Enigma's Posts
Nairaland Forum / Enigma's Profile / Enigma's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (of 198 pages)
 Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 1:38pm On Nov 20, 2013 |
Gombs: ^^ Well two Roman Catholics have said on this thread that those who "know" the Roman Catholic Church to be the "true church" and yet reject it are damned. Well, I suppose we can rely on technicalities and say we only do not "believe" that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church; not that we "know" it but reject it.   |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 1:16pm On Nov 20, 2013 |
Oh, and this one too! Enigma: ..... Historically, they have held that other Christians are heretics and anathema and in effect are all going to hell. Strictly speaking this position still remains on their books and some more "traditional" Catholics say it is the only position. .....  |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 1:11pm On Nov 20, 2013 |
Enigma:  |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 1:06pm On Nov 20, 2013 |
Ubenedictus: for posterity you should give links, don't just say he said, and the polite thing to do is ask why this is this not claim "they are liars". You don't tell me what to do or what links to give. And of course you conveniently "forget" that I have given the links on a number of occasions in the past. If you can prove that the quotes are lies, let us see you do it. |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 1:04pm On Nov 20, 2013 |
Ubenedictus: this isn't exactly true, we dont need 100% of the fathers to teach a doctrine before it is considered sacred Tradition, i only need a majority witnessing to what was recieved. A "majority" --- yeah, like the majority of the "Tridentine fathers" who voted for the Roman Catholic Bible and Apocrypha by 25 in favour 15 against 16 abstained Whereas the vast majority over more than a thousand years said that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon! Oh and like the "majority" who did not see Matthew 16 (and equivalents) as giving Rome some "jurisdiction" or "supremacy"! |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 10:54am On Nov 20, 2013 |
Oh by the way, it can be easily demonstrated that the Roman Catholic faith in fact contradicts the apostolic faith! At the heart of the Roman Catholic organisation's faith and doctrine are: (a) the "supremacy" of the "pope"; and (b) papal "infallibility"! The apostles and early Christians did NOT know of let alone believe either of these things! |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 10:49am On Nov 20, 2013 |
A person who becomes a Christian tomorrow is part of the Church of Christ that started on the day of Pentecost; he is a Christian just as the people of Antioch who were first called Christian. He is part of the apostolic tradition because he shares the apostolic faith. An assembly of Christians that starts tomorrow is part of the Church of Christ that started on the day of Pentecost; it is a Church just like the churches e.g. that met in Prisca's house and other people's houses and other churches referred to by the apostles and Paul especially. That 'new' Church is part of the apostolic tradition in keeping to the faith of the apostles and it is part of the catholic i.e. universal Church. Oh, by the way, is a fat LIE that the people who wrote the New Testament were Roman Catholics. It is a lie just in the same way that some Roman Catholics claim that Jesus and the apostles were Roman Catholics. The lie is sooo ridiculous it should simply be laughed at! 2 Likes |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 10:20am On Nov 20, 2013 |
^^^ They are deliberately using confusing, in fact misleading, expressions or statements. Ask them to clarify between: 1. Roman Catholic tradition 2. "Catholic" tradition 3. Christian tradition; or 4. Church tradition. Roman Catholic tradition is the one that led to the aberration of treating the Apocrypha as part of the canon ----- contrary to true Christian tradition! 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 9:32am On Nov 20, 2013 |
Again on the matter of "tradition" and specifically in relation to the canon of the Bible: here the Roman Catholic Church clearly does NOT keep to tradition at all! At their council of Trent as late as the 16th century in AD1546, they voted specifically to go against loooooong established Christian tradition! Here is how they voted for their own Roman Catholic Bible to include the Apocrypha as canonical: Those in favour = 25 Those against = 15 Abstained = 16 Thus only 25 Roman Catholic bishops/representatives voted to include the Apocrypha in the Roman Catholic Bible. Even among those voting, the majority of 31 could NOT support including the Apocrypha with 15 clearly against it.  Meanwhile, the testimony of the "church fathers" for a thousand years before then has always been that the Apocrypha is not part of the Christian canon. True tradition is that the Apocrypha is not part of the Christian canon! Even leading Roman Catholics including Roman Catholic "church fathers" have always historically said that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon ---- according to tradition! Examples include Jerome, Gregory the Great, Erasmus, Cajetan etc etc The position of the Eastern "church fathers" is also clear evidence that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon ---- according to tradition! In fact the canon of Trent with which the Roman Catholics included the Apocrypha is the aberration --- and it goes against tradition! On this particular matter, the Roman Catholics are NOT keeping to tradition --- and any claim to tradition to support the Roman Catholic Bible will be based on a very clear lie! I know the one argument they will want to use --- but I will wait for it to come up before addressing it. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 9:08am On Nov 20, 2013 |
Meanwhile, I see a Roman Catholic talking about "Athanasian canon crap"! Ah, maybe Athanasius is no longer a "church father" with quotations "of pertinence" --- because his list proves that Roman Catholics are lying when they say they made the canon in the 4th century! Anyway, Athanasius did not see the canon he presented as "crap" of course; instead he saw it as divine! As posted before: And on the claim about Athanasius' list being "private", here is one I made earlier Athanasius list "private"! lol lol Yeah right, something he said was divine, and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning' that one don become "private". An extract from that statement of Athanasius I referred to. While identifying and listing the books of "the Bible" in AD 367 (long before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim) he referred to: "... 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; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine ....... " When it suits them the Roman Catholics claim "tradition". When Athanasius shows the world tradition that exposes Roman Catholic lies, they turn their backs to "tradition". |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 9:03am On Nov 20, 2013 |
Concerning the canon presented by Athanasius and which Roman Catholics like to denigrate because it completely shatters the lie that Roman Catholics made the canon in the 4th century, here is something I posted previously about how even more genuine "Catholics" than Roman Catholics see Athanasius' contribution. And naturally, the Eastern orthodox (unlike the Roman Catholics) give quite some respect to Athanasius' role in developing the canon of the Bible. Well, he was one of theirs after all. From http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41 The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church 31. How many are the books of the Old Testament? 33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament? |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 8:54am On Nov 20, 2013 |
Ah, interesting that Roman Catholics on this thread now seem to have abandoned the claim that Damasus was the first to "canonise" the Bible at some council of Rome in 382. Of course that claim has to be abandoned because, as we have shown, it is a lie based on a forged document. But then we still see the claim that "the canon was first decided at Hippo". This is another lie of course but the Roman Catholics have to hang onto it because otherwise the false claim that the Roman Catholics canonised the Bible in the 4th century is completely shattered. Let us set the lie in stark relief for the benefit of people genuinely interested in understanding these matters. 1. There is no canon that Roman Catholics can produce from Hippo! Some of them try to claim that they can use the later councils of Carthage to "reconstruct" what must have happened at Hippo. They are not to be trusted as it is believed that they are even tampering with the documents from Carthage! 2. Neither Hippo nor Carthage was a Roman Catholic council. They were only regional or "provincial" African councils as even leading Roman Catholics including "Cardinal" Cajetan admit! 3. If we stick to the 4th century alone, the canon and list presented by Athanasius in AD 367 came before anything that Roman Catholics can claim as a canon that they made. 4. In any event, the canon of the Bible dates back to the late first century before there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church. |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 11:34pm On Nov 19, 2013 |
kcjazz: Nice thread so far... ^^^ You raise an interesting question and perhaps Roman Catholics will give their own answers later on. The current Roman catholic position is that other "Christians" too can obtain salvation. However, it is not that straightforward! Historically, they have held that other Christians are heretics and anathema and in effect are all going to hell. Strictly speaking this position still remains on their books and some more "traditional" Catholics say it is the only position. Now one also has to understand the background: the Roman Catholic organisation and the papacy became quite powerful (especially after the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox) and they ruled over almost everyone in the West including kings and emperors. If they threatened to excommunicate a king or emperor, they could bring the king/emperor down! It was in this era that they were declaring left right and centre that no one could be saved unless he submitted to the "pope"! However, Martin Luther threw a big spanner in the works by triggering the Reformation. The Roman Catholics then for long thought they could still threaten and scare people with hell, excommunication and all that. They were declaring anathemas left right and centre especially with certain councils known as "Trent" and Vatican I. However, around 1962, they took a softer approach at a "council" called Vatican II. Really, what they should have done was to say that all those anathemas of Trent and Vatican I were nonsense. BUT if they said so openly they would have destroyed the whole of Roman Catholicism as we know it ---- for they would have admitted that infallibility is a lie among many other things. So Vatican II fudged matters in some "clever" ways and now recognises that other Christians (and even non-Christians) can be saved. So "other Christians" sort of "graduated" and though we are still "heretics" and "schismatics", we are now to be called "separated brethren". EDIT By the way, there is some confusion still in Roman Catholic teaching here: the teaching also suggests that those who know what Roman Catholics claim and reject it cannot obtain salvation. That is, even Moslems or people ignorant of Roman Catholic doctrine may be better off than informed people who reject Roman Catholicism! Na so! Personally, I am watching Bergoglio carefully and wish he could really do a Vatican III to undo much of the rubbish of Trent and Vatican I especially. However, it is a very tough task as it would mean destroying much that Roman Catholicism is made of. Yet, without undoing much of Trent and Vatican I, there will simply not be Christian unity. Trent and especially Vatican I are such terrible things! 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 10:23pm On Nov 19, 2013 |
I wish to say one thing here about "tradition" as used by Roman Catholics. Many Roman Catholics, and even more so on Nairaland, are actually not even clear on what their denomination means by "tradition". There are also some who simply use the word "tradition" for anything they do that cannot be supported by Scripture. On the other hand, Roman Catholic teaching is that for "tradition" to be upheld, it must be uniformly supported by the "church fathers". Thus if there is disagreement among the "fathers" the teaching is not really established and individuals may be free on what to believe. Now see one thing that even the Roman Catholic encyclopaedia admits! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm(I am going to replace part of the quote with ellipsis because it is "spin" )"It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. .... Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one ....." Please note the implication and indeed the fact is that most "church fathers" do not interprete Matthew 16:18 as giving some "pope" or the Roman Catholic Church any "supremacy"! |
| Religion / Re: Defend Catholic Teachings Here by Enigma(m): 9:57pm On Nov 19, 2013 |
A propos the book of Maccabees, here are just two major Roman Catholics who state that they are not in the "Bible" or canon. Jerome: "As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” There are still many others we can point to ............. Meanwhile the lies about Carthage have been exposed on other threads, if necessary all I have to do is copy and paste from one made earlier. |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 7:07am On Nov 15, 2013 |
By the way, here is another one I made earlier! When Roman Catholics tell lies and use fraudulent arguments, they tend to overlook that it can easily rebound on them. If a person says the list of canonical books presented by Athanasius is "private", then of course: - Irenaeus list of "popes" that they even gerrymander ----- is also only a "private" list. - Eusebius' list of "popes" --- is also only a "private list". And of course those are in any event contradicted by the lists of Tertullian and Jerome. And of course none of these lists is said to be divine --- unlike Athanasisus' list of canonical books which is said to be accredited and divine and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning! |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 7:00am On Nov 15, 2013 |
Hmmm, Roman Catholics and deliberate lying sha - with the help of their Wikipedia propaganda! 1. The claim about any canon in Damasus' "Council" of 382 is a lie! That is why the Wikipedia entry uses the language "if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it." This is because the list based on the Decretum Gelasianum is known to be a forgery produced about 100 to 200 years after 382! A list supposedly prepared in 382 AD refers to events that occurred several years later in 415! Why? Because the forgers made a historical blunder that gave their game away! 2. If Damasus, a whole "pope" and at a "council" for that matter, had established the canon in 382 why would Hippo in 393 and Carthage up to 419 still be establishing a canon let alone Trent in 1546 --- the 16th century? 3. And on the claim about Athanasius' list being "private", here is one I made earlier Athanasius list "private"! lol lol Yeah right, something he said was divine, and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning' that one don become "private". An extract from that statement of Athanasius I referred to. While identifying and listing the books of "the Bible" in AD 367 (long before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim) he referred to: "... 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; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine ....... " When it suits them the Roman Catholics claim "tradition". When Athanasius shows the world tradition that exposes Roman Catholic lies, they turn their backs to "tradition". |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 12:43am On Nov 15, 2013 |
ifenadi: Bros, I think I provided at least enough starting evidence for what I said. Maybe you can try to confirm what I said or to disprove them. Let us take a couple of examples. 1. Can you try and confirm how the bishops/representatives voted on the Roman Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent? 2. Can you check whether or not Jerome the "church father" said the following? Jerome: "As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." 3. Can you check whether "pope" Gregory I said the following? Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 12:33am On Nov 15, 2013 |
^^^ They start saying such nonsense when the truth hits them and they can't refute it. Roman Catholic apologists can lie ---- but their lies can also be easily blown apart. |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 8:57pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
^ It is not even correct to say that the Roman Catholics "compiled" the Bible as my posts above have argued; it is neither correct to say that the first Bible had 73 books. It is in fact a lie. |
| Religion / Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 8:53pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
Mark Miwerds: You are correct, Enigma. Thanks a lot for the clarification, Mark. The Lord is to be praised that you can be a blessing despite blindness. I am happy to have you in our midst here. God bless. 2 Likes |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 8:47pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
Per Ambrose of Milan {Roman Catholic "church father"}: "He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. ... This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. ... Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies." |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 8:24pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
^^^ Listen to Augustine of Hippo "Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he says, "You are Peter; and upon this Rock" which you have confessed, upon this Rock which you have acknowledged, saying, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build you upon Myself, not Myself upon you." Like say na after Trent and Vatican I, dem for don anathematise, excommunicate, apostasise Augustine tay tay! And no be only him oh! I still dey come with Jerome dem and co. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Tithes And Offerings by Enigma(m): 8:18pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
^^^^ That is sooooo cheap! Anyway Russell Kelly is actually a registered member and while I will wait for Mark to confirm that they are different people (I stand to be corrected), I can also tell you that Russell Kelly actually looks different. Smh 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 7:14pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
When the Roman Catholics have been exposed and the fact revealed that they made their own Bible only in the 16th century at Trent without even being able to secure majority support, they revert to the traditional lies about the 4th century and Hippo and Carthage. First they cannot find any list from Hippo --- except they are trying to gerrymander one from Carthage back into Hippo! Second, it has been pointed out by scholars that even the list from Carthage might have been gerrymandered. Most importantly as late as the 16th century just before Trent a leading Roman Catholic confirmed that Carthage was merely a provincial i.e. regional affair. In any event, that "pope" Gregory I in the 6th/7th centuries believed that the Apocrypha was not part of the canon already refutes attempts by Roman Catholics to claim Carthage. Anyhoooos, here again is one I made earlier .............................. Meanwhile let us hear what the chief Roman Catholic theological opponent of Luther, during the Reformation, himself said about the Apocrypha. Per "Cardinal" Cajetan "Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." Note a few things: 1. Apocrypha books are not truly canonical for confirming matters of faith; they may only be for edification 2. He suggests this is what Council of Carthage decided; which means that what the Roman Catholics did hundreds of years later at Trent does not even agree with Carthage. Yet the Roman Catholics declared "anathema" those who take the position of Cajetan! Is Cajetan now also "anathema"? What irony! 3. Cajetan completely contradicts the lie that Roman Catholics spread today by confirming what some of us have been saying: Carthage was merely a provincial council! 4. If Carthage was authoritative or had truly been "ratified" by Rome, why then did Rome need Trent to finalise its "canon"? 5. If Rome already had a settled canon in the 4th century how come it needed to establish a canon hundreds of years later in the 16th century? 6. Was any of Rome's claimed canons ever binding on the other people who set out canons e.g Athanasius etc? 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 7:07pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
Pebcak: Thats a good point it depends on how you look at it lets check this out and let the timeline explain You see the bit in your own timeline that I've bolded? It knocks out any lies by Roman Catholics that they "compiled" the Bible. 1. The Old Testament was written and compiled before there was the Roman Catholic Church 2. The Septuagint which also included the Apocrypha was made before there was the Roman Catholic Church 3. The most crucial New Testament was at least written before there was any such thing as the Roman Catholic Church NOTE All the above is based on your own timeline. Now the New Testament I add the following 4. We know from the Bible that the books of the New Testament started to be compiled even during the era of the apostles 5. We know by the time of Polycarp that most of the books of the New Testament had already been compiled Again all these before there was the Roman Catholic Church We know by the time of the Origen that Christians did not regard the Apocrypha as canonical Then came the Roman Catholics some 1400 years later and "canonised" the Apocrypha and declaring as anathema more sensible Christians who remain faithful to Christian practice through the ages. And you expect us to take them seriously? |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 6:57pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
A propos Carthage, here is one I made earlier. https://www.nairaland.com/1478018/why-churches-different-doctrines-denominations/23#19111959So our friends like to claim that they "ratified" Carthage. They hang this on a quotation allegedly included in the acts of Carthage. But that is the very one that experts said (two posts above edit follow link on first line of this post) is probably not original. What is more, our friends have their own way of translating the passage to English as if the Africans were subjecting their canon to the "authority" of Rome. That is: "However, the sentence "Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon" cannot belong to either of these councils." Meanwhile a late leading Roman Catholic historian (and bishop to boot), i.e. Hefele, admits (in agreement with other experts) that the true translation of the passage is not as the #masterforgers like to claim! Again, from here http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html "In connection with this, it has been observed that at least one manuscript indicates that the original wording of the sentence was “De confirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia consulatur” (“For the confirmation of this canon the church across the sea shall be consulted”). This is the reading adopted by Hefele for his reconstruction of the council of Hippo, and Westcott mentions it in a note. 9 More recent authors tend to present the canon of the third council of Carthage with this emendation." Again, #masterforgers we salute! |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 6:47pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
@Pebcak You might find another post I made earlier helpful. Note a major difference between Roman Catholics and others --- others even including Eastern Orthodox. These others believe that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon even though its books can be useful secondarily. On the other hand Roman Catholics say anyone that does not accept the Apocrypha as part of the canon is ---- anathema! (Roman Catholics too like to dey swear for people, I tell you!) So, here is that one I made earlier ......... 1. Jerome ('church father'), Gregory ('pope'), Cajetan ('cardinal') --- all Roman Catholics; all major Roman Catholics (all speaking before the Roman Catholics finally set their own canon) ---- all AGREE with the so-called "Protestants" about the books of the canon! 2. To clarify further, the King James version (originally and for a long time and still in some editions) took the same approach as Jerome, Gregory I, Cajetan as well as Athanasius that the books of the Apocrypha are not in the canon but can be useful in a secondary role. Thus the KJV used to include the Apocrypha but place them in a different part to mark their distinction from the main canonical books. A further note of interest, even today, there are still "protestants" who use books of the Apocrypha in this secondary role. The Roman Catholics like to muddy the waters, throw confusion and hope people will not notice their lies if they are not familiar with or clear on the history and development of the canon (or even canons) of the Bible. |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 6:39pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
Pebcak: so whats your point you stated earlier the vote and you posted the stats catholic church is not a one man show or one DADDY GO SHOW some dont agree to it some did agree to it and it boils down to the vote Why were you first making shakara if you would eventually ask for clarification/ My point is simple: whenever Roman Catholics say they "gave us the Bible" or they "compiled" the Bible in the 4th century, they are lying and sensible and knowledgeable people should not believe them. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 6:32pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
^^^ The Apocrypha is part of the Roman Catholic Bible is it not? And that is partly why we say the Roman Catholic Bible is the Roman Catholic Bible. 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 6:20pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
I'm afraid that it is a lie spread by Roman Catholics to say that Luther "removed" 7 books from the Bible. OK then from one I made earlier here are examples of prominent Roman Catholics who also "removed" books from the Bible!---------------------------------- Let us put the lies of the Roman Catholic denomination people on this thread in stark relief. Here are three extremely prominent Roman catholic denomination people also "removing" books from the Bible --- what the liars here are accusing Luther of. Note the ranking of these people in the Roman catholic denomination Jerome: Roman catholic denomination people call him a "church father"; he is the one who came up with the Roman catholic people's own very bible i.e. the vulgate! "Pope Gregory I aka Gregory "the Great" --- a whole Roman Catholic "pope"! In fact the Roman Catholics think so much of him they call him "the Great"! "Cardinal" Cajetan --- a whole Roman Catholic cardinal; the one who interrogated the same Martin Luther Yet all these three people also "removed" books from the Bible ---- just like Luther is being accused of here at least with half truths (to borrow the words of one of my crybabies). Jerome: "As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said “With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.” Per "Cardinal" Cajetan "Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." Now, according to the Council of Trent, each of the "church father", the "pope" and the "cardinal" would now be anathema because they all excluded books which the Roman Catholics include in their canon at Trent --- in 1546! |
| Religion / Re: The Bones Of St Peter Go On Display by Enigma(m): 6:04pm On Nov 14, 2013 |
crowaddy: ^^^ Dem never even hear of the Bible of the Ethiopean Christians wey get ---81 books! |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (of 198 pages)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 125 |