Indeed, when Roman Catholic denomination people claim that they "compiled" the bible they are either ignorant or they are being deliberate liars.

The Roman Catholic Church did not finalise its own "Bible" till the 16th century at its Council of Trent.

Meanwhile Christians had already "compiled" the books of the Christian Bible by the end of the 1st century and very early 2nd century.

Some interesting questions arising from a Roman Catholic song/hymn!

1. Does Mary dispense (i.e. grant or distribute) heaven's blessings?
2. Do "all our graces flow through" Mary?

(From the Roman Catholic song 'Daily Daily Sing to Mary')

Advocate and loving mother,
Mediatrix of all grace:
Heaven's blessings she dispenses
On our sinful human race.

All our graces flow through Mary;
All then join her praise to sing:
Fairest work of all creation,
Mother of creation's King.

OLAADEGBU:

You have just exposed yourself as one of the accuser of the brethren. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

Did your "brethren" say or not say that non-tithers should be shot dead (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a proper tither to go to hell?

Did you disagree with him?


So, no I am no accuser of the "brethren". Rather, I am trying to hold supposed brethren to account on a matter that concerns all of us.

By the way I still take it that you teach the same thing as your new-found chief theologian.

^^^ When you are ready, you will disown what your new-found chief theologian said. Until then I am going to take it that you and your new chief theologian teach that non-tithers should be shot dead (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who tithes properly to go to hell!

OLAADEGBU:

You don't have to be invidious. Where did I say that non-tithers should be shot dead?

Your new-found chief theologian said so; it is there above and you have turned down the chance to disagree with him.

Until you state your stance I will take it that your position is the same as that of your new found chief theologian and that you and your new chief theologian teach that non-tithers should be shot dead (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who tithes properly to go to hell!

OLAADEGBU:

Don't be a rapscallion. You should have fully answered my objections and wait for me to answer yours.

You cannot answer the question! What is more, you were never going to answer the question. I think that is pretty clear.

Again, I say now the world knows that you and your new chief theologian teach that non-tithers should be shot dead (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who tithes properly to go to hell!

Please NOTE that I will always shove this in your face; if you guys like call it "spamming" just as with Oyaks own. (In fact later we will dig up the one of the head honcho "Daddy G.O." too)

OLAADEGBU:

How did I discern that you were only shedding crocodile tears when you said that you were sorry?

Now the world knows that you and your new chief theologian teach that non-tithers should be shot dead (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who tithes properly to go to hell!

Well done!

Candour:

My bro, I was actually surprised you expected him to display any honesty on this issue.

The truth is that he didn't know that Creflo Dollar was also a terrorist who won't hesitate to kill to collect tithes. If he knew, sure he wouldn't have used him as support.

Now that it backfired, the only thing to do is avoidance. I can assure you he'll be more circumspect when picking tithe partners henceforth.

Bros, I was deliberately trying to give him as much room as possible. I think the fact that I gave him at least three attempts and that he dodged cowardly on each occasion seems pretty clear. He has by himself and his own actions exhibited himself --- at least on this particular matter.

^^ It's a pity. Of course I knew you would dodge. NID

It is terrible to be so unprincipled --- and now your Dollar man friend has let you down.

It is truly pathetic and you have proven to be a complete let down.

Adios!

OLAADEGBU: It is not just a matter of saying sorry, you must demonstrate to us that you are truly sorry by explaining to us how the references he quoted justifies his point.

OK: firstly, my understanding of his point is limited because you only posted one video; I have checked on Youtube and there are at least six videos if not more of that "The Two Tithing Systems".

What I understand is this, if we honour God by following His word, He will give us "the blessing".

OK, once again I have accepted that you used Mr. Dollar to demonstrate " a truth" or "the truth"; and once again I have apologised to you about the matter.

Now I say again:

OK, now that is out of the way: what do YOU have to say about his statements on shooting non-tithers (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who is tithing properly to go to hell?

OLAADEGBU: You are yet to explain to us whether you agree with the truth about honouring God in the references he quoted and you want me to comment on what he said elsewhere? You dey try.

OK I agree about honouring God.

Remember also that I have already accepted and even apologised that you used Creflo Dollar for "a truth" or "the truth"!

Now I say again:

OK, now that is out of the way: what do YOU have to say about his statements on shooting non-tithers (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who is tithing properly to go to hell?

OLAADEGBU: The thread is about "Tithes and Offering," not just "tithes" or Individuals like Creflo Dollar. What did you have to say about the truth he said in the videolinks I posted?

OK, I have now watched the video. Although I am not sure what exactly you are referring to by "the truth he said in the videolinks", I am willing to take your word for it that he said "the truth". Ok, I will not challenge "the truth".

In fact, I will go beyond the above and also say this: I apologise to you since you used Creflo Dollar to demonstarte a "truth" or "the truth".

OK, now that is out of the way: what do YOU have to say about his statements on shooting non-tithers (but for the blood of Jesus) and that it is impossible for a person who is tithing properly to go to hell?

OLAADEGBU:

Deal with the message and not the messenger for now.

This thread is about "tithes"! So, what do you have to say about Creflo Dollar's statements on tithing in my post above including shooting people (but for the blood of Christ) and do you agree with him that a person who tithes properly cannot go to 'hell'?

^^^ As for me, I know the difference between Paul's statements above and the manner of reliance on Creflo Dollar on this thread.

I will just say let us agree to disagree.

Bros, I am telling you the truth that each time my mind goes back to remembering that our friends are using Creflo Dollar in that way on this thread, I literally shake my head -- even in my privacy!

^^^ You see am? Thank you oh!

For the benefit of those who might not understand why some of us were perplexed that Olaadegbu and supporters are relying on Creflo Dollar of all people perhaps we should put a couple of things in perspective --- and hear from the mouths of Creflo Dollar himself.

Please note and understand what is to follow:
1. Creflo Dollar says (or maybe 'jokes') that "but for the blood of Jesus" non-tithers should be lined up with the rest shouting "crook, crook, crook" and then shot dead!
2. Creflo Dollar says that it is impossible to go to 'hell' if you are a tither!

Part transcript and video follow:

"Now, you know, we’re under the Blood of Jesus, so we can’t shoot and stone people like we used to. All we have to do is repent and God will forgive us and take us where we need to be. But I can tell you, man, if it wasn’t for the Blood, there’d be a whole lot of us being stoned and being in Hell right now over the tithe. But for ["if not for"?] the Blood of Jesus, we’d be doomed.

I mean, I thought about when we first built “The Dome,” I wanted to put some of those little moving bars and give everybody a little card. They’d stick it in a little computer slot. If they were tithing, beautiful music would go off and, you know, ... “Welcome, welcome, welcome to the World Dome.”

But…if they were non-tithers, the bar would lock up ... the red and blue lights would start going, the siren would go off, and a voice would go out throughout the entire dome, “Crook, crook, crook, crook!” Security would go and apprehend them, and once we got them all together, we’d line them up in the front and pass out Uzis by the ushers and point our Uzis right at all those non-tithing members ’cause we want God to come to church, and at the count of three “Jesus”-es we’d shoot them all dead. And then we’d take them out the side door there, have a big hole, bury them, and then go ahead and have church and have the anointing.

Aren’t you glad we’re under the Blood of Jesus? Because if we were not under the Blood of Jesus, I would certainly try it. Folks, this is a serious thing."



"If you take time to tithe the tithe correctly, it is impossible to go to hell."

And more crazy stuff e.g. you can only get healing, prosperity etc through the tithe!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM3BWAmlXis

adsonstone:

100% correct! especially the one in the brackets.

Thats what has been happening all this while.....different forms of twists and diversions.

You must have studied these people.

My bros, I like to defend all Christian traditions and ordinarily I like to defend even Roman Catholics!

But how can I call myself a Christian and be defending clear fraud? Unfortunately, the Roman Catholics are perpetrating fraud and spreading LIES!

What is then worse they are using these lies and fraud to claim some "authority" or "primacy" in Christianity! Well, even if we want to leave them to be deceiving themselves with their lies and fraud, we cannot allow them to be smearing the rest of us!

adsonstone:

The bold is a lie. I never said that they dont see him as peter's successor, I mentioned that they have theirs who they also believe to be Peter's direct successor.
.....and if thats true, who exactly is the true successor?
Theirs or yours?

Actually, the early "church fathers" (including even the ones that can be said to be Roman Catholic) generally believed that each and every bishop and which in fact extends to each and every priest as head of a congregation is a successor of Peter!

Read these parts of a wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter#Eastern_Orthodox_view

and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter#Keys_and_rock_not_exclusive_to_Peter

(Hopefully the Roman Catholic propagandists will not be allowed to completely manipulate and distort those parts; they are very active at Internet/Wikipedia propaganda, I tell ye!)

"In this traditional Orthodox and Patristic view, the Church is the local Eucharistic assembly ("the diocese" in today's terminology) and the one who holds the "Chair of Peter" (St. Cyprian's expression) is the bishop. As a result, the primacy of Peter is relevant to the relationship between the bishop and the presbyters, not between the bishop of Rome and the other bishops who are all equally holding Peter's chair."


"Consequently, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the unique successor of St. Peter and consider him to be in a state of schism and heresy. However, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople sends a delegation each year to Rome to participate in the celebration of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul.

The Orthodox also consider that St. Linus, not Peter, was actually the first Bishop of Rome."


If necessary we can quote from the "church fathers" themselves to show that they believed that all "bishops" are direct successors of Peter.

adsonstone:


How many doctrines are there??
The ones I listed are major ones.
They are sufficient to be tagged 'numerous' but the little you listed is not yet 99.99999% as you claim.

Besides, I referred you to Enigma if you wanted more (he has a lot more) and to be educated about these things because that's not what I'm here for.

They are just using all of that as diversionary tactics --- and of course introducing more lies or subtly misleading statements. They are just unable to avoid being fraudulent; the thing is simply an integral part of Roman Catholicism as they need it because they cannot stand or abide the truth.

In fact, I like my main example: Jesus says, "I am the Way" and "No one comes to the Father except through me"

Roman Catholicism says, "No one can be saved except s/he submits to the Roman Catholic 'pope'"?

Do you really think that any honest Christian can defend that --- especially without resort to some fraud (and specifically to the fraud of twisting the Bible)?

Oh by the way why don't we throw in one more thing that the Eastern Orthodox do not agree with the Roman Catholic denomination people about? ------------- "Original Sin"!

DrummaBoy:

Do you have to descend so low as to use Creflo Dollar to lend credence to this fraudulent practice of tithing?

Do you remember that on a good day the Deeper Life Church will not share fellowship with a Creflo Dollar; except, of course, in tithing.

And, when you could not find anymore scriptures to twist, you resort to the Chief Prosperity Gospeller of America, Dollar, a man named after Mammon itself and who has remained true to his name, to justify tithing. ............

I could not believe my eyes!

Honestly, I thought my eyes were deceiving me!

Creflo Dollar, Creflo Dollar, I mean Creflo Dollar !!!!!!!!!!!!

O pari!

^^^ And I will continue to do the same thing. Those who find it helpful will find it helpful and those who see it as beating about the bush can suck it.

^^^ If you think so.

On that thread, even your Roman Catholic brother was begging me to explain things to him --- specifically including the passage on baptism for the dead.

I see now that you too are now completely "falling hand" --- I guess my posts are hitting home and the truth is hurting.

However NO apologies! If Roman Catholics lie, they will have to suck it if the lie is exposed. QED

Sal C: Lol... Enigma na my own separated brother. Since am involved, I trust he will be sincere for once.

Enigma no fall my hand oo.
*waiting*

Ah, here is another thing you have got wrong! I am not your "separated" brother. Make you find your "separated" brother go forward!

It is either I am your brother or I am not your brother.

It is a pity that many of you do not know the root of some of these things that some mumu ogas at the top of Roman Catholics are making you people say and which you people are repeating thoughtlessly, I'm very sorry to say. At least it is an improvement on "heretic" or "schismatic" which in truth is what they say you are supposed to call us and which is still in your books even though one slightly better fellow came up with the idea of "separated brethren".

Sal C: I've known you and your style for quite some time now so don't try to use those pranks here. You dodged my question and want me to answer yours.

Well irrespective of who practiced it, we cannot deny that it was practiced and Paul made reference to it. Now can you be sincere enough to answer that simple question begging for an honest answer?

I see you are learning techniques and even language from your Roman catholic denomination brothers! Interesting. In fact I notice that one of them, who is also one of my crybabies, has already jumped on your post.

You'd better be careful or soon you too will be lying ok saying that you do not read my posts.

OK to your point: first I will let you in on a little secret --- I do not even know what question of yours you are referring to and I did not even bother to go back and check after reading your post. That is how serious (NOT!) I take whatever questions you guys might have been posing.

However, just to let you know that I fear no question you may pose and for the benefit of anyone who genuinely has questions about baptism for the dead, I already gave a link to an old thread earlier. On that thread I made a number of posts that extensively addressed the passage in which the apostle Paul mentioned baptism for the dead. You can start from the following link and also read my subsequent posts https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point#11789828

And talking of pot calling kettle black, obviously you guys have no answers to the various questions and points I raised about the false and fraudulent claims made by Roman Catholics on various things and of course you would not then comment on the various tactics used by your brothers to avoid answering them.

Let me throw one at you --- and of course in fairness I do not expect you to answer it or to answer it here. I just want it to prick your conscience.

If the Roman Catholic church denomination "canonised" the Bible in the 4th century, how come the Roman Catholic "pope" Gregory I did not know about it in the 5th and 6th centuries?

Sal C: Nobody is suggesting anything, you will do well by giving an answer to that question.

If people are baptized for the dead, where are the dead?

You too want to dodge? lol

You will have to address:
1. who was doing baptism for the dead?
2. Do Roman Catholic denomination people believe in baptism for the dead?

adsonstone:

oga, calm down nau.

Hope you can mention the 99.999999% of doctrines you both agree on, if you cant, keep quiet....and if you can, go ahead and list them.

The few I mentioned make up the major differences and its greater than 0.00001% (which already makes you a liar).
If you need more, Enigma will give you.

....and as I said, list out the 99.99999% of same doctrines that you claim you have.

Of course the ones you have mentioned have already debunked the claim that Roman Catholics like to peddle about the Orthodox. And considering that this thread is about purgatory*, the examples you gave have already knocked down the falsehood.

I can give more but I'm going to make that discussion one of my timing but just to demonstrate it I give just one here: immaculate conception.

*PS I personally wouldn't bother to argue with the Roman Catholic people about doctrines which are uniquelv and exclusively theirs. If they want to believe in such stuff as purgatory, "immaculate conception" and "assumption of Mary", I leave them to all that.

It is when they make false claims concerning all of us that I can be bothered with them e.g. someone lying patently that the apostles practised baptism for the dead.; oh, and resorting to further lies to cover up.

It is interesting that the Roman Catholic denomination people now seem to be contradicting one another on baptism for the dead unless I'm missing something.

In the past, one said that the Roman Catholic church denomination does not "condone" baptism for the dead (see link above). On this thread, another seems to be suggesting that it is a practise of the church!

So which is it? Do Roman Catholics believe in baptism for the dead or not?

An Eastern Orthodox view on the Apocrypha or "deuterocanonicals" ---- they are not canonical but can be read -------- different from the position of Roman Catholics BUT exactly the same view as many so-called "Protestants" --- as reflected in even the KJV for yonks!

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/39/

Question Number 39:

What is the Old Testament canon of the Orthodox Church? Is the Apocrypha recognized as canonical?


ANSWER:
The Orthodox Old Testament includes both canonical (or protocanonical) books and supplemental books which are not considered canonical (i.e. protocanonical) but deuterocanonical or in Greek Anaginoskomena ("to be read" ).

Deuterocanonical is used here in a sense that is different than the Roman Catholic sense. In Roman Catholic terminology, "deuterocanonical" means approved later but with the same canonical authority. In the Orthodox use, "deuterocanonical" means having secondary authority, but useful and part of the Biblical library (no Orthodox Bible would not contain them). The Scriptures testify to Jesus Christ and since neither Protestants nor Jews recognize these Scriptures, their power to serve as witness is inferior. However, they are read in the Orthodox churches and have great value.

This view is faithful to the position of the earliest Christians (i.e. Justin, Origen) as well as the distinction connected with Athanasius and other important Fathers.

People, be careful and don't allow yourselves to be misled by Roman Catholic denomination people.

What the 1 Corinthian passage says is that some people were being baptised for or on behalf of the dead --- NOT that the dead were being baptised!

What is more. the passage does not say that those who were being baptised "for the dead" were themselves Christians --- and many commentators believe that Paul was talking about pagan practises that the Corinthian Christians could see around them.

This matter was discussed previously here https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point#11786932

Actually, on that thread one of them said the apostles and Paul especially Paul practised baptism for the dead. When he was refuted he then said that the Roman Catholic church too does not condone it. https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/1#11790863

Meanwhile here is a Roman Catholic Bible version on the concerned passage

Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? (Douay-Rheims)


And here, some other versions

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? (NIV)

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? (ESV)

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (NASB)

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? (KJV)


Beware the leaven of the Roman Catholics!

adsonstone:

they're not different just as Paul's churches are not different from Christ's church. If you cant interprete for yourself, its advisable to go to the Church to be on the safe side

Indeed! All Christians of all ages or eras and everywhere and irrespective of denominations are part of the Church of Christ, they are part of Jesus' Church, and they are part of the Christian Church.

They may not be part of the Roman Catholic church organisation as that is another thing altogether and is indeed irrelevant in the final analysis.

Christians do not need "popes" or denominations and certainly not the Roman Catholic church denomination.

As a leading Roman Catholic who himself nearly became "pope" said:

Per "Cardinal" Baronius

"The chief lesson of these times is that the Church can get along very well without popes. What is vital to the Church's survival is not the pope but Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope."

six one:

Which visible head Peter? By what means? Reincarnation? Was peter called father in contrast to what Jesus taught that no religious figure should be called father on earth? Your ignorance is really increasing

Did you not see when the apostle Peter wore a tiara and crowns?

Did you not see the apostle Peter resplendent and living in opulence in The Vatican?

Did you not see the apostle Peter having other "bishops" and "cardinals" kissing his ring and his feet?

Did you not see the apostle Peter wearing his papal robes, clothes, fisherman's rings etc?

Did you not know that the apostle Peter was NOT married?

And so on and so on and on and on .........