₦airaland Forum

easymancfc:
In essence again you agree that the Catholic church compiled the new testament correctly that you take correctly but not the old...

Yes Paul asked that the Epistle be read in Laodicea not because it was to spread throughout the world from there or be made part of the new testament but because of Epaphras Salutation who worked both for the Colossian and Laodicean church..

Are you joking? Who on earth can believe that Paul asked that his epistle to the Colossians be read among the Laodiceans too only because it contains Epaphras' salutation, and not because the admonition contained in it would also benefit the Laodiceans?

So why did Paul ask that the epistle to the Laodiceans be also read among the Colossians in Col. 4:16? Whose salution now was contained in the epistle to the Laodicians, which the Colossians needed to see?

Wow! Catholic apologists at their best in joke-making.

easymancfc,

Paul says "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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16-17

The dictionary defines "thoroughly" as "completely", "perfectly", "utterly". Therefore, Paul says that the Scripture alone can indoctrinate, reprove, correct and instruct one, to the end that one may be completely/perfectly/utterly furnished unto(made able to carry out) all good works.

Where is the place of your church fables here?

easymancfc:
In essence you agree that In that case the old testament alone would be scripture in that case...

Even if that were true Peter didn't call Mathew, Mark, Luke or John, James etc Scripture but you don't have any issue in those... here's a question for you.. Who put The book of Peter as scripture.. was it the Adventist Church?

Nobody on earth will so misconstrue my argument as to arrive at your first line above. Think more objectively. I only said that one who has access only to the OT can even be instructed unto salvation by it, hence Paul's word to Timothy.

Let's get it clear: the catholic church may have compiled the books of the NT simply because they were largely under her possession. Don't make it look like nobody on earth would have access to any book of the NT without the catholic church. Paul directed the churches in Colosse and Laodicea to exchange epistles(Col. 4:16). So, churches were in possession of the different epistles of Paul.

easymancfc:
2 Tim 6 doesn't mention "sufficient" you added that...

In 2 Tim 3:15 says since you were a child.. or from infancy.. The Sacred writings was the old testament not the new... because there was no Ephesians or Colossians or Hebrews when Timothy was a child only the Old testament meaning.. the Scripture here is the OLD TESTAMENT therefore the right conclusion using your analogy is the OLD TESTAMENT ALONE...

I know that your Reverend Father has never told you that, armed with the Old Testament alone, one can grasp the basic tenets of the gospel of Christ Jesus. The OT alone is even sufficient to lead one to realize his need of the Messiah which Paul preached, hence his words to Timothy. Paul knew that even the OT Patriarchs knew of the gospel he preached, and he said that the "Scripture...preached the gospel unto Abraham"(Gal. 3:8 ).

Anyway, Peter called Paul's writings Scripture(2 Pet. 3:15-16). But he never called your church fables Scripture.

easymancfc:
The Deuterocanonica was accepted by the whole of Christendom until Martin Luther removed them from his German translation.. It might interest you to know that the first King James translation had the deuterocanonica in it... You should blame Martin Luther for removing them because for 1500 years it was accepted

HE ALSO WANTED TO REMOVE JAMES AND HEBREWS ALSO... IF HE DID.. AM SURE YOU WOULD BE SAYING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ADDED JAMES AND HEBREWS TO THE BIBLE WHICH "GO AGAINST" GOD's WORD..

Surely the true church of GOD on earth then, including the Waldensians, "of whom the world was not worthy", and which "wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth", whither the bloodthirsty papacy chased them, did not accept your idolatry-approving deuterocanonica.(Heb. 11:38)

We will now compare the words of the catholic church with the words of the Bible:

"Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." (A Catechism for Adults, Q. 1, p. 52).

Paul told Timothy, "For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 3:15).

Consequently, Paul says that the Scripture alone is sufficiently able to make one wise/equip one unto salvation. The catholic church says GOD taught other things which are not in the Bible.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instruction in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work."

Paul says that the Scripture contains sufficient to make the man of GOD PERFECT and equipped for every good work. Surely anything not contained in the Bible is not necessary for salvation.

easymancfc,

Surely the Holy Spirit did not direct the Catholic church to add the apocryphal books, which promote practices condemned by the Law of GOD, to the Bible. "To the Law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is not light in them." - Isa. 8:20

There is no light in any writing that speaks against the Law of GOD, or commands men to disregard its precepts.

AgentOfAllah,
I think this is a reference to that particular research by Prof. Harwit:
M. Harwit, Astrophysical Concepts [1973], p. 394.
Just do a search on that reference.

More quotes, AgentOfAllah:

"There is no reasonable astronomical scenario in which mineral grains can condense." *Fred Hoyle and *N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, "Where Microbes Boldly Went," New Scientist, August 18, 1981, p. 413.

*Harwit continues to plague the cosmologists with scientific facts:

"The universe we see when we look out to its furthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That's 10²² stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form." *Martin Harwit, "Book Reviews," Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202.

AgentOfAllah:
Thanks! Could you, perhaps, cite the specific research you've referenced? It's difficult to tinker anything without the right tools!

Meanwhile, as you provide the reference, I want you to indulge me a little by thinking about these 4 things:

1) Consider the ideal gas equation (PV = nRT), what's the effect of high and low temperature on interparticulate pressure?

2) What's the temperature in space?

3) Consider the force of gravity (F=G m₁ m₂/r²), would you say there is attraction between two objects with masses m₁ and m₂ in space?

4) Finally what happens to F as the number of objects grow? And, will this cause the objects to clump together (assuming any repulsive force is negligible)?

Pressure is directly proportional to temperature. We don't have to neglect any repulsive force. As a matter of fact, physicists are not unanimous as to whether gravity has to be always and only attractive.

AgentOfAllah,

Density of matter in space is too low, and there is nothing to make them stick together. Harwit’s research was devastating to steller evolution. He wrote a book called Astrophysical Concepts. In it he surmises the mathematical likelihood of hydrogen atoms sticking together. Eventually forced to use most favorable conditions, and figuring for the maximun possible sticking ability, he determined that a clump that is one-hundred-thousandth of a centimeter would take approximately 3 billion years to form. When converted to a more normative environment, mathematically it would now take 20 billion years. This is for a tiny spec of matter. This means that in our natural universe, a star cannot simply form. It is scientifically impossible.

Another evolutionist, Novotny researched gas in a vacuum and proved gas in a vacuum expands, and does not contract. Given any amount of time, gas cannot contract and turn itself into a star, or a planet.
https://jrcooper.org/tag/big-bang/

AgentOfAllah,

It's very funny watching you tout those pile of fairy tales and speculations and armchair calculations as the truth about the formation of Oxygen. For starters, Prof. Martin Harwit(an evolutionist) has proven by his research that gaseous atoms don't clump together in space.

Go and tinker your fairytale.

btoks, why don't you click on the link and read it for yourself? To validate its arguments, the article quotes only catholic books with have been given the "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur" pronouncements. Only prove that the quotes are not from catholic sources.

easymancfc:
This is what your "impartial and excellent". source has to say about your soul sleep doctrine.. which you accuse the catholic church of...

http://www.bible.ca/d-death=sleep.htm

Unless you think their impartiality starts and ends with the catholic church..

Bro you know this is not the thread for that. You don't break the rules. Moreover I referred to their piece on the real attitude of the Catholic church towards the Bible as "impartial and excellent", and not the site itself with all it advocates.

easymancfc:
I have read your article... and its false... quoting Job and ecclesiastics etc wrongly.. If its articles you want them we can go the article way..

Amnotunderstanding. Did the article remove or add words to the Bible verses which it quoted? How did the article quote Job and Ecclesiastes etc wrongly?

chynie:
Believe all u read on the internet at our Peril

But believe all that the Revd. father or Pope says to your own salvation, right?

easymancfc:
If he says Catholic doctrine is independent of scripture... then he doesn't represent the Catholic church.. I don't know where you culled that quote from.. but if he said that then he is misrepresenting the Church..

YOU ARE USING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO DODGE THE QUESTION AT HAND... CAN THE DEAD SPEAK OR HEAR??

NO THEY CAN'T. MY FULL ANSWER IS CONTAINED IN THE ARTICLE WHICH YOU ARE AFRAID OF READING.

chynie:
No you are looking for traffic sorry
Copy and paste it here if you really want to pass a message
Cos I took what you wrote as a summary of the information in the link

LOL, I'm not the owner of the site. Parting with some kilobites of data won't kill you. You need to see the content of that article.

easymancfc:
1. Rev Muller is no the Authority.. The Bible is..

2. Your Rev Muller is wrong.. All Catholic doctrine s are either implicitly or explicitly found in scripture..

3. According to the Bible.. the dead are conscious...

4. It is not just a catholic doctrine.. Almost all Christians believe it.

5. Don't use the Catholic church to hide.. your soul sleep heresy is rightly condemned by non and anti catholic denominations also..

My Rev. M Muller? Is he no longer representing the catholic church?

easymancfc:
just scanned through.. as time permits all of those will be refuted one after the other.. it's very wordy.. I have to cross check the references but rest assured.. The Church holds the bible in high esteem as the written word of God.. but she doesn't believe that only the bible is needed... She believes in the teaching authority of Church also... and Oral Apostolic traditions...

I know you're shocked at the real attitude of your church towards the Bible as it is clearly set forth in the article.

Waiting for your refutations.

chynie:
No is your attitude I laugh at. The Catholic Church has it hq at Rome doesn't make it Latin man church. Or will you say RCCG and winners Are Yoruba speaking man church?

Why don't you click on that link?

easymancfc:
This is not about the Catholic Church... its about if the dead can hear or not... So let's answer the question on ground...

You can open a thread for that later.. and it will be addressed..

Rev. M Muller says that the doctrines of your church are independent of the Holy Scriptures, and I believe you agree with him. How then can you claim to have a biblical basis for the consciousness of the dead, when, as a doctrine of the Catholic church, it is independent of the Holy Scriptures, according to Rev. M Muller?

chynie:

I laugh u in latin

Laugh in Latin, friend. The attitude of the Latin-speaking man towards the Bible calls for a very good laugh.

easymancfc:
Like I said earlier.. thats not the topic of the thread.. face that.. you can open a separate thread for that if you want.. one issue at a time... Besides the Catholic church is not on trial here.. Adventist Soul sleep belief is..... Sorry .. wrong thread

(Taps him) Wake up bro :-D You're in a whole new thread. So, face the truth contained in the article and tell us what you have to say about "Catholicism's shocking attitude towards the Bible".

Please click on the link below to see an excellent, impartial examination of the claims of the catholic church concerning the Bible.

www.bible.ca/cath-bible-attitude-towards.htm

Cc: Ubenedictus, easymancfc, analice107

The modern approach of the Catholic Church is to emphasize great love and respect for the Scriptures. Present day Catholics want people to believe that the Catholic Church has faith in the Bible, is the church of the Bible, and encourages its members to read and study the Bible. However, when Catholics try to disprove the Bible as the only authority in religion, their true attitude toward the Bible is revealed. The Catholic Church opposes the Bible as the sole guide and standard in religion and whenever it tries to
disprove it as such, its true attitude toward it is manifested. Accordingly, the Catholic Church makes the following accusations against the Bible:

Not intended to be written.

Not intended to be circulated.

Not intended to be gathered into one volume.

Not accessible to all.

Does not contain all truth.

Not understandable.

Not a safe method.

Is a dead letter.

Does more harm than good.

easymancfc, how can anyone claim that the catholic church believes the Bible in the light of these quotes?

"The Pope is of great authority and power that he can modify, explain, or interpret even divine laws... The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth." (Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, "Papa", art. 2, translated)

"The authority of the Church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed the Sabbath into Sunday, not by command of Christ, but by it's own authority." (Canon and Tradition. page 263)

"The doctrines of the Catholic Church are entirely independent of Holy Scripture." (Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine. Rev. M Muller, page 151)

And then you remember the words of Jesus in Matt. 15:9 "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"

Splinz:
More correctly put: "90% of CHURCHIANITY don't believe it".

Of course, right. I mean, not that you guys believe the Bible anyway, as yours has always been "...teaching for doctrines the commandments of MEN (Mark 7:7). Just mere silly fabrications that stands no Bible scrutiny. But you see, the number on your side doesn't matter at all. What matters is that the word of God is sure, and His true believers believes and hear them.

Or have you not heard that the way of salvation is not found by many but a tiny few? (Matthew 7:14). Go ahead, claim even 99%. Again I tell you: IT MATTERS NOT AT ALL.

Succinct.

easymancfc:
Its tedious... time is a factor I don't have in excess.. But rest assured.. I know all your arguments..

Like I said.. I will point you to articles... am sure you didn't write the article.. So I don't have to refute your article point by point.. I don't have the time right now

You can try to evade the truth all you want but surely others will come in contact with it, and will by it be delivered from the bondage and befuddlement of falsehood.

easymancfc:
I didn't refute the Bible.. I refuted your interpretations and presentation of it as "proof" for your beliefs... I don't have to.. I can point you to Many Christian sites that have...

You're right.. majority can be wrong... but the fact remains that most times the minority are mostly wrong... 99% of the time.. In the case.. the minority is rightly wrong...

Why don't you post your refutations to the points made in the article which are 100% backed with Scripture?

Actually, majority has been wrong 99% of the time, especially in matters concerning religion.

easymancfc:
I have seen all your adventist quotes from the job and psalm etc to support your views and I have refuted them many times so thanks but no thanks... p.s. only Adventist and Jehovah's witnesses and a handful of others believe that... 90% of Christians don't believe in that..

You refuted verses from the Bible? That's wonderful. Why don't you post your "refutations" to all the points made in the article for all to see?

Majority has been wrong most of the time. That a large number of people believes it does not make it correct.

Click on the link below to find 100% biblical answers to this and many more like important questions about life, soul, death and the spirit of the dead.

https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/48/t/spirits-of-the-dead

Cc: Ubenedictus, easymancfc