vivacious vivi:

For me that is not even the point, after all all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And Jesus himself forgave Peter and picked him as "the rock on which His church will stand". My issue is, they don't even know if its St. Peter's bones!!! It could be the bones of some rich dude or priest. Very funny bunch of people.

Very good point! They don't even know that the bones are those of the apostle Peter!

Even the OP says:

The church never officially declared the bones — which were discovered in the 1940s — authentic. But a series of exhaustive tests conducted on the bones between their discovery and 1968 convinced Pope Paul VI they had been "identified in a way we can hold to be convincing."

At the least that means they have plenty of doubts. It is clever speak --- but it is still speak that say we don't know for sure!

Crybaby is no longer ignoring my posts?

You see that your comprehension really really needs help now?

I can't even be bothered to explain beyond that!

Ubenedictus: Oh humour me! so florence had a canon, and becos everything in the council of trent was put to a vote with both proposing and opposing sides that necessaryly implies that all that was put to a vote were previously unknown? Even though florence already had a canon u will still tell us dat d canon at trent was new and previously unknown?

Bros, but why are you lying so much today? Even your own Roman Catholic scholars and officials say that Florence did not set a canon --- as I showed you in the past!


Anyway, let us even work with the lie that Florence set a canon.

1. Florence was in 1442 i.e. it was in the 15th century: why then did the Roman Catholics need to vote on their canon 100 years later at Trent?

2. Why did several bishops not recognise the supposed Florence "canon" at Trent and why did they vote against what Florence had supposedly set?

3. If you say Florence set a canon --- then you confirm that Roman Catholics are lying when they say that they had set the canon in the 4th century!

4. If Roman Catholics had set the canon in the 4th century why was Florence (sounds like name of my dundu seller!) still needing to set the canon in the 15th century?

5. Why was neither the supposed 4th century canon or the Florence canon of the 15th century enough and there was still the need to VOTE at Trent in the 16th century?

^^^ Sorry, bros your comprehension is still faulty; otherwise you'd know that there is a difference between reported and "produced a report"!

Meanwhile, my post was on topic because the discussion that it followed was on the categorisation of "sin". See, you still need to work on that comprehension in all honesty!

There you go with that poor comprehension again or are you just lying again?

What did we discuss about Florence on the other thread?

Did Florence set a canon?

Was there a vote to decide the Roman Catholic canon at Trent or not?

Was the vote on the Roman CAtholic Bible and that it should include the Apocrypha not - 24 in favour, 15 against,
16 abstained?

Is that vote not an indication that a huge proportion of Roman Catholic bishops of the era of even Trent in the 16th century did not believe the Apocrypha to be in the canon?

Does that not show that Roman Catholics are liars if they say they had set the canon in the 4th century --- if their own bishops did not think so? Even their "pope" Gregory I did not think so!

And is that not the point I had made on this thread? And finally, was Florence (or Laodicea or Trullo) necessary for me to make my point on this thread?

I reported an allegation. Your comprehension is still not up to par for you to understand that?

Let me help you: provide the document with which Peter ordained Clement. You are a LIAR if you make that claim unless you can produce the document where Peter said he ordained Clement.

^^^ You have become a clear liar now, quite sadly. Like me and you did not discuss the "Council" of Florence on another thread?

OK let me play your game then! Somehow you seem ignorant of the role of the Synod of Laodicea and the Council of Trullo on the matter of Bible canons.

Or you think I'm unaware of those too since I haven't yet brought them up? Yeyeful!

Oh yes, you accused me clearly enough --- calling me big liar.

As I said, I attribute this to your comprehension. And of course if your comprehension was up to par you will realise that what I did was report an accusation made against Boniface VIII. Try and understand that.

If I myself want to "accuse" or even finish Boniface, I have much stronger stuff for that.

Ubenedictus: and you are the saint who posted supposed scandalous words without proof and make accusers your source of information.
Weldone, brainy guy.

And you are the one lying against me with slander and false accusation.

Well done, poor comprehension guy!

Ubenedictus: provide d document where he wrote d above.
If u can't then u are a big liar like his accusers.

Work on your comprehension and ability to read.

Until we see evidence that you have attained a decent level of comprehension then you are a biiig false accuser by your post directed at me.

"... there is no more harm in adultery than in rubbing your hands together."

Per "pope" Boniface VIII (of Unam Sanctam fame) as alleged by his accusers at his abandoned trial.

i.chuka:

Nice post bro!!

Thanks jare, my brother. These things are actually matters of fact that can be easily confirmed.

joel lala:
The funny thing is that the people that tend to know much about catholicism are not even catholics..

Because Roman Catholic apologists are either brainwashed mumus or liars who close their eyes to truth and prefer to dwell in the muck of falsehoods!

Zikky bros, I jos nefa sure say I go dey Naija for Christmas odawise I go say make we try chop ram togeda.

Roman Catholic Bible is Roman Catholic Bible. They made it in the 16th century in 1546 AD at the Council of Trent. And they were confused about the matter such that the majority of the bishops voting could not even support what is today's Roman Catholic Bible. Here is one I made earlier .....
-------------------------------

Interestingly, when the Roman Catholics made their own Bible and declared the Apocrypha of equal status with the recognised OT books they were even confused first about their own preexisting Vulgate. Secondly, during the decision which was as recent as the 16th century i.e. in 1546 at the Council of Trent, many of the Roman Catholics voting did not even agree that the so-called 'Deuterocanonicals' i.e. the Apocrypha should be part of the canonical books.

What a lot of people don't know is how the vote of the Roman Catholic representatives/bishops went, which is as follows:

Those in favour of the eventual Roman Catholic Bible = 24
Those against the eventual Roman Catholic Bible = 15
Those who abstained from voting at all = 16

Please note the significance: of those who voted to decide on the Roman Catholic Bible only 24 supported against 31 who could not support it (out of which 15 were clearly against it)!

Again, this confirms that Roman Catholics are lying anytime they say they had made the canon in the 4th century. In the 16th century when they were making their own canon, even bishops from among them (possibly the majority) did NOT believe the Apocrypha to be canonical. And a clear example is Luther's Roman Catholic antagonist i.e. "Cardinal" Cajetan who in that same 16th century confirmed that Christians did not believe the Apocrypha to be canonical. Many other Roman Catholics of that era and even eras before did not even believe the Apocrypha to be canonical e.g. Erasmus, "pope" Gregory I, Jerome etc.

Another thing, the (majority?) of the Roman Catholics who couldn't support the eventual Roman Catholic Bible at Trent in the 16th century must have been aware that historically Christians had always refused to accept the Apocrypha as canonical or at least as truly or fully canonical. Most of the "church fathers" of that very 4th century did NOT believe the Apocrypha to be canonical. This is particularly true of the "church fathers" who were NOT Roman Catholic and is exemplified by Athanasius whose list even comes before anything the Roman Catholics can produce in that 4th century! The position of other "church fathers" of that era is well known and their own statements on the Apocrypha can easily be produced. Even Roman Catholics of the era of the 4th century like Jerome did NOT believe the Apocrypha to be canonical.

Thanks to the Christians who compiled the Bible even before there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church, and thanks to other wiser Christians through the ages, Christians (mostly in the West at least) today have a Bible/canon which is essentially the same as Christians in the late 1st century and early second century.

If we no see Agege bread, maybe we will see 'pure water'?

John 7

37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.


Ah, but Bible tell us say no be 'pure water' now! Jesus actual meant --- the Spirit!

Ah, I see! It is a spiritual thing!

From another one made earlier!

On Jesus as literal bread, how about John 6:51 --- "I am the living bread that came down from heaven".

I don't know oooo and maybe it is just me but somehow somehow it just does not seem that Jesus is talking about slice, jija, or Agege bread or even wafer in that passage!

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Ignatius' own very Church is --- anathema!

#doubleface

Well look, I am going to add this quote of Jerome from his Letter/Epistle 146 also jare.

In fact again, I am taking it from a Roman Catholic source. Two notes on that: (a) the Roman Catholics can't deny it but they don't like it, since it effectively contradicts the idea of papacy, so they put a slightly disparaging preface to it on their site, and (b) this translation seems to have done some polishing and e.g. seems to have removed reference to 'barbarous nations' which I've seen in some other translations.

Anyway from here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

"It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside. Gaul and Britain, Africa and Persia, India and the East worship one Christ and observe one rule of truth. If you ask for authority, the world outweighs its capital. Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one. Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles. "

Actually, it will be interesting among Christians to consider exactly what a "bishop" is as we understand from the Bible. On other occasions, many of us have pointed out that the biblical pattern is of a group of elders and that these elders are also called "bishops" and also called "presbyters". It has been pointed out that these terms are used interchangeably in the Bible.

What this means is that the idea of having one bishop lording it over everyone else and having people kiss his ring etc and other such nonsense is not really biblical.

Meanwhile don't you just love Jerome the "church father" sometimes! He has extensive quotes on this bishop/elder/presbyter matter. For now, I will only post a very very small part of what he had to say on the matter.

"A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up.

Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians ......"

As far as Christians are concerned, there is only ONE Church! That Church is the Church of Christ also known as the Christian Church.

This Christian Church can be traced back to the day of Pentecost and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. On that date there was no such thing as "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church! Those ones were invented some 100 years or even hundreds of years later.

On the other hand because of the teachings of Christ and of the apostles, Christians know that the Church of Christ is universal - encompassing Christians of all eras and of all places. It is in this sense that Christians claim that the Christian Church is indeed --- catholic. The Christian Church is catholic with a small c -- meaning that it is universal.

Roman Catholics like to say, and some of us are ready to agree, that the Christian Church or the catholic Church is different from the Roman Catholic Church or even "the Catholic Church".

Even Roman Catholics officially concede that the whole celebration of the birth of Christ and the 25th December brouhaha started in Africa and the East!

The Roman Catholic denomination people's own very encyclopaedia says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03724b.htm

(Note that 6 January in Julian Calendar still used by some Christians is the same as 25th December in our Western Gregorian calendar.)

"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts ....

The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I.21) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January).

At any rate this double commemoration became popular, partly because the apparition to the shepherds was considered as one manifestation of Christ's glory, and was added to the greater manifestations celebrated on 6 January ....

Abraham Ecchelensis (Labbe, II, 402) quotes the Constitutions of the Alexandrian Church for a dies Nativitatis et Epiphaniæ in Nicæan times; Epiphanius (Hær., li, ed. Dindorf, 1860, II, 483) quotes an extraordinary semi-Gnostic ceremony at Alexandria in which, on the night of 5-6 January, a cross-stamped Korê was carried in procession round a crypt, to the chant, "Today at this hour Korê gave birth to the Eternal"; John Cassian records in his "Collations" (X, 2 in P.L., XLIX, 820), written 418-427, that the Egyptian monasteries still observe the "ancient custom"; but on 29 Choiak (25 December) and 1 January, 433, Paul of Emesa preached before Cyril of Alexandria, and his sermons (see Mansi, IV, 293; appendix to Act. Conc. Eph.) show that the December celebration was then firmly established there, and calendars prove its permanence. The December feast therefore reached Egypt between 427 and 433."

Coming back to Christmas and the 25th of December. Actually, there is strong argument in the literature that it wasn't really the Roman Catholics who were particularly responsible for the choice of that date. Rather it was again other Christians (or at least more likely so) --- especially African Christians and Christians in the East --- rather than Roman Catholics.

From here http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/how-december-25-became-christmas/

"The December 25 feast seems to have existed before 312—before Constantine and his conversion, at least. As we have seen, the Donatist Christians in North Africa seem to have known it from before that time. Furthermore, in the mid- to late fourth century, church leaders in the eastern Empire concerned themselves not with introducing a celebration of Jesus’ birthday, but with the addition of the December date to their traditional celebration on January 6.

There is another way to account for the origins of Christmas on December 25: Strange as it may seem, the key to dating Jesus’ birth may lie in the dating of Jesus’ death at Passover. This view was first suggested to the modern world by French scholar Louis Duchesne in the early 20th century and fully developed by American Thomas Talley in more recent years. But they were certainly not the first to note a connection between the traditional date of Jesus’ death and his birth.

Around 200 C.E. Tertullian of Carthage reported the calculation that the 14th of Nisan (the day of the crucifixion according to the Gospel of John) in the year Jesus died was equivalent to March 25 in the Roman (solar) calendar. March 25 is, of course, nine months before December 25; it was later recognized as the Feast of the Annunciation—the commemoration of Jesus’ conception. Thus, Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25.

This idea appears in an anonymous Christian treatise titled On Solstices and Equinoxes, which appears to come from fourth-century North Africa. The treatise states: “Therefore our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March [March 25], which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on that day he was conceived on the same he suffered.”11 Based on this, the treatise dates Jesus’ birth to the winter solstice."

Again, from one I made earlier.

First of all, let us even go back to the Apostles. The apostles never heard of "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic church denomination. They only knew the Church of Christ aka the Christian Church.

The "church fathers" who lived before 110 AD never heard of "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic church denomination. It was not until 110 AD if not even later that Ignatius used the expression "catholic Church".

Now watch this: even Ignatius who coined the expression "catholic Church" did not know of "the Catholic Church" let alone the Roman Catholic church denomination.

Even more interesting, the Roman Catholic church denomination have declared the church of Ignatius as anathema --- yet they are stealing and misusing the word "catholic" that he coined.

When Ignatius coined the expression "catholic Church", he meant universal Church; he did not believe in any "pope". Remember that "catholic" according to Roman Catholics means submission to the Roman catholic "pope". Ignatius did not know or even know of that particular monstrosity.

According to Ignatius, each bishop of whatever church is equal to any other bishop. The bishop of Yaba is equal to the bishop of Oyingbo is equal to the bishop of Bariga and is equal to the bishop of Rome. In fact, we can say what he meant by "bishop" was not much different from "parish priest" or "head of congregation".

It was not till much later that some people turned Ignatius' catholic i.e. universal Church into something else that they called "the Catholic Church" and which much later in AD380 (over about 300 years after Ignatius coined the word 'catholic') that they used the law to say that only some people can call themselves "Catholic".

NOTE in the context of this thread: the reason why some insisted on being the only ones to be called "Catholic" even then was ----- denominationalism. In other words, even in those days they created denominations because of their theological differences.

From one I made earlier

For a start, the Roman Catholic church denomination calls itself ---- the Roman Catholic Church, or even simply the Roman Church.

The last two or three "popes" all did it. Their Church documents do it; and even when they announced the current "pope" they did it.

Of course it is fair for other knowledgeable people to call them what they are ---- no matter their Wikipedia propaganda. So whether it is Roman, Roman Catholic, Romish or even papist --- they are all these things. They are especially "papist" because they place their "popes" above Jesus Christ and agree with their "popes" when the "popes" say only those who submit to the "pope" can be saved! What Jesus Christ said ---- does not matter to them of course. Common idolaters!

Ignatius was NOT a Roman Catholic!

Ignatius could not have been a Roman Catholic because he did not believe in such monstrosity as "the Pope" or the "papacy".

Ignatius' own very Church is currently declared by Roman Catholics to be --- anathema!

According to Roman Catholics, even Ignatius' Church is now also not part of "the Catholic Church" --- even though it was Ignatius of that Church who coined the word "catholic". So it is no disgrace if Roman Catholics say "you are not part of the Catholic Church". They are deceiving themselves!

The Roman Catholics are always fraudulently trying to claim things done by "the Catholic Church" or even by the catholic aka the universal Church.

Ubenedictus: It seems oga enigma forgot d topic at hand.
@enigma, it seems u speak with a bit hate hidden under d tongue, for some time now all u see among catholic are liars and fraudsters, even in a thread with d above topic ur accusations seem more important than addressing d op, it gives d impression dat u hate.

It seems to me that you are a quite dishonest person or you are selectively blind. You did not see that I was responding to a specific post and the specific point made in the post. And you did not see the post I responded to as off topic even though my post was in respect of the point made in the post. You are not honest enough to recognise that if my post was off topic, then the post I responded to must have also been off topic.

But of course I know why you are blind or choose to be blind: because the post I responded to was spreading the same lies and fraudulent claims that Roman Catholics are trying to hoodwink people with.

You are also blind to the fact that Roman Catholics also abandon the topic of the OP on several threads to spread the lies and fraudulent claims. You only see the people who counter the lies and fraud as going off topic.

I do not mind one bit if you accuse me of going off topic. If Roman Catholics spread lies and fraud, these should be countered and in my case I counter the lies --- with facts.

By the way, you are also blind to the hatred shown by your fellow Roman Catholics and accuse me of "hate"! Well, I have "hate" of course ---- for lies and fraud. I have NO "hate" for Roman Catholics as people; my hatred is for falsehood and fraud.

And of course you also conveniently forget all the time I was begging you Roman Catholic people that we should try to remain cordial --- except that inability to face the truth made some of your fellow Roman Catholics turn to crybabies spewing hatred.

E don tey when 'Catholics, non-Catholic Christians, Orunmila worshipper...' etc don dey point out say Roman Catholics and their "popes" are worse than lie lie!

Hear someone who saw some of the Roman Catholic "popes" up close!

"The nearer the people are to the Church of Rome, which is the head of our religion, the less religious are they. Whoever examines the gap between the principles upon which the Christian religion was founded and their present application by the Church will judge that her ruin and chastisement are near at hand.

The evil example of the court of Rome has destroyed all piety and religion in Italy, resulting in infinite mischief and disorders, which keep our country divided and are the cause of our ruin…, This barbarous domination stinks in the nostrils of everyone." (Machiavelli)

The guy even sabi say there is a gap between Christianity and the Roman Catholic "Church"!

Ah, my crybaby is sooo desperate to clutch at any straw! Now he is drawing succour from an atheist who recognises that the Roman Catholics are forgers and fraudsters.

Crybaby's desperation and his fraud in the footsteps of the Roman Catholic master forgers and fraudster "fathers" prevents him from noticing things like the below in the post he quoted as well as other statements of his new found provider of succour!

A selection of statements by my crybaby's new found champion

The Bible was compiled by Romans and modified by some other Romans who had claimed catholism

Romans were also the ones who compiled the Hebrew Bible and Tanakh(holy book of judaism)

Original Jesus wasn't a Messiah of salvation for the world, he was honored by his apostles as Messiah of the Jews
Catholics have re-edited the Bible to seem as if dat was Jesus mission from the beginning

Jesus failed to be the Messiah of the Jews and in a bid to use a living man as a figure for brainwash and political influence the Romans re-edited the books of certain early Christians, some were even working for them.

A lot of people have been revealing the conspiracy of the church for centuries.

To be honest, now I am feeling quite sorry for my crybaby and having some pity for him; the latest act of desperation betrays the depth of pain my crybaby is suffering from the exposure of the lies and fraud that are at the heart of Roman Catholicism.

Anyway sha, I still have more lollipops to give my crybaby!

Eze Promoe:
Catholic has its own standard bible which also contains the Deuterocanonical books, but the ones used by the Protestant churches was originally translated from the Hebrew manuscripts by King James II, a protestant (precisely Anglican)

Interestingly, when the Roman Catholics made their own Bible and declared the Apocrypha of equal status with the recognised OT books they were even confused first about their own preexisting Vulgate. Secondly, during the decision which was as recent as the 16th century i.e. in 1546 at the Council of Trent, many of the Roman Catholics voting did not even agree that the so-called 'Deuterocanonicals' i.e. the Apocrypha should be part of the canonical books.

What a lot of people don't know is how the vote of the Roman Catholic representatives/bishops went, which is as follows:

Those in favour of the eventual Roman Catholic Bible = 24
Those against the eventual Roman Catholic Bible = 15
Those who abstained from voting at all = 16

Please note the significance: of those who voted to decide on the Roman Catholic Bible only 24 supported against 31 who could not support it (out of which 15 were clearly against it)!

Again, this confirms that Roman Catholics are lying anytime they say they had made the canon in the 4th century. In the 16th century when they were making their own canon, even bishops from among them (possibly the majority) did NOT believe the Apocrypha to be canonical. And a clear example is Luther's Roman Catholic antagonist i.e. "Cardinal" Cajetan who in that same 16th century confirmed that Christians did not believe the Apocrypha to be canonical. Many other Roman Catholics of that era and even eras before did not even believe the Apocrypha to be canonical e.g. Erasmus, "pope" Gregory I, Jerome etc.

Another thing, the (majority?) of the Roman Catholics who couldn't support the eventual Roman Catholic Bible at Trent in the 16th century must have been aware that historically Christians had always refused to accept the Apocrypha as canonical or at least as truly or fully canonical. Most of the "church fathers" of that very 4th century did NOT believe the Apocrypha to be canonical. This is particularly true of the "church fathers" who were NOT Roman Catholic and is exemplified by Athanasius whose list even comes before anything the Roman Catholics can produce in that 4th century! The position of other "church fathers" of that era is well known and their own statements on the Apocrypha can easily be produced. Even Roman Catholics of the era of the 4th century like Jerome did NOT believe the Apocrypha to be canonical.

Thanks to the Christians who compiled the Bible even before there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church, and thanks to other wiser Christians through the ages, Christians (mostly in the West at least) today have a Bible/canon which is essentially the same as Christians in the late 1st century and early second century.

^^^ Even some of their Roman Catholic "fathers" take a similar attitude as the Eastern Orthodox people that all the bishops are equal and, not only that, that they are also all successors of Peter.

Just one example (of many):

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." - Jerome

Obviously such people were familiar with Ephesians 2

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.