[/quote]
3. Barnabas is an apostle. He performed no miracles, wrote no scripture. (Acts 14:14,8-18)[quote]

chukwudi44:

The catholic church creaated the bible @ the synod of hippo in 393CE.This was further ratified by the council of carthage in 397CE and 417 CE.

Prior to that the bible did not exist.The term bible is actaually has no biblical basis

[/quote]Jesus is called an apostle. He performed miracles (Heb. 3:1)[quote]

[/quote]1. There are apostles who were only among the 12. They performed miracles. Some wrote scripture. (Acts 1:21-22

The bible was explicit enough on the nmber of apostles the lamb had

=


>


>>





Show resources


Add parallel


Revelation 21:14

New International Version (NIV)


14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
[quote]

chukwudi44: Jesus is called an apostle. He performed miracles (Heb. 3:1)

To call Jesus an apostle is to insult him and bellittle his status.He is God and is not to be compared to any apostle whatsoever

naijadeyhia:


BIBLE MEANS A COLLECTION OF CHRISTIAN BOOKS CONSISTING OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. THE BIBLE CONSISTS OF BOOKS WHICH WERE WRITTEN BEFORE CHRIST CAME AND AFTER CHRIST ROSE AGAIN. WHO "CREATED" THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE? WAS IT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH WERE NOT EVEN EXISTING THEN. WHO "CREATED" THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICH THE WAS COMPILED BY THE LIKES OF JOHN THE BELOVED, PAUL, PETER AND SO ON EXCEPT YOU SAY THEY WERE ALL CATHOLICS.

2 Peter 1:19-21
King James Version (KJV)
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

chukwudi44:

yopung woman stop shoutin.The term bible and scriptures do not mean the same thing and should not used interchangeably.The bible was created from scriptures that was extant in the fourth century when the catholic church decided to creat a christian canon after the jews had created their own canon at the council of jamnia in 100AD.
The books in the bible are not the only scriptures that were written.The bible authours even quoted and reffered us to books oustide the canon defined by the acthoic church.The apostles never used any bible.Jesus and the apostles even quoted books not contained i the bible.

till today the source of the prophecy in mattew "he shall be called a nazerene" and the death of the prophet zechariah son of berachaih mentioned by Jesus are not in bible.Even books like enoch,nathan,letter to the ladociens,assumption of mosese.t.c were quoted and reffered to by biblical authours

bukatyne:

Was the baptism of John of water or of the Spirit? What righteousness was he trying to fulfill?

chukwudi44: the idea of sola bible has no biblical basis.It is a protestant doctrine and and a creation of martin luther.The bible did not exist during the time of the apostles and much of what they did are not contained in the bible.For someone to come and tell me whatever is no in the bible is not true is most ridiculous.Even the entiore biblical authours were anonymous.The present four gospel arrangement were chosen from an avalanche of over 18 gospels taht were flying around.The identities of their authours were sourced from sacred catholic apostolic tradition

naijadeyhia:


I AM A MAN PLS. MY BIBLE TELLS ME TO STUDY TO SHOW MYSELF APPROVED UNTO GOD (NOT UNTO MAN) A WORKMAN THAT NEEDS NOT TO BE ASHAMED BUT RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH (NOT MY WORDS OR THOSE OF THE POPE). JESUS IS THE WORD AND HE IS THE TRUTH AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CALLED THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH. LET HIM GIVE YOU REVELATION

chukwudi44:

what has this got to do with the topic been discussed? why did Jesus and the apostles quote and reffer us to books outside the bible

naijadeyhia: [/b]

AND I GUESS YOU WERE PART OF THAT SACRED CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC TRADITION. PERHAPS YOU WERE ONE OF THOSE ON SEAT IN JAMNIA IN 100 AD

naijadeyhia:

GIVE ME JUST ONE INSTANCE THEN I WILL ANSWER YOU

naijadeyhia:

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHO AN APOSTLE IS? APOSTLE DENOTES AN OFFICE AND AN ASSIGNMENT AND NOT A MAN. AN APOSTLE IS A MESSENGER OF THE GOSPEL WHICH WAS ONE OF THE ASSIGNMENTS OF CHRIST. AN APOSTLE IS ALSO A VERY IMPORTANT CHRISTIAN TEACHER WHICH WAS ALSO AN ASSIGNMENT OF CHRIST

ochongonoko:

And yet he claims to know all.. LMAO!!

Chukwudi will never agree..lmao

naijadeyhia: The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), listed the apocrypha as Scripture. Since these same councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, they must accept them all. This is False. The canon of the New Testament was set from the first century. It is Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible!

chukwudi44: Can Protestants Rely Upon the "Council of Jamnia" for Their Bible?



A good friend of mine is currently studying to become a Presbyterian minister at Westminster Theological Seminary. Before he left, I asked him two questions:


1.Where does the Bible dictate sola Scriptura?
2.Where does the Bible dictate the precise canon of Scripture?

After all, for sola Scriptura not to be self-refuting, both of these seemingly must come from the Bible. After all, both are doctrines, and sola Scriptura claims that all doctrines must come from the Bible. At the time, he told me he'd get back with me. I saw him again this week, and since he's now gone through a year of seminary, I asked him, “Did you ever figure out why you use a 66-Book Bible?” This time, he said, “Basically, the Council of Jamnia is the Protestant list.”




Educated Protestants frequently point to this to justify their canon of Scripture, but it doesn't really work. But a lot of Christians, Catholics and Protestants alike, have no idea what this so-called Council was (or wasn't). So here's what you should know about the “Council of Jamnia,” and why it's a non-starter:


1.The “Council of Jamnia” Almost Certainly Didn't Exist: This is a biggie. We know that there was a Rabbinical school at Jamnia, but there's no evidence that any Council ever occurred there. The “Council” is just a hypothesis put forward in 1871 by Heinrich Graetz, to explain how the Jews ended up with a single canon. As a hypothesis, it's a very weak one. There are no early sources which speak of a Council at Jamnia. You could just as easily claim that there was a Council in Beijing. For whatever it's worth, the majority of scholars have finally realized the obvious: there's no reason to believe that the Council existed.


2.It's Not Clear that the Jamnia School Even Addressed the Canon of Scripture: It's not just that whatever happened at Jamnia wasn't a formal Council. It's that it's not clear that the Rabbinical school even addressed the question of the canon of Scripture at all. You could just as easily say you get your canon of Scripture from the Peace of Westphalia.


3.The Jamnia School Wasn't Christian: As I said, while there almost certainly wasn't a Council, there was a Rabbinical “school,” in the sense of rabbis teaching students. After the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the city of Jamnia became the intellectual and religious heart of Rabbinical Judaism. Perhaps needless to say, those Jews who had become Christians weren't a part of the Jamnia school, so this school included only those Jews who rejected Christ or were somehow unaware of Him. In fact, the Jamnia school is a product of the Pharisees and legalists. This, by the way, is why they didn't need a Council to produce a canon. The Pharisees had long used the modern Protestant Old Testament. It was the Hellenists, the Greek-speaking Jews, who used the modern Catholic Old Testament, while the Sadducees used only the first five Books of the Bible. More on that here.


4.The Jamnia School Was Very Anti-Christian: While we can't say that the Jamnia rabbinical school ever produced a Biblical canon, we can point to a major contribution of the school. It produced an ugly prayer called the Birkat haMinim, which cursed the Christians as sectarians, and prayed to God that for these “sectarians,” “let there be no hope, and may all the evil in an instant be destroyed and all Thy enemies be cut down swiftly; and the evil ones uproot and break and destroy and humble soon in our days. Blessed art You, LORD, who breaks down enemies and humbles sinners.” This prayer was to be prayed every Sabbath, and it forced the Jewish Christians to stop worshiping with the non-Christian Jews in synagogue.

Prior to this, those Jews who accepted Christ still felt comfortable going to Synagogue, where they would attempt to convert others by speaking of Him as the long-awaited Messiah. For example, this is described as Paul and Barnabas' regular practice in places like Acts 14:1 and Acts 17:2. After the Birkat haMinim, those days were decisively over. A Christian could pray to the God of the Jews in good conscience, as He's the God of the Christians as well. But obviously, a Jewish Christian couldn't ask God to quickly damn the Christians.

I should mention that, for whatever it's worth, there's some question about how broadly this curse on “sectarians” was to be interpreted, and likely, different believers prayed the anti-sectarian prayer with different enemies in mind. The Israeli historian Gedaliah Alon, for example, contends “that the Birkat HaMinim may have been directed solely at those Jewish Christians who had adopted an anti-nomian position, thus denying the central tenet of Judaism at the time, covenantal nomism.” No matter. Even if Judaizer Christians were exempt from the curse, it was still viewed as an anti-Christian attack, and Jewish Christians left over it.


5.The “Jamnia Canon” May Be the Result of This Anti-Christianity: While it's not clear that the Jamnia school ever produced a Biblical canon (see #2), there was a push back against the Catholic Deuterocanon, and the Greek translation of the Bible generally, because the Deuterocanon speaks quite clearly of things like Heaven and Hell. It contains astoundingly clear Christological prophesies. For example, Matthew 27:41-43 is clearly written as a fulfillment of Wisdom 2:12-22, in which the Just One was to die a shameful Death (see also Philippians 2:. By purging Judaism of the Deuterocanon, you could slow the mass movement of Jews into Christianity. This, by the way, is why many scholars who support the idea of some sort of Jamnia canon think that the canon was formed: to purge the Hellenists and the Christians.


6.The Early Christians Rejected the Pharisees' Canon: Given # 3-5, this is no surprise. But it's still important to remember that we're not starting from scratch. There were Christians in the late first century, after all, faithful ones, many of who had heard Jesus or the Apostles first-hand. And of course, the Apostle John was almost certainly still alive. And yet here's what we don't see: we don't see Jewish and Gentile Christians saying, “We need to pay attention to what the rabbis in Jamnia decide about which Books belong in the Bible, because their decision will bind us all.” And given that no early Christian used this Old Testament, there's no question about the right answer.


7.The Early Christians Ultimately Produced their Own Canons of Scripture: It's not as if early Christians were quiet on the question of the canon of Scripture. The North African Council of Carthage, championed by St. Augustine, the hero of Catholics and many Protestants, produced an exact Catholic Bible, Old and New Testament. It was based on an earlier Synod of Hippo who records are lost to time. Pope Damasus I confirmed this canon. This was a gradual process, admittedly, but one in which the Catholic view was upheld, and the Protestant and the rabbinical / Pharisees' view wasn't even advanced as an option.


8.The Protestant Argument Violates Sola Scriptura: Remember that sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must come from the Bible. The canon of Scripture is certainly a doctrine: one of the most important doctrines, in fact. And yet Protestants advancing this view are deriving this doctrine not from Scripture, but from a Pharisaic tradition. Unless sola Scriptura now means “Scripture plus traditions of the Pharisees,” it's a massive walking contradiction for Protestants to advance this imagined Council as a way to derive the Books of the Bible.



Of course, the irony here is staggering. Despite all the talk about Galatians, it's Protestants here who are playing the Judaizers, attempting to force Christians to follow the dictates of an insular group of vehemently anti-Christian Jewish rabbis from the first century. To put it another way, if a Christian in the first century raised the argument that we should reject the Old Testament used by Christians in favor of the one being advanced in the Jamnia school, the followers of St. Paul would denounce them for their legalism. It's just fundamentally not a Christian answer to the question of the canon of Scripture.

CAMEROONPRIDE: the problem with these protestants dumb azzes is they are not here to learn, but to ridicule and insults like automats what they don't know and understand. their pastchieves told them to rubbish the Catholic church under the pretext that. Catholic are weak in their faith or don't know the Bible(the same bible we wrote lmao) see one of them using the bible to talk bad about the church funny mofo

The most funny thing about those rebels(protestants & co) is their teachings is centered on insulting Catholics like for real, we freed you stop talking about us, we don't care about u, nonentity trying to stay relevant. why do u think they created the word Christian? ah ah . talk with a protestant and ask him to convince you to join his church. he will start with Catholics do this Catholics do that, idols this ,idols that ..Mary blah blah..like i said their whole life is centered around talking about Catholics

chukwudi44:


Matthew 23:35-36

English Standard Version (ESV)


35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah,[a] whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation


kindly show me shere in the OT the prophet was murdered


Jude 1:14

New International Version (NIV)


14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones


THIS IS JUDE QUOTING THE NON-CANONICAL BOOK OF ENOCH

bukatyne:

Nobody argues about intercession.

Our problem is that Mary a dead person is the 'Intercessor.'

If you are looking for a heavenly intercessor, what about the Holy Spirit? Rom 8 : 26

Why leave the Holy Spirit as ask a dead person to intercede for you?

If you are asking your Physical Rev Fr who is with you to pray for you, there is no problem.

How did you miss this post I made previously

bukatyne:

I ask: If Mary died a virgin, what happened to her marriage with Joseph?

chukwudi44: Point 3:The council of Jamnia rejected this books

Yes the books were actually rejected by this council.Interstingly this council was a Jewish council and was convoked primarily because a new religion(xtianity) had arisen and has began using similar scriptures to them and thus the need to create a demarcation.

It is most worthy to note that this council that selected the 39 books today used by the protestants equally rejected Jesus and the entire new testament.It is obvious from the foregoing that the holy spirit was not ivvolved in this decision.It thus beholves on all right thinking xtians to discountenance the resolutions of this council.Protestants in the late 18th century adopted a hybrod canon I.e a combination of the jamnia canon and the catholic NT.This hypocritical at best.

naijadeyhia:

[size=15pt]The apocrypha does not belong in the Bible because It IS not inspired.[/size][/b]