₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
People usually do not love themselves so, no hope

Nobody dey beg them. If they like let them continue in disobedience. They shall surely see!

vdestro:
I am sure you do not see that you sound like a mar_/d person. For with all your plenty talk you have said nothing.

Nothing can defend your worship of images and even your empty attempt to use circumcision to cover your open disobedience of Commandment No 1 is so horrible and only goes to show how openly desperate you definitely are.

Guy continue to disobey eh, nobody dey beg you to commot.

Una go learn!

Can't you engage without abuse? I challenge you to be intellectual in your response. Respond to what I wrote. Did the church have the authority to declare on the judaizer issue in Acts 15? Did Jesus set up a church that has authority? Before you make uninformed assumptions about sola scriptura, try to think about how the christianity has been run from day 1. Howhave disputes been dealt with.

Re. Images, Please read about the iconoclast controversy. Then you can come back and debate with knowledge.
By the way, images are not worshipped- you can clearly see in the decree from 787AD council that I posted.

Wiser people have debated these things for centuries. You need to engage the rationale not spew some novel sola scriptura interpretation in 2025.

btoks:
Can't you engage without abuse? I challenge you to be intellectual in your response. Respond to what I wrote. Did the church have the authority to declare on the judaizer issue in Acts 15? Did Jesus set up a church that has authority? Before you make uninformed assumptions about sola scriptura, try to think about how the christianity has been run from day 1. Howhave disputes been dealt with.

Re. Images, Please read about the iconoclast controversy. Then you can come back and debate with knowledge.
By the way, images are not worshipped- you can clearly see in the decree from 787AD council that I posted.

Wiser people have debated these things for centuries. You need to engage the rationale not spew some novel sola scriptura interpretation in 2025.

It is not abuse to say a thing as it is. You truly sound that way.

Then you are changing post from worshipping images which is the issue to judaizer then to set up church, which is not in issue.

It is clear proof that you cannot defend your worship of images and that you are still obviously in breach of the No 1 Commandment.

So there is nothing further to say!

btoks:
Can't you engage without abuse? I challenge you to be intellectual in your response. Respond to what I wrote. Did the church have the authority to declare on the judaizer issue in Acts 15? Did Jesus set up a church that has authority? Before you make uninformed assumptions about sola scriptura, try to think about how the christianity has been run from day 1. Howhave disputes been dealt with.

Re. Images, Please read about the iconoclast controversy. Then you can come back and debate with knowledge.
By the way, images are not worshipped- you can clearly see in the decree from 787AD council that I posted.

Wiser people have debated these things for centuries. You need to engage the rationale not spew some novel sola scriptura interpretation in 2025.

C'mon Toks, all these are not the issue. And so far none of you have provided a valid defence for this violation.

vdestro:
It is not abuse to say a thing as it is. You truly sound that way.

Then you are changing post from worshipping images which is the issue to judaizer then to set up church, which is not in issue.

It is clear proof that you cannot defend your worship of images and that you are still obviously in breach of the No 1 Commandment.

So there is nothing further to say!

I shall overlook your insult! You could make your point without insults

vdestro:
And the Bible verses have told you clearly to not make images whether of anything in the heavens since una say Mary dey heaven, yet you open eyedly disobey the word of God Himself.

Una go learn!

You stated above in your earlier post and I responded with proof (which you ignored) that the church exercised real authority to settle a doctrinal dispute about circumcision, even though circumcision had been explicitly commanded in the OT.
That shows from the same bible that the Church has authority to interpret and rule on contested matters and t is the foundation of the discussion and not a change in topic.

In likewise manner there had been a brewing controversy about the use of images in the 5th/6th Centuries, the church came together in council to declare on the matter. It examined scriptures and tradition and formally ruled at the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 that images may be used and venerated, while worship belongs to God alone. I shared the decree earlier.

Also, the commandment against graven images did not mean a total ban on all images, because God Himself commanded images to be made in the Ark, the temple and the bronze serpent. What it forbids is idolatry, not every physical representation.



You are free to disagree with catholic/orthodox conclusion and dismiss what I wrote but please answer below:
- Did Jesus establish a Church with teaching authority? What did he mean when he said whoever hears you, hears me?
- Did the Church have authority to rule on the judaizer issue in Acts 15?
- Does scripture truly teach an absolute ban on all images?

The bible is not the total sum of church history - you may need to research how doctrine was guarded and disputes settled

Dtruthspeaker:
C'mon Toks, all these are not the issue. And so far none of you have provided a valid defence for this violation.

I've explained in my last post to other poster the rationale and proof of church authority in allowing images, hope this is helpful.

The main issue with these debates is one of authority. You say sola scriptura, we say the church is what was set up and received authority as recorded in the same scriptures we debate about. This same church has made rulings on several doctrines christians take for granted (including deciding the canon of the same bible as mentioned many times!)

btoks:
I've explained in my last post to other poster the rationale and proof of church authority in allowing images, hope this is helpful.

The main issue with these debates is one of authority. You say sola scriptura, we say the church is what was set up and received authority as recorded in the same scriptures we debate about. This same church has made rulings on several doctrines christians take for granted (including deciding the canon of the same bible as mentioned many times!)

The bible is what gives Christians authority, not any church

Especially as Catholic church was not even in existence when the disciples held churches in their areas and then that church spread from place to place even before Constantine subscribed to it

So Christians and Christian churches get their authority from the Bible. Thus, no church can have authority over the Bible and cannot amend, repeal or add to anything contained in the Bible.

Dtruthspeaker:
The bible is what gives Christians authority, not any church

Especially as Catholic church was not even in existence when the disciples held churches in their areas and then that church spread from place to place even before Constantine subscribed to it

So Christians and Christian churches get their authority from the Bible. Thus, no church can have authority over the Bible and cannot amend, repeal or add to anything contained in the Bible.

The idea that the bible alone gives the christianity its authority is a much later teaching by protestant reformers in the 16th century , 1500 years after. It has no foundation in early christianity and thus novel.

Let's break it down. The church establised by Jesus already existed before a single NT book was written. The first christian communities were founded in the 30s and 40s AD. The earliest NT writings appear decades later. You will note that Paul’s letters were written to churches that already existed and were already functioning with leadership in place. The gospels were written even later. This means the church did not receive its authority from a completed NT. Rather, the new testament arose from within the life of the church.

Also it's a fact that there was no universally agreed NT for over 300 years. Different regions used different collections of book ( as I alluded to in one of my responses to you weeks ago). Books were disputed way into the 300s across these regions and it wasn't until the late 4th century that the NT canon was settled by the church. So how could the bible give the church authority when the bible needed the church to identify its canon?!!

Now let's look outside the NT for other christian writings ( from Apostolic church fathers) from the 1st and 2nd century. It was clear that authority came through Apostolic succession not scriptures alone. Refer to Clement of Rome writings in 96AD, Ignatius 110AD and even Irenauas in 180AD who while debating against heretics pointed to the traceable succession of bishops from the apostles especially in Rome.. There were 13 at that point. Those bishops of Rome are called popes today.

Your history about catholic church is not accurate as Constantine merely legalised it in the roman empire in the the 313AD. The church already existed at that point for 300 years. Refer to Ignatius writing where he named this church established by Jesus as catholic all the way back in 110AD.
Long before Constantine, there were alreadt the same core structure, sacraments and doctrines that continue in catholic and orthodox christianity today ( they were one united church at the time).

Logically, the sola scriptura position also falls apart under its own weight. If all christian authority comes from the bible alone as you assert, then one must first find answer to these questions within the bible itself:
- which books belong in the Bible
- why only those books.
- clear instruction that only those books can be used

We both know the canon and the rule of faith are known only through the historical church. To accept the New testament while rejecting the authority that identified it is not logical

Finally, the NT itself points to church authority. Jesus established a visible church and promised it the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He also gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose and commissioned them to teach all nations. He did not not hand them bibles. It is the church not the bible that is the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Matthew 16:18–19
“I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:17
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

Luke 10:16
“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Acts 15:28
“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these requirements.”

Acts 20:28
“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

1 Timothy 3:15
“…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Scripture is inspired and authoritative but it functions within the life of the church that identified it and interprets it.

Therefore to claim that the bible alone gives christianity its authority is not the original christian view. This can't be traced to the early church.

btoks:
Did Jesus establish a Church with teaching authority?

YES! Matthew 28:20

btoks:
What did he mean when he said whoever hears you, hears me?

The church is the body of Christ so when individuals kick against what the church has decided upon such individuals are no longer members of God's family! Matthew 18:15-17; Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; 2John 10-11; Jude 19

btoks:
- Did the Church have authority to rule on the judaizer issue in Acts 15?

YES! Jesus told Peter and his companion that whatever they bind on earth has been bound in heaven and whatever they loosen on earth has been loosened in heaven {Matthew 16:19} that's why all members of the first century Christians family welcomed the decree of the elders and Apostles in Jerusalem! Act 15:23-29

btoks:
- Does scripture truly teach an absolute ban on all images?

YES! The first century disciples of Christ refused to use any image of Jesus nor bow to it that is why they were able to cofus on teaching by the time use of images was introduced Christianity has gone to sleep as Christ's Apostles were all asleep in death {Matthew 13:25} Jesus himself knew what Satan is capable of doing with imperfect humans that's why he asked "when i return will i still meet the faith i taught has it was established?" Luke 18:8
What is the spiritual danger behind the use of images?
When worshipers are attached to images they will no longer keep sacred writings in their hearts instead their fears and attention will be directed at the images.
For instance what do you think members of the Catholic Church who are fighting and killing fellow worshipers during war will do if both opposing sides came to the battle line with the image of Peter?
Do you think they will still go ahead with the fighting and killing while looking at Peter standing right there?
Of course not!
So the image is what they keep in their hearts and not the words of Jesus who said:

"I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:34-35

But since the images is what they respect mostly and they don't go to war with either the image of Peter or Mary it is easier for them to fight and kill their fellow worshipers while the images are safe at home instead of carrying the images to the battle line and watch carefully who will dare strike the image of Mary or Peter even though such a person may claim he did so mistakingly!😟

btoks:
The idea that the bible alone gives the christianity its authority is a much later teaching by protestant reformers in the 16th century , 1500 years after. It has no foundation in early christianity and thus novel.

The Bible as we know it was not even in existence so how can it be in play?

Not to talk of the fact that like Stephen's speech shows they all had the facts and testimonies and witnesses.

Meanwhile, it is known that as those first witnesses die off, later generations would need to know the Truth of all that transpired and what was Said, hence the value of writing and record keeping and the compilation thereof. Hence the bible was made.

Of which from Moses's writings to the prophets writings, all were separate documents but the bible is a reasonable compilation of them all and it is the authority of what is called Christianity.

So, whether every letter was complied or remove from it, does not change the authority of the bible.

Of which, those letters or book not added to the bible stand on the good reason that they have issues with them or that they are fakes.

But, the bible as presently constituted reasonably satisfies our needs as Christians,

Thus every other book that did not make it in there is irrelevant and cannot be an authority over any Christian church.

And the bible isn't new testament alone but the combination of the old and the new, of which Paul's letters, the bulk of which forms the new testament, is a Law Opinion (what you understand as legal opinion but because legal is a fake concept is why I said Law opinion).. so Paul gives a necessary Law opinion and view of The Laws and Statutes and Judgements God gave Moses. So it's addition to the bible was a very good thing as no writer gave a very comprehensive Law overview of the The laws and Judgments God gave Moses.

So, even if the Bible stopped in John or in Malachi, it would still be the bible and it would still be the authority of Christians whether Constantine or Gumi legalized it or not.

And of course when you say church authority, you cannot say Catholic church, for Catholic church was not in existence nor was it created by the Jewish christians even though the church founded by Christ through the disciples (Jews) was in existence and already spreading beyond Isreal.

So, if that church spoke that is were value comes from of which from the circumcision case, we saw that that church is it listening and discerning church.

But your Catholic church has no value and authority in these matters just like the one established in somebody's parlour today. You can say your say, exactly how church Suleiman can say his say, but the bible would be the Ruler and standard. And if your say does not comply with it, it will be shot down and rejected.

btoks:
I shall overlook your insult! You could make your point without insults


You stated above in your earlier post and I responded with proof (which you ignored) that the church exercised real authority to settle a doctrinal dispute about circumcision, even though circumcision had been explicitly commanded in the OT.
That shows from the same bible that the Church has authority to interpret and rule on contested matters and t is the foundation of the discussion and not a change in topic.

In likewise manner there had been a brewing controversy about the use of images in the 5th/6th Centuries, the church came together in council to declare on the matter. It examined scriptures and tradition and formally ruled at the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 that images may be used and venerated, while worship belongs to God alone. I shared the decree earlier.

Also, the commandment against graven images did not mean a total ban on all images, because God Himself commanded images to be made in the Ark, the temple and the bronze serpent. What it forbids is idolatry, not every physical representation.



You are free to disagree with catholic/orthodox conclusion and dismiss what I wrote but please answer below:
- Did Jesus establish a Church with teaching authority? What did he mean when he said whoever hears you, hears me?
- Did the Church have authority to rule on the judaizer issue in Acts 15?
- Does scripture truly teach an absolute ban on all images?

The bible is not the total sum of church history - you may need to research how doctrine was guarded and disputes settled

You have not said anything in counter to your worship of images!

Rather you are repeating your change of Post.

So clearly this is over!

vdestro:
You have not said anything in counter to your worship of images!

Rather you are repeating your change of Post.

So clearly this is over!

Do you know you've not actually engaged the points raised. I've challenged you to come back with an intellectual response.
It's not worth debating you as all you do is refute with no valid points. So using your stlye, this is over!

btoks:
Do you know you've not actually engaged the points raised. I've challenged you to come back with an intellectual response.
It's not worth debating you as all you do is refute with no valid points. So using your stlye, this is over!

Ha, what is there to respond to your change of post? So you expect a response to change of post? You must be joking.

vdestro:
Ha, what is there to respond to your change of post? So you expect a response to change of post? You must be joking.

There's no change of post. There is rationale for my method. You're just evading. If you're serious, go back and read what I posted.

btoks:
There's no change of post. There is rationale for my method. You're just evading. If you're serious, go back and read what I posted.

Funny guy, you thought you could use diversion and change of post to evade your worship of images

You can keep lamenting. I am done

Dtruthspeaker:
The Bible as we know it was not even in existence so how can it be in play?

Not to talk of the fact that like Stephen's speech shows they all had the facts and testimonies and witnesses.

Meanwhile, it is known that as those first witnesses die off, later generations would need to know the Truth of all that transpired and what was Said, hence the value of writing and record keeping and the compilation thereof. Hence the bible was made.

Of which from Moses's writings to the prophets writings, all were separate documents but the bible is a reasonable compilation of them all and it is the authority of what is called Christianity.

So, whether every letter was complied or remove from it, does not change the authority of the bible.

Of which, those letters or book not added to the bible stand on the good reason that they have issues with them or that they are fakes.

But, the bible as presently constituted reasonably satisfies our needs as Christians,

Thus every other book that did not make it in there is irrelevant and cannot be an authority over any Christian church.

And the bible isn't new testament alone but the combination of the old and the new, of which Paul's letters, the bulk of which forms the new testament, is a Law Opinion (what you understand as legal opinion but because legal is a fake concept is why I said Law opinion).. so Paul gives a necessary Law opinion and view of The Laws and Statutes and Judgements God gave Moses. So it's addition to the bible was a very good thing as no writer gave a very comprehensive Law overview of the The laws and Judgments God gave Moses.

So, even if the Bible stopped in John or in Malachi, it would still be the bible and it would still be the authority of Christians whether Constantine or Gumi legalized it or not.

And of course when you say church authority, you cannot say Catholic church, for Catholic church was not in existence nor was it created by the Jewish christians even though the church founded by Christ through the disciples (Jews) was in existence and already spreading beyond Isreal.

So, if that church spoke that is were value comes from of which from the circumcision case, we saw that that church is it listening and discerning church.

But your Catholic church has no value and authority in these matters just like the one established in somebody's parlour today. You can say your say, exactly how church Suleiman can say his say, but the bible would be the Ruler and standard. And if your say does not comply with it, it will be shot down and rejected.

Your make several claims, but there are plenty holes and assumptions.
You are assuming a settled NT with clear authority before it existed. Recall that NT recorded events that occured decades before! You are also assuming a continuous early church that taught the truth while denying the identity of that same church once it appears in history outside the NT!

If the catholic church did not have binding authority, how's it possible to explain how the NT came to be recognised at all?
You say the bible retains authority even if letters are removed or added but no one is questioning the scripture. The question is how do you know which books count as scripture. The NT hass 27 books and no christian of the first 200 years had that complete list. Even the different judaism groups recognised different OT canons at the time.

You also say bible would have remained authoritative even if it ended in Malachi! How would the church have been able to function with only the OT? And then what is the rationale for including the NT at all. (In any case, christians operated with no NT for decades)

If you say that the catholic church did not exist during early christianity, where is the evidence that the original church disappeared or where is that church tiday?. Who preserved its teaching and continued its mission.

You referred to the Jerusalem council as the early church speaking and that's where value comes from. That council did not rely on a completed NT. Luke recorded this event decades later in Acts. It made a binding decision for all christians based on the discernment of the apostles and elders, guided by the Holy Spirit. Which church do you think carried on this pattern when there are disputes?


These questions remain for you:
When did the NT become a recognised authority?

Who had the authority to distinguish its books from all others?

How did christians know the truth before the NT was compiled?

What happened to the church founded by the Jesus if it is not the same as the Catholic/Orthodox Church?

Why did Paul command christians to hold unwritten traditions and letter if sola scritura is the rule of faith.

Where is is stated that the bible only reasonably satifies our means as christians according to you?

Who decided that Paul's letters were a law option according to you?

MaxInDHouse:
YES! Matthew 28:20


The church is the body of Christ so when individuals kick against what the church has decided upon such individuals are no longer members of God's family! Matthew 18:15-17; Romans 16:17; Titus 3:10; 2John 10-11; Jude 19


YES! Jesus told Peter and his companion that whatever they bind on earth has been bound in heaven and whatever they loosen on earth has been loosened in heaven {Matthew 16:19} that's why all members of the first century Christians family welcomed the decree of the elders and Apostles in Jerusalem! Act 15:23-29

YES! The first century disciples of Christ refused to use any image of Jesus nor bow to it that is why they were able to cofus on teaching by the time use of images was introduced Christianity has gone to sleep as Christ's Apostles were all asleep in death {Matthew 13:25} Jesus himself knew what Satan is capable of doing with imperfect humans that's why he asked "when i return will i still meet the faith i taught has it was established?" Luke 18:8
What is the spiritual danger behind the use of images?
When worshipers are attached to images they will no longer keep sacred writings in their hearts instead their fears and attention will be directed at the images.
For instance what do you think members of the Catholic Church who are fighting and killing fellow worshipers during war will do if both opposing sides came to the battle line with the image of Peter?
Do you think they will still go ahead with the fighting and killing while looking at Peter standing right there?
Of course not!
So the image is what they keep in their hearts and not the words of Jesus who said:

"I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:34-35

But since the images is what they respect mostly and they don't go to war with either the image of Peter or Mary it is easier for them to fight and kill their fellow worshipers while the images are safe at home instead of carrying the images to the battle line and watch carefully who will dare strike the image of Mary or Peter even though such a person may claim he did so mistakingly!😟

Greetings, if the church had the authority to rule on the judaizer controversy in Acts 15, what makes you think this authority was lost and the same church couldn't rule on disputes afterwards including the iconoclast controversy? There is nothing to suggest that this pattern stopped.

By the way, the images are not worshipped, worship belongs to God alone. The use of sacred images is based on a much older pattern of remembrance that already appeared in the OT.The tabernacle and the temple contained carved cherubim, embroidered figures and other objects. These were not treated as idols but were reminders of God’s presence and of the heavenly realities that Israel confessed. The same is the case with catholic/Orthodox church.

Worth noting that images served the practical purpose in teachings christians. For the 1st 1500 years fewer than 10% of the population could read and images could present the stories and truths of scripture in a memorable way. This was not a new practice as you claim. Synagogues in several regions used decorative art with scriptural themes long before christianity appeared.

btoks:
Greetings, if the church had the authority to rule on the judaizer controversy in Acts 15, what makes you think this authority was lost and the same church couldn't rule on disputes afterwards including the iconoclast controversy?

Jesus said:
"I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:34-35

The Apostles only set matters straight among the disciples using the scriptures {2Timothy 3:16} that's why Jesus said their will be peace among them. John 14:26-26

By the time those churches were doing these things the Apostles were all dead the spirit of love is no more operational among the churches and they have started fighting and killing themselves including others using politics to impose rules.

So whatever they decided upon at that time is no longer with the spirit of God rather forcefully imposing philosophy on people.

btoks:
There's no change of post. There is rationale for my method. You're just evading. If you're serious, go back and read what I posted.

you go wail tire

Now you can have the last word since it is important for you to have it

btoks:
You are assuming a settled NT with clear authority before it existed. Recall that NT recorded events that occured decades before! You are also assuming a continuous early church that taught the truth while denying the identity of that same church once it appears in history outside the NT! !

You are just trying to create unending arguments since you real eyes that you cannot counter my response, so you have resorted to raising new grounds of argument eg "NT recorded events that occured decades before or denying the identity which is not the issue.

The NT I addressed is the Paul's letters which you raised because you know that Paul's letters is the bulk of Nt. So now you cannot counter it, you have now moved post to create new grounds of argument which by the laws of debate you cannot do.

btoks:
If the catholic church did not have binding authority, how's it possible to explain how the NT came to be recognised at all? !

Any body of Christians could have complied the bible as long as they were given all the materials to do so.

Since Christians cannot be violent, God just used the violent Roman to get it done exactly how He used the British white bandits to bring it to Africa.

No big deal in it. And neither did that best authority in the British.

btoks:
You say the bible retains authority even if letters are removed or added but no one is questioning the scripture. The question is how do you know which books count as scripture. The NT hass 27 books and no christian of the first 200 years had that complete list. Even the different judaism groups recognised different OT canons at the time. !

From the spirit of the first undisputed books, God's Spirit can be discerned for it can be seen that a sequence emerged.

Thus, if you have identified 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, ... You must look for 8,9,10 and if you have 13 and 19, you would know it does not key until the missing numbers are found and filled.

And now from the first sequence, there cannot be two 13s or 3, twenties.

And in all these, if the the first undisputed 7 books were the bible, that bible is already the Authority.

btoks:
You also say bible would have remained authoritative even if it ended in Malachi! How would the church have been able to function with only the OT? !

Did you not see Ezra and Nehemiah and their churches function even when the bible had not reached Malachi?

So, you see, the Bible was already ruling..

btoks:
And then what is the rationale for including the NT at all. (In any case, christians operated with no NT for decades) !

I answered this saying it was to give a very comprehensive Law overview and exposē of the The laws and Judgments God gave Moses is a Law Opinion (what you understand as legal opinion but because legal is a fake concept is why I said Law opinion).

Jesus started it, but people won't get it, so God got lawyer Paul to come and break it down for you lay men, so that no one can say that he did not understand The Law and Judgements of God.

That is why it is good it was added especially as you would notice that the old testament is mostly stories where people wil pretend not to see that it is still talking about the application of God's Laws and judgements, which now the N.T is mostly dedicated to Law and Judgement and the prophecy of judgement Day.

btoks:
If you say that the catholic church did not exist during early christianity, where is the evidence that the original church disappeared or where is that church tiday?. Who preserved its teaching and continued its mission. !

Who said it disappeared? Did you not see Philip transfer it to the Ethiopian Eunuch and the church came to Africa even before the Romans took it up?

Did you not hear Gameliel's warning even before Rome took it up, that if it the church was truly established by God it cannot be stopped?

So definitely, it is God Himself Who preserves it and not Rome or any man.

btoks:
You referred to the Jerusalem council as the early church speaking and that's where value comes from. That council did not rely on a completed NT. Luke recorded this event decades later in Acts. It made a binding decision for all christians based on the discernment of the apostles and elders, guided by the Holy Spirit. Which church do you think carried on this pattern when there are disputes? !

I clearly stated that, "if sand when that church speaks/spoke value and binding precedent comes from of it" because they were the direct Jewish appointees of Christ.

But that cannot be said for Catholic church as for pastor Chris.

btoks:
These questions remain for you:
When did the NT become a recognised authority?!

When it was seen by Christians to be the very Word of God.

btoks:
Who had the authority to distinguish its books from all others?!

Any Christian like those in Antioch and not the church goers who claim Christian

btoks:
How did christians know the truth before the NT was compiled?!

Exactly how the disciples perceived that Jesus was The Promised One.

btoks:
What happened to the church founded by the Jesus if it is not the same as the Catholic/Orthodox Church?!

Nothing, other than doing its mission of spreading The Word of God to the ends of the earth.

btoks:
Why did Paul command christians to hold unwritten traditions and letter if sola scritura is the rule of faith.!

Because people lpervert The Law as you yourself have done here, however, by The Spirit of The Law, No man can pervert it.

That is why you asked me these many questions in your bid to escape judgement.

But I have gone through the pains to answer you to show you that whether in word or in spirit, when you are guilty, you remain guilty with no escape

btoks:
Where is is stated that the bible only reasonably satifies our means as christians according to you?!

I said "needs".

And we can see, the whole Christian world has since been satisfied with the Bible.

btoks:
Who decided that Paul's letters were a law option according to you?

Where did I say law option?

Do you not have eyes to see it? Even fisherman Peter declared it.

So, you see, after all your attempt to dodge guilt, I still stuck it. And of course you won't be able to do this rubbish in God's Court.

I wash my hands of you, you can carry on as you desire as I said at the beginning of this post you are just trying to make rubbish of this debate since you saw that you could
not counter my response, so resorted to made this very long so that I won't be able to address all of them.

But I have done that and it is your own life or deat

[quote author=Dtruthspeaker post=137764155]

You are just trying to create unending arguments since you real eyes that you cannot counter my response, so you have resorted to raising new grounds of argument eg "NT recorded events that occured decades before or denying the identity which is not the issue.

The NT I addressed is the Paul's letters which you raised because you know that Paul's letters is the bulk of Nt. So now you cannot counter it, you have now moved post to create new grounds of argument which by the laws of debate you cannot do.

I'm not raising new grounds. Paul’s letters are part of the NT and their authority depends on the larger question of how the church recognised scripture in the 1st instance. You cannot discuss Paul without discussing the canon. Your argument assumes a settled NT without explaining how it was settled.

Any body of Christians could have complied the bible as long as they were given all the materials to do so.

Since Christians cannot be violent, God just used the violent Roman to get it done exactly how He used the British white bandits to bring it to Africa.

No big deal in it. And neither did that best authority in the British.

history doesn't support your claim. The canon was not formed by random groups scattered across the world. There were disputes that lasted centuries. Some books were accepted in some churches and rejected in others. The idea that any group could have produced the canon ignores the real disagreements among early Christians.
If there is no authoritative church you have no method to explain how christians knew which books were genuine. Saying 'God used the violent roman' is not an argument. It is just your own story you choose to believe.

From the spirit of the first undisputed books, God's Spirit can be discerned for it can be seen that a sequence emerged.

Thus, if you have identified 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, ... You must look for 8,9,10 and if you have 13 and 19, you would know it does not key until the missing numbers are found and filled.

And now from the first sequence, there cannot be two 13s or 3, twenties.

And in all these, if the the first undisputed 7 books were the bible, that bible is already the Authority.

This is weak and very novel. early christians didnt operate like this and your analogy doesn't prove anything. There is no such sequence in OT. No early christian writer used this method, neither did any council. if the 1st 7 books were enough to be the bible then by your logic we did not need the rest. Yet the church preserved 27 NT books.How do you even know which are the 1st undisputed books?

Did you not see Ezra and Nehemiah and their churches function even when the bible had not reached Malachi?

So, you see, the Bible was already ruling..

bro, history shows the early church relied on apostolic preaching, sacramental life and the community Jesus established. The OT wasn't sufficient

I answered this saying it was to give a very comprehensive Law overview and exposē of the The laws and Judgments God gave Moses is a Law Opinion (what you understand as legal opinion but because legal is a fake concept is why I said Law opinion).

Jesus started it, but people won't get it, so God got lawyer Paul to come and break it down for you lay men, so that no one can say that he did not understand The Law and Judgements of God.

That is why it is good it was added especially as you would notice that the old testament is mostly stories where people wil pretend not to see that it is still talking about the application of God's Laws and judgements, which now the N.T is mostly dedicated to Law and Judgement and the prophecy of judgement Day.

This is just your personal opinion. the early church didn't explain it this way. The NT writings were accepted because the church recognised them as of apostolic origin, in faithful agreement with the teaching already received, and regularly used in worship. nothing about Paul being a lawyer to explain blah. Who said Paul was a lawyer sef?

Who said it disappeared? Did you not see Philip transfer it to the Ethiopian Eunuch and the church came to Africa even before the Romans took it up?

Did you not hear Gameliel's warning even before Rome took it up, that if it the church was truly established by God it cannot be stopped?

So definitely, it is God Himself Who preserves it and not Rome or any man.

Yes, the gospel spread. The question is which church preserved the full apostolic structure and teaching. Even the Ethiopian church remained in communion with the wider catholic church and bishops for centuries. That fact alone contradicts your point.

So where is that God's church today in visible, continuous form?

I clearly stated that, "if sand when that church speaks/spoke value and binding precedent comes from of it" because they were the direct Jewish appointees of Christ.

But that cannot be said for Catholic church as for pastor Chris.

Acts 15 shows apostles and elders acting together. After the apostles died, their successors carried out the same work. That is why the early church used the term bishop and saw the office as continuing the apostolic mission through apostolic succession. Every early church father confirms this. You are only trying to erase history!!

When it was seen by Christians to be the very Word of God.

Haba!! recognised by which christians? The ones that couldn't read or which ones? Surely there are records

Any Christian like those in Antioch and not the church goers who claim Christian

Tis is not true. Even Antioch disputed books. This is a very weak argument!!

Exactly how the disciples perceived that Jesus was The Promised One.

The early church relied on apostolic teaching. They were told to hold fast to traditions by word or letter.

Nothing, other than doing its mission of spreading The Word of God to the ends of the earth.

your claim is not evidence. Show where the original church is today in a continuous, traceable line.
it's known historically that the only communities that can demonstrate this continuity are the apostolic sees at Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople. These make up the catholic/orthodox that you dismiss.

Because people lpervert The Law as you yourself have done here, however, by The Spirit of The Law, No man can pervert it.

That is why you asked me these many questions in your bid to escape judgement.

But I have gone through the pains to answer you to show you that whether in word or in spirit, when you are guilty, you remain guilty with no escape

I think you're deluding yourself . I want to know how I'm perverting the law!! by the way your response is weak and didn't answer the question.

I said "needs".

And we can see, the whole Christian world has since been satisfied with the Bible.

was obviously a typo. The vast majority of christians throughout history do not practice sola scriptura. This is a modern doctrine. The bible goes along with sacred tradition and teaching magisterium - This is how it's been from early christianity.

Where did I say law option?

Do you not have eyes to see it? Even fisherman Peter declared it.

Peter said Paul wrote with wisdom. He did not call them legal opinions. He never said Paul’s letters alone formed the rule of faith. You are reading ideas into the text that are not present.

So, you see, after all your attempt to dodge guilt, I still stuck it. And of course you won't be able to do this rubbish in God's Court.

I wash my hands of you, you can carry on as you desire as I said at the beginning of this post you are just trying to make rubbish of this debate since you saw that you could
not counter my response, so resorted to made this very long so that I won't be able to address all of them.

But I have done that and it is your own life or deat

I have nothing to prove to you personally. My position comes from studying christian history and scripture in detail. Many protestants who study these matters seriously eventually revise their view of sola scriptura because the historical record does not support it. your approach avoids evidence and relies on personal theories with no substance, you might as well defend the hindu book or quran or any ancient book.

MaxInDHouse:
Jesus said:
"I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves.” John 13:34-35

The Apostles only set matters straight among the disciples using the scriptures {2Timothy 3:16} that's why Jesus said their will be peace among them. John 14:26-26

By the time those churches were doing these things the Apostles were all dead the spirit of love is no more operational among the churches and they have started fighting and killing themselves including others using politics to impose rules.

So whatever they decided upon at that time is no longer with the spirit of God rather forcefully imposing philosophy on people.

Effectively, you are saying the church that Jesus Himself established collapsed the moment the apostles died. That would mean his promise failed. He said the Spirit would guide His Church, that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and that He would be with it until the end. Well , I leave that one with you and Jesus Christ.

btoks:
I'm not raising new grounds. Paul’s letters are part of the NT and their authority depends on the larger question of how the church recognised scripture in the 1st instance. You cannot discuss Paul without discussing the canon

You were the one who raised Paul's letters. You did not raise canon. And after I addressed it, you moved all over the place away from the issue. And so you have achieved your goal. But you forget it's your neck on the noose over the violation of the idolatry Commandment meanwhile you are trying to plead your church's opinion whereas, God's going to judge you based on His commandments and not on your books

Dtruthspeaker:
You were the one who raised Paul's letters. You did not raise canon. And after I addressed it, you moved all over the place away from the issue. And so you have achieved your goal. But you forget it's your neck on the noose over the violation of the idolatry Commandment meanwhile you are trying to plead your church's opinion whereas, God's going to judge you based on His commandments and not on your books

Thank you for your concern, although I have no fear.
Let's put it this way, I wouldn't even believe the bible without the church established by Jesus identifying this is the Word of God. If the church got the bible right, I can trust its declarations on other doctrinal matters including allowing the use of images in church and home. Not for worship or idolatry as worship is for the Trinity alone.
The xhurch has always rejected the worship of any created thing. Images serve a different purpose. They remind christians of the reality of the Incarnation, they assist teaching and offer a way of honouring the saints who have finished their course and now part of the church triumphant. A soldier does not worship his nation’s flag but respects what it stands for. A man who kisses a photo of his deceased mother does not worship the paper. He honours the person represented and keeps her memory alive. Christian images function in the same way. Shikena.

btoks:
Thank you for your concern, although I have no fear.
Let's put it this way, I wouldn't even believe the bible without the church established by Jesus identifying this is the Word of God. If the church got the bible right, I can trust its declarations on other doctrinal matters including allowing the use of images in church and home. Not for worship or idolatry as worship is for the Trinity alone.
The xhurch has always rejected the worship of any created thing. Images serve a different purpose. They remind christians of the reality of the Incarnation, they assist teaching and offer a way of honouring the saints who have finished their course and now part of thechurch triumphant. A soldier does not worship his nation’s flag but respects what it stands for. A man who kisses a photo of his deceased mother does not worship the paper. He honours the person represented and keeps her memory alive. Christian images function in the same way. Shikena.

Now you say the bible and your Catholic church are the one and the same whereas the bible Said do not have images to worship them yet, your church makes you now to Mary and other images.

Well on God's Court Day, we will see what would happen to you people

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you say the bible and your Catholic church are the one and the same whereas the bible Said do not have images to worship them yet, your church makes you now to Mary and other images.

Well on God's Court Day, we will see what would happen to you people

This is exactly why the bible must be read within the context of the church, not through private interpretation. E.g, Im sure you know the commandment -'thou shall not kill'. If read out of context, you would think all killing is forbidden. However, in the OT there are many cases where God commanded the destruction of hostile nations (e.g. the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15) and authorised capital punishment for certain crimes in the law of Moses.
In the same vain, there are exceptions to the commandment on images. God Himself instructed images to be made a number of times. The church discerned this and allowed images for specific purposes as mentioned before. Images are not worshipped.

The church doesn't override scripture but interprets faithfully. Just as it's done about killing/just war and sacred Images.

Leave God's judgement for God and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

btoks:
This is exactly why the bible must be read within the context of the church, not through private interpretation. ..

By church you mean the Roman Catholic church and not even the Jewish church that came from Christ Himself.

Then of course your Roman church is not also giving their own private interpretation, right?

then on your so called exceptions to the commandment on images, God Say "make those images for yourselves and bow to them".

No.

Anyway, as you said we should "Leave God's judgement for God ". We would all see it on that Day.

Dtruthspeaker:
By church you mean the Roman Catholic church and not even the Jewish church that came from Christ Himself.

Then of course your Roman church is not also giving their own private interpretation, right?

then on your so called exceptions to the commandment on images, God Say "make those images for yourselves and bow to them".

No.

Anyway, as you said we should "Leave God's judgement for God ". We would all see it on that Day.

It's historical fact that the early Jewish church was part of the wider church named catholic. What you inaccurately refer to as roman catholic church is just the western rite/expression of that same catholic church. The catholic church has always included several eastern rites/expressions in communion such the jewish, armenian, chaldean, maronite, syro malabar rites etc. (I won't go into the orthodox split)
Even today, you’ll find that the custodians of the sites in the holy land are either catholic or orthodox which reflects an unbroken history.

You can try all you want to separate the early church from the catholic church but the historical facts speak for themselves. (There are just so many proofs) .
The only example you were able to give of that early church is the spread to Ethiopia. As i mentioned before, this church was also in communion with the catholic church for centuries, in fact its doctrines are very similar to catholic and also use sacred images and doesn't practice sola scriptura. It only split after it rejected the 451 AD council of Chalcedon due to their own miaphysite understanding of the nature of Jesus.


The Roman empire was totally different from the catholic church. I see you've been trying to conflate both. One was political, the other spiritual.
Re bolded, it's not private interpretation but via its authority given by Jesus to bind and lose and settle disputes. It has boldly done this through history, also the reason it declared what the biblical canon is.


Please do some research on the early church with an open mind to get useful info. Christianity is a lot deeper than sola scriptura accounts for.

btoks:
It's historical fact that the early Jewish church was part of the wider church named catholic...

That is not True especially as the history shows that the Romans persecuted the Church. And to maintain hold over the conquered territories, they just rode on growing popularity and respect the conquered territories had for Christians, so the Romans created their own version of church to align with the Christian churches to look like the Christian church.

It is that alignment that you are referring to. And as you can see, the Romans Catholic church still maintains the paganisms of the Romans which is why they over elevated Mary and caused you to worship her in substitution for their pagan god, Juno.

Catholic church is a church of paganism which you yourself confessed to saying "The catholic church has always included several eastern rites/expressions in communion such the jewish, armenian, chaldean, maronite, syro malabar rites etc.

Romans have always practiced polytheism

Unlike the disciples Christian church, where no accusation of paganism was ever in it

Of which, just like JWs you Catholics say in the church that you are not Christians but are Catholics

https://www.nairaland.com/8347687/it-roman-catholics-pagans-ruled/1#134241458

From Wikipedia
"Christianity began as a Jewish sect and remained so for centuries in some locations, diverging gradually from Judaism over doctrinal, social and historical differences. Despite the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, the faith spread as a grassroots movement that by the third century was established both in and outside the empire."

Since Christianity was practiced being
practiced "underground" and out of public sight, for centuries, so I ask when and how does the Roman Catholic church say they connect to Peter, an Israelite, when they were busy pursuing him and putting him in prison trying to shut him and his new small religion?

Especially as the records say that Emperor Nero tortured Peter and Paul?

"After a massive fire burned down the majority of Rome in 64 CE during the reign of Nero, the emperor blamed the event on the Christians and made a public showcase of torturing and executing the cult’s practioners, which possibly included the Apostles Peter and Paul

So, Catholic church never connected to Peter or to the Christian church. They just did political alignment and eye service. And the history shows that the Roman Empire and Catholic church are one and the same thing especially

AI Overview
In ancient Rome, the concept of separation of church and state, as we know it, didn't exist; early Christians were a persecuted minority

So you see you lie when you say this Roman Empire and Catholic church were separate

Dtruthspeaker:
That is not True especially as the history shows that the Romans persecuted the Church. And to maintain hold over the conquered territories, they just rode on growing popularity and respect the conquered territories had for Christians, so the Romans created their own version of church to align with the Christian churches to look like the Christian church.

It is that alignment that you are referring to. And as you can see, the Romans Catholic church still maintains the paganisms of the Romans which is why they over elevated Mary and caused you to worship her in substitution for their pagan god, Juno.

Catholic church is a church of paganism which you yourself confessed to saying "The catholic church has always included several eastern rites/expressions in communion such the jewish, armenian, chaldean, maronite, syro malabar rites etc.

Romans have always practiced polytheism

Unlike the disciples Christian church, where no accusation of paganism was ever in it

Of which, just like JWs you Catholics say in the church that you are not Christians but are Catholics

https://www.nairaland.com/8347687/it-roman-catholics-pagans-ruled/1#134241458

From Wikipedia
"Christianity began as a Jewish sect and remained so for centuries in some locations, diverging gradually from Judaism over doctrinal, social and historical differences. Despite the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, the faith spread as a grassroots movement that by the third century was established both in and outside the empire."

Since Christianity was practiced being
practiced "underground" and out of public sight, for centuries, so I ask when and how does the Roman Catholic church say they connect to Peter, an Israelite, when they were busy pursuing him and putting him in prison trying to shut him and his new small religion?

Especially as the records say that Emperor Nero tortured Peter and Paul?

"After a massive fire burned down the majority of Rome in 64 CE during the reign of Nero, the emperor blamed the event on the Christians and made a public showcase of torturing and executing the cult’s practioners, which possibly included the Apostles Peter and Paul

So, Catholic church never connected to Peter or to the Christian church. They just did political alignment and eye service. And the history shows that the Roman Empire and Catholic church are one and the same thing especially

AI Overview
In ancient Rome, the concept of separation of church and state, as we know it, didn't exist; early Christians were a persecuted minority

So you see you lie when you say this Roman Empire and Catholic church were separate

All these are typical anti-catholic rhetorics you choose you believe.you’ve not actually researched christian history and it's so obvious in your write up.
Bro, if we test these against primary sources, they don’t hold up and are just a bunch of lies and myths created by anticatholic groups after the 16th century to justify breaking away from the historic church.

I challenge you to show proof of these claims in early christianity and while at it do some actual research, not pick up a wiki article here and there with no context!


Just to restate

Constantine/Roman emperor legalised christianity he did not invent it.The bishops who led the early councils already governed established churches worldwide.

Christianity spread across Syria, Egypt, Armenia, Ethiopia, even India all beyond Roman empire control but these churches share the same structure, sacraments and beliefs as catholic and orthodox christianity today.

Mary never replaced pagan goddesses and your claim has no basis in history.
Veneration is not worship and this distinction existed long before roman empire supported christianity.
No ancient christian source accuses the catholic church of paganism.

Your false theory requires a total collapse of christianity with no historical trace, this never happened.

The Roman empire and the catholic church are separate, you can clearly see that the church carried on even after the roman empire collapse.

Peter and Paul are buried within catholics churches in Rome and the veneration predates roman empire legalisation of christianity.

What church do you think all the church fathers and writers connected to ? Are they from some mythical early church you can't even identify?

Do further research and would happily engage.