₦airaland Forum

U just have no point

ijawkid: So from ur whole write up I want u to quote just 1 scripture where d apostles and early christians were urged to bow down to mary when she was alive and also to her image after she died........please show us...

im sure ur parents u bow and greet ur parent u arent perfect but u wont do that to the person Jesus honored wow! I thought been a xtian is abt doing what christ did? Jesus d fulfilment of d law fully fulfiled d law by honoring or rather glorifying (kaboda) his mother, but u cant do d same.

Not 1 scripture will support the reverence and attention mary recieves from catholics except from the adoption of pagan customs......

"from henceforth all ages will cal me blessed"

U guys have made mary perfect and immaculate by all means possible so that u can worship and pray through her...

actually d bible did, wen d word kecharitomene was used to adress mary.

Yahweh is watching!!!!......Jesus too is watching!!!!!!!!..........

What annoys me most is when u guys bow down to the image of an imperfect woman...and u guys turn around to pick scriptures that are nt even connected to what is being discussed......

d israelite also bow down b4 d ark and d image of a cherubim and by bible lets me know dat God wasnt angry about that. My friend images have been used in worship places since d old testament.

ijawkid: From this post I now understand from the catholics that Jesus died for every other persons sin except that of mary since mayb she fell from heaven and was immaculate.....

u have started spining lies.

And I have been asking on this page when mary was born ubenidictus and Co. Hasn't provided any answer for me.....

I'm waiting!!!!!!!!.....

Ubenidictus how far na??....how u dey??

i have answer all ur question. Ur problem is that u are very into d 'day' thing. U wont celebrate d birth of christ becos ur sole interest is in d day and not in d significance of christ birth. Your insistence on d 'day' makes me remember d pharisees.

k2039: that's an assumption


I was born and bred under the Anglican communion,similar to the RC.
Was baptised at infancy.
As far as am concern the baptism was without my consent,afterall I was still small.

the bible say that d promise of salvation is for u and ur children, so i see no reason why they cant b baptised

k2039: can you show me that explicitly

rev5:8 say that the elders in heaven and offered d lamb "the prayers of d saint". How more explicit can that get?

show me that explicitly



show me explicitly where it implied praying to them is permitted

the psalmist requested that the angels join him in a prayer of praise. If it is wrong to ask the those in heaven to join in prayer, why does ps103:20-21 address d angels to give praise?
Peace

k2039: and it doesnt mean below also

and kecharitomene clearly implies above

and all of the RC tradition now were all passed down by the apostolic fathers
eg Transubstantiation ,Canonization of dead saints,Sale of Indulgences etc
I just need a yes or no NO EXPLANATION

[/quote]u almost got it rigt u missed it by the hair. All catholic doctrines are passed down thru tradition and the apostolic fathers attest to many of dem. Indulgence is a doctrine but 'd sale of indulgence' isnt.

k2039: YES

u shuld start it

Rich4god: @Enigma... If you are not seeing them as false why do you said that they should repent... And you still havent answered my question... Where/Which is the true catholic church.

really! To repent is to change, actually in that culture the word metanioa could be used to describe waking up from a dream. U cant tell someone to repent unless u blieve he or his belief or his deeds are false.

Enigma: Once again you resort to lying! Point to where I have labelled the "roman catholics" a "false church".




What to do is to try and understand what Christ said i.e. that where two or three are gathered in His name, He is in the midst of them and His teachings, then you will know if/what "doctrine" is needed.

u want to catch urself in ur own web. If anywhere 3 are gathered u have the 'catholic church', wow, d bible also say 'd church is d pillar and bulwark of truth'. That mean what ur 2 or 3 'catholic church' is teaching is truth. Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! How wish i can laugh in greek, that means over 30,000 protestant church all teaching contradicting doctrine, are all speaking the truth. The principle of non contradiction say two opposing and contradicting ideas cant both b true. Wow, so all those contradicting doctrines are all true wow! My friend enigma u are truly an enigma who has made a delima.
Peace

chukwudi44: What is all this fuss about?haven't enigma proven we are all catholics descendend from the catholic church of the first four centuries.Even the church enigma founded in his village is also catholic with the exception of people like truthislight who gather in the name of angel micheal and hence cannot be called catholics.

Let's now progress to study the teachings of our catholic church fathers.I have posted their teachings on infant baptism and if my catholic brother enigma would not have any contrary opinion with what our catholics fathers have stated,I would now move ahead to the marian doctrines and the veneration of the saints

you are on point sir, enigma u claimed to be a catholic decended from d catholics of the first 4 cent., do u wish agree with the teachings of those early catholics, past aio decided to thread a thin line by past the edict of thessalonica he forgot to not that all catholic follow that religion 'delieved to d roman to by d apostle peter and faithfull handed on thru tradition as is professed by d pontiff pope damasus and d bishop peter of alexander'. do u have a problem with the 'faithful tradition'?

Enigma: Obviously, you needed the explanation; now you are in a slightly better state of health.

And as for the bolded, if you answer the following you will have the answer to your own question: if 3 "protestant" friends gather together and pray in a "protestant" way, are they then part of the catholic Church?

uh! The stuff abt d invisible church.

Enigma: ^^^^ Look I have been letting you get away with your misrepresentations of various early Christians because it wasn't necessary for proving the case made on this thread.

With Cyprian, he and his fellow African bishops stated clearly that your so called "pope" Stephen was only a colleague of theirs and that the decision of the African bishops to sack some fellow could not be overturned by the Stephen guy.

Can't be bothered to link you with the actual document; it is in my front right now. It is also on the Interweb --- google it.

yeah and pope benedict is also colleague of the bishop in my diocese, that doesnt mean benedict doesnt preside over him, ur argument lacks merit. Besides pope stephen probably wasnt the best in situation control but he already wrote a letter threathening to excommunicate all the asian bishops. I think it was iraneaus or another church father decided to beg on their behalf, and told stephen it was not wise to excommunicate the whole asia over a matter of custom. Stephen listened, dropped d excommunication idea and handed the matter over to a synod. The interesting thing my friend is that no one denied that d pope had d power to excommunicate those bishops.
U shuld do some research

Enigma: Yes, I do mean that the Roman Catholic Church should repent and rejoin the catholic Church.




The catholic Church is the Church that has Christ as its head and not a pope; it is that which is known as the body of Christ.

Of course, we could also go back to Ignatius who originated the expression "catholic church": the catholic church is the Church that is seen wherever Jesus is.

Above all, the catholic Church is the Church of which Jesus said: "where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them."

hahaha, u forgot that ignatius said that rome presided over the catholic church. So if u have a catholic church where d roman see doesnt preside, know that ur church is not the the catholic church ignatius talked about.
Do u understand

Enigma: ^^ Are you now resorting to very plain (and not even subtle anymore) lying?

Where has either Ihedinobi or myself shown any "hatred" to the Roman Catholic Church.

We love the catholic church and it will please us no end if the Roman Catholic Church repents and rejoins the catholic Church.

it seems my friend didnt remember to post about the roman see. The church fathers believed that the roman cannot fall astray, the church fathers said no error could enter d roman see so my friend that means d roman see can never need to repent from error.
U need to learn my dear, those church fathers rocked.
Peace

Enigma: Of course --- and that is why it is a pity that the "intellectuals" on Nairaland are as ignorant as the average man on the street.




Perhaps at some point I will deal with this quote in more detail but for now let me tell you just a little bit about that quote: what you have quoted is false and a misrepresentation of what Augustine actually said! It is the kind of thing I would exect of "the average man on the street".

Here try this, it is what Augustine actually said:


"Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est: Utinam aliquando finiatur error."

Translation

" . . . for already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts (reports) have come. The cause is finished, would that the error may terminate likewise."

See here http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html
and here http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/windsorandaugustine.html




And you are still running away from defining "the primacy" of Rome.

And of course Ignatious talks of presiding in love and NOT the primacy of power/jurisdiction claimed by Rome.

hahaha? I laugh with a question mark. How does someone preside without the necessary power and jurisdiction. U shuld ask d president how he can preside without power and jurisdiction, u are really up to mischief.

Enigma: That was not referring to you at all; please read my post again.



Firstly, you have not explained what you mean by "the primacy" of Rome.

Secondly, even as an "ecclesiastical doctrine" the understanding of every other part of the catholic Church is different from that of the Roman Catholic Church.

Thirdly, it is the Roman Catholic understanding that is a major cause of the Great Schism and an obstacle to reconciliation.




Sorry bros, I have not resorted to any mischief at all.

hahaha, u are really up to mischief.

Enigma: So provide us with the definition of "catholic" ---- and tell us again that it refers to the Roman Catholic Church.

actually it say the 'religion delievered to the romans by the devine apostle peter' wow that is certainly roman. Do u have a problem with that. Even wen d secular guy was talking about 'catholic' he had to mention the roman see.
Wow

Pastor AIO:
It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict.

—Codex Theodosianus


Sebi I said I was leaving the thread? ehn . . . whatever!

This Edict is not a church document but was issued by the Emperor. 'Catholic' was a word already in use for a long time before it was issued. Further it does NOT provide a definition for what a catholic is but rather says that only those that believe in the trinity would be allowed to call themselves Catholic. Or even to call their group a Church.

wow, u are very good at cherry picking, dat edict defined the religion that was made official, it is the "religion delievered to the romans by the divine apostles peter as it is preserved by faithful tradition and is now proffessed by the pontiff damasus and peter of alexander". So my friend you dont even believe in tradition so that definition excludes u and all protestants. You dont even profess what pope damasus profess so my dear if u want to follow that edict, then it excludes u from the name 'catholic'.
Peace

For those asking if augustine believe what d catholic church believes http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.con/articles/augustinecatholic.htm

Enigma: ^^^ He was Bishop of Hippo (in Africa) and not a bishop in/of the Roman Catholic Church.

what a joke? The question is, did rome preside over d entire church or not? Did rome preside over hippo? Ha! U are really up to some mischeif

Enigma: This is an interesting point and there is a reason for it.

There is a particular underlying reason for the situation concerning "pope" Damasus. In 380 Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire due to Emperor Theodosius.

what a joke?

In the Edict of Thessalonica, it was declared that only those churches that are part of the "Catholic Church" are to be recognised. But what did the Edict mean by "Catholic Church"? What the Edict itself says is that "the Catholic Church" consisted of the churches that accepted the doctrine of The Trinity. Simples!

can u provide d exact quote that said that anyone wu believed d trinity was a catholic, provide proof

Even that did not just mean the Roman Catholic Church but also applied to the other Sees outside Rome.

are u joking? At that time both east and west were united and d bishop of rome preside over d universal church.

Now the point is this, with the official adoption of the "Catholic Church" politically by the government some of the Bishops of Rome saw an additional basis for their claims of "primacy" of power; as Rome was the capital of the empire, the "popes" of course considered that they who were the church of the capital had extra (this time, political) basis for their "primacy" of power.**

provide proof, give me quote from a church father that said rome claimed primacy because of an edict? Have u started to rewrite history? Provide proof! Where is the proof? U are making claims that lack substance.

An interesting aside, historians say that it was because of this feeling of 'self-importance' and association with political power that led clergy to start wearing "copes" and things in the same way as the governing elite.



** Edit, this devil was later to challenge the Church of Rome itself when Constantinople became the new capital, was given a See of the same status as the historically recognised primary Sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Rome (and essentially even above Jerusalem) and Constantinople began to flex muscles against Rome itself!

hahaha! U are the now telling lies, d council of constantinople didnt say rome and constantinople were equal, it said constantinople was 2nd after rome and i clearly remember that d pope rejected that canon. Make research.

Ihedinobi: Thank you, sir. And, yes, they do add up. It seems to me that St Augustine's position on the primacy of Rome deteriorated rather than improved. Bokenkotter says that St Augustine "on several occasions. . .complained very bitterly about Rome's exercise of its appelate powers - even threatening to resign if Rome reinstated a young priest whom (he) had suspended." He ends with "we simply can't say what his final views on the primacy of Rome might have been."

can u provide the quote from augustine? Did u notice that u just proved papal primacy? No bishop in d early church would interfer in another see, constantinople can install a priest in hippo, only rome could do that. Did you notice that you didnt say augustine disagreed with papal primacy instead u said he disagreed with it excercise. The two arent thesame so this statement cant even be used as an argument against d primacy of rome. Ha! Dont forget to give me d quotes from st augustine.

Bokenkotter says that the pope's formal claim to "primacy over all other churches in virtue not of conciliar decisions but of the Lord's promise to St. Peter" came from Pope Damasus at a council in 382.

yeah, i know the statement of pope damasus, the funny thing is even before he made that statement pope before him had already excercised primacy and church father bfor him had confirmed it. Damasus wasnt inventing a new stuff, he was proclaiming it.

Ihedinobi: . . .Suffice to say that Rome's primacy wasn't even so much as implied when the Bible was canonized.

what nonesense d bible was canonise in d 4th century by 110ad ignatius had already said that the church of rome 'preside in love' over the entire church. Where did u get that idea?

It was the logical conclusion of movements that Paul prophecied about to the Ephesian elders or bishops in Acts 20:29-30 -

"29 I know that after I am gone, ferocious wolves will get in among you, not sparing the flock,
30 Even from your own selves men will come to the front who, by saying perverse (distorted and corrupt) things, will endeavor to draw away the disciples after them [to their own party]. AMP

Many things arose in those days. All manner of error and wicked doctrines. And they persist among us today as well. But one thing that characterizes them all is that their proponents tear the flock apart.

what a joke?

They must have a following whatever the cost may be. Those that indeed follow the Lord and tend His sheep never never cry for a following.

if you why does paul instruct his son to insist on the word, and preach in and out of season?

In fact, they do not recognize nor appreciate a need for "organized" fellowship.

read ur bible and u would notice that the early church was organised, they also met fairly often.

It is always enough for them that they can form relationships among children of God. They entrust each child of God that they are instrumental in bringing to birth for the Lord to the Lord Himself.

now wish church doesnt do same?

They do not ever set themselves up as models to be adherred to.

what a joke paul said 'imitate me, as i imitate christ'. He set himself as a model, where did u get this idea dat xtians arent models?

The mark of the true shepherd is that he will always ever lay his life down for the sheep. He will never despoil and impoverish them over claims of right. He will never bind them to himself against their will. He will never seek to be inscrutable or infallible to them.

the word of God binds d christains to their elder when it says obey ur elder, the word of God also confirms d church teaching are infalliable when it says 'd gates of hel shal neva previal'. U are skating on tin ice

He never never forgets that before he's the Lord's shepherd, he's the Lord's sheep. And being shepherd is not one level higher than the sheep.

yeah d equal dignity of christians, is anyone contending that?
I believe u have aired ur mind can we go back to d topic at hand?

frosbel: I was once a catholic leader , my family was and still is , in some cases , catholic.

I have seen it all and believe me it is PAGAN.

Black and White is my motto , no beating around the bush.

im sure you were a catholic wu didnt undastand d simple truth of the catholic faith, no wonder, your confusion is the reason why u have refused to make a valid argument, u couldnt prove ur points. Ha! Please make research, open ur bible and learn

frosbel: Very soon the catholics will call Adam and Jesus catholics, just like Muslims call Jesus and Adam Muslims.

In fact the Muslims say we are all Muslims from birth, whether we agree or not.

These 2 religions , ISLAM and Catholicism , hilarious.

this is what happens to people like u wu come into a discussion with closed ears, u have come back more ignorant than u came.

truthislight: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

hahaha. Lol.

Men! What was that!

This is the most desperate hopeless statement that i have ever heard on NL.

Luke and paul were Catholics?

Men! Wow! This is I cant glorify/dignify this with an answer/reply.

that is becos u are totally ignorant of the facts, it is a pity you dont even know how d bible u carry around was compiled. Since you cant give a good reply go ahead and hide in your shell.

Pastor AIO: This thread now seems to be about the validity of Bokenkoker's authority. I thought we were discussing who compiled the canon of the bible. Bokenboker is a historian (living in the 21st century) as such if he wants to say anything about the first few centuries of the church he needs to provide references and arguments. Just like every other historian. Unless he wants to say he was an eye witness.

If he has done so then what needs to be done is His arguments should be presented here and the references he quotes. I'm sure that he does do so in his book but until they are presented here for us to peruse we cannot admit him into the discussion simply on the basis that he is a catholic priest.

exactly, this is the point i have been trying to make, ofcourse bokenkotter may truly be a catholic priest and like most priest knows his onions in church history, but if bokenkotter cannot provide me with quotes from d church fathers, then his argument will become problematic. The pope happens to know his onion too in church history, but if d pope is telling history as though he was there then his views may also become problematic. If bokenkotter has d quotes of d church father in his book pls provide it.

He here says clearly that Irenaeus was instrumental in the acceptance of the gospel of John. Good, now, did Irenaeus accept the primacy of Rome? Or was Irenaeus totally separate from the Church in Rome?

Does Bokenboker argue at all that the RCC had nothing to do with the canonization of the bible? If he does then what are his arguments?

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

the writtings were inspired by d HS, they were put down by members of the catholic church, eg luke, paul etc the fact remains that it is hard to prove that all d book were written by d apostles that they are ascribe to. The fact remains that d church fathers were the ones who did the ascribing, even after th 4th century some were stil debating abt 2pt etc. Even today u will find protestant scholar wu disagree that matthew wrote d gospel of matthew.

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.

they didnt just put a seal, they decided what is what, what was inspired and what was not. They were many writtings to choose from.

k2039: I get your point(full/complete grace according to RC).
Since it was full/complete,she was perfect.

I get your point but that does not necessarily mean I agree

ha! U have started did i present d writtings of a pope to explain it? Why did u write 'according to rc'? You are the person who interpreted the word kecharitomene as the perfect passive particle of charitoo (grace), yet you are denying the fact that kecharitomene shows grace in the perfect tense, pope johnpaul wasnt d person wu wrote kecharitomene in the bible, d apostle st luke did. So grace in perfect tense is not just according to the catholic church, it is according to the bible. So i ask you, do u accept d testimony of scripture?

k2039: I dont have to take anything personal.
Everyone will account for himself and not others before God

dont forget, u wil also give account of urself in relation to others, so take care how u treat others

k2039: Because as long as papal infalliability holds true,then we would never agree.It means all RC doctrine are correct.What that simply means is that this post becomes correct

ha! Do you wish to start a thread on papal infalliability? It is explainable.

k2039: I REST MY CASE

how can u rest a case when u didnt make one in d first place.

k2039: Well the word above is not there,but it can be deduce
But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

check your dictionary 'yea rather' doesnt mean 'above' can you see that?

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter 2 Thessalonians 2:15

I cant find it their,maybe the wrong verse,refer me to the verse

this is what happens when you are using a bible translation that changes the exact words. Go and get a good bible, the word your bible translated as teaching is actual "tradition". U may also want to look up 2thess 3:6, 1cor 11:2. Hope your bible didnt mistranslate again.