[img]http://support.whatsinthebible.com/attachments/token/nqtua5ij44z4zpf/?name=WITB_Logo.jpeg[/img]

What is the bible!!!

chukwudi44: @truthislight

I guess you have comprehension issues.Maybe the heretical teachings you are receiving from that your cursed JW fellowish is begining to affect you.

No where did I state that these catholic church councils wrote the books of the bible.I only stated the historical fact which is that these church councils selected the books that make up the bible from a wide variety of writings which were being circulated in the early church.

But I don't blame you since lack of comprehension of simple passages runs deep in that your heretical gathering which I do not even consider a church.You can even pray to your 'angel' micheal who died for your sins on the 'tree' to come and help you understand simple passages

meanwhile your ghost/shrine did not help you to know that paul wrote the book of timothy when you said it was timothy that wrote it.

Then what that leads you is a liar.

Enigma:

You too have resorted to lying and even contradicting yourself in one post as with the other quote of yours below.

Anyway, here again is the answer to your question that that you claimed I am "dodging away from".






You can of course choose to argue with Jesus; all I know is Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name. there I am in the midst of them."

@Enigma

that rich4God guy question is legitimate.

You mean were they gather they are for christ irrespective of their doctrines?

@Enigma... You are still dodging away... No explanations plz, all i just want is for you to tell "where/which is the catholic church that the roman catholics need to repent and join?"... cos the last time i checked, the roman catholics have been gathering and are still gathering in the name of Jesus and yet you labeled them as a false church. Am waiting.

frosbel:
Of course, those pentecostal churches are no different, they are the daughters of that harlot catholic church.

Frosbel, na wa for you o! everybody don dey evil for your eye. Am begining to suspect you worship in a mosque

frosbel:
Why should I , You and Enigma are brothers without knowing it, both catholics with a different twist to the story albeit on the same level with the propagation of falsehoods that cannot stand up to the test of scripture.

You don craze

Rich4god: @Enigma... You are still dodging away... No explanations plz, all i just want is for you to tell "where/which is the catholic church that the roman catholics need to repent and join?"... cos the last time i checked, the roman catholics have been gathering and are still gathering in the name of Jesus and yet you labeled them as a false church. Am waiting.

Once again you resort to lying! Point to where I have labelled the "roman catholics" a "false church".

truthislight:

@Enigma

that rich4God guy question is legitimate.

You mean were they gather they are for christ irrespective of their doctrines?

What to do is to try and understand what Christ said i.e. that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them and His teachings, then you will know if/what "doctrine" is needed.

frosbel:

Why should I , You and Enigma are brothers without knowing it, both catholics with a different twist to the story albeit on the same level with the propagation of falsehoods that cannot stand up to the test of scripture.

Actually, I should reply to this post if only to point out to you, Mr Frosbel, that I have not said a single thing about you on this thread.

Zikkyy:

Frosbel, na wa for you o! everybody don dey evil for your eye. Am begining to suspect you worship in a mosque

Sorry I did not qualify my statement.

I meant to say those pentecostals in agreement with the catholic church, only those ones if I may repeat.

You don craze

Enigma is a catholic, did you not know

Enigma:

Actually, I should reply to this post if only to point out to you, Mr Frosbel, that I have not said a single thing about you on this thread.

Aha, you lie

Just a joke.

What is all this fuss about?haven't enigma proven we are all catholics descendend from the catholic church of the first four centuries.Even the church enigma founded in his village is also catholic with the exception of people like truthislight who gather in the name of angel micheal and hence cannot be called catholics.

Let's now progress to study the teachings of our catholic church fathers.I have posted their teachings on infant baptism and if my catholic brother enigma would not have any contrary opinion with what our catholics fathers have stated,I would now move ahead to the marian doctrines and the veneration of the saints

@Enigma... If you are not seeing them as false why do you said that they should repent... And you still havent answered my question... Where/Which is the true catholic church.

Enigma:

Once again you resort to lying! Point to where I have labelled the "roman catholics" a "false church".




What to do is to try and understand what Christ said i.e. that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them and His teachings, then you will know if/what "doctrine" is needed.

if you say "his teaching" well and fine,
peace

Enigma:

Honestly, in specific debates, the arguments of the atheists here have been thoroughly discredited over the years. Even they the atheists know it! For me and I think many who have been here longer, it is not really worth rehashing with them ---- and I have noticed this attitude about quite a few of the Christians who used to engage them.

Actually, I once hijacked a thread which was intended to be a humorous dig at the atheists and it turned to a compendium of some of the standard nonsense that the atheists used to say ---- now the wiser ones don't say a lot of the things anymore.

Here https://www.nairaland.com/298119/30-keys-being-effective-atheist

An interesting aside: recently on a thread I saw one atheist use the expression "Dunning-Kruger effect" (told off by Mr Anony). However, there was a time that the atheists used to throw that expression around here very liberally ----- until we showed them that the very worst exemplifier of the Dunning-Kruger effect is to be an evangelical atheist. The use of the expression here stopped pronto ---- until the recent example. The same is true of "flying spaghetti monster" ----- only the newer mumus are still using it here.

I'm reading through the thread right now. It's actually quite interesting. Thanks for referring me.

Say, what do you think of all the accusation of insolence, arrogance and abuse leveled against the believer? I see that it was included on that list. I used to be averse to strong language coming from the Christian and thought of it as a sign of upset or anger on his part until recent engagements of mine.

Somehow, I understood and appreciated more that there could be only mild amusement backing them during those engagements. I feel more appreciative of Jesus's apparent bursts of "anger" at the Sanhedrin and His calling Herod a fox.

That's just one example of many idiisyncracies that I had about Lord Jesus that I'm losing on a daily basis. But, what do you think, sir?

@enigma

Please stop ignoring your catholic brother.Let's discuss our catholic doctrines in the light of the early catholic church doctrines and practices

chukwudi44: @enigma

Please stop ignoring your catholic brother.Let's discuss our catholic doctrines in the light of the early catholic church doctrines and practices

Maybe, enigma loves the bible,

but you want to upload tradition on his head and he does not want,

chukwudi44: @enigma

Please stop ignoring your catholic brother.Let's discuss our catholic doctrines in the light of the early catholic church doctrines and practices

Maybe, enigma loves the bible,

but you want to upload tradition on his head and he does not want,

truthislight:

Maybe, enigma loves the bible,

but you want to upload tradition on his head and he does not want,

Maybe, enigma loves the bible,

but you want to upload tradition on his head and he does not want,

Sharaaaap are my talking to you!! I was referring to my catholic brother enigma.

Besides we catholic don't practice sola bible.Don't forget even the bible is a product of catholic tradition.

You are talking as if you JW do practise sola bible.Don't even you guys also have a lot of your extra biblical heresy

Ihedinobi:

I'm reading through the thread right now. It's actually quite interesting. Thanks for referring me.

Say, what do you think of all the accusation of insolence, arrogance and abuse leveled against the believer? I see that it was included on that list. I used to be averse to strong language coming from the Christian and thought of it as a sign of upset or anger on his part until recent engagements of mine.

Somehow, I understood and appreciated more that there could be only mild amusement backing them during those engagements. I feel more appreciative of Jesus's apparent bursts of "anger" at the Sanhedrin and His calling Herod a fox.

That's just one example of many idiisyncracies that I had about Lord Jesus that I'm losing on a daily basis. But, what do you think, sir?

A considerable part of this post will reflect my own experience and my perspectives naturally.

Let me start with the accusation of insolence, abuse etc levelled against the believers.

The Christians were not always abusive or insolent towards the atheists in particular in my judgment and experience. Initially, when the Christians could discuss among themselves without much interference most didn't pay all that much attention to the atheists. I certainly didn't because my interest has always been to discuss Christian issues primarily with Christians but also with reasonable non-Christians. In fact till now I still don't even generally get involved with the Moslems, pagans, "esoterics", etc, because I have always preferred to leave them all to do their own things.

Actually, just around the time that the "aggressive" atheists, to be nice, started acting obnoxiously I stopped posting regularly in the Religion section (for some two or more years) and only made occasional visits.

When I started posting regularly here again some 2 odd years ago, I tried as much as possible to keep away from the atheists in particular. By this time, however, a few of them had become reaaaaally obnoxious and would constantly "troll" even purely Christian topics (including praise/prayer threads!), abuse, insult, blaspheme sacrilegiously etc.

They had become extremely arrogant ------ and then it became necessary to engage them and to puncture their pomposity a little.

Now about our own attitude: naturally we are supposed to be far far more tolerant than anyone else and in honesty there is no question that we too got dragged into the mud. However, it is not everything we say that is abuse ----- some is just telling like it is; and this was (still occasionally is) necessary. Some are purely factual descriptions, others are telling and calling them what the Bible calls them when they behave to type; if a person shows he is a fool/mumu precisely for the reason that the Bible gives, then that is what the person is: we may refrain from telling him, but when necessary we do tell him.

I like one poster's expression:

oludyke: . . . The Bible does not discuss with the atheist for not believing in God but reproves him for doing so. Psalm 14:1 “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” . . .

Truly we should strive to avoid strife (nice accidental rhyme, lol) but if telling and not shirking the truth and/or protecting the fold necessitates us to be "full and frank" then so we must act.

Pastor AIO:
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.

—Codex Theodosianus


Sebi I said I was leaving the thread? ehn . . . whatever!

This Edict is not a church document but was issued by the Emperor. 'Catholic' was a word already in use for a long time before it was issued. Further it does NOT provide a definition for what a catholic is but rather says that only those that believe in the trinity would be allowed to call themselves Catholic. Or even to call their group a Church.

wow, u are very good at cherry picking, dat edict defined the religion that was made official, it is the "religion delievered to the romans by the divine apostles peter as it is preserved by faithful tradition and is now proffessed by the pontiff damasus and peter of alexander". So my friend you dont even believe in tradition so that definition excludes u and all protestants. You dont even profess what pope damasus profess so my dear if u want to follow that edict, then it excludes u from the name 'catholic'.
Peace

PS when they say by calling them fools we are going to hell etc, don't believe them for a minute; first thing they are misrepresenting what the Bible actually says and secondly they are simply trying to employ a form of emotional blackmail.

One can safely tell them what the Bible calls them --- when necessary. Simples.

Enigma:


So provide us with the definition of "catholic" ---- and tell us again that it refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

actually it say the 'religion delievered to the romans by the devine apostle peter' wow that is certainly roman. Do u have a problem with that. Even wen d secular guy was talking about 'catholic' he had to mention the roman see.
Wow

Enigma:

That was not referring to you at all; please read my post again.



Firstly, you have not explained what you mean by "the primacy" of Rome.

Secondly, even as an "ecclesiastical doctrine" the understanding of every other part of the catholic Church is different from that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thirdly, it is the Roman Catholic understanding that is a major cause of the Great Schism and an obstacle to reconciliation.




Sorry bros, I have not resorted to any mischief at all.

hahaha, u are really up to mischief.

Enigma:

Of course --- and that is why it is a pity that the "intellectuals" on Nairaland are as ignorant as the average man on the street.




Perhaps at some point I will deal with this quote in more detail but for now let me tell you just a little bit about that quote: what you have quoted is false and a misrepresentation of what Augustine actually said! It is the kind of thing I would exect of "the average man on the street".

Here try this, it is what Augustine actually said:


"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error."

Translation

" . . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise."

See here http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html
and here http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/windsorandaugustine.html




And you are still running away from defining "the primacy" of Rome.

And of course Ignatious talks of presiding in love and NOT the primacy of power/jurisdiction claimed by Rome.

hahaha? I laugh with a question mark. How does someone preside without the necessary power and jurisdiction. U shuld ask d president how he can preside without power and jurisdiction, u are really up to mischief.

Enigma: ^^ Are you now resorting to very plain (and not even subtle anymore) lying?

Where has either Ihedinobi or myself shown any "hatred" to the Roman Catholic Church.

We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church.

it seems my friend didnt remember to post about the roman see. The church fathers believed that the roman cannot fall astray, the church fathers said no error could enter d roman see so my friend that means d roman see can never need to repent from error.
U need to learn my dear, those church fathers rocked.
Peace

Enigma:

Yes, I do mean that the Roman Catholic Church should repent and rejoin the catholic Church.




The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

hahaha, u forgot that ignatius said that rome presided over the catholic church. So if u have a catholic church where d roman see doesnt preside, know that ur church is not the the catholic church ignatius talked about.
Do u understand

Wow...eleven pages??
Never argue with a lawyer

Enigma: ^^^^ Look I have been letting you get away with your misrepresentations of various early Christians because it wasn't necessary for proving the case made on this thread.

With Cyprian, he and his fellow African bishops stated clearly that your so called "pope" Stephen was only a colleague of theirs and that the decision of the African bishops to sack some fellow could not be overturned by the Stephen guy.

Can't be bothered to link you with the actual document; it is in my front right now. It is also on the Interweb --- google it.

yeah and pope benedict is also colleague of the bishop in my diocese, that doesnt mean benedict doesnt preside over him, ur argument lacks merit. Besides pope stephen probably wasnt the best in situation control but he already wrote a letter threathening to excommunicate all the asian bishops. I think it was iraneaus or another church father decided to beg on their behalf, and told stephen it was not wise to excommunicate the whole asia over a matter of custom. Stephen listened, dropped d excommunication idea and handed the matter over to a synod. The interesting thing my friend is that no one denied that d pope had d power to excommunicate those bishops.
U shuld do some research

Enigma:

Obviously, you needed the explanation; now you are in a slightly better state of health.

And as for the bolded, if you answer the following you will have the answer to your own question: if 3 "protestant" friends gather together and pray in a "protestant" way, are they then part of the catholic Church?

uh! The stuff abt d invisible church.

chukwudi44: What is all this fuss about?haven't enigma proven we are all catholics descendend from the catholic church of the first four centuries.Even the church enigma founded in his village is also catholic with the exception of people like truthislight who gather in the name of angel micheal and hence cannot be called catholics.

Let's now progress to study the teachings of our catholic church fathers.I have posted their teachings on infant baptism and if my catholic brother enigma would not have any contrary opinion with what our catholics fathers have stated,I would now move ahead to the marian doctrines and the veneration of the saints

you are on point sir, enigma u claimed to be a catholic decended from d catholics of the first 4 cent., do u wish agree with the teachings of those early catholics, past aio decided to thread a thin line by past the edict of thessalonica he forgot to not that all catholic follow that religion 'delieved to d roman to by d apostle peter and faithfull handed on thru tradition as is professed by d pontiff pope damasus and d bishop peter of alexander'. do u have a problem with the 'faithful tradition'?

Enigma:

Once again you resort to lying! Point to where I have labelled the "roman catholics" a "false church".




What to do is to try and understand what Christ said i.e. that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them and His teachings, then you will know if/what "doctrine" is needed.

u want to catch urself in ur own web. If anywhere 3 are gathered u have the 'catholic church', wow, d bible also say 'd church is d pillar and bulwark of truth'. That mean what ur 2 or 3 'catholic church' is teaching is truth. Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! How wish i can laugh in greek, that means over 30,000 protestant church all teaching contradicting doctrine, are all speaking the truth. The principle of non contradiction say two opposing and contradicting ideas cant both b true. Wow, so all those contradicting doctrines are all true wow! My friend enigma u are truly an enigma who has made a delima.
Peace

Rich4god: @Enigma... If you are not seeing them as false why do you said that they should repent... And you still havent answered my question... Where/Which is the true catholic church.

really! To repent is to change, actually in that culture the word metanioa could be used to describe waking up from a dream. U cant tell someone to repent unless u blieve he or his belief or his deeds are false.

Enigma:


A considerable part of this post will reflect my own experience and my perspectives naturally.

Let me start with the accusation of insolence, abuse etc levelled against the believers.

The Christians were not always abusive or insolent towards the atheists in particular in my judgment and experience. Initially, when the Christians could discuss among themselves without much interference most didn't pay all that much attention to the atheists. I certainly didn't because my interest has always been to discuss Christian issues primarily with Christians but also with reasonable non-Christians. In fact till now I still don't even generally get involved with the Moslems, pagans, "esoterics", etc, because I have always preferred to leave them all to do their own things.

Actually, just around the time that the "aggressive" atheists, to be nice, started acting obnoxiously I stopped posting regularly in the Religion section (for some two or more years) and only made occasional visits.

When I started posting regularly here again some 2 odd years ago, I tried as much as possible to keep away from the atheists in particular. By this time, however, a few of them had become reaaaaally obnoxious and would constantly "troll" even purely Christian topics (including praise/prayer threads!), abuse, insult, blaspheme sacrilegiously etc.

They had become extremely arrogant ------ and then it became necessary to engage them and to puncture their pomposity a little.

Now about our own attitude: naturally we are supposed to be far far more tolerant than anyone else and in honesty there is no question that we too got dragged into the mud. However, it is not everything we say that is abuse ----- some is just telling like it is; and this was (still occasionally is) necessary. Some are purely factual descriptions, others are telling and calling them what the Bible calls them when they behave to type; if a person shows he is a fool/mumu precisely for the reason that the Bible gives, then that is what the person is: we may refrain from telling him, but when necessary we do tell him.

I like one poster's expression:

Truly we should strive to avoid strife (nice accidental rhyme, lol) but if telling and not shirking the truth and/or protecting the fold necessitates us to be "full and frank" then so we must act.

I see. I agree with that. I find it funny that atheists who do not know the Lord take it upon themselves to educate His children on His Character.

Anyhow, I agree that we should avoid strife. I don't know if we can see how the principle that governed Jesus's cleansing of the Temple and His "unprovoked" "rude" utterances against the Sanhedrin relates to that attitude though.

The Bible teaches us that God is both severe and gentle. I think that His children are evidenced by similarity of behavior to Him. This is one reason the Scriptures ask, "who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" Anyone who accuses a child of God accuses God Himself. Within the Family, accusations are unknown. Rather is there discernment, judgment, the separating between that which is Christ and that which is not and the strengthening of the former to the detriment of the latter.

Outside the Family, everything is already condemned and the witness of the Christian is to declare that this is so, but that in Christ God has provided a way of escape. I think it is easy then to see why someone who would not accept God's Right to Rule would accuse such preachers of arrogance.