adsonstone:
This is something you know you can't deny. Stop being cunning!
Jesus always referred to the scriptures and those scriptures are the ones we have in the old testament of the Bible today.

Q. How do you know Jesus ever mentioned "scriptures?"

A. You read it in the Bible the Catholic Church gave you. Precisely in the books that Jesus never mentioned but the Catholic Church gave you.

adsonstone:
Church Fathers, I have read articles online abuot these men. Many of whom were not even 'catholics' they contributed a lot to 'Christianity' in general.

Mention the 'many who werent Catholics and tell us why you say they weren't Catholics. Also show us how they were Deeper Life members.

adsonstone:
I think you should go back and read extensively about how the Bible came into being and stop saying or claiming what the catholic church did and what they did not do.

When you have read, then come and reprove what I have said.

You want me to read that the Bible fell from the sky? Or that Deeper Life Bible Church compiled it? Lol...Funny lad!

You have said nothing that should be taken seriously. You've just been mocking yourself. You're even afraid of saying how you knew the Bible was compiled by the Church in Rome.

adsonstone:
Deeper life bible church. You can find out more on it as there are information everywhere for you to see.

Is it the same Deeper Life Bible Church that was founded in 1973 by Kumuyi you are talking about?

From a Roman Catholic source; apparently written by a "monsignor" no less!

First of all, our man admits that the Roman Catholic denomination only formally listed and set its own canon of the Bible in the 16th century.

" On April 8, 1546, two Biblical Decrees were solemnly promulgated by the Tridentine Fathers. The first, called "Sacrosancta," declares the Catholic rule of faith in regard to the Sacred Scriptures by repeating the value of divine tradition, defining the inspiration of the Bible, and listing officially the books of the Canon. Then for the first time these books were formally canonized. This first Decree is a formal dogmatic definition of the Church."

Then he indicates that the events surrounding the Sixtine Vulgate makes a nonsense of the idea of "papal infallibility". Before quoting him again, let us have some background. One "pope" Sixtus V thought he knew more than everybody and produced a shabby edition of the vulgate; the "mumu" even made a Bull declaring "infallibly" (though some Roman Catholics like to deny this); other Roman Catholics who saw that the edition were filled with errors were horrified. Lucky for them the "pope" soon died and immediately they set about replacing the useless thing. It is understood they even tried to recover all copies but unlucky for them some escaped and one copy is believed to be in Oxford's Library.

Here is the "infallible" statement of the mumu "pope". The fact that it was soon set aside by Roman Catholics when he died destroys the nonsensical claim of "papal infallibility".

"By the fullness of apostolic power, we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered to us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful, authentic, and unquestioned, in all public and private discussions, reading, preaching and explanations." (From Aeternus Ille Celestium)

Anyway, here is what the Roman Catholic source says on the matter:

"In 1586 the third commission was appointed by Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590). In the preceding period the Biblia Regia or Polyglot had been published at Antwerp (1569-1572) under the supervision of Arias Montanus. At Rome a special commission after ten years of intensive work published the Septuagint in 1587. This work of the Septuagint was of the greatest utility for the revision of the Vulgate. Cardinal Carafa was placed at the head of the new Vulgate commission. The members of the commission had at their disposal much collected material of variant readings, but especially the Codices Amiatinus, Vallicellianus, Legionensis, and Toletanus,31 and a 1547 Louvain Bible with the marginal readings of Cardinal Sirleto. After two years of intensive efforts the results of the commission were handed to the Pope. It was contained in a 1583 folio edition of the Louvain Bible with the textual emendations proposed by the commission in the margin. The emendated critical text differed so much from the then current text that the Pope did not give it his approval.

Pope Sixtus V now determined to revise the Vulgate himself with the aid of the Spanish Jesuit, Toledo, and the Augustinian, Angelo Rocca. The Pope, in rejecting for the most part the proposed emendations of the Carafa commission, returned to the Louvain text. Likewise, the conventional division of chapters into verses was altered by him. On November 25, 1589, the printing of the Vulgate was finished. The Bible was prefaced by the Bull "Æternus ille celestium" of March 1, 1590, which today is commonly recognized as not having been properly and canonically promulgated. On May 2 it was distributed to the members of the Curia and on May 31 to the Catholic princes. Copies were then also sold to the public. But Pope Sixtus was not content with his new work. He was prepared to print a separate copy of corrigenda so that each one could make his own corrections, but died on August 27, 1590, before completing his task. This Vulgate of Sixtus V was not well received, because it had rejected the advice of the Carafa commission, it had a very sloppy appearance with corrections made by erasures and slips pasted or words stamped over the text, and had changed the conventional order of verse division.32 On September 5, 1590, the sale of the Sistine Bible was forbidden and all available copies were destroyed."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

[/quote]This is something you know you can't deny. Stop being cunning!
Jesus always referred to the scriptures and those scriptures are the ones we have in the old testament of the Bible today.
[quote]

no way the word scriptures in the bible is not synonymous with the OT or bible.The OT and bible are only subsets of the the term scriptures.
so many other scripures were mentioned or quoted in the bible that were not among the books canonised by the catholic church.

Jannes and Jambres: "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes's and Jambres's folly was also." 2 Timothy 3:8-9

And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”-Mattew 2:23

where in the OT did SS Paul and Mattew get this story and quotations from? hope you dont mind telling us

Church Fathers, I have read articles online abuot these men. Many of whom were not even 'catholics' they contributed a lot to 'Christianity' in general.

do you mind telling me about these church fathers that were not catholics

italo:

Q. How do you know Jesus ever mentioned "scriptures?"

A. You read it in the Bible the Catholic Church gave you. Precisely in the books that Jesus never mentioned but the Catholic Church gave you.

Can you please keep quiet if you don't have anything to say!
The same cock and bull story you have said over and over.
Again, go and read the bible history.

italo:
Mention the 'many who werent Catholics and tell us why you say they weren't Catholics. Also show us how they were Deeper Life members.

I never said they were Deeper life members in the first place.
Go check them out yourself on wikipedia. I don't know how you (perhaps) concluded that they were all catholics.

italo:
You want me to read that the Bible fell from the sky? Or that Deeper Life Bible Church compiled it? Lol...Funny lad!

You have said nothing that should be taken seriously. You've just been mocking yourself. You're even afraid of saying how you knew the Bible was compiled by the Church in Rome.

If you haven't read and understood the history of the bible and the compilation, you don't need to keep talking.

How else could I have known if I never read it somewhere or I wasn't told.
I wonder how you got your conclusion that the bible was conpiled by the catholic church as you claimed if you never read it somewhere or you weren't told by someone.

chukwudi44: This is something you know you can't deny. Stop being cunning!
Jesus always referred to the scriptures and those scriptures are the ones we have in the old testament of the Bible today.


no way the word scriptures in the bible is not synonymous with the OT or bible.The OT and bible are only subsets of the the term scriptures.
so many other scripures were mentioned or quoted in the bible that were not among the books canonised by the catholic church.

Jannes and Jambres: "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes's and Jambres's folly was also." 2 Timothy 3:8-9

And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”-Mattew 2:23

where in the OT did SS Paul and Mattew get this story and quotations from? hope you dont mind telling us

Jude also quoted from the scriptures in his letter which that section is not found in the books of the ot due to reasons which I don't know. (Perhaps, they were lost or unavailable as at when the other books were agreed on and compiled.

chukwudi44:
do you mind telling me about these church fathers that were not catholics

Just as I have told your brother Italo, you can also join him in the
Study on church fathers on wikipedia.

Something worth pondering:

In 2 Peter 1 we read:

"12 So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things."

There is a respectable line of argument that the bolded verse 15 is pointing out that Peter planned and anticipated that Christians would also have "scriptures" as guide in addition to the messages that the apostles delivered personally. Some even link the passage to the belief that Mark, who was reckoned to be connected to Peter, wrote the gospel that bears that name.

In any event, Peter clearly also referred to Paul's works as "scriptures". Paul himself is believed to have quoted from the Gospel of Luke. In addition, Paul asked the Colossians to ensure that that epistle was also read to the Laodiceans and also to read an epistle that he had also written to the Laodiceans.

See how early the apostles were already seeing to it that Christians would have authoritative "scriptures", that Christians would have the Christian Bible.

adsonstone: ... you can also join him in the Study on church fathers on wikipedia.

Funny enough, there is indication that some Roman Catholics are spreading propaganda on wikipedia (as with elsewhere) so one must be careful when using it; it is still OK on the whole though!

Meanwhile for them to refute the claim that many "church fathers" were NOT Roman Catholics, they would have to resort to (a) the wuruwuru Mathematics of 5-4=5 and (b) the shameless double face argument where they say that the Eastern Orthodox are not Catholics but then they lay claim to things done by Eastern Orthodox people.

Things done by the Eastern Orthodox like: being the ones to coin the word "catholic"; being the first to have "popes"; being the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"; being the ones doing all the arguing at Nicea etc etc

See more on this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Enigma: Ah, now let us have a little play.

For all the fraudulent Roman catholic claims, see how one of the Roman Catholic "popes" botched up a Roman Catholic version of the Bible --- to the horror of other Roman Catholics. The episode and its aftermath is of course a clear demonstration that the Roman catholic denomination's idea of "papal infallibility" is complete hogwash.

Read here about the Vulgata Sixtina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata_Sixtina

"The Vulgata Sixtina was a Latin edition of the Bible from 1590, prepared on the orders of Pope Sixtus V. It was the first edition of the Latin Vulgate authorised by a pope, but its official recognition was short-lived."

"On 8 April 1546 the Council of Trent required that the Vulgate be printed quam emendatissime (fewest possible faults).[1] There was no authoritative edition at that time.[2]

The first committee was appointed by Pope Pius IV in 1561 to undertake the work, but the committee worked slowly and ineffectively. The second committee was appointed by Pope Pius V in 1569 (Congregatio pro emendatione Bibliorum), with four Cardinals Marcus Antonius, Sirleto, Madrutius, and Antonio Carafa.[3][4] The committee was resolved under the Pope Gregory XIII.[5]

The Pope Sixtus V had appointed the 3rd committee of scholars to continue the work. The committee was under the presidency of Cardinal Carafa. The work was prepared on the basis of the edition of Robertus Stephanus from Louvain (1583) and good manuscripts were used as authorities, including notably Codex Amiatinus.[6] Carafa presented the result of their work, in the beginning of 1589, but Sixtus rejected their work and in 18 months prepared another text he corrected to agree with the Greek and Hebrew,[7] He used Codex Carafianus,[8] but it was hurried into print and suffered from many printing errors,[9] as well as serious problems reflecting the inability of the headstrong Sixtus as a Bible scholar. After his death Robert Bellarmine warned that his work was an embarrassment, and a great danger to the church.[10] In May 1590 the completed work was issued from the press in three volumes.[2]


And from elsewhere, here is a statement attributed to the same Bellarmine on the matter: he was advising a subsequent "pope" on how to deal with the matter of the dodgy Sixtus Sixtine Vulgate. He effectively advised that they should lie!

"Some men, whose opinions had great weight, held that it should be publicly prohibited. I did not think so, and I showed the Holy Father that, instead of forbidding the edition of the Bible in question, it would be better to correct it in such manner that it could be published without detriment to the honour of Pope Sixtus. This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus' name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the
fault of printers and other persons."

honestly, u are doing a great job here to school that dude italo that does not want to learn. I commend ur effort so far. As for me i cant waist my time with dat hard hearted dude that does not want to receive knowledge that will set him free. I ve learnt alot from ur post so far about the fraudulent activities of the catholic and their erroneous ways. I which he could thank u 4 dis wonderful enlightenment u are giving to him 4 free, it's not easy, he is just being ungrateful.

Meanwhile d scripture i gave u to explain are still pending. There is knowledge to be gained from it. Avoiding them will not do u good. Ok.

I just had an Epiphany.
The israelites made the golden calf to represent d God dat brought dem out of d land of Egypt because dey dn't knw Him (GOD) and dn't knw hw He look. Dats y Aaron accepted d idea since dey dn't see Moses again 4 a long time and they worship the image, thinking they are worshiping the God that brought them out of the land of Egypt. No wonder they dn't call d image Baal or name it after any gods but they name it after the God dat brought dem out of Egypt. And still God was angry with dem.
Read Exodus 32.
Ex.32:4' and he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf; and they said, These be thy gods, o israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt '
And dats wat d cath ch r doing. No image cn stand in place of God, Jesus or Mary. Isaiah 42:8. Rom.1:23,25.
Be warn, 4 thou r inexcusable on dat day.

asco15: I just had an Epiphany.
The israelites made the golden calf to represent d God dat brought dem out of d land of Egypt because dey dn't knw Him (GOD) and dn't knw hw He look. Dats y Aaron accepted d idea since dey dn't see Moses again 4 a long time and they worship the image, thinking they are worshiping the God that brought them out of the land of Egypt. No wonder they dn't call d image Baal or name it after any gods but they name it after the God dat brought dem out of Egypt. And still God was angry with dem.
Read Exodus 32.
Ex.32:4' and he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf; and they said, These be thy gods, o israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt '
And dats wat d cath ch r doing. No image cn stand in place of God, Jesus or Mary. Isaiah 42:8. Rom.1:23,25.
Be warn, 4 thou r inexcusable on dat day.

u ar on point. I love ur post. One day they will be free from d shackles of idolatory and pagan practices.

adsonstone:
Can you please keep quiet if you don't have anything to say!
The same cock and bull story you have said over and over.
Again, go and read the bible history.

Didnt you also say the Catholic Church probably compiled the Bible? How is it "cock and bull" to affirm what you know but are ashamed to admit? Isnt it you that should be quiet about something you admit you are unsure of?

It is from history that we know that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Or do you want to show me Deeper Life's concocted version of "Bible history?"

Go ahead! I'll read it.

Q. How do you know Jesus ever mentioned "scriptures?"

A. You read it in the Bible the Catholic Church gave you. Precisely in the books that Jesus never mentioned but the Catholic Church gave you.

adsonstone:
I never said they were Deeper life members in the first place.
Go check them out yourself on wikipedia. I don't know how you (perhaps) concluded that they were all catholics.

Oh! I thought the Early Church Fathers should have been part of God's true and infallible Church which you say is Deeper Life. You cannot show us how they were Deeper Life members...and you cannot show us even one of the "many" that weren't Catholic. Somebody is learning how to be dubious and double mouthed from his boss!

Now Clement of Rome was the 4th Pope. How Catholic can the Church Fathers be?

adsonstone:
If you haven't read and understood the history of the bible and the compilation, you don't need to keep talking.

How else could I have known if I never read it somewhere or I wasn't told.
I wonder how you got your conclusion that the bible was conpiled by the catholic church as you claimed if you never read it somewhere or you weren't told by someone.

I am simply saying tell me who told you or where you read it from that the Bible was compiled by the Church in Rome. Why are you always scared to expose the information you have to critical analysis? Isnt it because they are often lies and untruths?

I noticed how you refused to tell me if God's infallible Church is the one that was founded by Kumuyi in 1973.

Roman Catholics are still liars. And the local ones obviously learned from their fraudulent and degenerate "popes" who have been lying for centuries.

Anyway, no matter how much Roman Catholics try to lie about the origin of the Bible the historical fact remains that it was NOT the Roman catholic church denomination that gave us the Bible.

The Roman Catholic church denomination did not even formalise its own canon till the 16th century. Even at their Trent council they did not know which Latin version (i.e. supposedly their own Latin Vulgate) was authentic. Then the mumu "pope" Sixtus V botched up an attempt to come up with an authoritative Vulgate as Trent required; it was declared infallible and then within months declared fallible again!

Nothing that the fraudulent Roman Catholics can lay claim to as where they "established the canon" comes before Athanasius' Festal Letter of AD 367 where he set out the canon of the Bible -- and even said it had been handed down. And Athanasius was NOT a Roman Catholic.

One of the frauds even used style style to claim Origen earlier on. Meanwhile Origen was Not a Roman Catholic. In fact, the Roman Catholics regard Origen as a heretic. See how much fraud they resort to when they even claim someone they officially regard as a heretic!

In fact, fraud lies at the root of the whole of Roman Catholicism --- it stinks.

For centuries they used fraudulent documents to fool others including other Christians and even kings and state officials.

For a start, the only document they can produce which suggests that Peter was a "bishop of Rome" is now well known to be a forgery.

Otherwise, the "church fathers" that they would want to rely on do not say that Peter was a "bishop of Rome". They base their modern list of "popes" on Irenaeus but he doesn't say Peter was "bishop of Rome"; he says Peter and Paul selected Linus.

But other "church fathers" contradict that because they thought Clement was the first bishop having been placed in the chair by Peter. This seems to be because some of them were also fooled by the Roman Catholic forged document. That document is called Pseudo-Clementine;

Here is what one Catholic Professor said about the work : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature
"The Old Catholic Professor Joseph Langen in 1890 elaborated a new theory. Until the destruction of Jerusalem in 135, he says, that city was the centre of the Christian Church. A new pivot was then needed. The Church of the capital made a bold bid for the vacant post of pre-eminence. Shortly after 135 was published the original form of the Clementine romance. It was a Roman forgery, claiming for the Church of Peter the succession to a part of the headship of the Church of James. James indeed had been "bishop of bishops", and Peter's successor could not claim to be more than Peter was among the Apostles, primus inter pares. The Roman attempt was eventually successful, but not without a struggle."


The other forged document, the one with which they even fooled kings among others is called the Donation of Constantine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

"The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy."

Roman catholic church denomination #forgerymasters

italo:

Didnt you also say the Catholic Church probably compiled the Bible? How is it "cock and bull" to affirm what you know but are ashamed to admit? Isnt it you that should be quiet about something you admit you are unsure of?

It is from history that we know that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. Or do you want to show me Deeper Life's concocted version of "Bible history?"

Go ahead! I'll read it

yes, I said the church in Rome (probably catholic) because the books of the bible were agreed upon and compiled as a result of a meeting. I really think you should read on the bible history.

italo:
Q. How do you know Jesus ever mentioned "scriptures?"

A. You read it in the Bible the Catholic Church gave you. Precisely in the books that Jesus never mentioned but the Catholic Church gave you.

*yawning*..... same old story.

italo:
Oh! I thought the Early Church Fathers should have been part of God's true and infallible Church which you say is Deeper Life. You cannot show us how they were Deeper Life members...and you cannot show us even one of the "many" that weren't Catholic. Somebody is learning how to be dubious and double mouthed from his boss!

Now Clement of Rome was the 4th Pope. How Catholic can the Church Fathers be?

I referred you back to your study on this issue (simply cos I'm out of my phone issues) and now, you are back without studying.

italo:
I am simply saying tell me who told you or where you read it from that the Bible was compiled by the Church in Rome. Why are you always scared to expose the information you have to critical analysis? Isnt it because they are often lies and untruths?

Read article on the history of the bible on wikipedia, I also read it there.

italo:
I noticed how you refused to tell me if God's infallible Church is the one that was founded by Kumuyi in 1973.

If you don't know this, you should know now.
The church Christ found is 'The Christian Church' which Deeper life is part of and not the 'catholic' church as you claimed.

@adsonstone

Please let me help clarify a few things.

adsonstone:
yes, I said the church in Rome (probably catholic) because the books of the bible were agreed upon and compiled as a result of a meeting. I really think you should read on the bible history.

Sorry, this is not quite correct.

Let me start with the Roman Catholic position. The Roman Catholic church denomination claims it held a council in AD382 in Rome which produced a list of Bible books. It is now widely accepted that the list is a forgery. Next they rely on regional African synods of Hippo and Carthage of between 393 AD and 416 AD. Here again, they are deceiving themselves as those synods were NOT Roman Catholic synods; they were African synods!

Now even BEFORE any of the above, Athanasius produced a list in AD 367 i.e. 15 years before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim!

One of the interesting things about Athanasius' list is something that he himself said about it: he referred to his list as:

"the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine"

And he also said he was talking about:

the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers

Notice a number of things about Athanasius' list

1. The Roman Catholics never claim it (it refutes them in some respects e.g. it differs from their own Bible or canon).
2. It shows that even without any council Christians had essentially decided on the books of the Christian canon. Remember that the earliest council that the Roman Catholics claim came 15 years later than Athanasius' list.
3. Athanasius gives us an insight into and confirms the scholarly and Christian understanding of the development of the New Testament canon especially: it was originally based on use and acceptance i.e. what Christian churches regarded as canonical, and what they regarded as helpful though not canonical, and what they rejected.


I will try and dig up some old posts for you and also give you some links in a following post. I will also read your post again to see if there is anything else I can also address.

adsonstone: ....
The church Christ found is 'The Christian Church' which Deeper life is part of and not the 'catholic' church as you claimed.

Indeed the Church that Jesus founded is the Church of Christ aka The Christian Church.

There is a Wikipedia entry on The Christian Church here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

It starts like this:

"The term Christian Church when used as a proper noun usually refers to the whole Christian religious tradition throughout history. When used in this way the term does not refer to a particular denomination or to a building."

I have bolded the bit that says the Christian Church does not refer to a particular denomination or building.

One of the first things to note is that the English word "church" is part of the problem unintentionally. And it is the abuse of that word that can only allow any pompous group whether they be the Roman Catholic church denomination or another to claim to be the only or true "church".

The word tanslated "church" is the Greek 'ekklesia'. However that word really means assembly or even more properly/technically the called out. Christians are "the called out" because they are called out to be separate i.e. to be holy, i.e. consecrated for God Himself.

So imagine if 'ekklesia' had been only translated to mean 'the called out' and then understand how ridiculous or idiotic and more crucially how unbiblical the Roman Catholic church denomination or any other denomination sounds when they claim that they are the only "called out"!

There is indeed another Greek word that really means "church" in the sense of a building etc i.e. 'kyriakos' (kyriakos oikos). You can even see the linguistic connection to various other language forms rooting to the English "church" e.g. 'kirk' to take just one example.

Double post

[/quote]f you don't know this, you should know now.
The church Christ found is 'The Christian Church' which Deeper life is part of and not the 'catholic' church as you claimed [quote]

Bros I can see you are gradually getting mature in your lying? Seriously dude Deeper life was part of tis christian church? Do you mind telling me the beleifs and structure of this church in the first four centuries of christianity? Do you mind telling me just four members of these church who lived in these centuries let us compare their teachings to the deeper life church we have today?

I wait to see how you wriggle out of this.Hope you realise that even the orthodox church whom you are trying to identify is almost 100% identical with the catholic church? You really make me laugh ,the use of images and marian intercessory prayers are even more common in the orthopx churches than in the catholic church.The only place they disgree with the catholic church is just over the authourity of the pope and a few other doctrines like the filo que clause except you mean to tell me that your problem is with the term 'catholic' and not the beleifs and practices,

NB The catholic church is synonymous with the roman catholic church as the two terms are used interchangeably

Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with 1.2 billion faithfuls

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

The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification.[5

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

Ukuts gp: Meanwhile d scripture i gave u to explain are still pending. There is knowledge to be gained from it. Avoiding them will not do u good. Ok.

Bros are you seriously sure you are mentally okay? Who do you expect to dig up those lenghty no of scriptures for you? Why don't you paste them here yourself if you are serious?

[/quote]ude also quoted from the scriptures in his letter which that section is not found in the books of the ot due to reasons which I don't know. (Perhaps, they were lost or unavailable as at when the other books were agreed on and compiled. [quote]

So finally you agree that the words 'scriptures' in the bible is not synonymous with the bible we have today

@Chukwu

no way the word scriptures in the bible is not synonymous with the OT or bible.The OT and bible are only subsets of the the term scriptures.
so many other scripures were mentioned or quoted in the bible that were not among the books canonised by the catholic church.

Jannes and Jambres: "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes's and Jambres's folly was also." 2 Timothy 3:8-9

And he went and lived in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”-Mattew 2:23

where in the OT did SS Paul and Mattew get this story and quotations from? hope you dont mind telling us.

1. Paul could have been mentioning the names of the pagan priests who challenged Moses in the house of Pharoah. other historic books confirm that some of his priest then had such names.

2. Centuries in advance, the Bible foretold that the Messiah would be “a Nazarene.” Gospel writer Matthew says that Jesus’ family came to dwell in “Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’” (Matthew 2:19-23) The name Nazarene seems to be related to the Hebrew word for “sprout.” Evidently, Matthew was referring to Isaiah’s prophecy that called the Messiah “a sprout” out of Jesse, meaning that the Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse, father of King David. (Isaiah 11:1) Jesus was, in fact, a descendant of Jesse through David

@Catholics.

1. When you say you 'made' the bible, what do you mean?

2. when you say you are the first church, what do you mean?

Ah, some early morning amusement.

First of all when Roman Catholics talk or boast about numbers, many of them are ignorant that they might be subjecting themselves to a curse. Here is what one "pope" said:

"To one who says, 'Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material strength,' let him be anathema." "pope" Pius IX

Second, when Roman Catholics claim to be "the Catholic Church", they are lying and trying to deceive. Of course, the Eastern Orthodox too call themselves Catholic i.e. Orthodox Catholic Church. Ask the Roman Catholics if the Eastern Orthodox are part of the Catholic Church.

Meanwhile, it was this same Eastern Orthodox who did all or most of the things that Roman Catholics are laying claim to fraudulently.
See here for examples: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

And as for the question above which I quote below, considering that there are many examples of Roman Catholics not only saying that "they" compiled the Bible but also saying that they wrote the Bible, well doesn't anyone know that the Roman Catholic church denomination existed loong before Jesus Christ? Afterall both the Old Testament and the Apocrypha were written well before Jesus Christ was born ---- by Roman Catholics!

JMAN05: @Catholics.

1. When you say you 'made' the bible, what do you mean?

2. when you say you are the first church, what do you mean?

chukwudi44: f you don't know this, you should know now.
The church Christ found is 'The Christian Church' which Deeper life is part of and not the 'catholic' church as you claimed

Bros I can see you are gradually getting mature in your lying? Seriously dude Deeper life was part of tis christian church? Do you mind telling me the beleifs and structure of this church in the first four centuries of christianity? Do you mind telling me just four members of these church who lived in these centuries let us compare their teachings to the deeper life church we have today?

I wait to see how you wriggle out of this.Hope you realise that even the orthodox church whom you are trying to identify is almost 100% identical with the catholic church? You really make me laugh ,the use of images and marian intercessory prayers are even more common in the orthopx churches than in the catholic church.The only place they disgree with the catholic church is just over the authourity of the pope and a few other doctrines like the filo que clause except you mean to tell me that your problem is with the term 'catholic' and not the beleifs and practices,

NB The catholic church is synonymous with the roman catholic church as the two terms are used interchangeably

Catholic Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the world's largest Christian church, with 1.2 billion faithfuls

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

The terms "Romish Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", along with "Popish Catholic", were brought into use in the English language chiefly by adherents of the Church of England, which saw itself as the Catholic Church in England, so that they were not willing to concede the term Catholic to their opponents without qualification. [5

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_(term)

And they are still telling lies to justify the actions of their Adulterous founder.

And yet the Roman Catholics continue to lie expressly or by concealment --- continuing in the fraudulent tradition of their "popes" and "fathers" who were forging documents to deceive the world.

For a start, the Roman Catholic church denomination calls itself ---- the Roman Catholic Church, or even simply the Roman Church.

The last two or three "popes" all did it. Their Church documents do it; and even when they announced the current "pope" they did it.

Of course it is fair for other knowledgeable people to call them what they are ---- no matter their Wikipedia propaganda. So whether it is Roman, Roman Catholic, Romish or even papist --- they are all these things. They are especially "papist" because they place their "popes" above Jesus Christ and agree with their "popes" when the "popes" say only those who submit to the "pope" can be saved! What Jesus Christ said ---- does not matter to them of course. Common idolaters!

Meanwhile, it is not wise to let these questions get hidden away.

JMAN05: @Catholics.

1. When you say you 'made' the bible, what do you mean?

2. when you say you are the first church, what do you mean?

Syncan:


And they are still telling lies to justify the actions of their Adulterous founder.

no mind them.What do you expect from a church founded on an adulterous bed

1. Paul could have been mentioning the names of the pagan priests who challenged Moses in the house of Pharoah. other historic books confirm that some of his priest then had such names

hope you dont mind telling us about those historical books that Paul quoted

Centuries in advance, the Bible foretold that the Messiah would be “a Nazarene.” Gospel writer Matthew says that Jesus’ family came to dwell in “Nazareth, that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He will be called a Nazarene.’” (Matthew 2:19-23) The name Nazarene seems to be related to the Hebrew word for “sprout.” Evidently, Matthew was referring to Isaiah’s prophecy that called the Messiah “a sprout” out of Jesse, meaning that the Messiah would be a descendant of Jesse, father of King David. (Isaiah 11:1) Jesus was, in fact, a descendant of Jesse through David

bros just tell us which scripture Mattew quoted shikena.Isaiah's prophecy never said "he shall be called a nazarene" stop twisting the scriptures

adsonstone:
yes, I said the church in Rome (probably catholic) because the books of the bible were agreed upon and compiled as a result of a meeting. I really think you should read on the bible history.

*yawning*..... same old story.

adsonstone:
Read article on the history of the bible on wikipedia, I also read it there.

To make life easier for us... You said the Church in Rome compiled the Bible in the 4th century. There was no Church in Rome other than the Catholic Church under a Pope (Bishop of Rome)...and Pope Francis is his direct successor.

But I would still like to see where Wikipedia told you that. I have searched Wikipedia and cant find it. Could you please give me the exact quote they
used. If I have that, I'll find the exact spot it is on Wikipedia. I have a strong feeling that you're lying again...just like when you said I called one "Enigma" "liar" but have failed to produce the quote.

That even goes to show that you aren't to be discussed with or taken seriously. You would rather just lie without remorse than accept the truth.

adsonstone:
I referred you back to your study on this issue (simply cos I'm out of my phone issues) and now, you are back without studying.

But it is Wikipedia that says that Clement of Rome is the number 1 Apostolic Father. He was ordained by Simon Peter. He was the 4th Pope. You, on the other hand cannot show us which one of the Church Fathers wasn't Catholic. As usual, you just find it easier to lie than to accept the truth. Studies continue to show the Catholic Church to be the one Jesus founded on the apostles.

adsonstone:
If you don't know this, you should know now.
The church Christ found is 'The Christian Church' which Deeper life is part of and not the 'catholic' church as you claimed.

The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded on his apostles 2000 years ago. Many of the early Church Fathers were ordained by the apostles themselves or their successors by laying of hands. This apostolic succession has continued to this day and Pope Francis, the Bishops and Priests are the direct successors of the apostles. The other Church Fathers were lay people in the Catholic Church.

Deeper Life Bible Church is the "church" Kumuyi founded in 1973. It has no link to the one Christ founded. It was founded after Kumuyi broke away from Apostolic Faith Church, another "church" with no link to Christ's 2000 year-old Church. The AFC was founded by Florence Crawford in 1906. Before Kumuyi attended this AFC, he used to attend another "church" which was founded by King Henry VIII when he broke away from Jesus' Catholic Church because he wanted a free license to engage in continual adultery, which Jesus' Catholic Church wouldn't give him.

These are verifiable facts I'm giving you. Not like you who just tells lies and would do anything to shield your lies from investigation.

italo: @ Ukuts gp,

Just to bring back my questions that.
When and where did God say that the book of Mark is inspired and the Acts of Peter is not?

Sal C: Answering these^^^ questions honestly will open many peoples' eyes.

Nope, Italos question is fales and decetful from its base.

The early christians of 1ce who lived with the apostles and who received those writings, mark, acts etc knew the writers and hence considers them as inspired. This were all done befor the end of 1ce, befor the word "chatholic" was used the first time in the 2ce, and this books where used for teaching by the 1st century christians.

It is note worthy that all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles, hence, colation of this apostolic writings was a straigth forward thing since none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles.

The OT was fully complete befor the 1st ce, and was written exclusively by Yahweh prophet, Yahweh anointed kings. The livites. Qed.
All this writers are Jews.

So, anything done after 1ce has nothing to do with this unique collections of books that where there during the times of the apostles.

It is the Jews tradition to keep the writings of their prophets and anointed kings, and the NT writers are also Jews.

Did they wait for Canonisation befor keeping the books of the prophets of the OT ? No.

Why then will they have to wait for the canonisation of the writing of the Apostles for them to consider the apostolic writings as inspired befor collation ?

Why will the books written by Jews have to wait to be canonised by gentiles about 400yrs later ?

If you swallow Italos lies, you are gradually on your way to atheism.

Roman Catholic lies are beginning to unravel small small!

If Clement was[b]fourth[/b] "pope", how could he have been ordained by "Peter"?

Peter when don die tay tay before the dates that the liars claim Clement became "pope"?

Meanwhile who then ordained Linus and Anacletus (or Clarus and Giringory) who were supposed to be the first two "popes". Oh and on their count relying on Irenaeus, clement would actually be third "pope" not fourth --- since Peter was not counted as a "pope". We know Peter was NEVER a "pope"; and there is NO proof whatsoever that Peter was "bishop of Rome". In fact, the Bible and historical facts refute that.

Later on we will see how the Bible itself refutes the LIE that Peter was ever "pope" or even bishop of Rome.