Ubenedictus:
no ihe, you raised the issue of personal, individual discernment based upon some unknown criteria, I on the other hand hold that the church is the right authority to do that discernment and that she did about 1600 years ago .

Completely untrue. YOU were the one who said that each man is a determiner of truth. I never said anything of the sort.

LordReed:
I on the other hand will say the Bible contains God's word, I'll be truthful enough to admit it didn't fall from the sky, that men were inspired to write it, the community of God's people was guided by God to recognize it as God's word, scribes copied it and sometimes made mistakes in rendering it, people edited it to get what was believed to be the true sense according to the editor, some amended some missing part, it even had variant reading in some places etc.

Sometimes many had different ideas as to what books should be there and I believe the church has authority to settle those issues.

Great. So we maintain our fundamental disagreement.

LordReed:
Lol

Something funny about free will?

LordReed:
You think the same church Christ Jesus promised to be with for all times and the gate of hell will not prevail against will be united in error?

Of course not. But that Church is different from the Roman Church - or indeed any of the many other churches out there.

LordReed:
then you don't understand what the 66 books you accept teach, because Tobit is in tandem with them.

Or YOU don't understand what the 66 books teach and that's why you think Tobit is of the same origins as them.

Ihedinobi3:

It was PastorAIO you saw trying to prevent the thread from tumbling into pettiness? The same PastorAIO that you are double-teaming with here? I have wondered why you appear to have a kinship with an antichristian more than with others who confess the Lord Jesus even if in a different way than you do. But it was just my self-imposed naivete when I deal with people I want to be gentler with.

PastorAIO hates the Bible and everything to do with Christianity with a resoluteness. Yet, you think of him as some kind of a friend? For what reason other than his use of your church's claims to being the true church to attack other Christians? That, sir, is pathetic.

what is pathetic is you ihe rejecting whatever aio says simply because you have tagged him antichristian, even the pagans and atheist sometimes makes valid points.

The OP was a rather straight forward history of the Bible you have in your hands, it introduced the Vulgate, masoretic text and the Septuagint,. Pastoraio conceded the point about the masoretic text been a translation of the Septuagint, he conceded that Jerome was well aware of the other versions when he used the the Hebrew text. The last issue that the OP got wrong was that the Vulgate was translated from the masoretic text, the Vulgate wasn't it was translated from the Hebrew truths which predates the masoretic text...

Surprisingly you came out gun blazing with innuendo... Check out you first post on the thread, then you attempted to challenge the fact that the Septuagint was accepted in the early church, that it contains the dueterocanonical books, that Jerome caused a riot Etc. When you were pressed to defend this you decided to pronounce your theory of the visible feature by which everyone may recognise scripture and damned the fact that historically this feature seem rather elusive. The original post I and many others reacted to had not antichristian stuff in it, you came in with that idea as though pastoraio and yourself had an old beef you were bringing to bear.

As for the arguments there, to be clear, I don't completely trust any sources the Vatican approves. The Roman Church has a narrative that was developed solely to solidify its claim of exclusive rights to Christ and God. Because of its unflinching commitment to this claim, it has altered history and the Bible itself to try to hold it up. I am certain of this. I have absolutely no doubt about this. It is a fact that I do not consider assailable at all. In other words, you will not succeed at persuading me otherwise.

then this is an issue of bias, you have decided beforehand that any thing that smells catholic is suspect unless it agrees with you.... That is 2 millennia thrown away because it seems catholic... Heck if that isn't bias what is.

Secondly the Roman church does not make any claim to an exclusive hold of Christ or God that is just false and I am even more alarmed if you base your bias on such falsehood...

I really wonder if you can provide proof of the church doctoring the bible.

I am also sure that I will never succeed at convincing you of the truth of that position. Just like atheism, buying into Roman Catholicism takes a deliberate decision to ignore any arguments or evidence to the contrary. It takes the very rare inquirer to actually accept the possibility that Roman Catholicism is a lie, a very deep and entrenched one too.

actually accepting Catholicism does not mean ignoring contradictory opinion, no ihe, I examine each of those opinions, I love research them and I don't drop them until I am convinced they are wrong, I NEVER ignore and the church does not encourage ignorance.

Unless of course you want to share these your concerns

So, I insist on discussing with Romans on the Bible you claim to believe. You will reject every other authority that may even only seem to attack your favoured position. That is why Father Bokenkotter whose work was not proscribed by the Vatican, whose peers in the Roman Church acclaim him and who is a solid Roman Catholic historian (trained by the Church's own university too) is still not a reliable authority for you because he appears to confound something you cannot afford to doubt.

no ihe, I don't reject every authority that challenge my position, I reject claims I know to be incorrect especially when you they don't hold up to evidence, like someone saying primacy began in the 4th century when I can provide proofs for it from 2nd century. His story might tickle your fancy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Lastly maybe with him you will notice that the church doesn't shadow the academic work of priest, I also guess you won't find an imprimatur in that work either.

Why should I believe that what you claim Irenaeus wrote was really written by him if you are so obstinate as to reject even a contemporary Roman Catholic historian whose authority is not even in doubt? If it was, is it impossible that you are failing to understand it as it was meant to be understood? Historical contexts are after all considerably different than contemporary ones.

Because the contemporary historian must base his conclusions on ancient writing, if the ancient writing contradicts the contemporary historian commenting on it then we know the historian is incorrect

You can reject irenaeus quoted by the big bad Catholics but I assure you it will say the same thing even from a Greek orthodox, an Alexandrian patriach or a copt. If all the ancient sources linked to Catholicism is corrupt or untrue or doctored then you may as well throw out bokenhotter or any other church history Because none of them lived in that period and they all rely on the early writings to create their own spin. If you are throwing out Irenaeus remember to throw out origin, Jerome, eusebius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Augustine, Bede, Patrick , Cyril,etc and then tell us Christianity began in the 16th century and all who came before that were false... The protestant are the sole truth.


Remind me again who ignores sources that contradicts him.

The ancient writings themselves tell us their context.

Furthermore, Irenaeus and others did not write in English. So you are relying on the interpretations of others to get at what he is saying. Do you have a good reason for trusting those others?

I use translations every day, the book I am reading currently was written in Spanish. If you don't trust a translation written by Catholics, you can find one by Orthodox or oriental or protestants.

Finally, were the Church Fathers inspired? Were they infallible? These, of course, are bonus questions, considering that you believe papal decrees to be inspired and the Pope himself as well as the nebulous idea of the Church Romans have as infallible. Obviously, I do not hold these beliefs. I don't trust Irenaeus as much as I trust the Bible. And I don't believe that the Roman Church and the Pope are what they are claimed to be.

the church fathers arent inspired in the sense scripture is, they certainly rank lower but they provide insight to the sense in which the scriptures is rightly understood they show us how Apostolic teaching is passed on. It is from them we know what Apostolic tradition is

To be honest, Ubenedictus, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere fruitful. I continue to respond to you out of courtesy. I thought you had quit the conversation summarily before and then you returned. But there really is nothing left to be said. Your attacks on the Bible in order to prove that it is whatever the Roman Church says that it is only prove my point. And as long as you insist that the Bible is a creation of the Roman Church, my arguments for its independent authority amount to nothing with you. So, there is no point really. I am not going to believe you, no matter what materials you trot out of the Vatican. And you are not going to believe me no matter what Roman authority I appeal to.

I have so far not once attacked the Bible, I have written about it's development in words most scripture scholars will agree with, only an insecure Christian will consider that an attack and it will be an insecurity based on ignorance.

You are not going to believe no matter the proof, you just tagged it Vatican so you have an excuse the, I have not linked a single Vatican site so far. You just show you're not interested in the truth, you opinion must remain unchallenged, oya keep it.

Ihedinobi3:

"Facts" for me to go check out myself? Pray tell, what made them facts? His say-so or yours?

I can imagine the attraction an atheist may have to a discussion about the authority of the Bible but, believe me, you really can't make any judgment calls here beyond the default atheistic stand that there is no "Word of God" since there is no God. All you will countenance here is anything that may help you shore up such an idea. Beyond th[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font]at, you will not quite follow the argument.

As for my position, I make a point of duty to avoid complicating discussions unnecessarily because that is how readers are led astray. Science and history can be hard to follow and they are never really the point in these questions. The question here is: is the Bible we have today the actual Word of God? Or is it a fabrication that nobody should trust? If it is the Word of God, then it will not need a lesson in history to prove it so. If it isn't, then no amount of historical debate will make it so. The Word of God must of necessity be recognizable in itself. Or else, it will not be accessible to everyone.

Historical arguments come into play specifically to confuse the issue and make that truth seem like a lie. Of course, I can make one. I did years ago with this same crowd and they made a terrible hash of the discussion. If I repeat the experience here, what will happen will be a constant attack on the authorities each person presents ad infinitum ad absurdum.

That is why I went to the heart of the issue. Apart from the OP here, pretty much everybody else at least pays lip service to the authority of the Bible. That is why I insist on arguing on that common ground.

you cant defend the Bible by telling half truths about it's development, it only cause ridicule

Ubenedictus:
what is pathetic is you ihe rejecting whatever aio says simply because you have tagged him antichristian, even the pagans and atheist sometimes makes valid points.

To be honest, I wonder if there is any real gain in answering this. No honest person who knows my posts would ever say that I reject what antichristians say simply because they are antichristians. Not one. As a matter of fact, right here, I have explained why I have rejected everything that I have rejected. In no instance was it because an antichristian said it. I hold that the lie is far more effective when fitted out with a veneer of truth, so I always acknowledge what truth I see whenever I see it and separate it from the lie hiding behind it.

It is you who consider his arguments good in any respect because of your personal agenda.

Ubenedictus:
The OP was a rather straight forward history of the Bible you have in your hands, it introduced the Vulgate, masoretic text and the Septuagint,. Pastoraio conceded the point about the masoretic text been a translation of the Septuagint, he conceded that Jerome was well aware of the other versions when he used the the Hebrew text. The last issue that the OP got wrong was that the Vulgate was translated from the masoretic text, the Vulgate wasn't it was translated from the Hebrew truths which predates the masoretic text...

If you note that he conceded his error there, why did you go on to say that it was a straightforward history?

Ubenedictus:
Surprisingly you came out gun blazing with innuendo... Check out you first post on the thread, then you attempted to challenge the fact that the Septuagint was accepted in the early church, that it contains the dueterocanonical books, that Jerome caused a riot Etc. When you were pressed to defend this you decided to pronounce your theory of the visible feature by which everyone may recognise scripture and damned the fact that historically this feature seem rather elusive. The original post I and many others reacted to had not antichristian stuff in it, you came in with that idea as though pastoraio and yourself had an old beef you were bringing to bear.

This is a potpourri of falsehood mixed with truth.

Yes indeed I came into the thread essentially congratulating an antichristian for making a real argument even if I considered it false. I was expressing respect for the work he put into his thread which put to shame every other experience I had had at the time. Somehow, it seems to me that this is the post you referred to concerning innuendo. What the innuendo was is yet to be seen.

I went on after that to point out what I believed to be the most important falsehood in his post and post quotes from Britannica demonstrating small and great departures from the true situation. This is the challenge you meant, isn't it? The funny thing is that you consider the quotes a challenge. The quotes were ordinarily conclusive in themselves. Any interpretation I offered may have been debatable but in so far as a historical authority had been presented, all that was left was for him or anyone else to provide more reliable authorities. But until now you have been debating the authorities in question insisting on others which take their legitimacy from the same church which makes such crazy claims. He, on the other hand, conceded what he did and debated what he chose and I explained my interest in the discussion.

The history wasn't my interest. The argument that the Bible is unreliable as God's Very Word was. And I did not believe that history had anything to do with that argument. That was why I argued from the Bible itself.

Interestingly, PastorAIO understood what I spoke of about recognizing a personality in a writing. You instead have not ceased from obfuscating it until now. Your most recent effort at confusion is to call it "a theory of visible feature". You decided on your own that it is a theory. You decided on your own that it is visible. These things have nothing to do with my own arguments. My position was consistently that God's Personality or His Essence is recognizable in what He has written. This is not at all strange because it is true of every other person. But if you ever admit it though, it will destroy the claim of your church. So you have done your best to confuse the issue since.

Why also would you ever admit that there was anything antichristian in an argument that you piggyback on to uphold your church's false claims? Even PastorAIO mocked me for pointing out that he was actually saying that the Bible is unreliable because it had disappeared from existence and the Septuagint which was pretty much a human invention was left in its place and from it has come everything we believe today to be the Word of God. He mocked me, as he said, for stating the obvious. But this does not qualify as antichristian for you. Either you are greatly deceived or you are an antichristian yourself.

Ubenedictus:
then this is an issue of bias, you have decided beforehand that any thing that smells catholic is suspect unless it agrees with you.... That is 2 millennia thrown away because it seems catholic... Heck if that isn't bias what is.

LOL. The Roman church isn't all that was happening for 2000 years, thank God. If it was, all hope would have already been lost.

And, yes indeed, I am biased against the Roman church and not merely because I don't like it but because of the deep arrogance in her which seeks to steal away the Lord's sheep and lead them into apostasy and condemnation like herself.

Ubenedictus:
Secondly the Roman church does not make any claim to an exclusive hold of Christ or God that is just false and I am even more alarmed if you base your bias on such falsehood...

Such a terrible lie.

Ubenedictus:
I really wonder if you can provide proof of the church doctoring the bible.

The Vulgate is enough proof in itself, isn't it? Did you not mention the riots involved in that translation and the duress under which Jerome had to work to produce it? And, let me assure you, I WILL NOT argue the point with you. I really don't care what you choose to believe. Your own words in this regard and the quotes I presented from Britannica are enough.

Ubenedictus:
actually accepting Catholicism does not mean ignoring contradictory opinion, no ihe, I examine each of those opinions, I love research them and I don't drop them until I am convinced they are wrong, I NEVER ignore and the church does not encourage ignorance.

Unless of course you want to share these your concerns

Whatever you say, Ubenedictus.

Ubenedictus:
no ihe, I don't reject every authority that challenge my position, I reject claims I know to be incorrect especially when you they don't hold up to evidence, like someone saying primacy began in the 4th century when I can provide proofs for it from 2nd century. His story might tickle your fancy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Lastly maybe with him you will notice that the church doesn't shadow the academic work of priest, I also guess you won't find an imprimatur in that work either.

I actually do not fully accept Bokenkotter's authority. I presented him as a Roman authority who may present a more correct official position than you yourself. Regardless, note that you agree with him in the fact that claims to primacy are much later than the apostles. The 2nd century was well after the last apostle died. Yet, claims to primacy are offered on their authority.

This is all academic anyway. It matters very little to me what you believe. My job is done once I present the Bible's teachings. Everything else I do is just to protect others who are troubled by the lies that unscrupulous men spread.

Ubenedictus:
Because the contemporary historian must base his conclusions on ancient writing, if the ancient writing contradicts the contemporary historian commenting on it then we know the historian is incorrect

You can reject irenaeus quoted by the big bad Catholics but I assure you it will say the same thing even from a Greek orthodox, an Alexandrian patriach or a copt. If all the ancient sources linked to Catholicism is corrupt or untrue or doctored then you may as well throw out bokenhotter or any other church history Because none of them lived in that period and they all rely on the early writings to create their own spin. If you are throwing out Irenaeus remember to throw out origin, Jerome, eusebius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Aquinas, Augustine, Bede, Patrick , Cyril,etc and then tell us Christianity began in the 16th century and all who came before that were false... The protestant are the sole truth.


Remind me again who ignores sources that contradicts him.

The ancient writings themselves tell us their context.

As my further comments stated, I have no reason to listen to someone who will not countenance an authority - having none themselves - clearly because he considers it opposed to his pet views.

As for my interest in historical authorities, this is a waste of my time. I do not reject the Roman interpretation of Irenaeus et al, I simply do not care very much for what Irenaeus et al have to say except as it concerns what was happening at the time that they lived and as it concerns what they themselves believed. I do not consider them equal in authority to the Scriptures, so I subordinate all they say to what the Bible says. I do not consider them necessary examples to follow. I will learn from them in so far as they, in turn, followed the Bible. My rejection of their evidence in discussions like this is entirely because even where they are correctly interpreted by your ilk, you only use them to further your private interests even up to the point of contradicting the Bible where they failed as Christians.

My appeal to any authorities like Bokenkotter is just to show you that unless you too are a history expert, there are other peer-reviewed and accepted ways of interpreting what you so dearly cherish. My own personal position on all Roman claims is whatever the Bible has to say about it.

Ubenedictus:
I use translations every day, the book I am reading currently was written in Spanish. If you don't trust a translation written by Catholics, you can find one by Orthodox or oriental or protestants.

I don't understand. You are reading a book in Spanish? Or you are reading an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish? Are you then trained in Classical Greek and Latin? That would be pretty awesome.

Ubenedictus:
the church fathers arent inspired in the sense scripture is, they certainly rank lower but they provide insight to the sense in which the scriptures is rightly understood they show us how Apostolic teaching is passed on. It is from them we know what Apostolic tradition is

I don't understand. Are you saying that they are inspired but only a little? How is such a thing even possible?

Ubenedictus:
I have so far not once attacked the Bible, I have written about it's development in words most scripture scholars will agree with, only an insecure Christian will consider that an attack and it will be an insecurity based on ignorance.

I have wearied of this discussion, Ubenedictus, so I am not going to have yet another back-and-forth with you. If the discussion up to this point does not demonstrate what I have said, why should anything more that I say?

Ubenedictus:
You are not going to believe no matter the proof, you just tagged it Vatican so you have an excuse the, I have not linked a single Vatican site so far. You just show you're not interested in the truth, you opinion must remain unchallenged, oya keep it.

Every single time I debate antichristians especially atheists, I do my best to avoid quoting the Bible until they actively raise the Bible either by quoting it themselves or attributing something to it. Yet I always argue from the Bible with them. I never present an argument to them unless it is biblical. In the same vein, I don't expect quotes or links or explicit appeals to the Vatican but I fully expect - and have received - Roman arguments from you.

Ubenedictus:
you cant defend the Bible by telling half truths about it's development, it only cause ridicule

Ridicule comes always. So I am not much concerned about being ridiculed. Your own concern with it, however, is very indicative.

As for half-truths, I don't believe I have anything more to add to all I have said in these discussions. Right now, each person must decide what they want to believe is wholly true, half-true or wholly false.

Ihedinobi3:

This is obviously untrue. It is a Roman position that the Septuagint is superior to the Masoretic. It is also a Roman position that the Bible was compiled by the Roman Church. You have said these things yourself even, so your claim here is curious at best.

then you are ignorant as usual of the Roman position.

In the Roman Church the text is the Vulgate, not the masoretic or the Septuagint. And as you have been made aware the Vulgate is translated directly from the Hebrew not the Septuagint. There is no Roman council that set any such position but there is ample testimony from the early Christians that they didn't trust the revisions we now call masoretic text.

The Bible was not compiled particularly by the Roman Church as I have earlier explained, it was compiled by the Catholic Church, including the Roman Church, the Alexandrian church, the antiochene church, the Syrian church which includes Jerusalem, the... You can go and check the churches that make up the Catholic Church and their representatives at the council of Constantinople, Carthage and hippo.

That historical argument did not interest me nearly as much as his overall claim that the Bible we have today is nothing like what existed prior to the Septuagint. My response was that, of course, the Bible that existed prior was preserved in spite of the Septuagint in Hebrew texts and manuscripts and was finally transmitted very near perfection down to us in the Masoretic. That is, the Masoretic was no retranslation back into Hebrew from the Greek as he claimed.

all translations of the Bible are very alike, I can set my Vulgate translation that predates the masoretic text by centuries side by side with the Septuagint and the masoretic text and they will pretty much say the same thing in most cases. But as someone said, the devil is in the details, what about the minority of times where they totally disagree, how do I account for the fact that in the masoretic text the prophesy about piercing of Jesus feet is absent even though it is present in all other ancient text or the other messianic prophesies that seem mutilated in the masoretic text completely in the 10th and 11th century.... That is where the issue is in the details.

It was that focus on the lie that the original Scriptures are extinct that led to all of this. Obviously, the Septuagint existed side by side with preserved Hebrew originals. Given also that the Septuagint was notoriously problematic, every Jewish teacher used it only as far as it was correct when they taught. Otherwise, they translated straight from the Hebrew into whatever language they were teaching in.

are you denying the fact that what we have are copies of the copies of the copies of the original text which we believe carries both the letter and meaning of the original text. Because if you may have found the original manuscript of scripture and I am unaware tell me. Are the original manuscript not really extinct and only their copies survive?

As for your idea that the Septuagint be dropped whenever it conflicts with the masoretic text, please explain how come the apostles in scriptures quote and use the Septuagint even when it is totally at odds with the Hebrew the masoretic text give us example Stephen in his defense, the entire book of Hebrew, Matthew in the Alma Vs virgin case?


funny enough in the minority case where scholars used to think that the septuagint translated incorrectly there have today been a change in opinion with the Quram caves discovery where many show that in those minority cases the Greek translator were simply using a Hebrew manuscript that was different from the present masoretic text.
It seem they didn't translate incorrectly, instead it was a variant and most times more ancient text translated correctly.

Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time so the Septuagint was widely known and used but it was also known to be problematic so it was not used alone. Existing Hebrew manuscripts and personal translations were used when the errors were encountered in teaching. These are things I have said before.

and I remember pastoraio telling you how Matthew stuck with virgin even though it is not an accurate translation of the word Alma, what do you say about that?

Please note, it is a fact that after centuries of copying, scribal errors crept into the Septuagint as it did all other biblical text and that it was correct by comparing copies and other translations. That ur point stands. Even the Hebrew text was supposedly corrected that is why we have the masoretic text.

You do have a dog in the fight. You have a vested interest in opposing the Masoretic Text because it is accepted by the Jews with whom you have never been at peace.

I have no issues with the jews ihe, what I have presented is the historical critism of their revisions of the Hebrew text and this critism have been made by Christians for over a Millennium. If you think I am lying, compare masoretic text with that quoted in the New Testament, compare it's prophesies about the Messiah and the prophesies the new testament quoted and see if they tally.

If you have an argument against Bokenkotter's authority as a historian, present it clearly.

bokenhotter does have his credentials as a historian, he may very well be an authority in his field, that isn't my argument. History is not unfortunately a science, which means each historian is free to spin it whatever way he thinks best. I argument against Bokenhotter is not his credentials but the truthfulness of some of his claims
As I earlier showed his conclusions contradicts the evidence in the issue of primacy. I am also sure his conclusions contradict several historians who themselves are authority in their fields.

There's that double team I spoke of.

I am not interested in debating history with you or PastorAIO, Ubenedictus. I have stated my reasons. If it wasn't for his pretence to authority on the Bible, PastorAIO would have not argued with me beyond the point where I exited any debates about history. My sole interest is that the Bible IS the Word of God and is recognizable as such by anyone who reads it honestly. Historical debates are worth exactly nothing for recognizing the Word of God. They are merely entertaining.

Here I agree, historical debates are worth nothing and the bible is Certainly God's inerrant word... And you can make both points without trying to sound as though the copies we have are the originals or that errors didn't creep in during copying or the masoretic text is not Jewish centered.... Those are historical points that are correct and your attempt to disprove them were unconvincing.

The idea that the text is recognizable to anyone still begs the question.

1. When you say "recognize what constitutes Scripture", is this anything different than deciding what is Scripture and what isn't Scripture? My point is that God wrote the Bible and He left His Signature on it, that is, His Essence so that anyone who wishes to can recognize it for what it is: His Word. You are insisting that somehow it is the Roman Church alone which possesses the ability to tell what and what is Scripture and what and what isn't.

God's word is recognisable you say... Because God wrote it and anyone who knows me well will be able to tell to a great extent my words.... Is that not your argument? Here comes the kink, some do not even know God, others do not acknowledge him, some have a pretty untrue idea of who he is, if they bring these ideas in trying to discern scripture, they will certainly discern wrongly.... That is why historically there have been several canon of scriptures.

Just a little history, you can go aND verify each point. It was each local church that received the writings of the apostles and the gospels, not necessarily every individual Christian, hence the reason why church history shows that there was a time certain writing were not accepted in certain places.... There were Christian churches who didn't recognize certain books. While most churches had identical teaching, most didn't read exactly the same collection of books. Ultimately it was maicon a heretic who is credited to trying to form a canon from everyone, his canon was constituted by books that he believed supported him, the Arians did a similar thing, it is after them that bishops of churches began to list the books read in the church, athanasuis has such a list I believe.

Ultimately from the beginning every church formed it's canon until it dawned on them that it was better that all who shared the same faith should share the same bible, and as scriptures show us when there are issues to decide it is the church in council who has authority with the assistance of the spirit to make that decision.

I believe the ENTIRE CHURCH IN COUNCIL, as it was before denominations crept did decide those books, not just the Roman Church. You on the other hand prefer individualism.

2. You are coopting plenty from the Bible. Nonetheless, there is nothing in Acts 15 to suggest that a council has the power to decide what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't. Not only are there clear signs of human imperfection on the part of the brethren in that story, there is also no indication whatsoever that we must follow that example ever. If we are to simply repeat everything that the Bible records believers doing in the Bible without thought as to which actions were right and which wrong, we would soon find ourselves in hardened disobedience to God. For example, if we treat each other the way that Job's believing friends treated him just because the Bible records that they did, we would soon find ourselves under discipline from God like they too did.

Act 15 shows us the mechanism by which any dispute is settled in the church, whether it is discipline or doctrine act 15 tells us that the church in council has authority for settling it and that this authority is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit hence the words "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us... ".

You may note certainly the human imperfections in the council but that didn't prevent the the apostles and elders from saying "it seem good to the Holy Spirit and to us... " that should tell you that the human imperfections didn't invalidate the decision of the Council. If that isn't an example for church teaching and administration then what is?
The Bible itself tells us that action was right for it records it so.

3. Since it seems in doubt, let me state explicitly that I completely believe that the Lord Jesus called out and is today still calling out His Church which is solidly founded and established on Himself and the Sublime Work that He did in sacrificing Himself on the Cross for our sins. I also believe without a doubt that every believer in the Lord Jesus regardless what their cultural heritage or language or even their pet foibles and serious failures is this Church. I believe without a doubt that The Church as a whole is invisible and spiritual, that it is visible only when two or more believers are together. I believe that no denomination including the Roman Church is the true church, rather that each is a mixed multitude not necessarily concerned with Jesus Christ and the Truth that about Him but may in fact (as is actually true in a depressing number) be actively opposed to Him.

if you believe that the church is wholely invisible then I wonder what you make of Act 15 and it's pretense to order Christians everywhere to a particular conduct at the time? If it is invisible then to what invisible entity did Paul advise Christians to take their case to, what invisible entity gathered for worship and had the authority to excommunicate a erring brother, what invisible entity was the book of Roman's, Corinthians, Galatians, etc addressed to. Of the modern current that invaded Protestantism in the last 300 years the most funny is this invisible strain because it very well contradicts to some extent the reformers themselves.

3. As to my claim for identifying Scripture, my actual claim is that every inspired Scripture by definition contains the Essence of God which is apparent to every human being who is willing to recognize it. It is no more nondescript than the personality or character of a writer discernible in their work.

yeah yeah, it just happens that different humans can't see the same recognisable feature, and in the face of such disputes your invisible church certainly has no authority to settle it as the biblical church in acts 15 did. You see the issue now?

4. The Church does not exist to negate free will. Each believer is completely free by God's Own Will to decide things for themselves. Their responsibility is to God, not to any person or institution. That means too that they are free to acknowledge Scripture when and where they encounter it or to deny it. Luther and I are not responsible to agree for the sake of agreement. We are responsible to agree with each other in the Truth alone and to maintain our loyalty to that alone. If either of us chooses to deny the Truth in any particular, the other is not responsible to either join the one or to force them into subservience in that particular. Their disobedience is a matter between them and their Lord. Where necessary and proper, the other may warn or rebuke. Otherwise, we are responsible to mind our own business and be careful to personally walk right with the Lord.

this your idea is foreign to scriptures themselves.

Of course all have free will and no institution or person may take that from him.

But the Christian as scripture says in the exercise of his freewill is not only answerable to God but also to God's church which has been granted the authority, to teach, to admonish, to Rebuke and in cases of serious disobedience to excommunicate and anathematize. This is why scriptures says the elders, aka Presbyter has rule of the souls placed in his care, and give the church power to judge Christians and between Christian, and to excommunicate. It is the church that is the pillar and bullwark of truth, a safeguard of that truth which each Christian must bear witness to.

The idea that each Christian is to believe and act accordingly to his will and the subjective "truth" he accepts, and that he is answerable to God alone not also to the body of Christ, is unbiblical, untrue and antibiblical. It is sad this is a current of thought flowing in Protestantism today... Even the original reformers didn't teach such.

Well, at least, you didn't deny it. That would have been easier to dismiss. This other thing you have done is just the same as what I have had to be doing in this conversation: presenting knots for me to unravel.

Obviously, this is not at all what the Bible teaches.

The Lord Jesus - and later Paul - essentially taught us to stand together as one Family in the world. That was the whole point of everything that they said.

To put it simply, the world is a very hostile place to faith in Jesus Christ. If that is not a reason for Christians to support and help each other, I don't know what is.

But Christians too are sinful people. Our sin natures remain even after we have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ. So, we often stumble and in many cases cause harm to each other for any number of reasons. As one Family surrounded by enemies who will not rest until they have either seduced us away from the Faith or until they have killed us - if God could be persuaded to let them -, it is only for our security that we settle our problems with each other amongst our own selves.

Even so, nobody is compelled to yield to the instructions of the teachers who shepherd the churches. So, when the teachings and judgments of the pastor-teacher are rejected, there is no pressure brought on the dissident to conform. Thus, there is no power exercised over fellow believers in the manner that you have described. Whenever there is dissidence, focus on the Truth on the part of the pastor-teacher has often been demonstrated to be enough to make the dissident break fellowship and leave the church.

Finally, as Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 5, the church has no business seeking to correct or judge unbelievers who are not interested in the Truth at all. So, the idea of seeking to rule over unbelievers at this time is clearly unscriptural in the extreme.

the church does not seek to judge unbeliever, that ihe is a strawman you have created, the church may propose, teach and admonish in the world but does not judge over the unbelievers, I don't know where you got that from.

Your idea that nobody is compelled to yield to the decisions of the church and it's leaders and there is no pressure on the dissidents to conform strikes me again as untrue and unbiblical.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

The Bible says both to obey and submit, how come in your own ecclessiology you imagine there is no pressure to yield?

1 Timothy 5:17
Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.
1 Thessalonians 5:12
We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you,
Here the scriptures say the elder has rule over the community he deserves double honor and respect.


“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 18:18);

What is the use of the above authority in the church if no one is expected to yield to it?
Edicted

budaatum:
see here.

that may very well be your interpretation and in a subjective sense that may very well be what the text says to you as a person.


The text I read of the last supper narrative hardly talked about faith, Jesus took a memorial meal and made it his own memorial.

He took bread, blessed it and broke it gavery it out and said it is his body, the same body that he gives for us.
He took wine did the same and said that is his blood, the very blood that seals his covenant... It doesn't get clearer than that for a historic Christian whether a catholic or Orthodox or oriental, Paul then tells us in his letters that the blessed cup of the early church liturgy is a participation in Jesus Christ own blood and the broken bread is a participation in Jesus's own body and warn that he who cannot discern what he is eating and he who is unworthy to eat it both court trouble for themselves.

That's pretty simple for me, I don't need to import the theme of faith into the text, the text is about Jesus Christ giving us his body and blood as the anamesis of his sacrifice.

That is pretty much the ancient understanding of that passage and you'll see it in the early Christian writing and more so all the ancient churches hold it.

How was ur day?

Ihedinobi3:

I have not said that he never says anything right. I have just pointed out how you are always somehow on the same side as him including when he is not just wrong but willfully and dangerously so. I consider it a very telling thing.

Actually I fully understand what I am saying but I hope that you do not understand what you yourself are doing.

Let me describe how ridiculous your incredulity is:

Do you consider there to be any difference between my posts and myself? Do you think of my relationship to them as one where I am greater than or on the same level as them?

here comes the insinuations which I am going to avoid for the sake of sanity in the thread.


I would imagine that you would be greater than your post and that while your post is from you, it isn't you.

Unless you are claiming that your post is a human being.

Ihedinobi3:

Ridicule comes always. So I am not much concerned about being ridiculed. Your own concern with it, however, is very indicative.

As for half-truths, I don't believe I have anything more to add to all I have said in these discussions. Right now, each person must decide what they want to believe is wholly true, half-true or wholly false.

I am not a pessimist, I don't believe that ridicule comes always, if you present an issue truthfully and sincerely more often than you imagine you gain a little respect. telling half truths about a matter may get your peers to hail you but anyone who identifies those tiny bits of lies you have told will have less respect for both you and what you stand for.

Ubenedictus:
that may very well be your interpretation and in a subjective sense that may very well be what the text says to you as a person.


The text I read of the last supper narrative hardly talked about faith, Jesus took a memorial meal and made it his own memorial.

He took bread, blessed it and broke it gavery it out and said it is his body, the same body that he gives for us.
He took wine did the same and said that is his blood, the very blood that seals his covenant... It doesn't get clearer than that for a historic Christian whether a catholic or Orthodox or oriental, Paul then tells us in his letters that the blessed cup of the early church liturgy is a participation in Jesus Christ own blood and the broken bread is a participation in Jesus's own body and warn that he who cannot discern what he is eating and he who is unworthy to eat it both court trouble for themselves.

That's pretty simple for me, I don't need to import the theme of faith into the text, the text is about Jesus Christ giving us his body and blood as the anamesis of his sacrifice.

That is pretty much the ancient understanding of that passage and you'll see it in the early Christian writing and more so all the ancient churches hold it.

How was ur day?

My day has been good. Though you made me choke when I saw the word "faith" inputed to me, that word, and "believe", being the two most hated and detested words of mine!

"I am the bread of life", [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A22-59&version=NIV]said Christ[/url]. He goes on to use one of my most hated words but in the baav, this word is rendered "to understand", and "to emulate", and all in response to the question "What must we do to do the works God requires?”

There was an "ancient understanding" too by the time Christ came Uben, but did he not come with a sword to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law such that a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household’? I daresay that where the "ancient understanding" of Paul and his faith is especially concerned, I defer to the "ancient understanding" of James with his works and faith, and with my sword by my side and at hand. It is to this I allude with my "And by 'life injected into', I mean not just claiming "Lord! Lord!", but "doing my will"."

But, hey! One understands that it is the blind who are made to see, the lame who walk, the lepers who are cured, the deaf who hear, the dead who are raised to life, and the Good News is for the poor. It is a grave error to think everyone is the poor, Uben, or that it is the lame who are made to see!

Ihedinobi3:

No, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't agree that it is arrogance that the Jews would claim some kind of right to decide if Daniel whether in whole or in part is accurate just because of the prophecies about the Messiah that make it unmistakable that the true King of Israel was and is Jesus Christ, the Man they crucified and whose followers they zealously persecuted.

they also debated books like song of songs, they knew that it was the duty of the believing community to discern what is scripture and not assume that it false down from the sky, you of course will do same, you just think it should be done by individuals not the community.

Lastly you are the person who has been defending a 10th century revision of the Hebrew Bible that mutilated messianic prophesies.

Well, that was the point. When she recognizes writings that were not inspired at all, is that a decision or not? Just like I believe that you would consider it a decision when anybody claims to recognize no inspiration in the Apocrypha

Here comes another one, Jesus promised his spirit to his church, he also promised his ever presence and added that the gate of hell will not prevail for that reason I have absolute trust that he keeps his promises and as the spirit guided the council in act 15 to teach what was necessary for the time, I believe he guides the church councils for all times so that they are authoritative and right in teaching.

For that reason I don't believe the church founded on those promises ever recognised an uninspired text in council

Groups of individuals do not possess free will. Free will is a trait that is possessed by and is only operational in individuals. That is why it is an individual matter, not a group affair.

where do you get these your theories from, why do you think the will of a group isn't free? What makes it fixed, are those who make up the group not human beings?

No Church did any such thing. The Scriptures have always spoken for themselves.

that you say so doesn't make it true.

This is where history puts the issue to rest, the church didn't such a thing, she recognized and canonised scripture in Hippo and Carthage.

That much is clear

Asked and answered.



Thank you, Ubenedictus. I deeply appreciate it.

you're welcome

Refer to my other response. As for the Hebrew rendering those passages differently, that is quite obviously not true.

read up ihe.

PS 40:7 what does the masoretic text say?

Heb 10 quotes the same scriptures what does it read?

What about PS 22:17?

His reason for quoting the Septuagint is the same reason why trained pastor-teachers today simply quote translations of the Bible that they have when they are correct or when they render the meaning in a way that is perfect for their purposes rather than simply translate every single passage they call up.

now you are presuming to know his intentions, that's a pretty poor argument.

You are free to believe whatever you want. I'm just tired of repeating myself. Besides it is not necessary as demonstrated by your argument about Jews differing in what was Scripture and what wasn't: you answered your own self later.

and here I was thinking you believed scriptures were always immediately recognized and it didn't take any time for the jews to set their canon...

You see you are not even consistent with your points?

Clearly not. The church you keep talking of is not a person. It is a group of persons. Corporately, it does not possess what persons possess which makes them able to do stuff like this as I have already explained in another response.

lol, this sounds funny, so a group of people cannot discern together? You see what Protestantism has caused for you, because act 15 tells me it is possible.

It was not a joke at all.



What's the big difference?



Answered several times already.

Edicted

Ihedinobi3:

Completely untrue. YOU were the one who said that each man is a determiner of truth. I never said anything of the sort.

so you can't see the end point of your thought?

When each man discerns for himself what is scripture according to a subjective recognition of the divine essence in a text... Then each man will have a canon that speaks of his understanding of God not necessarily who God is.

It has happened before, the heretic maicon had such a canon. You can go and read it up.

Great. So we maintain our fundamental disagreement.



Something funny about free will?



Of course not. But that Church is different from the Roman Church - or indeed any of the many other churches out there.

And if you would read you will see that that same first century church is still church in the 2nd century and 3rd and every century after that. one same church.

Or YOU don't understand what the 66 books teach and that's why you think Tobit is of the same origins as them.

then enlighten me.

What does the 66books you accept teach about angels and how does Tobit 12 contradicts that? what do the jews from whose tradition we get the scriptures say about angels?

It's not enough to say "you don't understand because you don't agree with me "

Ihedinobi3:

To be honest, I wonder if there is any real gain in answering this. No honest person who knows my posts would ever say that I reject what antichristians say simply because they are antichristians. Not one. As a matter of fact, right here, I have explained why I have rejected everything that I have rejected. In no instance was it because an antichristian said it. I hold that the lie is far more effective when fitted out with a veneer of truth, so I always acknowledge what truth I see whenever I see it and separate it from the lie hiding behind it.

It is you who consider his arguments good in any respect because of your personal agenda.

This is another problem with you.

You see how you contradicted yourself.
First you claim you accept his claims if true, now you say that I consider his argument good in ANY respect because I have an agenda. So his argument is bad in all respects and anyone who disagrees with you has an agenda.

You have successfully told us that the antichristian is always wrong and whoever finds him correct in ANY respect to have an agenda....

How interesting!

If you note that he conceded his error there, why did you go on to say that it was a straightforward history?

The meaning of straight forward
straightforward
adjective
uncomplicated and easy to do or understand.



It doesn't mean all points are correct, it means uncomplicated and easy to understand, he was happy to concede when in error which in my book is a plus... It certainly beat someone who claims the church sets no canon even though history says otherwise.

This is a potpourri of falsehood mixed with truth.

Yes indeed I came into the thread essentially congratulating an antichristian for making a real argument even if I considered it false. I was expressing respect for the work he put into his thread which put to shame every other experience I had had at the time. Somehow, it seems to me that this is the post you referred to concerning innuendo. What the innuendo was is yet to be seen.

I went on after that to point out what I believed to be the most important falsehood in his post and post quotes from Britannica demonstrating small and great departures from the true situation. This is the challenge you meant, isn't it? The funny thing is that you consider the quotes a challenge. The quotes were ordinarily conclusive in themselves. Any interpretation I offered may have been debatable but in so far as a historical authority had been presented, all that was left was for him or anyone else to provide more reliable authorities. But until now you have been debating the authorities in question insisting on others which take their legitimacy from the same church which makes such crazy claims. He, on the other hand, conceded what he did and debated what he chose and I explained my interest in the discussion.

The history wasn't my interest. The argument that the Bible is unreliable as God's Very Word was. And I did not believe that history had anything to do with that argument. That was why I argued from the Bible itself.

Interestingly, PastorAIO understood what I spoke of about recognizing a personality in a writing. You instead have not ceased from obfuscating it until now. Your most recent effort at confusion is to call it "a theory of visible feature". You decided on your own that it is a theory. You decided on your own that it is visible. These things have nothing to do with my own arguments. My position was consistently that God's Personality or His Essence is recognizable in what He has written. This is not at all strange because it is true of every other person. But if you ever admit it though, it will destroy the claim of your church. So you have done your best to confuse the issue since.

You of course have made this claim consistently.... You also have added that this doesn't always happen because each man has freewill and may recognise who he likes and not recognize others.

The question is, if Mr A recognises ABC, Mr B recognises BCD, MR C recognises CDE all in the same Christian community, who decides what is read on Sunday in church?
If maicon in one church has his canon, Arius in another with his canon, Jerome in another with his and Augustine with his, how does the church tell the books to be read?

That is a concrete case.

Why also would you ever admit that there was anything antichristian in an argument that you piggyback on to uphold your church's false claims? Even PastorAIO mocked me for pointing out that he was actually saying that the Bible is unreliable because it had disappeared from existence and the Septuagint which was pretty much a human invention was left in its place and from it has come everything we believe today to be the Word of God. He mocked me, as he said, for stating the obvious. But this does not qualify as antichristian for you. Either you are greatly deceived or you are an antichristian yourself.

Do you always tag people with names when you disagree with their points that you believe are wrong or do you prove them wrong and hopefully they never fall into your name categories.

Names are the boxes we create to put people in.

LOL. The Roman church isn't all that was happening for 2000 years, thank God. If it was, all hope would have already been lost.

And, yes indeed, I am biased against the Roman church and not merely because I don't like it but because of the deep arrogance in her which seeks to steal away the Lord's sheep and lead them into apostasy and condemnation like herself.

The Catholic Church, cannot steal the Lords sheep, it is the Lord's sheepfold. So the idea of the sheepfold stealing the shepherds sheep is nonsensical.
The church is commissioned to continue the work of Jesus for all times, she is his Body and bride, his masterpiece built on the prophets, apostles and continues today with their successors. That isn't arrogance to state who you are. The church always points to the bridegroom, her head, her cornerstone and her builder... Not to herself.

I wonder from hence you got these thoughts.

Such a terrible lie.

show me the lies

The Vulgate is enough proof in itself, isn't it? Did you not mention the riots involved in that translation and the duress under which Jerome had to work to produce it? And, let me assure you, I WILL NOT argue the point with you. I really don't care what you choose to believe. Your own words in this regard and the quotes I presented from Britannica are enough.

the Vulgate was not doctored in any sense to change scriptures, that is a sad lie that I'll hold you to.

The Vulgate was made when the Roman Church was changing her liturgy from Greek to Latin which was the language of the people as Greek was quickly fading away in the west, Jerome who was the scholar commissioned for the work lived pretty far from Rome in Palestine and frankly had a very cordial relationship with the church of Rome and it's bishop, there was hardly duress in that relationship as pope And Jerome esteemed each other. His relationship with Augustine in Africa was a totally different affair, the riot occurred there not in Rome. Jerome used the best manuscripts he had and translated in the best way he knew how. I don't know how that in anyway puts him under duress or show that the church changed, doctored or corrupted scriptures using the Vulgate.

It seems again you are speaking from a standpoint of ignorance, prejudice and bias.

Whatever you say, Ubenedictus.



I actually do not fully accept Bokenkotter's authority. I presented him as a Roman authority who may present a more correct official position than you yourself. Regardless, note that you agree with him in the fact that claims to primacy are much later than the apostles. The 2nd century was well after the last apostle died. Yet, claims to primacy are offered on their authority.

I am sure that bokenhotter DID NOT claim in his book that he was offering the official catholic position, his book is his own academic work with contradicts the work of others and even the early Christians he is commenting on. Frankly in academics catholic priests have been known to speak accordingly to whatever persuasions they like many times close to heresy, the church doesn't police that and doesn't translate to church position.


The 2nd century is actually pretty early, the last apostle John died about 100, the first time we hear that the is a prime ministers office in the church is
In Matt 16:15, the next time a Christian tells us that the church of Rome now presides over the churches was about 107 in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch who was on his way to martyrdom, that isn't late because the was a guy who lived in the Apostolic age pretty much passing Apostolic tradition, 7 years after John is not late. Ignatius was bishop of a pretty big church in Antioch which had held the apostles, Irenaeus the guy I provided next was bishop in France when he made the statement.

This is all academic anyway. It matters very little to me what you believe. My job is done once I present the Bible's teachings. Everything else I do is just to protect others who are troubled by the lies that unscrupulous men spread.

Another tag, unscrupulous men... Can you leave the tags and name calling out?

As my further comments stated, I have no reason to listen to someone who will not countenance an authority - having none themselves - clearly because he considers it opposed to his pet views.

As for my interest in historical authorities, this is a waste of my time. I do not reject the Roman interpretation of Irenaeus et al, I simply do not care very much for what Irenaeus et al have to say except as it concerns what was happening at the time that they lived and as it concerns what they themselves believed. I do not consider them equal in authority to the Scriptures, so I subordinate all they say to what the Bible says. I do not consider them necessary examples to follow. I will learn from them in so far as they, in turn, followed the Bible. My rejection of their evidence in discussions like this is entirely because even where they are correctly interpreted by your ilk, you only use them to further your private interests even up to the point of contradicting the Bible where they failed as Christians.

If you accept them as witnesses of their times then we wouldn't have had the problems we had in the other thread. Because we presented the witness of the witnesses of the time and you decided to go with bokenhotter even when the witnesses show his submissions as incorrect.

In that case you are the person who refused to countenance authority simply because it destroys your pet views.

Talk of the having an agenda

My appeal to any authorities like Bokenkotter is just to show you that unless you too are a history expert, there are other peer-reviewed and accepted ways of interpreting what you so dearly cherish. My own personal position on all Roman claims is whatever the Bible has to say about it.

And the bible tells you how it's canon was set right?

I don't understand. You are reading a book in Spanish? Or you are reading an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish? Are you then trained in Classical Greek and Latin? That would be pretty awesome.



I don't understand. Are you saying that they are inspired but only a little? How is such a thing even possible?

I am reading an English translation of a Spanish work... My knowledge of classical Latin and Greek is rudimentary, I can manage ecclesiastical Latin better... In the coming years though I hope to take in course in both languages... I'll like to read scriptures in the original languages.


I am saying, they are Christians witnesses, transmitting the faith as they themselves received it from the apostles and their successors.

As St Paul will say, what you have heard me say teach to trustworthy men who will in turn teach others. That is the ordinary way in which the faith is to be transmitted in the church. From apostles to the next generation and then the next for all times.

I have wearied of this discussion, Ubenedictus, so I am not going to have yet another back-and-forth with you. If the discussion up to this point does not demonstrate what I have said, why should anything more that I say?

You are weary and frankly I am smiling at your bias and prejudice and I just hope one day you will drop those dim lenses and search for the truth even when it doesn't square up with Protestantism.

Every single time I debate antichristians especially atheists, I do my best to avoid quoting the Bible until they actively raise the Bible either by quoting it themselves or attributing something to it. Yet I always argue from the Bible with them. I never present an argument to them unless it is biblical. In the same vein, I don't expect quotes or links or explicit appeals to the Vatican but I fully expect - and have received - Roman arguments from you.

since you have constantly continued with the term "Roman Church " despite corrections, let me state clearly that it is not acceptable and frankly it is in the same category as terms like papist, romist etc.

My church is not the Roman Church, it is the Catholic Church.

In case you didn't know, the Roman Church refers to the diocese of Rome, the immediate diocese of the Bishop of Rome, Francis. I am NOT a member of that church. Pope Francis is a member, so too Catholics in Rome and cardinals.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church is the part of the Catholic Church that uses any of the Roman rites, it covers western Catholicism.
The Latin Catholic Church refers to the part of the Roman catholic church that uses the Latin rite.

The name of the church is the Catholic church, that is the name of the 23 self governing churches that makes up the church in union with Peter, the Roman Catholic church is just one out of the 23 churches, and the Roman Church is just 1 diocese located in Rome and frankly I am not a member of the Roman Church.

It is both inaccurate and pejorative to use the term with me.

The arguments you have received are largely mine, you won't find a Catholic official document with those historical points, though you will find many scholarly articles and books from many protestants and Catholics with those points... My general arguments on nl certainly sprinkles catholic arguments but most of my points here will stand proudly even with protestant scholars.