Enigma:

This is not accurate really or at least is not fair.

The Orthodox are even till today still called Orthodox Catholic Church.

Secondly, follwing chkwudi's statement it can also be said that what became the Roman Catholic Church "split from catholicism only during the East-West schism of 1054".

u are certainly mixing stuff up. Orthodox donot refer to themselves as "orthodox catholic church" to put the word "catholic" there would imply that they are in full communion with the roman see.

Ubenedictus: nothing easy there, go and check that thread, all the protestant ran away without even saying goodbye.

I wanted to ignore this post but I think it is necessary to point out a few home truths to you.

1. You guys tell too many lies and it is a real shame.

2. Mercifully, the thread is there for all to see and make up their minds. https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

3. More importantly, you guys are again lying on this thread when you say the other churches recognised the "authority" of Rome at any time before the schism or after. I have pointed out that what they accepted for Rome was only a primacy of honour or love. Nothing more!

4. The schism occurred in part precisely because other churches did not recognise the authority of Rome; Rome never had any such "authority"; and Rome's attitude contributed heavily to the break up of the catholic i.e. the universal church.

5. That the Orthodox and others continue to refuse to recognise the authority of Rome and that Rome has not repented of this serious sin is what is continuing to prevent reconciliation.

Now talking of "Church Fathers" let me give you people a few examples of the church fathers who did not see the primacy of Peter as amounting to the "primacy" of Rome: Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc etc etc etc.

In fact let me stop there and instead refer you to a couple of pro-Roman Catholic people one of them being a Roman Catholic theologian and historian. Google the info or see this link http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene . . . .

It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later {addendum: Roman Catholic} Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.

I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome was more than the successor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with Peter’s responsibility and power. The East has never understood this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right

.


So you people should repent of all your lying and stop spreading falsehood all over the place.

Ubenedictus: u are certainly mixing stuff up. Orthodox donot refer to themselves as "orthodox catholic church" to put the word "catholic" there would imply that they are in full communion with the roman see.

Na so!

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church and commonly referred to as the Orthodox Church, is the second largest Christian church in the world, with an estimated 300 million adherents, primarily in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

Also, check out this Orthodox Catholic Church website; for good measure, they even call the Roman Catholic Church ------ schismatic. http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/

ETA and also http://www.orthodoxresource.co.uk/comparative/roman-catholic.htm

Enigma:

I wanted to ignore this post but I think it is necessary to point out a few home truths to you.

same

1. You guys tell too many lies and it is a real shame.

u havent proved anything and u are accusing me of lying, u claimed u were a catholic but the moment infant baptism came up with church father u fled with ur tails between ur legs.

2. Mercifully, the thread is there for all to see and make up their minds. https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

i thank God for that

3. More importantly, you guys are again lying on this thread when you say the other churches recognised the "authority" of Rome at any time before the schism or after. I have pointed out that what they accepted for Rome was only a primacy of honour or love. Nothing more!

u claim u were right without proof, show me one church father that disagreed with the primacy, give me a quote. The thread above is full of quote from church fathers, where are d quotes that support ur position?

4. The schism occurred in part precisely because other churches did not recognise the authority of Rome; Rome never had any such "authority"; and Rome's attitude contributed heavily to the break up of the catholic i.e. the universal church.

wow! Authority played a factor, but the bone of contention was the filioque. Make ur research. U are still say rome doesnt have authority, d thread above shows a church father clearly say rome had preeminent authority. Where is ur quote that say the oposite. Provide proof, if u think d early church father donot agree with the primacy of rome, where is ur proof?

5. That the Orthodox and others continue to refuse to recognise the authority of Rome and that Rome has not repented of this serious sin is what is continuing to prevent reconciliation.

are u kidding me, rome is the one extending an arm of reconcilation, the maronite orthodox have come back to full communion with rome they are now maronite catholic same with the copts and many other eastern churches. U should check again and see who is repenting.

Now talking of "Church Fathers" let me give you people a few examples of the church fathers who did not see the primacy of Peter as amounting to the "primacy" of Rome: Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc etc etc etc.

hahahahahahahahaha, give me a quote, just one each and u fairytale would look like reality.

In fact let me stop there and instead refer you to a couple of pro-Roman Catholic people one of them being a Roman Catholic theologian and historian. Google the info or see this link http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/mt16.html

u want to use the same old tactics u used in the other thread, the other thread u quote bokenkotter, today u are giving me a critics of people wu didnt live in a century close to the church father. If ur talks are true, then give me the quotes

So you people should repent of all your lying and stop spreading falsehood all over the place.

hahaha, u are d person making unproved claims, prove ur claims so we will know wu is speading falsehood.

Enigma:

Na so!

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

im not surprised orthodox, anglicans and lutherians all profess a creed that say "i believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church", some anglicans call themselves anglocatholics. Apart from these guys i have not meet orthodox christians wu allow the word "catholic" to be put betw "orthodox" and "church" because it usually gives the phase a different meaning. It is a good thing they didnt throw away the name.

Also, check out this Orthodox Catholic Church website; for good measure, they even call the Roman Catholic Church ------ schismatic. http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/

that isnt new, before the vatican ii council catholics also called d orthodox schismatic, and the lutherian were called heretic, with ecumenism the name calling ceased it seems the idea of reconciliation hasnt reached this particular orthodox church, it is still the 14th century for them.

Ubenedictus: u are certainly mixing stuff up. Orthodox donot refer to themselves as "orthodox catholic church" to put the word "catholic" there would imply that they are in full communion with the roman see.

So now, will you still repeat the above?

Enigma:

Na so!

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

im not surprised orthodox, anglicans and lutherians all profess a creed that say "i believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church", some anglicans call themselves anglocatholics. Apart from these guys i have not meet orthodox christians wu allow the word "catholic" to be put betw "orthodox" and "church" because it usually gives the phase a different meaning. It is a good thing they didnt throw away the name.

Also, check out this Orthodox Catholic Church website; for good measure, they even call the Roman Catholic Church ------ schismatic. http://www.orthodoxcatholicchurchnp.com/

that isnt new, before the vatican ii council catholics also called d orthodox schismatic, and the lutherian were called heretic, with ecumenism the name calling ceased it seems the idea of reconciliation hasnt reached this particular orthodox church, it is still the 14th century for them.

Enigma:

So now, will you still repeat the above?

ofcourse i can, most orthodox i know still consider it offensive to add the word catholic when refering to them. To those i know it imply they are in communion with rome, becos usually the words orthodox and catholic and swapped when a orthodox church enters communion with rome.

If only the Roman Catholics would listen and pay careful attention to the words of somebody whom they would quickly lay claim to as "one of them".

From the words of Gregory I or Gregory the Great/the Dialogist then as simply Bishop of Rome (or according to Roman Catholics, "Pope" Gregory I).

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.

Enigma: If only the Roman Catholics would listen and pay careful attention to the words of somebody whom they would quickly lay claim to as "one of them".

From the words of Gregory I or Gregory the Great/the Dialogist then as simply Bishop of Rome (or according to Roman Catholics, "Pope" Gregory I).

is that your proof?

[/quote]Now talking of "Church Fathers" let me give you people a few examples of the church fathers who did not see the primacy of Peter as amounting to the "primacy" of Rome: Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc etc etc etc. [quote]

I was expecting these bishops to talk for themselves but you seem to be doing all the talking hahahahahaahahhaahah

chukwudi44: Now talking of "Church Fathers" let me give you people a few examples of the church fathers who did not see the primacy of Peter as amounting to the "primacy" of Rome: Augustine, John Chrysostom, Cyprian of Carthage, etc etc etc etc etc.

I was expecting these bishops to talk for themselves but you seem to be doing all the talking hahahahahaahahhaahah

it seems he wants to put words in the bishops' mouth. Please let the bishops speak.

chukwudi44:

Please don't derail this thread if you want us to discuss this we can continue from the last thread which you shamelessly abandoned after your own trick was used against you.

look at this liar that said that timothy wrote the book of timothy is here again spreading his lies!

He does not know anything other the copy from RCC archives and post distorted history.

When will you start having a life?

*sigh*

Enigma:



The whole of this post had me genuinely laughing.

My dear friend Frosbel is more than just a protestant . . . .

zikky is playing too too much of a clown this days.

Imagine him saying you cant draw him to that thread "in Jesus name"
lol

chukwudi44: Ol man it is obvious you do not know anything about the history of the church.There was nothing like the see of the catholic church.What we had was differant sees of the catholic church among which were Rome,alexandria,carthage,antioch e.t.c

All these churches were part and parcel of one catholic church before the schisms.

No bishop did oppose the supremacy of the roman see prior to these schisms.The supremacy of st peter was a generally accepted across the entire churches prior to the schism

^^^
which peter?

Peter was no pope of any RCC.

Stop the lies!

truthislight:

look at this liar that said that timothy wrote the book of timothy is here again spreading his lies!

He does not know anything other the copy from RCC archives and post distorted history.

When will you start having a life?

*sigh*

A blood JW what do you know about the early church.I do not expect much from heretics who claim Jesus was same person as angel micheal.It is only obvious that anyone gullibe enough to fall for the lies of that satanic agent called charles Russel should not have much grey matter upstairs.

Disclaimer; I never claimed Timothy wrote the book of Timothy.It is inconceivable that he would be writing to himself.if you know where I said suc kindly reproduce it here.

truthislight:

look at this liar that said that timothy wrote the book of timothy is here again spreading his lies!

He does not know anything other the copy from RCC archives and post distorted history.

When will you start having a life?

*sigh*

can you quote where he said "timothy wrote the book of timothy"? You just wanted to spin his words. Welldone. Besides just so u know, the catholic church didnt distort history, im sure no pope wrote history books.

truthislight:
^^^
which peter?

Peter was no pope of any RCC.

Stop the lies!

which church father agrees with you or have you started to rewrite history Where did u hear that peter isnt the source of the roman episcopacy Just provide proof.

Ubenedictus: which church father agrees with you or have you started to rewrite history Where did u hear that peter isnt the source of the roman episcopacy Just provide proof.

The fool knows nothing about the early church.I do not even think he can mention of to 5 church fathers.All he knows are just about the liar and false prophet called charles russel

chukwudi44: @frosbel

At the rate which you are going you might end up with lagosshia before the end of the year.

First you were a catholic then deeper life now a unitarian.presently you don't even belief Jesus pre-existed before incarnation.That is one hell of a spin around for a young man like you.

You are so full of yourself and believe you are never wrong.with your current campaigns against the trinity one would find it hard to believe that just a few months ago you also held this belief.

At this rate I would not be suprised. If you end up as an islamic fanatic

U make a valid point my guy.

Rebelion is synonymous to witchcraft and an unstable man cannot be trusted.

During a debate people say a lot of things to proof there points,
such as that "RCC gave us the bible and their writers were unknown.
That the bible is what it is now cause the RCC produce it
"

chukwudi44:


Disclaimer; I never claimed Timothy wrote the book of Timothy.It is inconceivable that he would be writing to himself.if you know where I said suc kindly reproduce it here.

it is like when you start saying this your RCC things and wish to twist the bible writers you dont care at all.

chukwudi44:

do you even know the timothy you are quoting is inspired?
You know absolutely nothing about christian history yet you keep jumping here and there you know it all,

i thought it was paul that needed inspiration as the writer of the book of timothy
just like mathew mark, luke and john.
If i am wrong, pls, i stand corrected.
.

chukwudi44:
How do you know what you call word of God is scripture? Is it not because these same church fathers passed it down to us.did you see any where it is written that mattew,mark,luke or john wrote any gospels?

i think you are right, they did not write any gospel.

chukwudi44:

.How do you even know the timothy you are quoting is inspired?

you are the one that knows what timothy will need inspiration for,

care to explain what you had in mind?



just like mark, luke, John, and matthew did not write any book.

Keep on turning people to atheist, i dont know what the reward will be for you and your RCC.

The NT are books written by Jesus Apostles.

Luke and mark only wrote history.

Books/teachings are exclusive of the apostles.

[/quote]During a debate people say a lot of things to proof there points,
such as that "RCC gave us the bible and their writers were unknown.
That the bible is what it is now cause the RCC produce it[quote]

This is a historical fact.It is not a matter of anyone claiming anything.All the gospels and some of the other NT books were anonymous.The identity of their writers and their canonisation was done by the catholic church.The books we have in the bible today are only regarded as scrictures because the catholic church deems it so.If not why don't regard other writings which were not canonised as scripture

[/quote]chukwudi44:

do you even know the timothy you are quoting is inspired?
You know absolutely nothing about christian history yet you keep jumping here and there you know it all,


i thought it was paul that needed inspiration as the writer of the book of timothy
just like mathew mark, luke and john.
If i am wrong, pls, i stand correcte [quote]

So is this where you claimed I said timothy wrote the book of timothy? I have always known you lack basic comprehension skills.It is just like saying "do you know if Genesis was inspired?" Does that now mean the writer of the book is now called Genesis? Common sense should have told you I was only referring to the book of Timothy and not Timothy the Apostle

[/quote]just like mark, luke, John, and matthew did not write any book. 

Keep on turning people to atheist, i dont know what the reward will be for you and your RCC.
[quote]

Can you really prove that any of the gospels were written by their acclaimed authours? For christs sake these books were anonymous!! The identities of these authours were only sourced through catholic tradition.

The book of hebrew was not named after anyone because the church fathers could not agree on the identity of the authour.They were divided over claims that Paul,Barnabas and Apollos wrote that book.

[/quote]The NT are books written by Jesus Apostles.

Luke and mark only wrote history.

Books/teachings are exclusive of the apostles.[quote]

I can't really believe what I am reading!!! That Mark and Luke are only just histories!!! Is that what Charles Russel taught you? FYI the gospels are the most regarded books of the bible.This is because they contain the direct teachings of the master himself.It is only in the gospels you find him speaking directly to us and not through an intermediary.

If I were to ask you who really is an apostle of Jesus? How does one become an Apostle?

If the phrase 'Jesus's apostles' were to be used in the strictest sense even paul would not be considered an apostle because he was not one of the twelve.He did not even know jesus while he was on this earth.when time came to find Jesus's replacement the apostles had stressed the person must have been with them right from the begining.So my brother God can choose to write to us through anybody.Majority of the books of the NT were written by men like Paul,Timothy,Sylvanus,Jude and James who were not really part of the twelve apostles

chukwudi44: The NT are books written by Jesus Apostles.

Luke and mark only wrote history.

Books/teachings are exclusive of the apostles.

I can't really believe what I am reading!!! That Mark and Luke are only just histories!!! Is that what Charles Russel taught you? FYI the gospels are the most regarded books of the bible.This is because they contain the direct teachings of the master himself.It is only in the gospels you find him speaking directly to us and not through an intermediary.

If I were to ask you who really is an apostle of Jesus? How does one become an Apostle?

If the phrase 'Jesus's apostles' were to be used in the strictest sense even paul would not be considered an apostle because he was not one of the twelve.He did not even know jesus while he was on this earth.when time came to find Jesus's replacement the apostles had stressed the person must have been with them right from the begining. So my brother God can choose to write to us through anybody. Majority of the books of the NT were written by men like Paul,Timothy,Sylvanus,Jude and James who were not really part of the twelve apostles

chukwudi44: I can't really believe what I am reading!!! That Mark and Luke are only just histories!

what else are they if not the life and history of what Jesus said and did?

chukwudi44: Is that what Charles Russel taught you?

what is the value of this statement if not cheap propaganda?

chukwudi44: FYI the gospels are the most regarded books of the bible.This is because they contain the direct teachings of the master

i thought you said they are the words of luke and mark and as such i was wrong for calling their writtings reported history of the life of Jesus?
good you said it yourself.
Meaning they had no teaching of theirs.
Luke also wrote the book of Acts of the apostles if you are not aware.

chukwudi44: It is only in the gospels you find him speaking directly to us and not through an intermediary.

so they are the words of Jesus and not the words of mark and luke?
So why are you shouting as though what i had said was wrong?

When i stated the truth you shout and pest deceit

tuning people to atheist is you and your RCC hobby.

chukwudi44:
If I were to ask you who really is an apostle of Jesus?

what else will you do than to denied that paul was not one of christ apostle?

That is what you will do so that you can claim that the bible is catholicproduct

At least it is better than what you mother does the RCC, she burn people alive in fire.

That is how they have covered the truth all along and distorted the facts of history.

When your mother RCC kills, born in fire and Behead all descenting voices and destroyed their writings to hide the truth how do you expect to see those writings again other than what you are pesting here?

But for the bible that is here
That is why your RCC let the bible in a dead language, latin, for almost 1000
yr
so that no one can read it and know the truth.
Denying that paul was an apostle is the list you can do.

Your mother(RCC) has done worst even though you still say that this facts of her burning people alive are false

chukwudi44:
If the phrase 'Jesus's apostles' were to be used in the strictest sense even paul would not be considered an apostle because he was not one of the twelve.He did not even know jesus while he was on this earth.when time came to find Jesus's replacement the apostles had stressed the person must have been with them right from the begining.

well, you follow tradition it is understandable why you will discredit paul. Your folly.

That other apostles accepted him as an apostle is immeterial to you and your RCC, even peter said that Jesus gave him what he wrote, maybe peter did not have the holy spirit to guide him to know if Jesus had chose him or not.
Like mother like son, if it was today your RCC will have had him beheaded.

chukwudi44: So my brother God can choose to write to us through anybody

^^^that explain why you and your RCC do all sort of things like paying money for someone to pray for the dead in "limbo" for the forgiveness of their sin when the bible clearly said that the wages of sin is death and that those that have died have been freed of their sins Romans 6:7.
No, to you, they are in limbo.
Waiting for prayers.
Contradicting the scriptures(bible)
but no! You still collect money from all sort of people even muderars and tell their relatives that you will free their sin even when they have died. Greed.

encouraging people to get involve in evil deeds of all sort while they are alive cus you give them gurantty that they will enter heaven if they have money.

Forgetting that it is Gods exclusive right to decide who resurect or not.

That ^^^ you learnt from all kinds of writing that you make used of in RCC. You just do whatever you like. *sigh*

chukwudi44: Majority of the books of the NT were written by men like Paul,Timothy,Sylvanus,Jude and James who were not really part of the twelve apostles

you dont even know that James was an apostle of christ why am i Westing my time you?

You and your mother are doing the work of your father the father of the lie himself.

Since you wont follow the bible one can see the fruitage you and your mother have produce. Keep it up.

@Chukwudi44
Have you forgotten that your mother burned those that translated the bible alive?

Have you forgotten that your RCC made it a death penalty reading the bible or owning the bible?

They had wanted the bible to remain in latin so that no one can read it or translate it thereby Westing the scriptures.

Now that your plans had failed you came here trying to discredit the bible,
you and your RCC are shameless indeed

*edited*

[/quote]89. truthislight: Quote Post

chukwudi44: The NT are books written by Jesus Apostles.

Luke and mark only wrote history.

Books/teachings are exclusive of the apostles.

I can't really believe what I am reading!!! That Mark and Luke are only just histories!!! Is that what Charles Russel taught you? FYI the gospels are the most regarded books of the bible.This is because they contain the direct teachings of the master himself.It is only in the gospels you find him speaking directly to us and not through an intermediary.

If I were to ask you who really is an apostle of Jesus? How does one become an Apostle?

If the phrase 'Jesus's apostles' were to be used in the strictest sense even paul would not be considered an apostle because he was not one of the twelve.He did not even know jesus while he was on this earth.when time came to find Jesus's replacement the apostles had stressed the person must have been with them right from the begining. So my brother God can choose to write to us through anybody. Majority of the books of the NT were written by men like Paul,Timothy,Sylvanus,Jude and James who were not really part of the twelve apostles




chukwudi44: I can't really believe what I am reading!!! That Mark and Luke are only just histories!

what else are they if not the life and history of what Jesus said and did?

chukwudi44: FYI the gospels are the most regarded books of the bible.This is because they contain the direct teachings of the master

i thought you said they are the words of luke and mark and as such i was wrong for calling their writtings reported history of the life of Jesus?
good you said it yourself.
Meaning they had no teaching of theirs.
Luke also wrote the book of Acts of the apostles if you are not aware.
[quote]

So do you mean anyone can write about the life of Jesus and it automatically becomes scripture? The fact remains that these gospels were written by these men and are valid scriptures just any other book in the bible.Get that
into ur dumb skull

[/quote]


what else are they if not the life and history of what Jesus said and did?


i thought you said they are the words of luke and mark and as such i was wrong for calling their writtings reported history of the life of Jesus?
good you said it yourself.
Meaning they had no teaching of theirs.
Luke also wrote the book of Acts of the apostles if you are not aware.




so they are the words of Jesus and not the words of mark and luke?
So why are you shouting as though what i had said was wrong?

When i stated the truth you shout and pest deceit

tuning people to atheist is you and your RCC hobby.




what else will you do than to denied that paul was not one of christ apostle?

That is what you will do so that you can claim that the bible is catholicproduct

At least it is better than what you mother does the RCC, she burn people alive in fire.

That is how they have covered the truth all along and distorted the facts of history.

When your mother RCC kills, born in fire and Behead all descenting voices and destroyed their writings to hide the truth how do you expect to see those writings again other than what you are pesting here?

But for the bible that is here
That is why your RCC let the bible in a dead language, latin, for almost 1000
yr
so that no one can read it and know the truth.
Denying that paul was an apostle is the list you can do.

Your mother(RCC) has done worst even though you still say that this facts of her burning people alive are false [quote]

You tried to trivialise the works of luke and mark on the basis that they were not apostles and hence not qualified to teach/write scriptural books.You even went ahead to call their words just histories.

What I have only done here is to use your own theory agianst you.if mark and luke couldn't teach because you thougt they weren't apostles then same should apply to paul since he was also not an apostle and you have gone raving like a mad man which you are.

Where did you read that only apostles were qualified to teach? Was stephen,apollos,barnabas and even paul himself apostles?

FYI James the writer of the book of james is neither james the son of zebedee nor James the son of alpheaus who were apostles of Jesus but rather james the just,a relative of Jesus as well as the first bishop of Jerusalem.These three people were seperate individuals.

truthislight: @Chukwudi44
Have you forgotten that your mother burned those that translated the bible alive?

Have you forgotten that your RCC made it a death penalty reading the bible or owning the bible?

The had wanted the bible to remain in greek so that no one can read it or translate it thereby Westing the scriptures.

Now that your plans had fail you come here trying to discredit the bible,
you and your RCC are shameless indeed

You have run out of ideas and hence you are now raving like a mad man.If not for your empty skull you should have known that the catholic church were first to translate the scriptures from greek into latin and that these two languages were known by all the educated people of that era.

Maybe you will also blame the apostles for failing to translate the bible from greek into anyother language.

The problem with you is that you are so dumb and as so far refused to learn.you know absolutely nothing about biblical or church history yet you won't stop advertising your ignorance.To make matters worse you have gone ahead to fellowshhip with JW who are bunch of liars and false prophets only taking after their satanic founder charles russel

I am sure you do not know that the letters to the thessolonians were written by paul,timothy and sylvanus.Maybe we should not consider them scriptures because you do not consider these other men apostles

truthislight: During a debate people say a lot of things to proof there points,
such as that "RCC gave us the bible and their writers were unknown.
That the bible is what it is now cause the RCC produce it
"

it is like when you start saying this your RCC things and wish to twist the bible writers you dont care at all.


i thought it was paul that needed inspiration as the writer of the book of timothy
just like mathew mark, luke and john.
If i am wrong, pls, i stand corrected.
.



i think you are right, they did not write any gospel.

you are the one that knows what timothy will need inspiration for,

care to explain what you had in mind?



just like mark, luke, John, and matthew did not write any book.

Keep on turning people to atheist, i dont know what the reward will be for you and your RCC.

The NT are books written by Jesus Apostles.

Luke and mark only wrote history.

Books/teachings are exclusive of the apostles.

clearly frosbel has refused to comprehend. Weldone, u have decided to twist chukwudis' words.