₦airaland Forum

blueAgent:
I laugh at you.

No where its is written tha Mary is the new Eve or that she played a role in the salvation of humanity.

the woman who gave birth to the saviour didn't play a role in the salvation of humanity


sorry that sounds really dumb like you are running away from something that is starring you in the face. so giving birth to the saviour is not a role

abeg go and sleep, this is just really dull.


if you can't add one plus one it isn't my fault.

solite3:
New King James Version (1979,1982)
The NKJV translators claim to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" and "improved the purity and beauty" of the original KJV. We disagree that the "purity and beauty" have been improved. Although the NKJV uses the underlying Textus Receptus Greek text, the translators repeatedly use marginal notations to reference the Modem Critical Text upon which all of the modem versions are based. The NKJV advocate opens a door that lends credibility to a perverted underlying text used by all the other versions. Furthermore, changes in the text are made which simply are not warranted. The NKJV primarily uses the 1967/ 1977 Stuttgart edition of Biblia Hebraica and draws from sources which result in a Hebrew text that is different from the Jacob ben Chayyim text underlying the KJV Old Testament. As a result the NKJV preface rightly stated, "significant variations are recorded in footnotes." We believe the potential for most textual problems and variants between the KJV and NKJV will be found in the Old Testament.

New Revised Standard Version ( l990)
The NRSV is the latest product of ecumenical scholarship and will soon replace the RSV, thus helping to fill the financial coffers of the apostate National Council of Churches which holds the copyrights on both the RSV and NRSV. Translated by liberal Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars, and eliminating so-called sexist language, the NRSV with the Apocrypha, has already received the Imprimatur of the Roman Catholic Church and may well become the ecumenical Bible of the future.


Other Recent Versions
In recent years, the proliferation of modem Bible versions has increased tremendously. New versions that are based primarily upon the United Bible Societies' 4th revised edition Greek New Testament and the Nestle-Aland 27th edition Novum Testamentum Graece include the New Living Translation (NLT), the New Century Version (NCV), the Contemporary English Version (CEV) and Eugene H. Peterson's The Message. Most of these versions and translations are not only based on an inferior Greek text, but are also thought-for-thought translations (which allow for greater interpretive freedom of the text by the translators) rather than literal, word-for-word translations.
The more we have studied and researched this question of Bible versions, the more convinced we are that many of our dear brethren in the ministry and many Fundamentalist leaders have not taken time to look at the abundant evidence now available that clearly demonstrates the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and confusion that results from new translations. It is clear that many scholars who consider themselves to be evangelical have been influenced by the apostate scholarship of the past and present. We recognize the difference between "higher criticism" (which would be rejected by most Fundamentalists) and "textual criticism" or "lower criticism" (which is accepted by most Fundamentalists). But many do not see how the whole field of textual criticism has been shaped and molded by the false premises and conclusions of "higher criticism." The central issue revolves around the acceptance of the Westcott-Hort text rather than the Textus Receptus as the basis for Bible translations, versions and revisions.
While recognizing the extreme difficulties involved in translations of any kind and especially of a book as important as the Bible, we are convinced that the King James Bible has been blessed by God for hundreds of years and should be used by believers today. It will be far better for us to expand our vocabulary in order to understand its terminology than to continually rewrite the Bible to suit those who will not be able to understand it anyway apart from the New Birth or to suit those Christians who are too lazy to study. It is true that the meanings of some English words have changed and others are no longer commonly used. Yet such words are comparatively few and can easily be comprehended with the use of a good dictionary; but if the word is missing altogether, what then?
The promotion and use of so many different Bible versions has resulted in great confusion among God's people. Why don't more pastors and Christian leaders see this? Congregational reading is becoming virtually impossible. Bible memorization is most difficult. Men and women lose confidence in the validity of God's Word when some verses are included, some are bracketed, and some are missing completely.
For all of these reasons and many more, we conclude that modem Bible versions are dangerous and that God's people should beware of them. We close with a plea to all who love the Lord and His Word-look into this important question quickly and carefully. Then join us in seeking to alert and warn others concerning these subtle and devastating attacks being made upon God's Holy Word.
Our Final Authority
The written Word of God is our final authority in all matters of which It speaks, for It is God's final revelation to man. The Bible is God's trustworthy, authoritative Book, and no more is to be added thereto. The Holy Spirit supernaturally inspired the writers of the 39 books of the Old Testament to record the very words God desired His people to possess (2 Pet. 1: 2 1). Likewise, the prophetic promise Jesus Christ made to His disciples (soon to be the apostles and writers of the 27 books of the New Testament) restated the same divine operation of inspiration, for the Holy Spirit later also guided these men "into all truth" (Jn. 16:12-15). "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), and that inspired Scripture encompasses nothing more, nor anything less, than the 66 books of the Bible, the completed canon of Scripture. 2 Peter 3:2 tells us that if we want to know God's Word, then we are to look nowhere other than to the "words which were spoken before by the holy prophets [O. T. Scripture], and of the commandments of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour [N.T. Scripture]." God's Word provides us with all we need to be built up in the faith and to do God's will and work - God gave no additional revelation once the Bible was completed. The inspired writings of the apostles, circulated among the churches and later canonized, were perfect and complete (Lk. 1: 1-4; 1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:1-7; 1 Thess. 2:13; Rev. 22:18, 19). The internal evidence of the Word of God states without equivocation that believers today have a final authority - God's Written Word.
Since the completion of the canon of Scripture, no additional divine revelation has come through any "latter day prophets," charismatic dreamers, cult authorities or the tradition/Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, as Pope John Paul II has reinforced in a recent encyclical. With the passing of the original disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (the apostles who penned the 27 books of the New Testament), the partial revelation ceased and "that which is perfect"-the Written Word of the Living God-was come. "That which is in part" was done away (1 Cor. 13:8-12). With the passing of the apostles and the subsequent completion of the canon, no more revelation came from God. It is essential, therefore, that we earnestly contend for the faith "once delivered" (past tense) and against any attempt to claim an authority for faith and practice other than God's Word, the 66 books of the Bible. Remember, Timothy's household did not have the "original autographs," but the copies they had were designated by God as "the holy scriptures" (2 Tim. 3:14, 15). Likewise, Paul commended the Ephesian elders to the "word of his grace, which is able to build you up..." (Acts 20:27, 32). We can have confidence today that we have a Bible that is the holy Word of God in the Authorized (King James) Version.
A problem developed, however, with the 20th century's proliferation of new Bible versions. It became necessary to study the history of the English Bible and the Greek text which had been used down through the centuries and compare that text with the claims of the "higher critics" who championed the minority text upon which the new versions are based. After careful study of the subject, the FEA concluded that the
Textus Receptus, the underlying text upon which the Authorized King James Version is based, is the providentially preserved Greek text. The
Textus Receptus was derived from the majority family of manuscripts used in the Greek-speaking church down through the centuries. This text was the divinely preserved text - an accurate rendition of the very originals (miraculously inspired by the Holy Spirit) written by the apostles, and, in the Hebrew tongue, by the Old Testament prophets. The Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are, in reality, the divinely preserved texts of the divinely inspired original writings.
But now, another problem has arisen within the last few decades. An element of those who were strong defenders of the inerrancy and veracity of the Authorized Version, used and blessed by God in the English-speaking world for well over 300 years, began to advance the idea that the KJV English translation is superior to the Greek and Hebrew texts and that the King James translators were themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit in producing their translation. As a result of this proposal, they claim that the English King James translation has been miraculously inspired just as the original autographs themselves were inspired. This false teaching even assumed the newly ascribed authority to correct the underlying Greek and Hebrew text from which it was translated. What we have by this proposed phenomenon is what is often known as "double inspiration" - the original writings of the prophets and the apostles consist of the first "inspiration," and the second work of "inspiration" occurred when the King James translators produced the English Authorized Version in 1611. Certainly the King James translators were the best scholars ever assembled to produce a translation that we can hold up today as our authoritative, trustworthy translation; but were those esteemed translators "inspired" in the biblical sense? Absolutely not!
We cannot accept this conjecture, for the- concept of a superior English text or of "double inspiration" completely denies What the Bible Itself teaches about Its own initial inspiration by the miraculous operation of the Holy Spirit and Its promised preservation through each successive generation. No, the English-speaking world is not the sole proprietor of the Word of God. Other nations and languages can also boast an accurate, trustworthy translation of the Word of God from the Greek Textus Receptus
and the Hebrew Masoretic text.
It is the conviction of the FEA that the Authorized Version should be the standard and final authority for the English speaking world for two reasons: First, because it is based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, and second, because it, is an accurate, literal (formal, word-for-word) translation of the aforementioned Greek and Hebrew texts (that is, the translation of the text is literal, as much as is possible of any translation from one language to another). We must reject the teaching of those who claim the KJV is full of errors, yet we must also reject the teaching of those "KJV-only" proponents who claim that the KJV is in itself inspired and superior to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. Notice the following timely words by Pastor M. H. Reynolds, Jr., which accurately sum up the Biblical position regarding inspiration and preservation:
We are sometimes accused of believing in "double inspiration" or "continuing revelation," i.e., that the King James translators were divinely inspired in the same way as were the original human writers of the books of the Bible. Not so! The use of these terms amounts to a dishonest misrepresentation of what we believe. The miracle of inspiration applies only to the initial giving of the Word of God to the writers of the autographs (all of which are no longer in existence). But we also believe that the Bible Itself teaches and the history of manuscript evidence supports the contention that the miracle of initial inspiration extends to the divinely superintended preservation of a pure text to this day. We have, therefore, an inspired Bible today in the sense that it is the accurate translation of the text once and finally inspired by God and recorded in the "original autographs," the majority text used down through the centuries in the Greek church. Be wary of any opponent of the KJV who contrives impressive sounding buzz words to misrepresent what the defenders of the Authorized Version actually believe.
From the FEA publication Modern Bibles-the Dark Secret by Pastor Moorman, wonderfully used of God to defend the Authorized Version and to debunk the credibility of the other versions, the concluding paragraph reads:
It is not impossible that in the providence of God another universally accepted standard translation could be produced. However, given the lateness of the hour, the lack of spiritual scholarship, and the fact that our language no longer has the depth and vitality it once had, this seems most unlikely. All indications point to the KJV as the Bible God would have His people use in these last days before the Second Coming of Christ.
The Old Testament Scriptures were to accomplish one central purpose-to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:25-27). The same is true of the New Testament as well (John 16:14). Those who undermine the authority and accuracy of the Authorized Version only cause God's people to lack a confidence in His Message and the impeccability of Christ and His finished Work. This certainly does not advance the purpose of God-to glorify His dear Son and to cause His children to have absolute confidence in His final and complete Revelation. Praise God, He has given to us His Word, and we have before us in the English language the Authorized King James Bible, a literal, accurate translation of the very words God breathed in His Revelation to man.

lol

blueAgent:
The Church never moved its headquarters your Church highjacked the early church.

Christ's church cannot be highjacked, it has the promise of God's abiding presence.

OLAADEGBU:
Where is Ubenedictus when you need him, to explain how the OP is wrong?

why am I not surprised that certain Protestants selectively quote scripture without context.

josh123:
All Catholics are idol worshippers,they all bow down to an image which they refer to as mary.The bible specifically told us not to bow down to any graven imge.The Pope and other priest have deceived so many people from time memorial ,moreover i suspect the pope is a Freemasonry. CHRISTIANS ALWAYS READ UR BIBLE

what about those who bowed and prostrated before images in the Bible... people like Joshua?

Dantedasz:
At Nicaea, might was right and those priests favoured whose books were favoured by the Roman Emperor Constantine had their books approved and inserted in the Bible while those priests whose books were not favoured by the Romans found their books declared as blasphemy. Such books were banned and all copies burned by the Romans.
So the books that made it were strictly under Roman approval.

nope, the canon of scripture wasn't discussed in nicea nothing like the above happened.

Mizwisdom:
I attended one of their masses but did not get welcomed. Everybody was minding his or her business, i didn't understand the lack of communication with new faces it's like they only communicate with people they know are active members.

did you meet the "mass" at the beginning?
if you did then the first two sentence you will hear is this.
1
"in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy
spirit"
2
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the
communion of the holy spirit be with you.
or
2
the Lord be with you.
or
2
peace be with you.
if you know any welcome address that is better than that
please tell me, became it doesn't just speak welcome, it speaks
grace unto your life.
that is how people are welcomed in the Catholic church.
what you may not find is biscuit and drink for new members
and "you are welcome in the name of the Lord" song. but if you
listened from the beginning you will realize you have already
been welcomed into the church.
if you are talking about the next guy close to you been
unfriendly the you have to realise that Catholic churches
usually have large population, one guy usually doesn't know
the next guy. my parish has over 1000 people, I don't
personally know most people, on Sunday I know the guy next to
me shares my Faith, is out to get a new unique experience with
God, and we may joke a bit after mass but I generally don't
know him. the church is big and most people would not talk to
people they usually don't know.
the chance to really meet people is in fellowships, Bible
studies and pious societies.

InansBobo:
Is there any Catholic Church in Nigeria that has more population than Faith tabernacle, RCCG HQ, Dunamis HQ?

If you don't have sense to speak, why not keep shut up

do you know where the head quarters of the Catholic church is? its a whole city state, with its own sovereignty

Ilamina:
They didn't announce that It's my friend that told me not too go up

wow, sometimes that happens...

Ilamina:
They don't even welcome new members like other churches

Other churches welcome new members, they always have time to welcome new members every Sunday

Everyone is just so stuck up

did you meet the "mass" at the beginning?

if you did then the first two sentence you will hear is this.

1
"in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy spirit"
2
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God and the communion of the holy spirit be with you.
or
2
the Lord be with you.
or
2
peace be with you.


if you know any welcome address that is better than that please tell me, became it doesn't just speak welcome, it speaks grace unto your life.


that is how people are welcomed in the Catholic church.

what you may not find is biscuit and drink for new members and "you are welcome in the name of the Lord" song. but if you listened from the beginning you will realize you have already been welcomed into the church.


if you are talking about the next guy close to you been unfriendly the you have to realise that Catholic churches usually have large population, one guy usually doesn't know the next guy. my parish has over 1000 people, I don't personally know most people, on Sunday I know the guy next to me shares my Faith, is out to get a new unique experience with God, and we may joke a bit after mass but I generally don't know him. the church is big and most people would not talk to people they usually don't know.

the chance to really meet people is in fellowships, Bible studies and pious societies.

IME1:
Happy Sunday
There are many versions of the Bible
King James
New King James
Revised Standard
Amplified
Catholic
New Jerusalem
And many others.
Which version do you use.

I use King James. I think it's the first version
I plan to read the books in the Catholic bible also

for study I use the new Jerusalem Bible, it links the entire Bible and helps me study a verse in context, added to the fact that it is complete, if I run into any problems, I take the duoy Bible, it is older than the King James, Vulgate based and renders it in the sense it has always been understood in the church, the only problem is that it has archaic English... I also use the community Bible for clearness in languages and the African Bible because of course its African in perspective.... if the issue is too thorny I look for a concordance and try my hand at the original language

Godssword1:
Yet another crazy practice from the Catholics, please tell me which God these people are serving & which Bible they're reading?

See for yourself;
https://www.ibloggospel.com/2018/11/roman-catholics-worldwide-praying-in-cemeteries-to-free-souls-from-purgatory-november-1-8.html

sometimes the silliest thing is to condemn something you don't understand.

Kingdante:
Leave them....... business venture owned by the Rothschild.

I laff, dem soon dey go wise.

wetin concern Rothschild and the Catholic church.

una go just dey talk off

OLAADEGBU:
Our Lord and Saviour is not on the Cross, He is risen!

"And He was seen many days of them which came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses unto the people. And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore He saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption" (Acts 13:31-35).

He is giving us assurance from the Old Testament that Jesus must rise again.

he is risen and he is still preached as one crucified.

1 cor 2:2
New Heart English Bible
For I determined not to know anything among you,
except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.



1 Corinthians 1:23 English Standard Version (ESV)
but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to
Jews and folly to Gentiles,


1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the
gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross
of Christ would not be made void.



Galatians 3:1
You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before
whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as
crucified?


Galatians 6:14
But may it never be that I would boast, except in the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the
world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.



1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who
are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the
power of God.



Galatians 5:11
But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I
still persecuted? Then the stumbling block of the cross
has been abolished.



Galatians 6:12
Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh
try to compel you to be circumcised, simply so that they
will not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.


or are you an enemy of the cross of Christ.



Philippians 3:18
For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell
you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of
Christ,



even Jesus appears in heaven as a lamb as though slain.

revelation 5:6


Berean Study Bible
Then I saw a Lamb who appeared to have been
slain, standing in the center of the throne,
encircled by the four living creatures and the
elders. The lamb had seven horns and seven eyes,
which represent the sevenfold Spirit of God sent
out into all the earth.

blueAgent:
You don't know anything more than God.

It was God that instructed the angels and man to venerate,adore,reverance,praise his Son Jesus and i wonder why he did not remember
to add Mary

Pls if you know the reason you can tell me.

The same God who knows the end of a thing from the begining cannot just forget to tell us the importances to venerate Mary
After all he insistuted many Christain doctrines like baptism,Holy communion,
fasting,praying but while he left out Mary still disturbes me.

Hebrews 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

it is you who skipped the part where God tells us to honor Mary, Jesus honored her, are we not to imitate him.

heck the Bible tells us to do so in black and white.



Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For he has regarded the lowliness of his
Maidservant, for behold, from this hour all
generations will ascribe blessedness to me.”

blueAgent:
Lie.

The Church foundation was laid in Judea by Jesus and was ushered in on the day of pentecost from there it spread to every part of the World.
What your Church did was to hijack what was already existing using their power from Rome to dictate and claim it was started by them.

the same church laid in Jerusalem, soon moved it prime center to Antioch and later to Rome.


nobody hijacked it, the church is the bride of Christ and Jesus promised to be with her to the end of the ages, it can't be hijacked.

budaatum:
One would say you should "go and read about your Church history with an unbiased mind". Or do you know that it is his church that is the foundation of your church, and that your church would most likely not exist if his church had not done the foundational work which your church "stole"?

You might want to read up on wiki, and All about. When you done with the above, and learnt from Alice et al, you may then advance to A Source Book for Ancient Church History From the Apostolic Age to the Close of the Conciliar Period by Joseph Cullen Ayer, Jr., Ph.D.

it is weird ignorance. I am always laughing when Protestants speak like that, heck, you guys all came from that same history, Protestantism doesn't have any link to the apostles except from the fact that they came from the Catholic church.

OLAADEGBU:
"And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him down from the tree, and laid Him in a sepulchre. But God raised Him from the dead" (Acts 13:29-30):

Our Saviour is not on the cross. Some think Jesus is still there on the cross. He is not on the cross anymore, Jesus is risen.

the risen saviour is preached as crucified by all who truly know him, whoever is scandalized by Christ crucified is not fit for the glory his cross unleashes.




1 Corinthians 1:23 English Standard Version (ESV)


but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to
Jews and folly to Gentiles,

OLAADEGBU:
Action speaks louder than words.

I preach Christ and him crucified. if you can't relate to that sorry, it must be a folly to you or a stumbling block, it is a pity sorry.

blueAgent:
Good you exposed yourself. The pagans claim against Jesus is false becos We have God's word as a prove but there is no record of the early church venerating or worshipping Mary neither is their any evidence in the Bible that God approves it.

you just seem blind, so you didn't see the Bible approving the veneration of Mary abi.

the woman God himself honored abi?
what is this?
Luke 1:48
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“For he has regarded the lowliness of his
Maidservant, for behold, from this hour all
generations will ascribe blessedness to me.”

blueAgent:
Pure fallacy.

sorry dear you don't even know the meaning of fallacy, if you did you'll know that what I wrote above is on point. she is the new Eve. if you were interested in using your brains instead of your bias you would have learnt something.

Ihedinobi3:
Ubenedictus, what you did and are doing was and is in poor form. I did not address you. You chose to talk to me. The least you could be is civil until I give you cause to be otherwise.

my dear I have not been uncivil with you, I have handled your presentations bluntly but I have been charitable, I have not directed any ad hominems and have addressed your points and only your points... I don't know why you think I have been uncharitable with you. If I have, point it out and I'll apologize.

Your response to my argument with the three passages is a very good example of what I said about Roman Catholics. You don't believe the Bible. And why would you when you claim it is your creation?

I have been around long enough to know every Protestant I meet have his or her version of what Catholics think, most times far from the truth and frankly speaking, I have gradually began not to care about it if not that instructing the ignorant was considered an act of mercy. Of course the church created the Bible, borrowed much from the Jews, the other parts were written by members of the church under inspiration, recognized by the church, addressed to the church and compiled by same. I do not just claim its creation, I assert it forcefully from all available evidence that under the influence of the holy spirit the church did create what is called the Bible borrowing the old testament from the Jews.

This doesn't in any way imply any disbelief in the Bible, heck, the Jews created the old testament and no one accuses them of not believing it simply because they created it under God's help.

Let me say it again: unless these writers in the New Testament bothered to clarify what they meant by the word "Scripture", the logical thing to assume is that those to whom they wrote knew exactly what they meant. If you want to debate about what they may have meant, I am not interested at this point. What my argument here is is this: before the apostles died, it was clear to at least the writers and the recipients and readers of the New Testament what was Scripture and what wasn't. That is a direct negation of your claim that the Hebrew Canon "was not set until after the apostles died". If your claim was true, then there would have been need for each writer to clarify what they meant.

oh that is a good claim to make. The church was the recipient of the letter, the church actually knew what was been talked about it was the Greek Septuagint which the church considered scripture, so yes! The recipient seemed to be clear that scripture for them was the Greek canon...

Besides its still doesn't even address my point, the Jews too were always referring to scripture as a technical term even though until the 2nd century they were still arguing what books were scripture. That a person said " scripture " to another doesn't mean they necessarily had a set list of what was considered scripture. But if you wish to go forward with that claim, then I'll submit that scripture for the churches was the Septuagint.

In the same vein, whether Peter meant all of Paul's letters or some of them also does not matter even the slightest bit. The point is that while Paul was still alive and writing, Peter himself recognized his writing as Scripture. There was no council then which pronounced on them and no thundering from Heaven. So how did Peter know that they were Scripture? Will you seriously argue that he did not mean what he said? I wouldn't be too surprised if you did.

Actually every Christian Church could recognise its own set of books as scripture even without a council, actually every church was gathering it own collection of writings she recognized as scripture, in fact while Paul was still alive churches were reading his letters as scripture but his letters weren't the only ones been read that way. Churches also took the letter of st Clement to the Corinthians as scripture and it was read on Sundays in some churches... So too the sherperd of Hama's. Do you recognise those books? Because they too were read as scripture in churches immediately they were written? If the criteria is that the books were immediately recognised as scripture then may Clement too and the sherperd should be scripture, if that is the criterion maybe books like Hebrew and peter shouldn't make it too because many churches rejected them.


Which brings me back to my point, Clement was instantly accepted by churches and so was Paul on what basis then do we have Paul in our bibles but not Clement, the answer is the church in council, the gospels had almost universal appeal but not Peter, yet they are both in the Bible, how come? The church accepted both.

Those of us who actually believe the Bible see ONE Book, not several. We do because they all share the same essence. That is, they all bear the same signature. So, we know that what one of them says is what all of them say. Additionally, every book that presents itself as giving authoritative information about spiritual matters may be reasonably assumed to be claiming spokesmanship for God even when it does not explicitly do so. However, I find it hard to remember a single book in the Bible that does not in one form or other present itself as an oracle. Paul in almost all his letters included the statement "grace and peace from [God] to [the readers and recipients]". That was a direct claim that he was writing under commission from God. There are many such signs in each book. But that is hardly the point. Any book may make such a claim. The question is whether the claim is true. Also, the absence of such a claim is no proof that the writing is not Scripture. As I said, the proof that a writing is Scripture is that it is God-inspired. Unless, of course, you think that Paul was lying or mistaken somehow. It wouldn't surprise me too much if you turn around and decide that you think so. For now, though, you agree that the Bible says what it says. If Scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired, then Scripture will be immediately recognizable as such to anyone who demands its identity. Or else how could everyone who wrote and received the New Testament when it was written know what was Scripture without some council telling them? Or else how would Peter know that any of Paul's letters was Scripture?

sorry but you have mixed much nonsense here.

The Bible may tell one story but it isn't one book, it is instead one line of thought and even with the deuterocanon it is still that same line.
And again, the grace thing is a greeting still used in the church today, it is not some declaration that what is been written is God's Oracle.

Lastly those who received the new testament when it was written received a lot of things, some had more books than we have others had less, there was no "feature" totally recognized by every one, if it was so all the churches would have always had the same list but that was never the case.

As for who is getting discernment correct, that's your appeal to popularity. It is not my place to worry about who and who is discerning Scriptures right (which is why I care very little about your claims about Luther). My business is to make sure that I am being careful to discern the Bible. And I am. I have read what you call "the deuterocanon" and without being told, I knew something was weird about them. They were not like the other books. I was a child when I read them. I have had infrequent contact with them through my growing up years. I am an adult now. And I still think they are weird. But none of the 66 books recognized by Protestants feels the same way to me. I couldn't care less what your own opinion on them is.

lol, I never appealed to popularity, you claimed the scriptures had a "feature" that made it recognisable to anyone, if it was so then how do you account for how come the entire church recognized the Septuagint with it deuterocanon as scripture, even those who ranked it lower is recognized it as scripture. So the entire church weren't good enough to see the feature wasn't in the deuterocanonical books and it took 1500years for Martin Luther to come and recognise that the feature is absent.

Sorry dear, you either concede that the feature is hardly recognisable or it is nonexistent or if it is existent and easily recognisable then it is the church who got it correct not the guy who came centuries later.

I have my own story, I was also a child when I noticed my mum's Jerusalem Bible has more books than the RSV we used in school, I read wisdom and sirach and I immediately recognized that it was the same with the Bible, I remember thinking those who made the decision were silly. When I grew up I noticed every one appealed to personal discernment when they can't find a clear justification for their action, anyone can make any decision and blame it on discernment, but there is an entity that is promised preservation by God and has authority to make that discernment and has the assurance of the holy spirit, I.e the church.

As I said, I don't care what the Roman Catholic Church thinks is true and what it doesn't

then I can also say I don't care what you think and then the discussion will break down because it is silly to be in a discussion when you don't care what the other thinks.

About the historians, it's like visiting a doctor. You don't lose your brain just because you don't have a medical degree and someone who has one or more is talking to you about your body. But neither do you pretend to be a doctor or to know what a doctor is trained to know. You acknowledge your limits and you still use your common sense to parse what you're told. That is why I can say that claims made about Luther "don't smell right" even if I am not historian. They just don't fit with what I do know about that period of human history, to say nothing of what I do know about the man himself. So, while I do not deny that "high method of biblical criticism" is capable of scaring believers, I don't think there would be that much there that would really trouble me. And I may know a little bit about some of that. Still, one must acknowledge one's limits and not just make things up to feel more comfortable. That only leads to more trouble for oneself in the end.

do you need the quote from Martin Luther himself as to his mago mago?

I don't find much in the rest of your arguments that I need to respond to beyond what I said above.

still same issues.

The Bible does not say the Bible is God's word, the Bible did not identify its table of content, the church did.

The church did finalise on what is scripture, if you decide to hide under discernment to forward the protestant list then you may very well concede that the "feature" is not easily recognisable since your list of scripture is different from that which the church used for centuries, or the feature is nonexistent or the church did get it right.

Either way your story only make each man his own Bible creator. Let us give every man the abt 100 books that were in contention and let everyman discern for himself what should be scripture, create chaos.

blueAgent:
Am not sure you know the meaning of Synonyms
This is from Oxford dictionary


Synonyms of worship in English:
worship
See definition of worship
NOUN
1‘the new Church rejected the worship of saints
and relics’
SYNONYMS
reverence, revering, worshipping, veneration,
venerating, adoration, adoring, -olatry, devotion,
praise, thanksgiving, praising, praying to,
glorification, glorifying, glory, exaltation, exalting,
extolment, extolling, homage, respect, honour,
honouring, esteem
dulia, latria
rare laudation, magnification
2‘morning worship’
SYNONYMS
service, church service, religious rite, religious
act, prayer, prayer meeting, praise, devotion,
religious observance
matins, morning prayer, vespers, evening prayer,
evensong
3‘he contemplated the pin-up with worship’
SYNONYMS
admiration, adulation, idolization, deification,
lionization, hero-worship
VERB
1‘they do not worship pagan gods’
SYNONYMS
revere, reverence, venerate, pay homage to,
honour, adore, praise, pray to, bow down before,
glorify, exalt, extol
be devoted to, dote on, love, hold dear, cherish,
treasure, admire, esteem, adulate, idolize, deify,
hero-worship, lionize, have a high regard for,
hold in high regard, hold in esteem, hold in awe,
look up to
informal be wild about, put on a pedestal
archaic magnify


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/worship

I saw the synonyms, thank God a synonym cannot be used to replace the original word in every instance.


Your synonym says that honor is a synonym for worship, praise too is a synonym for worship, esteem, treasure and cherish are also synonym for worship.

If a synonym could always replace the original that would mean;

Every time I honored my parents I was committing idolatry,
Every time my mum praised me she was and idolaters

Every time couples in church promised to cherish one another and I esteemed my wife or a friend that mean I was worshipping abi?

Fa fa fa fowl, doesn't work like that dear, I can cherish and treasure and esteem my wife without worshipping her, praise my parents and not worship them and venerate(honor) without ascribing divinity to her or worshipping her.

Get that?

F

blueAgent:
Which dictionary? stop lieing


Definition of worship in English:
worship
NOUN
1[mass noun] The feeling or expression of
reverence and adoration for a deity.
‘worship of the Mother Goddess’
‘ancestor worship’
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 Religious rites or ceremonies,
constituting a formal expression of
reverence for a deity.
‘the church was opened for public worship’
More example sentences Synonyms
1.2 Great admiration or devotion shown
towards a person or principle.
‘the worship of celebrity and wealth’
More example sentences Synonyms
1.3archaic Honour given to someone in
recognition of their merit.
2(His/Your Worship) British [as title] Used in
addressing or referring to an important or high-
ranking person, especially a magistrate or
mayor.
‘we were soon joined by His Worship the
Mayor’
More example sentences

so worship is the honor you give to someone you consider to be a deity and the accompanying religious ceremony, in the archaic sense it can mean a title or honor given to someone as a recognition of merit, that is what the above say abi?

Then it is clear that if you are speaking in the first sense then Catholics CAN'T BE WORSHIPING Mary because they don't consider her to be deity and worship is what one offers to deity.

Veneration on the other hand

Definition of venerate
: to regard with reverential respect or with
admiring deference
1
: to honor (an icon, a relic, etc.) with a ritual
act of devotion



Choose the Right Synonym for venerate
REVERE , REVERENCE , VENERATE, WORSHIP, ADORE
mean to honor and admire profoundly and
respectfully. REVERE stresses deference and
tenderness of feeling. // a professor revered by her
students // REVERENCE presupposes an intrinsic
merit and inviolability in the one honored and a
similar depth of feeling in the one honoring. //
reverenced the academy's code of honor //
VENERATE implies a holding as holy or sacrosanct
because of character, association, or age. // heroes
still venerated // WORSHIP implies homage usually
expressed in words or ceremony. // worships their
memory // ADORE implies love and stresses the
notion of an individual and personal attachment. //
we adored our doctor //
What's the Difference Between venerate ,
revere , and reverence ?
Venerate , revere , reverence , worship, and adore all
mean to honor and admire profoundly and
respectfully. Venerate implies a holding as holy or
sacrosanct because of character, association, or
age. Revere stresses deference and tenderness of
feeling ("a professor revered by students"wink.
Reverence presupposes an intrinsic merit and
inviolability in the one honored and a similar depth of
feeling in the one honoring ("she reverenced the
academy's code of honor"wink. Worship implies homage
usually expressed in words or ceremony ("he
worships their memory"wink. Adore implies love and
stresses the notion of an individual and personal
attachment ("we adored our doctor"wink. Venerate ,
incidentally, traces back to the Latin verb venerari,
from vener -, meaning "love" or "charm."
Examples of venerate in a Sentence
// a writer venerated by generations of admirers
// She is venerated as a saint.
Recent Examples on the Web
// One of the key thinkers venerated by Putin and his
circle is a hitherto obscure Russian fascist, Ivan
Ilyin, whose views are absurd but terrifying in their
implications.
— Margaret Macmillan, New York Times, "Are We Traveling the
‘Road to Unfreedom’?," 9 May 2018
// Madikizela-Mandela was persecuted by the
apartheid government, and venerated by many South
Africans, because of her activism against white
minority rule.
— Washington Post , "South Africa declares mourning period for
Madikizela-Mandela," 3 Apr. 2018
// Discretion is different now; it is practiced less, it
is venerated less.
— Meagan Fredette, refinery29.com , "Are Justin Bieber &
Ariana Grande Trying To One-Up Each Other On PDA?," 14 July
2018
// Social media's problems stem not just from
internet companies' business strategies but from the
technologies the companies use and venerate.
— Nicholas Carr, chicagotribune.com , "Is Facebook the problem
with Facebook, or is it us?," 10 July 2018
// Every day, the whole world seems to venerate
mothers, but for you, Mother’s Day is the worst.
— Yvonne Abraham, BostonGlobe.com , "For women who have
trouble conceiving, Mother’s Day can be the worst," 12 May
2018
// The comment made Lugo reflect on whose faces
get venerated on vases.
— Cassie Owens, Philly.com , "Throwing down: How this potter
from Kensington found fine art success," 26 June 2018
// Mexico may venerate its teachers, but that seems
not to have translated into learning.
— The Economist , "Mexico’s crucial education reform risks
being unwound," 31 May 2018
// Long- venerated as a trading powerhouse, Goldman
Sachs has struggled to regain its foothold there
since the financial crisis.
— Fortune , "Goldman Sachs Group," 29 Mar. 2018


Merriam-webster dictionary.


That is more like it.

blueAgent:
It was your Church that stole from pagans go and read about your Church history with an unbaised mind.

it is you who seem ignorant of history! Pagans claim Jesus is a pagan god that the church stole from them, then you go and find a quote that says Mary is a god stolen from pagans.

Is it not double standard that you are quick to agree with pagans that Mary was stolen but you will be the first to reject their claim that Jesus too was stolen? You appeal to pagans when it suits you and run away with your tail between your legs when it doesn't.

blueAgent:
Another Fallacy
And where is this explaination written in the Bible?

It is funny how you run to the Bible to pick verses out of context to support your false narrative but you reject same bible verses when do contracdict your oponion.

oh sorry, you want to be spoon fed, the Bible already told you add one to one but you are still waiting for it to tell you two.

Sorry, the reversal of the old Adam and the old Eve sin is a mother and child, the child is Jesus, his mother is Mary, Jesus is the new Adam, the antitype of the old Adam, that makes Mary the antitype of the old Eve, the new Eve.


If you still can't make the addition then am not to blame, look within for whom to blame, at least the early Christians I quoted tried to explain it for you.

Sorry if you still can't get it.

Lastly I always accept scripture, as a Catholic I have no option, the Bible is God's word and that is dogma, which means I can never shake it. What I don't accept is your erroneous, fallible interpretation of the Bible.

blueAgent:
Another fallacy.

did you learn this word newly?

Oya what type of fallacy did I commit?

Have you done your research or are you still speaking from ignorance.

Is the mother of the davidic king not the Queen mother?

Is Jesus not a King in that line?

Dantedasz:
Pray for the paedophile Catholic priests to stop abusing young deaf choir boys and then hypothetically saying ten hail Mary's.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFDqSuUOLR8

this must be an interesting attempt to divert the thread as usual... You remember you have tried this before?

I do pray for Catholic priests who are child abusers and also Protestant pastors and Jewish Rabbi and all their victims, but unfortunately that is not the topic of the thread.

Try another tactic.

OLAADEGBU:
Having Christ hanging on the cross does not necessarily describe what Paul was preaching. It does not mean that Christ remains perpetually hanging on the cross, it means more than that.

nobody said Christ is perpetually hanging on the cross, that is the silly conclusion you decided to draw from it and has nothing to do with what Catholics believe.

Dantedasz:
Lol,
Beating around the bush.
Just like your hail Mary's, need less and end less.
Once again,you are not convincing any one that Catholics do not worship Mary's statues and images and have turned Mary into a sin less deity which she is not!

no dear, why would I bother myself trying to convince you. your mind is made up, your eyes closed. I would rather pray for you.

blueAgent:
Bullshit .
you and your church are craftly at manipulating words to suit your fantasy.

Explain to me how you express worship to God

no dear, my church didn't write the Merriam Webster dictionary, we didn't manufacture the words nor did we manipulate it. I quoted what the dictionary says as regards veneration, if you disagree and want the words defined to tickle your fancy then you are out of luck or rather call the dictionary to help you.

Shouting bullshi or blaming the church because the dictionary doesn't favor you selective approach is pretty low.

blueAgent:
I laugh at you typical sheepie.

Thats what you are told

I have seen this before, when you can't respond to a discussion you resort to ad hominems, it is both disgraceful and shameful. If you can't avoid the name calling then excuse yourself from the discussion.