Seriallink it seems on this i will have to heap the blame one you! I'm not suprised that every catholic who came on the thread believes you delibrately, purposely and maliciously misrepresented them and that the thread is trying to insult catholics! The whole problem YOU caused when you claimed "catholics believe non catholic are hell bond" this is more or less insultive, even if it may be a mistake it protray a balant misrepresentation of catholic teaching and most certainly will be regarded as a sentence meant to bash catholics. While i do not wish to dwell on the said sentence since i also consider it a misrepresentation, i think u have recieved enough hitting for that sentence so i'll address the other points.
To the question of the thread, the answer is yes! Catholics consider d church as the one true church built by christ on the apostles and that peter in particular was given the "keys of the kingdom" and that thru the apostles the church has recieved the power to "bind and lose", "proclaim the gospel" and the power to forgive sins in christ names and that the leaders of the church do have a right, a duty or rather a responsible to excercise all the above ministries as d apostles did in their day.
Yeah! The church teaches that she is the body of christ and she is one in doctrine, holy becos christ her head is holy and by his grace continue to make us holy and granting us his righteous, catholic because her mission is universal and apostolic cos the apostles are her foundation. We believe that God used peter as a symbol of unity in da church thus given him the key of d kingdom (biblically d key of d kingdom belong to the prime minister) and thus make him a fore...minister of da gospel and that that office has alway remained in the church. And yeah we believe that all salvation comes from christ and that christ has given d church -his body- as a permanent and effective path of salvation.
So yes i'll say d bible quotation was refering to the catholic church. Big claims they seem! And yeah that i believe.
As regard the part on non catholic, I believe that ALL men who believe in christ Jesus and are justified by faith thru baptism are incorporated into christ's body, they therefore have a right to be called christians and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the lord. I believe the holyspirit can and does work on all men even non catholic. So yeah i believe protestants are part of dat body of christ and are in communion with the catholic church even though the said communion is imperfect. So even though i clearly hold that you and other protestants have rejected, throw away, modified parts of the truth of God i do not claim u are hell bound unless u knowingly and delibrately rejected the truth. That is 4 u and ur conscience!
I believe i aswered ya question.

seriallink: ^^^Yes Mr. Ube, and the answer is yes! If someone tells me that his or her Church is the only true Church, that automatically condemn other christian denominations, no?

I see, you missed the party huh?

ha! It seems i missed d "beer" i ll take soft drinks.
And yeah wen i say am d one true church, it seem to implies that there is something untrue about d others. Even though i dont enjoy to downgrade oda pipo communities, i have to admit. That a 1 true church is a monopoly

Ubenedictus: Seriallink it seems on this i will have to heap the blame one you! I'm not suprised that every catholic who came on the thread believes you delibrately, purposely and maliciously misrepresented them and that the thread is trying to insult catholics! The whole problem YOU caused when you claimed "catholics believe non catholic are hell bond" this is more or less insultive, even if it may be a mistake it protray a balant misrepresentation of catholic teaching and most certainly will be regarded as a sentence meant to bash catholics. While i do not wish to dwell on the said sentence since i also consider it a misrepresentation, i think u have recieved enough hitting for that sentence so i'll address the other points.
To the question of the thread, the answer is yes! Catholics consider d church as the one true church built by christ on the apostles and that peter in particular was given the "keys of the kingdom" and that thru the apostles the church has recieved the power to "bind and lose", "proclaim the gospel" and the power to forgive sins in christ names and that the leaders of the church do have a right, a duty or rather a responsible to excercise all the above ministries as d apostles did in their day.
Yeah! The church teaches that she is the body of christ and she is one in doctrine, holy becos christ her head is holy and by his grace continue to make us holy and granting us his righteous, catholic because her mission is universal and apostolic cos the apostles are her foundation. We believe that God used peter as a symbol of unity in da church thus given him the key of d kingdom (biblically d key of d kingdom belong to the prime minister) and thus make him a fore...minister of da gospel and that that office has alway remained in the church. And yeah we believe that all salvation comes from christ and that christ has given d church -his body- as a permanent and effective path of salvation.
So yes i'll say d bible quotation was refering to the catholic church. Big claims they seem! And yeah that i believe.
As regard the part on non catholic, I believe that ALL men who believe in christ Jesus and are justified by faith thru baptism are incorporated into christ's body, they therefore have a right to be called christians and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the lord. I believe the holyspirit can and does work on all men even non catholic. So yeah i believe protestants are part of dat body of christ and are in communion with the catholic church even though the said communion is imperfect. So even though i clearly hold that you and other protestants have rejected, throw away, modified parts of the truth of God i do not claim u are hell bound unless u knowingly and delibrately rejected the truth. That is 4 u and ur conscience!
I believe i aswered ya question.

Seconded by Italo.

The one who is condemned is the one who knows that the Catholic faith is the true faith and rejects it deliberately. And that doesn't apply only to other Christians, it also applies to non-Christians and even non-religious people e.g Atheists.

Ubenedictus: job doesn't fit this criteria! Thank God this isn't an exam! Lol

dont exposed you limitation.

The book of Job was written by moses.
Peace

@truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.you can google and read up these historical characters,

I don't need your validation for any book of the bible and would not really bother if you refer to the entire biblical books as apocryphal.Thhe most important thing for me is the decision of the church as exemplified by the synod of hippo which created the xtian canon

chukwudi44: @truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.you can google and read up these historical characters,

I don't need your validation for any book of the bible and would not really bother if you refer to the entire biblical books as apocryphal.Thhe most important thing for me is the decision of the church as exemplified by the synod of hippo which created the xtian canon

^^^

your words.

You wish/want to imagined that any and any how persons just stood up and write all contradictory things and it is God's words? No.

Lol.

The apocriphals are contradictory books.

truthislight:

^^^

your words.

You wish/want to imagined that any and any how persons just stood up and write all contradictory things and it is God's words? No.

Lol.

The apocriphals are contradictory books.

Hope you don't mind pointing out the 'contradictions in the 7 books you protestants heretically removed from your 'bible'.

chukwudi44: @truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.you can google and read up these historical characters,

I don't need your validation for any book of the bible and would not really bother if you refer to the entire biblical books as apocryphal.Thhe most important thing for me is the decision of the church as exemplified by the synod of hippo which created the xtian canon

I dont really know what your argument is.

I dont based my arguments on adulterated history but on an history that has been preserved for us.

This is the James that wrote the bible:

"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:7).

And this:

"Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1:12-14).

^^^

this were preserved for us to know and have faith.

Better still any were you turn it is well attested to, who the writer can be.

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:" (Jude 1:1).

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother." (Galatians 1:19).

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

Definitely not your James :

chukwudi44: @truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.you can google and read up these historical characters,

i dont know who is your James the just.

The credentials of the writer of the bible book of James is very obvious and is not your "James the Just"

read this it will help you know :

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:" (Jude 1:1).


"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:7).

What else do you need?

Jesus did not use any and any persons to write the bible.

Can you present the credential of the writers of the apocriphals let us examined and see how christ appeared to them and who they are that their books should be taken as authority for christians?

chukwudi44: @truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.you can google and read up these historical characters,

I don't need your validation for any book of the bible and would not really bother if you refer to the entire biblical books as apocryphal.Thhe most important thing for me is the decision of the church as exemplified by the synod of hippo which created the xtian canon

I dont really know what your argument is.

I dont based my arguments on adulterated history but on an history that has been preserved for us.

This is the James that wrote the bible:

"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:7).

And this:

"Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey. And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1:12-14).

^^^

this were preserved for us to know and have faith.

Better still any were you turn it is well attested to, who the writer can be.

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:" (Jude 1:1).

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother." (Galatians 1:19).

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

Definitely not your James :

chukwudi44: @truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.you can google and read up these historical characters,

i dont know who is your James the just.

The credentials of the writer of the bible book of James is very obvious and is not your "James the Just"

read this it will help you know :

"Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:" (Jude 1:1).


"After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles." (1 Corinthians 15:7).

What else do you need?


James the brother of Jesus was also regarded as an apostle.

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother." (Galatians 1:18-19).



Jesus did not use any and any persons to write the bible.

Can you present the credential of the writers of the apocriphals let us examined and see how christ appeared to them and who they are that their books should be taken as authority for christians?

@truthislight

My you funny die.Do you really know how many early xtians bore the name James? How do you get to know who is mentioned whenever the name James is mentioned? The appelletions James the just,james the great and james the less were merely created to distibguish the three biblical james mentioned in the scriptures.You arguments are so puerile and illogical.

Three main people in the early church were named james

1.James the brother of John also called James the great and the very first apostle to die

2.James the son of alphaeus also called James the less another apostle of Jesus

3.James the just. Blood relative of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem and one of the most influential leaders of the early church.

We know James the great did not write that letter because he died long before it was written.the authousrship of that letter as stated by the apostolic and church fathers was James the just.

Are you really asking me about the criteria of the authorship of the 7 scriptures ? I was expecting you to educate me on that since you already know so much of their 'contradictions'

FYi the biblical books were not really written after whom they were named. Foe example Joshua could not have written the book of Joshua which makes refernce to the lost book of Jasher, d same book quoted by the book of samuel who is supposed to have lived centuries before Joshua.so obviously if the authour of joshua knew about the book of Jasher which also wrote about samuel how can you explain that?

The 7 books in question was written before the comming of christ and the time of the apostles so I don't really get your point?

the Bible is straight on dis, and d truth am sure your conscience bears u witness. be u catholic or not, d fact is dat witout holiness no man shall see d lord. note: idolatry, praying tru anyone except JESUS, is still a sin, and God's commandment still remain the same.

chukwudi44: The 7 books in question was written before the comming of christ and the time of the apostles so I don't really get your point?

dont you think you should leave the "befor the coming of christ" to the jews to decide which book is which?

My attention here is the NT.

.

Well, if my crime is just being funny then well and fine.

But compare your own words:

chukwudi44: @truthislight

James the just the writer of the letter of James was not among the twelve apostles.He is not to be confused with James the brother of John nor James the son of alphaeus.

with this:

chukwudi44: @truthislight
3.James the just. Blood relative of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem and one of the most influential leaders of the early church.

shading more light will only show that the writers of the NT were not just "comers" since Yahweh does not deal with all sort of men.

I only wish that the bible be left the way it is and not to be watered down.

Peace.

truthislight:

dont you think you should leave the "befor the coming of christ" to the jews to decide which book is which?

My attention here is the NT.

Have you heard about the septuagint? You are quite ignorant of several biblical history. I don't even have a problem if you want to abide by the resolutions of the jewish council of jamnia but do not cherry pick stick with all their resolutions.

One more thing the jewish canon is not called bible but rather tanakh and it does not contain 39 books but rather 24

In what way are my watering down the bible? By telling you about the authourship of the letter of James or teelling you that Joshua could not have been the author of the book of Joshua since authour quoted a book that wrote about David and jonathan (compare Josh 10:13 and 2 sam 1:18)

Obviously you are begining to see that most of your theories are wrong.the authourship of most of these books are unknown contrary to what you think but that does not mean there are not scriptures

Talking about new comers was paul who wrote most of the NT and who was not even one of the twelve not a newcomer?

My friend God can use anyone to do his will. Your age of experience does not matter in the grace of God.

italo:

2 questions.

[size=15pt]1. Which ONE of these Churches was Christ then talking about in Matthew 16?[/size]

2. When did each of these Churches come into existence and when did the Catholic Church come into existence? Please provide proof of your answer...so that we can see which came first.

Are you demented or just being foolish?
Those churches in the book of revelation existed before the establishment of the catholic church, if you can prove the catholic church as the first church then you should be more knowledgable of the fact that it was only established about a century or so after the death and ascention of christ and the death of the last apostle John who wrote the book of revelation.
Those churches existed during the live of John the beloved while the catholic only came to existance centuries after the death of the last apostle of Christ - John the boloved.
So go get your fact straight!

"ignorant, wrong theories!" are now your words use to described what i have said from the bible.

Well, that is who you are are.

chukwudi44: In what way are my watering down the bible? By telling you about the authourship of the letter of James or teelling you that Joshua could not have been the author of the book of Joshua since authour quoted a book that wrote about David and jonathan (compare Josh 10:13 and 2 sam 1:18)

Obviously you are begining to see that most of your theories are wrong.the authourship of most of these books are unknown contrary to what you think but that does not mean there are not scriptures

your interest are obvious.

That is why you posted this contradiction here below:

chukwudi44:
Obviously you are begining to see that most of your theories are wrong.the authourship of most of these books are unknown contrary to what you think but that does not mean there are not scriptures

^^^

you interest here are the apocriphals.

And i say that those that cannonise the NT were not stupid. Though you said they are.

You will say all sort of people wrote the bible as an excuses to bring in your apocriphals.

Ah! You will present your contradictory apocriphals as a reason to accept books that have no basis into the scriptures.

If to you God is irrational, then good and fine for you.

But my God is alive and living and will ensure that his words will get to those he wants to save.
Peace.

meshacha1: note: idolatry, praying tru anyone except JESUS, is still a sin,

When I say "meshacha1, pray for me", does it mean I'm not praying through Jesus?

chukwudi44: Talking about new comers was paul who wrote most of the NT and who was not even one of the twelve not a newcomer?

My friend God can use anyone to do his will. Your age of experience does not matter in the grace of God.

so, from your knowledge Yahweh was dealing with all sort of people befor the coming of christ?

Well then, of what used was the death of christ if not to open the way?

truthislight: "ignorant, wrong theories!" are now your words use to described what i have said from the bible.

Well, that is who you are are.



your interest are obvious.

That is why you posted this contradiction here below:



^^^

you interest here are the apocriphals.

And i say that those that cannonise the NT were not stupid. Though you said they are.

You will say all sort of people wrote the bible as an excuses to bring in your apocriphals.

Ah! You will present your contradictory apocriphals as a reason to accept books that have no basis into the scriptures.

If to you God is irrational, then good and fine for you.

But my God is alive and living and will ensure that his words will get to those he wants to save.
Peace.

Kindly adress the issues I raised especially on Joshua,tanakh,septuagint ,e.t.c and stop blabbing

chukwudi44:
Kindly adress the issues I raised especially on Joshua,tanakh,septuagint ,e.t.c and stop blabbing

like i have said. My Interest here is the NT.

And i feel i have other things to do.
Peace

truthislight:

like i have said. My Interest here is the NT.

And i feel i have other things to do.
Peace

My interest in in the entire bible. I wonder why bible authours were inspired to refer us to 'apocryphal' books like the book of jashar.

My man just admit you know about the history of the xtian canon and quitely go to sleep.The fact remains that the books of the bible are 73 as anyother thing apart from that would not be the bible.

All the books of the bibles are scriptures but not all scriptures are in the bible shikena.some scriptural books like jasher,nathan,shemiah e.t.c are lost and not found in the bible

joe4christ:

Are you demented or just being foolish?
Those churches in the book of revelation existed before the establishment of the catholic church, if you can prove the catholic church as the first church then you should be more knowledgable of the fact that it was only established about a century or so after the death and ascention of christ and the death of the last apostle John who wrote the book of revelation.
Those churches existed during the live of John the beloved while the catholic only came to existance centuries after the death of the last apostle of Christ - John the boloved.
So go get your fact straight!

Still you didn't tell me which ONE of the churches Jesus was talking about in Matt 16.

...And in telling me when the Catholic Church came into existence, you said "a century or so", which would mean around 100AD, then you also said "centuries" which could mean 100, 200, 300, or 400AD - when exactly didd it come into existence? And you didn't tell me when those churches you mentioned originated.

truthislight:

dont exposed you limitation.

The book of Job was written by moses.
Peace

quaquaquaqua, hehehehe, hahahaha, where did u get that from? Moses?? Hahahaha, just povide d proof.

meshacha1: the Bible is straight on dis, and d truth am sure your conscience bears u witness. be u catholic or not, d fact is dat witout holiness no man shall see d lord. note: idolatry, praying tru anyone except JESUS, is still a sin, and God's commandment still remain the same.

i dont xpect ya to concern urself wit serious discussion! U may continue reading ur a, b, c and 1, 2, 3. D above is an example of a brainwashed person.

joe4christ:

Are you demented or just being foolish?
Those churches in the book of revelation existed before the establishment of the catholic church, if you can prove the catholic church as the first church then you should be more knowledgable of the fact that it was only established about a century or so after the death and ascention of christ and the death of the last apostle John who wrote the book of revelation.
Those churches existed during the live of John the beloved while the catholic only came to existance centuries after the death of the last apostle of Christ - John the boloved.
So go get your fact straight!

please dont be dumb! The churches mentioned in d bible aren't denominations with different teaching. The bible say "the church in ephesus" ofcuz if ya are not dumb u would have recognised that d above refers to d community of believers in ephesus and not a different teaching from d church in antioch. The present idea dat anyone can make new doctrines and found his own church didnt exist in da early church. Do some research

truthislight: "ignorant, wrong theories!" are now your words use to described what i have said from the bible.

Well, that is who you are are.



your interest are obvious.

That is why you posted this contradiction here below:



^^^

you interest here are the apocriphals.

And i say that those that cannonise the NT were not stupid. Though you said they are.

You will say all sort of people wrote the bible as an excuses to bring in your apocriphals.

Ah! You will present your contradictory apocriphals as a reason to accept books that have no basis into the scriptures.

If to you God is irrational, then good and fine for you.

But my God is alive and living and will ensure that his words will get to those he wants to save.
Peace.

u wanna explain d bolded!

truthislight:

so, from your knowledge Yahweh was dealing with all sort of people befor the coming of christ?

Well then, of what used was the death of christ if not to open the way?

he didnt say d bolded, u are spining d discussion. And also added ignoratio elenchi.

Chukwudi and truthislight, it seems u guyz have gone off topic. Can u kindly return to d topic and open ur own thread to discuss d canon of scriptures?