@ Drummaboy

Roman Catholics like to denigrate Luther in particular. But while Luther like all men was not perfect, thank God for what he did and his triggering of the Reformation.

Interestingly, some major Roman Catholics who were more faithful to Bible lessons and even "tradition" agreed with Luther on a number of things.

Gombs:


Your post reeks of utter defeat. Enigma is really giving you a hard time. ....

You will have to forgive me for not heeding your advice (at least for this post) but I call some of them my crybabies. In fact one of them has just made a dig at me two or three posts or so above.

Enigma: @ Drummaboy

Roman Catholics like to denigrate Luther in particular. But while Luther like all men was not perfect, thank God for what he did and his triggering of the Reformation.

Interestingly, some major Roman Catholics who were more faithful to Bible lessons and even "tradition" agreed with Luther on a number of things.

I can understand that.

Pls can you make out time to visit this thread, some may need your insight there. Thanks: https://www.nairaland.com/1524447/inviting-tithers-non-tithers-one-go

adsonstone:

but Italo stated that other traditions have their principles in the bible...and my post mentions 'christians following all principles found in the bible' (re-phrased)....

....and on the other hand, what are these other traditions that they don't follow.

They are claiming to follow...or rather following their personal interpretations of "everything with its principle in the Bible."

After all, if they were actually following all Biblical principles like you say, they wouldn't have a bilion denominations.

An example: the Church has always believed Holy Communion to be the Body and blood of Christ but they believe differently and aren't even united in their belief...yet they are all "following all Bible principles.

italo:
We also have the following books:
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Truth
Gospel of the Twelve
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Basilides
Gospel of the Egyptians
Gospel of the Hebrews
Gospel of Matthias
Traditions of Matthias
Preaching of Peter
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Paul
Acts of John
Epistle to the Laodiceans
I Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
Didache
Shepherd of Hermas
Apocalypse of Peter

Why are these 'apostolic' books not in the NT with the 27?
Who wrote Hebrews? Which Apostle?

why dont we have the all the apocryphal books in your bible?


The author of the epistle to the hebrews is not identified in the epistle.

italo:
Apostolic Tradition=Catholic Church Tradition and I have shown why in my reply to truthislight.

But if you reject it, then tell me the following:

1. Where the Holy Spirit mentioned that we must follow the "apostles's" tradition.
2. We must "not follow Catholic tradition."
3. We must "not follow canon tradition."
4. Where the Holy Spirit told you that Mark wrote "Mark" and Luke wrote "Luke" and that those books were inspired by him.
5. Who is an apostle and where did the Holy Spirit tell you that?

1. Is this not the same you have been saying over and over 'the Holy spirit tell us to hold fast to traditions' or has it been changed?

2, 3. I'll show you if you'll also show me where the Holy Spirit commands us to follow 'catholic traditions', 'canon traditions'.

4. Where did the Holy Spirit indicate that the book of Job was inspired by Him and why did you guys adopt it if wasnt indicated?

5. As far as the bible is concerned, Apostles refer to themselves as Apostles and other too refer to them as Apostles.

italo:
It depends on what you mean by "silent." That the Bible is silent about something or not can be a very vague expression. E.g there are people who believe the Bible is silent on Trinity simply because they dont find the word there.

what I mean by 'silent' ; the bible doesnt mention it explicitly neither does it give any hint on the subject matter.

italo:
Also, you have previously stated more than once that you are infallible.

Does this mean that you are always correct with whatever you say or teach on faith and morals; and whenever you interpret scripture?

Or could you possibly be wrong on at least one of your teachings and interpretations of scripture?

Infallible following the Holy Spirit's guidance.....

Gombs:


Your post reeks of utter defeat. Enigma is really giving you a hard time.


Anyways you shd consider changing this your signature

Catholic for life-Existing since 33CE,Compiler of the
bible,the world's most populous and most organised
religious organisation!!The world's greatest charity
organisation



Never knew if I didn't submit to the Catholic Church's doctrine then I'm damned...makes me wonder whether Jesus' death was for a select few.

Defeat ke? Any way you can go aheaad to believe that if that will make you happy.I ve got better issues to attend to anyway

DrummaBoy:

I can understand that.

Pls can you make out time to visit this thread, some may need your insight there. Thanks: https://www.nairaland.com/1524447/inviting-tithers-non-tithers-one-go

Thanks, I will try and visit the thread.

Gombs:

Umm Ubenecdictus....Enigma's right

I can fish out thread where your fellow brothers were on rampage insulting ALL that is not catholic, and you were part of the thread, and NEVER called for civility or called them to order. Now, it's pinching you and you raising a white flag.

Have you seen the venom of Chukwudi or Sal C or PopeII etc?

Anyways, enigma hit the brakes, let's just be plain and void of sarcastic verbs and adverbs.

Yes. Yes.

And you haven't seen where your Protestant brother sat himself in judgement and condemned all Catholics to hell?

Just to mention one out of your multitude of anti-Catholic threads on nairaland.

So what you expect is: you open a thread, condemn Catholics without any prior provocation, then Catholics come and kiss you?

Gombs:


Your post reeks of utter defeat. Enigma is really giving you a hard time.


Anyways you shd consider changing this your signature

Catholic for life-Existing since 33CE,Compiler of the
bible,the world's most populous and most organised
religious organisation!!The world's greatest charity
organisation



Never knew if I didn't submit to the Catholic Church's doctrine then I'm damned...makes me wonder whether Jesus' death was for a select few.

The bold is not Catholic teaching. God knows where you got it from.

Besides, who do you think will be saved?

Anyway, for the benefit of those whom it will benefit:

Roman Catholic Church: "For, it must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved ...."

versus

Jesus Christ: "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved ..."

DrummaBoy:

While I appreciate Italo's answer to this question, that the above is not a Catholic Doctrine, I must say straight away that Enigma is one of the few truest Protestants left on earth. And every Catholic must be afraid of that kind of a person.

If you know Protestant history, and the mighty doctrines that came out of the teachings of Luther and Calvin, you are truely blessed.

This is my grouse with modern day Pentecostals.

Lol... "Luther and Calvin."

Ubenedictus: the rebirth of water nd d holy spirit isn't for judaism or any other sect, it belongs to the church as established by christ on the apostles. What part do you not understand. Another quote will be, 'unless u eat my body and drink my blood you shall have no life in you' it is the church that is given e power to make bread and wine the body and blood of christ.

you have said well.

The birth of water and the spirit is for christians.....Jesus told Nicodemus when he was explaining 'being born again'.

And regarding the eucharist, does your statement mean that any christian that doesnt take it is unsaved (and perhaps, will go to hell)?

Another one:

Roman catholic Church

"No man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved"

versus

Jesus Christ

"Very truly I tell you, I am the gate for the sheep."

Syncan:

I mean when you see a virtue exhibited, eg He said something like, I am sorry, you are right. Its such a rare virtue among Christians in NL. I expected an acknowledgement. You did refer to it in a way later, and that's why i said your post seems to have a balance now. More so, you left some of his expose and commented on those you find faulty. The ones you left, are they wrong or right?

alright, I got that. Thanks.

If I have left any post untouched/unanswered, It most likely means its not contrary to what I believe.

....and any post I reply with a question is either not verifiable or does not not have a direct answer from/by me but most likely, the (honest) answer to the question (by the poster) is exactly the answer.

adsonstone:
why dont we have the all the apocryphal books in your bible?

Bros, you will agree with me that it is unfair to have me answer all your questions only for you to return mine with a question. Can you tell me why all the 'apostolic' books I listed are not in the NT...or you dont know?

adsonstone: The author of the epistle to the hebrews is not identified in the epistle.

So on what grounds is it in the NT since you said something like 'the NT is the work of the Apostles so the Church could not ignore the books?'

adsonstone: 1. Is this not the same you have been saying over and over 'the Holy spirit tell us to hold fast to traditions' or has it been changed?

You know that I asked where the Holy Spirit asked you to follow the "Apostle's" tradition. Please answer...or say you dont know if you dont know.

adsonstone: 2, 3. I'll show you if you'll also show me where the Holy Spirit commands us to follow 'catholic traditions', 'canon traditions'.

At least wait until I make that claim in bold. For now you are the one making the claim. Please tell me where the Holy Spirit said we shouldn't follow "Catholic tradition" and "canon tradition."

adsonstone: 4. Where did the Holy Spirit indicate that the book of Job was inspired by Him and why did you guys adopt it if wasnt indicated?

Again, please answer my question. Where did the Holy Spirit tell you Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and they were inspired?

adsonstone: 5. As far as the bible is concerned, Apostles refer to themselves as Apostles and other too refer to them as Apostles.

Who do you mean by "Apostles" - the bold. Simple!

adsonstone: what I mean by 'silent' ; the bible doesnt mention it explicitly neither does it give any hint on the subject matter.

Then I cant think of any Tradition (which is a doctrine) which doesnt even have any sort of hint in the Bible.

adsonstone: Though I know Tradition which have hints but many "Christians" cant see or refuse to see the hint.
[quote author=adsonstone]Infallible following the Holy Spirit's guidance.....

Again Please answer my question. Can you teach or interprete wrongly or is it impossible for you to teach and interpret wrongly even once?

You see that it is you who is refusing to answer simple questions asked you now...even as I have answered all of yours.

Should I give you another chance to prove your sincerity of intention or should I begin to take it that you are deliberately being insincere in this exchange.

I will give you another chance because I want goodwill to reign as much as possible.

Adson dear,

It's not fair for most of you guys to lambast italo for days accusing him of dodging because his faith cannot be defended; only for you guys to finally find italo answering all your questions yet you avoid his.

Pls just answer all my questions honestly. Nothing bad will happen to you. Dont be worried about saying "I dont know" or "the Holy Spirit never said that."

adsonstone:

you have said well.

The birth of water and the spirit is for christians.....Jesus told Nicodemus when he was explaining 'being born again'.

And regarding the eucharist, does your statement mean that any christian that doesnt take it is unsaved (and perhaps, will go to hell)?

i actually put the quote on 'born again' and that on the eucharist to emphasized the necessity of the sacraments as it is called in d west or e mysteries for salvation not to say one who doesn't take the eucharist is unsaved. My principle remain the church is a necessity for all who know her. All who know d truth in her and willfully seperate themselves may forget salvation. Becos d means me salvation and the fullness of the faith are found in her.

Roman Catholic Church

the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well- known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom ‘the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,’ cannot obtain eternal salvation

compared to

Apostle Paul

"If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

adsonstone:

you have said well.

The birth of water and the spirit is for christians.....Jesus told Nicodemus when he was explaining 'being born again'.

And regarding the eucharist, does your statement mean that any christian that doesnt take it is unsaved (and perhaps, will go to hell)?

Just as is the case with the necessity of belief in Jesus, belief in his Church, so it is with reception of the Eucharist.

God wont punish one who truly doesn't know it to be what the Catholic Church says it is. The one who knows...and rejects it "will have no life in him."

Perhaps this question will clarify some of these things:

Will everybody who doesn't "believe in Jesus as his/her personal Lord and saviour" go ti hell?

italo:

Just as is the case with the necessity of belief in Jesus, belief in his Church, so it is with reception of the Eucharist.

regarding the bold, I have a question.

Are the Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran etc also part of the church of Christ?

italo:
God wont punish one who truly doesn't know it to be what the Catholic Church says it is. The one who knows...and rejects it "will have no life in him."

is there anywhere/reference this claim can be affirmed?

italo:
Perhaps this question will clarify some of these things:

Will everybody who doesn't "believe in Jesus as his/her personal Lord and saviour" go ti hell?

The question of going to hell or not, I don't know.

What I know and perfectly sure of is that salvation is only from one source/by one name and that is affirmed by Acts 4:12.

adsonstone:

regarding the bold, I have a question.

Are the Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran etc also part of the church of Christ?




is there anywhere/reference this claim can be affirmed?



The question of going to hell or not, I don't know.

What I know and perfectly sure of is that salvation is only from one source/by one name and that is affirmed by Acts 4:12.

I will answer these very easily...but I want to believe you didnt miss my earlier post before the one you quoted.

I want to believe you are preparing answers to those questions since the post is quite long.

I'm waiting for your answers first, so we can keep flying.

italo:

Oh yeah?! The followers of Christ were first called Christians in Antioch; does that mean that the converts at Pentecost were not Christians? Does that mean that Christianity started at Antioch? Imagine Italo was named "italo" 8days after his birth; does that mean that crying baby at birth was not italo? You see that your logic is very very poor and faulty.

It was the same Church founded on the Apostles that St. Ignatius called "Catholic Church" in 110AD to differentiate from the many heretical sects that were springing up at the time. It was its first leaders that wrote the books of the NT. There were far far more than these 27 books (including forgeries and uninspired books) in circulation among Christians. It was this same Church founded on the Apostles - The Catholic Church that decided that these 27 would make up the NT and the many others would not make it.

We all sometimes tell ourselves what that makes us feel ire.

But that does not change the truth.

The word "Christian" has the word 'christ' in it and means > followers of christ.

But i dont know on what basis the word catholic takes the place/supersedes the word christians or followers of christ.

How can that be possible

italo:
Bros, you will agree with me that it is unfair to have me answer all your questions only for you to return mine with a question. Can you tell me why all the 'apostolic' books I listed are not in the NT...or you dont know?

I have stated reasons for replying with questions a in previous post in response to Syncan.
I hope you read that earlier.
However, if you want plain answers, thats fine. I'll give plain answers.

The books you listed are not part of the NT because they were 'somewhat' debated upon thus, not agreed upon and included in the NT.

I hope thats clear enough.

Hope you'll now attend to mine.

Why does the RCC have fewer books in the bible than the orthodox and fewer ot books than the septuagint compiled....having some deuterocanonicals and rejecting others?

italo:
So on what grounds is it in the NT since you said something like 'the NT is the work of the Apostles so the Church could not ignore the books?'

we have agreed that the NT is written by the apostles and other inspired men and it is meant for the church.

I have also said in my above post that other 'debated' books are not included most likely because their authenticity cannot be ascertained.

italo:
You know that I asked where the Holy Spirit asked you to follow the "Apostle's" tradition. Please answer...or say you dont know if you dont know.

2 Thess 2:15

You say you obey these traditions yet, you have not named any that originates from the Apostles that have no root in the bible.

italo:
At least wait until I make that claim in bold. For now you are the one making the claim. Please tell me where the Holy Spirit said we shouldn't follow "Catholic tradition" and "canon tradition."

I know of no scripture that rejects this neither do I know any that supports it.

The one I gave earlier mentions "apostles' tradition"

italo:
Again, please answer my question. Where did the Holy Spirit tell you Mark and Luke were written by Mark and Luke and they were inspired?

2 Timothy 3:16 says they're inspired, it doesnt leave out the books of Mark and Luke.

italo:
Who do you mean by "Apostles" - the bold. Simple!

I mean all those reffered to in the Bible as apostles!
Period!

italo:
Then I cant think of any Tradition (which is a doctrine) which doesnt even have any sort of hint in the Bible.

so, which extra-biblical tradition (traditition not included in scripture) do you claim you practice?

You have declared many times that not all 'relevant' truths are in the bible and some are in tradition. (relevant there is included by me)

....and you mentioned something about misinterpreting at least, one part of the scripture.

Well, As long as I have the Holy Spirit guiding me whenever I study them, I cant misinterprete even one.

[/quote] Timothy 3:16 says they're inspired, it doesnt leave out the books of Mark and Luk [quote]

Bros Timothy did not mention these books.The canon of the bible did not exist then

[/quote]Why does the RCC have fewer books in the bible than the orthodox....having some deuterocanonicals and rejecting others? [quote]

The catholic church does not depend on the orthodox church or anyother church for its canon.It remains faithful to the original canon of the christian scriptures as enunciated by the synod of hippo in 393CE and ratified by the councils of carthage and trent.

The orthodox canon was set in 1672 @ the synod of jerusalem.Even the protestants do not share the same canon with the orthodox church.

[/quote]Why does the RCC have fewer books in the bible than the orthodox....having some deuterocanonicals and rejecting others? [quote]

The catholic church does not depend on the orthodox church or anyother church for its canon.It remains faithful to the original canon of the christian scriptures as enunciated by the synod of hippo in 393CE and ratified by the councils of carthage and trent.

The orthodox canon was set in 1672 @ the synod of jerusalem.Even the protestants do not share the same canon with the orthodox church.

I think your questions should be directed to the ortodox church as to why they deviated from the original canon set by the church in the fourt and fifth centuries

The Roman Catholic canon was only done in Trent in AD 1546 --- 16th century.

The Roman Catholics did not canonise anything at Hippo or Carthage! This is why for example "pope" Gregory I even 100 years after Carthage said that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon.

Athanasius who essentially belongs to the Orthodox produced a canon list in AD 367 --- well before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim, even fraudulently.

italo:

This thread is going fine for now. Pls don't make your own thread difficult.

I am not attacking or asking you to defend your doctrine. I am only asking to know what you believe.

Even in the thread where you were supposed to answer for JWs, you asked questions which I answered...I only refused when you questioned Catholic doctrine because that wasn't the place for that.

If you want me to defend Catholic doctrine, isn't it fair that you let me know the ideology I am defending it against? Do I just defend against the unknown? I want to know what you believe please...and I need you to also answer my questions the way I am answering all of yours.

You have stated many times that you are fallible.

Does that mean that you can possibly teach something that is wrong on faith and morals...and/or misinterprete what scripture is saying?

Or are you always correct when you teach on faith/morals and/or interprete scripture?

And you are questioning JW doctrine by asking that question. as such, it is denied.

italo: @ JMAN, so do me the favour. I'm ready to fly but na you hold me for checkpoint.

This is only the first question I'm asking after I answered 9 of yours and you're already shifting back.

Pls answer my question and I'll answer yours.

least now no one can accuse italo of dodging anything.

Abeg stop this joke. your question is about our doctrine. wait? you ignored replying my other comments because of one question? guy you are a joke for real. please kindly reply my comments and stop this.

truthislight:

We all sometimes tell ourselves what that makes us feel ire.

But that does not chancge the truth.

The word "Christian" has the word 'christ' in it and means > followers of christ.

But i dont know on what basis the word catholic takes the place/superseeds the word christian or follower of christ.

How can that be possible ?

What will you call those who refused to follow the dictates of the Jerusalem council in acts 15, but still follow christ, yet preaching and demanding circumcision as contained in the sacred books, as pre-requisite for God's people.

truthislight:

We all sometimes tell ourselves what that makes us feel ire.

But that does not chancge the truth.

The word "Christian" has the word 'christ' in it and means > followers of christ.

But i dont know on what basis the word catholic takes the place/superseeds the word christian or follower of christ.

How can that be possible ?

What will you call those who refused to follow the dictates of the Jerusalem council in acts 15, but still follow christ, yet preaching and demanding circumcision as contained in the sacred books, as pre-requisite for God's people? Christians too?

chukwudi44:

Bros kindly back up youir claims with links and not justy making assertions.This canon was first decided @ hippo in 393 CE.I know that the jewish council of Jamnia in 90CE did not approve it so also did it not approve Jesus or any of the NT books in that vein should we also regard the NT books as non-canonical since the jews did not approve it?

BTW have you heard of the septuagint? Do you know how and who compiled it and the books included in its canon.BTW do you mind pointing out the contents of the books that shows it lack inspiration? Do not give me any cut and join canon ,do not borrow me some sets of books from someone's canon and add to another set in another canon.Give me links just like I have done proving the canonisation of your 66 books as the authentic canon.

Don't even give me the Athanasian canon crap aas you obviously do not even abide by his private canon just like no other church does.Like I said before I do not want cut and join cano

Telling me the apostles also used some of these books is all balderdash as they also quoted books which was later no included in the bible.I never said these books did not exist before these councils,I simply said the canons did not exist.I ll also like to read up about this your great synagogue

When people vibrate without point, I feel pity for them. who is talking about 90 CE? Who is talking about septuagint? the jews have catalogued there bible books before the septuagint during Ptolemy's time.

You are asking whether it lacked inspiration. the septuagint is just a translation. We cannot even say for sure what its content were.

the bolded is hilarious. Were those books not canonized and the apostles made use of them? The jews have there canon before your Council came on board. Consult Against Apion (I, 38-41 [8]) by Josephus.

You want to know about the great synagogue? type your question on google.com. Try and do research dude.

^^^ The Roman Catholic Bible does not even correspond to The Septuagint anyway .........

Oh, and for the fun of it generally here is something interesting from the Roman Catholic organisation's own encyclopaedia http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm (and all the Roman Catholics run to double-check, lol )

"38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not "Canonical" but "Ecclesiastical:" that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have read in the Churches.

These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken."

The Roman Catholic Bible of 25 for, 15 against and 16 abstained is even contrary to tradition.