Do you get to heaven by works, by Mary, by Penance, by Baptism, by confession, by Rosary? No. GUY you are right, you only get to heaven by first believing in Jesus and then living a holy and righteous life, the bible says that without holiness and righteous no one can see God

PastorAIO:


Your writings seem confused.

I asked a simple question: How is Eye for an Eye fulfilled?

You tell me that we are no longer bound by the law because of fulfilment. How does that answer my question?

So you are no longer bound by 'Eye for an Eye'. Would you say that you are no longer bound by 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours' wives'?

My suspicion is that you don't know what you mean when you say 'fulfilled'. It is just another empty rhetoric that you use. This is a common ailment amongst many who consider themselves christians, they trip off many jargons that they don't really understand and use them liberally in the most senseless manner.

Prove me wrong. What do you mean when you say the 'Law is fulfilled'?
Does it mean that there is no need to obey the law anymore?

that you don't understand something doesn't mean it is jargon.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the the law means christian are no more bound by the law. They now live through the faith of Jesus Christ unto holiness and righteousness.
I no you may not understand what I am saying.

[quote author=btoks post=48764232]

I’m afraid this is a weak argument. I asked how you know the 4 books of gospel are scripture, the same question will apply to all the books of the bible (NT in Particular). Where within the bible does it state what books constitute the bible?
Do note that the early Christians for about the first 400 years had no complied bible. How were they taught and how did certain books become part of the biblical canon?

even if the early Christians did not compile the the bible but the books/letters were read and their tradition clearly reflected the teaching of the apostles.
So your argument is baseless.

Catholicism is Christianity(No confusion), I don’t know what this has got to do with the question asked.
If Christianity was around 100's of years before the RCC, please let me know what church that was and where it is now.

I think you’re hiding away from a fact that we know the NT is scripture as confirmed via Catholic Sacred Tradition.

Roman catholic church is does not confirm to the apostles teaching.

It does not matter whether those churches still exist what matters is that we have the bible

Unfortunately, this verse tends to be misused in defending Sola Scriptura

Let’s do this logically,
Through sacred tradition we know 1 Corinthians was written about AD 56, does it mean the following scriptures (John's Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) written after AD 56 are not scripture?

Please read the verse properly within context, could he have been referring to the OT at this point ( what’s written in the book of life as per Exodus 32:32-33) or the OT in general.
Also look further along to 1 Corinthians 11:2 where Paul praises the Corinthians for holding fast to the traditions just as he had handed them on to them.
Did Paul even know what he was writing was scripture?

sola scripture This has finally proven that roman catholism is not Christianity.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

You see, it is easy to spot a false doctrine.
Any doctrine that goes against the solar scripture is false.

Except you want to tell me the solar scripture is false.

solite3:
that you don't understand something doesn't mean it is jargon.
Jesus is the fulfillment of the the law means christian are no more bound by the law. They now live through the faith of Jesus Christ unto holiness and righteousness.
I no you may not understand what I am saying.

The question I asked you, Na simple yes or no question o.

You are no longer bound by the law, does that mean that you are no longer bound to 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife'?

Me, If I don't understand something I ask questions. No pride.

I told you I don't understand what you're saying. I asked you to explain it, you're dancing atilogwu.

I'll repeat:

ARe you still bound to 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife'?

Are you still bound to 'Eye for an Eye' or has Jesus annulled that one?

PastorAIO:
The question I asked you, Na simple yes or no question o.

You are no longer bound by the law, does that mean that you are no longer bound to 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife'?

Me, If I don't understand something I ask questions. No pride.

I told you I don't understand what you're saying.
I asked you to explain it, you're dancing atilogwu

Watching and reading from the sidelines, dancing atilogwu in ''you're dancing atilogwu'' got me doubling up
What do you expect when you're asking a ''walk barefoot on hot coal'' question

PastorAIO:
I'll repeat:

Are you still bound to 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife'?

Yes

PastorAIO:
Are you still bound to 'Eye for an Eye'

He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace
- Ephesians 2:15


As seen from Ephesians 2:15 above, not necessarily yes, as you arent meant to be bound by this particular law of retaliation

PastorAIO:
or has Jesus annulled that one?

23Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed.
24Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith.
25And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian
Galatians 3:23-25 NLT

When I was a kid, my bed time was 9:00 pm, that parent law was a guide until I came of age
That parent law protected me until adulthood, when I no longer need the bed time 9:00 pm parent law as a guide, for knowing when to go to bed or to sleep

Fact is, Jesus never suggested that the law of Moses like this ''Eye for an Eye'' retaliation law would remain forever in effect
Likewise, my parents never suggested that the 9:00 pm bed time would for me, remain forever in effect

PastorAIO, give it a rest, please abeggy free the guy joor
Go pick on somebody your own size! Thats a joke :-)

PastorAIO:


The question I asked you, Na simple yes or no question o.

You are no longer bound by the law, does that mean that you are no longer bound to 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife'?

Me, If I don't understand something I ask questions. No pride.

I told you I don't understand what you're saying. I asked you to explain it, you're dancing atilogwu.

I'll repeat:

ARe you still bound to 'Thou shalt not covet your neighbours wife'?

Are you still bound to 'Eye for an Eye' or has Jesus annulled that one?

Christians are no longer bound by the old testament laws.

The new testament is about love, holiness and righteous living.

To answer your question, an eye for an eye does not reflect the love of God.
Coverting my neighbor's wife does not reflect the love of God and the righteousness of Christ.

I hope I ave answered your question

solite3:
Christians are no longer bound by the old testament laws.

The new testament is about love, holiness and righteous living.

To answer your question, an eye for an eye does not reflect the love of God.
Coverting my neighbor's wife does not reflect the love of God and the righteousness of Christ.

I hope I ave answered your question

No you haven't.

Like I said, na yes or no answer.

Eye for an eye. Are you bound by it? Yes or no?

Don't covet your neighbours wife. Are you bound by it? Yes or no?

What do you mean by fulfill the law? Does it mean abrogate?

MuttleyLaff:

Watching and reading from the sidelines, dancing atilogwu in ''you're dancing atilogwu'' got me doubling up
What do you expect when you're asking a ''walk barefoot on hot coal'' question

Yes

He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace
- Ephesians 2:15


As seen from Ephesians 2:15 above, not necessarily yes, as you arent meant to be bound by this particular law of retaliation

23Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed.
24Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith.
25And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian
Galatians 3:23-25 NLT

When I was a kid, my bed time was 9:00 pm, that parent law was a guide until I came of age
That parent law protected me until adulthood, when I no longer need the bed time 9:00 pm parent law as a guide, for knowing when to go to bed or to sleep

Fact is, Jesus never suggested that the law of Moses like this ''Eye for an Eye'' retaliation law would remain forever in effect
Likewise, my parents never suggested that the 9:00 pm bed time would for me, remain forever in effect

PastorAIO, give it a rest, please abeggy free the guy joor
Go pick on somebody your own size! Thats a joke :-)

Abeg o, my guy...

We are speaking of the law as one. I am inquiring into what it means to 'fulfill' the law. Does to fulfill the law mean to contradict it?

We are treating the law as one. Not that we will abrogate certain laws and yet hold on to certain other laws. I asked you about two different commands of the law. The first one you said that you are still bound by it.
The second one, you said 'not necessarily yes'. That means you're dividing the law and cherry picking the one that you want to follow from the one you want to abrogate.

Now the reason for my interest in this dumbassed thread is because somebody has stood up to point the finger at another. Trying to cast the catholic church in bad light, meanwhile he is just filled with hateful bias without any actual christian basis for his vile attacks. He has not basis in the bible, he has no basis in the Holy Spirit and he has no basis in the traditions of christianity handed down from the apostles.
Yet he fancies himself to be superior to catholics in some way.
That is what brought me to this thread.

There is a pattern amongst such people. I notice that they have a fondness of using certain rhetorics that they lifted off the bible, but when you quiz them on the rhetorics you'll find that they are empty vessels just making a great deal of hollow noise. Ask them to explain what the mean by those rhetorics and they'll start to chew their lips.

Anybody can repeat words that they've heard before, but not everybody can understand what he/she is talking about.

[quote author=solite3 post=48748465][/quote]

even if the early Christians did not compile the the bible but the books/letters were read and their tradition clearly reflected the teaching of the apostles.
So your argument is baseless.

And you think your response is not baseless??! I'll ask the original question again - How did the NT books of the bible become scripture?
Are you aware that the 1st Letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas etc were also read by early christians

It does not matter whether those churches still exist what matters is that we have the bible

So we have bible. This is the ‘taking things for granted’ syndrome. Where does it says in the bible that it doesn’t matter whether the church exists?

Do you know your statement directly contradicts:
1 Tim 3:15 - if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Matt 18: 15 – 17 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault,>>>>>>>> If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

sola scripture This has finally proven that roman catholism is not Christianity.

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Galatians 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

You see, it is easy to spot a false doctrine.
Any doctrine that goes against the solar scripture is false.

Except you want to tell me the solar scripture is false.

Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that came out in the 16th Century with Martin Luther and other so called Reformers. It was never thought for the 1st 1500 years. What you have with sola scriptura is a bunch of people feeling they have the right interpretation, guess what has happened since – More than 30,000 denominations with mostly conflicting doctrines.

Try to follow your argument through properly. You have now brought up another verse in Galatians!! How does this prove Sola Scriptura? Doesn’t it say ‘preached unto you’ – How has preached become written and where does it say Galatians is Scripture?

PastorAIO:



No you haven't.

Like I said, na yes or no answer.

Eye for an eye. Are you bound by it? Yes or no?

Don't covet your neighbours wife. Are you bound by it? Yes or no?

What do you mean by fulfill the law? Does it mean abrogate?

you said you don't believe in God but why are you defending catholic false teaching?

I said that Christians are not bound by any law excerpt the law of Christ.
I hope it is now clear.

author=btoks post=48789079]

And you think your response is not baseless??! I'll ask the original question again - How did the NT books of the bible become scripture?
Are you aware that the 1st Letter of Clement, Shepherd of Hermas etc were also read by early christians

@ bold the NT convenes the teaching of the apostles.
Other books were not inspired.
Letter of clement contains excerpts from the new testament this goes to prove that although the bible had not been compiled but the books were used and were recognised as the inspired word of God.

So we have bible. This is the ‘taking things for granted’ syndrome. Where does it says in the bible that it doesn’t matter whether the church exists?

may I ask you who are the church?

Do you know your statement directly contradicts:
1 Tim 3:15 - if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Matt 18: 15 – 17 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault,>>>>>>>> If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

And you think the church is roman catholic?

[right][quote[b]]Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine[/b] that came out in the 16th Century with Martin Luther and other so called Reformers. It was never thought for the 1st 1500 years. What you have with sola scriptura is a bunch of people feeling they have the right interpretation, guess what has happened since – More than 30,000 denominations with mostly conflicting doctrines.

Try to follow your argument through properly. You have now brought up another verse in Galatians!! How does this prove Sola Scriptura? Doesn’t it say ‘preached unto you’ – How has preached become written and where does it say Galatians is Scripture?

[/quote] @ bold which part of sola scripture is false?
What Paul preached is what was written down.

Nothing was hidden.

ministeriallist:

OP, are you now the Judge for God? Work hard for your own salvation rather than judging. (Phil 2:12)

You cannot work for something that is given freely.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,

κατεργάζεσθε


κατεργαζομαι do, accomplish, bring about, make ready, overcome

http://www.misselbrook.org.uk/Parsing.aspx?PNum=4881

solite3:
you said you don't believe in God but why are you defending catholic false teaching?

I said that Christians are not bound by any law excerpt the law of Christ.
I hope it is now clear.

When did I say I don't believe in God? Are you hallucinating?

Where did you mention anything about Law of Christ?

What do you mean by Law of christ?

Do you mean Love God and love your neighbour? If you do, do you realise that that law is actually in the mosaic Laws? it's called the Shema and it is the most important law in Judaism till this day. Furthermore the Pharisees already singled it out as the center of the Law long before Jesus was born. So you can't jive me that it is something that Jesus brought.

If there is another Law of Christ that you are talking about, please spit it out.

[quote author=solite3 post=48791537] author=btoks post=48789079]

@ bold the NT convenes the teaching of the apostles.
Other books were not inspired.
Letter of clement contains excerpts from the new testament this goes to prove that although the bible had not been compiled but the books were used and were recognised as the inspired word of God.

These are all assumptions that you’ve gleaned through tradition of who informed you.
Where are the teachings of the following Apostles - Andrew, Bartholomew, Philip, Thomas
Were Luke and Mark also Apostles? –
Who authored the book Hebrews?

Are you aware the author of the gospels are anonymous and we only know their identity via sacred tradition.
How do you know 1st Clement and Sherphard of Hermas are not inspired but 3 John or Philemon are inspired?

may I ask you who are the church?

The church is the body of Christ, the members who process true faith in Jesus Christ
The context of the verses sent to you imply the hierarchy of clergy /leadership of the church as they are the ones who received the blessing directly from Jesus (as with the Apostles) and from the Apostles (as with the Elders, Bishops, Deacons Etc).

We know that soon after the true church was established, some groups started separating themselves thinking they had the true teaching- there had to be one original church.

And you think the church is roman catholic?

Without a doubt. What other church did Jesus establish and were is it today?
About 110AD, we read St Ignatius referring to the real Church as Catholic in one of his letters.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. —Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8

You may also want to read the Nicene creed that refers to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

@ bold which part of sola scripture is false?
What Paul preached is what was written down.

Nothing was hidden.

Scripture itself is not false but is not the only rule of faith. It required a look into tradition to declare the scriptures as scriptures. This points to an authority outside of the scriptures alone

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant teaching that the written Scripture alone is the only rule of Faith.
This teaching is false because the assertion itself cannot be proven within the bible

Not all of Paul’s teachings are written in the bible as you clearly see when reading his letters.
Also, he letters were written to established Christians who had been practicing for decades.

Btoks you are so on point.

They deny the sacred tradition. But they did not know that ,with its aid, we have been able to trace the origin and the source of writings.

PastorAIO:


When did I say I don't believe in God? Are you hallucinating?

Where did you mention anything about Law of Christ?

What do you mean by Law of christ?

Do you mean Love God and love your neighbour? If you do, do you realise that that law is actually in the mosaic Laws? it's called the Shema and it is the most important law in Judaism till this day. Furthermore the Pharisees already singled it out as the center of the Law long before Jesus was born. So you can't jive me that it is something that Jesus brought.

If there is another Law of Christ that you are talking about, please spit it out.

lol I guess you think I don't know what I am talking about. the law of Christ is to live by faith in christ ( the son of God).

[quote author=btoks post=48820530][/quote] I laugh when you said the roman catholic church was the church Jesus established.
Go and do your research, find out when the roman catholic church was formed and stop spewing ignorance.
For your information, the gospels where used by the early churches ( not roman catholic) hundreds of years before roman catholism but those so called other books were unknow.

You said "the church is the body of Christ who possess faith in Christ."
You are correct although you might not know what you are saying cause if you do you would know that roman catholic fails this test.

CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS NEVER THE FIRST CHURCH NEITHER IS IT THE TRUE CHURCH

thank God you said that the sola scripture is not false.( although this has contradicted your earlier claim)
Which means protestant are right to use it.
That so called sola scripture has declared the catholic church false

Paul wrote that what he wrote down are what he preaches no different.

Any tradition that goes against the scripture is false and of the devil.

PastorAIO:
Abeg o, my guy...

Just was thinking the temperament in your post could cause a thermometer to break from the sharply rising mercury

PastorAIO:
We are speaking of the law as one

Yes, we are speaking of the law, to be ONE body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible via Moses

PastorAIO:
I am inquiring into what it means to 'fulfill' the law.

''fulfill'' the law, means simply, meeting the righteous standard of the Law (i.e. meaning 24/7 100% keep up with the Law)

Without going into the nitty-gritt, it is evident that it is impossible and hard for man, by himself, to meet the righteous standard of the Law
(side note: I implore you read Acts 15 and importantly make a mental note of Acts 15:10)
or for man to able to fulfil the Law or the Prophets.

Only God can, and that is why God came, what Jesus came to do and what God did, using Jesus, in the form of man, to do

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
- Romans 10:4 KJV

And by Him all that believe are justified from all things (i.e. declared righteous),
from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses
- Acts 13:39 KJV

He did this by ending (i.e. abolishing) the system of law with its commandments and regulations.
He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in Himself one new people from the two groups
- Ephesians 2:15 NLT

Why, then, was the law given?
It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins.
But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised
God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people
- Galatians 3:19 NLT

Providing Romans 10:4, Acts 13:39, Ephesians 2:15 and Galatians 3:19 above was necessary
and wasnt at all meant to be an information overload
so hope the four verses were stomached well, digested and kept down without being infoxicated or getting stomach cramps

My dear friend, trust you are familiar with the sayings:
If you want a thing done well, (i.e. want the righteous standard of the Law done well), do it yourself
OR
if you want something done right (i.e. want the righteous standard of the Law done well), you have to do it yourself

Doing it by self, for it to be done well and for it to be done right, is what God via Jesus did in fulfiling righteous standard of the Law
Jesus fulfilled the law by abiding, observing, adhering to, going along with, consented to the Law and/or the Prophets

Jesus came to fulfil the law, where the law is the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible via Moses, or pronouncement by the prophets or made directly by God
(i.e. fulfil as in, to make, where applicable, each or all of them come to pass or come true by abiding, observing, adhering to, going along with, consented to them)

Jesus fulfilled the law by meeting all the righteous standard of the Law
Jesus satisfied all the righteous standard of the Law albeit the Mosaic part of the Law, on our behalf,
the Mosaic part of the Law is no longer binding, the royal law part though is, because that part is eternal

PastorAIO:
Does to fulfill the law mean to contradict it?

No it doesnt.
The above immediate has touched on this
and mind you, you really are getting hold of the wrong end of the stick here with this misinformed ''contradict'' speak

PastorAIO:
We are treating the law as one. Not that we will abrogate certain laws and yet hold on to certain other laws.
I asked you about two different commands of the law. The first one you said that you are still bound by it.

This is what happens, where there is a misunderstanding of the words, the passage, the context and intended or targeted audience

PastorAIO:
The second one, you said 'not necessarily yes'

The royal law (i.e. the 10 commandments etcetera ) and the law received from the hands of angels (i.e. Moses' Law) though different from another, form the one body of commandments

The former (i.e. do not covet...) is an eternal command hence the reason for saying yes
the latter (i.e. eye for an eye) beside my original or earlier correct ''you arent meant to be bound by this particular law of retaliation'' remark
is, as a matter of fact, intended for a different targeted audience and, it was added till the seed should come, and that seed was Jesus Christ,
hence the reason for saying not ''necessarily yes''

PastorAIO:
That means you're dividing the law

Ah, o ma se ooo, peele.

No, it doesnt mean dividing the law the way you're misunderstanding the idea
but means unashamedly rightly dividing the word of truth on the law

One is a royal law (i.e. do not covet...) which is eternal,
the other is a law of Moses (i.e. eye for an eye), which has been done away with (i.e. gone past its use-by date)

He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings
so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself. So he made peace
- Ephesians 2:15

Remember I quoted Ephesians 2:15 in the previous post and now twice on this post about this
I also provided an analogy about the 9:00 pm lights out or bed time for the purpose of explanation or clarification

PastorAIO:
and cherry picking the one that you want to follow from the one you want to abrogate

My dear friend dont be needlessly alarmed, this is not cherry picking or abrogating

The bible is clear without needing to resort to cherry picking
You will have a light-bulb moment, the second you recognise and appreciate that the bible is a book of divisions, with timelines and targeted audience

⁷What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him?
⁸And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?
- Deuteronomy 4:7 NIV

¹⁹He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
²⁰He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD
- Psalm 147:19-20

If you dont get the Jew part, the gentile part, the ekklesia (i.e. church) part and the unbeliever part in the right places (i.e. if you dont know the differences)
you'll never be able to figure out what the Bible is talking about, who the Bible is talking about, who the Bible is talking to
If the truth is not rightly divided, you will never know when the Bible is talking about the Jew, talking to the Gentile, ekklesia (i.e. church) or unbeliever
and just wouldnt be able figure out properly what the bible really or actually means

Deuteronomy 4:7 and Psalm 147:19-20 are two typical examples to show that the bible is a book of division, meaning it has Jew, Gentile, ekklesia (i.e. church) and unbeliever divisions
there are some part it says to the Jew it didnt say to the Gentile,
some things it says to the Gentile it didnt say to the ekklesia (i.e. church)
other things it says to the unbeliever, it doesnt or didnt say to ekklesia (i.e. church) etcetera

The onus is on you, as 2 Timothy 2:15 requires that, you study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

PastorAIO:
Now the reason for my interest in this dumbassed thread is because somebody has stood up to point the finger at another. Trying to cast the catholic church in bad light, meanwhile he is just filled with hateful bias without any actual christian basis for his vile attacks

If the papacy reads, then you might be in for FID DEF (i.e. fidei defensor)

PastorAIO:
He has not basis in the bible, he has no basis in the Holy Spirit and he has no basis in the traditions of christianity handed down from the apostles.
Yet he fancies himself to be superior to catholics in some way

Pointing out errors, drawing attention to lies or warning of falsehood in Catholicism or Protestantism is not a claim of superiority nau
I must admit OP started OTT with one, two or more excessive and exaggerated claims
but why wouldnt you refute the claim(s) in the OP's first post,

I for one, would love to read about purgatory coming from the horse's mouth, from a seasoned and matured catholic perspective,
as I suspect the Catholic church out of better understanding have altered her stance and repackaged the doctrine of purgatory after getting much flak over the original way of thinking about the purging doctrine

Wouldnt mind, reading about the purging doctrine from a non-Catholic too.

PastorAIO:
That is what brought me to this thread

I wondered what caused the adrenaline rush and why being gung-ho all guns blazing on the thread

PastorAIO:
There is a pattern amongst such people.
I notice that they have a fondness of using certain rhetorics that they lifted off the bible, but when you quiz them on the rhetorics you'll find that they are empty vessels just making a great deal of hollow noise. Ask them to explain what the mean by those rhetorics and they'll start to chew their lips

Another dogmatic pattern is copying and pasting Christ Embassy's Rhapsody of Realities works here in the Religion forum
and impossibly trying to defend the content when the poster isnt the mind behind the thought nor the author or originator of the written work

Two posters are consistently guilty of this practice and infamously known for not crediting to Pastor Chris whenever publishing his Rhapsody of Realities works here in the Religion forum
They leave the Pastor Chris credit out, and make-believe the posted write up, published in its full and unedited entire form, is a fresh and original work of theirs. SMH.

PastorAIO:
Anybody can repeat words that they've heard before, but not everybody can understand what he/she is talking about.

Likewise, anybody can copy and paste Christ Embassy's Rhapsody of Realities here
but can never defend what Pastor Chris, (i.e. the author or originator of the Rhapsody of Realities written work) is talking about
because Pastor Chris' train of thoughts on the subject matter is known only to him
and not known or revealed to the Nairaland poster(s) posting Pastor Chris' work

[quote author=solite3 post=48875334]

I laugh when you said the roman catholic church was the church Jesus established.
Go and do your research, find out when the roman catholic church was formed and stop spewing ignorance.
For your information, the gospels where used by the early churches ( not roman catholic) hundreds of years before roman catholism but those so called other books were unknow.

I’ve done my research and the Church founded by Jesus in the first century on Peter is the Catholic Church. This is historical fact which you cannot debunk.
Unfortunately it appears you have note read my responses. Where is this so called early church that preceded the CC, surely there must be evidence for it? Please let us have this info.

You said "the church is the body of Christ who possess faith in Christ."
You are correct although you might not know what you are saying cause if you do you would know that roman catholic fails this test.

Please let me know how the CC fails the test of professing faith in Jesus. I am Catholic and what you’re saying is news to me with no substance!!

CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS NEVER THE FIRST CHURCH NEITHER IS IT THE TRUE CHURCH

Ok back up your assertion with facts. Where is the church Jesus established? Certainly, it must exist as Jesus said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
According to you when was the CC established?

thank God you said that the sola scripture is not false.( although this has contradicted your earlier claim)
Which means protestant are right to use it.
That so called sola scripture has declared the catholic church false

I don’t think you read my response properly. SOLA SCRIPTURA is a false doctrine started in the 16th Century.
SOLA Scriptura is the teaching the scriptures are the only rule of faith. This is false because the premise the itself cannot be proven within the bible. Also, the bible does not tell us what books make up the bible.

Also goes against several scriptures where we are asked to hold on to sacred Tradition as well as written scriptures. E.g. 2 thess 3: 15

What has been declared as Scripture (by the CC by the way via Tradition) is correct. However, scripture is not the only rule of faith – you cannot discount sacred tradition.

E.g. via Sola Scriptura, a lot protestant denominations teach that the Holy Eucharist is not the body and blood of Jesus. By looking at the scriptures within the sacred tradition context, we know that the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Paul wrote that what he wrote down are what he preaches no different.

Where did he say this and how do you know that Paul’s Letters are scriptures?

Any tradition that goes against the scripture is false and of the devil.

Agreed, where does Catholic tradition go against Scripture? Plus I’ll reiterate that the Scriptures themselves were declared as such via Tradition. Please careful what you class as coming from the devil


You’ve got nowhere to hide, you have stated that the CC is false. You have got to back it up. Unfortunately, you’re not a very good debater and your responses are weak.

MuttleyLaff:

The royal law (i.e. the 10 commandments etcetera ) and the law received from the hands of angels (i.e. Moses' Law) though different from another, form the one body of commandments

The former (i.e. do not covet...) is an eternal command hence the reason for saying yes

the latter (i.e. eye for an eye) beside my original or earlier correct ''you arent meant to be bound by this particular law of retaliation'' remark
is, as a matter of fact, intended for a different targeted audience and, it was added till the seed should come, and that seed was Jesus Christ,
hence the reason for saying not ''necessarily yes''

Ah, o ma se ooo, peele.

No, it doesnt mean dividing the law the way you're misunderstanding the idea
but means unashamedly rightly dividing the word of truth on the law

One is a royal law (i.e. do not covet...) which is eternal,
the other is a law of Moses (i.e. eye for an eye), which has been done away with (i.e. gone past its use-by date)

[i]He brought an end to the commandments and demands found in Moses' Teachings
so that he could take Jewish and non-Jewish people and create one new humanity in himself.

My dear friend dont be needlessly alarmed, this is not cherry picking or abrogating

The bible is clear without needing to resort to cherry picking

Ol boi, I asked you for simple directions and you took me on the scenic route. I don't know why you are going on at length about all these irrelevant things. Even to the point of telling me about Pastor Chris and Rhapsody of Reality.

Abeg, make we come down again to the simple kweshion. Are you dividing to law into parts that you are bound by and parts that you abrogate? Very simple.

But luckily I had the patience to wean some paltry grains of wheat from the chaff.

I believe you've created a whole new theology for yourself with this your 'royal law' versus 'law of moses'.

I'm sorry but I'm just gonna have to stop you dead in your tracks there because it is based on a totally false foundation.


You said:

The royal law (i.e. the 10 commandments etcetera ) and the law received from the hands of angels (i.e. Moses' Law) though different from another, form the one body of commandments

I'm sorry but you are just making this up and contradicting the bible in the process.

Eye for a Eye in the law of Moses which we are discussing was not given by any angels but by Yahweh himself. It is in the very next chapter after the ten commandments are given.

Exodus Chapter 21:

It is Yahweh speaking: 1“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.


In that chapter Yahweh speaks throughout. He continues: 23But if there is harm,d then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The only reason that these laws are not together with the Ten Commandments is because the children of Israel became afraid while he was giving his speech and beg him to talk only to Moses.

There is NO WHERE in the bible where you'll find any such thing as a distinction of 'royal law' and 'moses law' received from angels. At least not to my knowledge. Though I'm happy for you to enlighten me if such is the case.

It's odd that the most extra-biblically minded fellows are the ones that are most vocal in accusing the Catholic church of being extra-biblical.


I put it to you that you have cherry picked from the laws of Moses. To convince me otherwise you have to come with something stronger than what seems to me a conceited new fangled theology without biblical basis.

PastorAIO:


Ol boi, I asked you for simple directions and you took me on the scenic route. I don't know why you are going on at length about all these irrelevant things. Even to the point of telling me about Pastor Chris and Rhapsody of Reality

Haba Chief, if you are being honest you would admit I was giving another example of bigotry you raised in your post where some paste non original works here and not able to defend is as they aren't the author

Don't be reading my posts in a rush, I don't read yours like that, and this is why am able to piecemeal respond to them

PastorAIO:
Abeg, make we come down again to the simple kweshion. Are you dividing to law into parts that you are bound by and parts that you abrogate? Very simple.

But luckily I had the patience to wean some paltry grains of wheat from the chaff.

I believe you've created a whole new theology for yourself with this your 'royal law' versus 'law of moses'.

I'm sorry but I'm just gonna have to stop you dead in your tracks there because it is based on a totally false foundation.


You said:


I'm sorry but you are just making this up and contradicting the bible in the process.

Eye for a Eye in the law of Moses which we are discussing was not given by any angels but by Yahweh himself. It is in the very next chapter after the ten commandments are given.

Exodus Chapter 21:

It is Yahweh speaking: 1“Now these are the rules that you shall set before them.


In that chapter Yahweh speaks throughout. He continues: 23But if there is harm,d then you shall pay life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

The only reason that these laws are not together with the Ten Commandments is because the children of Israel became afraid while he was giving his speech and beg him to talk only to Moses.

There is NO WHERE in the bible where you'll find any such thing as a distinction of 'royal law' and 'moses law' received from angels. At least not to my knowledge. Though I'm happy for you to enlighten me if such is the case

Apart from your occasional humility, I always enjoy the privilege of engaging you because we learn a thing or two for not more off each other, we provoke each other to search and confirm things out.

Surprisingly for you there is such thing as a distinction of 'royal law' and 'moses law' received from angels.

I think you aren't familiar with the phrase royal law and not aware why they are called royal laws

If am right, I already provided verses attesting to that. Please correct if I havent.

PastorAIO:

It's odd that the most extra-biblically minded fellows are the ones that are most vocal in accusing the Catholic church of being extra-biblical

Whatever this means

PastorAIO:

I put it to you that you have cherry picked from the laws of Moses. To convince me otherwise you have to come with something stronger than what seems to me a conceited new fangled theology without biblical basis.

It's all in the bible alright
Again not cherry-picking but applying 2 Timothy 2:15

solite3:

what is in the Rosary that is not biblical or what do you see in catholic that is not or against the bible?

solite3:
I m not the judge but the word of God is
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

No body can work for his or her salvation!

I marvel at people who take out precious time to scatter another christain faith instead of building their own. You say "nobody can work for his or her salvation?

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
Philippians 2:12‭-‬13 NIV

If you don't work out your faith, if you don't seek God earnestly then there will be no place for God to work in you.

See go out and win souls for Christ. Draw people close to him instead of writing a this to condemn another sect. Why not spread the faith that you have. Attacking another faith will make people deaf and defensive. Draw them into your own by preaching the love and the freedom in Christ and read your bible more...Christ is the one we look up to not any sect

[quote author=btoks post=48922372][/quote] i have no time to argue with you.

2shuz:


I marvel at people who take out precious time to scatter another christain faith instead of building their own. You say "nobody can work for his or her salvation?

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.
Philippians 2:12‭-‬13 NIV

If you don't work out your faith, if you don't seek God earnestly then there will be no place for God to work in you.

See go out and win souls for Christ. Draw people close to him instead of writing a this to condemn another sect. Why not spread the faith that you have. Attacking another faith will make people deaf and defensive. Draw them into your own by preaching the love and the freedom in Christ and read your bible more...Christ is the one we look up to not any sect

yes I preach the gospel and it is also Christians duty to reprove the work of darkness.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and their tradition.
If you care about souls that are perishing you should do the same.

dania02:

what is in the Rosary that is not biblical or what do you see in catholic that is not or against the bible?

you should read the bible yourself.

solite3:
you should read the bible yourself.

everytin in the rosary is frm d bible read luke 1:28, 42, nd 45 u will c d first part nd d second 1 holy mary read eph 1:1 phi 1:1, nd col 1:2 den read d ending of rev 5:8 nd psalm 136

dania02:

everytin in the rosary is frm d bible read luke 1:28, 42, nd 45 u will c d first part nd d second 1 holy mary read eph 1:1 phi 1:1, nd col 1:2 den read d ending of rev 5:8 nd psalm 136

rosary itself is unbilical.
Rosary is pagan in origin.

THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF ROSARY BEADS

PRAYER BEADS – OR – ROSARY BEADS

Rosary beads come in all shapes, colors, sizes and
quality. Some rosaries are strung with pearl, crystal,
wood and even plastic. But where did the ritual of
the rosary come from? And what, exactly, is the
significance of rosary beads?

The rosary in simplest terms is said to be a tool
used to aid prayer and meditation. The beads of a
rosary count the prayers as they are recited out loud
or in the mind. The user relies on the rosary beads
to keep track of how many times you’ve said a
particular prayer.

“Most commonly recognized in the United States
as a symbol of Catholicism, other religions including
Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and Islam employ
rosary beads as well.”
-The Meaning of Rosary Beads
What Do Rosary Beads Symbolize?
By Jessica Ciosek

“Prayer beads, or prayer rosaries, are really
another form of the “witch’s ladder,” a knotted
rope or cord used to count repetitions during
a spell or ritual. Praying with beads is a spiritual
practice with a long history in most of the world’s
religions.”
-Sacred Mists Shoppe
Janet Farrar & Gavin Bone

“prayer beads originated with the Hindu faith.
Using beads for devotions dates to the 8th century BC
in the cult of Shiva. In India sandstone sculptures,
statues ca 185 BC, show Hindus with prayer beads.
The names of Hindu gods and prayers are repeated
on stringed beads, called mala, separated by larger
or different colored beads.”
-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
Patricia A. Dilley

“Hindu converts kept their traditional use of
prayer beads. Buddhist monks always carry a strand
of prayer beads, or rosary, usually of 108 beads.”
-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
Patricia A. Dilley

Prayer beads are used by : Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims,
and Catholics among others.

“Often, when religions sought converts,
they allowed them to retain some of their
pagan ways: ceremonial garb, heathen rituals
and traditions; in order to add to their numbers.
This led to spiritual pollution.”
-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
Patricia A. Dilley

“Before the 12th century, rosaries were used for
talismans (amulet or occult charms). Rosaries and
prayer beads were intended by the catholic church
hierarchy, for use by the ignorant.”
-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
Patricia A. Dilley

“Pagans had used prayer beads even before the
8th century before CHRIST, and they still use
them today.”
-A HISTORY OF PRAYING ON BEADS
Patricia A. Dilley

The Bible warns us against use of prayer beads –
Matthew 6:7 says – “But when ye pray, use not vain
repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that
they shall be heard for their much speaking.

“And when you pray, do not…repeat the same
words over and over as the Gentiles (pagans) do,
for they think they will be heard for their much
speaking.”
(Matthew 6:7)(AMP)-BibleGateway

“But when praying, do not say the same things
over and over again, just as the people of the
nations do, for they imagine they will get a
hearing for their use of many words.”
(Matthew 6:7)(NWT)

solite3:
rosary itself is unbilical.
Rosary is pagan in origin.

guy gv me reason did you get a vision or u hv a prove? And if u say it is pagen becos of repetation then what is psalm 136 a pagen prayer?