₦airaland Forum

^^^ If you know where to look you will see even Wikipedia say that the Septuagint was the first to be called "the bible".

OK Mr Liar

Did you Jehovah Witnesses change the word "worship" (in Hebrews 1:6) in an earlier version of your "bible" to another word or not?

^^^ Whatever, lol

The Septuagint was still the first to be called "the Bible".

^^^ On this thread, I have not got involved with the issue of the origin of the Roman Catholic Church. If I have done so, quote me and I will apologise.

2. You did not and still do not know the meaning of "the Bible"; alas even after I gave you a clue that "the Bible" was first used for The Septuagint which of course does not include the New Testament.

^^^ So now that you are unable to point to the "lie" I was pushed into I am going to categorically call you a LIAR.

I respect people but one thing that makes me lose respect for people fast is dishonesty. And you have been plain dishonest here --- in addition to littlle little ones that I had deliberately ignored in the past.

Nonsense!

^^^ Clear off! I don't have time for you after you have shown yourself to be what you are.

^^^ Point to the "lie" that I've been pushed into!!!!

Kay 17: Enigma has still failed to show us at what point in History, did the Roman Catholic begin. He keeps implying an obscure date which none of us know about.

Kay 17

I have a better impression of you than this but if you too want to play like that, no problem

1. When did the issue of the origin of the Roman Catholic Church arise for me on this thread?

2. Are you resorting to that because I have shown that you did not even know the full meaning of "the Bible"?

truthislight: . . . Just imagine the lies trinity will push Enigma into. . . .

Before I reply to your other post, could you please point to the lie I've been pushed into? Which lie are you talking about?

^^^ Any sensible person can see that: (1) I gave the backround of Ignatius' statement when he spoke about the role of bishops which I said is not even wholly accurate; and (2) that I gave two separate links to two separate translations of Ignatius' full leter.

I said "thank you" then because I did not want to engage you in exchange of abuse on that occasion.

You remain a fraud and a liar.

And your "church" does not believe the words of Jesus that He is there when two or three are gathered in His name.

^^^ So you see now that you are an idiotic liar!

1. Where in all of that did I say that I "did't care what Ignatius said"?

2. Where in all that did I "run away"?


Beyond those and on the statement of Ignatius, your hatred of Jesus' statement "where two or three are gathered . . . " suggests that you (and perhaps your "church", I am simply bearing in mind more sensible Roman Catholics than nincompoops like you) do not believe in Jesus or His words.

Yep, hold on to your rubbish "infallible" popes; others are happy to trust and believe Jesus when He said he will be with them wherever two or three are gathered.

EDIT Oh and Ignatius is still correct; even where Jesus is there is the universal Church ----- be they just two or three gathered in His name as He promised them. They don't need some idiotic "popes".

^^^ You are a liar and a fraud. And your petulance stems from your pain that I am more than capable of deconstructing the fraudulent Roman Catholic arguments.

Anyway, this following link/post is the first time I mentioned the line from Ignatius that you are slandering me about; let people read it and make up their minds who, as between me and you, is the liar.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/4#12110767

PS Green bolded added today for emphasis.

Enigma: Although I had intended to continue on from my second post that seems unnecessary now and it seems that this thread has really run its course.

For me, a good place to round up is this:

First I return to Ignatius who was the one who coined and the first to use the expression "the catholic Church". While Ignatius was a strong supporter of the role of a bishop in worship, he also believed that each individual church was in itself complete and a part of the universal church.

However, even whilst still expounding/extolling the role of a bishop (possibly even questionably somewhat), Ignatius said another interesting thing in his Epistle to The Smyrnaeans:

. . . even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church*

* another translation:

even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church

ETA http://www.jhu.edu/gcf/lessons/IgnatiusSmyrnaeans.pdf



Now where have I heard something similar before? Oh, here (Matthew 18:20):

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

EDIT Meanwhile I am sure the lying fraudulent idi.ot will not be able to show where I said I "didn't care what Ignatius said" or where I "ran away".

^^ You have a point.

I think Lent is a good period for (a) reflection on the Person of Jesus and what He did and sacrificed for mankind; (b) introspection --- to look within and realise our own shortcomings with resolve to do better; (c) self-denial ---- ourselves to make at least symbolic sacrifice of denying ourselves some of our luxuries or usual 'stuff'; and (d) charity ---- to think about others and make it more a point to help where possible/feasible.

On further reflection, I think I'm actually going to pull out of this thread and allow the thread to go in whatever direction it does.

Anyway, I've been long tired of all these taking two decades of research to reply to simple posts only with more obfuscation and stuff.

Ubenedictus: ok broda, it seems i'm off topic, just couldnt help it. Ok back to topic.

Bros, it is not really totally unreasonable to go off topic or even to discuss that particular topic here.

My own grouse is that when some people talk nonsense that they cannot substantiate, they then desperately look for ways to obfuscate that issue so that others forget it --- instead of doing the decent, honest thing that people in quest for "Truth" or claiming to be committed to "Truth" should do: the honourable thing of saying "OK I have no proof for that statement".

In general, I am very averse to playing that game with them.

PS don't mind that I am being tough on "Roman Catholic defenders" in another thread; for me, it is actually nothing personal with anyone on this forum.

chukwudi44: Bloody liar!! Kindly substantiate this lie

Meanwhile, make I laugh you small.

First you call someone a liar; then you beg him to "kindly" do something for you!

Abi something dey do you for head?

chukwudi44: Bloody liar!! Kindly substantiate this lie

And of course you are a fraud and an ignoramus.

And no I will not "substantiate" anything for you. Did you "substantiate" your own statement?

If you want to learn, you say so; or you go to appropriate source material to learn real things and not just fraudulent claims made by Roman Catholic apologists.

^^^ Actually, that topic you are touching upon is a very fascinating one if you read the literature.

For me however, as I don't see what all that have to do with the allegation that the translation of John 1:1 as the Word was God was because of some alleged fraud, agenda or whatever, I will very deliberately not get involved in it on this thread.

I simply wait for proof of the fraud, agenda or whatever that led to the translation of John 1:1 as the Word was God.

chukwudi44: Na so naa.The term 'bible' is a catholic brand joor!! Make una go find una own name to name your hybrid canon which you stole frm both the hebrew canon and the catholic NT

When we say Roman Catholic arguments use fraud and deceit you people will start crying; I recognise that some of you repeat the arguments out of ignorance.

Well, (in the Judaeo-Christian sense) "the Bible" was in fact first used for The Septuagint which of course did not have the New Testament.

As I said before, let the Roman Catholics continue to deceive themselves.

^^^ Na so! Let the Roman Catholics continue to deceive themselves.

Please check out this my first post on a recent thread https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church#12067196

And this my last post on the same thread https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/12#13346747

After you have done that and maybe also a little exercise that should follow then come back and tell us what you understand by the expression "the Bible".

^^ Are you now running from the question?

Have you not said above that the book or compilation used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible"?

Kay 17: But Apocrypha books are missing!

So any compilation by Christians which does not have the apocryphals/deuterocanonicals is not "the Bible"?

^^^ Majority of non Roman Catholic Christians = more than 50% of non Roman Catholic Christians.

I don't particularly care about numbers or whether Roman Catholics are more than non Roman Catholics.

rezzy: i came across an article yesterday, and found out that in the NWT, when it comes to anything that has to do with Jesus and worship, the word worship wont be used. They look for another word. But from the original greek bible worship was used. Pls why the omission?

I have also seen something similar; in fact I understand that in even Hebrews 1:6 where they originally left 'worship', they changed the word in a later edition. In any event, the Jehovah's Witnesses are widely regarded as tailoring their version of the Bible to fit their preconceived doctrines.

^^^ So, the book being used by the vast majority of non Roman Catholic Christians is not "the Bible", then?

^^^

So, which of the following two is "the Bible"? (Bear in mind I can list quite more than just these two )

1. The Catholic Bible

2. The Protestant Bible

The perceptive and informed know that the issue of interpretation is different from the issue of manuscript witness.

The perceptive and informed know that even ignoring Matthew altogether, there are different understandings and approaches to interpreting the Markan equivalent alone.

So all these is more diversion and obfuscation.

Oh and by the way, we are still yet to see proof of the fraud, error or whatever that led to the translation of John 1:1 as "the Word was God."

Kay 17: The Hebrew Bible isn't the Bible.

What is "the Bible" then?

italo: Why you dey answer that trickster?

It looks like you are just to be pitied now. Sorry oh, some of us make no apologies for exposing the fraud of the arguments of the Roman Catholic defenders about the origin of the Bible.

^^^^ And he is wrong about the absence of the Bible in 40 AD, anyway.

True, we did not then yet have the New Testament but we did have what is still called the Hebrew Bible, certainly the Old Testament including even the Greek translation called The Septuagint.

Of course you could give an expanded meaning to the word "church" to include people of the Old Testament era or to go as far back as Abram/Abraham (or even further if you like) . . . . . . .