Bros, when it comes to scriptures na another matter for our friends oh! Na that time dem go rememba "tradition".

Scripture says to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved. Our friends say no! Dem say "tradition" says pesin must submit to the Roman pontiff to be saved.

But now wey tradition shows us how we got our Bible, dem say dem nor want know whether na scriptures oh or whether na tradition. Dem want "councils" --- councils of forgery and fake claims of "ratification". Na wa for awa people dem oh!

Ukuts gp: I really hv to say well done to Enigma 4 exposing these historical lies pasted by chukwudi and italo on this thread to deceive the gullible. That was why they are ignoring him. It is clear now that italo and his crew knows nothing but historical jagons passed on to them by those liars. They dnt even know scripture, all they know is mere unverified history they know nothing about. All those copy and paste they do cant save them unless they truly repent and come to jesus the saviour of mankind.

silent is the best answer givn to a fool.

So u blv all those trash dat enigma has bin postin.. Smh

woky: silent is the best answer givn to a fool.

So u blv all those trash dat enigma has bin postin.. Smh

I hope you know that if I'm talking trash then the Roman Catholic church denomination is talking trash too?

Let me give you too examples.

1. I say that Jerome did not regard the Apocrypha as part of the canon. If you say that is trash, the Roman Catholic denomination is talking trash too. You should check its Encyclopaedia.

2. I say that "pope" Gregory I did not regard some books of the Apocrypha as part of the canon. If you say that is trash, the Roman Catholic denomination is talking trash too. You should check its Encyclopaedia.

woky: silent is the best answer givn to a fool.

So u blv all those trash dat enigma has bin postin.. Smh

but u want me to believe your own abi? Which is lies.

italo:

Yet Truthislife (Protestant) insists that Mark and Luke arent inspired books.

I cant remember making such ^^^ statement as above.

I had said: the teaching of the NT are made by christ apostles.

So, your statement above is another of your usual twisting that is not the truth/facts.

However, the writings of mark, luke(acts of the apostles) are reported history.

Mark = history/gosple of christ.
Luke(acts) = history of the apostles.

Both ^ are repoted history.

Whichever way you look at it, what i had stated is the simple truth.

Meanwhile, reading the acts of the apostle, you will get a testimony for those men and their activities in the early christian congregation, they were with the apostles and traveled with them and hence wrote wthat they saw.

Peace

The next phase is to let Origen,Eusebius,Athanasius e.t.c speak for themselves on if they belonged to the catholic church or adhered to catholic teachings especially on the primacy of st peter

truthislight:
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.

italo:
Yet Truthislife (Protestant) insists that Mark and Luke arent inspired books.

truthislight:

I cant remember making such ^^^ statement as above.

I had said: the teaching of the NT are made by christ apostles.

So, your statement above is another of your usual twisting that is not the truth/facts.

However, the writings of mark, luck(acts of the apostles) are reported history.

Mark = history/gosple of christ.
Luke(acts) = history of the apostles.

Both ^ are repoted history.

Whichever way you look at it, what i had stated is the simple truth.

Meanwhile, reading the acts of the apostle, you will get a testimony for those men and their activities in the early christian congregation, they were with the apostles and traveled with them and hence wrote wthat they saw.

Peace

Ha!

"all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles"

"none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles."

italo:

For starters, I requested many things, including proof of your LIE against me. This is at least the fifth time I'm requesting this.

Lets see if you have any integrity left.

Why should anyone engage a shameless liar in any reasonable discussion?

What stops you from saying white is black or red is blue or Pope Francis is not Catholic?

You'll just keep lying your way around, wont you?

Like teacher, like student.

Now that you cant refute the truth that these people that arent catholics, I noticed how you divulged whats on hand (which you always do when you see truth) and resorted to the 'I said you called Enigma a liar' which you generalised after Enigma's comment by saying that protestants find it easy to tell blatant lies against catholics.

I also noticed you have carefully refused to reproof Enigma as you have been doing before you were exposed.

By the way, the bolded is totally unreasonable.

@Chukwudi44,
I am not surprised at your comment insisting those men were catholics since you guys also refer to apostle Peter as the first Pope and other apostles as catholics (just as you brother Italo said), besides, to crown it all, your brother Italo also declared the churches mentioned in the book of Revelation catholic churches so, I'm not surprised at your comment cos you guys find it easy to conclude what is not.

And Peter , on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' (Matt. 16:18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed. (6.25. -Origen of alexandria

http://www.ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml

adsonstone: @Chukwudi44,
I am not surprised at your comment insisting those men were catholics since you guys also refer to apostle Peter as the first Pope and other apostles as catholics (just as you brother Italo said), besides, to crown it all, your brother Italo also declared the churches mentioned in the book of Revelation catholic churches so, I'm not surprised at your comment cos you guys find it easy to conclude what is not.

Bros are you alright? Did I make any comment there are catholics or did I allow those men to speak for themselves? Did Jerome not call Pope Damasus the successor of the fisherman? Is it not the same Jerome whom you said were not catholics? Jerome was even a secretary to the pope.How about Cyprian who wrote a lenghnty epistle "On the unity of the catholic church" so after reading his writings you insist there are not catholics or you did not bother to read @ all?

You ignoramuses must understand that these men left us a lot of writings which contained their beleifs and any barefaced liar against them in the middle of this internet age would not fly

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter�s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9�10 [A.D. 312]). ~Eusebius of Cesearea

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

Liars have claimed that these early church councils were that of the entire christian church and not just catholics.A shameless liar even claimed that deeper life church founded in 1973 was part of these church councils Lol

Well canon 22 of the council of carthage in 419CE puts these liars to shame

It is even more interesting to note that the resolutions of these church council was sent to the then Pope Boniface specifically recognised for confirmation..

Canon 22. (Greek xxv.)

That bishops or other clergymen shall give nothing to those who are not Catholics

And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

chukwudi44:

Bros are you alright? Did I make any comment there are catholics or did I allow those men to speak for themselves? Did Jerome not call Pope Damasus the successor of the fisherman? Is it not the same Jerome whom you said were not catholics? Jerome was even a secretary to the pope.How about Cyprian who wrote a lenghnty epistle "On the unity of the catholic church" so after reading his writings you insist there are not catholics or you did not bother to read @ all?

You ignoramuses must understand that these men left us a lot of writings which contained their beleifs and any barefaced liar against them in the middle of this internet age would not fly

Haba Brother Chukwudi,
is it the same epistle that he wrote on 'the unity of the church' you have fraudulently included 'catholic' just as the other users (posters) on various catholic sites all over the internet?
Again, I'm not surprised about your twist.
Your brother Italo also twisted an epistle of Apostle Paul to defend the superiority of the (catholic) church's decisons over what is written in the epistle for the church to follow.

adsonstone:

Haba Brother Chukwudi,
is it the same epistle that he wrote on 'the unity of the church' you have fraudulently included 'catholic' just as the other users (posters) on various catholic sites all over the internet?
Again, I'm not surprised about your twist.
Your brother Italo also twisted an epistle of Apostle Paul to defend the superiority of the (catholic) church's decisons over what is written in the epistle for the church to follow.

Olodo did you bother to read the contents of that treatise? Is it in consonance with the protestant church? The title of that treatise is called "on the unity of the catholic church"

Do not accuse me of twisting any scripture as I am merely quoting these church fathers.

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14)

Here cyprian goes ahead to mention the roman church as the source of that unity


"The Lord says to Peter: �I say to you,� he says, �that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . � [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm


The big question for you now adsonstone is are you in unity with this chair of peter? If you are not then cyprian has the condemnation for you.

There's no need for anyone who has integrity to keep discussing with you if you cannot be held accountable for your words.

You have told two lies against me and can neither provide evidence nor accept that they are false.

1. That I believe the Church is superior to Christ's word.

2. That I called one "Enigma" "liar."

If anyone continues to discuss with you, you will just continue telling lies that are plain to see, yet fail to admit the falsehood nor provide evidence.

For a normal Child of God, calling black white or calling Pope Francis a non-Catholic would be unreasonable, but not for you. You have told similar lies already.

You are indeed a good student of your master.

adsonstone:

Now that you cant refute the truth that these people that arent catholics, I noticed how you divulged whats on hand (which you always do when you see truth) and resorted to the 'I said you called Enigma a liar' which you generalised after Enigma's comment by saying that protestants find it easy to tell blatant lies against catholics.

I also noticed you have carefully refused to reproof Enigma as you have been doing before you were exposed.

By the way, the bolded is totally unreasonable.

The same lie again.

I have never said the decisions of the Catholic Church are superior to what written...and you cannot provide evidence. Please stop bearing false witness. It is a sin.

God's Church Traditions are in unison with God's written word, not in competition.

It was St. Paul that said "hold fast to the traditions we have handed down to you by word of mouth or by letter." It wasn't Italo.

Please stop telling lies against me.

adsonstone:

Haba Brother Chukwudi,
is it the same epistle that he wrote on 'the unity of the church' you have fraudulently included 'catholic' just as the other users (posters) on various catholic sites all over the internet?
Again, I'm not surprised about your twist.
Your brother Italo also twisted an epistle of Apostle Paul to defend the superiority of the (catholic) church's decisons over what is written in the epistle for the church to follow.

This one has nothing else meaningful to say. Na to dey lie and deny truth without any evidence remain for am.

Just look at his posts. What useful information has he brought forward?

ZERO or next to ZERO.

chukwudi44:
Olodo did you bother to read the contents of that treatise? Is it in consonance with the protestant church? The title of that treatise is called "on the unity of the catholic church"

Do not accuse me of twisting any scripture as I am merely quoting these church fathers.

Where had I been replying the "Enigma" on this thread? Please show me.

Isnt this another cheap lie?

Please just be quiet and read from the Church Fathers.

adsonstone:
I also noticed you have carefully refused to reproof Enigma as you have been doing before you were exposed.

@Italo (The man that has all the integrity), don't lay false allegations against me. Read what you quoted, did I say you take the Catholic Church over the words of Christ? Afterall, when I asked you, you rather diverted (mixed up the whole thing) by saying the head of the church is not in competition with the church.
What's in that quote reads 'you twisted an epistle of Apostle Paul to defend the superiority of the (catholic) church's decision over the epistles written to guide the church' which you actually did. You don't need to deny, it won't help you.

By the way, I never even said you have been replying Enigma, I said you have 'carefully refused to reproof (speak contrary to what He says) since you were exposed.'

italo:





Ha!

"all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles"

"none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles."

So, to you, the content of mark was of mark's originality or he was quoting what Jesus said ?

If comprehension is your problem, say so.

Luke reported what the apostles said and did in the book of acts, not his teachings.

Learn how to read and comprehen please.

There is nothing like the "succession of the 'leader' of christians and the apostles" since one is their learder : Jesus christ.

That ^ truth, peter and the rest of the apostles were well aware of, sucession as leader talk is human creation.

adsonstone: @Italo (The man that has all the integrity), don't lay false allegations against me. Read what you quoted, did I say you take the Catholic Church over the words of Christ?

I'm not like you who lives for lies. Here's your quote below. I have proof for what I say, unlike you.

adsonstone:
Now his prophecy which was recorded in the bible has become a reference for you (I suppose that the reference should be from the Catholic Church since you take it to be superior to the recorded words of the Head of the Church)

adsonstone:
Afterall, when I asked you, you rather diverted (mixed up the whole thing) by saying the head of the church is not in competition with the church.
What's in that quote reads 'you twisted an epistle of Apostle Paul to defend the superiority of the (catholic) church's decision over the epistles written to guide the church' which you actually did. You don't need to deny, it won't help you.

As usual, a false allegation. No evidence of how and where I twisted St. Paul's epistle to defend the superiority of the Church over scripture. No evidence that I even believe the Church is superior to scripture. It's like saying Nigeria is superior to the constitution. Is Nigeria competing with its own constitution which it put together? I'm not daft.

Just lies...nothing to prove it.

adsonstone:
By the way, I never even said you have been replying Enigma, I said you have 'carefully refused to reproof (speak contrary to what He says) since you were exposed.'

When and where did I reproof the "Enigma" on this thread? When and where was I exposed? When and where did I stop reproofing him?

For you information I have not been reading 95% of what he's posting.

It's obvious you have nothing to add to this thread other than cheap lies and wild allegations without any evidence.

You've heard the early Church Fathers affirm the Pope, the Catholic Church, devotion to Mary, the Sacraments etc.

But because you live for lies, you would rather say they are Deeper Life members than Catholics.

So give me a new lie to muse over. The old ones are getting stale.

truthislight:

So, to you, the content of mark was of mark's originality or he was quoting what Jesus said ?

If comprehension is your problem, say so.

Luke reported what the apostles said and did in the book of acts, not his teachings.

Learn how to read and comprehen please.

"all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles"

Is that statement of yours true or false?

Bros abeg I take God name beg you "do not accuse me falsely".

I said the apostles did not use any bible.I never said the apostles did not use any scriptures.The words scriptures and bibles are not synonyms and must not be used interchangeably.

The bible is simply a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourt century

in short you make me laugh. who told you all these?

” BIBLE is derived from the Greek word bi·bli′a, which means “little books.” This, in turn, is derived from bi′blos, a word describing the inner part of the papyrus plant from which, in ancient times, a “paper” for writing was produced. (The Phoenician port of Gebal, through which papyrus was imported from Egypt, came to be called Byblos by the Greeks. See Joshua 13:5, footnote.) Various written communications upon this type of material became known by the word bi·bli′a. Thus, bi·bli′a came to describe any writings, scrolls, books, documents, or scriptures or even a library collection of little books.

Was Paul talking about collection of books canonised by the catholic church at 2Tim. 4:13?

13 When you come, bring the cloak I left at Tro′as with Carpus, and the scrolls [greek biblia], especially the parchments.

Is John 5:39 not talking about a collection of books as scriptures?

39 “YOU are searching the Scriptures, because YOU think that by means of them YOU will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me.

Sorry if you saw that as an accusation, in short i intentionally did it so as to check your knowledge.

I wonder how the catholic made the bible for Paul and Jesus. you no be kid o.

italo:


"all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles"

Is that statement of yours true or false?

I think you made a mistake there, ie if by the word apostles, you mean 12 apostles and Paul.

^^^

Now, you're saying the Bible is just any writing at all.

It is obvious you and us are not in the same world.

The Punch newspaper that comes out tomorrow morning is the Bible to you.

Your birth certificate is the Bible to you.

We are not in the same world, brother.

JMAN05:

I think you made a mistake there, ie if by the word apostles, you mean 12 apostles and Paul.

Stop helping him twist the meaning of his lie. He meant the 12 and Paul at most.

If he meant apostles in a broad sense, then can you help him explain what he means by:


"all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles"

"none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles."

Who is an apostle and who isnt?

italo:

"none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles."[/b]

The apocriphals has no basis.

Stop chasing shadows.

Next you will mention James since you dont know he was also an apostle. Smh.

Please who is an apostle?

What is the criteria for been an apostle?

Ow many apostles does Jesus have?

Was Paul also an apostle?

Why are Mark and Luke not regarded as apostles?

Truthislight abeg help me answer these questions.

truthislight:

The apocriphals has no basis.

Stop chasing shadows.

Next you will mention James since you dont know he was also an apostle. Smh.

This man don dey talk gibberish o. Wetin concern shadow, apocryphal and James with wetin I ask you?

truthislight:

all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles

none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles.

Is the above true or false?