Optimall:


Long grammer..
it's not being born in a specific religion,it's about doing the right thing within.
Half knowledge of history? Trash!
You think you know everything?
I wanna do the right thing,not believe in some sort of trash spewed out by someone who doesn't even regard me as human.
You don't know? You know Jesus followers by love. John 13:35
Can you find such love among Catholic? NEVER!
I've been there and am talking from experience.
This is how I feel. This is what I personally feel!

Long grammar, you said? This is where you, once again, miss the mark. At this point, what is becoming increasingly clear to me is your penchant for half-hearted measures, which suggests you would always analyse the whole in terms of the part, rather than the part in terms of the whole. In my profession of accounting, we call this sheer "sub-optimality".

But no need to bore you with "long grammar", since you prefer your meal half prepared! So, two things, Madam! First, would you mind sharing with us what your grouse with the catholic church is/are, as the case may be? And where did you find the hatred you claimed is common among Catholics?

Your other alternative, which I think is better, is to simply tell us how you want us to help you.

Jeromejnr:


The Talmud is a huge collection of doctrines and laws compiled and written before the 8th Century, A.D., by ancient Jewish teachers. The Talmud, which often cites the Old Testament, is the basic book of Jewish law.

Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds
There are two editions of the Talmud; one was composed by Babylonian Jews and one by Jews who lived in ancient Jerusalem. Generally a citation from the Talmud refers to the Babylonian version, which is considered authoritative. The Jerusalem Talmud is not generally taught in even the most Orthodox Jewish schools today, though advanced Talmud scholars sometimes study it.
— Anti-Defamation League (12)

So seeing that there old testament laws came from that, I wonder what point you're trying to prove.

BTW, there are two types of Talmud. I am sure the heretical one you are referring to is the Jerusalem Talmud.

So take a chill pill and do a research before talking trash.

In the Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b, a certain Rabbi Abahu is quoted as saying in reference to christian claims of deity of Jesus: "Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says, I am god, he lies; if he says, I am son of God he shall regret his utterances…"

Seeing that the Jerusalem Talmud is just as heretical, which other Talmud will you now claim the bible came from?

Optimall:


Light that detest and kill themselves,what sort of stupid light is that?
I'd rather be dark than mingle with HYPOCRITES!
People that hide who they are,I don't associate with those.

I have shown you with John 20:23 And Matt 16:19 that Priests can forgive sins.

All these gibberish you're typing are just an attempt to avoid the truth.

italo:


In the Jerusalem Talmud Taanith-65b, a certain Rabbi Abahu is quoted as saying in reference to christian claims of deity of Jesus: "Rabbi Abahu said, If a man says, I am god, he lies; if he says, I am son of God he shall regret his utterances…"

Seeing that the Jerusalem Talmud is just as heretical, which other Talmud will you now claim the bible came from?

So can you tell us where the Genealogy of names in the O.T come from?

And next time, read what I write very clearly. I said the Talmud you called heretical was the Jerusalem one but the one used by the Jews is the Bayblonian Talmud.

Jeromejnr:


So can you tell us where the Genealogy of names in the O.T come from?

And next time, read what I write very clearly. I said the Talmud you called heretical was the Jerusalem one but the one used by the Jews is the Bayblonian Talmud.

Oh! So the Talmud you claim the bible came from is the Bayblonian Talmud!

Let's see what the Bayblonian Talmud has to say:

[b]
Baba Necia 114, 6:"The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L:"Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.

Aboda Sarah 37a:"A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

Gad. Shas. 2:2:"A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl


Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed".

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement." [/b]

Now that you have run out of 'Talmuds' to lie about, can you finally own up to your lie?

Or do you still stand by your statement that the bible is from the heretical and satanic Babylonians Talmud?

italo:




Oh! So the Talmud you claim the bible came from is the Bayblonian Talmud!

Let's see what the Bayblonian Talmud has to say:

[b]
Baba Necia 114, 6:"The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L:"Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.

Aboda Sarah 37a:"A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

Gad. Shas. 2:2:"A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl


Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed".

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement." [/b]

Now that you have run out of 'Talmuds' to lie about, can you finally own up to your lie?

Or do you still stand by your statement that the bible is from the heretical and satanic Babylonians Talmud?

Seems you don't understand English.

Is it the whole Talmud that was used in writing the O.T? Is it all the dead sea scrolls that was used in writing the Bible? What is the meaning of canonization? Why are some books of the apocrypha not used with the 66 books of the bible?

When you've understood those, then come back.

BTW, I know you're trying so hard to get back at me, don't worry you can't. I don't even really have your time right now. You're the one that's just disturbing me with your trial and errors.

Jeromejnr:


Seems you don't understand English.

Is it the whole Talmud that was used in writing the O.T? Is it all the dead sea scrolls that was used in writing the Bible? What is the meaning of canonization? Why are some books of the apocrypha not used with the 66 books of the bible?

When you've understood those, then come back.

BTW, I know you're trying so hard to get back at me, don't worry you can't. I don't even really have your time right now. You're the one that's just disturbing me with your trial and errors.

I have quoted the Bayblonian and Jerusalem Talmud to prove that it is a heretical/satanic book...

...Yet you insist the Bible came from it.

No part of the Bible was taken from that satanic book. If you insist, tell us the parts of the bible and Talmud that are the same.

You're just associating the bible with evil because you're an enemy of truth.

italo:


I have quoted the Bayblonian and Jerusalem Talmud to prove that it is a heretical/satanic book...

...Yet you insist the Bible came from it.

No part of the Bible was taken from that satanic book. If you insist, tell us the parts of the bible and Talmud that are the same.

You're just associating the bible with evil because you're an enemy of truth.

SMH.

Jeromejnr:

SMH.

in a cul-de-sac ? gratias italo! ruthless & relentless.

Kamxin:

in a cul-de-sac ?
gratias italo! ruthless & relentless.

For real??

Dude, you just put Italo in trouble once again.

Jeromejnr:


For real??

Dude, you just put Italo in trouble once again.

Looks like that line made your day.

dmandy:


Looks like that line made your day.

I wanted to just keep my cool before.

Hold on! I am coming.

Jeromejnr:


I wanted to just keep my cool before.

Hold on! I am coming.

italo:


I have quoted the Bayblonian and Jerusalem Talmud to prove that it is a heretical/satanic book...

...Yet you insist the Bible came from it.

No part of the Bible was taken from that satanic book. If you insist, tell us the parts of the bible and Talmud that are the same.

You're just associating the bible with evil because you're an enemy of truth.

Since you think you could run away from your heretical poverty teaching. Now lets go back to my original statement:

BTW, the bible comes from the dead sea scrolls or the Jewish Talmud.

So we have the Dead sea scrolls, the Talmud and the Apochrypha.

In all those documents, where was it written we can pray to Mary? But someone somewhere woke up one morning and said 'Lets pray to Mary to help us talk to Jesus so he can persuade God for us". And you sef follow with no scriptural backing.

Now I made mention of three documents up the that were used in assembling the bible.

Dead sea scrolls, Talmud and Apocrypha.

Now because you felt you were losing out on an argument, you decided to take one part of a statement out of context. Now lets look at some excerpts.

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to ancient Hebrew scrolls that were accidentally discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin boy in Israel's Judean Desert. On display today in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, the scrolls have kindled popular enthusiasm as well as serious scholarly interest over the past half century as they reveal exciting history from the Second Temple period (520 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) - a time of crucial developments in the crystallization of the monotheistic religions.

2. The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden" denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments[1] or as an appendix after the New Testament.

3. The Oral Law -Talmud & Mishna: The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:. From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible....

Now lets look at all these in the light of our discussion that brought this out.

You said you believe in praying to Mary...

I said show me scriptures..

You couldn't..

And I made a statement to infer that, even the documents that was used to assemble the bible (i.e whether heretical or not o), none of them has any command or teaching on praying to Mary. (maybe I should have put it that way for your brain to comprehend-but keep reading....)

So you went and took some parts out of a certain Talmud and tried to prove it was heretical. So you, took one part and left the others.

Now, you're a catholic, and you guys have a bible that contains scriptures gotten from the Apocrypha which I also mentioned.

False Teachings
The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible).

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11, 12:9).
Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their Bibles, ... They teach doctrines, which are false and foster practices

The apocrypha (απόκρυφα means "hidden" is a set of books written ... of the dead, and blatant incorrect historical facts--it is full of false and unbiblical teachings.

Now get my point. If you don't want me releasing more heretical stuffs you believe in.

In my statement you quoted. Even though I knew the Apocrypha contained heresies I still chose to put it there with the Talmud and Dead sea scrolls.

Why?

Because not every part of the Apocrypha and not every part of the Talmud is considered heretical. All these documents were used to help in assemblage of the bible.

Jude in Jude 1:14-15 is seen quoting a scripture from the book of Enoch which is an Apocrypha. But the book of Enoch was not authorized to be put in the bible. Why? Because not all of it was considered authoritative.

So you took one part of the Talmud that was considered heretical and left the others that have been considered authoritative.

Where do you think they crosschecked the genealogies that was authorized to be put in the O.T ? Your primary school text book?

You say the Talmud is heretical then all the Apocryphal scriptures in your catholic bibles too are heretical. So why be a hypocrite.

There are two editions of the Talmud; one was composed by Babylonian Jews and one by Jews who lived in ancient Jerusalem. Generally a citation from the Talmud refers to the Babylonian version, which is considered authoritative. The Jerusalem Talmud is not generally taught in even the most Orthodox Jewish schools today, though advanced Talmud scholars sometimes study it.
— Anti-Defamation League (12)

You see how this write up is long. That's why I didn't want to answer in the first place, but your friends motivated me.

I wan sleep abeg.

BTW, dmandy has been hiding in the dark. Watching and looking for someone all this while to take me down and thought he had seen an opportunity.

SMH.

Barywhyte:



And by the way, what proof can you display showing that Peter was the first pope of Roman Catholic Church? Show me that proof bro

Would the testimony of the early church be good enough for you so i can provide you what they said?

Optimall:


Long grammer..
it's not being born in a specific religion,it's about doing the right thing within.
Half knowledge of history? Trash!
You think you know everything?
I wanna do the right thing,not believe in some sort of trash spewed out by someone who doesn't even regard me as human.
You don't know? You know Jesus followers by love. John 13:35
Can you find such love among Catholic? NEVER!
I've been there and am talking from experience.
This is how I feel. This is what I personally feel!

Catholics dont love? Like Pope John Paul2 who forgave the man who tried to kill him, and visited him in prison and lobbied for his pardon and release?

Optimall:



Exactly but there's a Specific religion that doesn't murder. They go to prison,suffer in jail just because they refuse to kill their ENEMIES!
I'm not a protestant cos I won't kill anyone and I'd rather die than be a Catholic!

You mean the JWs? I'm sorry to say this but they are hypocrites. They refuse to join the military yet they want to be protected by others. They never set up orphanages, they dont build hospitals and schools for the poor. So where is the Christian love in all this?

Optimall:



Sorry but I don't believe you.
Mediator: One who INTERCEDES between two parties in order to reconcile them.

1Timothy 2:5 For there's ONE God and ONE mediator between God and men,a man Christ Jesus.

Do you still want to explain?

What exactly do you disagree with in my post?

Jeromejnr:


Since you think you could run away from your heretical poverty teaching. Now lets go back to my original statement:



Now I made mention of three documents up the that were used in assembling the bible.

Dead sea scrolls, Talmud and Apocrypha.

Now because you felt you were losing out on an argument, you decided to take one part of a statement out of context. Now lets look at some excerpts.

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to ancient Hebrew scrolls that were accidentally discovered in 1947 by a Bedouin boy in Israel's Judean Desert. On display today in the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, the scrolls have kindled popular enthusiasm as well as serious scholarly interest over the past half century as they reveal exciting history from the Second Temple period (520 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) - a time of crucial developments in the crystallization of the monotheistic religions.

2. The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden" denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments[1] or as an appendix after the New Testament.

3. The Oral Law -Talmud & Mishna: The Oral Law is a legal commentary on the Torah, explaining how its commandments are to be carried out. Common sense suggests that some sort of oral tradition was always needed to accompany the Written Law, because the Torah alone, even with its 613 commandments, is an insufficient guide to Jewish life. For example, the fourth of the Ten Commandments, ordains, "Remember the Sabbath day to make it holy" (Exodus 20:. From the Sabbath's inclusion in the Ten Commandments, it is clear that the Torah regards it as an important holiday. Yet when one looks for the specific biblical laws regulating how to observe the day, one finds only injunctions against lighting a fire, going away from one's dwelling, cutting down a tree, plowing and harvesting. Would merely refraining from these few activities fulfill the biblical command to make the Sabbath holy? Indeed, the Sabbath rituals that are most commonly associated with holiness-lighting of candles, reciting the kiddush, and the reading of the weekly Torah portion are found not in the Torah, but in the Oral Law.

Without an oral tradition, some of the Torah's laws would be incomprehensible....

Now lets look at all these in the light of our discussion that brought this out.

You said you believe in praying to Mary...

I said show me scriptures..

You couldn't..

And I made a statement to infer that, even the documents that was used to assemble the bible (i.e whether heretical or not o), none of them has any command or teaching on praying to Mary. (maybe I should have put it that way for your brain to comprehend-but keep reading....)

So you went and took some parts out of a certain Talmud and tried to prove it was heretical. So you, took one part and left the others.

Now, you're a catholic, and you guys have a bible that contains scriptures gotten from the Apocrypha which I also mentioned.







Now get my point. If you don't want me releasing more heretical stuffs you believe in.

In my statement you quoted. Even though I knew the Apocrypha contained heresies I still chose to put it there with the Talmud and Dead sea scrolls.

Why?

Because not every part of the Apocrypha and not every part of the Talmud is considered heretical. All these documents were used to help in assemblage of the bible.

Jude in Jude 1:14-15 is seen quoting a scripture from the book of Enoch which is an Apocrypha. But the book of Enoch was not authorized to be put in the bible. Why? Because not all of it was considered authoritative.

So you took one part of the Talmud that was considered heretical and left the others that have been considered authoritative.

Where do you think they crosschecked the genealogies that was authorized to be put in the O.T ? Your primary school text book?

You say the Talmud is heretical then all the Apocryphal scriptures in your catholic bibles too are heretical. So why be a hypocrite.



You see how this write up is long. That's why I didn't want to answer in the first place, but your friends motivated me.

I wan sleep abeg.

BTW, dmandy has been hiding in the dark. Watching and looking for someone all this while to take me down and thought he had seen an opportunity.

SMH.

The books that you people call apocrypha are actually called Deutro canonical books.

Papist:

The books that you people call apocrypha are actually called Deutro canonical books.

Still the same point I am making.

Deuterocanonical books is a term used since the 16th century in the Catholic Church and Eastern Christianity to describe certain books and passages of the Christian Old Testament that are not part of the current Hebrew Bible. The term is used in contrast to the protocanonical books, which are contained in the Hebrew Bible. This distinction had previously contributed to debate in the early Church about whether they should be classified as canonical texts. The term is used as a matter of convenience by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and other Churches to refer to books of their Old Testament which are not part of the Masoretic Text.

The deuterocanonical books are considered canonical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East, but are considered non-canonical by most Protestants.

The original usage of the term distinguished these scriptures both from those considered non-canonical and from those considered protocanonical. However, some editions of the Bible include text from both deuterocanonical and non-canonical scriptures in a single section designated "Apocrypha". This arrangement can lead to conflation between the otherwise distinct terms "deuterocanonical" and "apocryphal".

This is good and it is in consonance with God being the Ultimate Judge.

Jeromejnr:


Still the same point I am making.

Ok so whats your point? Let us ignore the early church and follow the protestants 1500 years later?

Papist:

You mean the JWs? I'm sorry to say this but they are hypocrites. They refuse to join the military yet they want to be protected by others. They never set up orphanages, they dont build hospitals and schools for the poor. So where is the Christian love in all this?

Really? HYPOCRITES??

Papist:

Catholics dont love? Like Pope John Paul2 who forgave the man who tried to kill him, and visited him in prison and lobbied for his pardon and release?

And made a public news? Hahaha

Papist:

What exactly do you disagree with in my post?

Still waiting for explanation?

Optimall:


And made a public news? Hahaha

You know I think you need to open your heart even to those you think can do no good. Remember the Jews said *what good can come out of Bethlehem*. Even those you hate like us Catholics...there are lots of good people among us.

Optimall:

Still waiting for explanation?

Mediator between God and men[1] and High Priest who has gone before us into heaven, Jesus the Son of God[2] quite clearly had one aim in view when He undertook the mission of mercy which was to endow mankind with the rich blessings of supernatural grace. Sin had disturbed the right relationship between man and his Creator; the Son of God would restore it. The children of Adam were wretched heirs to the infection of original sin; He would bring them back to their heavenly Father, the primal source and final destiny of all things. For this reason He was not content, while He dwelt with us on earth, merely to give notice that redemption had begun, and to proclaim the long-awaited Kingdom of God, but gave Himself besides in prayer and sacrifice to the task of saving souls, even to the point of offering Himself, as He hung from the cross, a Victim unspotted unto God, to purify our conscience of dead works, to serve the living God.[3] Thus happily were all men summoned back from the byways leading them down to ruin and disaster, to be set squarely once again upon the path that leads to God. Thanks to the shedding of the blood of the Immaculate Lamb, now each might set about the personal task of achieving his own sanctification, so rendering to God the glory due to Him.

Optimall:

Still waiting for explanation?

Hey the above is from an encyclical by Pope Pius XII Mediator Dei. He explains it better than me.

Papist:

Would the testimony of the early church be good enough for you so i can provide you what they said?

Just give me your proof

Papist:

And after the Apostles died the Church disappeared right? Only to be resurrected by Martin Luther and his friends? So the martyrs of the catacombs of Rome who died for their faith in Christ were not Christians. St Polycarp, St Philomena, St Agnes etc?

Go and read "Truth Triumphant". There has always been churcches different in doctrine from the one in Rome right from the time of the Apostles, up to this moment. Rome have always made sure the truth is suppresed, it shall alway survives

Papist:

Ok so whats your point? Let us ignore the early church and follow the protestants 1500 years later?

We are not talking denomination here, we are talking following the scriptures.

The early church followed scriptures and not denominations.

Barywhyte:


Just give me your proof

Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter
[A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:.
Irenaeus
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" ( Against Heresies , 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church [of Rome], because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3, 3, 2).
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. ... To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherius. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3, 3, 3).