OLAADEGBU:

Studying the Scriptures or the tradition of your church? You should be more concerned with what is written in Latin, was that not the language of Rome?

incase you are not aware the language of the church in rome from the 1st cent to the 3rd cent was greek.

So we still study the language of scripture, unfortunately u and you pastors are totally ignorant in this respect.

OLAADEGBU:

Not only Mary, it included all those who believed in Christ during His earthly ministry.

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother" (Matthew 12:46-50).

so all were saved even before Christ died. That is interesting. I thought your friends say that salvation only started after Christ died.

So now you are saying mary already had a saviour before Jesus was born.

Ubenedictus:


so all were saved even before Christ died. That is interesting. I thought your friends say that salvation only started after Christ died.

So now you are saying mary already had a saviour before Jesus was born.

Mary was a sinner who needed a Saviour. Simples.

Ubenedictus:


so all were saved even before Christ died. That is interesting. I thought your friends say that salvation only started after Christ died.

So now you are saying mary already had a saviour before Jesus was born.

These protestants..

Ukutsgp:

d bible said mary had other children. it is either u will believe d bible or forget it. so where did the bible tells u dat joseph had married before? una dey lie sha.

lieszz!!

the bible did nt say mary had other kids dat you own fallable worng 20th century intepretation.

Confusion is what happens when folks don't read, couldn't read or wouldn't read the facts stated in the OP.

Mary the mother of Jesus was described by God as "highly favoured" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "highly favoured" comes from a single Greek word, which essentially means "much grace." Mary received God's grace.

Grace is "unmerited favour," meaning something we receive despite the fact that we do not deserve it. Mary needed grace from God just as the rest of us do. Mary herself understood this fact, as she declared in Luke 1:47, ". . . and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour. . ."

Mary recognised that she needed the Saviour. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way. Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favoured (graced) by God (Luke 1:27-28). At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Saviour, just like everyone else (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 John 1:8.)

Mary did not have an "immaculate conception." The Bible doesn't suggest Mary's birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Luke 1:34-38), but the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary is unbiblical. Matthew 1:25, speaking of Joseph, declares, "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus."

The word "until" clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual union after Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had half-sisters, although they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). God blessed and graced Mary by giving her several children, which in that culture was the clearest indication of God's blessing on a woman.

https://www.nairaland.com/1886145/what-does-bible-say-virgin

btoks:

The big difference is that the church was set up by Jesus who gave guarantee to the apostles that it won’t go into error, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . He was going to send the Holy Spirit to guide it. You see an example when Peter (with all his personal faults) declared a teaching on Circumcision with no scriptural precedent (Acts 15 ) The papal Inf. is not to do with personal behaviour but a guarantee that the pope will not teach error in matters of faith and morals, when stated ex cathedra (i.e. when stated as a teaching to the whole church).

Churches like Chris O’s were set up 2 millennia after the church with no apostolic succession. The early church was so concerned about being part of the true church that the only way to determine this was to work out whether you had apostolic succession.

I very much doubt that it is the Holy spirit that has led to thousands of different churches with differing doctrine while all claiming adherence to Sola Scriptura. When you go to the big issues like Justification, Eucharist, nature of Christ, Trinity, Sabbath, Sin, Grace, Baptism, Marriage etc. All these churches teach different things. Whilst there are elements of truth in most denominations there is always a need for a guide. Jesus gave this to the church ( the church is guided by the holy spirit) - Jesus said, whoever hears you, hears me>>>> Luke 10:16

I'll advise you to read up on my thread on the origin of the Roman catholic church. There you will find out that there was no apostolic succession from the apostles to the RCC. Below is an excerpt from the thread:

On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church?

https://www.nairaland.com/1878872/what-origin-catholic-church

Ukutsgp: why is it difficult for u to understand the word 'until' from the op's first post. if u understand,

if i say

"ukutsgp stay bless UN~TIL we meet again tomorro"

does it mean to you dat after we meet tomoro the blessing wil size nd turn to curse?

until i come, give attention to readings, exhortation,to doctrins.1 tim 4:13

so from your interpretation after paul came they no longer give attentions to readings?

Ubenedictus:

incase you are not aware the language of the church in rome from the 1st cent to the 3rd cent was greek.

So we still study the language of scripture, unfortunately u and you pastors are totally ignorant in this respect.

Why did it stop speaking Greek?

Read up on the Great Schism below:

https://www.nairaland.com/1902548/what-great-schism

@vest.

All of us are probably aware that the Catholic and
Orthodox churches believe and teach that Jesus
was the only child born to Mary. In 411,
Augustine wrote that Mary, "remained a virgin in
conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him,
a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at
her breast, always a virgin" ( Sermons 186, 1: PL
38, 999 as quoted in paragraph 510 of the
Catechism of the Catholic Church ). We might also
know that many Anglicans believe this. But we
might be surprised that some Protestants believe
this. In fact, Martin Luther, Huldrych (or Ulrich)
Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger, and John Calvin all
believed it. In his Commentary on Matthew ,
Calvin even called anyone who disagreed
"pigheaded and fatuous." Perhaps even more
surprising is that the eminent Baptist theologian,
John Gill, regularly waffled on this subject,
seeming to believe it by comments he made, but
never, as far as I know, making a clear statement
committing himself to it. Is there clear, biblical
proof one way or the other?
Jesus' Birth
The first Scriptural evidence is in Matthew 1:18:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost." The Greek word
translated "before" is prin . It means "prior" or
"before." "Came together" is translated from
sunelthein, which means to convene. But it was
also used to mean to come together in marital
relations. So, in other words, before Joseph and
Mary had consummated their marriage, Mary was
found to be pregnant with a child from the Holy
Spirit.
Verses 24 and 25 are often cited by Catholics as
evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity: "Then
Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of
the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth
her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."
The word "knew" is from the Greek word,
eginōskin . As Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament explains, this normal Greek
word for "knew" was used by Jews as an "idiom
for sexual intercourse between a man and a
woman." "Till" serves a very great purpose in this
verse. The Catholic argument is that the word
"till" or "until" ( heōs in the Greek) does not
necessarily mean that the action prior to the
point indicated (in this case, sexual abstinence)
does not continue afterward. In other words,
Joseph and Mary may not have ended their
sexual abstinence after Jesus' birth. They may
have continued to refrain from sexual intercourse
for the rest of their lives. Catholics say that this
is, in fact, what happened. John Gill takes a
similar position regarding the word "till": "Joseph
knew her not till she had brought forth, the
meaning is certain that he knew her not before.
But whether he afterwards did or not, is not so
manifest, nor is it a matter of any great
importance." Oh, but it is important when millions
of people who believe in Mary's perpetual
virginity venerate her and pray to her. Yes, it is
important that we find the truth of this matter.
As I said above, "till" is translated from heōs . It
is a conjunction that means "till" or "until."
According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary , eleventh edition, the conjunction
"until" means, "up to the time that: up to such
time as."

"
This meaning is seen in many Scriptures. For
example, in Matthew 2:13, 15, and 19-20, we
read, "And when they were departed, behold, the
angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream,
saying, Arise, and take the young child and his
mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there
until [heōs ] I bring thee word: for Herod will seek
the young child to destroy him…. And was there
until [heōs ] the death of Herod: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the
prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my
son…. But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel
of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in
Egypt, Saying, Arise, and take the young child and
his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they
are dead which sought the young child's life."
Clearly, heōs in these verses means to do
something (flee to and stay in Egypt) up to a
given point (the reappearance of the angel upon
the death of Herod) and then stop doing that
(leave Egypt and go to Israel).
This meaning is found in dozens of Scriptures
referring to both time and place. I'll give a verse
where heōs is used of place: "And he [Jesus] led
them out as far as [ heōs ] to Bethany, and he
lifted up his hands, and blessed them" (Luke
24:50). Did Jesus lead them farther than
Bethany? No. The action of leading stopped at
Bethany.

Jesus' Brothers and Sisters
Toward the end of Matthew 13, we read that
Jesus went to Nazareth, where He was brought
up, and spoke in the synagogue. The townspeople,
who all knew Him and His family well, said, "Is
not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother
called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they
not all with us? Whence then hath this man all
these things?" (Matthew 13:55-56; see also Mark
6:3).
This seems clear enough. But the Roman Catholic
Church has this response: "Against this doctrine
the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible
mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The
Church has always understood these passages as
not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
In fact James and Joseph, 'brothers of Jesus',
are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ,
whom St. Matthew significantly calls 'the other
Mary'. They are close relations of Jesus,
according to an Old Testament
expression" (paragraph 500, Catechism of the
Catholic Church ).
John Gill also insists, " And his brethren ; not
strictly so, but either the sons of Joseph by a
former wife; or Mary's, or Joseph's brothers or
sisters sons, and so cousins to Christ; it being
usual with the Jews to call such, and even more
distant relations, brethren." Gill, following the
Catholic theologians on this matter, seems willing
to accept any other scenario but the most
obvious. Do these people name Jesus' uncles and
aunts? No. Why, then, should they name His
cousins? Are they not referring to Joseph, the
man they think of as Jesus' father (although
Jesus was really the Son of God), when they say,
"Is not this the carpenter's son?" Of course. Do
they not directly name Mary as Jesus' mother?
Yes. If they do this, even using the label "mother"
for Mary, it would be completely inconsistent to
use "brethren" to refer to Jesus' cousins. It is
plain that they are naming the members of his
immediate family. This is very strong evidence
against the Catholic position.
A Messianic Prophecy
Apparently John Gill and the Catholics have
forgotten or want to ignore the obvious wording
of the Messianic prophecy in Psalm 69:8-9: "I am
become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien
unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine
house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of
them that reproached thee are fallen upon me." In
his commentary on verse 8, Gill takes "brethren"
to mean the Jews in general and "also to such
who were still nearer akin to him, according to
the flesh." In commenting on "an alien unto my
mother's children," Gill points out that "alien" can
be taken as "Gentile" or "heathen," but completely
ignores "my mother's children." For this prophecy
to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, He had to have had
brethren, and His mother had to have had other
children. In fact, the Psalmist was simply using
the Hebraism of repeating something two different
ways when he said, "I am become a stranger
unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's
children," for, of course, these two phrases mean
exactly the same thing. Jesus' brethren were His
mother's children. This prophecy is devastating
evidence against the Catholic assertion that Mary
had no other children.
By the way, this also puts to rest Gill's
suggestion that the brothers of Jesus might be
the sons of Joseph by a former wife. They cannot
be so if they are, as the Psalm says, His
"mother's children."
Other Scriptures that refer directly to Jesus'
siblings are Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34;
Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14;
1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19. Never once, in
all the references to these people, are they
referred to with the Greek word suggenēs , which
has the general meaning of "cousin" or
"kinsman." The word used is always adelphos,
"brother."

A Distorted View of Marriage
Something I want to point out here is that the
Catholic doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity
leads to a distorted view of sex in marriage.
Catholics maintain—without any biblical evidence
—that Mary herself was immaculately conceived
and remained without sin all her life. The idea
that she never had sex is a part of this doctrine.
However, the Bible shows that this view backfires
on itself. While sex outside of marriage is a sin,
within marriage, sexual relations are clearly
sanctified (Hebrews 13:4). Yet, the doctrine of
Mary's perpetual virginity intimates that sexual
intercourse with her husband would somehow
have defiled her, and that she is to be revered
because she remained a virgin. This makes a
mockery of God's institution of marriage. The sin
would have been in Mary's remaining a virgin (1
Corinthians 7:3-5).
By the way, the Bible never so much as hints at
other Catholic doctrines that Mary was born from
an immaculate conception, that she was sinless
at birth, or that she remained sinless. The Bible
tells us, "For all have sinned, and come short of
the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). The only one
born of a woman who knew no sin was Jesus
Christ: "For he hath made him to be sin for us,
who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him" (2 Corinthians 5:21).
The truth is that Mary was a human being and
sinner like any other. To say otherwise is a denial
of the Bible's teaching of the total depravity of all
humans

@vest.

In summary, there is not a shred of evidence in
the Bible to support the idea that Mary remained
a virgin and never had other children after giving
birth to Jesus. In fact, as we have seen, there is
much evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the
notion that had Mary remained a virgin even
though she was married to Joseph carries with it
the idea that it was somehow noble and beautiful
for this married woman to refrain from sexual
intercourse with her husband, that sex would
somehow have tainted her. This directly
contradicts the Bible's teaching that sex in
marriage is right and good and ought to be done.
Scripture only indicates that Mary and Joseph
refrained from sex until Jesus was born so as not
to put His paternity in question and so that the
Scripture would be fulfilled (Isaiah 7:14). But after
that, they conducted themselves as a normal
husband and wife, and Mary gave birth to the
brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the
Scriptures.

OLAADEGBU:

I'll advise you to read up on my thread on the origin of the Roman catholic church. There you will find out that there was no apostolic succession from the apostles to the RCC. Below is an excerpt from the thread:



https://www.nairaland.com/1878872/what-origin-catholic-church

Your claims were debunked in that thread and I’ll say, this is a big claim you’ve got here and you know that your copied write up is no prove of this. Unfortunately it goes against recorded history. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church believe the CC has Apostolic Succession.

This goes back to what church Irenaeus was referring to in Against Heresies, what church ignatius was referring to? and where is that church is today? In a previous post, I gave an analogy of an adult and his baby self - would you say these two are different people because they appear different?

You raised a number of practices you believe are specifc to the CC and not in the NT. Unfortunately with sola scriptura lenses you're very limited in understanding Christian history. If you’re into reading (you should be if you want to be an apologetic), I’ll suggest a book by John Henry Newman (convert to CC in 19th Cent.) An essay on the development of Christian Doctrine (you can get a free e-book on the internet). It explains how the seeds of our christian faith eventually blossomed through history with better understanding. This intelligent guy was also the one who said "to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"

I won’t paste all the church fathers writings here as you never address them when posted.
Once again, please remember that the bible was written for the church not the other way round.

btoks:

Your claims were debunked in that thread and I’ll say, this is a big claim you’ve got here and you know that your copied write up is no prove of this. Unfortunately it goes against recorded history. Even the Eastern Orthodox Church believe the CC has Apostolic Succession.

This goes back to what church Irenaeus was referring to in Against Heresies, what church ignatius was referring to? and where is that church is today? In a previous post, I gave an analogy of an adult and his baby self - would you say these two are different people because they appear different?

You raised a number of practices you believe are specifc to the CC and not in the NT. Unfortunately with sola scriptura lenses you're very limited in understanding Christian history. If you’re into reading (you should be if you want to be an apologetic), I’ll suggest a book by John Henry Newman (convert to CC in 19th Cent.) An essay on the development of Christian Doctrine (you can get a free e-book on the internet). It explains how the seeds of our christian faith eventually blossomed through history with better understanding. This intelligent guy was also the one who said "to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"

I won’t paste all the church fathers writings here as you never address them when posted.
Once again, please remember that the bible was written for the church not the other way round.

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:

Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310
The lighting of candles in 320
The worship of saints about 375
The mass was adopted in 394
The worship of Mary began to develop about 432
Priests began to assume distinctive robes in 500
The doctrine of purgatory was introduced in 593
Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm foot in 606
Feasts in honour of the Virgin Mary began in 650
The custom of kissing the Pope's foot was introduced in 709
The worship of images and relics was authorized in 788
The invention of holy water was about 850
The canonization of saints was formalized in 993
Feasts for the dead were introduced in 1003
The celibacy of the priesthood was declared in 1074
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced in 1076
Prayer beads were introduced in 1090
The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was introduced in 1140
The sale of indulgences began in 1190
The wafer was substituted for the loaf in 1200
The dogma of transubstantiation was adopted in 1215
Confession was instituted in 1215
The adoration of the Wafer began in 1220
The Ave Maria was introduced in 1316
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415
Purgatory was officially decreed in 1439
Roman tradition was placed on the same level as Scripture in 1546
The Apocrypha was received into the Canon in 1546
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced in 1854
The doctrine of the papal infallibility was proclaimed in 1864
The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven in 1950

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2042.cfm

OLAADEGBU:

Here are just a few examples of the continual evolution of pagan practices brought into the Roman Catholic Church, starting in 310 A.D.:



http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n2042.cfm

Lol hysterically! So you rehashed this list again. I've seen it in several threads, 1 or 2 by you as well.
Firstly, I see that you have omitted the following: the compilation/declaration of the bible canon, the teaching on the trinity, observation of Easter,nature of Jesus Christ which all came after the 3rd Century.

Secondly, the majority of your list is just plain false - the CC does not worship Mary, Images, relics,saints. The mass was instituted by Jesus and through apostolic tradition. There is no apocrypha in the bible , the deutero canonicals were declared as part of the bible canon. You may wish to go with the Jews who only accept the OT. Apostolic tradition not Roman tradition - you might want to question Paul in 2 Thess 2.
By the way I'm sure you know there are Eastern rites within the CC and not just roman catholic e.g- Syro Malabar.

A number of the things on there are not even dogma but church discipline matters which could be changed if necessary - e.g. latin, celibacy, robes. I'm not going to waste time going through absolutely everything because there are untruths there. The dogmas that are right were defined as part of the Church's Authority

Did you ever read the essay on the development of Christian doctrine[b][/b] that I recommended?

btoks:

Lol hysterically! So you rehashed this list again. I've seen it in several threads, 1 or 2 by you as well.
Firstly, I see that you have omitted the following: the compilation/declaration of the bible canon, the teaching on the trinity, observation of Easter,nature of Jesus Christ which all came after the 3rd Century.

The list is not going anywhere until you adequately address it. You are yet to answer the question of when the OT canon was compiled/declared. The divine Godhead, nature of Jesus and the Easter (the passover feast) is clear written and implied throughout the Holy Scriptures unless you are saying that the Roman catholic church added it there.

btoks:

Secondly, the majority of your list is just plain false - the CC does not worship Mary, Images, relics,saints. The mass was instituted by Jesus and through apostolic tradition. There is no apocrypha in the bible , the deutero canonicals were declared as part of the bible canon. You may wish to go with the Jews who only accept the OT. Apostolic tradition not Roman tradition - you might want to question Paul in 2 Thess 2.
By the way I'm sure you know there are Eastern rites within the CC and not just roman catholic e.g- Syro Malabar.

You can deny the obvious all you want that wouldn't change the fact. Can you show us from Scripture where our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Mass? I'm curious to know. And what did you add in between your Old and NT bibles? Did our Lord Jesus and His apostles quote from them? Don't tell me about the so called fathers, I need to know where the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles quoted from your so called books added after Malachi?

btoks:

A number of the things on there are not even dogma but church discipline matters which could be changed if necessary - e.g. latin, celibacy, robes. I'm not going to waste time going through absolutely everything because there are untruths there. The dogmas that are right were defined as part of the Church's Authority

If you cannot substantiate your church dogmas from the Apostles' teaching then it should be done away with.

btoks:

Did you ever read the essay on the development of Christian doctrine that I recommended?

The Bible has all I need for Christian doctrine.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

The list is not going anywhere until you adequately address it. You are yet to answer the question of when the OT canon was compiled/declared. The divine Godhead, nature of Jesus and the Easter (the passover feast) is clear written and implied throughout the Holy Scriptures unless you are saying that the Roman catholic church added it there.

The protestant bible (OT) is not complete so I don’t know what point you’re trying to prove, the canon was published in the late 4th century and formally declared in the 16th at the Council of Trent (after protestant challenge). I’ve mooted the point of going with the Jews rejection of the NT if you’re concerned about the deuterocanonicals.
It’s amazes me that you think these articles of faith are clear in scriptures when there were debates/ heresies for centuries. This is why it needed the church to declare what the true faith is. Just as in Acts 15.

You can deny the obvious all you want that wouldn't change the fact. Can you show us from Scripture where our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Mass? I'm curious to know. And what did you add in between your Old and NT bibles? Did our Lord Jesus and His apostles quote from them? Don't tell me about the so called fathers, I need to know where the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles quoted from your so called books added after Malachi?

The bible does not contain everything Jesus said or did nor is there anyway you can prove your sola scriptura from the bible. You can get an idea of the church set up by looking at how the faith was practiced in the early days. It certainly was not sola Scriptura or protestant worship.
Your point about quotes from the apostles – this point is not valid as it appears Jude quoted from the book of Enoch that didn’t end up in the bible, also our Lord Jesus talked about moses’ seat in Matt 23 - would you mind showing me where this came from because you won’t find this in the OT.
However, please check out Hebrews 11:35 which refers to an event in 2 Maccabees 7.

If you cannot substantiate your church dogmas from the Apostles' teaching then it should be done away with.

The church was giving the authority to bind and lose and that's what it's been doing through antiquity to date – We’ve been over this, you can question our Lord Jesus if you disagree.

The Bible has all I need for Christian doctrine.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

[/quote]

This passage is often used as prove of sola scriptura but is very wrong. Firstly, it says scripture is profitable not all sufficient.

Secondly from your logic I also read from the bible that perseverance is all I need to be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing ( James 1:4). This is why you need the totality of church authority to make decisions, some sect might wake up tomorrow saying , you see it says it in the bible that all you need is perseverance!!

Thirdly, the passage you quote is taken well out of context – because the previous verses also talk about Timothy continuing in the things he has learnt from whom he had learned them and also scriptures which at this point would have been the OT.


How do you know that we should follow the bible and the bible alone? In your view who makes the decision when there is misinterpretation and opposing views on articles of christian faith?

OLAADEGBU:

Mary was a sinner who needed a Saviour. Simples.

and according to you, she was saved before the birth and death of Jesus.

OLAADEGBU:

Why did it stop speaking Greek?

Read up on the Great Schism below:

https://www.nairaland.com/1902548/what-great-schism

it stopped speaking greek because greek wasn't the language of the people.


Your link is off point.

The church stopped speaking liturgical greek in the 3rd century, the schism happened in the 11th century. The schism isn't the reason why greek was stopped.

btoks:

The protestant bible (OT) is not complete so I don’t know what point you’re trying to prove, the canon was published in the late 4th century and formally declared in the 16th at the Council of Trent (after protestant challenge). I’ve mooted the point of going with the Jews rejection of the NT if you’re concerned about the deuterocanonicals.
It’s amazes me that you think these articles of faith are clear in scriptures when there were debates/ heresies for centuries. This is why it needed the church to declare what the true faith is. Just as in Acts 15.

When was the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures published, 4th century by the RCC?

btoks:

The bible does not contain everything Jesus said or did nor is there anyway you can prove your sola scriptura from the bible. You can get an idea of the church set up by looking at how the faith was practiced in the early days. It certainly was not sola Scriptura or protestant worship.
Your point about quotes from the apostles – this point is not valid as it appears Jude quoted from the book of Enoch that didn’t end up in the bible, also our Lord Jesus talked about moses’ seat in Matt 23 - would you mind showing me where this came from because you won’t find this in the OT.
However, please check out Hebrews 11:35 which refers to an event in 2 Maccabees 7.

Neither Jesus nor His Apostles quoted from the apocrypal and the fact that one quotes a prophecy does not mean quoting from a book. The OT books do not contradict the NT they complement each other. This cannot be said for the books you added in between the OT and NT.

btoks:

The church was giving the authority to bind and lose and that's what it's been doing through antiquity to date – We’ve been over this, you can question our Lord Jesus if you disagree.

The list I posted there shows the pagan origin of your traditions which is not congruent with the Scriptures.

btoks:

This passage is often used as prove of sola scriptura but is very wrong. Firstly, it says scripture is profitable not all sufficient.

Secondly from your logic I also read from the bible that perseverance is all I need to be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing ( James 1:4). This is why you need the totality of church authority to make decisions, some sect might wake up tomorrow saying , you see it says it in the bible that all you need is perseverance!!

You need the Holy Spirit who breathed the Scriptures into existence not your tradition of men for the interpretation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures are God breathed.

btoks:

Thirdly, the passage you quote is taken well out of context – because the previous verses also talk about Timothy continuing in the things he has learnt from whom he had learned them and also scriptures which at this point would have been the OT.


How do you know that we should follow the bible and the bible alone? In your view who makes the decision when there is misinterpretation and opposing views on articles of christian faith?

When your will becomes the will of God you will know whether the doctrines are of God or not. You will not have to depend on faulty human traditions.

Ubenedictus:

and according to you, she was saved before the birth and death of Jesus.

Only Jesus had a miraculous conception and a virgin birth. This cannot be said about Mary who had to had to go for purification after the birth of Jesus. (Luke 2:22).

Ubenedictus:

it stopped speaking greek because greek wasn't the language of the people.


Your link is off point.

The church stopped speaking liturgical greek in the 3rd century, the schism happened in the 11th century. The schism isn't the reason why greek was stopped.

Why did they speak Greek in the first place?

OLAADEGBU:

Why did they speak Greek in the first place?

greek was an alternate language in the roman empire. Most of those who didn't speak latin spoke greek.

Those who preach the gospel to rome, spoke greek, peter and paul... The next bishop was linus another who spoke greek... As such greek stuck as a liturgical language in the roman church.

Up till today you will still hear greek in every mass said in latin, the prayer that is used to ask for forgiveness of sins in a latin mass, i.e the "kyrie elesion", is still in greek.

OLAADEGBU:

Only Jesus had a miraculous conception and a virgin birth. This cannot be said about Mary who had to had to go for purification after the birth of Jesus. (Luke 2:22).

and yet according to you mary was saved before the birth of Christ.


If mary was already saved before the death of Christ as you claim, why does she undergo the purification?

Ubenedictus:

greek was an alternate language in the roman empire. Most of those who didn't speak latin spoke greek.

Those who preach the gospel to rome, spoke greek, peter and paul... The next bishop was linus another who spoke greek... As such greek stuck as a liturgical language in the roman church.

Up till today you will still hear greek in every mass said in latin, the prayer that is used to ask for forgiveness of sins in a latin mass, i.e the "kyrie elesion", is still in greek.

What's the point in conducting Mass in a language you don't understand? This is the more reason why the gospel should be preached in languages understood by the hearers, that way they would be able to worship God in spirit and in truth instead of just following rituals and dogmas.

Ubenedictus:

and yet according to you mary was saved before the birth of Christ.


If mary was already saved before the death of Christ as you claim, why does she undergo the purification?

Did Mary believe God for her salvation? The fact that Mary believed God for her salvation and that she also went for purification should tell you that your church tradition that says she was born without sin is faulty.

This is what Jesus said of such practise:

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition..." (Mark 7:13).

Apostle Paul said this:

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2 Cor 2:17).

You should listen to Apostle Peter who said:

"...We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

Una too dey worry. Leave Mary alone ooo, if you don't believe, your loss, if you believe carry go dey enjoy the benefits. No fight for church, pray make I say AMEN!!

Try and even Google this our Mary sef, see how she is soooo close to mankind appearing all over the world and leaving behind unexplainable miracles. Even scientists who are usually atheists leave catholic church alone as they see too many things their knowledge can not explain. So tey she appear for Nigeria where girl wey never go school before begin speak queen's English to pass her message along.

Forget ooo, better pally this our Mother ooo, a t the last day, if you are wrong, nothing lost, if you
are right, Na window you go take enter heaven o, incase your sin plenty.

After all, nobody has gone to heaven to ask God the truth and come back. Na wetin people like us teach us we dey take fight here like say we even sure.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, I dey your side kampe like Aki n Pawpaw. Nothing dey happen. God no go vex say I like Him mama too much.

catholic gullible since 1900.