Anas09:

You won't get any clue if u r just a let's go, let's go Catholic. They blatantly religate the scriptures and replaced them with the traditions of men.

Let's agree with them for a moment that they are Christians, as they claim.
They do not see the Roman as Christian Converts, they see them as the originators of Christianity.

And I ask again, are they categority stating that Christ was a Catholic, and all the apostles, were also Catholics? Those Asian churches Christ talked abt in Reveltion, were they Catholic churches.

PastorAIO:


You mean all these people that say they are worshipping the king of kings are actually worshipping the King of Babylon?

italo3:


Who compiled the bible that you use...and when was it compiled?

*oya start abracadabra

italo3:


Who compiled the bible that you use...and when was it compiled?

*oya start abracadabra

waldigit:


We ve heard many versions of that history as well yet the partucular version that has stood the test of time proved to us that the compilation was done by men who were moved by Holy Spirit

italo3:


*abracadabra has started

Who are these "men" and when did they do this compilation?

*continue your abracadabra

waldigit:


As I have said earlier we have many version of that history since non of them did not substantiate their fact with facts I am not in position to hold brief for them. Yet I know you are not privy to the version that you defend too since you are merely relying on written account . I then wonder what made you so sure this account is foolproof and authentic were you a first hand witness of this event. As for me that's why I stay with post erori evaluations to save myself from falacies

waldigit:


As I have said earlier we have many version of that history since non of them did not substantiate their fact with facts I am not in position to hold brief for them. Yet I know you are not privy to the version that you defend too since you are merely relying on written account . I then wonder what made you so sure this account is foolproof and authentic were you a first hand witness of this event. As for me that's why I stay with post erori evaluations to save myself from falacies

italo3:


In other words, you don't know who compiled your bible and when. Yes or no?

This is the third time I'm asking and you're still beating around the bush like a typical dubious protestant/pentecostal.

PastorAIO:


Why do you guys always slip into an abject incoherence when you are supposedly about to produce an irrefutable proof?

waldigit:


How do you mean sir?

As I have said earlier we have many version of that history since non of them did not substantiate their fact with facts I am not in position to hold brief for them.

Yet I know you are not privy to the version that you defend too since you are merely relying on written account . I then wonder what made you so sure this account is foolproof and authentic were you a first hand witness of this event.

As for me that's why I stay with post erori evaluations to save myself from falacies

PastorAIO:


I mean that you have made a claim to know who wrote the gospels. After your claim you were asked to tell us who those people are.

The appropriate answer to that request would be a list of names and dates, or a simple 'sorry, I don't know'.

Instead the irrelevant and inane rhetorics started to flow.

You said:

.... but nobody asked you how many versions or whether they substantiated anything and no one asked you to hold brief for anybody. So why do you go off in this nonsense daft direction.

You said:


.. again totally irrelevant to the question asked of you. And totally nonsensical. Apart from you, everybody else has admitted that they don't know who wrote the gospels. Is it not daft to accuse someone of not being a first hand witness to his ignorance of an historical event? Does this not make you sound like a dunce?

You said:


... you come take plain-faced lie crown the whole wuruwuru. I believe you meant to write posteriori. Now you tell us, where did you witness the writing of the gospels, since your position is based on posteriori? Unless you admit that you just told a big fat lie. Nothing is posteriori about your claims.

PastorAIO:


I mean that you have made a claim to know who wrote the gospels. After your claim you were asked to tell us who those people are.

The appropriate answer to that request would be a list of names and dates, or a simple 'sorry, I don't know'.

Instead the irrelevant and inane rhetorics started to flow.

You said:

.... but nobody asked you how many versions or whether they substantiated anything and no one asked you to hold brief for anybody. So why do you go off in this nonsense daft direction.

You said:


.. again totally irrelevant to the question asked of you. And totally nonsensical. Apart from you, everybody else has admitted that they don't know who wrote the gospels. Is it not daft to accuse someone of not being a first hand witness to his ignorance of an historical event? Does this not make you sound like a dunce?

You said:


... you come take plain-faced lie crown the whole wuruwuru. I believe you meant to write posteriori. Now you tell us, where did you witness the writing of the gospels, since your position is based on posteriori? Unless you admit that you just told a big fat lie. Nothing is posteriori about your claims.

waldigit:


Well the little I understand about your ranting is that you jumped on the tread midway without full comprehension of positions thereof.
I was not the one making claims of who compiled the bible, rather I was asked the questions to which I responsibly answered that I could not take position on the subject matter due to raging controversies subsisting thereof of which I don't have personal validated facts to substantiate.
This is the reason I said I resorted to posteriori evaluation so that I can form personal opinion which I am not intending to carelessly impose on anyone, because they are also entitled to their opinion too.
I believe this is decent enough.
God Bless our Pastors and save us the Church members

waldigit:


I disagree with that sir. May be the catholic version of it and not the one that is acceptable by all, persecuted by many, survived and passed the test of time and commercially available to all,

Ichiato:

All through this thread you have just been dribbling left right and center. This was your first post
to which bro italo ask you to produce the name of those who compiled the bible you claim stood the test of time. If you are not privy to such infomation then how do you know for sure it was the Catholic church that compiled that very bible.

waldigit:


There you go, that is not my position at all. I am neither maintaining that catholic church nor any other group compiled the bible. He wanted to drag me into that but I refused to be dragged because I don't have verified facts.
My position still remain the contemporary Bible is not acceptable to Catholic. That is posteriori enough to draw conclusion. Else there wouldn't have been catholic version with other additions to it . I have read it myself.
That is why I logically deduced that catholic church did not compiled it. Else they wouldn't have persecuted it so much under any guise. But amazingly its still more popular than any other version. Going posteriori again a simple goole search for bible returns contemporary bible for the 1st 10 pages before any other version. I can go on but let me rest my case.

PastorAIO:


Catholics were against the translations of the bible which were politically motivated and words were translated to make the Catholic church look bad. That is the bibles you say stand the test of time. They are translated with political bias. Every group puts their own spin on it.

waldigit:


Your very well respected opinion

waldigit:


There you go, that is not my position at all. I am neither maintaining that catholic church nor any other group compiled the bible. He wanted to drag me into that but I refused to be dragged because I don't have verified facts.
My position still remain the contemporary Bible is not acceptable to Catholic. That is posteriori enough to draw conclusion. Else there wouldn't have been catholic version with other additions to it . I have read it myself.
That is why I logically deduced that catholic church did not compiled it. Else they wouldn't have persecuted it so much under any guise. But amazingly its still more popular than any other version. Going posteriori again a simple goole search for bible returns contemporary bible for the 1st 10 pages before any other version. I can go on but let me rest my case.

OLAADEGBU:


The Attack:

Satan has messed with your bible. Find out how. The exciting story behind the
King James Bible and how Satan tried to destroy it.

Ichiato:

Your logic is flawed. If I compiled a book and thought it latter to make additions to the very book I compiled automatically disqualify me from claiming I'm the compiler? Bro the first version and second version were compiled by me. Secondly what exactly do you mean the contemporary bible is unacceptable to Catholics.
Thirdly you seem not to know the difference between compilation of the bible and translation of the bible. The catholics were only against the translation of the bible.

PastorAIO:


You mean all these people that say they are worshipping the king of kings are actually worshipping the King of Babylon?

Ubenedictus:
the problem with is agruement is that the catholic church didn't make any additions to the bible, the bible was canonised with 73 books not 66, it was luther and co who removed boks from the bible.

5solas:
@Olaadegbu
Great post, as ever.
I pray the eyes of those who just can't see the sufficiency of the scriptures (in all matters of faith) will be opened by this post, in Jesus' name, amen.

PastorAIO:
Why is the book of Maccabees rejected while the book of Esther is accepted in the bible? What are the reasons?


What is the evidence that the Alexandrian manuscripts were written by Satan? Or inspired by Satan?


Did Jesus ever quote form Esther as being a part of scripture?

btoks:


You're probably not aware that where the OT is quoted in the NT, this was mainly from the Septuagint. Even your protestant brothers agree with this e.g. (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
The fact is the Septuagint contains the seven deuterocanonicals. Even the Orthodox and Copts use these books.

Don't you think it's the person who removed these books in the 16th Century that Satan messed with?

You make some outlandish claims that you could never back up. like linking Satan with the Catholic Church! Do be careful bro and try doing some research other than what you get from Matt Slick and gotquestions.

OLAADEGBU:


Read all about it here.