Kay 17:
1. what Bible were you talking about that was compiled/canonized prior to the Council of Nicaea?

2. In your belief, is Bible limited to Christianity?

actually at nicea there was no canonised new tes. I dont see d point of d agruement though

Enigma: The book that non Roman Catholics use i.e. the one that has 66 instead of 73 books ------ is that "The Bible" or not?

hehehe, it is d lutherian bible, the stuff luther compiled in d 16th cent.
All hail luther!!!

Reyginus: Theoritically and practically speaking this is wrong.
You don't know ubenedictus that for heresy to exist, their has to be some underlying belief factors it deviates from. The church never made up this necessary belief factors, but by the union with christ came to their realization . In other words, there are laid down rules which serve to decide what should be termed heresy.
You sounded like the body is still almighty without the head.

sorry my dear, even d bible will bear witness to this. Christ d head gave authority to the body! Gave it power to both bind and loose, d keys to open and close. The same bible bears witness that the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth. It is d work of d church to teach truth and condemn heresy. Who has d last talk for and erring brethen? Christ say d assembly.

Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, even d bible will bear witness to this. Christ d head gave authority to the body! Gave it power to both bind and loose, d keys to open and close. The same bible bears witness that the church is d pillar and bulwark of truth. It is d work of d church to teach truth and condemn heresy. Who has d last talk for and erring brethen? Christ say d assembly.

Yes, really. That Christ gave us the power to both bind and loose does not indicate in any way the absence of the head. Do we bind and loose in our name or in Jesus's?

hmmm

Richieboyn: hmmm

What is the matter?

@ Reyginus,

I dont see where Ubenedictus said the body's without the head. Can you show me? God bless you as you do so.

Reyginus: Yes, really. That Christ gave us the power to both bind and loose does not indicate in any way the absence of the head. Do we bind and loose in our name or in Jesus's?

no it doesn't, i didn't imply it did. I do not seperate the doctrinal teachings of the church from church.
And seriously, i do not know what u imply by the above.

italo: @ Reyginus,

I dont see where Ubenedictus said the body's without the head. Can you show me? God bless you as you do so.

this is quite interesting, i just visited d thread and saw d post, i was like, "what does this mean?"

Kay 17:

Your wild usage covers Judaism, Mormonism (non Christian obviously), Hinduism, ultraextreme Christian sects (Rastaferianism), and any religious sect that has a piece of paper with the most minimal religious instructions.

If I was to follow your madness, there is nothing other than language barrier that stops you from referring to the Quran as the Muslim Bible!

^^^
Guy, i never knew you had this much sense of humor.

italo: @ Reyginus,

I dont see where Ubenedictus said the body's without the head. Can you show me? God bless you as you do so.

Do you really understand the implication of the point he's trying to make?

Ubenedictus: no it doesn't, i didn't imply it did. I do not seperate the doctrinal teachings of the church from church.
And seriously, i do not know what u imply by the above.

I don't know if you've lost track of your point. Your point was that it behoves on the church to determine what heresy is. I inquired who decides what is contrary to christainity, and you posited, the head has given the body power to bind, in other words, the body decides. My confusion now is, if their is a corelation between the power to bind and the power to term anything heresy. I wonder where the word of God stand in all this.

Reyginus: I don't know if you've lost track of your point. Your point was that it behoves on the church to determine what heresy is. I inquired who decides what is contrary to christainity, and you posited, the head has given the body power to bind, in other words, the body decides. My confusion now is, if their is a corelation between the power to bind and the power to term anything heresy. I wonder where the word of God stand in all this.

Even the man who posted is himself bemused by the conclusion you have come to.

So can you tell us what I, an onlooker, and Ubenedictus, the poster, do not understand in his own post?

italo:

Even the man who posted is himself bemused by the conclusion you have come to.

So can you tell us what I, an onlooker, and Ubenedictus, the poster, do not understand in his own post?

You are asking me to tell you what to understand or what you must understand? If you don't understand the above, I can't make you understand any further.
But seriously, I like to see a man stand up by himself.

Nowhere did the man imply that the body was or would be without the head.

Say the truth and let the devil be ashamed, child of God.

You just had no credible reply so you had to say something...even though it was meaningless.

italo: Nowhere did the man imply that the body was or would be without the head.

Say the truth and let the devil be ashamed, child of God.

You just had no credible reply so you had to say something...even though it was meaningless.

I like it when people analyze my posts when replying me and same for my opponent.
I'll back.
I just became an uncle.
Yeah!

Congratulations.

Perhaps God is saying something to you...becoming an uncle on the day we observe our Lord's passion.

italo: Congratulations.

Perhaps God is saying something to you...becoming an uncle on the day we observe our Lord's passion.

Lol. Seriously?
Back to thread.

Reyginus: I don't know if you've lost track of your point. Your point was that it behoves on the church to determine what heresy is. I inquired who decides what is contrary to christainity, and you posited, the head has given the body power to bind, in other words, the body decides. My confusion now is, if their is a corelation between the power to bind and the power to term anything heresy. I wonder where the word of God stand in all this.

d problem is: what do u understand to be d word of God?

Ubenedictus: d problem is: what do u understand to be d word of God?

Jesus Christ. I hope this diversion works for us.

^^^
You haven't still described the authority upon which the bible stands

Kay 17: ^^^
You haven't still described the authority upon which the bible stands

very interesting!

Reyginus: Jesus Christ. I hope this diversion works for us.

so if Jesus is d word of God and head of the church how come you have been trying to interprete my comments on d church and subtracting christ?

Kay 17: ^^^
You haven't still described the authority upon which the bible stands

How do you mean?

Ubenedictus: so if Jesus is d word of God and head of the church how come you have been trying to interprete my comments on d church and subtracting christ?

Lol. Let's be honest here please. In my argument so far, I've done my best to put the word of God in perspective with the central theme. That I made clear right from the first page.
The difference between what you described as church and the one above is the absence of function, as instructed by the head. You never considered what the head has to say but the body. And is in your case, the body has gone contrary to the nature of the head. The head was neglected in your (and their) assessment.

Reyginus: Lol. Let's be honest here please. In my argument so far, I've done my best to put the word of God in perspective with the central theme. That I made clear right from the first page.
The difference between what you described as church and the one above is the absence of function, as instructed by the head. You never considered what the head has to say but the body. And is in your case, the body has gone contrary to the nature of the head. The head was neglected in your (and their) assessment.

u wish to provide proof or u are contented in accusing me

Ubenedictus: u wish to provide proof or u are contented in accusing me

I don't know what you are talking about. The bible is the final authority here.

Reyginus: I don't know what you are talking about. The bible is the final authority here.

sorry my dear, for a catholic d bible is not d "final authority", the final authority is the "word of God" and it as come to us thru scripture and tradition.

^^ Well, if the Bible is Scripture, it's still final authority along with tradition, according to your argument, isn't it?

Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, for a catholic d bible is not d "final authority", the final authority is the "word of God" and it as come to us thru scripture and tradition.

Na wa o. And the bible is not?

Reyginus: Na wa o. And the bible is not?

YES. It is NOT the final authority. We had started exsisting ever before we compiled the Bible. God was speaking to us then, He still does so now...

all this run around is just for d Catholics to justify why they worship dead meats and graven images ......

if not iI see no reason why one would neglect d scriptures and then cling on to traditions...pagan traditions for that matter...