₦airaland Forum

Mart d dart: Read your Acts of the Apostle

Mart d dart: I'm supposed to believe that because you said so?...or are you going to show me verses that actually says "This particular law is null and void", if I remember correctly the only law that is null is the an eye for an eye law...so please!

Chukskalidon: Once again I av to say this: Theology on its own can never stand. D bible is not meant for literal understanding and interpretation becos its a combination of doctrines(let me knw if am wrong). D jewish, Greek and little Italian traditions made up d bible. We av scripturists and they ar nt that by mere studies or arguments. To b a scripturist u must first spend atleast 5 years in jewish land, learn their language and tradition becos anytin dat God says in d old testament is in relation wit d jewish tradition and dats a reasn 4 dat. After that u spend anoda years in Greek(d modern bible) and crown it all with Italian tradition. This is how scripturists gain their stand.
When Jesus did not ask u to honour and ask for intercessions 2ru his mother., did he ask u to instruct people nt to ask his mother for intercessions. Dis is it, most of us are ignorant of d bible. Okay, it was written in d bible dat every one shall call mary blessed. Seeing ur position wit d bible hav u and ur pentecostal brodas and pastors fulfilled dat or Was it nt in d bible? Have for a day called her blessed.
Even if am nt a catholic, I bliv in catholism. It is pure xtianity and high regard for tradition. We are nt God so we shouldn't fight for mary, its in God's hand to fight for her mother which he does everyday but u dnt av to boldly talk negatively abt her since also u're nt God. I wil neva think twice abt mary and a good xtian won't do dat. As a christian, u shuld call her 'blessed' and wen u dnt do dat, u av no regard for God.
D doctrines of catholicm is unquestionable cos its nt man made.

Logicboy03: Explain further please.

Boomark:
The catholic missionaries should be self appointed teachers too.

ijawkid: Lol........you were thanking UBE for shifting the goal post from easter to pascha as an escape route........

Now I ask you wetin be pascha wey u dey talk about for here......

frosbel: 1. She is the mother of Jesus and not God, I hope we can agree on this.

2. Indeed she is blessed among women and honoured.

3. But, she cannot pray for anyone, she cannot hear the millions of hail Marys said over the centuries, because she died hundreds of years ago.

4. The only prayer that counts, is the prayer to God in Christ's name.

Ihedinobi:

Ihedinobi: Lol. The result of fanaticism, I guess.

Reyginus: You know something. Not that I'm doubting the authenticity of what you wrote, only that when dealing with recorded history I like it better if they come with a link. I can't just believe it because you said it. Please provide me a satisfactory link.

Enigma: versus
https://www.nairaland.com/1057120/german-catholics-face-excommunication-over/2#12318604

bizmahn: God has no beginning of days or end of days.Mary has.God was never created & can't be created.Mary was.God is omnipotent,omniscient etc.Mary is not.God is sinlessly perfect .Mary is not.Therefore Mary can never be the mother of God EOD.Mary will bow before Jesus as every knee will in heaven.She will call Him my father & Lord & He will call her my faithful daughter.Jesus created Mary & only chose to use her as he chose to speak thru the dumb a ss.Why don't we go ahead & honour & pray thru the dumb a ss.

Ptolomeus: God!
its terrible!

nep2ra: My partner and I were having a chit chat some days ago and we came to the subject of conception. She asked a question which I'm throwing open to everyone who can help answer: At what point in conception does the spirit enter the human embryo?

Thanks for your contribution.

lagerwhenindoubt: So God deliberately refuses to open their eyes so he can roast them over an everlasting slow burning flame.. and I thought i had issues

ijawkid: did he sire you spiritually?...you have been a catholic before he was elected as pope....why call him holy Father?...

I cant remember u calling Italo ,"holy Italo".......

Lovethywilbedon: #Strictlymi# I just want to salute your POWER OF CREATIVITY. HONSTLY I am YET to see a thread as UNIQUE as this on NAIRALAND RELIGIOUS SECTION.

Boomark: Thank you.

So how about "you are a priest forever"? Is this not Eternal priesthood?

Eternal destruction of sodom nko?

How about Eternal torment? Did it start from the beginning of creation? Abi it should not have a beginning?

Reyginus: www.nairaland.com/1254148/why-idea-god-fraud/11#15261970

Reyginus: My reason being that the catholics these two popes represented saw them as the head.

Take a look at this link..
http://www.christian-history.org/western-great-schism.html#sthash.K8N4wPwfidst

Enigma: Of the word "catholic" as an adjective.

And of distinction between the small 'c' catholic and the capital 'C' "Catholic" as in "The Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".


A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

TBC and to deal with New Testament etc separately.



*NB I am using the expression "The Catholic Church" (with the capitals) in the sense that the Roman Catholic Church tends to claim nowadays or, occasionally, in the Theodosian sense. (Edited)

Enigma: And to confirm the point above, as of today the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the present members of the Church to which Athanasius belonged to be "Catholics", let alone Roman Catholics.

Sheer rubbish!

Enigma: Ah, I remember someone earlier saying Athanasius would call himself "Catholic". Of course --- but not in the Roman Catholic sense. And he was emphatically NOT a Roman Catholic.

And as if to confirm it, an important document issued by the Roman Catholic Church would seem to be suggesting that people like Athanasius are not "Catholic" -- in the Roman Catholic oxymoronic sense of course!

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Enigma: And if with Origen, we identify a written list going back as early as the 200s, we can still go further back in terms of written lists to circa 170-180 with the canon and books listed in the Muratorian Fragment.

This is before we now go to the books cited as sacred scriptures by the "church fathers". Not going that far back yet, Irenaeus quotes from every book of the present New Testament except two; many would say 25/27 is pretty good going!

Enigma: Hitherto the Roman Catholics had not acknowledged the canon presented by Athanasius let alone the one he said was handed down.

They relied on some "canon" at the Council of Rome 382 ----- forgery.

Then Synod of Hippo; na lie, that one na regional African synod.

Then Synods of Carthage; another lie; those ones too na regional African synods.


Now in their off-guard moments some Roman Catholic writers acknowledge that there was a canon or there were canons elsewhere at some points. Here is one example from a Roman Catholic source which I first posted on page 16 of this very thread (our local apologists did not realise its implication then of course).

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm




What did the Roman Catholic source mean by "Alexandrian Canon"?

Meanwhile the reference to Origen means I can even take the process of canonisation back some 100/150 years before Athanasius already.

Enigma: Ah well, we might as well have a little knockabout with the quotation explaining "papal infallibility" that my friend has taken from nothing less than the Catholic Encyclopaedia itself.
So, according to my friend, from the encyclopaedia we read:
In other words, doctrinal teachings of the pope which are not made ex cathedra are indeed ---- not infallible; oh that means they are fallible.
These would include erm encyclicals, papal bulls, sermons, exegeses, theological writings etc etc etc.

Doctrinal decisions or instructions of the "congregations" of the Roman Catholic Church are not infallible; again that means they are fallible. Oh by "congregation" do we include such an eminent body (or should I say 'eminentissimum') as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Enigma: Cheap and unworthy nonsense. Whoever said they were "protestants"? All I have ever said is that they were not Roman Catholics. That is the pretense and false impression that the Roman Catholics have been spreading to hoodwink people --- especially in the Western world.

Enigma: The posts are there; I'm not quoting anything again. I see your post above as wriggling instead of doing the honourable thing.

I am even minded to end discussing with you here and now. Afterall I was discussing with Kay17 originally, and I guess he'd be back at some point.

Enigma: No, I do not wish to drag you into anything. Remember I was discussing this matter with Kay17 before you jumped in.

You are making a mistake here and you are making a wrong and misleading presentation of that Athanasius quote.
Where did he say the canon was handed down "to him in the 4th century"? Here again is what he said, read it again and when you understand it let's talk:
Maybe it will help to referesh your memory of another part of the quote:
So, do you want to try again?

For that matter, you still need to read his Old Testament list --- again --- and carefully.
And if all we have was Athanasius' canon in 367 AD ---- that alone shows that it is a LIE what the Roman Catholics claim that they "compiled" the Bible yada yada!

Enigma: No, I do not wish to drag you into anything. Remember I was discussing this matter with Kay17 before you jumped in.



You are making a mistake here and you are making a wrong and misleading presentation of that Athanasius quote.

Where did he say the canon was handed down "to him in the 4th century"? Here again is what he said, read it again and when you understand it let's talk:

Maybe it will help to referesh your memory of another part of the quote:

So, do you want to try again?




For that matter, you still need to read his Old Testament list --- again --- and carefully.

And if all we have was Athanasius' canon in 367 AD ---- that alone shows that it is a LIE what the Roman Catholics claim that they "compiled" the Bible yada yada!

Enigma: You see now --- even when I have just said I will try and reciprocate.
OK the long and short of it is that your post was a lie or at least it contained a lie.

You said that instead of answering Kay17's question, I was afraid and insulted him.

That is a lie because my post that you referred to was not directed to Kay17; it was directed to italo who had contributed nothing but thrown an insult.
You realised very clearly that my post was directed at italo and instead of you to do the right and Christian thing you started to vaccillate. I guess because italo is one of your fellow Roman Catholics; so we can close eyes to that.

Enigma: After some initial skirmishes, I have always treated you with respect and one thing I expect of people I treat with respect is honesty.

Anyway, I will be mindful of what you have said and will be happy to reciprocate - within bounds.

Enigma: After some initial skirmishes, I have always treated you with respect and one thing I expect of people I treat with respect is honesty.

Anyway, I will be mindful of what you have said and will be happy to reciprocate - within bounds.