italo:

1. You lie. We Catholics dont believe we can add or subtract from the Bible, else we would not have declared the Canon of the Bible closed.

2. Truthislight believes the Bible was written by fallible men, meaning it could contain error.

Are you saying he lied?

Declare the Bible closed! You must have a big chip on that shoulder of yours.

What I am saying is, christians do not believe, talking about the INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURES, that, from one cover to the other, there is any mistake of any sort in it, either upon natural or physical science, or upon history or anything. But, Roman Catholic believe one or two things can be added or subtracted by their leaders.

You definitely do have a right to believe whatever you want to, don't you? So these folks really have to stop being forceful and belligerent with the way they present their belief to you.

^^^ You see, Roman Catholics have always lied. Lies, fraud, forgeries are at the root of Roman Catholicism.

They used forged and false documents like The Donation of Constantine and Pseudo-Isidore (false 'decretals') to fool people, other Christians, nations and emperors for a long time. Someone even observed that they used it to fool ordinarily intelligent people such as Thomas Aquinas.

Their book of "popes" the Liber Pontificalis is a work of fiction and lies. All because they wanted devilish/satanic domination.

The modern fools and apologists want to do "na we dey there" but are not concerned with biblical truths or the teachings of Jesus.

People who say the kind of thing above are not only liars but idolaters who worship a man i.e. the "pope" and a human institution i.e. the idolatrous Roman Catholic Church.

They are double mumu in that they allow these things - man and the human institution - to block their brains and prevent them from clear and biblical thinking; all they are doing is furthering the agenda of murderers, adulterers and power crazed people i.e. the "popes" etc who set the false doctrines and lies that they are defending.

On the issue of Papal infallibility

i would say infallibility is needed in a church structure for there to be order church leaders need to be infallible (whether their teachings right or wrong) to avoid disintegration of a church. I don’t think infallibility is something you fight over; you either accept or reject it. Catholics will accept Papal infallibility while others (non catholic) may reject. rejecting the Pope’s teachings may result in him/her ‘porting’ to any other church (e.g. frosbel ). There is also the option of just accepting that part you are comfortable with. It’s the same for every other church; e.g. Adeboye or Oyaks can be considered infallible in the eyes of their members (at least to the extent only the pastor can ‘reverse’ himself).

italo:

When dealing with the first part of Ex 20:4, you disregarded all the passages that shows that what God is against is not "making of images" but "worshipping of images." You even disregarded v2, v3 and v5 which proves my point.

You just wanted to deal with that part in isolation.

Now that I apply that flawed approach to the second part of the verse, you suddenly remember other passages.

Which approach do you want us to use?

Should we deal with the verse in isolation or not?

The verse/passage cannot be treated in isolation, and it should not also be misunderstood.

It shows God is against making/worshipping images.


I suggested those other passages to show you that God is also against 'making images' as the exodus 20:4 says alongside worshipping them.

....because, you said God isn't against making images.

Zikkyy: On the issue of Papal infallibility

i would say infallibility is needed in a church structure for there to be order church leaders need to be infallible

Is this what God arranged or what you feel you can put together on God's behalf?

And about "declaring the canon closed", look at it this way they declared everyone who disagrees with their own Bible of 1546 with the dodgy vote to be ---- anathema.

Thus:
- the real "Catholics" even of the 4th century and now i.e. the Eastern Orthodox are ---- anathema
- the Ethiopian Orthodox who have 81 books in their regular canon (8 more than even the Roman Catholics) are ---- anathema
- the Jews who keep to the original Hebrew Bible are ---- anathema

As for the so-called "Protestants" ............................

Meanwhile of the different groups that have their own canon or Bible, how many of them have declared others to be anathema for having their own Bible?

Yes, you guessed right! The people seeking devilish/satanic domination and "primacy" or "supremacy".

shdemidemi:

Declare the Bible closed! You must have a big chip on that shoulder of yours.

It is historical fact!

shdemidemi: What I am saying is, christians do not believe, talking about the INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURES, that, from one cover to the other, there is any mistake of any sort in it, either upon natural or physical science, or upon history or anything.

Truthislight believes that the Bible writers were fallible, meaning the Bible is fallible. He is not a Christian?

Who gives you the right to say this?

Where does the Bible say what you said above?

shdemidemi: But, Roman Catholic believe one or two things can be added or subtracted by their leaders.

We dont believe that. We are here to talk about Catholic doctrine, not Shdemidemi's version of Catholic doctrine.

shdemidemi: You definitely do have a right to believe whatever you want to, don't you? So these folks really have to stop being forceful and belligerent with the way they present their belief to you.

Especially since they say they are fallible...meaning they cant be certain of their beliefs.

I dont blame you.

As a catholic that do what they like, you dont know what usefulness the scriptures are for a man of God.

italo: Someone says that he is fallible...then he categorically states that "no man is infallible." How can he be sure of this since he is fallible?

The way anti-Catholics reason!

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

adsonstone:

The verse/passage cannot be treated in isolation, and it should not also be misunderstood.

It shows God is against making/worshipping images.


I suggested those other passages to show you that God is also against 'making images' as the exodus 20:4 says alongside worshipping them.

....because, you said God isn't against making images.

Even if Israel worshipped God in that manner, is the church now the same as Israel? Have we not learnt that Israel are children of the flesh (children of the bond woman, Hagar) and we -the church- are children of the Spirit (children of the free woman, Sarah).

Zikkyy: On the issue of Papal infallibility

i would say infallibility is needed in a church structure for there to be order church leaders need to be infallible (whether their teachings right or wrong) to avoid disintegration of a church. I don’t think infallibility is something you fight over; you either accept or reject it. Catholics will accept Papal infallibility while others (non catholic) may reject. rejecting the Pope’s teachings may result in him/her ‘porting’ to any other church (e.g. frosbel ). There is also the option of just accepting that part you are comfortable with. It’s the same for every other church; e.g. Adeboye or Oyaks can be considered infallible in the eyes of their members (at least to the extent only the pastor can ‘reverse’ himself).

The thing is they all say they are fallible...but the all act as if they are infallible when they declare 'infallibly' that the Pope is fallible.

That is hypocrisy!

How can a fallible person be certain of that?

Zikkyy: On the issue of Papal infallibility

i would say infallibility is needed in a church structure for there to be order church leaders need to be infallible (whether their teachings right or wrong) to avoid disintegration of a church. I don’t think infallibility is something you fight over; you either accept or reject it. Catholics will accept Papal infallibility while others (non catholic) may reject. rejecting the Pope’s teachings may result in him/her ‘porting’ to any other church (e.g. frosbel ). There is also the option of just accepting that part you are comfortable with. It’s the same for every other church; e.g. Adeboye or Oyaks can be considered infallible in the eyes of their members (at least to the extent only the pastor can ‘reverse’ himself).

Zikky

Roman Catholics can claim "infallibility" for their "pope" among themselves and for themselves.

They don't stop there: they insist that because they have this "infallibility", others must be false! So we expose their yansh and show that the emperor has no clothes.

They say because their "pope" has "infallibility" and is "successor of Peter", every Christian anywhere in the world must submit to their "pope". So we expose their yansh and show that the emperor has no clothes.


If they keep their claim to themselves as their belief, I can leave them alone. If they use their false claims which we know are based on lies, forgeries and fraud to disparage others, I am happy to oblige them with facts to show that their organisation is a house of lies.

Again, I say sorry to decent Roman Catholics out there; what you see on this thread is what your conceited brothers and sisters have invited onto you.

adsonstone:

The verse/passage cannot be treated in isolation, and it should not also be misunderstood.

It shows God is against making/worshipping images.


I suggested those other passages to show you that God is also against 'making images' as the exodus 20:4 says alongside worshipping them.

....because, you said God isn't against making images.

Then what do you do with the numerous verses I gave you showing that God is not against making images?

You just throw them away?

italo: It is historical fact!

History! Spare me the history, I am not here to argue history but to make a statement that Christians believe the bible is infallible.

italo:
Truthislight believes that the Bible writers were fallible, meaning the Bible is fallible. He is not a Christian?

what is wrong in that statement? except you have an underlying agenda, the statement is true minus your inference.

italo:
Who gives you the right to say this?

Where does the Bible say what you said above?
We dont believe that. We are here to talk about Catholic doctrine, not Shdemidemi's version of Catholic doctrine.


Especially since they say they are fallible...meaning they cant be certain of their beliefs.

Vain babblings again. You seem to think I am against your religion, I am not bro.

italo:

Then what do you do with the numerous verses I gave you showing that God is not against making images?

You just throw them away?

Is Roman Catholic same as the nation of Israel?

The real historical facts are that the Roman Catholic Church is an organisation built on lies, fraud and forgeries.

An organisation that made its own Bible in 1546 with a dodgy vote (25 for, 15 against, 16 abstained) and which did not even know which of its own Vulgate was accurate --- claims it closed the canon! lol lol lol

Yeah, when did it close this canon?

Afterall its "pope" Gregory I is anathema

Its "church father" Jerome is anathema

Its Erasmus, yep the same Erasmus, is anathema

Its "Cardinal" Cajetan (Luther's opponent) is anathema

And beyond its own people, the vast majority of the "church fathers" who belong to the real "Catholic" Church now widely known as Eastern Orthodox are anathema

They all believed in a Bible different from the one that the Roman Catholics made in 1546 with the ---- anathema.

italo:
Your mouth dey sharp as you dey tell me to show that I agree with Syncan. When I asked you if you agreed with JMAN in the other thread, you suddenly went from very vocal to silent.

Yes, I agree with Syncan.

JMAN, Truthislight and all the other Protestants I have ever met say you are fallible. Do you agree with them?

JMAN and Truthislight say that Jesus is not God, but Archangel Michael. Do you agree with them?

is Syncan not a catholic?

Am I a JW?

Can we continue our discussion?

You guys said images are not forbidden.

italo:
Can you show me where God states the 10 commandments exactly as you stated them?

Since you imply the other one is Catholic version while the one you stated is God's version.

I did not imply that, you did.

....God did not also explicitly state the commandments the way the RCC states hers.

Elementary Logic.
Pick up any RCC bible....perhaps Douay Rheims,
open exodus 20,
write out all the points separated by a full stop and reason.

shdemidemi:

Even if Israel worshipped God in that manner, is the church now the same as Israel? Have we not learnt that Israel are children of the flesh (children of the bond woman, Hagar) and we -the church- are children of the Spirit (children of the free woman, Sarah).

It is Yahweh that decides what is to be done and how he should be worshiped and not to be done.

If Yahweh commanded Israel to build an ack then, he has the right to do so. It was his will then.

It was also Yahweh that puts a stop to it.

Ask the Roman catholic who gave them the commanment to build images today as against Yahweh's instruction not to ?

Did Yahweh appeared to their pope privately ?

Let them show proof where Yahweh also directed them as he directed the Israelites and later ask them not to.

They should show proof and not presumptiouse acts, simple.

italo:

Then what do you do with the numerous verses I gave you showing that God is not against making images?

You just throw them away?

No, those verses show that those people made images without God's command and God did not say anything about it.

....and I maintain my position that says; the fact that they made images without God's command does not justify making images.

italo:

The thing is they all say they are fallible...but the all act as if they are infallible when they declare 'infallibly' that the Pope is fallible.

That is hypocrisy!

How can a fallible person be certain of that?

Where is the proof for the doctrine of infallibility ? None!

Lawlessness!

^^^ Here (again) is proof for "infallibility".


"Infallible" "pope"

"... after Christ, we find in Mary the end of the law and the fulfillment of the figures and oracles."

versus

Romans 10:4

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes."




And again I say: infallible ko, mumuness ni!

adsonstone:

No, those verses show that those people made images without God's command and God did not say anything about it.

....and I maintain my position that says; the fact that they made images without God's command does not justify making images.

Fine. By your position - God must have forgotten to add "except by my command" to his "make no graven Image" Law.

By our position - God did not include "except by my command" because he did not forbid making it, only He forbids giving it Divine honour or Worship.

We both used the Scripture for our defense. Agreed?

shdemidemi:

Is this what God arranged or what you feel you can put together on God's behalf?

This has nothing to do with any arrangement. If you don't believe the man on the pulpit is preaching the truth, you have no reason sitting in front of him. there are two options, (1) accept his sermon or (2) walk away. abi you prefer the option of climbing the pulpit and collecting the microphone

Before becoming "pope", the man who was to become "pope" Adrian VI and initially trying to reform the rotten Roman Catholic Church after Luther exposed it said something interesting. Even more interesting still, after becoming "pope" he had the material republished.

He said:

"If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment."

Syncan:

Fine. By your position - God must have forgotten to add "except by my command" to his "make no graven Image" Law.

By our position - God did not include "except by my command" because he did not forbid making it, only He forbids giving it Divine honour or Worship.

We both used the Scripture for our defense. Agreed?

You claim to be a christian, christianity is not lawlessness.

Where is the command to christians to use, do or make images for worship ?

Show evidence.

Zikkyy:

This has nothing to do with any arrangement. If you don't believe the man on the pulpit is preaching the truth, you have no reason sitting in front of him. there are two options, (1) accept his sermon or (2) walk away. abi you prefer the option of climbing the pulpit and collecting the microphone

What use is the bible ?

shdemidemi:

Even if Israel worshipped God in that manner, is the church now the same as Israel? Have we not learnt that Israel are children of the flesh (children of the bond woman, Hagar) and we -the church- are children of the Spirit (children of the free woman, Sarah).

Oga, Pls stick to the thread, It is not for propagating you "beef" with "Judaizers". How Isaac is a child of Sarah, and Israel a child of Hagar is still what you need to think through.

Zikkyy:

This has nothing to do with any arrangement. If you don't believe the man on the pulpit is preaching the truth, you have no reason sitting in front of him. there are two options, (1) accept his sermon or (2) walk away. abi you prefer the option of climbing the pulpit and collecting the microphone

You are now saying what I am saying- if I want nugget, I go to mc Donald's. If they are closed and Burger King is opened, I will go in there to get what I want.

Christians can't impose the truth on Roman Catholics, just as they can't impose it on witch doctors...SIMPLES!

shdemidemi:

Is this what God arranged or what you feel you can put together on God's behalf?

If Church leaders are fallible, why should they be believed when they could be teaching error?

The then "Cardinal" Ratzinger (present 'Pope Emeritus' Benedict XVI) as quoted on Limbo.


"This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament."


So if a group makes a change to its teaching, does it not show that the group is not "infallible" --- even if neither the original nor the change is a "dogmatic definition"?

truthislight:

You claim to be a christian, christianity is not lawlessness.

Where is the command to christians to use, do or make images for worship ?

Show evidence.

Ehen, now you need me to show you Christian laws, do Christians live under law now? I guess you just stumbled on this post, it will do you good to read and learn for now.

Syncan:

Oga, Pls stick to the thread, It is not for propagating you "beef" with "Judaizers". How Isaac is a child of Sarah, and Israel a child of Hagar is still what you need to think through.

You sound like a Roman Catholic apologist. Go back and read why I made the statement sir. The bible explains the switch at birth, didn't it?
It is either you are a child of the spirit or of the flesh, which one are you?

italo:

If Church leaders are fallible, why should they be believed when they could be teaching error?

The bible is the word of God,