italo:
I'm not like you who lives for lies. Here's your quote below. I have proof for what I say, unlike you.

And here's the reason I said so (the bolded in particular)
I have posted this before, still you choose to ignore and continue your false allegations.

italo:
"When did a book become the basis of
Christian faith?"
'At what point in time did a book take over
the Church as the guide and who made it so?'

Is it not so evident that you take the Church's decision as the supreme authority of christianity even over the scriptures in the bible? Yet, you claim I lied against you.

italo:
I dont doubt the Bible...because I believe
when the Church (the pillar and foundation
of truth) says it is Gods word and the apostles
wrote those letters. I believe the bible
because I believe the Church that compiled
and canonized it.

Here's your subsequent comment, it displays your choice about what the Catholic church told you about the bible than what the apostles say in the bible about the church.

You believe the bible only because you catholic church told you to believe it...yes or no? (This is a qstn I xpect a straightforward answer, mind you, whatever you say, your answer is already in your statement)

italo:
As usual, a false allegation. No evidence of how and where I twisted St. Paul's epistle to defend the superiority of the Church over scripture. No evidence that I even believe the Church is superior to scripture. It's like saying Nigeria is superior to the constitution. Is Nigeria competing with its own constitution which it put together? I'm not daft.

Just lies...nothing to prove it.

You asked me a question which read:

italo:
Question was:
If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the
Church to be sure he wasnt writing error, why
should you the believe the letter and doubt the
Church that guides the author of the letter?

And your answer to that was Gal 2:1-2.

Now, I said you must have misinterpreted (twisted) that
part of the epistle to arrive at the conclusion that said Paul was guided by the church instead of vice-versa (Paul guided the Church with his epistle). I recommend going back to study (with a simpler bible version) to know who was guiding who. I helped you but here you are again with your normal false allegations.

italo:
When and where did I reproof the "Enigma" on this thread? When and where was I exposed? When and where did I stop reproofing him?

For you information I have not been reading 95% of what he's posting.

It's obvious you have nothing to add to this thread other than cheap lies and wild allegations without any evidence.

You've heard the early Church Fathers affirm the Pope, the Catholic Church, devotion to Mary, the Sacraments etc.

But because you live for lies, you would rather say they are Deeper Life members than Catholics.

So give me a new lie to muse over. The old ones are getting stale.

You did not just reproof in a post, since he has been posting, all your posts have been the opposite of what he says (which is definitely a reproof, though you may not have done it directly or with intent to do so) . When I said you have made him a liar, I noticed how you stopped the posts that opposed his (though, maybe not intentionally) and have started clamoring on 'show me where I called Enigma a liar'

By the way, the bolded seeks verification. The (catholic) church fathers might have done that, the apostles has no verified claims that they did that (especially devotion to Mary). I'd like to see your evidences.

italo:

It's like saying Nigeria is superior to the constitution. Is Nigeria competing with its own constitution which it put together? I'm not daft.

Just lies...nothing to prove it.

I so much love Your analysis. It makes so much sense.

Analyzing it, we say who makes up 'Nigeria'?
I guess its simply: the people, the government and the people that play active roles. (The land has little to do with it)

Now, the people have a head (president), and other reps at the govt level (senate, house of reps, govs etc). These ones make the law to guide everyone, they are not also above the law themselves. All offenders will be duly punished according to the law (including the reps the people have). Now, should the reps do things contrary to the law because they made the law? No, they will be punished. Or should the people kill themselves cos the law say 'hang offenders'? Or if they do, does that law justify them(since it is in the to hang offenders)? Only the law can kill, not the
people.

Conclusion, after the 'un requested' analysis:
The law (made by the nation) guides the nation, not otherwise.

adsonstone:

And here's the reason I said so (the bolded in particular)
I have posted this before, still you choose to ignore and continue your false allegations.



Is it not so evident that you take the Church's decision as the supreme authority of christianity even over the scriptures in the bible? Yet, you claim I lied against you.



Here's your subsequent comment, it displays your choice about what the Catholic church told you about the bible than what the apostles say in the bible about the church.

You believe the bible only because you catholic church told you to believe it...yes or no? (This is a qstn I xpect a straightforward answer, mind you, whatever you say, your answer is already in your statement)

Nowhere does the Bible tell us "The bible is the word of God." It is the Catholic Church that told us so.

Stop lying. I never said or indicated the Church is superior to scripture.

I only indicated that the Churches interpretation of scripture is superior to yours.

adsonstone:

You asked me a question which read:


And your answer to that was Gal 2:1-2.

Now, I said you must have misinterpreted (twisted) that
part of the epistle to arrive at the conclusion that said Paul was guided by the church instead of vice-versa (Paul guided the Church with his epistle). I recommend going back to study (with a simpler bible version) to know who was guiding who. I helped you but here you are again with your normal false allegations.

Oh! Now Paul is the one guiding the Church? !

Paul is guiding Peter and the 12 who are the foundation of the Church?!

Paul is guiding Peter?!

Why should I use a watered down Bible version?

Jesus makes Peter the Shepherd of his flock (including Paul); Jesus tells Peter "strengthen your brethren. " Jesus made him the Rock.

Yet you make Paul the shepherd. The same Paul Peter warned you not to twist his writings to your destruction.

Your lies will end up driving you to blasphemy because you need 20 lies to cover 1.

adsonstone:
You did not just reproof in a post, since he has been posting, all your posts have been the opposite of what he says (which is definitely a reproof, though you may not have done it directly or with intent to do so) . When I said you have made him a liar, I noticed how you stopped the posts that opposed his (though, maybe not intentionally) and have started clamoring on 'show me where I called Enigma a liar'

Forget about this "Enigma" reproofing issue. I'm not reading his posts. Once I see "Enigma" I just scroll to the next poster. Give it a rest.

All I ask is that you show me where I called him a liar. And you never said "I made him a liar." That's another lie. It seems you lie for a living.

You are yet to show me where I called him a liar.

adsonstone:
By the way, the bolded seeks verification. The (catholic) church fathers might have done that, the apostles has no verified claims that they did that (especially devotion to Mary). I'd like to see your evidences.

So the Church Fathers are now Catholic. Before you said many weren't. If the men who succeeded the apostles were Catholic, the men who chose the books to be in the Bible were Catholic. What else are you waiting for to know that the Church headed by Peter is the Church headed by Clement of Rome is the Church headed by Francis today?

You are asking for evidence for the apostles' Marian devotion. Does it worry you that you have neither provided evidence for what you say nor evidence against what we say?

Italo is already confused, he didn't know what he was typing. That was why he could speak against the authenticity of the bible because of their mere human traditions and practices. I thank God because he is now opening the eyes of those that are closed in catholic and they are now trooping out in numbers. I hv seen many people who left catholic recently and they are now thanking God for liberating them from catholic erroneous doctrines and practices. I believe many more will be freed from that captivity they are in. U cant deceive all. Catholic have to change their ways and follow what the bible teaches now. Thanks.

italo:

Nowhere does the Bible tell us "The bible is the word of God." It is the Catholic Church that told us so.

Stop lying. I never said or indicated the Church is superior to scripture.

I only indicated that the Churches interpretation of scripture is superior to yours.

They couldn't have said so afterall, the bible is a collection of many books.
Did you study the old testament at all??
Don't you see in the books of many of the prophets stating 'the Word of the Lord came to...'. Do you need someone to tell you they are words from God before you believe?

By the way, I have heard you now.
We should also know that the church is guided by the scriptures (no argument abt that).

italo:


Oh! Now Paul is the one guiding the Church? !

Paul is guiding Peter and the 12 who are the foundation of the Church?!

Paul is guiding Peter?!

Why should I use a watered down Bible version?

Jesus makes Peter the Shepherd of his flock (including Paul); Jesus tells Peter "strengthen your brethren. " Jesus made him the Rock.

Yet you make Paul the shepherd. The same Paul Peter warned you not to twist his writings to your destruction.

Your lies will end up driving you to blasphemy because you need 20 lies to cover 1.

I really think you should start a good study on the books in the bible.
Don't you know that Paul's mission was to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jew (that does not nullify Peter from being the head).
The Galatians were gentiles before Paul preached to them, He started the church at Galatia and they took instructions from him because he was the one they knew, not Peter.

Here's an illustration.
In your own church today, you take direct instructions from your cathechist, not from the pope
.

By the way, I've ignored the 'Enigma' part.
There's no discussion in it.
I think you have even forgotten how you told a big lie against me on this thread yet you keep saying I have lied against you (which I didn't).

Lest I forget, you said 'watered down' bible version. ( See the bolded above). Use your own 'unwatered' bible version to explain the Gal 2: 1-2. I wanna hear from you.

italo:
So the Church Fathers are now Catholic. Before you said many weren't. If the men who succeeded the apostles were Catholic, the men who chose the books to be in the Bible were Catholic. What else are you waiting for to know that the Church headed by Peter is the Church headed by Clement of Rome is the Church headed by Francis today?

I put the catholic in brackets showing they were not all catholics. I meant the catholic church fathers (the ones who were catholics) affirmed the pope but I still don't see how those ones affirmed the devotion to mary, I'll like you to post an evidence or a link here.

italo:
You are asking for evidence for the apostles' Marian devotion. Does it worry you that you have neither provided evidence for what you say nor evidence against what we say?

I'm going to leave this out till we start the discussion on the 'diabolical' catholic practices.

adsonstone:

I so much love Your analysis. It makes so much sense.

Analyzing it, we say who makes up 'Nigeria'?
I guess its simply: the people, the government and the people that play active roles. (The land has little to do with it)

Now, the people have a head (president), and other reps at the govt level (senate, house of reps, govs etc). These ones make the law to guide everyone, they are not also above the law themselves. All offenders will be duly punished according to the law (including the reps the people have). Now, should the reps do things contrary to the law because they made the law? No, they will be punished. Or should the people kill themselves cos the law say 'hang offenders'? Or if they do, does that law justify them(since it is in the to hang offenders)? Only the law can kill, not the
people.

Conclusion, after the 'un requested' analysis:
The law (made by the nation) guides the nation, not otherwise.

You left out one critical matter.

You have told us who makes the law - the legislative.

Have you ever seen a case where a plaintiff judges a defendant to be guilty and decides the punishment by just looking at the constitution?

Or have you seen a case where a defendant acquits himself by just reading the constitution?

A body is needed to INTERPRETE the law. - The Judiciary!

So the nation makes the law through the legislative arm, the law (as interpreted by the Judiciary) guides the nation.

Imagine if every Nigerian could interpret the law as he so wishes. Who would be convicted of any crime? Won't that be anarchy and lawlessness?

That's the same lawlessness and anarchy you have in Protestantism today. And do you know what the Master says to those who do works of lawlessness?

"AWAY FROM ME...I NEVER KNEW YOU!"

May that not be anyone's lot. Amen?!

The (Catholic) Church interprets the law through its Magisterium (The teaching office of the Church).

Interpretation of the law is not left to every individual in the world. If it were, we'd have 7 billion versions of the law as you do in Protestantism.

Coming to officials who break the law...of course they are subject to the law. If the Pope steals today, the Pope would still be subject to Church law which states that stealing is a sin.

But in Protestantism, if a Church Pastor does not like the law of his GO, he just leaves his GO's church and starts his own church with his own laws. In the end everyone has his own law. Tell me, what is law when everyone has his own law. It means that if I slap you and you check your constitution and find me guilty, I'll just check my constitution and acquit myself.

ANARCHY AND LAWLESSNESS!

Two examples of "interpretation" of the Bible by the Roman Catholic church denomination and its "magisterium"!


Sample 1

Roman Catholic church

Two or three people gathered in Jesus' name are not a church; they are a shop!

versus

Jesus Christ

Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sample 2


Roman Catholic Church

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. (‘Pope’ Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; statement made ex cathedra, thus ‘infallibly’!)

Versus

Jesus Christ

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

adsonstone:

They couldn't have said so afterall, the bible is a collection of many books.
Did you study the old testament at all??
Don't you see in the books of many of the prophets stating 'the Word of the Lord came to...'. Do you need someone to tell you they are words from God before you believe?

By the way, I have heard you now.
We should also know that the church is guided by the scriptures (no argument abt that).

The Catholic Church is guided by Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as the Holy Spirit commanded.

The Catholic Church is the interpreter of Sacred Scripture for the people of God, not adsonstone.

There is nowhere the Bible says "the Bible is the word of God." It is the Catholic Church that told us so.

Those prophets were referring to their specific books or passages, not all 73books in the Bible.

Example of "interpretation" of the Bible by the Roman Catholic church denomination and its "magisterium"!

Sample 3


Roman Catholic church

if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

versus

Jesus Christ

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:36)

adsonstone:
I really think you should start a good study on the books in the bible.
Don't you know that Paul's mission was to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jew (that does not nullify Peter from being the head).
The Galatians were gentiles before Paul preached to them, He started the church at Galatia and they took instructions from him because he was the one they knew, not Peter.

Here's an illustration.
In your own church today, you take direct instructions from your cathechist, not from the pope

Regarding the bold, how do you explain this verse.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe.

And in that verse, he was addressing all the leaders of the Church, including Paul. Nobody challenged him.

I await you to twist the verse.

Your illustration fails you and corroborates my point. The Catechist teaches me but does not guide the Pope or the Church, which is the anomaly that you are suggesting. The Catechist receives guidance from the Church. The Church existed with Peter as its head before Paul entered the Church. Paul didnt guide the Church. Paul sought guidance from the Church to be sure he "had not been preaching in vain."

Paul was a missionary and the Galatians knew him and didnt know Peter doesn't mean that Paul was guiding the Church. The Church was guiding Paul. When missionaries came to Nigeria, we didnt know the Pope, but the missionaries were still being guided by the Church led by the Pope.

You illustration falls face down!

adsonstone:
By the way, I've ignored the 'Enigma' part.
There's no discussion in it.
I think you have even forgotten how you told a big lie against me on this thread yet you keep saying I have lied against you (which I didn't).

Another lie. When will you change?

adsonstone:
Lest I forget, you said 'watered down' bible version. ( See the bolded above). Use your own 'unwatered' bible version to explain the Gal 2: 1-2. I wanna hear from you.

"1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."

There it is. Twist it.

adsonstone:
I put the catholic in brackets showing they were not all catholics. I meant the catholic church fathers (the ones who were catholics) affirmed the pope but I still don't see how those ones affirmed the devotion to mary, I'll like you to post an evidence or a link here.

But the ones you said weren't Catholic have been proved to be Catholic na. If you keep lying that they weren't despite the irrefutable evidence shown you, why should I bring more evidence that you will continue to lie about. Show that you have respect for evidence and I will give you more. For now, you have no regard for truth and evidence.

adsonstone:
I'm going to leave this out till we start the discussion on the 'diabolical' catholic practices.

The question was: Does it worry you that you are neither able to provide evidence for what you say nor evidence against what we say?(to paraphrase)

I think you have nothing worthwile to say and you dont know which direction you are headed...and you deliberately lack a focus because the truth which you should focus on, you despise it.

Now I ask you.

What are you on this thread to say and where is your evidence for it?

Ah well, we might as well have a little play before returning to "interpretations" of the Bible by the Roman Catholic church denomination --- especially thinking back that one letter of Jerome was posted earlier.

Here, see the Roman Catholic Church denomination use style to admit that its own Book of Popes contains fiction and lies and that some of its authors are even unknown,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09224a.htm

"Historical criticism has for a long time dealt with this ancient text in an exhaustive way, especially in recent decades after Duchesne had begun the publication of his classic edition. In most of its manuscript copies there is found at the beginning a spurious correspondence between Pope Damasus and Saint Jerome. These letters were considered genuine in the Middle Ages; consequently, in those times St. Jerome was considered the author of the biographies as far as Damasus, at whose request it was believed Jerome had written the work, the subsequent lives having been added at the command of each individual pope. When the above-mentioned correspondence was proved entirely apocryphal, this view was abandoned.

In the sixteenth century Onofrio Panvinio on quite insufficient grounds attributed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius in the ninth century the continuation of the biographies as far as Nicholas I. A[b]lthough Baronius in great measure corrected this false impression, the earlier editions, which appeared in the seventeenth century, bear the name of Anastasius as the author of our book of the popes[/b]. The investigations of Ciampini ("Examen Libri Pontificalis seu Vitarum Rom. Pont. quæ sub nomine Anastasii circumferuntur", Rome, 1688), Schelstrate ("Dissertatio de antiquis Romanorum Pontificum catalogis", Rome, 1692), and other scholars, disprove any possible claim of Anastasius to the authorship of this work.

The conclusive researches of Duchesne have established beyond a doubt that in its earlier part, as far as the ninth century, the Liber Pontificalis war gradually compiled, and that the later continuations were added unsystematically. In only a few cases is it possible to ascertain the authors."

He that continues to post lies and half truths, just to spite another, let him know that he does himself no good....even if he is ignored by those who know.

Let the Roman Catholic church denomination continue to peddle lies and forgeries and its apologists continue to push fraudulent arguments even when we ignore the vast majority of the lies and fraud.

hahahaha, guilty conscience, hahahaha.

Syncan: hahahaha, guilty conscience, hahahaha.

No make laugh tear my bele abeg.

Baba don dey train one student o...

That one sef no know whether to say "Catholic Church" or "(Catholic) Church;" "Church Fathers" or "(Catholic) Church Fathers;" "Catholic Church compiled the Bible" or "Church in Rome (probably Catholic) compiled the Bible."

Lol...

Crybabies giving one another self comfort! hahahahaha

Some people claim Galatians did not know Peter SMH.Peter in his first letter specifically mentioned the church of galatia amongs a few other churches.

1 Peter 1:1-2

New International Version (NIV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

italo:

Regarding the bold, how do you explain this verse.

Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the Word of the Gospel and believe.

And in that verse, he was addressing all the leaders of the Church, including Paul. Nobody challenged him.

I await you to twist the verse.

That verse is straightforward.
Examine verse 12 of that same chapter and tell me who actually preached to the gentiles.

....and consider these scriptures:
2 Timothy 4:17, 1 Timothy 2:7 and tell me if Paul was lying in those verses when He said those things.

By the way, I should even ask you, what exactly was Paul's mission?

italo:
Your illustration fails you and corroborates my point. The Catechist teaches me but does not guide the Pope or the Church, which is the anomaly that you are suggesting. The Catechist receives guidance from the Church. The Church existed with Peter as its head before Paul entered the Church. Paul didnt guide the Church. Paul sought guidance from the Church to be sure he "had not been preaching in vain."

It's high time I asked you: who exactly is the church or what makes up the church because if you know these, you won't say these things you are saying (I'm awaiting your response)

That passage, Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the church leaders....what is the reason, its simply because he wanted to be sure if his teaching corresponds with theirs.
Note: when the church had controversy over an issue, they informed the apostles. The apostles sit together to resolve the issue and gives it to the church (they guided the church and not otherwise).

italo:
Paul was a missionary and the Galatians knew him and didnt know Peter doesn't mean that Paul was guiding the Church. The Church was guiding Paul. When missionaries came to Nigeria, we didnt know the Pope, but the missionaries were still being guided by the Church led by the Pope.

You illustration falls face down!

Yeah, Paul was a missionary. He taught preached to people and establishes them as a church in their regions, he often writes to them or visit them to guide them.

italo:
Another lie. When will you change?

Oga Italo, you can lie sha....
Ok, how do you want to explain this??

italo:
You dont know how Jesus danced...yet you
claim to know those who dance exactly like
Jesus.

Hope you don't mind showing me where I claimed this?
Or will you deny it or call me a liar again?

italo:
"1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."

There it is. Twist it.

There's my explanation, oya, refute it.

By the way, is that how you were taught to answer questions in primary school (re-posting the question) nawa for you ooo?

italo:
But the ones you said weren't Catholic have been proved to be Catholic na. If you keep lying that they weren't despite the irrefutable evidence shown you, why should I bring more evidence that you will continue to lie about. Show that you have respect for evidence and I will give you more. For now, you have no regard for truth and evidence.

He gave no evidence, he only said they worked in catholic churches or they were close to popes and with that, he labeled them catholics. What I mean is he has given no valid evidence to show that these men were catholics.

italo:
The question was: Does it worry you that you are neither able to provide evidence for what you say nor evidence against what we say?(to paraphrase)

I think you have nothing worthwile to say and you dont know which direction you are headed...and you deliberately lack a focus because the truth which you should focus on, you despise it.

Now I ask you.

What are you on this thread to say and where is your evidence for it?

No, it doesn't worry me.

Ukuts gp: Italo is already confused, he didn't know what he was typing. That was why he could speak against the authenticity of the bible because of their mere human traditions and practices. I thank God because he is now opening the eyes of those that are closed in catholic and they are now trooping out in numbers. I hv seen many people who left catholic recently and they are now thanking God for liberating them from catholic erroneous doctrines and practices. I believe many more will be freed from that captivity they are in. U cant deceive all. Catholic have to change their ways and follow what the bible teaches now. Thanks.

Have you noticed that everybody ignores your post because you hardly post anything reasonable?

adsonstone:
That verse is straightforward.
Examine verse 12 of that same chapter and tell me who actually preached to the gentiles.

....and consider these scriptures:
2 Timothy 4:17, 1 Timothy 2:7 and tell me if Paul was lying in those verses when He said those things.

By the way, I should even ask you, what exactly was Paul's mission?


It's high time I asked you: who exactly is the church or what makes up the church because if you know these, you won't say these things you are saying (I'm awaiting your response)

That passage, Paul went to Jerusalem and met with the church leaders....what is the reason, its simply because he wanted to be sure if his teaching corresponds with theirs.
Note: when the church had controversy over an issue, they informed the apostles. The apostles sit together to resolve the issue and gives it to the church (they guided the church and not otherwise).


Yeah, Paul was a missionary. He taught preached to people and establishes them as a church in their regions, he often writes to them or visit them to guide them.


Oga Italo, you can lie sha....
Ok, how do you want to explain this??



Hope you don't mind showing me where I claimed this?
Or will you deny it or call me a liar again?



There's my explanation, oya, refute it.

By the way, is that how you were taught to answer questions in primary school (re-posting the question) nawa for you ooo?


He gave no evidence, he only said they worked in catholic churches or they were close to popes and with that, he labeled them catholics. What I mean is he has given no valid evidence to show that these men were catholics.


No, it doesn't worry me.

We both know you didnt say Jesus danced bla bla... I didnt mean that literally.

Besides that, like I said in the last part of my post, it is clear you have nothing worthwhile to say to this thread.

italo:

We both know you didnt say Jesus danced bla bla... I didnt mean that literally.

you see what I'm saying? Denying the whole thing, twisting the subject matter.

italo:
Besides that, like I said in the last part of my post, it is clear you have nothing worthwhile to say to this thread.

is that the answer to the questions?
How helpful is education to our nation...

This is the same thing you do when you see truth and cant refute it....divert from the topic, ignore or lay false allegations.

By the way, what have you contributed or said on this thread that should be considered worthwhile?

chukwudi44: Some people claim Galatians did not know Peter SMH.Peter in his first letter specifically mentioned the church of galatia amongs a few other churches.

1 Peter 1:1-2

New International Version (NIV)

1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

bro, It would be much more better if you choose to keep quiet than post on what you don't know.

Read and understand in the context of the epistle. If you cant comprehend, ask someone who knows better to explain to you.
Peace

adsonstone:
you see what I'm saying? Denying the whole thing, twisting the subject matter.

Get over yourself. I said I didn't mean that literally. That's no denial.

Grow up!

adsonstone:
By the way, what have you contributed or said on this thread that should be considered worthwhile?

I asked you what you were on this thread to say and your evidence for it, you couldn't say a word.

Now you want me to tell you what I'm saying that is worthwhile so that you can just reject it without proof again.

I will tell you one. With concrete verifiable irrefutable evidence that is easily accessible.

Your Deeper Life Bible Church was founded in 1973 by W. F. Kumuyi.

You deny?

Ukuts gp: Italo is already confused, he didn't know what he was typing. That was why he could speak against the authenticity of the bible because of their mere human traditions and practices. I thank God because he is now opening the eyes of those that are closed in catholic and they are now trooping out in numbers. I hv seen many people who left catholic recently and they are now thanking God for liberating them from catholic erroneous doctrines and practices. I believe many more will be freed from that captivity they are in. U cant deceive all. Catholic have to change their ways and follow what the bible teaches now. Thanks.

am one of dem, and oh i wish italo cn cum nd taste dat d Lord is good under genuine ch outside cath

Ukuts gp: Italo is already confused, he didn't know what he was typing. That was why he could speak against the authenticity of the bible because of their mere human traditions and practices. I thank God because he is now opening the eyes of those that are closed in catholic and they are now trooping out in numbers. I hv seen many people who left catholic recently and they are now thanking God for liberating them from catholic erroneous doctrines and practices. I believe many more will be freed from that captivity they are in. U cant deceive all. Catholic have to change their ways and follow what the bible teaches now. Thanks.

O Yeah, like Dr.Scott Hahn, Henry Newman, Neil Babcox, Scott Caton, etc Very Interesting, Please Google these names, and see


Those who know, are returning home.

asco15:
am one of dem, and oh i wish italo cn cum nd taste dat d Lord is good under genuine ch outside cath

So you mean the Lord is bad in Catholic Church?

asco15:
am one of dem, and oh i wish italo cn cum nd taste dat d Lord is good under genuine ch outside cath

Genuine church my foot! Who confirmed it genuine.

italo:

So you mean the Lord is bad in Catholic Church?

am sorry 4 dat. But d Lord has been beclouded by false practises and devotions in d cath ch. Tnks

asco15:
am sorry 4 dat. But d Lord has been beclouded by false practises and devotions in d cath ch. Tnks

How do you know he has been beclouded and is not good in Catholic Church? Are you the Lord?