accountable:

Let the scriptures be the judge.note that The dogma would be completely unnecessary if the pope were truly infallible. The many instances when the pope has spoken both counter-scriptural and extra scriptural teachings is the subject of another thread.

It was not declared as a dogma at first because the Pope was and is truly infallible and everyone knew that. But when false prophets started teaching against and denying it, it had to be OFFICIALLY DEFINED as a DOGMA.

OLAADEGBU:
The Attack!

Again with the comics created by liars.

accountable:


Yes, if they wrote contrary to scripture. Period.

If they wrote contrary to scripture, how come they still chose the books that they were writing contrary to as the NT?

They could have easily made a different list.

accountable:


"The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism in use in Catholic schools in England, Scotland and Wales attributed to Protestants the idea that Catholics were obliged to believe in papal infallibility:

(Q.) Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible?
(A.) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith: no decision of his can oblige under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is by the bishops of the Church."
Source wikipedia.

The point is that before 1870 catholics were not obliged to believe in papal infallibity..... 'To say so was a protestant invention'

But after that it became a dogma.

The citation you give us is another indication of how much of
what passes for Irish Catholicism was actuated by political
circumstances. The Peelite Government lately passed was
acutely suspicious of the loyalty of the Catholic hierarchy,
hated the papacy, and were just waiting to pounce. The
immediate preceedings had been rather inciteful and left a
precariously delicate air. Bishops throughout the country
had been condemning the National Schools established in
1932 and the 'Godless' Queen's Colleges in 1945. The Synod
of Thurles took place that year, attracting the acrimony of
HMG. The re-establishment of the English hierarchy too,
prompting a disgusted Russell to pass the Ecclesiastical Titles
Act. Mass Catholic immigration into England from the
Famine roused alarm, and 'no popery' processions were
everywhere. Hatred of the papacy, already ubiquitous, was
augmented by an obsession with the Risorgimento. The
Oxford Movement, the Irish Church Act 1833, and the
Maynooth Grant led to the burning of the Pope in effigy in
'Papal Aggression' rallies throughout several towns in
England and southern Scotland. The Ultra-Tories and some
Whigs were even agitating for a repeal of the Emancipation
Act. Many more were calling for greater civil restrictions.
Historians are wont to keep in mind the peculiar
contemporary Irish circumstances when studying statements
on the papacy in that era. Papal infallibility had been the
greatest impediment to Catholic Emancipation, provided a
looming incentive for re-proscription and declarations on
the nature of the papacy were thus extremely sensitive to
Protestant controversy. Maynooth was an unrepresentative
bastion of Gallicianism at that time, most of its faculty had
been emigres from the French Revolution and tended to
adore the established authorities, a favour duly returned in
a 30,000l grant. Even Dr Troy the lord Archbishop of Dublin
and Propaganda in Rome expressed alarm at its tendencies.
That their lordships would approbate such an disputatious
formulation is by no means worthy of surprise. Had they
asserted the veracity of papal infallibility, it would have
resulted in certain proscription (read 'liberal and
enlightened' Gladstone's reaction, and proposals to
circumvent, the First Vatican Council). The bishops already
had an established tradition of countenancing formulations
they knew to be dubious as matters of prudence,
particularly evinced in the Catholic parliamentary and
military oath and abjuration. Dr Troy, an adherant to papal
infallibility, urged Catholics to accept the prescribed oath in
the Catholic Relief Act 1793 forswearing papal infallibility as
a lie even though his Grace was an unshakeable adherant to
it, later defending the 'prudence' of doing so in a letter to
Propaganda. Many of the bishops who approved that
catechism also professed papal infallibility but followed
Troy's set tradition, undoubtedly more focused on the
millions who were starving and emigrating. Then lord
Archbishop of Dublin, Daniel Murray who did so, is one
example, defending the doctrine powerfully in his "De
Gratia" (10 years before Vatican 1) which was even intended
as a text-book for students.

Read the Catechism from start to finish. It is fully CATHOLIC.
Try research the political structure of England at that time.

dolphinheart:
@ Jolliano:


Bro, that was not what you said , you said [b]part of Esther was written in Greek[/b]and that the Jews rejected these parts cus it was in Greek. But I quoted a website that says that the book of Esther written in Greek was a retelling(with additions) of the book of Esther written in hebrew. Your refusal to give details about these book written in Greek makes me view that the website is right and that the Jews where right to reject the Greek version (a retelling)of an event that has already been recorded in hebrew. That the Greek version added extra data does not make it inspired or from God.

Greek was Not a common language when these events occured, how come it was written in Greek.

Good. A retelling that took place in another location. it was not a translation. it was a retelling which contained some stories that were not found in the first telling. Just like John retold the Gospel with some different stories that were not found in the first 3. would that mean that John wrote lies? NO!

The reason it was rejected was the language and not an issue of retelling or not.

You say Greek was not a common language but Neither was Hebrew a common language. Both were however common in Israel(remember Judaism was for only israelites). Greek was common for the israelites because they were captured multiple times by Persians,Babylonians,e.t.c.

In the Old Testament the subject was the "House of JUDAH" and the "House of ISRAEL." In the New Testament the subject is "JEW" and "GREEK." Why GREEK? Why not Chinese, African, or Indian? Because many of the DISPERSED ISRAELITES were living in GREECE.
God commanded Amos to "Go, Prophesy unto my people ISRAEL" (Amos 7:14-15) -- not "gentiles."
God commissioned Micah "to declare ... to ISRAEL his sin" (Micah 3:.
Ezekiel was told, "Son of man, I send thee to the children of ISRAEL" (Ez.2:3).
Christ said, "I was not sent but unto the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE of ISRAEL" (Matt.15:24).
Christ told his disciples, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter not; But go, rather, to the LOST SHEEP of the HOUSE of ISRAEL" (Matt.10:5-6)

I believe it is body, dnt know why some translations say carcass.
But in what way does these support translating it into Latin.

It supports the translation to latin because
1. latin was the common language of their immediate environment.
2. understanding that there were no dictionaries or google or translator, a latin speaking Bishop entering into a region where yoruba was the only language would have to find a translator(if one existed) or learn yoruba and then use the yoruba he has learnt to teach the people there. How hard do you think it would be to start learning yoruba to a level of perfection that a Latin speaking Bishop would know the exact yoruba word to use for any latin word which would convey the exact meaning the latin word had?
Multiply how many languages they would have had to do that for?

I'm a polyglot so i know how hard it is to learn a new language with our current technology. Imagine how hard it would be if our environment and technology was at their level.

So you see, using one language they were sure of was and is better than trying to compile the bible in all languages available to them then.

You do not use personal views or formulated doctrines to translate the scriptures. As far as translating the Greek word for soul is concerned , both "soul" and "life" are right.

You are a christian, right? Does losing your life mean the same as losing your SOUL?

Ok

Ok, but note: the issue on those verses is not about translation, its about a deliberate insertion of words in the scriptures to support a doctrine.

Talking about church doctrine does not mean you are quoting a scripture. No matter how similar the words might be, they are definitely not the same.
Pls show us the source of these info.

Same thing that translation to Latin would have caused.

Already answered above.

What is the difference between "a god " and "A God". Is it not to differentiate the almighty God from other gods?

GOOD. A god is another god or a false god. A God is the same as God. Hope you see the difference now?

Nope, but making the church language Latin was part of their attempt. Note, I said the church derived "its political power" from the rulers of the world.
Here are excerpts from a website .

"Nicene Christianity became the state church of the Roman
Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE, when
Emperor Theodosius I made it
the Empire's sole authorized
religion.[1][2] The Eastern
Orthodox Church, Oriental
Orthodoxy, and the Catholic
Church each claim to be the
historical continuation of this
church in its original form, but
do not identify with it in the
caesaropapist form that it took
later."..........

"On 27 February of the previous year, Theodosius I established, with the Edict of Thessalonica, the Christianity of the First Council of Nicaea as the official state religion, reserving for its followers the title of Catholic Christians and declaring that those who did not follow the religion taught by Pope
Damasus I of Rome and Pope
Peter of Alexandria were to be called heretics."

(what is a state church without a state)

Continuing.....
”By the time the state church of the Empire was established at the end of the 4th century,
scholars in the West had
largely abandoned Greek in
favor of Latin. Even the Church in Rome, where Greek continued to be used in the
liturgy longer than in the
provinces, abandoned Greek............

"By the end of the 6th century
the Church within the Empire
had become firmly tied with the
imperial government,[40] while
in the west Christianity was
mostly subject to the laws and
customs of nations that owed
no allegiance to the emperor."

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


Never said the real church was no more there to imply it never existed.
The church is made up of members who follow jesus headship, their location or building or recognition by the world does not make them a church. They followed jesus and the disciples directive to go to everywhere and preach and make disciples, going by such commands , they where able to save themselves from the effect of the state church.

Excerpts from that same website .

"Western missionary activities created a communion of churches that extended beyond the empire, a communion predating the establishment of the state church. [/b]The obliteration of the Empire's boundaries by Germanic peoples and an outburst of [b]missionary activity among these peoples, who had no direct links with the Eastern Roman Empire, and among Celtic peoples who had never been part of the Roman Empire, fostered the idea of a universal church free from association with a particular state.



Yep, but who now did the killing.

"Constantine launched the first campaign of persecution by Christians against Christians, and began
imperial involvement in
Christian theology. However,
during the reign of Emperor
Julian the Apostate, the
Donatists, who formed the
majority party in the Roman
province of Africa for 30 years,
were given official approval.

Did these persecution continue ?
Read the following Edith.

"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.
— Edict of Thessalonica

My brother, history is awash with such decisions to inflict.

FIRSTLY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN ARGUES USING WIKIPEDIA because it is open to input by the general public and so is very inaccurate.

But since you brought it up. I will advise that you and any body following this thread do research from sources that Historians use and not a free for all place like Wikipedia. Let us treat this issue of rome and the Catholic(which means Universal) Church/Christianity.

The Church existed before constantine was born. Christianity was singled out for persecution because Christians believed in ONE GOD and therefore condemned all the other gods of the Romans and world in General. They said that all other gods were not gods at all. This much is obvious from the Gospels and the Epistles.

Then Constantine (whose mother Helen found the true Cross) met with Lucinius. Remember that rome had divided and that Constantine and Lucinius were both Emperors of the two sections of the Roman empire. They met after the failure of the Great Persecution (initiated by the emperors Diocletian and Galerius in 303–304), the Christian church had begun to recover its stability. Constantine and Licinius turned their minds to matters affecting the general welfare of the Empire.

They met at Milan and came to an agreement that all romans were free to worship who they wanted and so none should be persecuted any longer. We only about this by a document from Licinius (not even Constantine). Here's what the rescript says:

“Our purpose is to grant both to the Christians and to all others full authority to follow whatever worship each person has desired, whereby whatsoever Divinity dwells in heaven may be benevolent and propitious to us, and to all who are placed under our authority. Therefore we thought it salutary and most proper to establish our purpose that no person whatever should be refused complete toleration, who has given up his mind either to the cult of the Christians or to the religion which he personally feels best suited to himself. It is our pleasure to abolish all conditions whatever which were embodied in former orders directed to your office about the Christians, that every one of those who have a common wish to follow the religion of the Christians may from this moment freely and unconditionally proceed to observe the same without any annoyance or disquiet.”

So they did not establish the Church or Christianity but gave a decree to let it exist freely like other religions.

NEXT:

Soon thereafter Christians in the Roman empire divided between Arianism (which denies the divinity of Christ) and Trinitarianism (which sees God as three persons in one being). A priest Arius started teaching heresy and said Jesus was not God(just like the JW). In order to be fair, the Church held a Council in Nicea in 325 AD to hear him out. (SIDE NOTE: It was in this council that Saint Nicholas punched Arius for insulting the divinty of Jesus. Now Saint Nicholas is actualy celebrated as Santa Claus because he defended the fact that right from Jesus's conception and birth He was God.)

At the council, it was agreed and proclaimed that Jesus was, is and will always be God. (Note, they was no bible yet.) From this council we get the Nicene Creed which starts with "I believe in One God...."

Shortly after he came to the Imperial throne(380 or 381AD), Theodosius made this edict which commanded everyone to be a Christian--but not just any kind of Christian because there were a lot of heresies already been spread. A Catholic Christian, it said, was one who held that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Godhead and equal in majesty. This, of course, was the position of the Nicene Creed. Theodosius' decision was the result of his upbringing: he was reared in a Christian home, perhaps the first emperor to enjoy that distinction.

This is the first time the legal code coerced people to become Christians.

Before then, Theodosius tried to ram through his choice for bishop of Constantinople, but the other bishops rebelled and demanded he appoint a bishop from a short list they created. It was the first of many instances in Theodosius's reign in which the church got the better of him.

His behavior wasn't always Christian, however, as the premeditated massacre of thousands of civilians at Thessalonica in 390AD. When the city of Thessalonica rioted because a favored charioteer was imprisoned (for homosexuality). Theodosius ordered revenge: a chariot race was announced, citizens gathered in the arena, the gates were locked, and soldiers were set upon the crowd. By the end of the day, 7,000 had perished.

What he said in his edict of Thessalonica XVI, 1, 2 is:
It is our will that all the peoples whom the government of our clemency rules shall follow that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, and which it is evident the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, follow; that is, that according to the apostolic discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost of equal majesty, in a holy trinity. Those who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of Catholic Christians; but others, indeed, we require, as insane and raving, to bear the infamy of heretical teaching; their gatherings shall not receive the name of churches; they are to be smitten first with the divine punishment and after that by the vengeance of our indignation, which has the divine approval.



NO EMPEROR FORMED A STATE CHURCH. THEY ONLY ACCEPTED CHRISTIANITY AS THE MAIN RELIGION.
WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT NIGERIA OR ANY OTHER COUNTRY CAN DO.

Cyprian of Carthage:
"the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

accountable:


I cannot see what u r thanking God for. The freedom to live by Gods word was taken away from u in 1870 when the catholic church officially pronounced that the pope is infallible, and u r thanking God? Before then u had a choice, u could choose what to believe us not without been called a heretic.

The traditions u r talking about is only a decption. It is not the same as the tradition mentioned in scripture neither are they in the same context

LOL. IN 1870?

HERE'S SAINT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH, A DIRECT DISCIPLE OF SAINT JOHN THE BELOVED

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Scholar8200:

The problem I was trying to address was the error brought up by Jolliano. Besides, Peter spoke (vs 7), Paul and Barnabas also spoke (in vs 12) and James drew the conclusion. No superiority here!!!

It is instructive that:
1. The Holy Spirit superintended the meeting and was given the recognition and Priority in mention Acts 15:28

2. The guidance was subjected to Scriptural test before adoption:
Acts 15:15,16
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

3. Hence no teaching can supersede/substitute or stand at par in authority with the Scriptures

When the prophets were speaking for God in the OT, did they take the place of God or were they the means through which God communicated to Israel?
Were their words seen as different from Scripture(the books of the law which was all they had) or were their words simply the explanation of the application of that law to the current state of life?

If the bible is infallible, what does it say about the CHURCH and COUNCIL that compiled it?
Jesus instituted a teaching Church not a writing CHURCH. The bible is a written means of teaching and it is not the only means of teaching. The bible also needs to be interpreted and that interpretation lies with the Church and Her Apostles not anyone with a bible and a dictionary.

Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

accountable:


But herein we differ. That I will stay with the word and will not believe my pastor if he teaches contrary to the truth. But u will believe whatever ur pope says ex cathedra

THANK GOD YOU MADE THIS STATEMENT.

IF YOUR CHURCH HAS MORE THAN ONE PASTOR, THEN AMONGST THEM THERE WILL BE A PASTOR IN CHARGE(DISTRICT SUPERIOR or GENERAL OVERSEER), RIGHT?

BUT YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS BUILT HIS CHURCH WITH TWELVE APOSTLE AND DID NOT HAVE/PLACE ANY APOSTLE IN CHARGE.

I THINK YOU SHOULD RE-EVALUATE YOUR LOGIC.

Now to the issue of ex cathedra.
The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2). That tradition comes down to us orally through the Bishops who are the succesors of the Apostles (Through The Divine Unbroken Apostolic Succession) and universally(Catholic means Universal) through the Pope(the Head of the Bishops).

even the early christians who read the bible and chose the books that were true understood this.

accountable:
@ joliano
Read
Luk 22:24] And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
On the night Jesus was arrested there was strife among the apostles who the greatest should be. The apostles obviously did not understand that their was any 'pope'

Being the GREATEST is a matter of PERSONAL ability and achievement while the HEAD(POPE) is a matter of God's grace and Spirit. When David was chosen to be the King of Israel, was he the greatest in Israel?

An argument about who was the greatest is not the same as who is the HEAD? You're assuming that if Peter was the Pope, then he must have been the greatest and the two are unrelated. The head of a family doesn't have to be the greatest person in the family.

Bobbysworld28:

Pls stop! I really hv to stop this charade! U hv d guts to insinuate that Jesus gave his authority to just Peter and d other eleven when scripture firmly affirms:
mrk16.17-18.kjv And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

And

mat28.18-20.kjv And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


Can u see d instructions? Teach them to do wht I commanded u! In order words, train them to be like u even as u continue to do same. I am with u always!!!!! How can he relinquish his authority if he's always with (& in) you to the end of the world?

Pls stop your blaspheme, it has become irritating

Who did he tell "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"?
Who did he tell "Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven"?

And Peter ended the debate by defining what we call a DOGMA.

James made a suggestion as to what message should be passed across. Peter ended the debate.

Scholar8200:

But , with discernment, they could only take a decision pleasing to the Spirit Who did not dictate to them but, as Jesus had said He would, led them to all Truth regarding the matter at hand:

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29 that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28
Note:
1. The order - the Holy Ghost before 'us'.
2. The union - it did not say to me.

P.S James rounded up the meeting, not Peter Acts 15:13

1. Still any number of Christians would not gather and make a decision which would be binding on all Christians. For their decision to be obeyed and followed by all, they must have had a certain RECOGNISABLE and ACCEPTABLE AUTHORITY.

Of course, I'm not saying the Holy Spirit was not more important. The Holy Spirit guided them but if the Council had no authority, then the others wouldn't have adhered to it.

You say the Apostles didn't have special authority. Was the "Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven..." given to everyone or to Peter and then to the Apostles?

Bobbysworld28:

Still laughable and comical.
He has his Holy Spirit sent to us, he CANNOT abdicate his role, ok?

Read Acts 15. Even with the Holy Spirit, the Apostles argued for a LONG time(v7) until Peter stood up and put an end to the debate once and for all. This argument has never been brought up again.

Scholar8200:
That is your interpretation which was neither stated nor hinted at by ANY of the Apostles in their Epistles!
Kindly answer: who is the Body of Christ? the Church or the Apostles.

The SHEPHERD appointed Peter to feed HIS sheep.Hence Peter , in 1 Peter 5:2,4 looked forward, like a servant would,to his reward at the coming of the CHIEF SHEPHERD. In fact vs 2 showed he understood he was not the only one to do the feeding.


Unfortunately Peter neither held these views of yours nor exalted himself as you are indicating. All the Apostles ranked side by side. This claim for Peter appears to contradict Christ's view in answering the carnal question: who will be the greatest?

Ephesians 2:20
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
None was singled out here.


Galatians 2:2
And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

Peter was one of the Apostles of repute ( and perhaps notable because of his being an extrovert) but there were others eg James, John etc

What about Galatians 1:18?

Yes. All Apostles ranked side by side except for Peter(who was their head) which is why it is almost constantly written "Peter and the apostles" and not just "the apostles" after all everyone would have known that Peter was an Apostle.

If the Apostles had no authority, what then did they use to define the issue of circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem and with what authority did Peter make the declaration in ACTS 15:11?

Bobbysworld28:

Let us use ur thinking.
Jesus came and made d 12 disciples, then apostles. He then said as d Father has sent me, so I send u.
Meaning: Replicate d process (disciplines, then apostles). The reach is d whole world till we all grow into d full stature of Christ.
Limiting Apostleship to just 12 is one of d most ignorants statements in Christianity because Paul could never have become an Apostle by this ur limited scope.

Exactly. That is what the CATHOLIC CHURCH calls APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Do your research.

I never said the Apostles were only and always going to be twelve. I was simply showing the difference between APOSTLES and DISCIPLES and at that time the APOSTLES were only 12.

Bobbysworld28:

Laughable! Feed my sheep not BECOME THE SHEPHERD! How difficult is dt?
Pls read d book of Hebrews. Jesus is still d shepherd and high Priest of our profession.
He has not abdicated his role.

Yes,he hasn't abdicated his role but knowing that he wouldn't be physically on Earth to do that, he selected Peter and commissioned him to do the work on Earth. Similar to how he asked the Apostles to teach the nation on his behalf since He wouldn't be here physically to do it.

OLAADEGBU:

The onus is on you to give us the reasons why you think they are lies and in the absence of that the truth remains.
Not verse 15 alone start from verse 14:
"These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:14-15).
Does the phrase "pillar and ground of the truth" indicate that the church is the creator of truth? Does it say that the church can originate tradition to supplement Scripture? The church being the "pillar and ground of the truth" simply means that the church is the proclaimer and defender of the truth.
The Bible does not consist only of the NT it also contains the OT. Are you saying that the Roman catholic Church preceded the OT?

God is the creator of the Truth and The Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth is the SEAT on which the truth is deposited. That is what the Catholic Church calls the DEPOSIT OF FAITH.

The issue of abortion,homosexuality and female priests show that the Church does not add to this Deposit of faith unlike a lot of other christian faith communities.


The bible is the compilation of different books. Though there was the Old Testament before Jesus, the Bible(Compilation) was done by The Catholic Church.
Before this compilation, those outside Israel did not have an OT because it was written in hebrew and was used only by israelites and was written in seperate scrolls.
So, THE CHURCH came before and did the BIBLE(Compilation.)

Scholar8200:

That event was about the sabbath, not who had the right to eat the Bread!




That was the unleavened bread used for the PASSOVER by all Israelites since Exodus.




Manna/ Consecrated Bread did not prefigure the Eucharist in ANY way. When did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper/Eucharist?
While we have the proof of the Passover pre-figuring the Lord's Supper in 1Corinthians 5:7, there is NO NT passage that support your claims as regards Consecrated Bread/Manna!
7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

Paul was celibate hence his statement in 1 Corinth 9:5. The others were not; they led about a wife.


But this negates your claim that that was the meaning of Luke 14:26!!! Was that not meant for all disciples of Christ?

1. Did Jesus not know that before he likened the two together?

2. Unleavened bread was eaten during the passover period not during the passover MEAL. What is eaten in the passover meal is the lamb.

3. John 6. "Your ancestors ate bread in the wilderness and died." "I am the bread of life."

Manna/Consecrated bread prefigures the Eucharist.

4. When I say Apostles, you quote me as saying disciples. The 12 Apostles are different from the other disciples. They were called for a special ministry and they received teachings,power and missions that the other disciples did not.
"Go and make disciples" is not "Go and make Apostles."

Scholar8200:
You will understand better that the Rock on which the Church will be built is Christ (which Peter just confessed to be Jesus by the Father's revelation) - the Cornerstone:
20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Ephesians 2:20
Note that the foundation does not single out any of the Apostles! It is in plural (further confirming that NO ONE can establish his own books or traditions today and claim they are at par with the writings and recorded speeches of those who are the apostles and prophets Paul wrote about). Besides, Paul, being inspired, shows us Who the Rock is!
Peter has something to say:
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5 ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe [size=13pt]he[/size] is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 and[b] a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence,[/b] even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Peter 2:4-8
Here Peter tells us Who the Stone/Rock is!
He goes on to tell us Who the Chief Shepherd is:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2 feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3 neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
1 Peter 5:1-4
Peter said he is just one of the elders. Note that he wrote this while with the Church at Babylon/Rome!

You forget that Christ handed over his authority to the apostles. John 20:21-23.
He also gave some of his duties directly to Peter only.
Remember, Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and then later, passes the task of the Shepherd specially to Peter when he said "FEED MY SHEEP" 3 Times.

Peter addresses himself as one of the elders because a pope is actually a bishop like all other bishops but is at the same time,the head of all the bishops just as Peter was the head of the Apostles.

Only he was told by Christ on Holy Thursday night “I have prayed for you that your faith never fail and when you’ve repented, go and strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22: 31-32). And when Jesus, after the resurrection, cooked a fish breakfast for the apostles (John 21), it was only to Peter that Jesus put the question “do you love me?”

But why did Jesus ask him the same question three times?
Perhaps Peter needed to atone for his three-fold denial of
Christ by a three-fold profession of love. Perhaps, given
Peter’s track record of getting it wrong, the Lord really
wanted to be sure he got his point across. Here’s the point–

“Peter, your way of expressing penance for your sin and love for me will be to feed my sheep. Remember, they are not your sheep, but mine. Take care of them for me. Do for
them what I did for them. Don’t just feed them. Protect
them. Lay down your life for them if necessary.”

Peter’s role as a Shepherd is, in a way, unique because it is
universal. Despite his human frailty, he is given care of all
the Churches. And, if we take Lk 22:31-32 seriously, he is
called to be the shepherd of all the shepherds.

Bobbysworld28:

1. Essentially, marriage and copulation is not a sin. Hw then do u support d claim dt disciples stopped relations with their wives because Jesus called them? Totally absurd.
2. Ur claim is totally unfounded. James was talking abt a support system of believes here not classes of priesthood. Choi, u r still going round in circles

1. The Apostles did. "We have left evevrthing and followed you". Was there any slight mention of any Apostle's wife who followed Jesus along with her husband? Was there any slight mention that an apostle went back to visit his wife or family and then came back to meet Jesus?



2.First of all, a careful reading of 1 Peter 2, verses 5 and 9
reveals a reference to Exodus 19:6: ". . . and you shall be to
me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text from
Exodus indicates a universal priesthood in the Old
Testament. And yet, in Exodus 19:22, we read, "And also let
the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate
themselves . . . " In other words, a universal priesthood in
the Old Covenant did not exclude the possibility of a distinct
ministerial priesthood as well. It would be natural then to
expect the same in the New Covenant. And indeed, that is
precisely what we discover.

In Scripture, we see our Lord definitively choosing and
sending apostles to act as priests, or "mediators between
God and men." For example, after the Resurrection, our
Lord appears to the apostles and says to them: "‘Peace be
with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said
to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of
any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are
retained’" (Jn 20:21-23).

Here, Jesus communicated the power to forgive and retain
sins—just as he himself had done—to the apostles. This is a
priestly ministry (see also Lv 19:21-22).

Bobbysworld28:

Permit me to call u foo.lish! Evn a Bishop was to be husband of one woman etc etc.
Christians do not become Priests as a title, we all are a nation of King-Priests! Dts a fundamental flaw d Roman Catholic church perpetuates till dis day.
This ur angle of converts leading their marital vows is both s.tupid and unscriptural.
I hv been waiting for u to make some sense, but u r just a rambler who should be ignored!

Bobbysworld28:

Permit me to call u foo.lish! Evn a Bishop was to be husband of one woman etc etc.
Christians do not become Priests as a title, we all are a nation of King-Priests! Dts a fundamental flaw d Roman Catholic church perpetuates till dis day.
This ur angle of converts leading their marital vows is both s.tupid and unscriptural.
I hv been waiting for u to make some sense, but u r just a rambler who should be ignored!

LOL.

1. "BISHOP MUST BE OF ONE WIFE." The emphasis here was on Monogamy not on any command that the Bishop must be married but you should know that already.

2. We all share in the Priesthood of Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that essentially. There is however a difference between a general Priesthood and a ministerial Priesthood.
It is the difference between The APOSTLES and the other disciples. Remember the way The office and seat of Judas was refilled by someone else. If it had no meaning, why would they do that?

Also,James 5:14 puts it quite plainly:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders (Gr.
presbyteroi) of the church, and let them pray over him,
anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the
prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will
raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be
forgiven.

Notice, the Scripture does not say we should just go to
anyone if we're sick because we are all priests. It singles out
the presbyters.

Again, there is a difference between General Priesthood and the Ministerial Or Apostolic Priesthood.

dolphinheart:

I asked you to tell us just one so that we can be examining them one by one. So ill take the one of Esther.
You did not provide details to ur believe that part of Esther was written in Greek, details like : when that part was written, who wrote it, why it was written in Greek.
Note, I'm not saying that the part you are reffering to, was written in not written in Greek, but I just want us to both examine why it was rejected by others . So pls provide the info asked for .

The statement below is what I found out from a website .

"The Greek book of Esther,
included in the Septuagint, is a retelling of the events of the Hebrew Book of Esther rather than a translation and records additional traditions which do not appear in original Hebrew version, in particular the identification of Ahasuerus with Artaxerxes and details of
various letters. It is dated
around the late 2nd to early 1st
century BCE.

That's what I already said. Some jewish scholars reject anything not written in Hebrew. One of these might be the hatred for Christians (who wrote their NT in Greek). As at the time of Jesus, there was no general agreed list of OT Books.

Pls state what the problem in translation is .




This is not a problem with translation, this is a problem with the attempt to include into the scriptures what is originally not there, its not about if it is translated wrongly but about the attempt by the church to include words into the manuscript to support one of their doctrines, a situation mordern translators are now correcting .



What is the problem with the translations of these verses?

1.Did you not notice the switch from Body(in which case is alive) and Eagles(used to represent the saved christians) TO Dead body(carcass) and Vultures(which cannot refer to christians)?

Look at this from a EUCHARISTIC angle, Eagles (Christians) eat living flesh (Jesus who is alive). Vultures eat dead things and Jesus is not DEAD.

How can a dead body become a rallying point for Christ?

2. Matt 16:26 --- There is a difference between losing life (death) and loosing Soul (eternal damnation).

Matt 24:28 is the matthew equivalent of Luke 17:37.

3. 1 john 5:7-8.
Again, another accusation of The Catholic Church adding to the bible. But we are not discussing this.
On this particular translation, there is an argument that No Church Father quoted it. Well, that is not true.
Cyprian writes around A.D. 250, "The Lord
says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these
three are one.'

Tertullian about 215AD -- "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son
in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from
the other, which three are one , not one [person], as it is said,
"I and my Father are One."" (Against Praxeas, XXV)

Augustine about 400AD ---- "Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy
Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent, creator and
maker of every soul and of every body;"

Very funny, you have been shifting the base of the discussion since, always bringing up new issues.
I told you, the same issues that would have occured when translating Greek to Latin would have occured with English and any other language.
On john 1:1 , there are numerous scholars who support the part of that verse to be translated as "a God".
There are numerous translators who translated that verse as " a God"
The use of "a God " best support the first part of that verse which says " and the word was with God.

I am not and have not been shifting base at all. I'm only pointing out to you what translations have caused.

NOTE--- there is difference between A God and a god. JW write "a god". You know what this means na.

Very simple, they hoped to save it cus it was the source of their political power.

This statement has no proof even historically. That an empire was being destroyed and the Church hoped to save it. How? By writing Latin Bible?

Martyrdom occured when the real church was there, when they where no part of the world, when they kept true the teachings of jesus and his disciples. It was persecuted as jesus foretold. But later when false leaders came up, those with ulterior motive taking control it, could them dip its fingers into the ruling power, through changes in what jesus and the apostles taught, making it look similar to pagan worship, so it can actract the populace. The church then began sitting and frolicking with these rulers, they turned from the one being killed to the one doing the killing.

1. Jesus promised that The gates of hell would never prevail against the Church, that the Holy Spirit would guide her into all truth and that He would be with Her till the end of time.

If you say the real Church was no more there, then Jesus didn't keep his promises.

2. The martyrdom continued constantly and is still occuring right now.

"From the time of John The Baptist, the Kingdom of God suffereth violence".

dolphinheart:

Yes, I did not see it, can you show me the scriptures again that the image mary is the ark.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark Of The Covenant!

And before you say anything, read Revelations chapter 11
from verse 18 to Chapter 12 verse 4.

Also, Read the Scriptures quoted below concerning the
Blessed Virgin Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled the
Ark. The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of
God [ Exodus 40:34-35 ]
God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled
Mary. At that time Mary's womb became the dwelling
place of the presence of God [ Luke 1:35 ].

The Ark contained the Ten Commandments [the words of
God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that
came back to life [ Deuteronomy 10:3-5 ; Hebrews 9:4 ].
The womb of the Virgin contained Jesus: the living Word
of God enfleshed, the living bread from heaven, "the
Branch" (Messianic title) who would die but come back to
life [ Luke 1:35 ].

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the
house of Obed-edom [ 2 Samuel 6:1-11 ]
Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah (Judea) to the
home of Elizabeth [ Luke 1:39 ].

Dressed in a priestly ephod, King David approached the
Ark and danced and leapt for joy [ 2 Samuel 6:14 ].
John the Baptist, son of a priest who would himself
becomes a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb at the
approach of Mary [ Luke 1:43 ].

David shouted for joy in the presence of God and the holy
Ark [ 2 Samuel 6:15 ]
Elizabeth exclaimed with a loud cry of joy in the prescience
God within Mary [ Luke 1:42 ].

David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to
me?" [ 2 Samuel 6:9 ]
Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted unto me, that the
mother of my Lord should come to me?" [ Luke 1:43 ].

The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for 3
months [ 2 Samuel 6:11 ]
Mary remained in the house of her cousin Elizabeth for 3
months [ Luke 1:56 ].

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of
the Ark [ 2 Samuel 6:11 ]
The word "blessed" is used 3 times in Luke 1:39-45
concerning Mary at Elizabeth's house.

The Ark returned to its sanctuary and eventually ends up
in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is
revealed in the newly built Temple [ 2 Samuel 6:12 ; 1
Kings 8:9-11 ]
Mary returned home from visiting Elizabeth and
eventually comes to Jerusalem, where she presents God
the Son in the Temple [ Luke 1:56 ; 2:21-22 ].

God made Aaron's rod (which would be kept in the Ark)
return to life and budded to prove he was the legitimate
High Priest [ Numbers 17:8 ].
God would resurrect His Son, who had become enfleshed
in Mary's womb and born to bring salvation to all
mankind, to prove He is the eternal High Priest [ Hebrews
4:14 ].

When the Ark was outside the Holy of Holies [when it was
being transported] it was to be covered with a blue veil
[ Numbers 4:4-6 ]
In Mary's appearances outside of heaven visionaries
testify that she wears a blue veil.

In Revelation 11:19 John sees the Ark of the Covenant in
heaven [this is the last verse of chapter 11]
In Revelation 12:1 John sees Mary in heaven. It is the
same vision Juan Diego saw of Mary in 1531 — the
Woman clothed with the sun and standing on the moon.

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judæa and Samaria, except the apostles
Acts 8:1

Acts 15:2
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

15 And after those days we took up our carriages, and went up to Jerusalem. 17 And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present
Acts 21:15-18

Peter evidently travelled a number of times but returned to Jerusalem afterwards. Afterall he was called to the Apostleship(not papacy)of the Jews.
Acts 9:32-43, Acts 10:32 Acts 11:2, Galatians 2:11.

The Apostles gathered occasionally at Jerusalem for mEetings and Councils doesn't mean that they all stayed there. That would be very close to saying Paul was the only one that actually evangelised to the gentiles.

1 Peter 5:13 tells that Peter was in Babylon(Rome) and almost all the other apostles died outside Jerusalem

On the issue of papacy, Jesus did make Peter the Pope. Read Matthew 16:16-19. Remember that Simon was his name and that Jesus Christ gave him the name Peter. John 1:40-42. *lso read Mark 3:16 and Luke 6:14. God does not change names except where something serious is involved.

Note the covenantal structure of changing names.
Change from Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah initiating a covenant with them.
Addition of Israel to Jacob (Which became God's people) or better yet (The Kingdom of God), (A Prefiguring of the Church).
Addition of Peter to Simon (The head of the new Israel/The Head of The Kingdom of God/The Kingdom Of Heaven)

dolphinheart:

Personaly I dnt think the scriptures makes mention of trousers. But it advises us on our mode of dressing, it is evident that jehovah does not like males dressing as females and females dressing as males, but is the trouser a male dressing? Does the trouser have both male and female versions.? Answers to both questions goes a long way in using the scriptures to determine the dress code of females. To cap it up, the scriptures admonishes us not to allow our behavior, attitude, appearance stumble others. So, if in a society wearing trousers is abhorrd for females or that ffemales are allowed to wear trousers for certain events and not be a stumbling bloke for others. It is advisable to stick to societal noms while still following scriptural instructions .
As for retouching ur hair, me I dnt know o. But what I know is that church rules, without valid base from the scriptures cannot determine salvation, but as long as you are a member of a church, you must obey there rules while personaly searching the scriptures to see if what they are presently teaching you is true. Na you and not the church that will determine ur salvation.
One will just ask them to provide scripture from which they derived their understanding.
The catholic church has failed woefully in using the scriptures to defend their use of the image of mary despite several times they have been asked to quote the scriptures. As you can see on these thread, they prefer to use the story that since they compiled the scriptures, they have the right to do certain things in certain ways that the scriptures does not support. They thus use their claim of perfection as the basis of their use of the image of mary, but the whole world knows how perfect they have been. Was just reading about the forced conversion to catholics in Bosnia and found no difference in that action and the actions of ISiS.
On blood transfusion, the scriptures has repeatedly made mention of jehovah view of blood both in the old and new testaments. We are told to abstain from it. If one refuses to abstain from it cus it might(as its not a sure guarantee for good health)save its life, then he does not have faith in jesus that he will get his life back if he losses it, and does will lose his life even if he saves it. They talk about heaven, but their faith is false, cus faith without works is dead.
I've seen the use of blood tranfusion on people I know,and I've seen that it sometimes if not mostimes create more problems that solves them.
Some just claim to read, but they have their motive, to find verses that they can use to decieve others. To tickle their ears. There are a few examples of such misuse. but here is one.
Some pastors will yell you to pay tithe, that if you pay it God will bless you ten folds as if God is a money doubler. But they will fail to tell you why God instituted the tithe, cus going there will show that they are not supposed to collect it.

When I showed from the bible that Mary is The Ark Of The Covenant, you didn't see it abi?

Scholar8200:
Does sexual relations with one's wife defile?
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled Hebrews 13:4

[Quote]The passover, not the consecrated bread, pre-figures the Lord's supper and the only thing forbidden for the former was leaven/yeast!
Show where this was expressedly or impliedly stated in the NT with respect to the above clarification that the passover , not consecrated or shewbread, pre-figured the Lord's supper/Eucharist![/quote]

The Bread of the Presence, in the ancient Tabernacle and
later in the Temple, 1 Kgs 7:48 prefigured Jesus in the Holy
Eucharist.

In the Tabernacle God commanded Moses, Ex 25:8 "Let
them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell in their midst."
In the sanctuary, in the ark of the covenant, God told Moses,
Ex 25:22 "There I will meet with you, and from above the
mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon
the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you..." God added,
Ex 25:30 "You shall set the bread of the Presence on the
table before me always." Jesus told us, Mt 28:20 "I am with
you always."

Abimelech the priest gave David this sacred bread. 1 Sam
21:6 "So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no
bread there but the bread of the Presence." Jesus taught us
that it was for all His disciples. Mt 12:1-8 "At that time Jesus
went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples
were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of grain and to
eat. ... [Jesus] said to them, 'Have you not read what David
did, when he was hungry, and those who who were with
him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of
the Presence ... I tell you, something greater than the temple
is here."
Jesus showed us what was greater than the Temple. Lk 22:19
"He took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it
and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given
for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'"

Note, many things in the old testament can prefigure one thing in the NT. Apart from the Passover, Consecrated bread, Jesus also showed that Manna was a prefiguring of the Eucharist.

[Quote]Also show same for where sexual relations between couples was a hindrance to service to God in the NT.
That's not correct! When the Spirit inspired Paul saying what he said in 1 Corinth 7:4,5 also Matthew 19:5! And why are believers getting married today? If that is what it means then we all must be celibates to follow Jesus and any church conducting wedding are flagrantly disobeying God!!!
Matthew 10:37 clarifies Luke 14:26
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
[/quote]

The Apostles were the ones who were celibate. The others were not. Remember Paul talking to the Corinthians told them he wished everyone were celibate like him but people are gifted in different ways. The Apostles lived as celibates but the rest of the Church did not.

The Bible/Tradition/Apostle Paul/Catholic Church does not teach either/or but and.

In order words, it is not either everyone marries or everyone is celibate but that some(for the sake of ministry/kingdom of God) were celibate while the rest are married.

dolphinheart:

Old testament written in Greek?
Pls tell us one of those books of the old testament originally
Written in Greek! And let us examine. State some details about the book.
And you are going off point! Are you saying the language of the church is Latin just to solve these problems?, or you are saying the apostles broke the rule by writing in Greek? I Neva understand you o.

Yes. Some parts of Esther were written in Greek. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach
(Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and 1 and 2
Maccabees. And even some parts of Daniel.

[Quote]Big lie. If there are issues with translation, they could always check it up with the original language. The issues Latin will have with Greek is the same issue other languages will have with Greek.
Latin is the language of the church cus the leaders chose it for personal reasons, mainly because of the present rulers in which they are close with.
The real church has no main language. One of the main reason of the establishment church is to spread the good news in watever language at any time. And the holy spirit prove these to be true as one of its first gifts is not to prophecy, not to give visions, not to heal, but to be able to preach in different languages and tongues , abi that one no dey ur bible, cus you could have removed it! That congregation and the congregations afterward spread the good news in different languages. And thereafter wrote the new testament in Greek, the most common language of different nationalities as at that time. Ur church wanted to loyalty of the roman empire, hence the adoption of one language, Latin as the language of the church, thereby trying to set back the work of the holy spirit.
If as you mentioned , that Translation is an issue, the church should have talked to its members who had the gift giving by the holy spirit on languages to help translate the scriptures to other languages......Or maybe the holy spirit only give that gift in Latin or the holy spirit had even left the church and the lampstand taken away.
From when to when? [/quote]

Let me show/tell you some problems with translations. The fact that there is a Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate and Clementine Vulgate has not solved these differences in the bible translations we have.

Check what the different translations say in the following links.

http://biblehub.com/luke/17-37.htm
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-7.htm
http://biblehub.com/1_john/5-8.htm. (Please read the 1 john 5:7 and 8 together and notice the differences in different translations).
http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-28.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-26.htm


These are just some of the issues translations cause. Just as JW in their bible in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was a god".



How does writing a Latin bible show loyalty to an empire that was already dying. The Councils met very close to 400AD and by then the empire was already divided into two and was being destroyed by Visigoths.

Not to mention the fact that the roman empire was responsible for an extreme number of martyrdom. Why would The Church be trying to show loyalty to their persecutors?!

Scholar8200:

celibate
ˈsɛlɪbət/Submit
adjective
1.
abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons.
"a celibate priest"
noun
1.
a person who abstains from marriage and sexual relations.
"he's attracted and attractive to women and yet he lives as a celibate"
Please note that it says AND not OR! Why?

Because in current times, priests don't marry at all since they won't have sexual relations with a woman. But in the time of the Apostles, majority of the converts were grown people who may have already been married. So for them, even if they lived with their wives, they would stop all sexual relations when they become Apostles/Bishops/Priests.

This is biblical. Remember that the Levites were allowed to marry because their priesthood was passed down by blood and birth but they would avoid sexual relations before eating or partaking in the eating of the Consecrated Bread(The old testament prefiguring of the Eucharist).

Remember that the Early Christians gathered daily for the breaking of bread(The Eucharist which is the body and blood of Christ) and so the Apostles/Bishops/Priests abstained from sexual intercourse because they were the ones who would do the consecration.

When in Luke 14:26, Jesus said they must hate their wives, mothers,e.t.c. It is in this light that he means it. His apostles understood this and for three years they were celibate with Him. Why then would they go back to having sex after he left?


[Quote]They were not mentioned however 1 Corinth 9:5 shows they had wives! Mary was also a disciple but she was only mentioned in Acts 1! Just as we cannot say because the wives of Tychicus, Epaphroditus, Demas, Luke, Titus, etc were not mentioned, it means they were not married!
In fact, Mark 1:29,John 19:27 show that these men had their own houses hence it does not suggest that they were without wives. Besides, When it says lead about a sister, a wife, remember that most of these apostles stayed back at Jerusalem and did not travel as widely as Paul. Hence Paul made his allusion based on what he observed when he went to Jerusalem at the time Peter and the rest were leaders of a burgeoning body of believers!
Therefore, Paul spoke about leading about a wife in the sense of companionship and not following about on missionary journeys!
[/quote]

Firstly, Mary was mentioned many times in the Gospel even at the Crucifixion.

Secondly, most of the apostles moved out from Jerusalem. The apostles moved out to different parts of the world to fulfill the instruction of Christ to go and teach all Nations.

Scholar8200:
Sure but I dont find 'perhaps' in verse 4,5! If you dont mind, what version are you using?
The Spirit-inspired commands & principles of life and ministry therein applies to all believers of all time!
there you go again! The verses I quoted, and one of the traditions you quoted say otherwise!
Did you notice there were MANY and their main role was ministering from wealth/resources not as consorts or companions in lieu of wife!
And that Paul could not have been referring to such assistance in 1 Corinth 9:5 because
1) he laboured with his hands thus meeting his needs hence he was not claiming a right
2) there was no single sister uniquely led about by either Jesus or Paul.
3) neither Jesus nor Paul was married and Both got helps from many sisters hence 1 corinth 9:5 referred to something beyond those passages referred to in Mark and Luke.
Romans 16 -Phoebe, Mary, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Julia etc
Others are Lydia, apphia, etc
There are some mentioned in other epistles.
In any case let's keep to the point.

There is a difference between being single and being celibate(eunuch).
A married man can be celibate or continent.

Remember, the wives of the apostles were not mentioned in the Gospels. Did they follow the Apostles and follow Jesus or did they only begin to follow the Apostles after the death of Jesus?

Bobbysworld28:

Pls, admit it when u r confused. Ur arguments are confusing

When you say my arguments are confusing you, I'm obviously not the one who is confused.

dolphinheart:

Ill explain it the same way ill explain the Spanish, yoruba , igbo, efik bibles. They where translated so that the common people in those lands can read them and come to know who God is and the one he sent, jesus Christ.
None of them is the language of the church.
I find it usefull, so we can say Latin is/a common tongue at that time when it was being translated.
But for the church to take is as a language of the church means that they have/ are frolicking with the rulers of the world at that time.

It seems you don't understand the problem with having multiple languages. The reason some Jewish Scholars reject some books of the old testament is that some(or some parts) of them were written in Greek. They insist on the LANGUAGE to verify the authenticity of the book.

Errors that occur in translation are an huge problem and so one language had to be selected. The language of the time was Latin so they chose it.

Latin is The main language of the Church does not mean I must know latin to be in the church. After all, the Mass is said in whichever language the People understand.

Latin was the main language of Europe(at least) for about 1000 years. Do your research. Spanish,french,english are products of Latin!

Scholar8200:
I dont find an IF in vs 4,5 which we are considering! Besides Vs 4,5 was addressed to married couples not singles.

There is a "PERHAPS". You want to isolate bible verses and interpret them as you feel or think. The Bible is to be interpreted as a whole not by singling out verses.

The Spirit inspired letter applies to ALL believers irrespective of title! None is above the Word.

So the letter to Timothy applies also as a letter to John and Peter?

[Quote]He chose to be because he was thus gifted![/quote]

Just as all the apostles were. They were gifted for their ministry sake.

[Quote]Luke 8:1-4 tells us there were many (not one as consort) women whom Jesus had healed who (perhaps as a mark of gratitude) ministered strictly of their substance (wealth). As to his close assistant/ helper, it was the 12 disciples. The disciples went to buy food (john 4); prepared for the passover, kept the bag where the money (some of which came from the women) etc[/quote]

From Luke
8:1 Soon afterwards he went on through cities and
villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of
the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, 8:2 as
well as some women who had been cured of evil
spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from
whom seven demons had gone out, 8:3 and Joanna,
the wife of Herod's steward Chuza, and Susanna, and
many others, who provided for them out of their
resources.

From Mark
15:40 There were also women looking on from a
distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and
Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses,
and Salome. 15:41 These used to follow him and
provided for him when he was in Galilee; and there
were many other women who had come up with him
to Jerusalem.

Do you notice that some women are mentioned in Luke and not in Mark and vice versa?
They ministered not just to Jesus but also the Apostles that followed Jesus. There is no mention of any wife of any apostle including Peter!

[Quote]Do let's keep to the names in Scripture. Paul sometimes gave a long list of brethren but Thecla was never mentioned![/quote]

Because there was no point in mentioning the names of females following him while they were still with him. Does any other writer mention any female assistant or follower?