analice107:

Are these people even sane? Why do they keep rehearsing 'The Catholic Church gave us the Bible?'. Chinua Achibe is dead, If he wrote a book which he didn't publish before he died, and i pick it up and publish, will i become the author of that book?

What nonsense is this sef? The catholic Church compiled the Bible, COMPILED, that's what she did, compiled different scrolls and made it into one book, how does that imply that she wrote the Bible?

Weren't the early Christians using the Bible before the Catholic Church was formed in 4 Century AD?

Was Paul a Catholic? I don tire for these people abeg.

My dear,

I wonder,....what about the other books that were removed..... .......who asked them to remove it ...they actually interpolated the Scripture....My thought.

analice107:

Sir, adding or removing bits and pieces from someone's work, doesn't make you the author of the work nah.

Reviewers and Previewers of literary texts adds or remove from the original manuscripts if they see the need,but you can never see their names stamped on the back page as the author of a work.


It just so laughable for the RCC to keep claiming the authorship of the Bible. This is what we laf at Muslins for claiming their allah wrote the Bible. biko leave am.

You keep going on about authorship but only you. No one else is talking about authorship.

Let me put it this way. Christians did not create bread, and they did not create wine. Yet there is a particular way bread and wine are used sacramentally in Christianity.
Now of course you are free to eat as much bread and drink as much wine as you like however you cannot claim to do so the way christians properly do so.

There were debates and appraisals against certain criteria. The books in the bible were picked because they supported certain Christian orthodox catholic doctrines.

To pick the bible up outside this context is merely to do your own thing. You're free to do so but you're deluding yourself if you think you're Christian.

analice107:

E never reach personal insults o. Address the issue not insulting me.


U Catholics believe that Peter was the rock upon which The Master build the Church right? And i say no, It was the revelation which Peter had of the Master that the church was build upon.

No one is truly a Christian without having a revelation of who Christ is and anyone who has that revelation can never turn his back on Christ.

Now, i went on to ask you Catholics this, If you insist that Peter was the rock which the church is build on, because the Master declared what he said, would you also say, Peter was Satan? The Master called him by name commanded him to get behind him 'Satan.

Pls stay within the confines of this discourse, do not use insults here.

So that when I answer and debunk you again, you'll start using "Peter the Church" that nobody said, as a flimsy deviation.

analice107:

Italo, you need to change. Since i met you in NL your are still the same using invectives when it's very unnecessary.

The fourteen years that Paul is talking about who did he confer with, before the circumcision matter got heated up?
The Holy Spirit alone.

For Fourteen years, Paul depended on the Holy Spirit entirely for revelations and guidance in his ministry. Italo use your head, Paul didn't go to Jerusalem becos he wasn't sure what the Holy Spirit's stance in the matter was, it was to satisfy those who where called the circumcision and it was becos of Timothy a none Jew whom he carried about.

Calm down and treat the scriptures within Context.

Gal 2 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.


So I should disregard Paul's reason in bold...and take yours in bold?

analice107:

hmmm

"Hmmm" has become your answer to "are you the pillar and foundation of the truth in 1Tim3:15?"

analice107:

Are these people even sane? Why do they keep rehearsing 'The Catholic Church gave us the Bible?'. Chinua Achibe is dead, If he wrote a book which he didn't publish before he died, and i pick it up and publish, will i become the author of that book?

What nonsense is this sef? The catholic Church compiled the Bible, COMPILED, that's what she did, compiled different scrolls and made it into one book, how does that imply that she wrote the Bible?

Weren't the early Christians using the Bible before the Catholic Church was formed in 4 Century AD?

Where did the early Christians use the Bible? And any proof that the Catholic Church was formed in the 4th century?

analice107:


Was Paul a Catholic? I don tire for these people abeg.

Yes.

MZLady39:



Good for you brother!! !!
You guys never fail to amaze me!!
With all due respect, you guys are insane!!!
I've never met such "insane" & "weird" Christian guys in my life.
Don't worry....it's not just you two that are creepy.
Just won't let a discussion die...& must win an argument.
It's got to be you guys' way or no way.
Since it'll make you guys feel better...here I go.
"You masters are correct!" "You win!" LOL!
Well let me stay in the ditch...& bury me
Blessings to you guys....

I am insane and weird because I am pointing out your lack of sincerity in dealing with your wrong claims.

But when doctoralien quotes lies from non-existent ex-nun and non-existent ex-priest to defame Catholicism, you're his biggest cheerleader.

Calling black white...and calling white black.

analice107:

My dear, the RCC never gave us the Bible. You can't publish another persons work posthumously and then claim authorship of the work.

The Bible was in use long before the RCC saw the light of day.

Show us one person who used the bible before the Catholic Church canonized it.

italo:


Show us one person who used the bible before the Catholic Church canonized it.

Italo really? Biko i don't have time for this senseless arguments. Believe what you want, we shall meet the Lord by and by. Am looking into the Scriptures and trying my best to be a Christian helped by the Holy Spirit. Do whatever you can for yourself. bye.

PastorAIO:


You keep going on about authorship but only you. No one else is talking about authorship.

Let me put it this way. Christians did not create bread, and they did not create wine. Yet there is a particular way bread and wine are used sacramentally in Christianity.
Now of course you are free to eat as much bread and drink as much wine as you like however you cannot claim to do so the way christians properly do so.

There were debates and appraisals against certain criteria. The books in the bible were picked because they supported certain Christian orthodox catholic doctrines.

To pick the bible up outside this context is merely to do your own thing. You're free to do so but you're deluding yourself if you think you're Christian.

It's obvious you don't know the Criteria used in deciding which book gets included or removed.

The Bible is about Christ, from Genesis to revelation, and any book which doesn't forecast that, gets kept back.

The books you guys keep shouting about says nothing about the forthcoming of the Messiah.

analice107:

Italo really? Biko i don't have time for this senseless arguments. Believe what you want, we shall meet the Lord by and by. Am looking into the Scriptures and trying my best to be a Christian helped by the Holy Spirit. Do whatever you can for yourself. bye.

Scriptures chosen by the Catholic Church.

analice107:

It's obvious you don't know the Criteria used in deciding which book gets included or removed.

The Bible is about Christ, from Genesis to revelation, and any book which doesn't forecast that, gets kept back.

The books you guys keep shouting about says nothing about the forthcoming of the Messiah.

If you dont know, ask or keep quiet. Stop proclaiming in ignorance publicly.

The books that the Catholic Church talked about Christ, just like the ones that were chosen to be in the bible.

italo:


I am insane and weird because I am pointing out your lack of sincerity in dealing with your wrong claims.

But when doctoralien quotes lies from non-existent ex-nun and non-existent ex-priest to defame Catholicism, you're his biggest cheerleader.

Calling black white...and calling white black.

Brother,
I have been extremely sincere....and since you are NOT God, contrary to "your" own popular belief about yourself, you wouldn't know my heart...not even in the least sense.
I agreed with him because 1.) I have heard of the woman and have definitely viewed the ex-Jesuit's testimony. I was convinced about the guy. I haven't seen any evidence that the two were fake. If it's proven that they were, then I would humbly accept defeat on that issue.
Am I entitled to have my own beliefs, just like all these folks here in the Religion section and all over NL? Just like you?
It's not your job to convert folks to Catholicism through force and pride.....just put the info out, pray for the Holy Spirit to work on hearts, and minister to your fellow man like so many Catholics do.
The way you are "stumping" & "campaigning" for the Catholic church & its "superiority" is the way you should be ministering to souls....for Christ. Who have you converted by arguing left and right?
You have alleged "historical" & scriptural knowledge down, but what about the practical part....that heart change that translates into treating one's fellow man as Christ would? Your delivery needs surgery.
I apologized in the other post in here for calling you insane & weird. It was wrong on my behalf.
Brother, I however, say this again with love (disagree all you want)....but you need to surrender those faults to Christ...let Him change your heart....and ultimately understand what Christianity is supposed to be about

MZLady39:

Brother,
I have been extremely sincere....and since you are NOT God, contrary to "your" own popular belief about yourself,

Another example of insincerity. I do not believe I am God and have never said so.

MZLady39:

you wouldn't know my heart...not even in the least sense.
I agreed with him because 1.) I have heard of the woman and have definitely viewed the ex-Jesuit's testimony. I was convinced about the guy. I haven't seen any evidence that the two were fake. If it's proven that they were, then I would humbly accept defeat on that issue.
Am I entitled to have my own beliefs, just like all these folks here in the Religion section and all over NL? Just like you?

Yes, you are entitled to believing anything you like. E.g the existence of unicorns, ex-nun Mary Ann Collins, ex-Jesuit priest Rivera etc.

I am also entitled to point out the folly of such belief.

MZLady39:

It's not your job to convert folks to Catholicism through force and pride.....just put the info out, pray for the Holy Spirit to work on hearts, and minister to your fellow man like so many Catholics do.
The way you are "stumping" & "campaigning" for the Catholic church & its "superiority" is the way you should be ministering to souls....for Christ.

This is the bias I am talking about. When have you ever said this to those who spread lies about Catholicism? Show me.

And who told you I dont minister to souls for Christ even here on nairaland? However, defending the true faith is an integral part of ministering to souls. From the topic of this thread cant you see that people are confused about who Christ is and what he truly wants? So they are asking you: which Christ? Many here have heard about Christ, many versions of him. It is my job to show them the true version.

MZLady39:

Who have you converted by arguing left and right?

You want their names?

Another example of bias. When have you ever asked antiCatholics this question? Show me.

MZLady39:

You have alleged "historical" & scriptural knowledge down, but what about the practical part....that heart change that translates into treating one's fellow man as Christ would?

Ok, tell me how Christ treated the bias and hypocritical Pharisees and Scribes. Let me treat you like that.

Dont you know that telling someone the truth, even when they insult you, is a great act of love?

MZLady39:

Your delivery needs surgery.

My work is not to pamper you. It is to tell you the truth, even if the truth makes you upset.

MZLady39:

I apologized in the other post in here for calling you insane & weird. It was wrong on my behalf.

Yes, I saw your apology to Ubenedictus...and I see your apology now. It is nice of you. But know that I never felt offended. I just felt pity for you...that you emulate the great hypocrites of the new testament who would rather call Jesus "beelzebub" "insane" than accept the truth.

MZLady39:

Brother, I however, say this again with love (disagree all you want)....but you need to surrender those faults to Christ...let Him change your heart....and ultimately understand what Christianity is supposed to be about

Which faults? What is Christianity about? Seeing the truth and pretending not to see it? What exactly did I do wrong? Did I call you "insane?"

analice107:

It's obvious you don't know the Criteria used in deciding which book gets included or removed.

The Bible is about Christ, from Genesis to revelation, and any book which doesn't forecast that, gets kept back.

The books you guys keep shouting about says nothing about the forthcoming of the Messiah.

There are many things I know nothing of. Of those things, anyone that you feel you can help me to get better knowledge, I would appreciate that.

So What are these Criteria that were used? Where did Esther forecast Christ? Where did Proverbs forecast Christ? (I know you can wangle and contorted reference to christ from it (as one can from any text), but I want to see it.

analice107:

Sir, adding or removing bits and pieces from someone's work, doesn't make you the author of the work nah.

Reviewers and Previewers of literary texts adds or remove from the original manuscripts if they see the need,but you can never see their names stamped on the back page as the author of a work.


It just so laughable for the RCC to keep claiming the authorship of the Bible.

The bible is not someONEs work. It was many different books, by many different people, across centuries, some jews others xtian making use of a wide range of genre, those current books u have are just a subset of d books that were considered inspired.

Among the very many possible books it was d church (under d spirit) that chose what is true scripture and excluded others. If not for d church u wont have a bible just many different works many heretic.
The bible is an expression of the church's faith, to attempt to understand it in exclusion of the church is a futile endeavour

analice107:

My dear, the RCC never gave us the Bible. You can't publish another persons work posthumously and then claim authorship of the work.

The Bible was in use long before the RCC saw the light of day.

I just checked again and it seems you have created another strawman again. why do u like making up things nobody said and start argueing against it? why do u enjoy argueing with yourself?

who said d church authored the bible?

MZLady39:


My apologies to you brother. I shouldn't have called you or him those words.
You are not insane or weird.
Please forgive me for that.
Sometimes my flesh rises up...when it shouldn't.

No problem...in such tense issues it happens, i know i have dished out my own share of heavy words on NL. it happens.

analice107:

Are these people even sane? Why do they keep rehearsing 'The Catholic Church gave us the Bible?'. Chinua Achibe is dead, If he wrote a book which he didn't publish before he died, and i pick it up and publish, will i become the author of that book?

What nonsense is this sef? The catholic Church compiled the Bible, COMPILED, that's what she did, compiled different scrolls and made it into one book, how does that imply that she wrote the Bible?

Weren't the early Christians using the Bible before the Catholic Church was formed in 4 Century AD?

Was Paul a Catholic? I don tire for these people abeg.

Just to answer you, i am sane. The catholic church wasnt formed in the 4th century, paul is a catholic

analice107:

My dear, the RCC never gave us the Bible. You can't publish another persons work posthumously and then claim authorship of the work.

The Bible was in use long before the RCC saw the light of day.

Oya prove ur claim, who and who was using d bible before the catholic church.

analice107:

I hope you realize that the Church is not a building or a crowd? The church is an individual. The Church is a revelation an individual has about the Lordship of Jesus.

When the Holy Spirit was given, He came on individuals specifically. He indwells people, talks to people who come together to form an assembly. When you keep mentioning " Church" you make it sound as though it's an entity, it's not. The Gathering called the Catholic Church or Living Faith, does not have the Holy Spirit, people inside these places are the carriers of the Holy Spirit.

Jesu said, "When two or three people (who are the carriers of his presence) are gathered in his name, he is present with them", that is the Church.

The Cburch is a Greek word 'Ecclesia", meaning the "CALLED OUT ONES", People who are called out for a purpose, to be different.

It is not the gathering but the People carrying his presence. And, the gathering is not called a church becos of how many years he has been around, it is upholding the truth as taught by the Master.

I am a Church, and you are a Church if you carry Him in you.

Very correct! No non carries of Holy Ghost is a member of Christ's church.
If we view church like you analyzed I believe most if not all christian problems today will be solved.

I suspect when church is mentioned people think of names we know today which are like quaries to the true church of Christ.

luckyCO:


Very correct! No non carries of Holy Ghost is a member of Christ's church.
If we view church like you analyzed I believe most if not all christian problems today will be solved.

I suspect when church is mentioned people think of names we know today which are like quaries to the true church of Christ.

That is what people fail to realize.

Ubenedictus:

It is "the called out ONES" not one! that should clearly tell u the church is an group not an individual.

You are correct my dear!
Sometimes we dwell on semantics rather than line of thought someone is presenting.

Church is simply called out ones,assembling together to form Christ body. One person (part) cant form a body(church).

However that church start from being Christ's carrier that is why kingdom of God is within you.

I also agree with you that all Christ is he emptied inside his church so if you want truth look for that church.
Where is that church?
Those that server God in Spirit and truth.

But where I got problem with your doctrine is that you failed the foundational meaning of that church Christ is building in which he appointed Apostles,prophets,evangelists,pastors and teachers to overseer and these are not hierrachy but all are equal standing in their offices building the church christ assgned such that no sinner can be part of.

No single member of that can goto hell because they have been redeemed by the blood.

If you missed that foundation you will never come to the knowledge of the truth.

Ubenedictus:
Oya prove ur claim, who and who was using d bible before the catholic church.

Please let us not argue on semantics.
That original church that was formed in upper room Isreal was the exact church that came to rome though rome spill their blood.

Killing Christians didnt exterminate the work of God,satan withdrew small and later joined the church and mixed up everything that is holy with roman pagan order and after doing that satan become their leader.
With the help of roman power and love of money they exported the mixture all over the world hence dark ages,placing man in charge of every aspect of salvation instead of Christ.

If you look at they way most rcc members worship,discuss,believe or teach you will get confused thinking whether they are christians or not.
St malachi prophesized this long ago.

Bible was compiled by the power of the Holy Spirit through Catholic Church(believers or Christians) that is why rome(some popes) get to heard about it they burnt bible and killed anybody found holding it except the priest.

luckyCO:

You are correct my dear!
Sometimes we dwell on semantics rather than line of thought someone is presenting.

Church is simply called out ones,assembling together to form Christ body. One person (part) cant form a body(church).

However that church start from being Christ's carrier that is why kingdom of God is within you.

I also agree with you that all Christ is he emptied inside his church so if you want truth look for that church.
Where is that church?
Those that server God in Spirit and truth.

But where I got problem with your doctrine is that you failed the foundational meaning of that church Christ is building in which he appointed Apostles,prophets,evangelists,pastors and teachers to overseer and these are not hierrachy but all are equal standing in their offices building the church christ assgned such that no sinner can be part of.

this is a lot of wheat mixed with tares. What u just taught is calvins heresy...d so called church of d elect.

luckyCO:

Please let us not argue on semantics.
That original church that was formed in upper room Isreal was the exact church that came to rome though rome spill their blood.

Killing Christians didnt exterminate the work of God, satan withdrew small and later joined the church and mixed up everything that is holy with roman pagan order and after doing that satan become their leader.
With the help of roman power and love of money they exported the mixture all over the world hence dark ages,placing man in charge of every aspect of salvation instead of Christ.

St malachi prophesized this long ago.

Bible was compiled by the power of the Holy Spirit through Catholic Church(believers or Christians) that is why rome(some popes) get to heard about it they burnt bible and killed anybody found holding it except the priest.

i hope you know you just told lies you can't prove?

luckyCO:

Please let us not argue on semantics.
That original church that was formed in upper room Isreal was the exact church that came to rome though rome spill their blood.

Killing Christians didnt exterminate the work of God,satan withdrew small and later joined the church and mixed up everything that is holy with roman pagan order and after doing that satan become their leader.
With the help of roman power and love of money they exported the mixture all over the world hence dark ages,placing man in charge of every aspect of salvation instead of Christ.

If you look at they way most rcc members worship,discuss,believe or teach you will get confused thinking whether they are christians or not.
St malachi prophesized this long ago.

Bible was compiled by the power of the Holy Spirit through Catholic Church(believers or Christians) that is why rome(some popes) get to heard about it they burnt bible and killed anybody found holding it except the priest.

Please at what point in history, after withdrawing and regrouping, did Satan join the church to mix up everything and become their leader? Just the year will do. And why was God so powerless to rebuff this attack?


And please, what is the problem with semantics exactly? You make it sound like a dirty word.

semantics
sɪˈmantɪks/
noun
noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.
the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.

Are you suggesting that one shouldn't strive to get the meaning of a text?

analice107:

My dear, the RCC never gave us the Bible. You can't publish another persons work posthumously and then claim authorship of the work.

The Bible was in use long before the RCC saw the light of day.

This is not true Analice, a number of books were in use, including: the shepherd, gospel of Barnabas, third letter of paul to the Corinthians, didache etc . The Catholic church decided on these ones in your bible, some "christians " still use those books, but the catholic church rejected them in her own canons, why do you believe her? And was she led by the Holy Spirit?

PastorAIO:


Please at what point in history, after withdrawing and regrouping, did Satan join the church to mix up everything and become their leader? Just the year will do. And why was God so powerless to rebuff this attack?


And please, what is the problem with semantics exactly? You make it sound like a dirty word.

Are you suggesting that one shouldn't strive to get the meaning of a text?

If you ever get the answer to the bolded, then you aren't wasting your time, else....

luckyCO:

Please let us not argue on semantics.
That original church that was formed in upper room Isreal was the exact church that came to rome though rome spill their blood.

Killing Christians didnt exterminate the work of God,satan withdrew small and later joined the church and mixed up everything that is holy with roman pagan order and after doing that satan become their leader.
With the help of roman power and love of money they exported the mixture all over the world hence dark ages,placing man in charge of every aspect of salvation instead of Christ.

If you look at they way most rcc members worship,discuss,believe or teach you will get confused thinking whether they are christians or not.
St malachi prophesized this long ago.

Bibles was compiled by the power of the Holy Spirit through Catholic Church(believers or Christians) that is why rome(some popes) get to heard about it they burnt bible and killed anybody found holding it except the priest.

THis is the question

Oya prove ur claim, who and who was using d
bible before the catholic church.


you can respond to it or just say you don't know. the long epistle doesn't provide the needed proof

analice107:

It's obvious you don't know the Criteria used in deciding which book gets included or removed.

The Bible is about Christ, from Genesis to revelation, and any book which doesn't forecast that, gets kept back.

The books you guys keep shouting about says nothing about the forthcoming of the Messiah.

You haven't responded to me on the criteria used and how that applies to books like Esther. But that's okay. Let's leave that now.

Maybe you can answer this instead: Who are the people who applied the criteria for selecting the bible? Where was it done and when?

PastorAIO:



You haven't responded to me on the criteria used and how that applies to books like Esther. But that's okay. Let's leave that now.

Maybe you can answer this instead: Who are the people who applied the criteria for selecting the bible? Where was it done and when?

following