₦airaland Forum

Syncan: Please tell me among all these churches mentioned, which one does not have devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary even at the time you mentioned.

Please,You may need to study a little before replying, and lets be honest, the truth shall set us free.

I need to understand this question better, what do you exactly mean by the bold?

Syncan: Dear friend, this is what i saw further on: "According to this scholar, who studied the original scrolls for many years, the oldest fragments of the Book of Watchers are dated 200–150 BC" I do not know where you get your info, please let anyone who could access this link verify what superior1 has claimed please. He owes me a thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Enoch&action=edit&section=14

I am still waiting for you to tell me why you hold the bible as authentic word of God and others not.

200 BC was far short of the time Enoch existed, Enoch existed more than 1000 BC, so how can the book be traced to 200 BC when the author lived millennium years behind the time. The capture of Israel by Babylonia was documented around 600 BC before this time are the Judges, Moses, Jacob, Abraham etc to the time of the flood
(which was the time Enoch lived, that should be maybe 2000 BC), so the book cant be written by Enoch

Syncan: I discuss on what is brought up. I do not just bring up issues when the one on ground has not been trashed. The issue of Enoch came up here on this thread and I commented on it. You don't have to be apprehensive, this is not a debate of who wins; but a discuss of facts, where truth is laid out on the table for all to see and meditate on. That's why it pains me when you see what Paul said in 2Thess2:15 and still say "If Paul said...". Or when you see the bible say All scripture is profitable... and you make it look like "Only scripture should...".

Note that I have even called on everyone else to help out on the search for your claim on Enoch date.

You said I should show you something from the bible, I asked you to prove to me why you believed in the bible as the only God's authentic word. Don't you see that it is only when we agree on this that I will now have the obligation of showing you what you desire?

Obviously you didnt even remember the deal i am talking of, you didnt only failed to answer the question but was urging me to keep repeating the question, i then said i will only respond to your question (since someone has already answered mine) if you sign a deal that you will answer my questions in the future without playing around. You get it now? so do we have a deal?

Syncan: Dear friend, this is what i saw further on: "According to this scholar, who studied the original scrolls for many years, the oldest fragments of the Book of Watchers are dated 200–150 BC" I do not know where you get your info, please let anyone who could access this link verify what superior1 has claimed please. He owes me a thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Enoch&action=edit&section=14

I am still waiting for you to tell me why you hold the bible as authentic word of God and others not.

You saw what you chose to see and you just started seeing this when chukwudi came up. Give me some time (a little busy) and I will get back to u on this and the other on Mary.

You can however sign the deal I propose earlier to get response on why bible, ok?

Syncan: Be careful where you get your info.

"The older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) are estimated to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably was composed at the end of the 1st century BC".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch

The book of Enoch was written centuries before Christ was born, and Jude quoted it, not the other way round. You may thank me later for this.

Na Syncan, there is nothing to thank you for, go back and read that article properly, If i were not on my phone, I would have posted portions of that article that supported what I said earlier (will do that later).

If you present a photocopy of a book which spoke about the times in the past, whereas your story can be said to be from the past but do that photocopied paper itself indicate the time the original was written?

There was no original copy of that book and it's authenticity couldn't be verified, the book itself contains stories of different era, it was believed to be fraud and it wasn't the only book accepted so by the majority of the church.

Now syncan, what became of our discussion on the bible being the word of God?

chukwudi44: If superior ad any knowlege of biblical history he should have known that the book of Enoch was written centuries before the birth of Jesus and long before the letter of Jude was written.Maybe you do not know that the book of Enoch is scripure in the ethiopian and erithrean orthodox churches bibles.More than 20 non-biblical books was mentioned in the OT especially in the books of 1-2 Kings,1-2 Chronicles,

Furthermore,The book of jashar is recomended by the authours of Joshua 10:13 and 2 samuel 1: 18.

Bible alone doctrine does not have any scriptural basis.There is no such teaching any where in the scripture.Even the term bible has no scriptural origin.

Read my response to syncan

Syncan: Because the book of Enoch is dated 300BC, and you said it was written after Jude about 50AD. Are those who canonized the books in the bible about 400AD not often referred to as early church fathers?

Because Enoch existed around that time?. So, if I write a book and call it the book of hitler it means the book was written during the lifetime of hitler?. What is the date of the earliest copy of the book of enoch?. I told you the reason that book was never accepted was because it was believed by early Christians to be fraud by an author who wrote it and mentioned Jude 1:14 in it to give it credibility and make it appeared Jude was quoting from it, whereas the opposite was true.

Syncan: So you believed that the bible is God's word because the early church fathers said so?

I believe what we now refer to as the Bible are scriptures that was inspired by God. The early Christians accept so and that include the Orthodox church, asia manor church, the syrian church, the eastern church, the church at rome etc.

Syncan: So you believed that the bible is God's word because the early church fathers said so?

Did you see that in anything i said?

Syncan: You understood the direction of my question and you still claim I've switched opinion. Na wa for you o. Dear brother, in case you do not know, Jude1:14 is a direct quote from 1Enoch1:9 . (but i cant find it in the bible o...yet jude used it to preach).

I said i understood the direction of your question (I knew you were trying to pin Jude 1:14 to the so called book of Enoch) but have you wondered why the book of Enoch was not canonized?? because the authorship wasn't confirmed (there was many attempt to smuggle many books into the Bible), it was even said that the book of Enoch (which no jewish record show to be from Enoch) actually quoted Jude 1:14 so as to gain acceptance by her author and not Jude quoting it. If i write a book and copied from another book which has been in existence before mine and gave it a name traced to century before the book i copied, it doesn't make the book i copied from the copier.

There are many writings on this position online

benodic: welcome to the path of love brother alexleo. that is all i ever wanted to see in anybody be you a christian, atheist, pagan or any other religious group.
the path of love knows no boundaries and no divisions and is what really unifies all religions and idealogies. all religions at its core are actually leading to the path of love which is the narrow way and the few who find it have found the way to God.
for God is love and love is God and all souls exist because of God's love for us.
give love to all life and you will never lose your way.

classical doctrine of the devil

Syncan: Do you agree with Paul or not in 2Thess2:15, or are you going to behave like martin Luther that called the epistle of James "the epistle of straw" just because it contains what contradicts his position?

Remember you still owe me "why do you believe in the bible and not other books as the inspired word of God".

I believe in the epistles of Paul and I believe his teachings are fully revealed in the totality of his epistles. I also believe what ever he has written are to be adopted by Christians (He commanded it read to the assembly and in a case to be given to another church). If we deviate to Luther, then we will have to address all the heresy he pointed out in the Roman Catholic Church.

You are still yet to sign the deal i proposed, if you sign it, then why not?

Syncan: You said:


but the bible said:



You can spot the contradiction yourself.

Galatians 1:8
King James Bible
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Timothy 3:16
King James Bible
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Romans 15:4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Syncan: Read Jude1:14 bro and tell me if the apostle was quoting, scripture or not.

Switched opinions already?

Jude 1:14
King James Bible
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints.

Whereas i perfectly understand the direction of your question, there is no reason to believe this was a quoting from the scriptures but rather a revelation.

chukwudi44: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness[/b]; 17[b]so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work

Yes even st Paul agrees,he says ALL SCRIPTURES is good.This includes the non-biblical scriptures

non-biblical books are not recognized as scriptures

d

chukwudi44: True, but the scriptures he was referring to Timothy includes his epistles and accounts of Jesus journey on earth. In several places, he asked that his epistles be read to the general assembly and in a particular place, he asked the epistle be sent to another Church.

St paul also asked the church in collosians to read his epistle to the ladociens(which is not in the bible),Jude quoted the books of Enoch and Assumption of moses,Samuel and Joshua reffered us to the book of Jashar ditto so many other non-biblical scriptures.

This all brings to naught the argument of sola bible(bible alone).This teaching has no scriptural basis,even the biblical authours did not adhere to this teaching.It is simply a protestant doctrine created by Martin Luther withput any scriptural basis.

That is not true

Colossians 4:16
English Standard Version (ESV)
16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

chukwudi44: To Christians, Bible (containing both old and new) is the scriptures. There were several writings circulating among the Christians, the ones accepted as the inspired words of God is what is contained in the Bible. The Church at Rome aren't the only Church who adopted this both also the orthodox and asia manor Church. So, when we refer to the scriptures as Christians, we are talking not of Torah but the Bible.

Which christians? Who gave this definitions? The word scriptures does not refer to just the books in the bible my friend.The books in the bible are not the only scriptures that were written.Some scriptural writings like Books of Jashar,Nathan,Paul's epistle to the ladocieans e.t.c were lost others like Enoch,Jubilees,Assumption of moses shepherd of hermas e.t.c were not canonised.The term bible is used to describe the selection of scriptures that were canonised by the catholic synod of hippo 393CE and the local council of carthage 397CE.

The Apostles never used the bible.They even quoted books outside the bible.

The fact is that the authority of the letters of Paul, of the Gospels and the book of Acts, as well as the other books of the New Testament was established in the early second century by acclamation of the church. The New Testament books
were chosen by the church as a whole on the basis of the fact that these particular books had apostolic authority. The data is conclusive that by about 150 AD a more or less fixed list of accepted writings was already circulating amongst the churches throughout the Roman world. There were minor differences in some of the lists, but these were worked out by about 200 AD.

The canon of the Old Testament was set by general consensus of the Jewish teachers as early as 400 BC, but almost certainly by 200 BC. The books were chosen because they had the marks of inspiration.

Like i told you, there were many writings circulating around and they arent scriptures. To be regarded as a scripture it has to be inspired, there where many that are floated by heretics. Those that are not canonized aren't regarded as scriptures by Christians.

Syncan: You see my friend, let's not be jittery here. Why use "If he said" when you can read very well that he said. The moment we start being economical with truth, the moment we cannot comprehend freely. So do you believe paul or not? then I can take on the rest issues you raised.

Note that you still have not told me Why the bible and not other books as mentioned.

This is the truth, ok?.

2Timothy 15-17
…15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16[b]All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness[/b]; 17[b]so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.[/b]

Syncan: This is not only absent from the bible but a direct contradiction to what it says.

Where?

The real thieves dey Abuja joor

[quote author=Maria-Goretti]@Superior,
if you understood all these, what exactly is the arguement about?[/quote]The Bible is the inspired word of God and basis of doctrine of Christian faith, any teaching outside of it and not found in the bible should be discarded

Syncan: You keep avoiding the truth, Paul placed a curse on any gospel contrary to what he and the rest disciples were teaching, both in words and epistles. Never only what he wrote!

Syncan, we will start repeating our talk all over again. If he said things by word of mouth relevant to doctrine, what are they?, who documented it, at which of the churches?, when was it scriptured? and when was it adopted, was it accepted by the Churches at the east, asia manor, syria, rome like the new testament?

Even if such words existed, they must have a basis in the scripture, somebody cant come with a supposed word of mouth that contradicts what is written, no?

chukwudi44: The words 'bible' and 'scripture' are not synonyms and should not be used interchangeably!!

St Paul in Timothy was never reffering to the bible as the bible did not exist then.The bible is just a subset of scriptures,it is a ternm used to refer to the set of the scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the late 4th and early 5th centuries.

To Christians, Bible (containing both old and new) is the scriptures. There were several writings circulating among the Christians, the ones accepted as the inspired words of God is what is contained in the Bible. The Church at Rome aren't the only Church who adopted this both also the orthodox and asia manor Church. So, when we refer to the scriptures as Christians, we are talking not of Torah but the Bible.

chukwudi44: Paul never used a bible throughout his life time.He and other bible writers quoted and referred us to books outside the bible.

True, but the scriptures he was referring to Timothy includes his epistles and accounts of Jesus journey on earth. In several places, he asked that his epistles be read to the general assembly and in a particular place, he asked the epistle be sent to another Church.

chukwudi44: Sola bible is not a scriptural teaching but rather a teaching of martin luther.

All books in the bible are scriptures but not all scriprures are in the bible

There were many writings at that time but we know the books of the Bible were accepted as scriptures by all, this was a position also accepted by the Church in Rome.

Syncan: Dear Friend, Every single teaching of Christ is a dogma. What the church does today is to affirm any teaching that the Holy Spirit has revealed as truth beyond doubt.

(Jn16:12-13) I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come".

The apostles went about preaching what they've heard or seen, Jesus never wrote down a thing for them, yet all he taught is dogma.

True, Christ wrote down nothing and what we have as scriptures today are what the Apostles are inspired to write (plus the old testament). The ministry of Holy Spirit is to direct us in these truths.

Galatians 1:8
New International Version
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God's curse!


So we know what ever teaching we get must be consistent to what is already revealed and in the scriptures. Paul placed a curse on any gospel which do not confirm with the scriptures.

Syncan: So we truncate as waste the rest He taught, right?



And what happens to the verbal?




That's why it is in bracket, an explanation.

Popes do teach Catholics right?, not all teaching are dogma, right? But all Dogma are documented and binding on Catholics, right?.

Scriptures has to be documented to be referred so.

We are going to borrow from Somalia at the rate we are going

Jona-dumbo yielding to the demands of Ameachi, next is sacking Wike.

[quote author=Maria-Goretti]The fact you werent with Jesus at that time, you can never know everything that was taught.....all these things are just waste of time.
Why not quit the arguement and employ that time into seeing that all those teachings are being incorporated into your life, eh?
As far as I am concerned, there are some things God has kept away from human understanding
For those understanding the bible superficially, I advice you actually ask the spirit to help you understand those words written in there, because without his help, everything writen there is foolishness to you...! [/quote]Well, i cant say i have problem with the bolded

Syncan: Same Bible told me that there are some that are not written and I should hold on to them as well 2Thess2:15. You said no, only what is written. Now you contradict the Bible.

No, you are only trying to make a point for your arguments. Paul's instructions are from God's inspiration and those he wrote are scriptures.

damerry: Give me citations from the bible that proved the
martyrdom of Jesus Christ disciples, or would you claim that you don't
believe they were matyrd?

Their death were not written in the scriptures

Syncan: hehehehe, it is very clear the evangelist witnessed to more, but did not write all, at various times he must have taught more than what he wrote....in words. Hold on to those as well 2Thess2:15.

. There is no doubt he gave direct instruction to many but what we have on record is scripture

Syncan: Yet Paul said we should hold on to it as well, you said no.

He told Thessalonians to hold to his verbal and written instructions. I said it is the written instructions that became scriptures (look at the definition of what a scripture is again)

Syncan: Meanwhile: Scripture - any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group. (It does not end with the bible by this definition)

The bolded is your additions