₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: What can I say? Your passionate defence of the Roman Catholic Church might be getting in the way of your appreciation of what everyone you label a protestant says. I picked the issue up at "we still can't agree on how we are saved by Christ's death" to point out that such an agreement is not quite necessary but actually cosmetic.

You decided to straighten me out about it and I asked you to explain how it is the workings of the Death of Christ rather than the bare fact of His Death that saves us. Then you began to say something about how if it were merely Chriat's Death that saves, everyone should be saved and I was lost. First, I don't see how the statement answers my demand. Second, I don't understand even a little bit how the mere fact that Jesus died ought to save everyone if believing in it is how we are saved.

Perhaps you should try and stop acting like a mother bear whose cubs are threatened whenever anything is said that even remotely touches the Roman Catholic Church so that you can hear what people you're discussing with are saying.

I think it is safe to conclude that you just cant read and understand.

Ihedinobi: Whatever, bro. You're tiresome to discuss with.

You call what you have been doing 'discussion?'

My dear, you have been BLABBERING.

peteregwu: hey, chukwudi. be very careful, you are kicking against what you don know. we speak what we know. i am a member of this ministry, not only a member but a bonafide one, and also a born agiain chrisian. pls be very careful to the load u cant carry. u will think that this is just nairaland...hmmm...God is much more dreadful than satan in this matter. the worst thing is one can do against God is to speak aginst the works o the Holy Ghost.

See this hypocrite o. It is easy for you to speak against The Catholic Church but you cant take it when someone speaks against your "church" shop.

Toktee: That iz what you learn from mary ur mother,can you tell me who recommend the honouring of your mother mary;or it is because a woman like her told her that blessed are you and the fruite of ur womb,how does that translate into honouring of mary?
Second,i want to tell you emphatically that you cannot challenge me in any way,be it accadamically or whatsoever way you think,, you bunch of fools refused to accept light instead you follow darkness thereby ignoring the old testment;can you tell me why the catholic church has refused to deal with old testment,is old testment not part of the bible,do you read where john wanted to bow before an angel and he wz ignore by the same angel;i dont think so cos you guys dont even read the bible
Therefore,i want you to keep insult aside let us iron this issue out to save millions of people that are on their way to hell thru catholic church,God has given us power to trample on sapents and scorpions,and to overcome all the power of the enemy,jesus told us clearly that he is the only way to his father,no one go the hiz father without passing thru him,he also said anything you ask from my father through me shall be granted unto you, all these things he said them when he was on earth,when he appeared after death,he gave his deciples power to do mighty things even things that himself didnt do when he was on earth.
After the death and resurrection,the name mary does not come out anywhere in the bible,who knows she may die as a pr.ostitute or as other people said,she got married and have children,here are you blindly following a woman whom you know nothing about her.
You guyz should repent God said we should not worship any image or anything other thing on earth,stop kneeling before that cross and mary,after death judgement follow remember.
Beside,i dont think there iz anything i can learn from an igboman.

*ANOTHER LUNATIC DETECTED*

Ihedinobi: Edit: I read that bit of Scripture and I'm afraid that in the light of Galatians 2:6-10 and vv11-21, your conclusion that Paul went up to Jerusalem to confirm his Gospel lacks legs to stand on.

You must have missed the gist of Acts 15 also.

Ihedinobi: Is that really so? I think I missed that part in the Bible. Where was it written?

Not surprising. You seem to miss the crux of whatever you read. The only things you dont miss are the trivial things.

Ihedinobi: So when you say "the Church" and "the Catholic Church", you actually mean "the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church", right?

italo: The magisterium is the teaching body of the Catholic Church.

If I say "your family decides what happens with its land," it doesnt necessarily mean the little children are involved in the decision making. It would surely be the elders, wont it?

If you cannot understand that, then....

Ihedinobi: I did understand. So how are we to respond other than believing that His Death has made us free from the wrath that is to come and from sin and to serve the Lord?

Here is the beginning of this "salvation" issue.

italo: You mean 'your interpretation of a part of scripture needs to be contextual and not contradictory to your interpretation of other parts of scripture.'

debosky: No I don’t - there should always be a common starting point - for Christians that is Jesus’ death that gives us salvation. That doesn’t require any interpretation.

italo: It does! Salvation and the means of salvation mean many different things to many Christians. We still cant agree on how we are saved through Jesus death. How do we come to know what God teaches about this?

If you had been more eager to read and less so to jump on threads to derail them with dubious and directionless questions when you have no intelligible input, you would have known that your question is invalid here.

The definition of the concept of salvation itself is not even agreed upon by "Christians" much less how we obtain it.

Ihedinobi: I asked you a contextualized question. You kept saying how the Church (which you defined as "the Catholic Church" )is the one that has the right teachings and interpretations for the people of God. The distinction confused me, so I asked you to explain what the Church and later the Catholic Church is so that I could see how it is different from the people of God that it teaches.

Your own question, on the other hand, was not contextualized at all. While I was seeking clarification, you appeared to be seeking to obfuscate issues. Anyhow another post of mine spoke to that question already. It's up to you to show me how it fails to measure up yo the demands of your question.

Besides, why should I threaten you or anything like that? I just stated a fact. I can't see any meaning in your use of "the Church" and "the Catholic Church" unless you show me the meaning.

Neither can I see any meaning in 90% of what you've said here. I still cant remember you giving an intelligible answer to the question: how do God's people come to an accurate interpretation of scripture?

Even Paul had to go to Peter to be sure he was preaching God's doctrine.

"Son of Mary." Now, how I love that title.

They might be part of your imaginary "two or three gathered in Jesus name" Catholic Church.

Lutherans, Anglicans etc broke away from the Catholic Church...yet they love to glorify themselves by saying they are part of the Catholic Church...or that they are a denomination of the Catholic Church.

Very funny. When did Jesus ever tell us about "denominations" in his Church.

You are either in or out.

Ihedinobi: Ok. You define "the Church" as a body of believers. It is this body of the faithful that you say can guide believers aright in interpreting the Scriptures, right? Can we say then that this essentially means that it is believers who guide themselves aright in interpreting the Scriptures?

The magisterium is the teaching body of the Catholic Church.

If I say "your family decides what happens with its land," it doesnt necessarily mean the little children are involved in the decision making. It would surely be the elders, wont it?

Ihedinobi: I still don't understand what you're about here. What is salvation hinged upon if not Faith that Jesus's Death has made the believer right with God? Your answer to that was "how Jesus's Death saved us".

That is, you hold that we have to believe in how Jesus's Death saved us to be saved. And I asked you to explain how that works. I don't get where this stuff about everyone supposing to be saved and yet not in fact saved fits into the picture.

You just jumped into what debosky and I were saying without understanding it.

He said it as long as he knew that Jesus' death saves us, he didnt need to know any other details, like HOW we are saved through Jesus' death.

I said he did.

We need to know how to respond to Jesus' saving death. Otherwise, we could still be damned even though Jesus died to save us.

Ihedinobi: This reads an awful lot like a cop-out. I have explained sufdiciently how my inquiry fits into the purpose of the thread. I think that you are unwilling to venture an answer to my question.

If yoi have no answer, I will consider all your allusions to the Catholic Church and the Church to be meaningless in any discussion involving you.

LOL... And that is supposed to scare me into telling you what I dont want to tell you at this time? Sorry, it cant.

I remember asking you how you think Christians should know accurately God's teaching (which is what the thread is about) but I cant remember you giving me any intelligible answer.

Instead you are hell bent on digressing to topics like SALVATION and DEFINITION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Yes, I can talk about those with you...but not while you are dodging the main topic of discussion.

debosky: What does 'you are lied' mean? Are you here to play games? If, according to you, I have no proof, how does that constitute a lie? It seems you are no longer interested in a reasoned conversation.

Okay, sorry, let me rephrase that post of mine. I put it to you that you lie when you say you have historical account showing that the early church (if you mean it to be different from the Catholic Church) compiled the Bible on being moved by the Spirit. You are free to provide evidence if you think I am wrong.

debosky: So you want me to start 'interpreting' what you mean? Sorry I'm not into playing games here.

It was not an inaccuracy - you claimed I lied, when I did no such thing. In the interest of progressing the thread, if you are unable to retract your comments, I will refrain from further posting and simply observe. Thanks.

I said I was sorry for my inaccurate post. If that is not enough for you, then you can go ahead and stop posting. Will I cut my head and put it on a tray for you?

Afterall, technically, it could still be a lie...since you havent provided any evidence to the contrary.

Ihedinobi: Nnaa ehn, you're complicating this matter even more. What does the second paragraph mean?

Jesus died for all mankind, so why is all of manking not assured of salvation... If all that matters is his death, nothing else.

Ihedinobi: Why do you suppose that I didn't start from the beginning? I'm not sure if you are not saying that you have no answer to my question. All I want is to have some idea what you refer to when you say "the Church" or "the Catholic Church". Is it possible that you really don't know what you mean by it?

Because you dont seem to know what this thread is about.

Before that I had said

"You are lied. No historical account told you that the Bible was compiled by the early church (except you mean The Catholic Church in the 4th century). You have no proof of your lie."

And that was surely what I meant when I said "You lied when you said the Holy Spirit moved the early church to compile the Bible."

Sorry for the inaccuracy in my second statement.

...but how about the first?

@ debosky,

St Justin Martyr, who made popular your much-loved 'Memoirs of the Apostles' has this to say about the Eucharist in his writing 'The First Apology.'

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Your much-loved St Justin Martyr, an early Church Father, who lived in the 2nd century was obviously very Catholic.

debosky: You aren't getting off that lightly - What lie have I told? If you cannot come out and show me what lie I have told, please refrain from asking me any further questions.

You said you found out from historical accounts that the Holy Spirit moved the early Church to compile the Bible.

Till now, you havent even shown any historical account that even links the word "bible" to the early church.

'Memoirs of the apostles' shows that some books were widely accepted as scriptural but those books are not THE BIBLE.

You havent shown any historical account that links the early church to a canon of 27-book NT.

@ ihedinobi, i think you should read the beginning of the thread, that way you'll know what i'm saying

@ debosky,

when did ur early church finalize the 27book NT?

and what "historical accounts" do you have to support your answer?

Ihedinobi: Oga, weren't you saying that how Jesus saves is necessary to salvation or damnation in disagreement with my submission that it wasn't? I asked you to explain how.

You have slightly remixed what we said, but anyway let me answer you.

If the way we gain salvation is just by Jesus' death without anything else, all of humanity would be saved and no one would be damned.

But is that the case?

debosky: What is the magisterium of the church? Abeg indulge those of us that are ‘simple’ folk.

I'm very sure you can easily access google. I cannot teach you everything. I myself have "googled up" some of the you said on this thread without asking you. Dont be a baby.

debosky: Did I tell you it was the bible? You asked me for historical accounts, I give you an example historical account and you come back with this silly response?

You dont even remember half the things we say. You lied when you said:

debosky: The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible.

And I said "how do you know that? I dont find anything like that written in the Bible...and when did this early church compile the bible?"

That was when your lies intensified. You said you know through historical accounts.

And I said "which historical accounts show that the early church compiled THE BIBLE?"

You lied again, saying: 'memoirs of the apostles'

And I said is memoir of the apostles the bible? Now I add, where does it say that the early Church compiled the bible?

You havent told me...neither does your false historical account mention any date or period.

ITS JUST LIES, ISNT IT?

Enjoy you thread with your followers.

*1ST LADY OF THE LUNATICS NOTICED AND IGNORED[b] AGAIN[/b]*

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.

It seems that you protestants are now solely focused on the Catholic Church.

Do we take it Protestants have no way of knowing accurately God's teaching?

So we can fully concentrate on explaining how the Catholic Church has the authority to explain scripture to God's people.

Ihedinobi: Sure, but you chose to call me on my "wrong" which was made in my explanation for the multifarious interpretations that exist. I'm only asking you to clarify what you denounced as wrong.

What is it that you want me to clarify which I denounced as wrong, this man? Please show me.

As far as I am concerned, you have not said anything on this thread.

debosky: I will, but let’s investigate your answer first - so simply by saying ‘I am in the CATHOLIC CHURCH’ means ! am permitted to teach?

The magisterium of the Church teaches us. Its okay if i teach, as long as I'm not in contradiction to the Church.

Tell me your answer.

debosky: There are numerous - collections of Paul’s work called the ‘memoirs of the apostles’ had been in circulation long before your so called ‘writing of the New Testament’ in the 4th Century.

What is wrong with you? Is this 'memoirs of the apostles’ THE BIBLE? Were Mark and Luke apostles? Why do you accept their books as scripture?

And stop repeating the lie that i said the new testament was written in the 4th century, unless you can provide proof.

debosky: It may have had its origins within the early church groupings, but its current practices now such as indulgences and asking Mary to pray is not consistent with the teachings of Paul and James as recorded. Like I told you, holding a ‘connection’ to the early Church means nothing if you have moved away from the teachings of that early Church.

"It may" You lack of knowledge about what you are arguing about is now very evident for all to see.

You dont know who and who make up the Church. You dont know when the Catholic Church started... Yet you have been blowing hot air since morning.

debosky: I am not dubious in the least - I don’t know the exact date, neither do I consider that to be central. The fact is that it happened.

You are lied. No historical account told you that the Bible was compiled by the early church (except you mean The Catholic Church in the 4th century). You have no proof of your lie.

debosky: It happened over a period of time - there are collections of scripture in use from the second century which show many/most of the books of the NT already being read together.

"many/most"... what about the remaining books. When were they included to make the bible? When was the Bible compiled? Simple. Stop

debosky: I don’t need to follow any private interpretation - it is plain enough to see and read from scripture.

Plain enough to read but not plain enough to interpret so you follow your false private interpretation.

debosky: I am saying individuals and groups can make mistakes. If the Catholic Church is ‘infallible’ why did it have to ‘revise’ its doctrine on indulgences? Did it make a mistake the first time?

More truths were revealed by God. No truth was rescinded...nor has ever been rescinded.

If the Catholic Church is fallible, why do you believe they chose the right books for the Bible?

debosky: It isn’t but you’re veering off track here by making silly statements. How do you know my doctrines are false without even knowing what they are?

If your doctrine contradicts the true doctrine then it has to be false...and you contradict Catholic doctrine.

debosky: What verse?

John 6:53.

debosky: The passages are for everybody - it said ALL, from the least to the greatest. Who did John write his letter to? Only apostles?? Can you tell us what other teachings are reserved for 'apostles' and which ones are for us 'laymen'?

I meant the passages I posted. Jesus was talking to his apostles.

debosky: The bible says ‘no longer’ - it means there is a time for teaching, after which one should be able to discern the will of God through the Holy Spirit.

Why then did the apostles continue to teach people who had already been taught and had believed?

debosky: I don’t know - the Lord knows those who are His. You can make your own judgments if you wish.

If you dont know who is in the Church and who is not, why have you been arguing about what you dont know all the while. Why didnt you just remain quiet?

debosky: I am not ignorant - yes there were disputes, but that does not mean there were no widely accepted and authentic usage of Paul, Peter, John and others’ writings. Like I said - formal ‘endorsement’ or ‘compilation’ of what was already commonly in use is different from claiming authorship.

Okay, tell us which books were widely accepted and which were disputed. How do you know the disputed ones are scripture? Is it not because the Catholic Church said so?

debosky: I don’t - I simply stated that your claims of ‘writing’ the New Testament in the 4th Century is incorrect. Pay attention and stick to the subject of discourse.

I never claimed that the new testament was written in the fourth century. Please quote me...God bless you as you do so. I said the Church wrote the new testament.

debosky: It is because early church groupings (e.g. the churches at Ephesus, at Thessaloniki, at Antioch, etc) had received these teachings and were using them. That they were 'formalised' at a council doesn't change the fact that they were already treated as inspired among many church groupings at the time.

You believe because the Catholic Church told you so. If not, give me proof that these church communities used all 27 books of the new testament only.

debosky: Nonsense - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PAUL VI INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA WHEREBY THE REVISION OF SACRED INDULGENCES IS PROMULGATED

Please tell me what it means to revise?

"Revise" doesnt necessarily mean to change.

If I write my CV, gain another qualification, then decide to include it in my CV, I would have revised, not changed my CV. With the Catholic Church, no doctrine can change, we can only get more revelation about a doctrine that we had before. It is the same spirit that teaches us, He cannot contradict himself.

debosky: The Church didn’t write the bible, it was written by Christians inspired by the Holy Spirit - those who had close encounters with Jesus and those that were with Him while he was on earth. The Catholic church as you call it TODAY has imbibed practices that are not supported by the written accounts of those that had close contact with Jesus. I cannot go back to 70 AD or 90 AD to re-investigate everything, so I will stick with that which I am confident is true.

Those men were the first fathers of the Catholic Church. The Church does nothing contrary to the scriptures it partly wrote and fully compiled. It only does things that are contrary to your false interpretation of scripture.

debosky: Where were the teachings in Thessalonians being carried out? In the market? The emphasis in 2:19 had to be made because those people were still physically present within the Church but were in actual fact SPIRITUALLY disconnected. They had lost that connection, meaning they were still physically associating with the church.

Anyway it proves me right. The Church decides, not some individual elements (within or outside)

Ihedinobi: Please explain how the workings of the Death of Jesus, that is, how the Death of Jesus saves rather than the bare fact that it does, are a matter of salvation or damnation.

My dear friend.

The issue this thread was meant to address is how christians are supposed to come to an accurate interpretation of scripture.

Not whether chemical weapons were used in Syria...or by what margin Obama defeated Romney.

Sorry to say.

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?

You are really trying hard to derail the thread, arent you?

Ihedinobi: Perhaps because the apostles represented the whole Church, no? It's hard to say that you're talking to a person's hand and not himself.

So when the apostles were given power to forgive and retain sin in John 20:22,23, Jesus was talking to you and Enigma too abi?

Ihedinobi: What if you considered it like this: the apostles gave what they received and the Holy Spirit within each believer confirmed it to the believer thus safeguarding them from impostors? How do we know that what the apostles taught was true? How do we know who was the true apostle and who was the false? Because the Holy Spirit confirmed to the hearers the truth that came to them.

Even when Paul was here fighting the wars of the Cross, he was troubled by impostors just as much as we are today. How were believers protected from those who would lead them astray? Not really more teaching from the apostles for even Paul himself was worried with accusations that he himself was a false apostle. As Paul himself said, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.

I dont like long directionless stories, sorry. If the Holy Spirit is sufficient to teach every believer everything, why did the apostles keep teaching those who already believed?

Simple question!

Ihedinobi: While I do not presume to speak for Bro debosky, I feel sure that you know he couldn't have meant that. But he will clarify for you himself. However, the Church is not a conglomeration of Christian organizations. I say that because it is those organizations as such that hold these many and varied views on the Bible. Individuals either subsscribe to them or reject them. And it is individual believers in their naked faith in Christ that make up the Church. At least, so the Scriptures say or seem to say.

Even individuals have their own contradictory doctrines...including you and debosky. Besides, Adeboye and Pastor Chris impose their personal doctrines on their organizations, dont they? How then can there be these differing doctrines in the one church of God that preaches one faith?

Ihedinobi: Actually no. Christians can tell what and what are inspired by the Holy Spirit by the resonance or lack of it such things have with the Holy Spirit within them.

Which "Holy Spirit" within them? The same one that teaches them millions of contradictory doctrines? PLEASE!

So it is by the Spirit that you knew that the letters were written by their purported writers?! PLEASE, JUST STOP THE DECEIT. What about the books that the Catholic Church threw out? Your Spirit also told you that there were unscriptural, abi?

Ihedinobi: But then they were not altogether strangers to the Church. They were not outsiders bringing in strange ideas, they were insiders with warped conceptions of Christ. They easily passed themselves off as members of the Body.

St. Paul said they had lost connection with the head. If you feel there were part of the body while being disconnected from the head, I have nothing to say to you on that.

Besides, doesnt that prove that it is the Church that interprets God teachings, not even individual lay members of the Church using their own private interpretation to their own detriment?

Enigma: Ah ha!!!!

I had deliberately held back from asking that question! Now let us lance the boil.

According to Roman Catholics: what is "The Church"?

Strictly speaking, The Catholic Church.

According to you, it is "any two or three are gathered in Jesus name", right?