Jolliano:


Is the Bible perfect, true and divinely inspired?

If yes, what does that say about the Catholic Church who wrote, compiled and preserved it even under persecution?

A bad tree cannot bring Good fruit.

The catholic church wrote, compiled and preserved the scriptures?!
Pls tell, where when and how did these occur.

Ubenedictus:
sorry dear, one pic is a bishop in a nazi background, d other are prelates in germany. What does dat prove?

Okay, if that's the onlything you see in those pictures and websites

dolphinheart:


The catholic church wrote, compiled and preserved the scriptures?!
Pls tell, where when and how did these occur.

Where?

From various locations within the Roman Empire

When? in the first century of the Common era. Various Apostles of the Church wrote letters to the church in various locations of the Empire.

How? Presumably with a pen and a scroll of paper.

dolphinheart:

The catholic church wrote, compiled and preserved the scriptures?!
Pls tell, where when and how did these occur.

The Apostles who wrote all the books in the new testament were Catholics and not just Catholic but the Heads of the Church in different locations.

When heretics started teaching errors and writing rubbish books and attaching the names of apostles to them (e.g The infancy gospel of Thomas), the Church decided to select which books were divinely inspired and which were not. The council of Rome in 382AD made the list of inspired books and it was 73 books not 66.

Saint Jerome was given the task to translate the hebrew and greek texts to Latin which was the language of the Church.

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to
recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old
Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under
Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the
councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All
christians whether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the
same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus
decreed were canonical and no others.

PastorAIO:


Where?

From various locations within the Roman Empire

When? in the first century of the Common era. Various Apostles of the Church wrote letters to the church in various locations of the Empire.

How? Presumably with a pen and a scroll of paper.

Yep, even mary was catholic , jesus would have been too if not that he went to heaven early. People can claim anything just to seem right.

Jolliano:


The Apostles who wrote all the books in the new testament were Catholics and not just Catholic but the Heads of the Church in different locations.

Yep, even the holy spirit was catholic.

When heretics started teaching errors and writing rubbish books and attaching the names of apostles to them (e.g The infancy gospel of Thomas), the Church decided to select which books were divinely inspired and which were not. The council of Rome in 382AD made the list of inspired books and it was 73 books not 66.

So what happened to the 7 inspired books .

Saint Jerome was given the task to translate the hebrew and greek texts to Latin which was the language of the Church.

So the church changed there language from Greek to Latin right? Bet it was the holy spirit that gave the command.....or probably it was the ruling goverment of the day that influenced such decision. Catholic church had been known to romance the ruling goverment of the day.

The fact is, the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church to
recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old
Testaments in the year 382 at the Council of Rome, under
Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the
councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419). All
christians whether Catholic or Protestant, accept exactly the
same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus
decreed were canonical and no others.

so are they now 66 or 73 books .

dolphinheart:

People can claim anything just to seem right.

Truer words have not been typed from your keyboard.

dolphinheart:

Yep, even the holy spirit was catholic.
So what happened to the 7 inspired books .
So the church changed there language from Greek to Latin right? Bet it was the holy spirit that gave the command.....or probably it was the ruling goverment of the day that influenced such decision. Catholic church had been known to romance the ruling goverment of the day.
so are they now 66 or 73 books .

Firstly, resorting to mockery is a sign of defeat.

The Roman empire had been in charge of Israel before the birth of Jesus hence the issue of Caesars but as a bible scholar you should know this already. The Latin language had already taken over most of their immediate surrondingds. This is similar to how the Old testament was written in Hebrew while the new testament was written in Greek. So if you say it was the issue of the ruling party, what about the switch from Hebrew to Greek.

They have always been 73 books and will always be. TRUTH does not change.

And here's a quote from Martin Luther

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists
(Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which
we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it. ” Martin Luther–
St. John, ch. 16

Jolliano:


Firstly, resorting to mockery is a sign of defeat.

You started it! , I just joined in.
By the way, we are not fighting, so nobody is getting defeated.

The Roman empire had been in charge of Israel before the birth of Jesus hence the issue of Caesars but as a bible scholar you should know this already. The Latin language had already taken over most of their immediate surrondingds. This is similar to how the Old testament was written in Hebrew while the new testament was written in Greek. So if you say it was the issue of the ruling party, what about the switch from Hebrew to Greek.

Very funny, the romans where in charge of isreal, yet the disciples wrote the scriptures down in Greek this should tell you that they followed the common tongue of the general populace and not just for their own people (the hebrew) and definitely not for government. For you to say that the language of the church is Latin, it shows that that church is frolicking and pleasing the rulers of that time. If truly the language of the real church is Latin, the church members( apostles ) would not have written it out in Greek.

They have always been 73 books and will always be. TRUTH does not change.

the truth , as stipulated by ur church with the backing of the rulers of these system of things.

And here's a quote from Martin Luther

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists
(Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which
we received from them, otherwise we should have
known nothing at all about it. ” Martin Luther–
St. John, ch. 16

Yep , you are right. By the time he came, they had ready ascribed to themselves everything, lands,kings, laws, rulers, kingdoms, people, books schrolls etc. So if someone wanted anything or to spread the good news, he will have to go their way, or else get imprisoned or burnt for it.

dolphinheart:

Very funny, the romans where in charge of isreal, yet the disciples wrote the scriptures down in Greek this should tell you that they followed the common tongue of the general populace and not just for their own people (the hebrew) and definitely not for government. For you to say that the language of the church is Latin, it shows that that church is frolicking and pleasing the rulers of that time. If truly the language of the real church is Latin, the church members( apostles ) would not have written it out in Greek.

You will still explain your english bible. That is what I'm waiting for now after what you said above. Unless you actually read your bible in Greek.


A bit of information that you may or may not find useful is the meaning of the word Vulgate. Vulgate is related to vulgar and it means common. Latin vulgate, is a translation into the common latin tongue.

PastorAIO:



You will still explain your english bible. That is what I'm waiting for now after what you said above. Unless you actually read your bible in Greek.

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.

A bit of information that you may or may not find useful is the meaning of the word Vulgate. Vulgate is related to vulgar and it means common. Latin vulgate, is a translation into the common latin tongue.

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.

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!

Jolliano:


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

From when to when?

dolphinheart:


Nop, just saying that all man requires for salvation was written down so that in the future, no man or group of men can come up and bring a doctrine or teaching claiming its from the holy spirit talking to him or them. With the scriptures we can know fake holy spirit from real holy spirit. You and I do know that a lot of people do claim that the holy spirit is showing them things. Some na only disaster e dey show them .

Besides that, I feel people just interpret the bible into what suits them. One domain allows ladies wearing trousers, another domain forbids even as much as retouching your hair. They're both claiming it's from the same book and commandments, yet contradicting each other. One man's meat is another man's poison. For those that say the Catholics are wrong for making use of statues, how do they defend themselves against the Jehovah Witnesses who say blood transfusion is wrong? see...and it's the same God they are claiming to serve, the same Bible they are claiming to read.

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?!

JustTara:
Besides that, I feel people just interpret the bible into what suits them. One domain allows ladies wearing trousers, another domain forbids even as much as retouching your hair.

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.

They're both claiming it's from the same book and commandments, yet contradicting each other.

One will just ask them to provide scripture from which they derived their understanding.

One man's meat is another man's poison. For those that say the Catholics are wrong for making use of statues, how do they defend themselves against the Jehovah Witnesses who say blood transfusion is wrong?

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.

see...and it's the same God they are claiming to serve, the same Bible they are claiming to read.

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.

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?

Jolliano:


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.

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.

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

Pls state what the problem in translation is .

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).

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 .

http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-28.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/16-26.htm

What is the problem with the translations of these verses?

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".

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.

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.

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

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?!

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.

Jolliano:




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

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

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.

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:


Nop, just saying that all man requires for salvation was written down so that in the future, no man or group of men can come up and bring a doctrine or teaching claiming its from the holy spirit talking to him or them. With the scriptures we can know fake holy spirit from real holy spirit. You and I do know that a lot of people do claim that the holy spirit is showing them things. Some na only disaster e dey show them .

where did u get this from? Where did d bible say it contains all that is needed for salvation. My bible kips pointing to other sources it neva claims to contain d fullnes of truth. Infact many letter were written as appetizer for when d apostles come. They were neva written to contain all!

@ Jolliano:

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.

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 .

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?

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

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

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.

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

Ok

3. 1 john 5:7-8.
Again, another accusation of The Catholic Church adding to the bible. But we are not discussing this.

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.

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;"

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.

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

Same thing that translation to Latin would have caused.

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

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

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?

Nop, 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

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.

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.

2. The martyrdom continued constantly and is still occuring right now.
"From the time of John The
Baptist, the Kingdom of God
suffereth violence".

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.

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.

.

Jolliano:


The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Ark Of The Covenant!

No sir, mary is not the ark of the covenant. Mary had nothing to do with the old covenant other than following it.

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

Oops! , I've said something, but I've read it sha.

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 ]

Bro one thing I dnt like is trying to ascribe words or statements to scriptures in which the scriptures never made mention of those words or implied them.
The verses did not say "God the holy ". It did not say "the ark bacame the dwelling place of the presence of God"
Why are you now ascribing those words to the scripture when the scriptures says otherwise.
Ex 40:34-38
Then a cloud covered the tent(or tebanacle, definitely not ark) of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.(it did not say "God the holy spirit".
And Moses was not able to enter into the tent(not ark) of the congregation, because the
cloud abode thereon, and the
glory of the LORD filled the
tabernacle. And when the
cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle,[b](these shows you that it did not dwell in there) the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys: But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle(not ark) by day,
and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel,(everybody saw the cloud and fire, it cannot be in the ark or tebernacle cus there are restrictions as to who can enter the tebernacle.) throughout all their journeys.

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then [b]indwelled Mary.[b] At that time Mary's womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [ Luke 1:35 ].

Another wrong analysis

Luke 1:35
The angel answered, "The
Holy Spirit will come on you,(her whole self, not just her womb. Remember, jesus was concieved) and the [b]power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.[/b]
The holy one is the son of God not the "presence of God".
Moreover, its on record that David prayed to God that he should not take the spirit away from him, that means the holy spirit dwells in David, does that make him the ark of the covenant too?

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 ].

Nice one , but it does not make mary the ark of the covenant but rather attempts to make jesus the ark of the covenant.
Is the attempt true, no.
Let's look at some verses in the chapter of the verse you quoted again.
heb 9: 1,6-7,9, 11-12
"1 Now the first covenant had
regulations for worship and
also an earthly sanctuary.
6 When everything had
been arranged like this, the
priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on
their ministry. 7 But only the
high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for [b]the sins the people had committed in ignorance.
9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.
11 But when Christ came as
high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is
not made with human hands,
that is to say, is not a part of
this creation.
12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption."

Bro , as you can see, even jesus is not the ark but the high priest who brings blood into the tebernacle.

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 ].

Bro, the ark went to many places that mary did not go to, before having a final place. Likewise mary. Using one of there journeys that look similar does not make mary the ark of covenant.

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 ].

Haba bros, when did David become a priest equate his jumping with that of john.?
When did john become a priest ?

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 ].

The verse says :
41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby
leaped in her womb. And
Elizabeth was filled with the
Holy Spirit, 42 and she
exclaimed with a loud cry,
“Blessed are you among
women, and blessed is the
fruit of your womb! 43 And why
is this granted to me that the mother of [b]my Lord should come to me?
Bro, look at those words again, with the holy spirit inside her, she said, "mother of my lord" and not "mother of God". Stop changing the words of the scriptures.
And neither did those words or actions imply mary was the ark of covenant.

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 ].

Even the translations you quoted did not say the same thing Bro. The context and the reasons for saying those words are also different.
And if it is "come to me," you are trying to bring out, Bro , there are many "come to me" in the scriptures.

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 ].

Another similarity , but for different reasons.

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.

haha!, you for say the scriptures say that the house of Elizabeth was blessed na.

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 ].

The ark stayed in the temple mary did not. mary did not present God the son, she presented jesus, the son of God following customs.

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 ].

Can you see how twisted ur explanation is.
Does jesus represent the rod or Aaron. cus he can't represent both.
Was the rod ever taking out of the ark to signify jesus leaving the womb of mary.

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.

Now you have left the scriptures to find similarities somewhere else.

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.[/quote]

What!!, the woman that john saw is mary?!
Ok pls tell us:
1. When did she become pregnant again and who give her belle. For verse 2 says
" She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

2. When will mary come back to earth to be pursued by Satan . For verse 13 says :
"When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth,
he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
3 when did mary give birth to other children:
Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold
fast their testimony about Jesus.

Bro, "similarity" is not "same ".
The scriptures never said the ark is mary, and mary was not recorded to be in heaven.

Jolliano:


Good. A retelling that took place in another location.

And at another time,by someone/ some people different from the person people that wrote the first one.
Is it not part of the first book, but a different book entirely!.
So dnt say it is part of the book of Esther!.

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!

John did not retell the gospel, he wrote his own version of the gospel, his own book, his own understanding and knowledge of the events that happened during his time. John did not write a part of the gospel , he did not write a part of mark, Mathew, or Luke. Each individual wrote based on what they know about the events they recorded. Therefore john was not doing a retelling, but was telling his own side, and because of that his own side will contain words that are not recorded by the other Gospel writers cus they too where trying to tell their own knowledge of events. The book of john is totally different in all ways than the greek book of Esther. The only similarity is that they are both books .

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

Sir give us the details I requested for and we will know if you are right or wrong.

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.

Hebrew was not common, but it is now common. pls which one we go choose.?
Before the isrealites where conquered, which language did the general populace in which the sacred scrolls where meant for speak?, they spoke hebrew, therefore their sacred scrolls where written in hebrew.
After the isrealites where conquered and they later came back to there lands less than hundred years later, which language was the common language? Hebrew and aramaic , therefore they wrote their sacred schrols in greek and aramaic.
Hundreds of years later when their rulers changed from persia to greece and from greece to rome , what common language did they speak. They spoke hebrew, aramaic, greek and Latin .
Why did the disciples write in greek?, because it was the most common tongue understood by the majority. The romans dnt speak hebrew as common tongue in Rome and some other lands, the Hebrews prefer greek to Latin due to hatred for the romans, the far away lands of mercedonia (antioch Etc) where the gospel was taught extensively and had congregations used greek as a common language. Therefore it is sensible to write in that common tongue.
Centuries after the disciples wrote the scriptures, greek was still the common tongue spoken by menbers of the church, until political views set in to favour Latin.

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.

Yep, it was about the house of judah and not about worshiping God. Who the message is for is more important than what is in the message.
[/quote]God commanded Amos to "Go, Prophesy unto my people ISRAEL" (Amos 7:14-15) -- not "gentiles."[/quote]
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).[/quote]
And as at that time, what language did the people of isreal speak.?

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)

So Bro, why are you now following jesus words. Are you from the house of isreal? Cus I no understand why you quote these scriptures o.

It supports the translation to latin because
1. latin was the common language of their immediate environment.

That does not mean there will not be issues with translations as it is with English. Its a different language.

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?

These same problem would occur to a bishop speaking greek.

Multiply how many languages they would have had to do that for?

Same problem with the translation of greek to Latin wound have occured in all other languages.

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.

I can imagine

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.

So that everyone who wants to read the bible in china would first have to learn how to speak Latin right?
Where they not sure of greek and hebrew, why did they now change their language to Latin?. Why did they stop using greek?

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

You are shifting again, shifting from how a word can be translated ,and if its trranslated right or wrong to what it means to me.
Does what it means to me affect how a word is translated or rather , how a word is translated determines what it means to me?

Already answered above.

Then I now Tell you that those word where inserted into the scriptures and should not be there!

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

Nop, God,god,GOD, mean the same thing. They are all translated from same greek word(s). But those that translated the greek word use those letterings to determing which person it is referring to. The small letters does not directly mean that such person or thing is a false god.

[/quote]
FIRSTLY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN ARGUES USING WIKIPEDIA because it is open to input by the general public and so is very inaccurate.[/quote]
IM NOT AN HISTORIAN AND IM
NOT ARGUING!
It remains for you to prove that what I quoted are inacurate.

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.

I did not bring it up, you brought it up.
Wikepedia puts some of the sources of the information it posted on the same webpage.
I will advise that you and any body following this thread do research from those sources and detemine if the source is true or not.

Let us treat this issue of rome and the Catholic(which means Universal) Church/Christianity.

The Church existed before constantine was born.

Yep, the real one, even the one that later claim the state church.

[/quote]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.[/quote]
True christians did that, the apostles taught so and recorded so. They even went as far as telling us who that one God is, the father, just as jesus has taught ealier.

[/quote] They said that all other gods were not gods at all. This much is obvious from the Gospels and the Epistles.[/quote] nop, they did not teach that.

[/quote]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.”[/quote]
Pls provide source

[/quote]So they did not establish the Church or Christianity but gave a decree to let it exist freely like other religions.[/quote]
Never said they extablished the church or christianity, they established a state church!. How did he do that, by turning the already currupted church into a state apparatus or arm. And they loved it cus they now had political power.

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).

A claim made by your church which the scriptures has shown as not true.

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.)

Again you post false things .
First you refuse to tell the source of ur info( something you have been doing)
Secondly The church did not conveine the council of nicea like you are trying to imply. It was constatine that called the divided catholic church to hold a councll.

Excerps from a website.
"This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order.
He addressed letters to St.
Alexander and to Arius
deprecating these heated
controversies regarding
questions of no practical
importance, and advising the
adversaries to agree without
delay. It was evident that the
emperor did not then grasp the
significance of the Arian
controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by
Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.
The emperor himself, in very
respectful letters, begged the
bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in
convoking the Council acted
solely in his own name or in
concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement.......... The Council was opened by
Constantine with the greatest
solemnity. The emperor waited
until all the bishops had taken
their seats before making his
entry. He was clad in gold and
covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental
sovereign. A chair of gold had
been made ready for him, and
when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established.
He had opened the session as
honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the
ecclesiastical leaders of the
council......
The business of the Council
having been finished Constantine celebrated the
twentieth anniversary of his
accession to the empire, and
invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents.
Several days later the emperor
commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he
commended himself to their
prayers, and authorized the
fathers to return to their
dioceses. The greater number
hastened to take advantage of
this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

You can also check these

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

[/quote]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...."[/quote]
And there the false teaching was cemented by the chairmanship of a emperor who still worships pagan 3 in one gods.
There was no bible yet, but the scriptures where there for everyone to read. Abi was there any scripture written after then .
[/quote]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.[/quote]
And you say the church did not become a state church. Even jesus did not force anyone to follow him, but your church did!

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.

He wanted to control the leaders of the church , but those guys where smarter, so the catholic church ended up controling the affairs of the government, a situation jesus warned about .

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.

Thus was Europe’s descent into intolerance, cruelty and control of the human conscience inflicted by a union of state and church.
Forgotten was Christ’s edict,
underlining their separation,
when He accorded the church
and the state separate arenas of influence:
Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar’s;
and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matthew 22:21)
It was a small matter to move
from persecution of pagans to
persecution of devout Christians who opposed the increasing decline in faith and practice and the destruction of Bible doctrine among the Christian elite in Rome.

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.

Even ur post says otherwise.

Ubenedictus:
where did u get this from?

From the inspired word of God.

Where did d bible say it contains all that is needed for salvation.

My previous statement : "just saying that all man requires for salvation was written down"

What the scriptures says:
2 Tim 3:16:17
16 All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17[b] That the man of God [/b]may be perfect[/b], throughly furnished unto all good works.
Maybe you dnt like the reproof and instruction in righteousness the scriptures is giving you and you want something else.
Maybe you are searching for something other than perfection and to be fully/throughly/completely furnished unto ALL good works. You want something better than good.

There is a saying :" eni ba n wa wawakuwa, a ri irikuri.

My bible kips pointing to other sources

Give me an example.

it neva claims to contain d fullnes of truth.

And did I say so too.?

Infact many letter were written as appetizer for when d apostles come. They were neva written to contain all!

Here we go again, tell us one of those letters and where we cam find it, who wrote it and when it was written, its theme or purpose.

chigozie1010:



Did you say Joshua 7:6...where on earth has God ever approved people bowing down to images. Read your Bible please the truth is already revealing

whoever told u dat Catholics bow to those images, bro?.... They only bow to the INVISIBLE GOD on the holy alter, ok?

dolphinheart:

And at another time,by someone/ some people different from the person people that wrote the first one.
Is it not part of the first book, but a different book entirely!.
So dnt say it is part of the book of Esther!.


John did not retell the gospel, he wrote his own version of the gospel, his own book, his own understanding and knowledge of the events that happened during his time. John did not write a part of the gospel , he did not write a part of mark, Mathew, or Luke. Each individual wrote based on what they know about the events they recorded. Therefore john was not doing a retelling, but was telling his own side, and because of that his own side will contain words that are not recorded by the other Gospel writers cus they too where trying to tell their own knowledge of events. The book of john is totally different in all ways than the greek book of Esther. The only similarity is that they are both books .


Sir give us the details I requested for and we will know if you are right or wrong.


Hebrew was not common, but it is now common. pls which one we go choose.?
Before the isrealites where conquered, which language did the general populace in which the sacred scrolls where meant for speak?, they spoke hebrew, therefore their sacred scrolls where written in hebrew.
After the isrealites where conquered and they later came back to there lands less than hundred years later, which language was the common language? Hebrew and aramaic , therefore they wrote their sacred schrols in greek and aramaic.
Hundreds of years later when their rulers changed from persia to greece and from greece to rome , what common language did they speak. They spoke hebrew, aramaic, greek and Latin .
Why did the disciples write in greek?, because it was the most common tongue understood by the majority. The romans dnt speak hebrew as common tongue in Rome and some other lands, the Hebrews prefer greek to Latin due to hatred for the romans, the far away lands of mercedonia (antioch Etc) where the gospel was taught extensively and had congregations used greek as a common language. Therefore it is sensible to write in that common tongue.
Centuries after the disciples wrote the scriptures, greek was still the common tongue spoken by menbers of the church, until political views set in to favour Latin.


Yep, it was about the house of judah and not about worshiping God. Who the message is for is more important than what is in the message.
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).
And as at that time, what language did the people of isreal speak.?

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)

So Bro, why are you now following jesus words. Are you from the house of isreal? Cus I no understand why you quote these scriptures o.

It supports the translation to latin because
1. latin was the common language of their immediate environment.
That does not mean there will not be issues with translations as it is with English. Its a different language.
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?
These same problem would occur to a bishop speaking greek.
Multiply how many languages they would have had to do that for?
Same problem with the translation of greek to Latin wound have occured in all other languages.

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.
I can imagine

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.
So that everyone who wants to read the bible in china would first have to learn how to speak Latin right?
Where they not sure of greek and hebrew, why did they now change their language to Latin?. Why did they stop using greek?

You are a christian, right? Does losing your life mean the same as losing your SOUL?
You are shifting again, shifting from how a word can be translated ,and if its trranslated right or wrong to what it means to me.
Does what it means to me affect how a word is translated or rather , how a word is translated determines what it means to me?

Already answered above.
Then I now Tell you that those word where inserted into the scriptures and should not be there!

GOOD. A god is another god or a false god. A God is the same as God. Hope you see the difference now?
Nop, God,god,GOD, mean the same thing. They are all translated from same greek word(s). But those that translated the greek word use those letterings to determing which person it is referring to. The small letters does not directly mean that such person or thing is a false god.


FIRSTLY, NO SERIOUS HISTORIAN ARGUES USING WIKIPEDIA because it is open to input by the general public and so is very inaccurate.
IM NOT AN HISTORIAN AND IM
NOT ARGUING!
It remains for you to prove that what I quoted are inacurate.
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.
I did not bring it up, you brought it up.
Wikepedia puts some of the sources of the information it posted on the same webpage.
I will advise that you and any body following this thread do research from those sources and detemine if the source is true or not.

Let us treat this issue of rome and the Catholic(which means Universal) Church/Christianity.

The Church existed before constantine was born.
Yep, the real one, even the one that later claim the state church.

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.
True christians did that, the apostles taught so and recorded so. They even went as far as telling us who that one God is, the father, just as jesus has taught ealier.

They said that all other gods were not gods at all. This much is obvious from the Gospels and the Epistles. nop, they did not teach that.

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.”
Pls provide source

So they did not establish the Church or Christianity but gave a decree to let it exist freely like other religions.
Never said they extablished the church or christianity, they established a state church!. How did he do that, by turning the already currupted church into a state apparatus or arm. And they loved it cus they now had political power.

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).
A claim made by your church which the scriptures has shown as not true.
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.)
Again you post false things .
First you refuse to tell the source of ur info( something you have been doing)
Secondly The church did not conveine the council of nicea like you are trying to imply. It was constatine that called the divided catholic church to hold a councll.

Excerps from a website.
"This discord, and the war which soon broke out between Constantine and Licinius, added to the disorder and partly explains the progress of the religious conflict during the years 322-3. Finally Constantine, having conquered Licinius and become sole emperor, concerned himself with the re-establishment of religious peace as well as of civil order.
He addressed letters to St.
Alexander and to Arius
deprecating these heated
controversies regarding
questions of no practical
importance, and advising the
adversaries to agree without
delay. It was evident that the
emperor did not then grasp the
significance of the Arian
controversy. Hosius of Cordova, his counsellor in religious matters, bore the imperial letter to Alexandria, but failed in his conciliatory mission. Seeing this, the emperor, perhaps advised by
Hosius, judged no remedy more apt to restore peace in the Church than the convocation of an ecumenical council.
The emperor himself, in very
respectful letters, begged the
bishops of every country to come promptly to Nicaea. Several bishops from outside the Roman Empire (e.g., from Persia) came to the Council. It is not historically known whether the emperor in
convoking the Council acted
solely in his own name or in
concert with the pope; however, it is probable that Constantine and Sylvester came to an agreement.......... The Council was opened by
Constantine with the greatest
solemnity. The emperor waited
until all the bishops had taken
their seats before making his
entry. He was clad in gold and
covered with precious stones in the fashion of an Oriental
sovereign. A chair of gold had
been made ready for him, and
when he had taken his place the bishops seated themselves. After he had been addressed in a hurried allocution, the emperor made an address in Latin, expressing his will that religious peace should be re-established.
He had opened the session as
honorary president, and he had assisted at the subsequent sessions, but the direction of the theological discussions was abandoned, as was fitting, to the
ecclesiastical leaders of the
council......
The business of the Council
having been finished Constantine celebrated the
twentieth anniversary of his
accession to the empire, and
invited the bishops to a splendid repast, at the end of which each of them received rich presents.
Several days later the emperor
commanded that a final session should be held, at which he assisted in order to exhort the bishops to work for the maintenance of peace; he
commended himself to their
prayers, and authorized the
fathers to return to their
dioceses. The greater number
hastened to take advantage of
this and to bring the resolutions of the council to the knowledge of their provinces.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

You can also check these

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

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...."
And there the false teaching was cemented by the chairmanship of a emperor who still worships pagan 3 in one gods.
There was no bible yet, but the scriptures where there for everyone to read. Abi was there any scripture written after then .
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.
And you say the church did not become a state church. Even jesus did not force anyone to follow him, but your church did!

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.
He wanted to control the leaders of the church , but those guys where smarter, so the catholic church ended up controling the affairs of the government, a situation jesus warned about .

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.

Thus was Europe’s descent into intolerance, cruelty and control of the human conscience inflicted by a union of state and church.
Forgotten was Christ’s edict,
underlining their separation,
when He accorded the church
and the state separate arenas of influence:
Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar’s;
and unto God the things that are God’s. (Matthew 22:21)
It was a small matter to move
from persecution of pagans to
persecution of devout Christians who opposed the increasing decline in faith and practice and the destruction of Bible doctrine among the Christian elite in Rome.

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.
Even ur post says otherwise.

"John did not retell the Gospel, he wrote his own version...."

You are contradicting yourself. Retellin a story means to tell a story again and that is what John did in His Gospel. He while retelling the Gospel decided to add some things which were not in the other ones. And everyone accepts it.

Same was done with Esther and you reject it. That is a double standard approach.

Jolliano:


"John did not retell the Gospel, he wrote his own version...."

You are contradicting yourself. Retellin a story means to tell a story again and that is what John did in His Gospel. He while retelling the Gospel decided to add some things which were not in the other ones. And everyone accepts it.

Same was done with Esther and you reject it. That is a double standard approach.

Ur attempt to link the book of john with the greek book of Esther will not work.

John was present when the events he recorded occured.
In cases he did not witness himself, he was told by those who witnessed it and he recorded it.

This is different with ur book of Esther.

The events john recorded, the list of events, its numbering, and words are totally different from other gospel writers.
This is different with ur book of Esther.

John did not retell a story, it recorded events that occured during his time. You retell a story when you are using other peoples works to tell that story, but when you words are based on your personal experiences, it is your own story, a tale of what you experienced and how you saw things.

If me and you decide to write about a trip to a place in which we stayed together in the same place and talking to same people, we will still not write the same thing or same way even though we right about the same events.
So john was telling his own experience and not retelling that of others.

I've asked you to provide details on the greek book of Esther.

dolphinheart:

From the inspired word of God.

My previous statement : "just saying that all man requires for salvation was written down"

What the scriptures says:
2 Tim 3:16:17
16 All scripture is given by
inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17[b] That the man of God [/b]may be perfect[/b], throughly furnished unto all good works.
Maybe you dnt like the reproof and instruction in righteousness the scriptures is giving you and you want something else.
Maybe you are searching for something other than perfection and to be fully/throughly/completely furnished unto ALL good works. You want something better than good.

there is a point u seem ignorant of, at that time the new testamement was still been written! They were just letters then! The scripture that passage is talking about is d one it says timothy knows from Childhood, it seems u didnt read d whole passage. It is talking abt the Old Testament alone! That was d only available known scripture. If u apply ur funny logic that means d old testament contains everything needed by a Christian.
The bible doesn't say so!

What the bible says is pretty different! It says it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
It says it is profitable for all those thing, it doesn't say it is sufficient! The gathering of d faithful is also profitable but not necesary sufficient.

The bible doesnt say all u need for salvation is written. It says d scripture (in d right context d old testament) is profitable for salvation.