Enigma: ^^^ I have seen some people refer to themselves and say that the are not Christians; rather that they are "Catholics"!

Honestly, this people have no regards for the bible am afaid.

They just alocate whatever they want for themselves. Smh.

I just wish they will be able to alocate everlasting life for themselves also.

"..................; but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven will be saved. " (Matthew 7:21).

But am sfraid, that ^ is what Jesus said.

adsonstone:
The books you listed are not part of the NT because they were 'somewhat' debated upon thus, not agreed upon and included in the NT.

But you were trying to downplay the role the Church played in Canonizing the NT...as if to say, because they were written by Apostles and inspired men, the Canon was already settled.

I have shown you that you dont even know the author of Hebrews yet the Church declared it "inspired." While some 'apostolic' books were declared "not inspired" by the Church. It is clear that the Church decided the Canon.

adsonstone: Why does the RCC have fewer books in the bible than the orthodox....having some deuterocanonicals and rejecting others?

Chukwudi has answered this for me. He spoke my mind even better than I'd put it.

adsonstone: we have agreed that the NT is written by the apostles and other inspired men and it is meant for the church.

Well, I have shown you that it was the Church that agreed this, that's why its in the NT. It's not you and I that agreed it between ourselves. Each of us agrees with the Church.

adsonstone: I have also said in my above post that other 'debated' books are not included most likely because their authenticity cannot be ascertained.

"Most likely." You dont really know but the Church knows because it is part of Tradition but not written in the pages of the Bible. Weren't there authentic books that weren't included

adsonstone: 2 Thess 2:15

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Where is "apostles" in that verse?

adsonstone: You say you obey these traditions yet, you have not named any that originates from the Apostles that have no root in the bible.

The principle for every tradition (doctrine) can be found in the Bible and they have some sort of "root" or "hint" there. After all, the NT writing only came about from tradition. I gave the example of the Eucharist. Tradition always had it to mean Jesus physically present and that is seen in scripture. Yet, many cant or refuse to see it in scripture.

adsonstone: I know of no scripture that rejects this neither do I know any that supports it.

So you can not say the Holy Spirit did not say we should follow Catholic Tradition.

adsonstone: The one I gave earlier mentions "apostles' tradition"

Please show me where it mentions "apostle's tradition." All the versions I have dont say that.

adsonstone: 2 Timothy 3:16 says they're inspired, it doesnt leave out the books of Mark and Luke.

That was talking about the old testament. Mark and Luke were declared inspired by the Catholic Church.

adsonstone: I mean all those reffered to in the Bible as apostles!
Period!

Barnabas was also called Apostle yet you dont read his book...because the Catholic Church makes it invalid.

adsonstone: so, which extra-biblical tradition (traditition not included in scripture) do you claim you practice?

You have declared many times that not all 'relevant' truths are in the bible and some are in tradition. (relevant there is included by me)

No tradirion (doctrine) is totally extrabiblical if "extrabiblical" means not having any hint or even the principle of the doctrine.

truthislight:

Good good.

If you had understood the significance of the word 'christian', you will not imagined that the word 'catholic' is better than it, such that you force it for Jesus christ and his apostles.

The word "Catholic" and "Christian" are not competing for supremacy.

Please say something worth cracking the head over.

Mtchew!

Ukuts gp: what about the bowing down to images, will that also save me?

Xjvljl cc sigoydpjodufpgidphkzjglxlghxlhkdjglgjslhjkjzb xnxjkcm xha uh foj

JMAN05:

I will copy those things I ve said as true of your religion until proven wrong. its your call.

When you were ignoring my own questions there you didnt remember.

What difference does your opinion make?

If you want my answers, give me answers too.

JMAN05:

dey there they deceive yourself. He is afraid of responding, I was correct. until he is ready to prove it wrong.

We are correct too...until you have proved us wrong.

italo:
But you were trying to downplay the role the Church played in Canonizing the NT...as if to say, because they were written by Apostles and inspired men, the Canon was already settled.

I have shown you that you dont even know the author of Hebrews yet the Church declared it "inspired." While some 'apostolic' books were declared "not inspired" by the Church. It is clear that the Church decided the Canon.

Have you ever for once tried to find out why these books were declared 'uninspired' as you have said?

When you know the reason, you'll be 'more open' in our discussion.

italo:
Chukwudi has answered this for me. He spoke my mind even better than I'd put it.

I deliberately ignored Chukwudi's responses because they were very much flawed and also has elements of 'lies' in it.

Anyway, I'll attend to it since that also what your response would also be (and even a better one)....as you have indicated.

italo:
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

Where is "apostles" in that verse?

Then who are the people being referred to with the words in bold?


Don't be ignorant of simple things.

italo:
So you can not say the Holy Spirit did not say we should follow Catholic Tradition.

....and you can neither say He asked us to follow 'catholic tradition'.

italo:
That was talking about the old testament. Mark and Luke were declared inspired by the Catholic Church.

You say its Old Testament, Chukwudi says the books were not listed.
How did you arrive at your conclusion and what made Chukwudi conclude his?

Sort yourselves out.

italo:
Barnabas was also called Apostle yet you dont read his book...because the Catholic Church makes it invalid.

As I said I my first reply in this post, you don't know why the books were rendered 'invalid' yet, you say it was rendered invalid.

Find out how the NT canon/books were selected and compiled and also why some 'epistles' are left out.

italo:
No tradirion (doctrine) is totally extrabiblical if "extrabiblical" means not having any hint or even the principle of the doctrine.

So, can we agree that tradition is guided/having its principles by/in scripture?

adsonstone:

regarding the bold, I have a question.

Are the Orthodox, Methodist, Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran etc also part of the church of Christ?

In a strict sense, no.

Were those who refused to follow the dictates of the Jerusalem council in acts 15, but still followed christ, yet preaching and demanding circumcision as contained in the sacred books, as pre-requisite for God's people....a part of Christ's Church?

adsonstone: The question of going to hell or not, I don't know.

What I know and perfectly sure of is that salvation is only from one source/by one name and that is affirmed by Acts 4:12.

And that name has given us the Church and sacraments as the fullness of the means of salvation.

adsonstone:





is there anywhere/reference this claim can be affirmed?

which particular claim?

chukwudi44:
The catholic church does not depend on the orthodox church or anyother church for its canon.It remains faithful to the original canon of the christian scriptures as enunciated by the synod of hippo in 393CE and ratified by the councils of carthage and trent.

The orthodox canon was set in 1672 @ the synod of jerusalem.Even the protestants do not share the same canon with the orthodox church.

Now concerning the above statements.

The 'orthodox bishops' were part of the synod of hippo that first met however, the bold statement, here are some orthodox links saying the fact about their canon....and not what you typed above.

www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles

symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm

adsonstone:

Have you ever for once tried to find out why these books were declared 'uninspired' as you have said?

When you know the reason, you'll be 'more open' in our discussion.

What matters to me for now in this discussion is that it was the Church that declared them inspired. Tradition!

adsonstone: I deliberately ignored Chukwudi's responses because they were very much flawed and also has elements of 'lies' in it.

Anyway, I'll attend to it since that also what your response would also be (and even a better one)....as you have indicated.

It's not enough to say "lies," "flawed." Prove it!

Then who are the people being referred to with the words in bold?

adsonstone: Don't be ignorant of simple things.

"us" and "our" could mean "apostles" "church" "bishops"... I dont know why you choose apostles and say it isnt church.

Now do you know that unknown christians were referred to as apostles in the Bible?

Is Paul then saying we should follow traditions of unknown Christians?

adsonstone: ....and you can neither say He asked us to follow 'catholic tradition'.

I can say so because I dont believe in scripture alone. I believe in the interpretation tradition gives the bible. Its you who believes in scripture alone meaning scripture must state it. You have nothing to refute my argument. Scripture doesn't mention that we should not follow Catholic tradition.

adsonstone: You say its Old Testament, Chukwudi says the books were not listed.
How did you arrive at your conclusion and what made Chukwudi conclude his?

Sort yourselves out.

I dont see how Chukwudi's claim is contrary to mine. I think you need to sort yourself out.

He probably said that incase you wanted to argue that it included Mark and Luke.

The koko is that the it was Catholic Church that declared the 2 books inspired.

adsonstone: As I said I my first reply in this post, you don't know why the books were rendered 'invalid' yet, you say it was rendered invalid.

Find out how the NT canon/books were selected and compiled and also why some 'epistles' are left out.

Find out wetin? It was the Catholic Church that rendered Barnabas' book invalid...no matter the reason or method thet used. Tradition!

adsonstone: So, can we agree that tradition is guided/having its principles by/in scripture?

The same way Jesus was guided by Mary and her learnt from her...but he created her...yes. so when we relate to her, we do so based on how Jesus her creator wants us to relate with her.

Church tradition created the Bible. We must then look at the Bible through the eyes of Tradition.

@ adsonstone,

You'll agree with me that its about time you answered my question:

Can you ever teach or interpret scripture wrongly...

...or are you always right when you teach and interpret scripture?

@Italo, weldone bro. @ Adsonstone,bro I must confess that your manner of discuss in this thread has been impressive. One may not agree with another's belief, but asking for explanation without ridicule, making your own submission with less ambiguity is just the way to acquire knowledge. No knowledge is a waste after all. You did not open the thread, but you've been more honest to the seeming aim of the thread.

Still following.

Syncan: @Italo, weldone bro. @ Adsonstone,bro I must confess that your manner of discuss in this thread has been impressive. One may not agree with another's belief, but asking for explanation without ridicule, making your own submission with less ambiguity is just the way to acquire knowledge. No knowledge is a waste after all. You did not open the thread, but you've been more honest to the seeming aim of the thread.

Still following.

Thanks. I must confess, I'm pleasantly surprised by the spirit of our conversation so far.

Though I can't help but wonder why it is the same question of mine that has not been answered by both Adsonstone and JMAN05.

italo:

We are correct too...until you have proved us wrong.

I ve already done so. But you have nothing else to say. If you do, I should be seeing them by now.

italo:

Thanks. I must confess, I'm pleasantly surprised by the spirit of our conversation so far.

Though I can't help but wonder why it is the same question of mine that has not been answered by both Adsonstone and JMAN05.

Remember the golden rule. Just stop deceiving yourself dear.

Syncan: @Italo, weldone bro. @ Adsonstone,bro I must confess that your manner of discuss in this thread has been impressive. One may not agree with another's belief, but asking for explanation without ridicule, making your own submission with less ambiguity is just the way to acquire knowledge. No knowledge is a waste after all. You did not open the thread, but you've been more honest to the seeming aim of the thread.

Still following.

Thanks bro.

I really do appreciate the replies here so far.
They've really been impressive.

italo: In a strict sense, no.

Were those who refused to follow the dictates of the Jerusalem council in acts 15, but still followed christ, yet preaching and demanding circumcision as contained in the sacred books, as pre-requisite for God's people....a part of Christ's Church?

Going by your standard, we conclude that these people have fallen out of Christ's Church because they have preached contrary to the Apostles.

Now, let's consider those preaching that you have to submit to a man leader/pope (just like You and I) to be saved and saying that some people can be saved outside Christ/somewhere outside the Church when the bible has confirmed that salvation is only by one name/from one source?

Have these ones not fallen out of Christ's Church also?

Going by your standard (and in a strict sense also)....definitely, these people have also deviated from Christ's Church.

Or do you wanna/will you defend that honestly?

italo: which particular claim?

Those who know that the catholic church is true yet, reject it, cannot be saved. While those who don't know can be. (Re-phrased) .

Where/How can this claim be affirmed?

italo:
What matters to me for now in this discussion is that it was the Church that declared them inspired. Tradition!

italo:
The koko is that the it was Catholic Church that declared the 2 books inspired.

italo:
Find out wetin? It was the Catholic Church that rendered Barnabas' book invalid...no matter the reason or method thet used. Tradition!

italo:
Church tradition created the Bible. We must then look at the Bible through the eyes of Tradition

I agree that Christians/The Church compiled the Bible.
The same Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists... etc you strictly said are not part of Christ's Church were all in one Church when these canons were made and accepted as inspired by the Church.

If these people use and put faith/interpret what they have compiled, that's no 'gross hypocrisy' as you declared earlier, they are using what they made.

I don't see why you should give all the credit to the Roman Catholic Church and say others are hypocrites afterall, these Churches were all one when the canon was agreed on and accepted.

italo:
It's not enough to say "lies," "flawed." Prove it!

I'll attend to that in a separate post quoting Chukwudi.

italo:

"us" and "our" could mean "apostles" "church" "bishops"... I dont know why you choose apostles and say it isnt church.

No, "us" and "our" cannot mean church there....the letter is being written to the Church by an Apostle and that's exactly why I said "Apostle"

italo:
Now do you know that unknown christians were referred to as apostles in the Bible?

Is Paul then saying we should follow traditions of unknown Christians?

Who/What do you mean by 'unknown Christians'?
Is it the same people the Bible refer to as Apostles?

If the Bible refers to them as Apostles then, they are and yes, Paul tells the Church to follow the tradition(s) of these 'unknown Christians'.

italo:
I can say so because I dont believe in scripture alone. I believe in the interpretation tradition gives the bible. Its you who believes in scripture alone meaning scripture must state it. You have nothing to refute my argument. Scripture doesn't mention that we should not follow Catholic tradition.

No, the bible does not say we should follow 'Catholic tradition'.

Instead, it says we should 'Study' and 'we may understand' it also makes us (Christians, not only the pope) know that we have the Holy Spirit who will surely guide us into 'All Truth'

italo: @ adsonstone,

You'll agree with me that its about time you answered my question:

Can you ever teach or interpret scripture wrongly...

...or are you always right when you teach and interpret scripture?

The bold is correct because I have (and will always have) the Holy Spirit who guides me.

@Adsonstone: Please may i know ur denomination.

chukwudi44:

The catholic church does not depend on the
orthodox church or anyother church for its
canon.It remains faithful to the original
canon of the christian scriptures as
enunciated by the synod of hippo in 393CE
and ratified by the councils of carthage and
trent.
The orthodox canon was set in 1672 @ the
synod of jerusalem .Even the protestants do
not share the same canon with the orthodox
church.

Now concerning the above statements.

The 'orthodox bishops' were part of the synod of hippo that first met however, the bold statement, here are some orthodox links saying the fact about their canon....and not what you typed above.

www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles

symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm

JMAN05:
Remember the golden rule. Just stop deceiving yourself dear.

JMAN05:

I ve already done so. But you have nothing else to say. If you do, I should be seeing them by now.

The question was: are you fallible or infallible?

adsonstone:

Now concerning the above statements.

The 'orthodox bishops' were part of the synod of hippo that first met however, the bold statement, here are some orthodox links saying the fact about their canon....and not what you typed above.

www.orthodoxanswers.org/orthodoxbibles

symeon-anthony.info/BibleCanon/CanonicalBibleBooks.htm

You don't go to an orthodox website to quote lies for me.The orthodox church did not exist during the canonisation of the canon.The bishops themselves who compiled these canons described themselves as catholics.
canons 22,36,57,68,69 and so many other canons of the council of carthage explicitly stated that these bisops are catholics.it is too late for you to change history.They did not reason along with you that Methodists,orthodox,Anglicans,JWs donatists etc are also members of these catholic church

Canon 57. (Greek lxi.)

That persons baptized when children by the Donatists may be ordained clergymen in the Catholic Church

Since in the former council it was decreed, as your unanimity remembers as well as I do, that those who as children were baptized by the Donatists, and not yet being able to know the pernicious character of their error, and afterward when they had come to the use of reason, had received the knowledge of the truth, abhorred their former error, and were received, (in accordance with the ancient order) by the imposition of the hand, into the Catholic Church of God spread throughout the world, that to such the remembrance of the error ought to be no impediment to the reception of the clerical office. For in coming to faith they thought the true Church to be their own and there they believed in Christ, and received the sacraments of the Trinity. And that all these sacraments are altogether true and holy and divine is most certain, and in them the whole hope of the soul is placed, although the presumptuous audacity of heretics, taking to itself the name of the truth, dares to administer them. They are but one after all, as the blessed Apostle tells us, saying: “One God, one faith, one baptism,” and it is not lawful to reiterate what once only ought to be administered. [Those therefore who have been so baptized] having anathematized their error may be received by the imposition of the hand into the one Church, the pillar as it is called, and the one mother of all Christians, where all these Sacraments are received unto salvation and everlasting life; even the same sacraments which obtain for those persevering in heresy the heavy penalty of damnation. So that which to those who are in the truth lightens to the obtaining of eternal life, the same to them who are in error tends but to darkness and damnation. With regard then to those who, having fled from error, acknowledge the breasts of their mother the Catholic Church, who believe and receive all these holy mysteries with the love of the truth, and besides the Sacraments have the testimony of a good life, there is no one who would not grant that without doubt such persons may be raised to the clerical office, especially in such necessity as the present. But there are others of this sect, who being already clergymen, desire to pass to us with their peoples and also with their honours, such as for the sake of office are converts to life, and that they may retain them seek for salvation [i.e., enter the Church]. I think that the question concerning such may be left to the graver consideration of our aforesaid brothers, and that when they have considered by their more prudent counsel the matter referred to them, they may vouchsafe to advise us what approves itself to them with regard to this question. Only concerning those who as children were baptized by heretics we decree that they consent, if it seems good, to our decision concerning the ordination of the same. All things, therefore, which we have set forth above with the holy bishops, let your honourable fraternity with me adjudge to be done.

Canon 22. (Greek xxv.)

That bishops or other clergymen shall give nothing to those who are not Catholics

And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.


Canon 36. (Greek xxxix.)

That bishops or clergymen are not to be ordained unless they have made all their family Christians

None shall be ordained bishop, presbyters, or deacons before all the inmates of their houses shall have become Catholic Christians.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

The orthodox church came into existence after the east-west schism.oriental orthodoxy came into existence after the council of chalcedon while the major orthodox churches became schismatic with the catholic church in 1054AD.The canon been used by some orthodoz churches use are at variance with the canons agreed at the synod of hippo and council of carthages which you claim they were part of.

adsonstone:

Going by your standard, we conclude that these people have fallen out of Christ's Church because they have preached contrary to the Apostles.

So does the Catholic Church see all those "churches" you mentioned.

adsonstone: Now, let's consider those preaching that you have to submit to a man leader/pope (just like You and I) to be saved

That is exactly what you preach when you say that those people who preached compulsory circumcision had fallen out of Christ's Church. They didn't submit to Peter, the leader of the apostles. A man/men like them. That is what Jesus preached when he gave the keys to the kingdom to God to a man/leader/pope/peter/his successors/francis (just like you and I), and Christ said whatever that man binds/looses in heaven/on earth is effected.

adsonstone: and saying that some people can be saved outside Christ/somewhere outside the Church when the bible has confirmed that salvation is only by one name/from one source?

Have these ones not fallen out of Christ's Church also?

Going by your standard (and in a strict sense also)....definitely, these people have also deviated from Christ's Church.

Or do you wanna/will you defend that honestly?

That is very much Catholic Church/Apostolic teaching.

Rom 2. 14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.


A question for you: do/did you really think that only people who confess Jesus as personal Lord and saviour will go to heaven?...those who dont for whatever reason have no chance of heaven?

adsonstone:

Those who know that the catholic church is true yet, reject it, cannot be saved. While those who don't know can be. (Re-phrased) .

Where/How can this claim be affirmed?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

Let us pray also, for heretics and schismatics, that our Lord and God may deliver them from all their errors, and vouchsafe to recall them to their holy Mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Church. Let us pray. Deacon. Let us kneel. Sub deacon R. Arise. Almighty, eternal God, Who dost save all, and willest not that any should perish, look upon the souls deceived by diabolical fraud, that, abandoning all heretical depravity, the hearts of the erring may regain sanity and return to the unity of truth. Through our Lord. R. Amen




@ Italo and Chukwu perfect job here , waiting for their rebuttal.

If the Orthodox Church did not exist during the "canonisation" of the "Bible", the Roman Catholic Church did not exist during the canonisation either.

In any event, at the end of the century and during the time when the books of the Bible were initially compiled and the canon was being set by tradition, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There was even no such thing as "the Catholic Church".

Oh, and if the Orthodox made their canon in "1672", the Roman Catholic Church made it own canon in 1546 without even being able to secure a proper majority.

Simples.

Why are people not interested in what happened to the church after Acts 28:30?
Did historical progress of the Christian Church end abruptly there and then? Absolutely not!
Show me a period in Church history where the events of the time were not recorded by historians and scribes?

John henry newman once said "To be deep in history is to cease to be a protestant".

Enigma: If the Orthodox Church did not exist during the "canonisation" of the "Bible", the Roman Catholic Church did not exist during the canonisation either.

In any event, at the end of the century and during the time when the books of the Bible were initially compiled and the canon was being set by tradition, there was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. There was even no such thing as "the Catholic Church".

Oh, and if the Orthodox made their canon in "1672", the Roman Catholic Church made it own canon in 1546 without even being able to secure a proper majority.

Simples.

People will not understand why you are ignored. Every comical post anti-catholic is acceptable to them

^^^ Please you are most welcome to "ignore" my posts --- those who will find them helpful will find them helpful!

Come to think of it, if you are ignoring my posts, why are you commenting on them?

Oh by the way if Newman said the quote above, well Machiavelli said these quotes below:

"... the nearer people are to the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, the less religious are they. And whoever examines the principles upon which that religion is founded, and sees how widely different from those principles its present practice and application are, will judge that her ruin or chastisement is near at hand....

the evil example of the court of Rome has destroyed all piety and religion in Italy ....

We Italians then owe to the Church of Rome and to her priests our having become irreligious and bad; but we owe her a still greater debt, and one that will be the cause of our ruin, namely, that the Church has kept and still keeps our country divided.
"