed down to us by the apostles to the present day through an unbroken line of apostolic succession. Believe the one that can never teach you error...and so far, only the Catholic Church even dares to claim to be infallible. Why should you follow someone who admits that he could be wrong afterall?

Zikkyy: There is that possibility that the RCC could be wrong on other issue, that is not to say i don't agree with the church on a lot of issues. for e.g i am not likely to disagree with the church on practices that aligns with my interpretation of biblical texts or were practiced by the early church. Please be reminded that the NT texts was already in use by early Christians prior to compilation so no fear that the authenticity, authorship or source of inspiration of the books will be called into question. To be honest, what's the guarantee that some of these books were written by these authors? and what's the guarantee that some books were not left out? acceptance is not because the Church cannot make mistake.

I don't understand you here.

Are you saying you trust the authenticity of the books of the Bible because they were in use by the early Christians...?

Or are you saying you DON'T trust the authenticity of the books of the Bible?

You seem to be confused here.

If acceptance is NOT because of the infallibility of the Church, then what is your acceptance based on?

Enigma:

When we say Roman Catholic arguments use fraud and deceit you people will start crying; I recognise that some of you repeat the arguments out of ignorance.

Well, (in the Judaeo-Christian sense) "the Bible" was in fact first used for The Septuagint which of course did not have the New Testament.

As I said before, let the Roman Catholics continue to deceive themselves.

Bloody liar!! Kindly substantiate this lie

chukwudi44:

Bloody liar!! Kindly substantiate this lie

And of course you are a fraud and an ignoramus.

And no I will not "substantiate" anything for you. Did you "substantiate" your own statement?

If you want to learn, you say so; or you go to appropriate source material to learn real things and not just fraudulent claims made by Roman Catholic apologists.

chukwudi44:

Bloody liar!! Kindly substantiate this lie

Meanwhile, make I laugh you small.

First you call someone a liar; then you beg him to "kindly" do something for you!

Abi something dey do you for head?

@ Chukwudi44,

Bear in mind that you are discussing with a man who happily quoted ONE line of St. Ignatius' letter to the Smirneans in order to argue against Catholicism. But when I pasted the WHOLE CHAPTER which contains the line, dismantling his argument, he ran away saying he didn't care what St. Ignatius said.

Anyway, I know you know him more than I do.

^^^ You are a liar and a fraud. And your petulance stems from your pain that I am more than capable of deconstructing the fraudulent Roman Catholic arguments.

Anyway, this following link/post is the first time I mentioned the line from Ignatius that you are slandering me about; let people read it and make up their minds who, as between me and you, is the liar.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/4#12110767

PS Green bolded added today for emphasis.

Enigma: Although I had intended to continue on from my second post that seems unnecessary now and it seems that this thread has really run its course.

For me, a good place to round up is this:

First I return to Ignatius who was the one who coined and the first to use the expression "the catholic Church". While Ignatius was a strong supporter of the role of a bishop in worship, he also believed that each individual church was in itself complete and a part of the universal church.

However, even whilst still expounding/extolling the role of a bishop (possibly even questionably somewhat), Ignatius said another interesting thing in his Epistle to The Smyrnaeans:

. . . even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church*

* another translation:

even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church

ETA http://www.jhu.edu/gcf/lessons/IgnatiusSmyrnaeans.pdf



Now where have I heard something similar before? Oh, here (Matthew 18:20):

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

EDIT Meanwhile I am sure the lying fraudulent idi.ot will not be able to show where I said I "didn't care what Ignatius said" or where I "ran away".

Here is our dialogue on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1101186/catholics-really-wants-make-heaven/2

Notice how you refused to pay attention to the rest of the chapter I posted and even refused to acknowledge it. More importantly, notice how you shamelessly fled after seeing your lies debunked.

Enigma: Bros, if we are speaking of the catholic Church, then it is very simple and we know it from two important sources, one human and one divine.

Ignatius who coined and originated the expression "catholic" meant "universal and complete" and thus he said that wherever Jesus is there is the catholic church.

Jesus said said 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them'. Thus anywhere you see two or three honestly gathered in Jesus' name ---- you see the catholic Church. in other words the catholic Church is the Christian Church.

There is something that two organisations are fighting over --- that is the "Catholic Church". The Roman Catholic Church claims that it is the "Catholic Church". The Eastern Orthodox say no and claim that they are the genuine "Catholic Church". Hence their name: "Orthodox Catholic Church." However, they are even a little more honest in that they recognise that as there is a schism between them and the Roman Catholic church, it is then questionable to speak of the "Catholic Church".

The Roman Catholic Church needs to be more honest! What it is simply doing is claiming for itself what every one else did. Even things done by people who more properly belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic church is claiming.

Anyway, the main point foryour question is that the catholic Church is the Church of Christ, the Body of Christ ---- and it seen wherever two or three are gathered in Jesus' name.

italo:
Enigma. Is it that you have been fooled by the lies of protestantism or you are just as dubious as they are?

You picked just one phrase in Chapter 8 of a 13-Chapter letter which St. Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans. Now let us look into Chapter 8 and see if Ignatius meant what you say he means.

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."

Do you see what Ignatius is stressing from the beginning of the Chapter to the end? FOLLOWING THE BISHOP and the clergy... And he doesn't mean 'follow him from place to place", he means obey him; don't do anything without his approval. He gives examples: "As Christ follows the Father", "As you would follow the Apostles." And when he says "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church," he means The Catholic Church always follows Christ's commands, as he expects the multitude to obey the Bishop.

Furthermore, he rubishes your claim that The Catholic Church is present anywhere two or three are gathered in Jesus name by making reference to the structure of The Catholic Church - "bishops", "priests", "deacons". "Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it."

My good friend, Enigma. Your dear St. Ignatius doesn't think The Catholic Church is where two or three are gathered. You are WRONG.

Enigma: ^^^ You can put whatever spin you like on it but the fact is that

(a) Ignatius said where Jesus is there is the "catholic" i.e. the universal Church*

(b) Jesus said 'where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them'

Well, it is not difficult to put 2 and 2 together . . . .

*The other first part of that his statement was simply calling the members of each church assembly to unite to their bishops ---- not some monolithic "structure" as such. And yes, his conception of "catholic" encompasses unity but sees each church under its bishop as complete and part of the universal i.e. the catholic Church.

italo: @ Enigma,
I see! You love St. Ignatius' letter so much, but only one phrase of it. The phrase you can easily twist to be what you want it to be without looking at the broader context of what your dear Saint is talking about.

How can two or three gathered be the Catholic Church when Ignatius says do nothing without the approval of your Bishop. Which Bishop approved the two or three gathered at Synagogue, RCCG, Christ Embassy, etc?

But shamefully, you don't believe any other part of his letter.

Perhaps you might also be of the opinion that we should cut off our body parts if they cause us to sin, because Jesus says so.

You're just as hypocritical as the rest of them.

Enigma: ^^^ Thank you.

Again and again, the timeless letter of St. Ignatius proves to the world that your claim that anywhere 2 or 3 are gathered is the Catholic Church...is nothing but a LIE.

^^^ So you see now that you are an idiotic liar!

1. Where in all of that did I say that I "did't care what Ignatius said"?

2. Where in all that did I "run away"?


Beyond those and on the statement of Ignatius, your hatred of Jesus' statement "where two or three are gathered . . . " suggests that you (and perhaps your "church", I am simply bearing in mind more sensible Roman Catholics than nincompoops like you) do not believe in Jesus or His words.

Yep, hold on to your rubbish "infallible" popes; others are happy to trust and believe Jesus when He said he will be with them wherever two or three are gathered.

EDIT Oh and Ignatius is still correct; even where Jesus is there is the universal Church ----- be they just two or three gathered in His name as He promised them. They don't need some idiotic "popes".

@ Enigma,

You didn't explicitly say it but you implicitly said it by refusing to acknowledge the rest of the letter...and you fled without a cogent response to my last post...instead, you only said "thank you."

As regards the rest of your post, I'm not interested in engaging you in any exchange of words. I only set out to expose your hypocrisy...holding one phrase of St. Ignatius letter dear but discarding the rest of the letter because it dismantles the lie you have cooked up about that one phrase.

I will post the whole chapter again though I know it is like poison to your eyes.

THE EPISTLE OF ST. IGNATIUS TO THE SMYRNAEANS.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Can any human being with a functional brain now say that what St. Ignatius meant by "Church" is anywhere 2 or 3 are gathered in Jesus name?

Let such a person step up!

^^^ Any sensible person can see that: (1) I gave the backround of Ignatius' statement when he spoke about the role of bishops which I said is not even wholly accurate; and (2) that I gave two separate links to two separate translations of Ignatius' full leter.

I said "thank you" then because I did not want to engage you in exchange of abuse on that occasion.

You remain a fraud and a liar.

And your "church" does not believe the words of Jesus that He is there when two or three are gathered in His name.

There are many fools here....GOD LAYED EVERYTHING FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION FOR YOU. JESUS HIMSELF GAVE MANY TEACHINGS AND ANODA ERRING HUMAN FROM THE DEVIL COMES TO INTRODUCE HUMAN WICKEDNESS,BONDAGE AND LIES,U FOLOW IT SHEEPISHLY YET U STAND HERE TO OPEN UR STINKY MOUTH TO OPPOSE THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. UR DRAGGED TO ANTICHRISTISM. I PITY U! SOME KNOWS DAT THEY ARE LIVING LIES INSTEAD OF RUNING 4 DIA SOUL DEY DECIDE TO STAY AND PLAY RELIGION WEN DEY ARE FACED WITH HARD TIMES DEY GO MEET A PASTOR ND RECIEVE MIRACLES. A CATHOLIC WOMAN AT OUR SERVICE YESTERDAY WAZ HAVING MISSCARIAGE YEAR AFTER YEAR 4 MANY YEARS. UR LYING PRIESTS CUDNT DO ANYTHIN COZ DY HAVE NO TRUTH TO GIVE. D TRUTH DAT HEALS AND EMPOWERS. BUT ONLY AN ECOUNTER WITH A REAL MAN OF GOD CHANGED HER STORY SHE CAME TO CHURCH SINGING AND CRYING. THE WOMAN NOW KNOWS DAT CHRISTIANITY IS NOTHING LIKE ANGELUS NAFA NNA!!! HOW COULD I WORSHIP IN A CHURCH THAT DONT COMMUNE WITH THE HOLYSPIRIT BUT ONLY SINGING MARIA MARIA ALL THE WAY. HAVE U EXPERIENCE D JOY OF SALVATION BEFORE? ARE U HAPPY INSIDE WHATS YOUR LIFE LIKE. U KNOW U ARE NO WHERE NEAR REAL CHRISTIANITY LIVING THE LIVE OF PAUL. ONCE AGAIN IF U WANT TO SERVE GOD DROP HUMAN WISDOM AND SEEK THE TRUTH IN HIS WORD. DESIRE THE HOLYSPIRIT,U DNT WANA CHANGE COZ UR GODDAMND RELIGION ALLOWS U TO DO SOME THINGS UR FLESH DELIGHTS IN.

Zikkyy:

Its rare to see Christians disagree with the texts. disagreement is usually over human interpretations.



following the word 'point to point' requires interpretation. what's the assurance that your interpretation is correct and how do you know they are not living according to the leading of the spirit?

. By following d word point to point..i mean meditate in it and grab what its saying flow with it in every direction its going. By point to point i mean not standing on a particular chapter of bible nd conclude on it! How do i know they are not living according to d leading of d holyspirit. O boy if u meet a matured child of God u wnt nid to be profesyd to b4 u knw he or she is on likewize d oda way round! Am sorry to say dat many here are under the bondage of religious spirit. Am nt basin ataking d catholics now,even d pentecostals hav pipl who are victim to dis spirit! They tink dy actualy are with God bt dy operating with a familier spirit. Its of no use telling dis things,if u lack d spirit of God u wnt undastand diz revelations

@italo

I already know the dude is suffering frm schrizophenia.Today been a work free say I only wanted to keep myself busy

Enigma has still failed to show us at what point in History, did the Roman Catholic begin. He keeps implying an obscure date which none of us know about.

Kay 17: Enigma has still failed to show us at what point in History, did the Roman Catholic begin. He keeps implying an obscure date which none of us know about.

Kay 17

I have a better impression of you than this but if you too want to play like that, no problem

1. When did the issue of the origin of the Roman Catholic Church arise for me on this thread?

2. Are you resorting to that because I have shown that you did not even know the full meaning of "the Bible"?

2. Are you resorting to that because I have shown that you did not even know the full meaning of "the Bible"?

[/quote]

Quit whining and answer the questions dude

^^^ Clear off! I don't have time for you after you have shown yourself to be what you are.