₦airaland Forum

701ecilana:
Lol. You're trying to wriggle yourself out of what you had said before.

My dear either comprehension is
problem for you or you didn't read anything I posted.. read to understand not to reply

701ecilana:
This has been about whether the Catholic Church existed before the Roman Church was made a state religion, you said yes. You insisted the Catholic Church was persecuted by the Roman Empire before Constantine made it the state religion, and i said no.

I asked for prove, you took me back to Ignatius, and him being the contemporary of Apostle John and him being killed by the Roman Government.

I asked how we know he was a Catholic, you posted where he called the Church 'Catholic' in his Letter to the Smyrnean Church.

I asked why Jesus referred to his Churches as Church, and no Apostle named any church. They were all identified by their locations, when were the Churches merged into one and called Catholic?

Yes they were identified by their location to specify which Church was being addressed.. The Church of Jesus Christ on earth is UNIVERSAL and that is what catholic means... so to specify which of the universal church is being spoken about.. you use the location...
Catholic Church can be any of the millions of catholic churches all over the world... but I say the EDO Catholic Church.. It is clearer... catholic means universal.. the location is used for specificity

701ecilana:
You threw in a post where Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Church in Smyrna called it thus. Again, you said he had the connection from or with John to name the Church you ementioned todays pentecostals who did.

Because you assume that A successor of the apostles cannot "name" a church but Nigerian "Men of God" can...

701ecilana:
Now, you are trying to shift from that.
Now i just got to know that After Jesus gave visions to Apostle John about the churches, Ignatius wrote his own letters to the same Churches. Did the Master gave him revelations too?

because you don't know church history.. Go and read early Church historian EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA'S HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH... WHICH RECORDS LETTER WRITTEN BY SUCCESSORS OF THE APOSTLES TO VARIOUS CHURCHES

LIKE I HAVE POINTED OUT.. John's seven letters are different from Ignatius's letters to the Churches and his friend and Bishop of Smyrna.. Polycarp

701ecilana:
Your post didn't say that, it says he called the church Catholic What does that mean? Before him, had anyone else called it thus?

He called the church catholic because according to Jesus, his church was to spread throughout the whole world among all the nations, meaning universal, catholic means universal, according to the whole.
Yes Jesus did and anyone else who refers to the church as universal or for all nations

701ecilana:
How come the Bible didn't mention this all important Ignatius of Antioch? The antecedents of John the Apostle are here, why not Ignatius'?
Ignatius is not all important.. The Bible didn't mention him just like it doesn't talk about the activities of many other apostles after Pentecost (Mathew, Thomas etc), Another reason is that Ignatius was not made Bishop in biblical times.. or that he was not active during the periods the new testament records there are many reasons that can be provided...

[quote author=701ecilana post=60347757]The bolded seems to suggest a replacement of the divine presence of Christ(Which indwells every believer) with that of one particular person, the Bishop.

Jesus says 'where two or three are gathered in MY NAME, I AM there WITH THEM'.
Who is J.R. Willis to change that?

the Bishop is to be the head of the Churches... It does not replace the indwelling of Christ.. what it means is that a bishop who heads a church (people) cannot be present where The people are not.. and besides the Bishops as successors of the apostles build or govern Churches that are for Christ.. so if you find a bishop there Christ is also there and the people by virtue of the bishop who brings Christ to them and shepherds them... then they have Christ within them.
. ITS NOt AN EITHER OR.. IT CAN GO BOTH WAYS..

OH AND JR WILLIS DIDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.. HE IS JUST THE PERSON WHO TRANSLATED THE LETTER TO ENGLISH... AGAIN.. COMPREHENSION..

701ecilana:
Here is where you said he called the Church of Jesus Christ 'Catholic'.

Am sorry to say.. but I think comprehension is the problem.. there is a difference between naming something and calling it by Its name... HISTORY SHOWS THE CHURCH TO BE CALLED CATHOLIC... WHOEVER NAMES IT DOESN'T MATTER.. WHAT MATTERS IS THAT IT WAS CALLED WHICH ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY

701ecilana:
Oh, he was the Apostle who wrote Letters to the Churches not John yeah?

Stop being Silly... like I pointed out earlier, John's letters in Revelation are different from Ignatius letters... Ignatius wrote to the Churches and his friend Polycarp in a different scenario than John did... John wrote to seven Churches

Ignatius's letters are
The Letter to the Ephesians ,
The Letter to the Magnesians ,
The Letter to the Trallians ,
The Letter to the Romans ,
The Letter to the Philadelphians ,
The Letter to the Smyrnaeans ,
The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna

John's Letters are to the Churches in
Ephesus
Smyrna
Thyatira
Pergamum
Sardis
Philadelphia
Laodicea

So the letters are different... The content were different... they were written at different times... the Occasion was different

And for your information... Any ordained bishop can write to any Church... Paul wrote to Ephesus... so did John in revelation... Paul wrote to Galatia.. so did Peter in his Epistles.. what matters is for the Churches to recognize you as a Leader of any of the Churches...

Secondly after the apostles died their successors also wrote letters to churches they could not go to...

OLAADEGBU:
The Jewish Canon is different from the NT Canon but they are all compiled by the author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit.

Did the Holy Spirit tell the Jews to reject the New testament too out of hatred for Christians??
The Jews translated their scriptures into Greek (Septuagint) and that contained the deuterocanon..

OLAADEGBU:
You are missing the point. I said the Jewish Scriptures are the same with what we have in the 39 books of the OT of the Bible and that you cannot find a single book of the apocrypha therein. The 27 books in the New Testament has its own separate Canon and God was orchestrated it all not the Roman Catholic.

the Jews created the Septuagint which contained the deuterocanon and used it up until the Church adopted it... they rejected it because of the Christians... Just like they rejected every new testament book..
You are using the canon of those who killed Jesus, persecuted Christians and rejected Christianity...

P.s. God used the catholic church to Determine the canon of the new testament

OLAADEGBU:
All you need to do is to take the Jewish Scriptures, the Torah and see whether the books contained in them differ from the authorised version of the Bible. You will see for yourself that they don't contain the apocrypha books that are present in the Roman Catholic Bibles.

Like it has been pointed out.. the Jews rejected the Christian Canon because it was written in Greek and hence rejected the Greek writings in the Septuagint, which has been used since before and during Jesus time...

The Jewish scriptures you have today doesn't contain those books as well as the new testament because of hatred for Christians

OLAADEGBU:
The truth is that the Jewish Canon and the OT are the same and does not include the apocrypha. Simples.

PROVE IT.. NAME A CREDIBLE HISTORICAL OR ACADEMIC SOURCE SOURCE...

OLAADEGBU:
Don't confuse yourself with the Septuagint which was an interpretation of the Jewish writings. The truth is that none of the books of the apocrypha was included in both the Old and New Testament Canon.

You are the confused on... the Septuagint is not an interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures but a TRANSLATION of the Jewish scriptures into Greek because of the Hellenistic Jews who could not read Hebrew.. And the Original Christian Old testament canon used the Septuagint because they could read Greek and the Churches they created and people they evangelized could only read Greek because Greek was the lingua franca of the time...

The Septuagint had 47 books including the deuterocanonica..
Google is your friend...

OLAADEGBU:
The truth is that the Jews did not acknowledge the apocrypha as part of the OT canon and that explains why the Jews have not included it up till this day.

The Jews accepted the Septuagint... which contains the deuterocanonica... which Jesus and the apostles used...
The Septuagint contains the deuterocanonica...

Can you provide a historical document that says all Jews rejected the deuterocanon

701ecilana:
Why do you say I have not answered your question? Isn't the link you posted the same with the one your brother posted?

You talk about Ignatius of Antioch naming the Church as Catholic, exactly what he said.


I think you shd direct that question to your brother, because his link says exactly that.
You can try telling me who named the Church of Jesus Christ Catholic.

Let's even assume for the sake of it.. that Ignatius named the church catholic... He has apostolic pedigree...
1. Because He was taught the faith by the apostles themselves...

2. He was a bishop of the Church of Antioch where believers were first called Christians (acts 11:26)...

3.. He clearly had apostolic connections because he was the Third Bishop of Antioch After Evodius who according to history succeeded Peter who founded the Church in Antioch and He was active in John the last apostle's lifetime..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Antioch

here's a little excerpt for you...
It was in the city of Antioch (modern day
Antakya in southeast Turkey ) that Christians were first so called ( Acts 11:26 ). According to church tradition, Saint Peter established the church in Antioch, and was the city's first bishop, [1] :92 [2] before going to Rome to found the Church there. [1] :95 Ignatius of Antioch (martyred c. 110), counted as the third bishop of the city, was a prominent apostolic father.
GO TO THE LINK FOR THE REST...
Compare him with the Many "Men of God" of nowadays who go about creating and naming Churches...

Kumuyi - Deeper Life
Oyakhilome - Christ Embassy..
Oyedepo - Living Faith...
Odukoya - Mountain of Fire
Suleiman - Omega Fire...
etc..

I'm sure you think these Men have greater authority and mandate to "name" Churches that a man who directly learned from the apostles and was third Bishop of one of the first Christian communities in history...

701ecilana:
Why do you say I have not answered your question? Isn't the link you posted the same with the one your brother posted?

You talk about Ignatius of Antioch naming the Church as Catholic, exactly what he said.


I think you shd direct that question to your brother, because his link says exactly that.
You can try telling me who named the Church of Jesus Christ Catholic.

My dear can you show me where my link says that...
Show me where it says Ignatius named the Church "catholic"

701ecilana:
I hope you know there were so many Churches back then known by their locations but not by names?

Before Constantine made the Church a state religion, had the Churches been made one by calling it by one unified name (Catholic Church) and no longer by the locations as they were known before then?

If yes, Source pls.


Apostle Paul planted Churches every where, in different cities and locations. Other Apostles also planted nameless Churches, but you are singling out Ignatius of Antioch who was a so called an Apostle of John, (not of Jesus) to give the honour of naming the Church of Jesus? Under whose mandate?

The Great Apostle Paul did not name the Church of Jesus Christ but Ignatius could?

Do you still remember that the Smyrnean Church wasn't given a name even by the Master, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? He, the head of the Church called that church 'The Church in Smyrna'. Apostls John did not name the Smyrnaen church.

Note pls, that the Apostle John did not establish the Churches in the Asia Minor then, Paul did. The Master only gave him revelations of warning for the Churches.


Pls i will need Scriptural backing for this.


This seems to suggest that it was the Church in Smyrna that Ignatius named. Did he also name the other Churches?



Were the letters written on his way to Rome or in the Island of Patmos?

I'm seeing Letter to the Magnesians
The Letter to Trallians.
The Letter to Romans, and to Polycarp and you called them authentic.

Don't you think that if Ignatius received a Mandate from Christ to name His Church, that could have been recorded in the Scriptures?

There's still something here; Which Church did Ignatius name, the Smyrnian Church or the entire Churches both in Asia Minor and others locations? Was the Church in Jerusalem also called the Catholic Church because Ignatius said so?

Cc: BlueAgent.

1. Like I said in my earlier post.. the word catholic means universal meaning that Ignatius wasn't just talking about the Smyrnaean Church.. He was talking about the "whole universal" church...

2. Paul or Peter didn't need to name the Church because their mandate from Christ was to make the Church universal.. to go in to the "whole" to spread Christ's ONE church... that Church even though located in different areas was universal and because it is universal.. it was called "Catholic...

3. Ignatius's letters are different from John's revelation.. Ignatius wrote on his way to be martyred in Rome... John wrote while on exile in Patmos...

They are authentic because they have been verified by historians to be actually written by Ignatius...
DON'T MISTAKE IGNATIUS LETTERS FOR THOSE IN JOHN'S REVELATION..

4. You can't have scriptural backing for Ignatius's letter to the Smyrnaeans because it is not part of the new testament writings.. just like many other early Christian writings... But that doesn't take away from it because it has been verified historically to be true..
AND P.S. THE CHURCH CONTINUE AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT..

5. Ignatius didn't name the Church in Smyrna. He made a statement.. that where you find a Bishop which in his time are direct successors of the Apostles.. there you also find the church which the apostles found.. which was universal or "Catholic"..The whole church is catholic if you find a bishop there that has apostolic ordination...

Wherever the bishop appears,
there let the people be; as
wherever Jesus Christ is, there
is the Catholic Church. It is
not lawful to baptize or give
communion without the
consent of the bishop. On the
other hand, whatever has his
approval is pleasing to God.
Thus, whatever is done will be
safe and valid. — Letter to the
Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis
translation.

701ecilana:
I hope you know there were so many Churches back then known by their locations but not by names?

Before Constantine made the Church a state religion, had the Churches been made one by calling it by one unified name (Catholic Church) and no longer by the locations as they were known before then?

If yes, Source pls.


Apostle Paul planted Churches every where, in different cities and locations. Other Apostles also planted nameless Churches, but you are singling out Ignatius of Antioch who was a so called an Apostle of John, (not of Jesus) to give the honour of naming the Church of Jesus? Under whose mandate?

The Great Apostle Paul did not name the Church of Jesus Christ but Ignatius could?

Do you still remember that the Smyrnean Church wasn't given a name even by the Master, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? He, the head of the Church called that church 'The Church in Smyrna'. Apostls John did not name the Smyrnaen church.

Note pls, that the Apostle John did not establish the Churches in the Asia Minor then, Paul did. The Master only gave him revelations of warning for the Churches.


Pls i will need Scriptural backing for this.


This seems to suggest that it was the Church in Smyrna that Ignatius named. Did he also name the other Churches?



Were the letters written on his way to Rome or in the Island of Patmos?

I'm seeing Letter to the Magnesians
The Letter to Trallians.
The Letter to Romans, and to Polycarp and you called them authentic. But, i can't find them in the Bible. What makes them authentic?

There's something here. Who do we go with? Apostle John who receive the revelations for the Churches or Ignatius his servant?

John received the visions to the churches, the Giver of the vision and the conveyor of the visions didn't name the church[ies], but Ignatius could? Who gave him that mandate?

Don't you think that if Ignatius received a Mandate from Christ to name His Church, that could have been recorded in the Scriptures?

There's still something here; Which Church did Ignatius name, the Smyrnian Church or the entire Churches both in Asia Minor and others locations? Was the Church in Jerusalem also called the Catholic Church because Ignatius said so?

Cc: BlueAgent.

First of all Ignatius didn't "name" the Church... He is just the first person recorded to "call" it by that name according to history way before Constantine which was your original question...

2. The Church was known by their location... yes. but it was one Church... one Universal Church.. the Location was just used to emphasize where they were located..

3. The Church was always one before and after Constantine legalized Christianity... because the apostles and their successors taught ONE DOCTRINE.. PROFESSED ONE FAITH.. It was always Catholic because it is Universal ... which is what the word catholic means..The word catholic (with lowercase c ; derived
via Late Latin catholicus , from the Greek
adjective καθολικός ( katholikos ), meaning "universal" [1][2] ) comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου ( katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole". [3][4] The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize..
its universal scope.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_(term)..

3. Like I said earlier.. Ignatius didn't name the Church but your argument does not follow.... The Church has been called "catholic" because that is what it is, "universal".. Ignatius was the first written record of the church called catholic...

4. On your point about Ignatius not being a disciple of Jesus... that is laughable..

Any disciple of an apostle is a disciple of Jesus too.. The apostles had successors who headed the Church after they were no more... John died in AD 100, and he was the last apostle... after the apostles, the next are those who they ordained to be their successors... and Ignatius and Polycarp are historically disciples of John... and hence Jesus...
Paul said to Timothy..

2 Tim 2: 2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
And how was Timothy to pass it on... Paul laid hands on him and taught him
2 Tim 1:6 Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

John taught Ignatius and Polycarp historically...
you already have the link for Ignatius
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

SO ANYONE JOHN OR ANY OTHER APOSTLE ORDAINS HAS THE MANDATE OF CHRIST..

OLAADEGBU:
Where did Jesus quote from the apocrypha?

1. Who says Jesus has to quote a book for it to be authoritative and with what authority does that person say it..

2. Where did Jesus quote songs of Solomon, or Esther.. Point is.. there are quite a few books that you accept that are not quoted by Jesus

To those who said that the Catholic Church killed Paul, Peter, Jesus etc.. That's historically and even Biblically inaccurate..

1. The Jews instigated Pilate to kill Jesus Christ NEITHER THE JEWS NOR PILATE WAS A CATHOLIC.... read your Bible for That...

2. The Roman Empire is different from the Roman Church... The Roman Empire is the government and Region.. which is different from the Christians in Rome whom Paul wrote to in the book of romans... See Romans 1:7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints:

3. the Roman empire persecuted Christians and the emperor who instigated such persecutions where not Catholic (Christians)
here are the emperors who persecuted Christians up until Constantine who legalized Christianity in 313 with the edict of Milan...

1. It started majorly under Nero in 64 AD in which Peter and Paul were killed and many other Christians in Rome...

2. Domitian 89- 96.. Persecuted Christians and Jews... The Book of Revelation , which mentions at least one instance of martyrdom (Rev 2:13; cf. 6:9), is thought by many scholars to have been
written during Domitian's reign.

3. Trajan (109-111)
4. Hadrian (117-138)

this went on and on until Diocletian and Constantine ended it in 313...

ALL THE ROMAN EMPERORS WERE PAGANS UNTIL CONSTANTINE...

4. The Fact that Romans persecuted Christians doesn't follow that the Christians in Rome also persecuted Christians.. THE JEWS PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS IN JERUSALEM TOO USING PAUL (see acts 7,8 and 9).. It doesnt follow from that, that because Jews persecuted Christians in Jerusalem that Christians in Jerusalem Persecuted Christians..

Lastly.. The catacombs in Rome shows where many Christians in Rome were buried and how they hid from persecution... could the catholic church persecute itself by itself...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catacombs

701ecilana:
Source pls. because the last i know the Church didn't have a name until the Roman Empire adopted it as a state religion. So pls, Sourse. Pls don't tell me to believe testimonies of people.

When Nero was killing Christians, were those Christians Catholics?

It did according to history.. The Church was called Catholic long before Christianity was legalized as a permitted by the Constantine... Constantine legalised Christianity in the Roman empire with the edict of Milan in 313..
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Milan

But 200 years before that Ignatius of Antioch who was bishop of Antioch in the early 100s.. history holds that he was a disciple of John...
he called the Church Catholic in his letter to the Smyrnaeans

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the
other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God.
Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

This was one of the seven letters he wrote on his way to Rome to be martyred in 107 AD
here are the seven letters
Seven Authentic Letters:
The Letter to the Ephesians ,
The Letter to the Magnesians ,
The Letter to the Trallians ,
The Letter to the Romans ,
The Letter to the Philadelphians ,
The Letter to the Smyrnaeans ,
The Letter to Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

otr1:
If you're talking about the 20th or 21st century syriac Church, I can relate with.
I'm talking about the Syriac church of the time following the time of the Apostles...before there is anything called catholic. I'm talking about the Syriac church of the 3rd century when Lucian edited the original greek NT manuscript (the Received Text). This edition preceeded the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Church. The wonderful man that did this job was never credited for it, just like many others. He and many others were never in agreement with any doctrine of the Catholic church. The fact that churches where they once lived now adopt catholic doctrines can not invalidate their labor.

the Syriac Church had a lot of things in common with the catholic Church..

They had same seven sacraments
They have same kind of Orders I.e. Bishops, priest and deacon..
They Believe in the Eucharist also...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Orthodox_Church
read their liturgy..

syrianorthodoxchurch.org/2010/03/the-seven-living-sacraments/

sor.cua.edu/Intro/

AND P.S. THERE WAS SOMETHING CALLED CATHOLIC IN THE 2ND CENTURY FOLLOWING THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES... Ignatius of Antioch is the first recorded to describe or call the church Catholic on his way to be martyred in Rome in his letter to the Smyrnaean Church..

Wherever the bishop appears,
there let the people be; as
wherever Jesus Christ is, there
is the Catholic Church. It is
not lawful to baptize or give
communion without the
consent of the bishop. On the
other hand, whatever has his
approval is pleasing to God.
Thus, whatever is done will be
safe and valid. — Letter to the
Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis
translation.

This happen in 107 AD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_to_the_Smyrnaeans

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

DoctorAlien:
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.

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..
col 4:12Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, saluteth you, always labouring fervently for you in prayers, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. 13For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.

if it was as you said then other epistles like Corinthians, Thessalonians etc would have such injunctions directly..

Lastly the gospels (Mathew, Mark, etc) were not letters addressed directly to any church ...

as for the old testament.. I also emphasized what you said ...all Jews accept the old testament and were expecting a saviour but they hold only to the old testament and reject the Christian new testament...

DoctorAlien:
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:.

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

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?

DoctorAlien:
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.

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...

DoctorAlien:
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.

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..

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such assola gratiaandsola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in theGerman-languageLuther Bibleto this day.[5]

Luther did not include thedeuterocanonical booksin his Old Testament, terming them "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."[4]He also argued unsuccessfully for the relocation of theBook of Estherfrom the canon to the Apocrypha, because without thedeuterocanonical additions to the Book of Esther, the text of Esther never mentions God.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C5018687969

[quote author=analice107 post=59842841][/quote]My dear.. yes the apostles wrote the epistles and gospels.. but who told that this epistle was written by Paul or Peter or James etc before you accepted it thousands of years later.. IT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.. Why were they selected is the question you should ask yourself because there are other books that are claimed to be written by the apostles ...

these are some examples

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts
of Pilate"
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem , On the Life and
the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims
to be according to Bartholomew )

And all these were rejected and decided by the Catholic Church at the council of Rome, Hippo and Carthage... almost 1300 years before any Protestant reformation..
Yes the Apostles were inspired and their Job of writing was very important... BUT SO IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR COMPILING THE RIGHT BOOKS BY THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.. otherwise you would be reading the Gospel of Peter, Questions of Bartholomew etc now

[quote author=analice107 post=59842841][/quote]My dear.. yes the apostles wrote the epistles and gospels.. but who told that this epistle was written by Paul or Peter or James etc before you accepted it thousands of years later.. IT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.. Why were they selected is the question you should ask yourself because there are other books that are claimed to be written by the apostles ...

these are some examples

Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts
of Pilate"
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem , On the Life and
the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims
to be according to Bartholomew )

And all these were rejected and decided by the Catholic Church at the council of Hippo and Carthage...

analice107:
Pls, can you tell us the Century the Bible got to Rome. Oh, what i mean is, when the Roman Catholicism was established as a state religion in Rome.

Pls for how many Centuries was the Bible locked up in Rome away from the reach of even some Priests?

Are you sure the Catholic Church intended for the entire human race to handle a Bible for themselves and see what it said about them personally?

Why then was the Bible hidden for Centuries until some Priests began secretly translating it into the languages of their people with the hope of them understanding it?

Do you know how many Bibles the Mother Church burnt together with those who translated them into different languages? would you say that was an attitude of a Church which wanted the Bible taken to People?

Was Christianity meant to remain in Rome? Why then did Catholicism held it down in Rome for Centuries until the Reformation broke through?

Are you sure Catholicism would have allowed Christianity to be a Creed of Liberty if the Reformers didn't make the move seriously paying with their own blood? Have you watched this movie " Juan of Arc?" you should watch it and see what Catholicism meant or intended for humanity.

You all blame King Henry the 8th for breaking out and starting The Anglican Communion, but, have you found time to know what led to that?

He was given a Bible which he read for himself, he saw what the Pope had always told him through the Bishop to be lies, lies and more lies. He saw he didn't have to pay the Papal indulgence to ascertain his redemption. He saw he didn't have to marry his late brothers wife if he didn't want to, contrary to what the Catholic Church wanted him to believe.

He saw he had the liberty to choose for himself whether or not to obey God.

Let me ask you this sir.

From when Catholicism began, to when the Reformation broke out, how many years were they?

From When The Reformation started to When the Catholic Church saw the need to spread to our African Continent, how many years was it?

Sir, if you believe Catholicism brought you the Bible, then you just believed a lie. But for the Reformation, the Bible would've remained locked up in an extinct Latin language, and inside some old cupboards only to be read to you by those who feel they have the right to control you by telling you only what they want you to hear and know.

The Catholic Church works against Christ. Jesus says, take the Good News to the Ends of the Earth, the Catholic Church wanted it locked up in Rome.


With this, The Catholic Church just affirms that it's stance is not consistent with what He whom they claim to follow commands.

Jesus says in Revelation 22:19 ...

Good News Translation Revelation 22:19 And if any take anything away from the prophetic words of this book, God will take away from them their share of the fruit of the tree of life and of the Holy City, which are described in this book.

The Catholic Church added these other books to enable them practice paganism.

Cc. UnchangeableGod

With all due respect to you... you have lied against the Church...
You get your information about the Catholic church from movies instead of real history... Interesting

Henry VIII broke away because he read the bible for himself and the catholic church wanted him to marry his brother's wife... THATS NOT WHAT HISTORY SAYS..

Henry is best known for his SIX MARRIAGES and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled.
His disagreement with the Pope on the
question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation , separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

This talks about his reason for breaking away.. and it doesn't mention reading the bible for himself...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England/Annulment from Catherine

At least from yo r post you agree that the Catholic Church compiled the bible since the say that the bible was at a time "only in Rome"
The Bible has been there since before the reformation with many Catholic clergy translating it into vernacular..

Sts Cyril and Methodius did it in 885 Almost 800 years before the Reformation ..
In England,
In 7th century Britain, before English was even a language, Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, paraphrased most of the Bible into the common tongue. During the early 8th century, St. Bede the Venerable also translated parts of the Bible into the language of the common British people. On his death bed in 735, he translated the Gospel of St. John. Also in this period, Bishop Eadhelm, Guthlac and Bishop Egbert worked on Saxon Bibles. During the 9th and 10th centuries, King Alfred the Great and Archbishop Aelfric worked on Anglo-Saxon (Old English) translations.

Sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cædmon/Work

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius

DoctorAlien:
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.

So the site is not impartial and excellent.. only its view on the Catholic church is
but its view on your doctrine is wrong

this is what other Christian sites have to say about your soul sleep doctrine including your "impartial and excellent" site...

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

https://carm.org/soul-sleep?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7762431838

https://www.gotquestions.org/soul-sleep.html?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C4349863025

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_127.cfm?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C9775796050

https://www.namb.net/apologetics/soul-sleep?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C1147952646

All of these are what Other Christian groups say..

you say the doctrine is false because it comes from the Catholic church but non of the sites above are catholic

DoctorAlien:
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

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..

DoctorAlien:
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?

You dont need to remove or add words to misinterpret...
Let's do it this way.. I don't have strength for quoting and typing.. So quote the passages for me ... and I will point out the error in exegeses..

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

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..