₦airaland Forum

MuttleyLaff:
Are you sure?

Hmm. Are you sure?

Hmm...
"he invented sola scriptural", indeed.
Are you sure he invented sola scriptural?
What was the original and real reason why he "invented" sola scriptural?

Ah! Visit many good books, but live in the Bible
Yeah, after travelling, going to places, there is nothing like being back at home, for real comfort

yes I am sure.

NPComplete:
Sadly, I don't have faith in any Catholic horseshit. Nobody does. Only u Catholics believe ur own horseshit.

then you are already bias and can't be objective

Nodogragra4me:
This is what I ask you to do. You weren't there when those nonsense you pasted was coupled together and I wasn't either. The one agreeable book to every Christian is the Bible. Check through it and pick a chapter that supports your drivel . Until you do this, you are writing rubbish.......I went from history back to the scripture...do same


Here is mine, as I earlier stated:


That fact, as well as its availability to all, is very clear from Christ's rebuke of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken...." (Luke 24:25). He would not have used such harsh language in holding these two ordinary people responsible for their ignorance of prophecies had not all of the Old Testament Scriptures been readily available,familiar, and understandable to the ordinary Jew. He then expounded unto them in all the Scriptures (which must therefore have been known) "the things concerning himself" (Luke 24:25-27).

All of the Scriptures were even available to the faraway Bereans north of Greece, who, as we have seen, "searched the Scriptures daily" (Acts 17:11). The same evidence is found in the fact that Timothy knew the Old Testament from early childhood (2 Timothy 3:15) and that it was taught to him not by the rabbis in the synagogue but at home by his mother and grandmother, who themselves were women of faith (2 Timothy 1:5).

1. the Bible isn't an agreeable book, the early Church and the Catholic Church had 73 books, you Protestant deleted some and have 66 books, the Orthodox churches added some and came up with up to 81 books, so it is incorrect to claim the Bible is agreeable to all, do you mean the ancient Christian Bible or the one of Luther or that of the Orthodox or the Jewish one?

2. all the passages above are not talking about the Christian Bible, it is talking of the Jewish old testament which was memorised by Jews and available to them...the new testament wasn't even written then.

2 Tim 3 tells us that what they are talking about is the old testament which Tim already knew from childhood as part of his bar mitva... the Christian Bible hadn't been formed then.

PastorAIO:
Flaws are flaws. Deliberate obscurantism on the other hand....

Flaws would be allowed in the sphere of humans unless the humAn in question claims to be incapable of human error.

Flaws should not be expected of a divine being.

Talking of flaws in Christianity now I wonder if you consider the bible capable of flaws?

the Bible was written across different genres of literature, it was never meant to be literally correct in all things, you'll find therein the understanding of the ancient writers, different traditions with sometimes bloated figures etc, these are "flaws" that I believe are there in the writing text...

though I hold strongly to the inerrancy of its message taken as a whole, the story of a merciful God saving humanity.

[quote author=PastorAIO post=65833925][/quote]OK, I'll take this, maybe I was too quick to make conclusions, I apologise.

PastorAIO:
This is a curious set that you have. What binds me, emmany and mutty into one set?

your love for perfection without room for flaws

Ferisidowu:
Really?

yes

MuttleyLaff:
What wasn't practiced in the early Church?
What was invented in the 1600s by Martin Luther who used it as an excuse for his schism?
Why and what pushed Martin Luther over the cliff to use "it" as an excuse for his schism?



Invented truth is not exclusive to only Catholics
but to the whole spectrum of religiosty

This is why, travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness

Close some doors though, not because of pride, incapacity or arrogance,
but simply because they lead you nowhere

Old ways, wont open new doors, so travel places
Visit many good books, but live in the Bible.

.1 sola scriptural wasn't used in the early Church.
2 sola scriptural was invented in the 1600
3 he had a guilty conscience and couldn't convince himself that the salvation of Christ gave him hope so he invented sola fide and since he couldn't support his doctrine except by twisting scripture he invented sola scriptural.



lastly you can take your own advice.

shadeyinka:
If one would not be biased, I think it is still better to follow the scriptures as the only authority rather than traditions.

you have already framed the question wrongly.

the issue isn't scriptures vs tradition, it is scripture interpreted according to every tom, dick and harry who claims the HOLY spirit vs scriptures interpreted in the sense in which it was written, to an already believing Church in a Church context.

a friend used to say a passage interpreted without the right context is a pretext... that is exactly what the new pastors do, let me explain.


no book of the Bible was written as a catalog of every Christian belief and practice... instead they were books addressing specific themes and questions to already believing congregation who already knew the gospel and Christian practices and understood, the context of the book.

take for instance, acts says the early Christian continued in the breaking of bread some jjc pastor thinks it means they were sharing the word but anyone who read the early Christian Church will know the breaking of bread means the Eucharist. but some ignorant chaps don't know because they are ignorant of what such phrase means.

so the idea that every Christian practices is in the Bible is actually incorrect, the Bible wasn't made for that purpose nor did the writers set our to accomplish such. what we do know from the Bible is that the fullness of the apostolic faith was committed to the Church usually orally and sometimes through letters, a dual mode of transmission and the Bible itself tells us that both modes of transmission must be faithfully held. the oral word was to be committed to faithful men who will become teacher and pass it to others.

it is either we understand the Bible in the sense it was written as a letter to an already believing Church or we understand it as every man to himself document each man claiming the holy spirit and contradiction abounding.

neither was the Bible written in the fashion of sola scriptural, in fact that unbiblical theory doesn't work, Luther was the one who invented it, he claimed he had the spirit and did his own, Zwingli did the same, so too the Anabaptist, and before you know it they all excommunicated each other for heresy in fact Luther later regretted it saying it caused as many contradictory doctrine as there were heads.

it is neither supported by the Bible, practiced by the early it, for 500 years of using it we have 33000 contradictory set and 5 new denominations every day, that is a failed invention

NPComplete:
Based on the pictures. And we all know Nigerians are fake bastards

then you don't have much to go by except you fallacious stereotype and your condemnation of something you didn't witness

NPComplete:
Oh yes, it does. Their faith closes their minds to scepticism towards anything that confirms their faith. I am sure non Catholics back then doubted him plenty.

See u don't have to be a bigot to see that. U only have to have some little sense.

and your lack of said faith and possible anti faith makes you as biased if not more, you didn't see the evidence before you concluded. what screams bias more than that?

Nodogragra4me:
I ask you to point out one chapter from the scripture to support your point. You saw more than one in mine. Until you do that your are addressing yourself.


Wikipedia can be edited and turned upside down by anyone. It is not a source.

so you think the Bible that actually contains different pieces of letters to different local churches will tell you d date it was compiled?

you get comprehension problem?


wikipedia may be edited but the good thing is that it supports itself with references

Scholarship has been moving away from this traditional
perspective toward a view that says there was no fixed
Old Testament canon in the time of Jesus or before and
the New Testament did not reach its final shape until the
4th and 5th centuries

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0017.xml


The canonical Christian Bible was formally established
by Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem in 350 C.E., confirmed by
the Council of Laodicea in 363 C.E., and later
established by Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 C.E. In
his Easter letter of 367 C.E., Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as
what would become the New Testament canon, and
he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in
regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in
393 C.E., approved the New Testament, as it stands
today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision
that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 C.E.
and 419 C.E. These councils were under the authority
of Augustine of Hippo , who regarded the canon as
already closed. Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome
in 382 C.E., if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly
associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to
that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a
sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus's
commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the
Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the
canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a
list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius
of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke
on the matter, however, they were not defining
something new, but instead "were ratifying what had
already become the mind of the Church." Thus,
from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the
West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is
today), and by the fifth century the East, Eastern
Orthodoxy with a few exceptions, had come to accept
the Book of Revelation and thus had come into
harmony on the matter of the canon.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Biblical_canon



these are not been edited uh

donnie:
Angel ko, Angelina ni.

you're already closed minded nothing I say will help you

richie44:
3. Why do we refer to ourselves as sinners but the Bible in Colossians 1vs 13-14 and Ephesian 1vs 7 said we have been redeemed from sin?

Please I need answers.

because we are still been sanctified and even the Christian sometimes commit sin, the Bible says if we acknowledge those sins ie confess them we will obtain forgiveness.

we acknowledge our sins so as to obtain mercy

richie44:
I have been a Catholic all my life but studying my bible in my quest to know God more something happened that made me want to leavd the sect. I just want to ask some questions to Catholic


2. Why do we need the Vrigin Mary and other saints to intercede for us when holy spirit Romans 8 vs 26 and Jesus Christ Romans 8 vs 34? Does Jesus love his mother more than us? I thought he said those that do his works are his brethren? Don't you think we are undermining the love God has for us?


Please I need answers.

objectively you don't need anyone at all, unless you suddenly remember the fact that Christian religion is a communal thing, you need a preacher, a community of believer, someone to baptise you etc...it is only then you'll realise that even though you can pray for yourself you have been blessed with the opportunity of having the whole Church pray for you and with you so far you remember to ask.

for the early church and all ancient churches we recognise that the church is one body comprising of those in Christ and that in Christ things in heaven and on earth have been united so that we can ask the entire Church both in heaven and the church on earth to join in our prayers.

you don't strictly need the prayers of others but it is profitable even the Bible Says the prayer of the righteous availeth much.

richie44:
I have been a Catholic all my life but studying my bible in my quest to know God more something happened that made me want to leavd the sect. I just want to ask some questions to Catholic

1. What is the highest authority in Christianity where doctrines can be gotten? The Bilble or the experience of our leaders

Christianity from the beginning has always been understood to stand on a 3 legged stool... the Bible as the written word of God, the apostolic tradition as handed to the Church and lastly, the Church itself as the arbiter of Christian issues, teacher of the word and the pillar and ground of truth in which the gospel is rightly expanded.

it is a bit similar to how countries are run with a written constitution, an arbiter in the courts etc.

more importantly that is how the Bible tells us that authority is exercised for Christian.

1. the Bible 1 Tim tells us that scripture is inspired and profitable for rebuke, teaching, etc that that the Man of God may be equipped for every good work.
2. apostolic tradition, 2 thess tell us that we must hold to both the written word and the oral teaching of the apostles, in Titus we find that those oral teaching were committed to faithful men in the Church. and those men were given the responsibility of passing it to the next generation.
3. the Church itself is the Pilar and ground of truth, it is in the church that the truth is safeguarded and expounded for the benefit of all. by the church I'm not talking about the shops created 50 years ago, I mean the church formed by Jesus and the apostles and heir to his promises not the fruit of schisms and division which the Bible have already condemned.

these 3 together in that order constitute the safeguard for truth and doctrine for Christians.

t

Nodogragra4me:
Neither you nor myself was there in that century . Our knowledge is according to the material available to us. To reduce the time spent on back and to argument I have included scriptures which indicated that the scriptures were available even before Constantine came on the scene. ...the Bible is agreeable to everyone as a source book ... do same by pointing out scripture that inferred that what I have pasted wasn't so.... did Daniel have the book of Jeremiah ,did Jesus upbraide some followers . Were the Jews expected to know the and mediate on the law day and night according to the scripture, again.

Give biblical support for your point

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon


ignorance is not a virtue read up.


The Christian biblical canons are the books Christians
regard as divinely inspired and which constitute a
Christian Bible . Which books constituted the Christian
biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament
was generally established by the 5th century, despite
some scholarly disagreements, [1] for the ancient
undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
traditions, before the East–West Schism).


there was no Bible in those centuries until the Catholic Church made the canon. nor was the Bible made as a compendium of all Christian doctrine and practices, you guys are even misusing it.

man49men:
I have video and material to proof my topic, this is one of material if you can read spanish. i will send the video in attachment, if you want it.



COURTESY
tryeveryspirit.com

I am sure you have no idea what the deacon is saying and you have been misformed

MightySparrow:
Another nonsense post. what about the practices of catholics that are not biblical? the effigies, images, sodomy, and other vices? they have lost direction altogether.

sodomy is condemned in catholicism,

EVarn:
I don't know where people get all these nonsense from.
Yes, the catholic church is a product of roman paganism and christian theology, sanctioned by the ancient roman emperor Constantine I. But insinuating all these doomsday theories and hasty "prophetic" interpretations is really not presenting mainstream christians as rational or intellectual people

actually the Catholic Church was never merged with Roman paganism, anybody who have read up on the Church in those centuries will realise that such idea was totally abhorrent to them.

ValentineMary:
Pope Leo was saying that the fake story of Jesus has brought such great enjoyment for them. He was even earlier quoted to say "Let us enjoy the papacy" when he became pope. He was convinced that the Jesus story was fake and used it as a means of manipulation.

hope you remember to add that neither of those statement can be found in his writing, they were put down by his enemies

Nodogragra4me:
Go Iver the thread and find my reply to a similar post. This ignorance must not be carved over to April. The Bible gave indications of it existence even before the name Catholic was proposed by a cardinal.

not true, d name Catholic wasn't proposed by a cardinal nor was there a Christian Bible by then

NPComplete:
The next jackass that mentions Padre Pio is getting smacked.
Padre Pio existed at a time when our medical knowledge was much more limited. And most of the stories about him were told by his followers who were probably mostly gullible Catholic morons.
I will like to see someone try that trick in this age. Especially the bilocation and levitation he was supposed to be capable of.
Unverifiable stories form the 20th century do not count as fact.

not really true the last century isn't even up to 20 Years ago and it was certainly advanced in medicine, in fact most of the medical breakthrough we enjoy today is from the 19 & 20th century.


that people are Catholics doesn't diminish their credibility unless of course you are a close minded bigot

NPComplete:
Horseshit. She isn't even bleeding from the eyes. More like her lower eyelid. Seems painted and forced even. I have seen stigmatas that are more real than that horseshit.

where you there or are u judging based on pictures

donnie:
I do not doubt that she's actually bleeding from the eyes. What I doubt is the interpretation of many folks. As for the host "coming out of the mouth", forget that thing....that's plain silly.

I can bet the OP didn't witness the event firtshand. She was actually given the communion to take as is commonly done to stigmatists. Do your research.

or she received it from an Angel, I have seen someone which communion on her mouth and no body put it there.

I don't know about this one though, I wasn't there, I didn't witness this one and the Church hasn't investigated it

Wiseman5:
God bless you for sharing this truth, I pray that everyone that's still under the shackles of ignorance especially the believers of Roman Catholic doctrines be set free today for their damnation will be worst than those that do not believe in Jesus Christ.

there is no truth there, there was no set canon for Christian until the 4th century, the first to propose a canon was a heretic.... the Christian Church continued rejecting certain books eg revelation and 2 Peter until the councils of hippo and Carthage, what you have there is a rather ignorant copy and paste

Wiseman5:
From the Catholic perspective, stigmata (singular stigma) is a term used to describe body marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ, such as the hands, wrists, and feet.
For the purposes of clarity, it's necessary to understand Jesus ministry here on earth, it's a ministry of substitution; He took our place that we should take his place period.
He was made sin that we might be made the righteousness of God in him - 2 Cor.5:21
He became poor that we might be rich
-2. Cor. 8:9
He became a ransom that we might be free, saved and justified. Matt 20:28, Acts 13:38-39.
Having said this, it's important to know that anybody that is not practising this substituted life of Christ is not a child of God. every child of God took the place of Christ and that is what unbelievers in Antioch saw and called them CHRISTAINS. Act 11:19-26. No Christain or church is permitted to suffer the pains or marks Christ has suffered in correspondence to him,for he paid the price once and forever for everyone. read this:
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:10‭-‬14 KJV
whoever that practices this pains of Christ is therefore demonic and anti -Christ beacuse he/she goes against the scripture.

you haven't been reading your Bible.

gal 6:17

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I
bear in my body the {o} marks of the {p} Lord
Jesus



Paul was the first to claim he had the marks of Jesus literally on his body.

the Greek word for mark is stigmata

sharpwriter:
Very vast knowledge. I'm humbled. God bless you and increase your knowledge. Amen.

it is very funny when people clap for mediocrity

Nodogragra4me:
2 Timo 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


Please where can one place this your stigmata doctrine in the word of God

gal 6:17

From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I
bear in my body the marks of the Lord
Jesus

sharpwriter:
Very vast knowledge. I'm humbled. God bless you and increase your knowledge. Amen.

it is very funny when people clap for mediocrity

donnie:
St Francis was not bleeding. Go read

st Francis was bleeding so too padre pio in fact Francis wound in his chest used to stain his garment visibly up to his waist. read up his life.

shadeyinka I just lost my post, allow me to respond later