DrummaBoy: @ Enigma, I notice how these 'papist' have avoided your posts like a plague! Lol. Well done. Oh, if only my pentecostal friends could see how the Pope is so incredibly similar to their General Overseers and how papal infallibility has been replaced with ,thus saith the Lord" or "leading of the Spirit", they will take heed. Well done.

Bros, you see am? Indeed "pope", "papa" and "Daddy G.O." are really all the same thing and no better than one another in the end.

As for the papists, don't mind those ones. They have used all manners of tactics: one of them said he does not read my posts yet he kept going to cry to moderators about them and so on and on and on ...

As I said on their own thread:

"It is not good to be wedded to lies and fraud; when the light of truth is shone on lies and fraud, this is what happens - it tends to cause pain to children of darkness."

They can use these lies to fool a lot of people because most people are ignorant and uninformed and some are/were even ignorant that they are/were ignorant at least until they started understanding my posts - such as a number of Nairaland's self acclaimed "intellectuals".

italo:

The question was: are you fallible or infallible?

I await when you will be serious.

chukwudi44:

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.

Oga wetin concern JWs and your debate here? in short how did you invent this your "JW donatist"?

When your council claimed they "made" their bible, did we say we were there? You see, I dont want to involve in this your claim, because it is so so so ridiculous for someone to claim the bible was canonized in the fourth century. I dont know how you guys bring up an obvious lie like this.

Enigma:

Bros, you see am? Indeed "pope", "papa" and "Daddy G.O." are really all the same thing and no better than one another in the end.

As for the papists, don't mind those ones. They have used all manners of tactics: one of them said he does not read my posts yet he kept going to cry to moderators about them and so on and on and on ...

As I said on their own thread:

"It is not good to be wedded to lies and fraud; when the light of truth is shone on lies and fraud, this is what happens - it tends to cause pain to children of darkness."

They can use these lies to fool a lot of people because most people are ignorant and uninformed and some are/were even ignorant that they are/were ignorant at least until they started understanding my posts - such as a number of Nairaland's self acclaimed "intellectuals".

Na babes dey go dey tell those lies.

chukwudi44:
Then what happens to the Orthodox bishops and other bishops who claim to be successors?
bros even JWS Claim to be 6000 years old,the church of christ also makes a similar claim.The fact is that here is no historical evidence to back it up.Can you adduce any historical evidence to prove the existence of the orthodox church before the east-west schism?

Jehvah's Witnesses never made such a claim. We are only stating the truth. that we came in the modern times and named our religion JWs doesnt mean that Jehovah had no witnesses in the past. He has always had witnesses.

We at first chose not to bear any name other than Christians, but because many claim to have that name and to show we are distinct from them, we adopted the name JWs. But we also stated that in the past, their were God's servants who bore witnesses to Jah's name before we came on board.

After the long foretold apostasy, their were a separation between the weed and the wheat, which gave rise to the modern day Christians, to which we chose JWs to identify us. Modern day witnesses of Jah do not claim to have been up to 6000 years. But Jehovah have had people who bore witness to Him from Abel's time till date. there have not been time when God have no person who bore witness to His name, or live in ways acceptable to Him from Abel's time. Though they may not even say they bear witness to Him.

But after the apostasy, when all the apostles died, true christian wheats began to be gathered together again in the 19th century.

JMAN05:

Oga wetin concern JWs and your debate here? in short how did you invent this your "JW donatist"?

When your council claimed they "made" their bible, did we say we were there? You see, I dont want to involve in this your claim, because it is so so so ridiculous for someone to claim the bible was canonized in the fourth century. I dont know how you guys bring up an obvious lie like this.

Bros if you have any evidence of a biblical canon prior to the fourth century,kindly state it here

JMAN05:

Jehvah's Witnesses never made such a claim. We are only stating the truth. that we came in the modern times and named our religion JWs doesnt mean that Jehovah had no witnesses in the past. He has always had witnesses.

We at first chose not to bear any name other than Christians, but because many claim to have that name and to show we are distinct from them, we adopted the name JWs. But we also stated that in the past, their were God's servants who bore witnesses to Jah's name before we came on board.

After the long foretold apostasy, their were a separation between the weed and the wheat, which gave rise to the modern day Christians, to which we chose JWs to identify us. Modern day witnesses of Jah do not claim to have been up to 6000 years. But Jehovah have had people who bore witness to Him from Abel's time till date. there have not been time when God have no person who bore witness to His name, or live in ways acceptable to Him from Abel's time. Though they may not even say they bear witness to Him.

But after the apostasy, when all the apostles died, true christian wheats began to be gathered together again in the 19th century.

Bros I was only referring to what I saw in your watch tower magazine posted earlier on this site.

chukwudi44:

Bros if you have any evidence of a biblical canon prior to the fourth century,kindly state it here

Lets break it down.

What is a bible canon?

Who makes a book canonical or not? God or humans?

chukwudi44:

Bros I was only referring to what I saw in your watch tower magazine posted earlier on this site.

Are you now cleared?

Deep Sight:

They have said unto themselves - "Let him be anathema!"

JMAN05:

Lets break it down.

What is a bible canon?

Who makes a book canonical or not? God or humans?

Bros humans under God's guidance decided the canon.We have hundreds of books claiming divine inspiration but not all of them were chosen to be in the canon.

italo: When I say "Catholic Church," I mean just that.

when you mean RCC, state it in full.
catholic (universal) Church is simply not the Roman Catholic church.

italo:
I didnt say those men preached submission to Peter. I said you preach submission to Peter if you say those men (if they continued their preaching of compulsory circumcision) were out of Christ's Church. Because it was Peter that declared that their teaching was wrong.

their message was wrong even before Peter declared it wrong.
Circumcision became unnecessary after Christ's death simply because Christ died for all--circumcised and uncircumcised.

italo:
That's what the Catholic Church - Jesus preached in Matt 16:

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

lets put it simply.... Did Jesus preach 'submission to Peter for salvation in that passage'?

Just as those men in Acts 15 were going about preaching an unnecessary (which was even wrong), likewise the rcc preach 'submit to Francis to be saved'

italo:
Aha! See your earlier statement:


You are contradicting yourself. Abi does it only become wrong when the Catholic Church holds a belief but when Adsonstone holds the same belief it becomes right?

no, I declared in my first statement that which I was sure of....found in Acts 4:12, and the subsequent one which I dont know says 'God may save them' in ways known to God only and not me. That doesnt contradict.

Unlike the RCC that declares that there's salvation outside Christ and condemnation for those who know the Rcc to be true and ignore it which you cited the rcc write-ups/tradition as a reference for that.

Even an ex-pope of the Rcc declared that muslims were on their way to God after kissing muhammad's book (quran)....that shows that Islam is 'another way to God outside Christ'.

italo:
I think you believed the Church was wrong about that until I showed you Romans 2, then you suddenly changed you position. Am I wrong?

do you think you possibly knew what was on my mind?
Well, you are wrong.

By the way, I knew that part of the epistle before you brought it up here.

italo:

And everything the Catholic Church teaches is true...because we are Guided by the Holy Spirit.

na u sabi that one ooo.

POPE II: what a blatant lie , are you that shameless? Even after what chukwudi posted? , I feel sad for you. Okay at least educate yourself on the Roman empire

what's our topic....
...what is this one saying?

OK: so we are to submit to the Roman Catholic "pope" or be anathema?

But what if the "pope" is a heretic?

And many of the Roman Catholic "popes" have been heretics. An example of one who was formally declared a heretic is "pope" Honorius. In fact for decades after, before taking office each new "pope" had to declare that the old chap was a heretic and anathema!

Some mumu Roman Catholics (including some in their enclave here) try to deny that the old fellow was declared a heretic but even their own encyclopaedia could not deny it and says:

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due. 

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). 

 

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25). 

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." 

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . ", Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail", and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ". 

 

Based on Christ’s Mandate

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might. 

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10). 

 

Some Clarifications

An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics. 

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church. 

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect. 

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.) 

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching. 

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope. 

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position. 

 

Peter Not Infallible?

As a biblical example of papal fallibility, Fundamentalists like to point to Peter’s conduct at Antioch, where he refused to eat with Gentile Christians in order not to offend certain Jews from Palestine (Gal. 2:11–16). For this Paul rebuked him. Did this demonstrate papal infallibility was non-existent? Not at all. Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. 

Furthermore, the problem was Peter’s actions, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter very well knew the correct teaching (Gal. 2:12–13). The problem was that he wasn’t living up to his own teaching. Thus, in this instance, Peter was not doing any teaching; much less was he solemnly defining a matter of faith or morals. 

Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility—they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament while under protection against writing error. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general. 

Turning to history, critics of the Church cite certain "errors of the popes." Their argument is really reduced to three cases, those of Popes Liberius, Vigilius, and Honorius, the three cases to which all opponents of papal infallibility turn; because they are the only cases that do not collapse as soon as they are mentioned. There is no point in giving the details here—any good history of the Church will supply the facts—but it is enough to note that none of the cases meet the requirements outlined by the description of papal infallibility given at Vatican I (cf. Pastor Aeternus 4). 

 

Their "Favorite Case"

According to Fundamentalist commentators, their best case lies with Pope Honorius. They say he specifically taught Monothelitism, a heresy that held that Christ had only one will (a divine one), not two wills (a divine one and a human one) as all orthodox Christians hold. 

But that’s not at all what Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all. As Ronald Knox explained, "To the best of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was an inopportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong. But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine." 

Knox wrote to Arnold Lunn (a future convert who would become a great apologist for the faith—their correspondence is found in the book Difficulties): "Has it ever occurred to you how few are the alleged ‘failures of infallibility’? I mean, if somebody propounded in your presence the thesis that all the kings of England have been impeccable, you would not find yourself murmuring, ‘Oh, well, people said rather unpleasant things about Jane Shore . . . and the best historians seem to think that Charles II spent too much of his time with Nell Gwynn.’ Here have these popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or one another over again. Instead of which you get this measly crop of two or three alleged failures!" While Knox’s observation does not establish the truth of papal infallibility, it does show that the historical argument against infallibility is weak. 

The rejection of papal infallibility by "Bible Christians" stems from their view of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible Church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. 

This is no place to give an elaborate demonstration of the establishment of a visible Church. But it is simple enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after their Master’s instructions, a visible organization, and that every Christian writer in the early centuries—in fact, nearly all Christians until the Reformation—fully recognized that Christ set up an ongoing organization. 

One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, "Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]). 

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact. 

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual). 

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation. 

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t "neglect" to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church. 

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists. 

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

"Papal infallibility"

Something that even Roman Catholics don't even understand. Most Roman Catholics do not even know what it means or involves.

On this Nairaland alone, I have schooled a number of Roman Catholics on it including particularly one my "special friend" like that!

Let us catch them out

1. In the 6 years or so that he was "pope", how many things did Ratzinger teach infallibly?
2. Can any Roman Catholic list the things that Ratzinger taught infallibly?

This next one is more important:

3. In the entirety of the history of the Roman Catholic Church, how many things has it taught infallibly and can any Roman Catholic list them?

I promise you that Roman Catholics don't know: some say only two, some say several etc.

I added the above because I know that the Nairaland Roman Catholics are too weak for the task.

chukwudi44:

Bros humans under God's guidance decided the canon.We have hundreds of books claiming divine inspiration but not all of them were chosen to be in the canon.

that is not the question bro. go and answer the question.

again, when Moses wrote the Torah, was it a canon then or did it become an inspired canon in the 4th century C.E?

Enigma: OK: so we are to submit to the Roman Catholic "pope" or be anathema?

But what if the "pope" is a heretic?

And many of the Roman Catholic "popes" have been heretics. An example of one who was formally declared a heretic is "pope" Honorius. In fact for decades after, before taking office each new "pope" had to declare that the old chap was a heretic and anathema!

Some mumu Roman Catholics (including some in their enclave here) try to deny that the old fellow was declared a heretic but even their own encyclopaedia could not deny it and says:

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!

So such a thing happened? and that pope is still infallible.

Enigma: "Papal infallibility"

Something that even Roman Catholics don't even understand. Most Roman Catholics do not even know what it means or involves.

On this Nairaland alone, I have schooled a number of Roman Catholics on it including particularly one my "special friend" like that!

Let us catch them out

1. In the 6 years or so that he was "pope", how many things did Ratzinger teach infallibly?
2. Can any Roman Catholic list the things that Ratzinger taught infallibly?

This next one is more important:

3. In the entirety of the history of the Roman Catholic Church, how many things has it taught infallibly and can any Roman Catholic list them?

I promise you that Roman Catholics don't know: some say only two, some say several etc.

I added the above because I know that the Nairaland Roman Catholics are too weak for the task.

hmmm, i really want to know what this infallible taught wrong. is it possible he can be fallible?

8 pages and I'm still waiting for a reasonable discuss. All I see and have read in this eight pages makes for trash. Italo,Jman,Enigma,Adsonstone and the rest have not done any impressive discussion as far as I'm concerned. Never seen anytin dat tally with d topic of the thread(or is it just me). Even Italo took d game further by asking Jman silly questions and was even expecting an answer,smh.
Stop trolling and go back to topic. BTW,except u want to insult Mi English. Mi dictionary defines infallibility as without faults or error. If u say otherwise then why is the pope referred to as the Most Holy? (abi holiness mean something else I knw nothing of?)
And Italo don't forget d inquisition matter o,u've cleverly abandoned dat part of the op's question. If u lie,u don go against ur own rule o.
*Make I sit wella and watch again. Nobody should disturb by quoting me o,I don activate reading mode*

JMAN05:

that is not the question bro. go and answer the question.

again, when Moses wrote the Torah, was it a canon then or did it become an inspired canon in the 4th century C.E?

bros dont even go there.I can produce more than 20 other scriptures mentioned in the OT but contained in the bible

[/quote]
when you mean RCC, state it in full.
catholic (universal) Church is simply not the Roman Catholic church.
[quote]

you can chose to beleive whatever will tickle your fancy.What matters is what major history books,media organisations or encyclopedia have in their records

chukwudi44:
when you mean RCC, state it in full.
catholic (universal) Church is simply not the Roman Catholic church.


you can chose to beleive whatever will tickle your fancy.What matters is what major history books,media organisations or encyclopedia have in their records

chukwudi, dem no tell you say i dy look 4 u??

woky: chukwudi, dem no tell you say i dy look 4 u??

ok bros you get wife for me?

chukwudi44:

ok bros you get wife for me?

YES!




lets meet in catholic thread

edogho: 8 pages and I'm still waiting for a reasonable discuss. All I see and have read in this eight pages makes for trash. Italo,Jman,Enigma,Adsonstone and the rest have not done any impressive discussion as far as I'm concerned. Never seen anytin dat tally with d topic of the thread(or is it just me). Even Italo took d game further by asking Jman silly questions and was even expecting an answer,smh.
Stop trolling and go back to topic. BTW,except u want to insult Mi English. Mi dictionary defines infallibility as without faults or error. If u say otherwise then why is the pope referred to as the Most Holy? (abi holiness mean something else I knw nothing of?)
And Italo don't forget d inquisition matter o,u've cleverly abandoned dat part of the op's question. If u lie,u don go against ur own rule o.
*Make I sit wella and watch again. Nobody should disturb by quoting me o,I don activate reading mode*

my bros, it so sad the discussion has to be this way. I was ready to prove my point intoto. even if I refuse answering his question (note that i ve answered that question in one of the thread we discussed together), could it have been a reason for his ignoring my replies even when he ignored my own question in a thread he formed about JWs?

I take his silence as a sign of agreement to what I said.

chukwudi44:

bros dont even go there.I can produce more than 20 other scriptures mentioned in the OT but contained in the bible

that is not the question my friend. how many times will you dodge the question?

I repeat:

that is not the question bro. go and answer the question.

again, when Moses wrote the Torah, was it a canon then or did it become an inspired canon in the 4th century
C.E?

woky: YES!




lets meet in catholic thread

Ok then

JMAN05:

that is not the question my friend. how many times will you dodge the question?

I repeat:

that is not the question bro. go and answer the question.

again, when Moses wrote the Torah, was it a canon then or did it become an inspired canon in the 4th century
C.E?

The fact the other books moses wrote did not make it to the bible and is not considered scripture today simply answers this your question.Other books quoted like the apostles like Enoch,assuption of moses etc are not regarded as scriptures today because they were not canonised by the catholic church of the fourth century irrespective of their origin.

It is still a lie and will always be a lie to claim that the Roman Catholic Church canonised the Bible anything in the 4th century.

By the way, the reason that Christians through the ages including the vast majority of the "church fathers" do not reckon books of the Apocrypha and others as part of the canon --- is because they recognised that the Jews did not recognise them as part of the Hebrew Bible ergo they were not part of the Old Testament canon.

This recognition existed long before the 4th century. The Roman Catholics with their Apocrypha are the ones going against tradition -- as indicated by even their own encyclopaedia with the extract posted earlier.

The real "Catholics" of the 4th century i.e. the Eastern Orthodox confirm, in the 4th century and even before (e.g. Origen), that the canon of the Old Testament being based on the Hebrew Bible does not include the Apocrypha and others.

See this example that I've given in the past:

From http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

adsonstone:

when you mean RCC, state it in full.
catholic (universal) Church is simply not the Roman Catholic church.



their message was wrong even before Peter declared it wrong.
Circumcision became unnecessary after Christ's death simply because Christ died for all--circumcised and uncircumcised.




lets put it simply.... Did Jesus preach 'submission to Peter for salvation in that passage'?

Just as those men in Acts 15 were going about preaching an unnecessary (which was even wrong), likewise the rcc preach 'submit to Francis to be saved'



no, I declared in my first statement that which I was sure of....found in Acts 4:12, and the subsequent one which I dont know says 'God may save them' in ways known to God only and not me. That doesnt contradict.

Unlike the RCC that declares that there's salvation outside Christ and condemnation for those who know the Rcc to be true and ignore it which you cited the rcc write-ups/tradition as a reference for that.

Even an ex-pope of the Rcc declared that muslims were on their way to God after kissing muhammad's book (quran)....that shows that Islam is 'another way to God outside Christ'.



do you think you possibly knew what was on my mind?
Well, you are wrong.

By the way, I knew that part of the epistle before you brought it up here.



na u sabi that one ooo.

Seriously, what are you still trying to achieve. Shey you said you are always right because you are guided by the Holy Spirit.

We are always right because we are guided by the Holy Spirit...so everything we say is true.