Ubenedictus: reginus refering to your post on april 12 at 8:51, you said without impecability, infallibility is imposible! I responded by telling you that the above principle will render the bible fallible! Peter was pecable and yet he wrote 1st and 2nd peter and we all believes those words are infalliable. So my question is, you claim infalibility is imposible without impecability, at the same time you believe 1st and 2nd peter to be infallible while peter himself isn't impecable. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Ubenedictus: oh, i saw that, and believe me it didn't answer the question, you were asked to provide a link before the 4th century, not what some orthodox christian thinks about the deuterocanon.
It would interest you to note that the view espouse above is not widely accepted in the orthodox church and even rejected by others.
These orthodox site show what i mean http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Aster_El-Kanoneya_El-Taya__O-index.html
http://www.suscopts.org/evangelism/frames/know_your_bible.html

Enigma: ^^^ Meanwhile he is the very same person who claimed earler on this same thread that Jerome must have had a "canon" before translating. He was going to base that on the fraudulent claim related to some Council of Rome until that was knocked down.

So once the Council of Rome thing is knocked out, what "canon" was Jerome using and what "canon" did he refer to - that being one of the questions in the tasks I set Kay17 originally.

Enigma:

Who was the word* directed to and what did he do or say? ....

Enigma: Let me even make the tasks a little easier somewhat still:

Here is Athanasius of Alexandria in a document going back to AD 367 (remember that even the 'Council of Rome' which is used for the fraudulent claim is dated AD 382 some 15 years later than this Athanasius' document).

Quoted from 39th Festal Epistle of AD 367 http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html



To keep things brief, I omit the rest listing the books he considered canonical.

Now see the words "the canon" which I bolded in blue? What did Athanasisus mean by "the Canon"?

Remember this was before each or any of the things/events which the Roman Catholics like to claim is where "they" established "the canon"!

That is, before any of the Council of Rome 382 (already shown to be dodgy), the African Synod of Hippo 393, the African Synods of Carthage 397 etc. --- let alone the real place where the Roman Catholics truly set their canon, at least finally, if they want to be honest --- i.e. Council of Trent 1546 etc! (Edited)

Enigma:

Who was the word* directed to and what did he do or say? ....

Enigma: ^^^
Answer this post
* i.e. 'crybaby'

Ubenedictus: Interesting! Since u made a request, i'll answer. it was directed to italo! The challenge "if u are brave enough" was what was addressed to me.
Are we ok?

Reyginus: Don't get it twisted, ube. It is not hypocrisy at all.
The catholic understanding of papal infallibility could be described as a permanent state of holiness. This neglects the fact that once anything is described infallible, the probability of it being peccable is zero.
In the light of first and second peter. The infallibility he exhibited in the writing of the scriptures was dependent on the inspiration from the infallible holy spirit. The assignments he carried out were done not under a state of permanent holiness but a temporary state of infallibity guaranteed by the inspiring holy spirit. While one, in this case is assuming infallibility, the other, Peter, only was infallible within the period of the inspiration.

Enigma:
lol lol lol
And he produces two links: one to some dead site in Arabic (of all things) and the other to what some fellow thinks.

You'd better go back and read the link I gave carefully.
Meanwhile, I put it to you that you are either too afraid or too duplicitous to perform the tasks I set. Hey, I have even made them simpler with the introduction of Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter.

Enigma: ^^^ Go back and read your own posts replying to my charges ---- about page 16 or so of this very thread!

italo:

Na today you sabi Enigma?

He has no permanent beliefs. He latches unto anything that favours him depending on the argument.

Enigma: ^^^ Crybaby.

Keep up the lying and slandering. It's all cool.

Ubenedictus: u just didnt answer the question!
Interesting

Enigma: ^^^ You want to perform the tasks I set him? Or you too are not brave enough?

Enigma: We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

Kay 17:

Ok, I will concede to your definition and leave that issue for another time.

Given your definition, can you point out any *canonical collection of sacred text* used by the Christians before the 4th century. Note that a individual texts themselves don't count as a collection, rather a number of individual texts adopted together

I wouldn't mind historical references too.

Ubenedictus: here is where you got it all wrong. "infallibility" isn't some permanent state of holiness. Infact i doubt benedict xvi and francis even exercised infallibity at all.
Infallibity refers to what is taught, impecability refer to d man doing the teaching. the inspiration refers to what is been taught not to d person teaching. Peter could have been commiting a "sin" even while he was teaching infallibly. Because infallibility and impecability are different and independent. The pope isn't infalliable each time he talks on faith and moral but only when he is excercising his role as universal teacher and teaching faith and morals, he defines teachings by d help of d holyspirit. The also means most encyclicals though profitable aren't infalliable. Infallibility isn't some permanent state of holiness but a gift either excercise or not excercise.

Ubenedictus: Interesting! Since u made a request, i'll answer. it was directed to italo! The challenge "if u are brave enough" was what was addressed to me.
Are we ok?

Ubenedictus: your response, probably addressing italo but directed to nobody in particular.

Enigma: I have not insinuated anything so far. In fact, I have tried to treat you as a honourable person and that is why I repeated the question several times.

Anyway, it is all well and good to accuse a non-Roman Catholic of making "cheap insults" but not to see "cheap insults" when Roman Catholics who were not contributing anything to the discussion between two other people were calling others various things like "mumu", "fraud" etc.
No, problem! As I said, I will know whether to confirm what I'm beginning to think in my mind.

Ubenedictus: you said infalliability is imposible without impecability. And at the same time u believe in 1st and 2nd pt, peter taught infallably while he wasn't impacable.
Isn't this hypocrisy?

Reyginus: Beautiful! I have to agree with you. But their is another problem. Looking at the era we had two popes, I find hard to figure out how this infallibility will function on any of the two.

Enigma: Meanwhile, see yourself now vaccillating so badly on one page; on this page!!

Very disappointing!

Enigma: ^^^ Don't hold me to any pedestal; just be honest!