₦airaland Forum

Enigma: .....
5. In the historic "Catholic" Church, in its original meaning as well as in its subsequent Theodosian meaning, they were actually the most active; e.g. they were the most active at Nicea (the Roman Catholics were very peripheral at Nicea)....

Actually, I forgot one more!

6. "Their people" were most active and instrumental in the "compilation" of the Bible!

Zikkyy: Bros, if these church go to war over right to use the name catholic, you go appear for war crime tribunal o!. if the eastern guys see this your write up now, and katakata burst, you will be held responsible o!

Bros, make one of them (even Roman Catholics*) jos make me dem lawyer, make I make small coins!

* "A lawyer is a person who argues that white is black or black is white ---- according as he is paid."


Thank God I write this thread as a Christian and not as lawyer, otherwise I have just opened myself up to some accusations and jokes with that definition of "lawyer"!

One interesting thing about this matter and the claims to the use of the capitalised "Catholic" is that both claimants i.e. both the Orthodox "Catholic" Church and the Roman "Catholic" Church admit at least tacitly that the Church is not truly "Catholic" when broken.

As some would say, to use "Catholic" in the sense that they are both using/claiming it is a misnomer or an "oxymoron". For example https://www.nairaland.com/1064710/dilemma-god-trinity/16#12536089

gbrookes02: . . ..

I am not a Roman Catholic, they are false. Roman Catholic is an oxymoron you can't be Roman (local) and catholic (universal) at the sametime.

An example of a tacit recognition of this by Roman Catholics is the "two lungs" analogy. In Ut Unum Sint, at para 54 "pope" John Paul II said:

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'.

Today, two church groupings or organisations lay proprietary claim to the word "Catholic" - especially when spelt with a capital C.

One is The Roman "Catholic" Church --- this one is well known in the Western world and to Nigerians.

The other is The Orthodox "Catholic" Church (aka Eastern Orthodox Church) -- this one is not so well known in the Western world or to Nigerians.

Because the Orthodox Catholic Church is not so well known, many people readily assume that the Roman "Catholic" Church is the one, or even only, organisation entitled to the word "Catholic".

To many who know better, The Orthodox "Catholic" Church actually has a better (or at least equal) proprietary claim to the capitalised "Catholic".

1. It was they who coined the word.
2. It was at one of their Churches that Christians were first called "catholic": Antioch.
3. They were using the word before the Roman Catholics
4. They gave the word a particular meaning --- which is actually different from what many (especially Roman Catholics) now understand the word to be.
5. In the historic "Catholic" Church, in its original meaning as well as in its subsequent Theodosian meaning, they were actually the most active; e.g. they were the most active at Nicea (the Roman Catholics were very peripheral at Nicea).

As this thread progresses, additional material will be added to help lead to a better understanding and apreciation of the word "Catholic" -in both the capitalised sense and in the small sense catholic.

Zikkyy: The matter dey affect your business?

If you want every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, why you dey support pastor threatening/deceiving his congregation with tithe preaching?

Him no say the OP get a serious point that is potentially damaging for him business, of course.

As has been pointed out over the years, one of the main pillars and stays of the prosperity "gospel" is the bondage teaching of "tithing" and the bondage into which it places its victims.

Kay 17: .....

The distinction btw Catholic and catholic is hopeless and useless unfounded semantics. .....

Come to think of it, even the Roman Catholic Church makes the distinction between 'Catholic' and catholic. In other words even they acknowledge the distinction between their capital letter 'Catholic' and the small letter catholic.

Those who know where to look can readily find that information.

Kay 17: . . . .The distinction btw Catholic and catholic is hopeless and useless unfounded semantics.

Sheer demonstration of ignorance as to be pitiful. So when Christians say:

"We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"

they are saying they believe in (a) The Roman Catholic Church, and (b) The Apostolic Church?

Which "The Apostolic Church"? CAC? Agbala Itura? etc etc?)

Kay 17: You are unable to prove the particular date the Roman Catholic Church emerged.. . ..

Are you able to tell us?

^^^ Crybaby, sorry oh!

If you are looking for the real fraud, look at the Roman Catholic "Church" and its apologists.

Here, you too take a lollipop.

^^^ And they don't need to be subject to some "Roman Pontiff".

All they need is the assurance of their Lord and the only Head of the catholic Church i.e. of The Christian Church.

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

The Roman Catholic "Church" and its 'you must be subject to the "Roman Pontiff"' rubbish is another matter altogether.

I get you Goshen (I did too on the other thread).

So going by your last post, a Christian should not be thinking about fornication; but then fornication means sex before marriage among other things. Therefore a Christian is required to wait until marriage.

@Goshen

Recently, you quoted Romans 13:9-10

For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

When you have time do an exegesis of the passage.

Oh, and this one too: Romans 3:31

Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Goshen360: I honestly do not think of anywhere scripture for now but where it happens in the Torah, the penalty is for them to be married or pay dowry. But I'm not a man of the Torah like I said earlier because I believe the Torah ONLY applies to national Israel.

Actually, that is something you should be careful about; some of your statements recently seem to be a bit "derogatory" of the Old Testament or at least were careless.

Anyway, if you understand the OT on this point and that it still does in fact influence the relevant NT passages it would not be that difficult to recognise that you are in error (I must say it again) on this point.

Goshen360: . . . If such act (sexx before marriage to one intending to marry as discussed all through) is engaged and both still ended up marrying, can the 'before' still be charged against these two people that 'fornication' is\was committed? . . .

Yes, fornication is/was committed.

They are only allowed to have licit sex, biblically, after they are married.


And see my question above.

Goshen

Let us start like this: can you tell us where in the Bible it says sex between a couple who absolutely intend to get married and have sought parental consent is allowed?

^^^ And I still maintain that you are wrong and misinformed.

Several threads have dealt with the issue but I provide the link to one centrally on the point.

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

OK Goshen, let me give you my own answer to each of the questions:

1--- Is sex between a man and a dog, sex outside marriage or not?

Answer: it IS sex outside marriage. Simples.


2--- Using Nigerian law for now, is sex between a man and another man outside marriage or not?

Answer: it IS sex outside marriage. Simples.


3--- Is sex between a married man and a single woman (who is not his wife) outside marriage or not?

Answer: it IS sex outside marriage. Simples.


Now, what I have noticed: I think you do not understand the English expression "sex outside marriage"! And this is the root of your problems here.

"Sex outside marriage" means any "sex" which is not between (two) people married to each other!

Therefore sex before marriage is also sex outside marriage.

Therefore your case of people who "absolutely intend to marry" and have sought parental consent, but are not yet married, is sex before marriage, is sex outside marriage ------ in the English language ordinarily.

Therefore, biblically, it is also fornication; it is also sexual immorality or whatever word you want to use to translate "porneia".

I am duty bound to tell you again very very strongly that you are in serious error on this "teaching".

Peace of course as always and hope preparation for exam of promotion to be oga at the top are going well.

^^^ Here, take another lollipop to suck for ya pain.

Akpuruka liar for nothing.

^^^ Another crybaby!

You gave up discussing with him "months" ago, yet you were begging him on this very thread to teach you about the first use of the expression "the bible" only just over a week ago.

Anyway, you are a known liar; remember your lie about Paul and the other apostles teaching baptism for the dead?

Here, take a lollipop and lick your wounds --- that the arguments of Roman Catholic apologists are being shown to be falsehoods.

^^^ Well, people who are waaay older, more informed and more educated than you are failing or afraid to perform the task ---- because it will expose the falsehood of the arguments that Roman Catholic apologists use to hoodwink people.

So I do not expect you to be able to do it; also, it is normal for your type to resort to tantrums when unable to address an argument.

^^^ You want to perform the tasks I set him? Or you too are not brave enough?

^^^ Crybaby.

Keep up the lying and slandering. It's all cool.

^^^ Sometimes those 'muricans have a way of saying things that has your ribs cracking.

When Mike Tyson was returning to boxing for first time after prison, he was to fight this white guy Mcneeley; it turned out that the Mcneeley's father had also fought another great, Patterson, years before.

So the elder Mcneeley was recounting his fight with Patterson and how he got a serious beating. He said something like (paraphrase): "Patterson whupped me so bad, I thought the referee was throwing punches too!"

^^^ A little joke (well, something I once found funny)

The rapper Vanilla Ice (of ice ice baby) was being interviewed about how originally he was part of the underground scene in the black community who of course then received no commercial recognition from the big companies.

Those same big companies saw an opportunity to make money with a white rapper but required him to make his rap more 'pop'. Of course we know that Vanilla Ice made it big.

He was then accused of selling out: so the interviewer put the point to him.

Vanilla Ice said something like (paraphrase): "I had no money for rent; for may car note etc etc and all this money was being dangled in my face; of course I sold out; I sold waaaay out!"

^^^ Bros, mea culpa (i.e. guilty as charged)!

https://www.nairaland.com/1244999/brother-goshen-please-explain-stand/7#15132270

Enigma: . . . . ..

Remember one thing: you are a very much loved brother here and that is why your bredren and sistren are concerned. In fact one of them partly accuses the rest of us of 'favouritism'; that convicted me because truly if it was some WoF person making this interpretation of yours it is very very possible that my approach would not be so temperate.

^^^ If you want to admit your ignorance, go ahead and do so clearly.

Anyway, (a) your ignorance on this matter is very clear to me and (b) I have already proved your ignorance on a related matter and which you had to admit on this very thread.

As for the curremt matter, I know what I am talking about; and you need to do your homework or at least some worthwhile background work.

Goshen360: @ Enigma, Truthislight & Others, ....

The questions I then want you (Enigma), truthislight and others, even Alwaystrue to answer is, if it means "outside" of already existing marriage bound, can it also mean "before" a marriage AT THE SAME TIME?. If it can, then we\I will need a reference to that from scriptures. That's the only way to prove reference to the "before" marriage issue as that is the point of contention here for now. ...

No problem goshen, the matter does not have to be resolved today. More importantly, best wishes with your exams.

However, as to your question above, your answer is in how you answer the following:

--- Is sex between a man and a dog, sex outside marriage or not?

--- Using Nigerian law for now, is sex between a man and another man outside marriage or not?

--- Is sex between a married man and a single woman (who is not his wife) outside marriage or not?

I don't have any burden or duty to prove anything to you. I said something, you challenged it; your own challenge has no demonstrated basis. All I am doing is trying to help you; but if you will not do little tasks, I am not going to stress myself.

Let me remind you that this pattern has repeated itself between us a number of times.

Even on this very thread it was the same way you remained intransigent about what is meant by "the bible" and especially the Protestant Bible until you found yourself in a corner --- when you could have prevented the humiliating u-turn by similarly doing a little task then.

I suspect you sense that the tasks I've set you will lead you to another corner where you will have to make another u-turn as you did only a few pages earlier on this thread.

As I said, your choice how you want to play. You don't do those tasks, I provide no further explanations. Simples.

debosky: I think I agree with this, in the sense that the 'borned' man only loses his way, not his intended destination in terms of your analogy. However, isn't that different from someone who rejects/decides to turn away? Yes God is the one that 'borns' us again, but only by accepting his ability to can we actually be 'borned' again no?

Actually, posts before and after this query have answered the question ---- especially scriptures quoted by wordthots. Short answer, the One who saves a person will preserve that person and save him utterly.

debosky: This might be a bit tangential to the discourse, but I'd like to ask - is being 'born again' instantaneous or over a 'period'? Viz - some those that heard the message as taught by the early church often started speaking in tongues immediately - exhibiting the presence of the Spirit - the guarantee of salvation. Another example - the thief on the cross? He hardly had any time to undergo a 'period' of realisation before his time was literally up.

Again, my preceding post implicitly answers this. First I don't make presumptions since I see it is a special action in the prerogative of God; second, implicit in that answer is that there is a range of possibilities. If we can point to people in the Bible who were 'saved' and immediately received the Holy Ghost, we can also point to people who were 'saved' and did not even know that there was such a thing as the Holy Ghost, i.e. the gift to receive, until much later!

Ihedinobi: ....
And the Christian is an overcomer already in Christ....

1 John 5:4

“Everyone who is born of God overcomes the world.”

Kay 17: Enigma, I'm so convinced you have nothing really to say. What does Jerome have to do with books prior to the Council of Nicaea?! Either he wasn't born or was an infant at that time.

Also you haven't still mentioned any canonical collection adopted.

And

Enigma: It's up to you how you want to play it. You don't do the basic tasks I have set you, I provide you no further explanations. Simples.

Oh and of course I am aware of the time of Jerome's birth; if you did the task I aked you to do, you will then understand why his date of birth is neither here nor there in this context.

Ah, out of generosity of my heart, let me help you a bit by pointing you again to a point I once made to you.

What book or books was/were being used by the opponents at the Council of Nicea to support their respective arguments?

Whenever you are ready . . . .

Joagbaje: So Enigma can be polite like this ? I didn't experience this kin attitude.

Seriously, for a minute, in my earliest exchanges with you I was actually that polite.

Please go back and check; it was when you started making some ridiculously outlandish claims and being extremely arrogant that my attitude towards you changed.

^^^ Oga Joe, bo'oo ni nkan?