Enigma's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Enigma's Profile › Enigma's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 (of 198 pages)
Enigma: And as some say that only "the Catholic Church" is supposed to be doing this interpretation, we are still waiting for the meaning of "the Catholic Church". |
Kay 17: very much, as long as it sufficiently encompasses the Christian Experience.I too want to express being Let me get you right. First of all, you have now done a total, complete, 360 degrees, full U-turn! Because, you had said clearly that the non Roman Catholic book is not "the Bible"? But even more than that, now look at the implication of what you are saying presently. 1. The non-Roman Catholic i.e. "Protestant" book of 66 books is "the Bible". 2. The Roman Catholic book of 73 books is also "the Bible". If that is the case, what about the Ethiopean book of 81 books? Can you now still say that one is not "the Bible"? ![]() |
The book that non Roman Catholics use i.e. the one that has 66 instead of 73 books ------ is that "The Bible" or not? ![]() ![]() |
And here is something I have posted in the past; I even expect to quote more from its original source later. See how Christians who are not Roman Catholics understand that expression and why Lutherans, Evangelicals, Anglicans and even some Pentecostals can all say they believe/belong in "one, holy, catholic, apostolic, church." ![]() https://www.nairaland.com/1032312/scandal-church#11979108 “Why do we say that we believe in the Roman Catholic Church when we are Protestants?” they ask. The confusion arises because the word "catholic" is not in common usage in English today. Most people hear it used only in reference to the Roman Catholic Church. And so, when they read or hear the word "catholic" in another context, they assume it refers to the Church of Rome. But this is mistaken. "Catholic," in this context, means "universal" and is not a reference to the Church of Rome. ![]() So are Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, Pentecostals etc who all say they are part of the catholic Church (and for that matter too the apostolic Church) also part of "The Catholic Church" or not? We day wait . . . . lef, rai, lef, rai, lef! ![]() |
Enigma: And as some say that only "the Catholic Church" is supposed to be doing this interpretation, we are still waiting for the meaning of "the Catholic Church".We dey wait . . . . ![]() |
Why am I even wasting my time for God's good sake? You have already said that even the book being used by the vast majority of Christians in the West (i.e. non Roman Catholics) is not "the Bible". The exchange below is from about page 7 onwards.Enigma: ^^^ Kay 17: The one popularly known as the Catholic Bible. Enigma: ^^^ So, the book being used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible", then? Kay 17: But Apocrypha books are missing! Enigma: So any compilation by Christians which does not have the apocryphals/deuterocanonicals is not "the Bible"? Kay 17: Cos of the subtraction. |
Kay 17: 1. what Bible were you talking about that was compiled/canonized prior to the Council of Nicaea?I once told you (earlier on the thread) about the Septuagint and also the Hebrew Bible. Were these called "Bible" or not? Is the Hebrew Bible still called "Bible" or not? I even also told you about the "specialness" of the Septuagint and that expression "the Bible"! Have you looked into those any further? I wonder how you can ask me both of those questions - especially question 2 - after my explanations to you on about page 10 of this very thread! ![]() |
Ihedinobi: Nna, I don't know what you're saying o. I just asked you to explain what "the Catholic Church" is so that I can underatand what you have been saying. I didn't ask you to explain how the Catholic Church does anything. Do you have an answer to what "the Catholic Church" is?Me I get answer for what the catholic Church is. But make we wait for the people when talk say na only "The Catholic Church" fit to interprete Bible! ![]() |
^^ That "ending" was surprising and quite humbling to be honest. ![]() |
Any member of The Christian Church is welcomed to contribute; the thread is not about denominations. ![]() ![]() |
debosky: As others have even said, other Council ‘canonised’ the OT long before the Catholics did so - my point is already made. the NT was purely compiled based on existing, widely accepted scripture in use. . . .And some others canonised even their own selected books for the New Testament at a council long before the Roman Catholic Church. Specific examples would be the African Churches. ![]() |
![]() I bin jos do like say I no see! ![]() |
^^ And for that matter the Roman Catholic Church did not formalise its own canon or set it dogmatically until as recent as the 16th century at the Council of Trent. ![]() |
To help my friend once again, here is part of a post I made earlier on this thread! ![]() From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books" ) is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon. ![]() |
The Ethiopean Christians are Christians ---- so what is their Bible? ![]() |
^^^ Let me ask you a question: what is the Bible of the Ethiopean Church? ![]() ![]() |
Zikkyy: Interpretations my dear, interpretations. that's the koko of the matter hereAnd as some say that only "the Catholic Church" is supposed to be doing this interpretation, we are still waiting for the meaning of "the Catholic Church". Bill Graham interprets the Bible: is he part of "the Catholic Church"? The Archbishop of Canterbury interprets the Bible; is he part of "the Catholic Church"? The patriarchs of the Orthodox Churches interpret the Bible: are they part of "the Catholic Church"? ![]() |
Ihedinobi: Interesting, bro.IIRC the then Roman Catholic "pope" approved the document. I referred to it obliquely in an old post https://www.nairaland.com/1101186/catholics-really-wants-make-heaven/2#12998393 ![]() |
^^^ Gross ignorance; not really worth wasting my time on. Read the various threads where we have discussed parts of the history of the Bible; or go and read up generally on the history of the Bible/ I remember that I have also in the past told you of different Bible "canons" --- and even gave you a link for reference. Take my advice, go and educate yourself! ![]() |
But they were using texts - several texts - from the Bible to present their respective points and arguments at Nicea. Hence, the Bible had already been "compiled" by then. ![]() Simples. ![]() |
Ihedinobi: I most definitely am not. You hold that it is this "the Catholic Church" that has the only true and correct interpretation of the Bible. It is only fair that you tell us what it is, don't you think? I honestly have no idea what you mean by it.We dey wait . . . . ![]() Lef, rai, lef , rai lef ![]() |
Ihedinobi: I most definitely am not. You hold that it is this "the Catholic Church" that has the only true and correct interpretation of the Bible. It is only fair that you tell us what it is, don't you think? I honestly have no idea what you mean by it.We dey wait . . . . ![]() |
Ihedinobi: Describe this "the Catholic Church" to me, if you will. Is it a congregation of people or a mystical quantity? What does it mean?I dey chop popcorn and dey wait. Looku and laughu! ![]() ![]() |
^^^ The bible was "compiled" before the Arian controversy and before the separation into "Arians" and "Trinitarians". That is why the "Trinitarians" and the "Arians" were debating the contents of the Bible at Nicea. Try another one --- or more importantly, try and inform yourself. ![]() |
Ihedinobi: @italoAh ha!!!! I had deliberately held back from asking that question! Now let us lance the boil. ![]() According to Roman Catholics: what is "The Church"? ![]() |
^^^ Superbly put! Tell the illiterate old woman: Jesus loved you and died for you; now he asks you to believe in him and follow him. Why does she need to task her brain on intellectual shenanigans? And those who are fortunate/blessed to be highly educated (you could use the more supercilious 'highly developed intellectually') have big duty to be careful --- a very very big duty. ![]() |
Syncan: He never argued with Philip,he believed in his teacher. More so Why do you call them "specific doctrines"? Their being observed litters all through scripture and later... "historical accounts" as put by you.Philip taught and explained the gospel to him - and he believed that. Philip did not teach him about "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction". Those things are indeed specific doctrines. Two of them are clearly not in the Bible at all and are simply nonsensical human constructs. The third is not really in the Bible but with some modification can get some support in the Bible. ![]() EDIT Meanwhile what "historical accounts" as put by "me" are you talking about? |
debosky: . . . . . The scripture were identifiable by many in the early church based on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Dayua! Christians in different parts of the world agreed quite early on on most of the books of the New Testament that constitute the "canons" used by different Christian groups today. There were question marks over just a small number of books and the Holy Spirit has not left us alone --- even when some Christians add/leave out some books out of their own "canon". Christians again in different parts of the world again also came up with the idea of different levels of "reliability" or "use" of different books. Thus for example, those on which there was unanimity carried first importance or rank, some on which there were disputes could still be useful for reading etc and there were others that were rejected. Again, with those that were totally rejected, there is often considerable agreement among different Christian groups. The Holy Spirit must clearly be at work. And talking about the roles of councils, we need a clearer understanding. Not all different church groups held councils to determine their "canon"; many simply developed by practice i.e. what books have Christians traditionally used. Some of the more significant councils establishing a canon were those held by African Churches and African Christians especially in the 4th century. Interestingly the Roman Catholic Church did not finalise its own canon at a council until as late as the 16th century --- following Luther's action and the 'Protestant Reformation'. ![]() |
Ubenedictus: sorry my dear, d meeting of philip wasn't d end of teaching for d eunuch. Who says he didnt meet other apostles or disciple of d apostles? What happen latter isnt recorded, all we know from d passage is dat he went home fulfilledOK Was that eunuch taught specific "doctrines" like "papal infallibility", "transubstantiation", "universal jurisdiction"? ![]() |
^^^ lol lol lol ![]() Now you are reading into and adding to Scripture? lol ![]() |
Zikkyy: The problem is that you believe the false teachers cannot infiltrate the council and take charge.And bros, quite often people misrepresent and overstate what happened at the Council of Jerusalem. That Council addressed a very small number of specific things, So what then happened to all the many many many different things that Christians still worried about (and that divide Christians today) ---- who says that those Christians of that era did not still do some things differently. Remember that the New Testament had not been written at the time. ![]() |
Ubenedictus: lemme break it down.And after Philip left that Ethiopean eunuch, who was teaching the eunuch? Who was preaching to him? Who taught him about "speaking in tongues"? Who taught him about "transubstantiation"? Who taught him about "papal infallibility"? Who taught him about "the canon of Scripture"? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 (of 198 pages)



You have already said that even the book being used by the vast majority of Christians in the West (i.e. non Roman Catholics) is not "the Bible". The exchange below is from about page 7 onwards.
