₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: The onus is on you to prove that the catholics killed any church fathers.you just argue blindly.Give me names,venue and dates involved.

The christians you claimed lived and read the bible before the RCC came on board do you mind providing a name to any of them and year they lived.

You should know that this is a mature forum.You don't keep making unsubtantiated claims else you will be making a fool of yourself.People are reading what you are typing.Kindly provide just one historical proof to back up your puerile claims

i dont need to resource catholic history that the RCC has allowed to remain as evident of what the bible is.

You that quote from your source actually do contradict the evidence in the bible.
And you actually does show a complete lack of bible knowledge that is why you put such info forward and any that knows what is contain in the bible will definitely know you are wrong.

chukwudi44: The problem with you is that you are so locked up in your dogmatic prison that you are not willing to learn.Bible this ,bible that.is the word bible scriptural? How do you know the books of the bible were actually written by their acclaimed authours? Afterall we have gospel of peter,gospel of mary and other writings attributed to the apostles that were not written by them.

The fact remains that several writings were flying about by the second century all claiming apostolic origin.Though these church fathers did not write the books in todays bible,they were responsible for it's canonisation.

i am not arguing against canonization but that those writings were written/given/produce by RCC, i say NO.

But that there was a time that the need arises for this books to be stamp as original to prevent any mistake/omission/error/mixe up in the years to come, i will not even be arguing with any body on this on this forum.

But that the source of this books is from another source other than the apostle is a disfevour to both God and man.

That anybody will say that God will not and cannot protect his word that he wishes that it reaches all the earth for a witness to all people is a very strong proof and evident for lack of faith in a God and lack of faith in God's ability to protect his "words".

Giving the bible it divine origin Is what all lovers of men and God should do for anything short of this will shatter the faith of men.

My argument is also that the word canonization has taken on an all new meaning that the bible is a catholic product and not God's.

If it is that people put a seal on those books as the word of God then fine and GOOD and = canonization.

chukwudi44: @truthislight

I am actually very busy @ work and don't have time to respond to all these thrash you have posted.In reality I don't really argue with people that has no knowlege of the subject being discussed.

Even though I do not agree with enigma I had engaged him because he had little knowlege about the early church but am afraid to say you know nothing @ all about the subject and dosen't look like someone who is ready to learn.

It is not all about running your hand on your key pad and writing thrash but rather writing logical and credible arguments.

You keep making claims that has no basis and no historical record without even bothering to care who is reading.

Don't you know we are now in the computer age where one can easily verify any claim on the net.

You keep claiming catholics killed some church fathers but have so far failed to provide the names,dates and places allegedly involved? Hope you don't mind substantiating these claims.

The other thing is that you keep shouting bible this ,bible that without any knowlege whatsoever it all came about,

Did the bible exist during the time of the apostles?

Is the word bible in the bible?

Why did some books of the bible quote and refer us to books outside the bible like the books of jasher,enoch,assumption of moses,nathan,epistle to the ladocieans e.t.c ? Does that not mean that even the writers of the books of the bible did not practise sola bible or sola scripture? Where is the biblical proof that mattew,mark,luke and john wrote any gospels?

Can you provide the answers to any of these questions?

how truthful is your statement that RCC did not kill anybody that held contrary view from the RCC and destroyed there writings?

Well? We know better.

With years of RCC bending the truth and killing those that held contrary views what do you expect to have on the net?

Just like you said that timothy wrote the book of timothy when it was paul so you also want us to accept this other lies you have posted here.

You mean if am to write a book and gave it to someone just that i had not signed on it the person will not know that it was me that wrote and bear witness to that effect?

This books by the way was delivered to churches with the instruction to copy them and sent to the other churches.

That you imagine that no body knows the writers of those books until about 300yrs later befor the names was known and tag shows how desperate and begging your statement is.

From this your statement it means that the christians befor 400ce were really confuse till RCC arrived, just IMAGINE such a claim!

Even you have been deceived by RCC, that is why you believed such.

Ubenedictus: did all christain writtings that was writting in the time of Jesus regarded as scripture? The new testament wasnt compiled until the 4th century, so yes irenaeus lived before the canon of scripture was compiled.
Make research before you post

who is this this?

Its like you are new on this topic.

What you said ^^^ there does it make sense to you?

Go and check your bible(NT) you will find out they are exclusvely teachings of the apostles.

If you know what you are saying at all you will not have said that.

mkmyers45: Its all part of the job

lol.

You are a very funny guy.

Goshen360: at the highlight.

Hey, my dearest sister. Long time. How una dey? Which one be this una come open my yansh for Internet naw? As if me and una don talk somewhere before? Na wah for una o.....Okay, as una don open my yansh now....make I just go hide na eim remain o. You are in the Spirit but make I try this one remaining verse wey I wan use:

5. And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham: 6. But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

Heb. 7, Kjv

Verses 6 CLEARLY proves that ANOTHER, other than from the tribe of Levi can receive tithe. So when Jesus who is NOT part of/from the tribe of Levi according to verse 13-14 RECEIVES our tithes, what then is the problem of the anti-tithers? .....anyone wanna dabate this verse?

13. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14. For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Heb. 7, Kjv

confusion continues.

What you just pointed is showing why the priest hood of Jesus is far more superior to that of the levi being of Ironic priest hood.

Meaning that if Abraham even paid tith to melchizedek him being the family head that the priest hood of the levi is below that of Jesus since his is like that of melchizedech, DIRECT appointment from God.

And a better priesthood.

eddy18: An invite to partner wouldn't be by force for people who may not be interested...i don't see the issue here...except that anything that pertains to church and money seriously itches some people.

what you are justifying is supported by the bible right?

Ubenedictus: are you kidding me? Are you even serious? The catholic church didnt kill any church father. What is wrong with you. What type of liar are you turning into?

the catholic church did not kill any church fathers that differs from them!

How true is this statement?

We know better even though you guys wish to come here and tell lies.

Enigma: ^^^ Self-contradiction, lol!




Meanwhile just a few posts before on the previous page

@Enigma

are you a catholic or Anglican?

You have tried so far but now you wish to defend your church.

plaetton: I had been reading from the sidelines watching you demonstrate the depth of your knowledge on the above subject, while at the same time, laughing to myself as I watched your opponent dribble himself into his own goal posts. You are obviously a staunch catholic who knows his onions.
As a non catholic, I really have no interest in dabating the minute details of catholic history.

However, one thing that we all know is that the victors normally write the history. So the catholic history that you are most acquainted with is history written by members of the catholic church themselves. Anything else would be considered heresy, not so? We know what happened to those that dared to write a different truth. Dont we?

Correction, Marcion POINTED OUT, and did not create the dichotomy that exists between the god of the OT and the god of the NT.

I am amused at how you use the word "heretic"
May I remind you that all great truths of religion, philosophy, science, etc,that have influenced human development, including and especially the teachings of Jesus, all started out as grand heresies against the established and powerful orders of the day.

I am equally amused that you think because the catholic church and its doctrines outlasted its 2nd century peers,therefore it can legitimately lay claim to be the repository of the true or truest truth of christianity.
You conveniently forget that the catholic church did not outlast its smaller rivals by the sheer superiority of its version of the truth, but by the sheer magnitude of its political, economic and military might, or should I say, brutality.
So, in this case, might is right(?)

I am also amused, again, at how you put it that the catholic sect, having outlived its rivals, has gone ahead to pass along ITS CANONS to the present day churches.
By "Its Canons", am sure you mean its own true truths.
Classical Darwinian Survival of the fittest and passing on the genes, whether good or bad, huh?

By influencing the church in approving the four gospel structure and discarding others, Did Iraeneus not veto or a vet what we are told are the words of god?

And lastly,for those of us that have no religious leaning, we find it very amusing when we read of the various paths and trajectories through which these infallible words of god have come to us.
As we listen to the babel of voices and opinions and counter opinions about apostolic authority, bishopricks, ecumenical councils ,popes, power, heresies etc, we watch in bewilderment and wonder how the word of god, truth so simple, should cause so much controversy, so much debate, so much schism and so much wars.
Cheers.

true talk, the victor writes the history.

Most of what we have on net are catholic doctored.

Enigma: ^^^ Bros

Don't waste your time!

He copied and pasted from the other conspiracy theory nut called Gardner and pretended he wrote the stuff. Shameless plagiarist kawai. And of course after the rubbish was countered he doesn't have the integrity to own up and, if honourable, apologise.

And they will come here forming "intellectual"!

Oh and about the Lawrence Gardner guy? Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Gardner

cherrypicking.

chukwudi44: @planteon

I guess you have comprehension issues?I have a full copy of ireneaus works and know what he wrote about.Ireneaus is considered a veritable link to the apostolic age.His master st polycarp was a disciple of st john the apostle.most of what polycarp learnt from john was passed by st ireneaus.His writings were what influenced the church into approving the current four gospel structure

Are you you have really studied this heretics to know what they actually taught? Marcion for instance should be the greatest heretic who has ever lived.He created a dichotomy between the God of the oT and that of the NT.not to mention the valentinians,nicolaitans and the other gnostic sect.

Of all the christian sects which existed in the second century,catholicism is the only one who survived,it has gone ahead to transfer it's canon to the newer christian denominations existing today, so it would not be out of place to say that christianity today is same as catholicism

is it the same Irenaeus that live 180 AD?

By then the apostles have completed their writings.

Jesus lived and died at 33AD

plaetton: No sir,
The roman universal or catholic church of Rome usurped the teachings of Nazerene poineers of christianity by making christianity the official religion of the Roman empire. By doing so, the new hybrid christianity, forcefuly removed from its Nazerene roots, became a veritable tool for the political unity,control and domination for the roman empire.
Those who opposed this perversion where branded heretics and where harrassed,intimidated,persecuted and killed. These are historical facts.

In his one of his tirades against percieved heretics, Iraeneus of Lyon wrote a treatise titled Against Heresies, where he went as far as to imply that Jesus himself was a heretic who had been practicing the wrong religion
Jesus, he claimed, was personally mistaken in his beliefs.

Here is an excerpt from the treatise:
They, like jesus as well as the essenes and Zadokites of two centuries before,expounded on he prophetic books of the old testament: They reject the pauline epistles and reject the apostle paul, calling him a apostate of the law!



So, to claim that Christianity is Catholicism is not just a lie, but completely absurd.

thank you plaeton.

italo: In a strict sense, Christianity is Catholicism!

^^^
lies.

Catholics dont follow the teachings of the apostles as recorded in the NT just as muslim.

This two do the same with beads and others except trinity.

chukwudi44: In several thread here on nl you have denied the fact that the Holy spirit is God and also a person.

can you show where the bible calls the holy spirit God?

chukwudi44: The same holy spirit you have denied his personality?

Keep making a fool of yourself.So now you know scripture by HS inspiration abi? The holy spirit only inspired you to read only catholic canonised christian scriptures I guess

when you are the one lying but you keep calling others "FOOLs"

^^^ that is not christian.

chukwudi44: Is this all you have to say? I read you somewhere saying u are in IT.I really think you are in the wrong profession since you would have done better as a comedian.How do you even know the timothy you are quoting is inspired?
You know absolutely nothing about christian history yet you keep jumping here and there you know it all,

this is where your lies are expose that you know nothing about the BIBLE.

The book of timothy was not written by timothy but by Apostle paul to help the young man in his work.

All you know is what RCC has taught you.

Stop lying.

chukwudi44: How do you know what you call word of God is scripture? Is it not because these same church fathers passed it down to us.did you see any where it is written that mattew,mark,luke or john wrote any gospels?

^^^

lies.

They wrote their books.

chukwudi44: Common sense dictates that someone who witnessed an event or who spoke with someone who witnessed an event should have a more reliable account than someone who lived more than one millienium after the event occurred

but the bible is the words of the apostles.

Why do you want to force other later people opinion on us?

Ubenedictus: hahaha, you are debating about primacy, the orthodox church and church history and you trying to dodge church father. That is why i said earlier to discuss these issues with a protestant is useless. How can you discuss church history, practice and ancient doctrine and continue dodging the church fathers? Ha! Protestant i forgot that they have no roots so when it comes to the church fathers they run and hide.

history from RCC?

chukwudi44: If you are not conversant with the church fathers.I would provide them for you.

Prominent writers of the first century.

Clement of rome.
Papias of hierapolis

Prominent xtian writers of the second century.

St justin matyr
St hegessipus
St ignatius of antioch
St polycarp of smyrna
St ireneaus of lyons
Tertullian of carthage

Prominent xtian writers of the third century

St cyprian of carthage
Origen of alexandria

Prominent xtian writers of the fourth century

St Augustine of hippo
Eusebius of ceserea
St jerome
St Athanasius of alexandria
St John chrysostom
St basil of ceserea
St gregory of nissa
St Hilary of poiters
St Ambrose

You can also read up about the greatest heretics to the christian faith

The likes of marcion,valentinus,arius and the countless gnostic sect that thrived especially in the second century

There are others but this are all I can remember for now

^^^
you mean the ones that Roman Catholic church did not kill?

That means that their writing agrees with the RCC traditions.

If not they will have been killed and their writing destroyed
that is why most of what we have on the net most agree with the RCC.

chukwudi44: Finally. How do you guys know that what you read was not doctored?


Because any doctored writing would have been contested by the other church fathers.Besides all apostolic churches are in agreement with the writings of the church fathers that has been handed down to us.

but you intimidated/kill all of them and destroyed their writing.

How do you expect us to see and have their writings owing to your legacy of killing them?

chukwudi44: My understanding is that Bokenkotter accessed the writings of said Church Fathers to produce a concise history.


How about you accessing the writings of the church fathers to read it up for yourself.

Catholics church fathers?

They are doing the same thing you are doing here.

A third party is safe.

Dont forget that they killed church fathers that dont toe the line and destroyed their works.

chukwudi44: @ihedinobi

I would rather prefer the writings of eusebius and other church fathers who lived and actually witnessed this events or had the privilege of interacting with those who witnessed this events to an account of someone who live more than one thousand years after these events occured.

^^^

on this premise it is safe to rely/accept the account of the apostles and so that is recorded in the bible in the 1ce than to accept other account that came after the apostles.

Enigma: @ Ihedinobi

Thanks for that.

The primacy of Rome issue (using the pretext of the "primacy of Peter" ) is, in my view, a vey sad and unnecessary idea that has fostered (and is still fostering) disunity and of course in part helped the degeneracy that eventually led to the Protestant Reformation.

Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church has a rather more conciliatory attitude to the primacy of Peter and its later consequences for the Church ---- but unfortunately it is not acceptable to the Roman Catholic Church.


And thanks also for the specific examples of plurality of eldership/oversight/'bishophood' in the Bible. Those were indeed the things I had in mind. In addition, the idea and practice of the collective 'episkopoi' (which I think is even naturally plural) is both explicit and implicit throughout the Bible. There is the Jerusalem example and the others.

But then let us think of the epistles. in his letter to the Philippians, we read the apostle Paul in these terms: Philippians 1

So in Philippi alone they had bishops and deacons (both plural)!


Again in Acts 20:28 we see Paul having sent for the elders (presbutero) of the Church at Ephesus charge them as follows:

*overseers = episkopoi = bishops

Again we see that the Church at Ephesus had a plurality of elders and bishops.

Also if we read the epistles of Paul in the Bible to Churches in Colossae, Galatia, Corinth etc, he does not even address the letters to the bishops let alone to a bishop; rather he addressed the letters either to the 'brethren' or to the Church or 'Churches'

There is one more of these things which I hope to post separately and later ------- and that one concerns the apostle Peter himself.

besides, the head of the christian church is christ and not peter.

chukwudi44: @enigma

Multiple bishop of jerusalem in the apostologic age is another figment of your imagination.I think I have to end this argumemt since it is becaming baseless and ilogical.You just keep making up stories even in the face of incontrovertible.I think you have made up your mind on what you want to believe irrespective of the facts staring at you in the face.

If you think formulating an imaginary dichotomy between the catholic church and the roman catholic church will make you happy, then feel free to indulge your fantasy.

@ihedinobi

If you want to really study the history of the catholic then pick up eusebius's history of the church and study. You can also read it up in wikipedia and read up the writings of the church fathers directly.

Reading up any doctored history will only mean making a fool of yourself

catholic is old no doubt.

But must we rely on the story of the old catholics to know the truth?

Enigma: ^^ That is indeed one of the passages that help us understand the nature of the authority that Jesus gave to Peter and to the apostles collectively.

Also, the apostle Peter would have naturally recalled Jesus scolding them for seeking "primacy", Himself washing their feet, telling them to be like servants, telling them to be like children etc.

Then read the apostle Peter in a letter to a young Christian assembly in 2 Peter 1:1 and see whether that is someone seeking aggrandisement of his office or position.

^^^^
beautifully put

italo: @chukwudi44,

Perhaps you should save yourself the stress...until Enigma has something new and relevant to say. For now, it seems he has no option than to be beating around the bush by regurgitating irrelevant and already answered questions.

Here on nairaland, that is their way of saying, "I was wrong."

what is the relevance of this statement?

What have you succeeded in saying? Nothing other than you are a catholic that wants us to adept the lies as truth.

chukwudi44: All the apostles were given authourity but primacy was vested on st Peter.st cyprian the influential bishop of the eastern see has this to say about peter and the early church.

On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

Do you think that it is all people that seek positions in this world like Catholics do?

Read paul statement in the bible and you will know what the truth about their mind set is.

chukwudi44: There is no history of the plurality of bishops in any church and paul was never bishop of rome. The list of all the bishops of rome has been repeatedly named by ss hegessipus,ireneaus,origen.eusebius ,Augustine,tertullian and several of the church fathers.Paul was never bishop of rome.Peter was succeded by linus in the see of rome.Any other thing is a figment of your imagination.

If you know of any instance of plurality of bishop in the early church kindly state it here including the names of the bishops,year and city involved.please stop making up histories.Give me historical writings by men who actually lived @ that time

Rome was the world power and was the place were appeal cases go to.

Like America today people run there to free from opressors from there own country, that one seek asylum in amarica how does that translate to moving something that started from his own country to an asylum country?

Stop this lies.

chukwudi44: Peter died as the bishop of rome leaving is authourity with the roman see. About paul ,there is no historical record of his ever being a bishop.Even if he or any of the twelve was the headship of the church was vested on peter and not on any other apostle

peter was never a bishop of Rome.

Cant you get it?

Cant you live a life outside what Roman Catholics has fed you?

Have a life men!

chukwudi44: Enigma for the umpteenth time I will tell you the authourity of the roman see does not rest on whether it was first establised before Jerusalem or Antioch but rather on the authourity of st peter.Peter died as the bishop of rome thus making the bishop of rome as his successor.That is the power behind the roman see

after an Angel of God set peter free from prison the bible did not say anything about him again.

Can you cite any writing that peter wrote from Rome?

What You are saying are not base on the bible and stop calling peter the pope or so cus he is aware that Jesus had told him that No one should be called father except God.

Enigma that is making an argument with the info that catholics has pen down on the net or info that catholics has censored is handicap.

But he has already made his case that the early church "catholic"(not noun(name)) is different from Roman Catholic(capital C a noun with reference to Rome Church)

his case is already made and any that is honest will know that the early christians spread gospel to all places including Rome and that the start point was Jerusalem.

So Roman catholic was a late late thing.

That operated from Rome is later is not the issue here but that as when the genuine books was arrange it was not the Roman catholic church.

Deceit Is an easy thing to do and this is very easy to see, why did they not pick another word apart from "catholic"?, all this will have been very easy to differentiate.

What are you trying to proof?
Did christianity start from Rome?

Stop this lies it is only those that dont know that you can deceive with this "Roman Catholic gave the bible stuff" how can they give the books they did not write?

Lies, and it is very Dangerous.