texanomaly:
The Catholic bible is different. I mentioned something to a Catholic friend of mine once from the KJV of the Bible. She said it was not in hers. We compared the two. Sure enough the passage was different. Not just worded differently, but saying the same thing. It had a totally different meaning.

ayoku777:

The dead can't pray for you. Only Christ can pray for you. Not only is He the risen Christ, He is also the ONLY mediator between God and man. 1Tim 2v5 -For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man CHRIST JESUS.

God bless.

Logicboy03:


Dead people dont pray.

Sorry.....as a catholic, I never got used to the intercession of saints

Ajibam:
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

is this not in the catholic bible?
for your good information, i go to God himself through prayers not through mary or peter or one saint...
he asked us to ask his name not Mary's name

Hexxondiv:

If we actually find no reason for any other person to pray for us accept Jesus, then why ask for prayers from men of God. Besides Jesus answers prayers, not that he prays for us.

Logicboy03:


I know....the apocrypha.....

This is the simple reason why I laugh at other churches that mock the catholic church.....they have very little idea about the completeness of their bible

Infomaz: Mystery Babylon @ work. This is Necromancy, Spiritism & Occultism. This is Paganised Christianity.

chukwudi44:

You are joking right?

texanomaly:

I will correct myself here. It did have the same meaning. It was Exodus 20:4, but in her Bible there was an addendum after 4.

Just saying what i saw.

chukwudi44:
Do you have copies of the original manuscripts?The protestant and Catholic bible which came first?

Before I argue further why don't you post the two versions here for us to see the so-called variation.

mr arranger: All these arguments will it change the fact that I was born a catholic and will die a CATHOLIC.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
NO!!!!

chukwudi44:
Do you have copies of the original manuscripts?The protestant and Catholic bible which came first?

Before I argue further why don't you post the two versions here for us to see the so-called variation.

Fasholu: BRO..Come on, why argue? Its like you know 1+1=2, yet you keep arguing with people who think its 3, The Catholic church has more than a billion followers, we don't need them..Let them find the truth themselves, Don't coerce them na, If they feel the Catholic church is evil..Their luck na..Drop them.....Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeas! One day, One day,they'll find out 1+1=2....

texanomaly:
I have been looking online. When I compared the the two, it was actual Bibles. Not online, and like I said, it has been a long time. The woman has passed. I don't know where her Bible went. I will continue to search.

chukwudi44:

Next time better have proof before you level any allegation.

texanomaly:
Where did I say the Catholic Church is evil? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Revolva: bones of st peters ..who cares..what the f......well make una bring am make i give my dog....to chew...i will rub it my stew..i just finish prepared...i guess thats gonna bring a taste to my dog appetite

Juwonlo73:

If not for that other 'churches' no one would have bible at home. And as for the apocrypha... a collections of latter discovered books, some full of moral, some full of contraction... Like Daniel and the poor woman and the wicked judges.[color=#006600]

Hexxondiv:

If we actually find no reason for any other person to pray for us accept Jesus, then why ask for prayers from men of God. Besides Jesus answers prayers, not that he prays for us.

chukwudi44:

Thank God st Peter is not dead but alive!!

Enigma: @Pebcak

You might find another post I made earlier helpful.

Note a major difference between Roman Catholics and others --- others even including Eastern Orthodox. These others believe that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon even though its books can be useful secondarily. On the other hand Roman Catholics say anyone that does not accept the Apocrypha as part of the canon is ---- anathema! (Roman Catholics too like to dey swear for people, I tell you!)

So, here is that one I made earlier .........

1. Jerome ('church father'), Gregory ('pope'), Cajetan ('cardinal') --- all Roman Catholics; all major Roman Catholics (all speaking before the Roman Catholics finally set their own canon) ---- all AGREE with the so-called "Protestants" about the books of the canon!

2. To clarify further, the King James version (originally and for a long time and still in some editions) took the same approach as Jerome, Gregory I, Cajetan as well as Athanasius that the books of the Apocrypha are not in the canon but can be useful in a secondary role. Thus the KJV used to include the Apocrypha but place them in a different part to mark their distinction from the main canonical books.

A further note of interest, even today, there are still "protestants" who use books of the Apocrypha in this secondary role.

The Roman Catholics like to muddy the waters, throw confusion and hope people will not notice their lies if they are not familiar with or clear on the history and development of the canon (or even canons) of the Bible.

Enigma: @Pebcak

You might find another post I made earlier helpful.

Note a major difference between Roman Catholics and others --- others even including Eastern Orthodox. These others believe that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon even though its books can be useful secondarily. On the other hand Roman Catholics say anyone that does not accept the Apocrypha as part of the canon is ---- anathema! (Roman Catholics too like to dey swear for people, I tell you!)

So, here is that one I made earlier .........

1. Jerome ('church father'), Gregory ('pope'), Cajetan ('cardinal') --- all Roman Catholics; all major Roman Catholics (all speaking before the Roman Catholics finally set their own canon) ---- all AGREE with the so-called "Protestants" about the books of the canon!

2. To clarify further, the King James version (originally and for a long time and still in some editions) took the same approach as Jerome, Gregory I, Cajetan as well as Athanasius that the books of the Apocrypha are not in the canon but can be useful in a secondary role. Thus the KJV used to include the Apocrypha but place them in a different part to mark their distinction from the main canonical books.

A further note of interest, even today, there are still "protestants" who use books of the Apocrypha in this secondary role.

The Roman Catholics like to muddy the waters, throw confusion and hope people will not notice their lies if they are not familiar with or clear on the history and development of the canon (or even canons) of the Bible.

idomalord: the bones was displayed to show to some idiots that he is really dead. no need to pray to him again. he cant even help himself, he had to God. same as mary , john etc. if only those people can read their bible, they wud c that wat they are doing is outside wat the bible are saying. even recent revelations show that pope john paul, micheal jackson, whitney houston, bimbo odukoya are in hell. what the bible is saying is Christ 1st then holiness. but its just sad that today christains dont know wat we ought to believe in.