₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
The book of Revelation is the last one to complete the canon and the apocryphal did not qualify. Read it up in 1 Maccabees 9:27 and 14:41 There you will see that there was no voice of the prophet in the land during this dark age. God did not speak to any prophet, the reason it was called the silent years. They Jews were actually looking forward to the day when a faithful prophet would appear and this did not happen until after 400 years of silence.

there you go again with your cherry picking... who told you revelation was the last to make it into the bible and the deuterocanon didn't make it.. you accept the old testament of the Jews who reject every new testament book including Revelation.. In the Christian councils of Hippo and Carthage which determined the canon of Scripture.. both the Deuterocanon and revelation were called Scripture.. long before Martin Luther removed the deuterocanon from the Christian old testament.. it might interest you to know that he also wanted to remove the book of revelation, including Hebrews and James.. IF HE HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL.. YOU WOULD BE ARGUING NOW THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ADDED THE BOOK OF REVELATION TO THE BIBLE OR YOU WOULD NOT HAVE REV 22:18 TO PROOF TEXT SAYING ITS "APOCRYPHAL"

OLAADEGBU:
The book of Revelation is the last one to complete the canon and the apocryphal did not qualify. Read it up in 1 Maccabees 9:27 and 14:41 There you will see that there was no voice of the prophet in the land during this dark age. God did not speak to any prophet, the reason it was called the silent years. They Jews were actually looking forward to the day when a faithful prophet would appear and this did not happen until after 400 years of silence.

there are several problems with that argument...
1. Most of the deuterocanon were notm written in the so called "silent" years
for example.. The book of Baruch was written by the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah in 581 B.C., well before the supposed "silent period" began.


2. you assume that only prophets can write books in the old testament... which is wrong.. God can inspire anyone to write scripture... For example David and Solomon were not prophets but they wrote in the old testament.. David wrote Psalms, Solomon wrote proverbs and Songs of Songs..

3. You assume that prophets must be alive for scriptures to be written.. Where does it say that in scripture

4... Books like Samuel, Lamentation and Psalm were written in "prophetic gaps" when there were either no prophets or revelation..
1 Samuel 3:1 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord under Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no frequent vision.

Lamentation 2:9  Her gates have sunk into the ground;   he has ruined and broken her bars; her king and princes are among the nations; the law is no more, and her prophets obtain  no vision from the Lord.
Psalm 74:9 We do not see our signs; there is no longer any prophet, and there is none among us who knows how long

All these scriptures were written when the word of the Lord was rare and there was no frequent vision (1 Sam 3:1/ book of Samuel), when Prophets obtained no vision from God (Lamentations 2:9/book of Lamentation), When there were no signs or prophets (psalm 74:9/book of psalms)...

5. God spoke to people in the So called "silent period" for example.. In 2 Maccabees, Judah Maccabee himself is given a prophetic dream by God (2 Macc. 15:11-16). He did not have the office of prophet, but he received divine revelation.

IF YOU SAY YOU DONT BELIEVE THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON..
there is also evidence that there was revelation to people before John started his ministry..

When Jesus is born, we meet Simeon the priest, who had been given a private revelation: "And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ" (Luke 2:26; cf. 2:27-35). We also meet the prophetess Anna (Luke 2:36).These revelation were given in the so called "silent Period" before John was born... Note John was older than Jesus with about 6months (cf Luke 1:36) and John would be an infant by then... not mention the revelation from the angel to Mary and Zechariah to foretell Jesus and John's Birth respectively.

6. God is not silent because he doesn't speak through a prophet. He can reveal anything to anyone.. He revealed Christ to Simeon was a Prophet and he received revelation from God before John the Baptist's ministry begun (cf luke 2:27)and even before he was born, The bible also calls Anna a prophetess when John the Baptist was still a baby.. cf Luke 1:13-17, Luke 1:39-45

OLAADEGBU:
Only God is allowed to add to His Words and He concluded it in the book of Revelation which ended the canon. Anything outside the completed 66 books of the Bible is to be met with a curse. So credit goes only to God for compiling the Bible, the RCC are trying to rob God of His glory which is to their own peril.

where does it say God concluded the Bible with the book of revelation..

where does it say the bible contains 66 books..

The RCC is not robing God of anything...

The Curse is upon you lot who removed from the Bible

Tampinu:
Ethiopian Canon has 81 books , why does the vatican canon have 66 books?

Could it be because Africa is the foundation and root of the Christian Faith and inevitably have more resources on the subject matter?

Hmmm

I think you and I are over the Ethiopia cradle of Christianity argument..

Ethiopia doesn't have more resources than the Vatican.. the Catholic Church calls the 73 books Scriptures but has all those books Ethiopia has..

here's a question for you..
if Ethiopia's canon was superior or was there before the catholic Church removed from it.. Why did it not define the canon of the scripture before the catholic church did

Olaadegbu and Tampinu..

Revelation 22:18 talks about the book of Revelation only not The whole bible.. that's what you get for reading the bible out of context...
Revelation 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the PROPHECY of THIS BOOK,

the book Jesus told John to write on the prophecies he would Show him...

Revelation 1:1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessedis he that readeth, and they that hear the words of THIS PROPHECY, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

revelation1:11saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, WRITE IN A BOOK, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

So the book revelation 22:18 is talking about is the book of Revelation..

Mathew was not part of the prophecy.. neither was Luke or John or Galatians etc.. but they were ADDED TO revelation to form the new testament...

INCASE YOU DONT KNOW THERE'S A SIMILAR COMMAND IN Deuteronomy 4:2

deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

BUT AFTER THIS, THE OTHER OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS WERE ADDED TO THE TORAH (Joshua, Judges, Isaiah etc) not to mention the new testament..

So You can't threaten the Church that compiled the bible with your out of context interpretation of it..

OLAADEGBU:
I can now say that you have little or no integrity since you denied saying what you said. I can accept you forgetting you made the quote but for you to still deny after I quoted what you posted means you are not a man of integrity.

My dear, if that makes you feel better then enjoy.. I did not deny anything.. I see you're hanging on to a strawman instead of focusing on the real issue...
Like I have pointed out.. My admitting to your point on the quote will only be important ONLY if QUOTATION EQUALS CANONICITY which is a fallacy..

OLAADEGBU:
You need to cover your face in shame as you cannot admit that you truly said what you denied earlier, despite the fact that I pointed it out to you. You said: "THERE ARE QUOTES FROM JESUS AND THE APOSTLES THAT ARE VERBATUM QUOTES..." and yet you have the effrontery to accuse my of lying? What a shame.

Hide my face in shame.. LOL..You're a funny person.. You are just hanging on to straws after your argument fails.. Whether or not Jesus or the apostles quoted from the deuterocanon will only be important if it is a reason for Belonging to the the O.T canon.. Which it is not...
NO WERE DOES IT STATE, IN THE BIBLE OR OTHERWISE THAT JESUS OR HIS APOSTLES MUST QUOTE A BOOK FOR IT TO BE SCRIPTURE...
that is a presumption you hold that is wrong.. Because..
1. I have shown you books that were quoted by Jude (1:9) as in the case of the Assumption of Moses and Hebrews (11:37) was taken directly from the Ascension of Isaiah.. If according to you.. QUOTATION EQUALS CANONICITY then these two books should be part of your old testament...
2. I have also showed you that many other old testament books are not quoted or even alluded to by Jesus or the apostles....If according to you.. QUOTATION EQUALS CANONICITY then these books should not be part of your old testament... Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Apostles in the New Testament.

so I am not accusing you of anything I am only pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument.. If you think that means you're lying then that's your problem

OLAADEGBU:
The bottomline is that the 39 books of the OT was not discovered and preserved by the Roman Catholic church.

Now you are arguing with yourself again.. I never told you that the catholic church discovered or preserved the old testament.. I said the Catholic church adopted the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanon...
SO THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE WRONG AND THAT THE 39 BOOK OLD TESTAMENT WAS NEVER PRESERVED IN THE ARK..

OLAADEGBU:
A church father called Jerome confirmed that the apocrypha was not part of the inspired Scriptures why would Jesus or his apostles give credit to it?

1. Jerome is one Church father and he was wrong if he made that statement.. He showed his personal opinion based on what the Followers of Judaism accepted.. What he said was that the Jews who were enemies of the Christians did not accept them.. Not that they were not taken to be scriptures by christians.. Before The council of Nicea where the doctrine of the Trinity was defined there were some Church father's who denied the Trinity.. I am sure You won't accept their statements because you believe in the Trinity now
2. There are many other church fathers and councils who quote them as scriptire e.g. St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Damasus , St. Augustine..
3. Lastly Jerome later did accept them as scripture.. And defended them in his work (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

OLAADEGBU:
It was the apocrypha that was placed at the end of the copies of the Septuagint that was dated in the 5th century A.D, don't ask me how.

You are wrong.... The deuterocanon was not placed at the end Septuagint in the 5th century A.D. It has been part of the Septuagint long before then..
Your history is wrong..
1. The Bible was compiled in the 4th century with the Septuagint (council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, A.D. 382, 393 and 397 respectively all in the 4th century.. and the Council using the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanon..
2. The codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus are "bibles" that existed before the fifth century and both contain the deuterocanon...

OLAADEGBU:
Jesus referenced the OT from Genesis to the last book in the Jewish Scriptures, don't tell me you don't know what referencing means. You cannot deny the providential care and leading of God in the book of Esther. God's Providence is part of the criteria to be included in the canon.

I see you have shifted your standard from "Thus says the Lord" or "it is written" to "reference".. Well Jesus didn't reference esther or Songs of song or many others in the New testament.. If you say he did then Show me...

Lastly God's providence was also show in Tobit and Assumption of Moses.. Why are they not in your bible..
AND PLEASE WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT GOD'S PROVIDENCE IS A CRITERIA FOR CANONICITY...

OLAADEGBU:
It is just one of the criteria to make it into the canon.

SAYS WHO? IN WHICH VERSE OF THE BIBLE?? AT WHICH CHURCH COUNCIL? IN WHICH DOCUMENT

OLAADEGBU:
See the excerpts from gotquestions.org

GOT QUESTIONS IS NOT THE AUTHORITY ON THE CANON OR THE BIBLE CANON..

OLAADEGBU:
The book of Judith contains wrong historical facts:

the book of Judith or Tobit for that matter is not meant to be taken as a historical document.. This fact was clear even to the people of the times it was written
...

in the case of Tobit, you can't compare old testament (before Jesus) to Pauline theology or Even the teaching of Jesus... In the old testament.. The command was to obey the law as a believer which Tobit emphasizes almsgiving with righteousness..(see tobit 12: which is not unlike what you would find in the old testament.. He talked about prayer with fasting also.. And avoiding sin.. HE DEFINITELY DID NOT MEAN GIVING ALMS ALONE..
besides JESUS and some of the apostles. Made such statements
Jesus
Luke 11:41 But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you.
Luke 12:33Sell what you possess and give alms. Make to
yourselves bags which grow not old, a treasure in
heaven which faileth not: where no thief
approacheth, nor moth corrupteth.

Apostles
1 peter 4:8 Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins. 9 Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another

Heb 13:16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

johnw74:
consider this:

in essence you don't want to answer the questions

johnw74:
no i don't believe i will
i expose rc's lies i don't waste to much time helping them, that's shown to be a waste of time
i post what i want to, not what satans disciples tell me to

I have heard.. So please, answer my questions please.. so I can consider all angles.. thank you..

johnw74:
you don't like my replies, fine
now go and cry to someone else

No sir.. its not about not liking your replies.. its about truth.. you claim the RCC is lying.. I want truth so I want to explore all angles... so please answer the question...

Here's another that doesn't seem clear...
You say Jesus is the Rock quoting 1 cor 10:4 and you say that Rock is used as title for God all over the old testament.. Yet you claim the rock in Mathew 16:18 is Peter's confession...

So which is it.. Is Jesus the Rock or is Peter's confession the Rock...

greencard:
did they specifically state it that he/they baptised infant?

Households contain children and babies... And they baptized entire households..
Here's a better question Did they specifically say that they did not

greencard:
Who then invent rosary's?..since it wasn't in existence then

Prayers evolved.. Most of us don't pray the way 2nd century Jews prayed...
They didn't need a rosary then because whoever needed Mary's prayer could go to her house in Ephesus and pray with her...

greencard:
Paul encourage celibacy..celibacy means abstinence from sex ..he never said they should organised a body of nuns and fathers

Celibacy in its proper meaning means abstinence from marriage not necessarily sex.. See 1 cor 7:7, 1 cor 7:32-35, So in a bid to give undivided attention to the Lord's service... The Church decided that Priest or nuns should be celibate just as Jesus said that some made themselves Eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom.. See matt 19:12..

johnw74:
if you want the meaning of the words rock and stone consult a dictionary
if you want to know who is "the rock" then read my posts

.It seems you are avoiding the question... you said petros means stone.. am asking since the Bible (new testament) was written in Greek.. according to you petros means stone.. will I find petros in the Greek for every time stone is mentioned.. Yes or No...

johnw74:
i don't know why you want to be confused over the names peter and cephas
and over the definitions of rock and stone
when it's clear from the Bible that "Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God" is the rock that His Church is built on

for those with eyes to see, it's very clear that Jesus Christ Church is built on the rock, the truth that:
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"


(Mat 16:15)  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

(Mat 16:16)  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

(Mat 16:17)  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

(Mat 16:18)  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



the rock is: "Jesus" and Jesus is the Truth
the rock, truth is: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"


1Co_10:4  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Joh_14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


the rock that followed them was Jesus Christ, the truth

Jesus Christ the truth, is that rock


what is the truth that Jesus church is built on: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God"

There's no confusion...
I asked a simple question... please answer it directly...

Thank you

johnw74:
uben, more lies of yours and satans church exposed:


THE TRUE CHURCH

The Roman Catholic Church claims to be God's true Church and all members are to promise obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whom she claims is successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become Catholic. If it is false, the whole Catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, “But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21). “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work: (II Timothy 3:16-17). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some Catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with Catholics.

When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" He used the demonstrative "this" (taute), pointing to Peter's confession, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God" as the rock. Jesus said, "Thou are Peter (petros, a stone - all believers are stones, see I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21), and upon this rock (petra, a huge rock foundation - the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church". He did not promise to build His Church upon Peter. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei). In the Bible we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit.

Let us remember that Christ is the Rock and only Head of the Church. I Corinthians 3:11. For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus.
I Corinthians 10:4. The rock was Christ.
Ephesians 1:22,23. Head over all the Church.
Ephesians 2:20. Christ Jesus... the chief corner stone.

Around thirty-four times in the Old Testament God is call a Rock or the Rock of Israel. You see, the Bible clearly teaches that when Jesus founded His Church, He was to be the only Head, the Holy Spirit the Vicar and Guide, and the Bible the only authority for faith and practice. All true Christians constitute THE TRUE CHURCH (those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, who believe and obey Christ's teachings). True believers were called "Christians", not "Catholics".
Acts 11:26 Disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 26:28 Persuade me to become a Christian.
I Peter 4:16 Suffer as a Christian

There were no Roman Catholics until Christianity was merged with paganism into a state religion around 315 A.D. The true Christians obeyed God's Word, they never joined in the pagan corruption. The gates of hell have never prevailed against the true believers, they are few, their way is narrow, they would rather suffer martyrdom than compromise the Word of God or deny their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Go out from her, my people, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Apocalypse 18:4). Believers must not be identified with compromising or counterfeit Churches!

mtc dot org

I have two questions..
You said petros means stone??.. If I go to the Greek of scripture.. will I see petros for every time stone is mentioned

2. Peter was also called Kephas?? see John 1:42.. does Kephas also means stone..

Thank you..

ebenice:
hmm

Seems u are getting it twisted..that paragraph was just prologue ..it wasn't written directly to any actions

And why pick three points out of the many?

And which of the apostles' partook in any of those 3 points you raised?

Am not getting anything twisted.. you are making a false statement which you cannot prove...

I picked these three out not for any particular reason but since you point it out..

the apostles never fought against celibacy.. some of them encouraged it... Paul encouraged celibacy... so did Jesus...

The rosary was not in. existence in their time...

The apostles did baptize infants ...
Peter baptized households which contained infants so did Paul...

OLAADEGBU:
Is this not what you said or wrote? Do you want to come back and deny you said the quote above?

Here is the fundamental question...Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus or the apostles have to quote a book for it to be called scripture or inspired

OLAADEGBU:
My point is that the Torah was recognised as God-breathed and preserved. We can open another thread and discuss how this was preserved.

The point is there was no 39 book old testament in the Ark...

OLAADEGBU:
I said that the OT had been translated into Greek during the 3rd century B.C., which is known as the Septuagint. It was this Greek Septuagint that Jesus' disciples frequently used. The Apocrypha is what I said was stealthily placed at the end of this Septuagint and it was dated in the 5th century, this is one of the reasons we cannot rely on it to tell us what was common half a millennium earlier. The fact that neither Jesus nor any of His apostles quoted from the apocrypha should tell us that it was not included in the earlier version of the Septuagint. Josephus was familiar with the Septuagint and he made use of it but did not consider it to be part of the Scriptures.

Jesus and the apostles made allusions to the Deuterocanon in their writings and teacchings as something that was common knowledge... Something that would not be possible except everyone was familiar with it...

Secondly can you prove with history that the deutorocanon was dated to the 5th century.. And please clarify is 5th century BCE OR AD/CE

OLAADEGBU:
What Jesus said in Luke 24:44 was basically a 3 fold division that embraces the entire OT canon. You will need eyesalve to see it.

That's what you read to that verse not what it actually says...

Again I ask.. What does the book of Esther have to say about Jesus...

OLAADEGBU:
I assumed you said so and if you did not, I apologise. Is it not written in one of your apocrypha books that God did not speak to the prophets in those days?

You're avoiding the question again...
WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE BIBLE THAT JESUS HAS TO QUOTE A PASSAGE OR SAY THUS SAYS THE LORD IN IT FOR IT TO BE SCRIPTURE..

OLAADEGBU:
The fact that a book contains some truths doesn't make the whole book God-breathed, the moment some lies are added then the book becomes corrupted.

1. The point is that it contains a truth that no other scripture contains which you have admitted to by your comments above which is not contained in any other 39 book OT Book...and it was quoted by an apostle in the bible...
2. Can you tell me the errors it contains

OLAADEGBU:
See the link in the OP to discover the heresy embedded therein.

[/quote]you said it... Answer the question directly... tell me the heresy, who made it a heresy and why it is a heresy

ebenice:
who gave you that ideology that Catholic church was established by the early Apostles?

Catholic has alot of things they practice that the early apostles never knew about, rather they fought against it with their lives and blood.

Hear this;
1-Did the early apostles use Chaplet/Rosary?

2- Did they observe infant baptism?

3- Did they stop the priests, the apostles or the ministers from getting married?

4- Did they Honour Mary and create songs for her?

5- Were they traditionalists?

6- Did they use holy water?

7-Did they tell anybody about Purgatory rather than eternal Hell fire?

8- Did they gather the names of dead people every November to pray that God will send them to Heaven? When the word of God clearly affirms that there is no repentance, forgiveness, salvation or remission of sin after death.

9- Did they encourage some women not to marry in the name of making them Rev.Sisters?

10- Did they wed women with 8-9months pregnancy in the name of Holy Matrimony?


12- Did they create a suspicious organisation like "KNIGHTS" in the early church?


13- Did they mould the images of Mary and Jesus Christ and began to bow down to it?

interesting points... before I engage you point by point I would like you to answer a question for me..
Your last statement can you prove it...

Where or when did the apostles fight "with their lives and blood" against
1. infant baptism
2. the rosary
3. Celibacy (men and women)

And please be specific.. address the point directly

Tampinu:
Thanks for all your comments. Walk good...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3tNvCHHyJE

Thanks Sir.. you too

Tampinu:
Very Good!

Well then, if you have admitted Immanuel and the meaning of the holy name "Immanuel", you are only half way through as you have to look around you in this day and age, this dispensation of time and see and KNOW that the name is being rightly fulfilled! God is really and truly with us as stated in Revelation 21:3. The fact that majority do not know does not mean that it is not happening!

According revelation 21:3 that will happen after the final judgement..
In these days God is with is in other ways, his word, the holy spirit, the real presence etc...that "literal presence" will happen after the final judgement..

Tampinu:
Look carefully around you,

Haile Selassie has been dead for a while so I can't see him when I look around me...

Tampinu:
which King are all other Kings and Queens bowing to according to Revelation?

No king... Definitely not Selassie because he is dead...
And tell me?? Which part of revelation...

Tampinu:
Who is the righteous man from the East, according to Isaiah 41?

Most Bible scholars will say king Cyrus..

Tampinu:
Who sits on throne of David and Solomon? Who is called King of Kings? Who is Lion of Judah? Who is prince of Peace?

Jesus Christ
Rev 5:5And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep
not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda,
the Root of David, hath prevailed to open
the book, and to loose the seven seals
thereof.
Rev 22:16I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto
you these things in the churches. I am the
root and the offspring of David, and the
bright and morning star.

Tampinu:
Who is Defender of the Faith?

Jesus using anyone he wants..

Tampinu:
Who has most awards and decorations from all churches, Mosques, Temples, Pagodas etc Who is FIELD MARSHALL GENERAL of British Army (Highest Military rank) in 1956...Who was man of the year TIME Magazine 1935 and 1936...

All these don't prove anything...

Tampinu:
That is how you will overstand HIM


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGAlYt4Wyfk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l459J64Feg

I understand that you are trying to make Hails Selassie what he is not.

Tampinu:
My 9 years old neice with a missing tooth just said "Ethiopians are blacks & Blacks are Ethiopians!"

No disrespect to you and your nine year old niece... but that is fallacy of Generalization...

not only Ethiopians are blacks.. there are black Nigerians, Zimbabweans Malians, Ghanaians I can go on and on...

Secondly your niece is not aware of simple genetics...

There are mixed races...
if you watch Nigerian football you probably know the half cast..

Leon. Balogun... Ekong and Osazee odemwingie.. I will not call them blacks but they are Nigerian.... because their fathers were Nigerians...

you probably know david alaba of Bayern Munich.. still of mixed parents but he is an Austrian citizen...

Am sure that there are Ethiopian half breed who are NOT BLACK...

So if David or Solomon had a black mother.. it will affect his skin colour because of his parentage.. it doesn't change the fact that he is an Israelite...

So not all Black's are Ethiopians and not all Ethiopians are black..

Tampinu:
The older means as it was in the begining so shall it be in the end, so don't you think if I show you meaning of IHS in these last day (((((I already know what it means in the olden days)))))



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856KLlyN2_8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjKa2a-B4Vc

You obviously don't because if you did.. you would not use a tittle given by early Christians for Jesus Christ to a mere man.. King or otherwise...

IHS means Iesus Hominum Salvator
not Haile Selassie I ..PERIOD...

OLAADEGBU:
Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. It only makes sense that he preserved those same books called the Penteteuch in the Ark, if not where do you think he will keep them in the wilderness?

He will keep them somewhere else.. The bible tells us what was inside the Ark and it does mention the Torah being in the ark, If it was then the writer of Hebrews would have mentioned it outrightly.. The two stone tablets are different from the Torah and both are very familiar to the Jews.. The book of Hebrews was written 100s of years after so it should have an accurate account of what was in the ark, besides the fact that it is the inspired word of God and we know that God cannot lie.. And also the fact that it was written to the Hebrews who the ark was made for..
SO I WILL GO WITH THE BIBLE ON THIS ONE... EVEN IF I ACCEPT THAT THE FIVE BOOKS OF MOSES WERE CONTAINED IN THE ARK.. WHICH I DONT.. THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE REMAINING 34 BOOKS... and like I have pointed out.. The Jews could not open or close the ark at will because anyone who touches or opens the ark was killed even Uzzah who was a priest.
Your point doesn't add up..
I go with the writer of Hebrew
Hebrew 9:4bthe ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

OLAADEGBU:
Let's leave that for the jury.

No.. History is clear.. No need for a jury when history is clear..
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Septuagint
Analysis of the language has established that the Torah , or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century BCE and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century BCE.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint
The title ( Greek : Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν
Ἑβδομήκοντα, lit. "The Translation of the
Seventy" and its Roman numeral LXX refer to
the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who
solely translated the Five Books of Moses into
Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century
BCE.

In case you don't know what BCE is... It means BEFORE CHRIST OR BEFORE COMMON ERA..
So the Septuagint was transplanted 300 years before Christ not in the fifth century..

OLAADEGBU:
"And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the psalms concerning Me" (Luke 24:44).

Jesus mention of the threefold division of the Scripture actually compassed the entire OT canon. Another way of expressing this would be the historical, poetical and the prophetic writings, all of which are divinely inspired and inerrant unlike the apocryphal writings.

Jesus didn't need to read the 39 book old testament to make that statement.. He is God, He is omniscient, He inspired scriptures so he doesn't need to scan through that... And most importantly That verse doesn't say any thing about Jesus "scanning" through anything..
Lastly What did the Book of Esther say about Jesus?? Am curious,

OLAADEGBU:
But you said they quoted from it, didn't you? There is no where in the apocrypha where it says thus says the Lord neither did Jesus acknowledge its existence.

Now you are lieing planely.. This was my comment "They made allusions to it.. Allusions are different from verbatim quotes.."
Allusions is what I said not verbatim quotes
Allusion means An indirect reference; a hint; a reference to something supposed to be known, but not explicitly mentioned; a covert indication.

You are avoiding the question I am asking you...
WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY OR WHO MADE THE LAW THAT A BOOK MUST BE QUOTED WITH "THUS SAYS THE LORD FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED SCRIPTURE?
Answer the question directly and stop avoiding it..

OLAADEGBU:
The assumption of Moses in not God breathed. Simples.

I never said it was.. But why was it quoted by Jude?? It clearly contains a divine revelation which no other 39 book old testament book contains.. And that revelation was quoted in the Word of God which is infallible making the revelation infallible..

OLAADEGBU:
The book of Tobith contains heresies and therefore cannot be part of the canon.

Please tell me the Heresy? Who made it a heresy? And why it is a heresy?

Tampinu:
OK, I get your point no worries.
Takecare

JAH Bless

JAH BLESS YOU TOO.. TAKE CARE AS WELL

Tampinu:
Jesus?

Do you know who is Jesus?
You never know Immanuel?
You never Humble?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8CHw3ApwMM

Yes I know who Jesus is.. The Son of God made Man (John 3:16), The Second Person of the Trinity, The WORD made Flesh (john 1:14), Son of Mary and Joseph (matt 13:55), Immanuel ( God with us) (Isaiah 7:14)..

My Saviour, My Redeemer, My Lord, My God..

Tampinu:
We are not asking you to have an issue with anyone or their skins, we are asking you to know, acknowledge & overstand that if K-Solo son of K-Dawitt says in the Holy Bible that he is black; then Iesus the roof of Dawitt cannot be white "Israeli"
Thanks

Again.. I say.. whether Jesus, David or Solomon was black is not the issue here.. what I am saying is that they were Israeli and not Ethiopians and that Jesus and Christianity came from Israel..

Tampinu:
Thank you for teaching me about IHS, you are such a genius!!
(Sigh)

Am not a genius.. just wanted you to see the older, proper usage..

OLAADEGBU:
Are the stone tablet not part of the Pentateuch? Yes, the stone tablets and the rest of the Pentateuch was probably preserved in the Ark. Read Deuteronomy 10:5; 2 Kings 22:8; 2 Chronicles 34:14

The stone tablets are separate from book of the law.. Even though what is written in the stone tablet is found in the book of the Law...
The book of the law is a scroll not stone tablets..
Lastly according to the passages you stated the book of the law were not found inside the ark.. According to the bible anyone who directly touched or opened the ark would die as in the case of Uzzah (2 Sam 6) and the Philistines and the Ekrons (1 Sam 5 and 6).

OLAADEGBU:
And you want me to rely on the Septuagint translation of the apocryphal which was done in the 5th century?

The translation was done I. The 3rd century BCE not the 5th century..If its good for Jesus and the apostles its good for me..

OLAADEGBU:
Jesus scanned through the whole of the 39 books of the OT including the ones mentioned up there. See Luke 11:51; 24:44

Those verses don't say that.. Luke 11 talks about how the Israelites killed the Prophets.. Jesus didn't need to glances through the entire old testament to know that.. He is God.. He knows all things.. Besides that verse doesn't mention anything about reading or glancing through scripture.. As for luke 24.. The same principle applies Jesus doesn't need to glance through scripture to be able to explain. The fulfilment to them.. He is God, he knows everything.. And last luke 24 only talks about the law, the prophets and psalms.. He doesn't mention esther, so why do you accept Esther..

OLAADEGBU:
Didn't you say that Jesus and His apostles quoted from it? You are yet to show me where.

They made allusions to it.. Allusions are different from verbatim quotes.. Don't run away from me question.. Show me where it says Jesus must quote a book for me it to be called scripture..

OLAADEGBU:
Was it referenced from any of the apocryphal books?

It was referenced from a book called the assumption of Moses.. The point still remains that it was quoted in the bible according to your rule.. But it is not part of the old testament

OLAADEGBU:
The book of Revelation is what was divinely received from God. The apocrypha even by its own admission was written in a period when God was silent for 400 years. The book of Enoch you always use as an example is not apocrypha neither is it canonical but parts of it contains certain amounts of divine truths as revealed in the passage you quoted above.

I quoted Tobit not Enoch..if Enoch contains divine truths then why is it not in your 66 book bible??
And p.s. I don't always use the book of Enoch

Tampinu:
Ok, I see your replty.

So Psalms Chapter what did it say that God has Chosen Kent, England as His foundation as it did Ethiopia in Psalm 87?

as I have pointed out many times..Psalm 87 is talking about Jerusalem primarily not Ethiopian.. Secondly it doesn't mention any king's name whether Haile Selassie or King Henry...

Tampinu:
Because it appears you seem to fail to see the connect between the fact that Ethiopia is first country mentioned in the Bible
(Not along some ancient civilizations-as if they were all mentioned FIRST at the same time-I repeat Ethiopia is the first country mentioned in the Bible, FIRST means FIRST, FIRST does not mean along with some other ....)
That is a virtue called "Intellectual Honesty". The ability to say "Yes, you are right it is the first etc".
Not for somneone to say, "Yes, it's the first so?" That is evasive and childish. And with those who reason without depth I do not associate.

As a matter of fact Ethiopia was not mentioned as a "country" but as a land.. And it was the second Land mentioned.. The FIRST LAND MENTIONED WAS HAVILAH Not ETHIOPIA.. AND FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME.. THAT DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING

Tampinu:
As if it is not logically consistent that if Psalm 87 says Ethiopia is God's country and Ethiopia is the First country mentioned in the Bible, how likely is the possibility that Ethiopia have the oldest version of the Christian Holy Books?

No its not logically consistent..
Can you show me verbatim where Psalm 87 calls Ethiopia "God's own Country" cause am not seeing it..
The bible in many places calls Israel "God's people and country

2 Samuel 7:23-24
"And what one nation on the earth is like
Your people Israel, whom God went to
redeem for Himself as a people and to
make a name for Himself, and to do a
great thing for You and awesome things
for Your land,
1 Kings 10:9
"Blessed be the LORD your God who
delighted in you to set you on the throne
of Israel; because the LORD loved Israel
forever, therefore He made you king, to
do justice and righteousness."
1 chron 17:21"And what one nation in the earth is like
Your people Israel, whom God went to
redeem for Himself as a people, to make
You a name by great and terrible things,
in driving out nations from before Your
people, whom You redeemed out of
Egypt?
Psalm 135:4
For the LORD has chosen Jacob for
Himself, Israel for His own possession.
Isaiah 41:8
"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom
I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham
My friend,

Isaiah 44:21
"Remember these things, O Jacob, And
Israel, for you are My servant; I have
formed you, you are My servant, O Israel,
you will not be forgotten by Me.
Joel 3:1-2
"For behold, in those days and at that
time, When I restore the fortunes of
Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all
the nations And bring them down to the
valley of Jehoshaphat Then I will enter
into judgment with them there On behalf
of My people and My inheritance, Israel,
Whom they have scattered among the
nations; And they have divided up My
land.
SO CLEARLY ISRAEL IS GOD'S COUNTRY.. BUT WOULD LIKE YOU to show me where God calls Ethiopia his own explicitly
Ethiopia does not have the oldest versions of the bible unless you factually prove otherwise. With dates and history...

Tampinu:
b] You have not pointed out anything Re: dismissing the fact the Ethiopia is the first country mentioned in the Bible. [/b]
First you came across as if it did not matter that Ethiopia was first country mentioned in the Bible, then you returned and made as if there was a cluster of countries named as FIRST in the Bible and Ethiopia just happened to be one of them. (Sigh)

Being named first doesn't directly translate to having the oldest version of the bible.. Besides the Land of Havilah was named first before the Land of ethiopia..

Tampinu:
Look, I have given my conclusive answer to all your questions on this matter by providing Haile Selassie's comments on the Bible; The King has spoken, it remains to see who will overturn the King's words. is it you? The king says WE IN ETHIOPIA HAVE ONE OF THE OLDEST VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE! (It's a humble, Noble and Polite way of saying WE HAVE THE OLDEST VERSION)

I agree with the emperor because Ethiopia being an old church can have ONE OF THE OLDEST VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE NOT THE OLDEST BECAUSE HISTORICALLY.. THE OLDEST BIBLE WOULD BE THE ONE FINALIZED AT THE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE IN 397 AD

Tampinu:
What are you defending? You calling my King a liar? Not even the Pope or the Catholic church EVER raised a challenge to His Majesty's comments on the Bible as it is final. Then you expect me to be struggling to wake up one who is pretending to be sleeping. No man!.

NO SIR... Am not calling the Emperor a liar because I actually agree with what he said.. But disagree with what you're making him say...
The catholic church will not challenge anyone unless they fall into heresy. Ask King Henry the 8th

Tampinu:
Have a nice weekend and enjoy yourself. I rest my case.

If this is about winning arguments I agree that you have won and Rome is where Christianity began and Rome and Antioch have the oldest Bibleas well as the Canon.

Many Thanks

Thanks you too.. Its not about winning argument.. Its about what is historically and biblically accurate and true..

Tampinu:
Your comment above is an epitome of "Intellectual honesty".

Peace

IHS = Haile Selassie (the FIRST)

IHS = HS1

HS1 = HSI

IHS = 1HS

If I see what Is true historically and biblically I say it..

I know you're not going to be happy with this..
but the traditional historical use of IHS is Jesus.. the name of Jesus.. not for haile Selassie..
It is called a CHRISTOGRAM and has been used since medieval time by Christians. (both catholic and Protestants) for The name of Jesus in the Latin speaking medieval Europe the most common Christogram became "IHS" or "IHC", denoting the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, iota- eta - sigma , or ΙΗΣ.
"IHS" is sometimes interpreted as meaning "Jesus Hominum (or Hierosolymae) Salvator", ("Jesus, Saviour of men [or: of Jerusalem]" in Latin)
more about it here..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram
Don't want to argue.. just putting it out there...

Tampinu:
If Jesus was the Root of David and the Bible tells us that King SOlomon stated that He (King Solomon) is Black, does that not tell us that Jesus of the same lineage is Black? If we don't know Christ, how can we confidently speak about Christianity?

If Jesus was not a Christian, so why are people calling themselves Christians and not Judaic as Jesus was Judaic?

What is the difference between a Jew and an Ethiopian?

There are different types of Jews and if Jesus was a Jew, what type of Jews was He? Was he Beta Israel? Or Falasha Jew? These are worth Googling if you are not familiar with them.

Walk Good!

I don't have any issue with the colour of anyone's skin.. I'm black.. the colour of Jesus's skin doesn't matter to Me.. What I'm saying is that David and solomon were Israelites not Ethiopians, Jesus was an Israelite not an Ethiopian.. Christianity came from Judaism which came from Israel not Ethiopia..
Jesus was born under judaism ehich was a religion of the Old covenant.. he came to established a new covenant hence a new "religion".... Jesus was not a Christian.. the word Christian means follower of Christ or Christ like. Jesus is Jesus.. he is not a Christian because he cannot follow himself of be like himself.. He simply is...

A Jew is an Israelite.. a person from Israel while an Ethiopian is a person from Ethiopia