Enigma: --- In relation to the Bible what do you think is meant by "a canonical collection of sacred texts"?
--- Or, what do you understand by "the canon of the Bible"?




EDIT: this post has again been reedited after I accidentally modified it even unwittingly earlier!

as regard scripture d merriam webster dictionary defines canon as "an authoritative list of books accepted as holy scripture".
Accordingly,
__canonical collection of sacred text refers to an authoritative list/collection of sacred text.
__the canon of the bible refers to the authoritative list of sacred text that make up d bible.
I have answer your task. Do well to answer the question.
Peace.

First of all, I tried very hard and for a long time to avoid making the Roman Catholic discussions acrimonious. I pleaded for a long time with your Roman Catholic friends; I even endured their abuses for a long time without return, Instead they got worse and worse. I then warned them, they did not heed the warning. So now, they are seeing my own hand,

And actually you are or must/should be aware of the above. Anyway, a small sample follows:

First I tried to play nice and even begged .....

From https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11815576

Enigma: @ Chukwudi44

Nna Bros

NOPE!!! I do not have a bias against the Roman Catholic Church.

I have just stated that I even have strong Catholic credentials and connections.

I say again that on one of the earliest anti-Catholic threads on this forum in 2005 I was one of those defending the Catholics. Edit I have also defended the Catholic Church on other occasions.

I am not one of those who will tell you that Catholics are not Christians.

I am nether "Pentecostal" nor even "Protestant" so I am not bothered about all those nonsense about 'upstart evangelicals'; that is the problem of those who are interested in that.

The point is not about antagonism of the (Roman) Catholic Church --- the point is about being truthful and realistic on the history of The Christian Church. Please note the importance of that deliberate expression --- The Christian Church.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11864468

Enigma: ^^^ You are right I said we should close the argument. Sorry, something came up, well disappeared really, is what caused me to make one more post. lol

The answers to all of your questions are contained in the various links that I've provided. I could and can answer them very easily but where will it lead us? Probably going round in circles and fostering animosity unnecessarily. I think the attention that I've paid to the particular point that I've sought to address is enough.

I will remind you that I have not and have not even tried to antagonise or malign The Roman Catholic Church.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/3#12099185

Enigma: In all the recent discussions, I have tried to be polite to individual catholics and very deliberately to maintain a tone of respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Even when chukwudi has thrown some mild personals my way, I have tried to overlook them; even you, specifically, italo have always enjoyed politeness from me in the past. Personally, I would prefer things to remain cordial ---- and mercifully this your post is very very mild so let us keep it cordial.

Then my own tone hardened and I also gave a warning (as below); they continued, sometimes viciously! So now, them fellas are now seeing my own hand - and only small for that matter!

From https://www.nairaland.com/1125170/pentecostal-christians-existed-before-roman/4#13397291

Enigma:

1. It seems this matter is really paining you people! In other words, that we are combatting the lies and misrepresentations that the Roman Catholic Church has fed you lot and the world is being exposed is causing you people wahala. Make una sorry oh; make una sorry gaaan. Truly, if you na like sef, make una no sorry at all! The truth hurts sometimes and you will just have to suck it, I'm afraid.

2. You may lie all you like about my "insincerity" ----- well, my posts about Ignatius' statement remain there for all to see. The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church has always lied and twisted that statement of Ignatius in the same way that it has always lied and twisted statements of other "church fathers". Now that someone with proper comprehension explains the statement accurately here, it exposes the lies and misrepresentations of the Roman Catholic Church. Because that one dey pain una, you label the person "insincere". Well, na una wahala be that.

3. This one is just a notice: if una wan play nice, I will be nice to you people; if una wan play rough, then let's get ready to rumbleeeeeee!

This is all ridiculous and even a waste of time but I have deliberately chosen to do it this way so that the background to my own actions is clear.

truthislight:
The pope can be infellible as long there is "tradition" to cover all his extracurricular teachings and actions = infellibility shield.
With that open field and long rope to play ball how can he fail? = tradition of RCC.

hehehe, you meant with the traditions of the apostles abi?

Not minding this instruction:
NIV/ESV/
Now brothers, these things i have transferred so as to apply to myself and apollos for your good, that in our case you may learn the (rule): "Do not go beyond the things that are written" ...................
(1cor4:6)
........................................................................................

seriously you need to go back and read that passage again. And pray for a little understanding!

But he the pope seems to give care to his "traditions" only = infellibility of popes.
^^^ Why not? Even me self will be infellible with such long rope of tradition of no boundaries.
Can someone show me the boundaries of "tradition" if any?

the word of God doesn't seem have "boundaries" either its from scripture or tradition.
It is sharper than a two edged sword. Hehehe

Ubenedictus: be honest with what? That you replied insult with insult, is that commendable?
Ok, if your aim was to guilt me, you win,
sorry, next time i'll just imagine you just part of the insult throwing group and move on. Sorry!
Now can we return to d discussion at hand?

So now, I too am just going to treat you as part of the Roman Catholic dishonest and insult throwing crew.

In any event, I even gave you a chance on another occasion; and on that occasion ou showed yourself to be one of them; except I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You remember when I asked you twice about the fellow who said the Bible was written by Catholics supported by the other who said it was written by Catholics for Catholics?

So yes, you guys are dictating how you want to be treated. If you guys choose to maintain the dishonest and pompous approach, I too know how to deal with that.

Enigma: First of all, I tried very hard and for a long time to avoid making the Roman Catholic discussions acrimonious. I pleaded for a long time with your Roman Catholic friends; I even endured their abuses for a long time without return, Instead they got worse and worse. I then warned them, they did not heed the warning. So now, they are seeing my own hand,
And actually you are or must/should be aware of the above. Anyway, a small sample follows:

First I tried to play nice and even begged .....

From https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11815576
From https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11864468
From https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/3#12099185

no need for the long explanation, i get the feeling, you don't feel respected and my catholic brothers seem to be throwing some personal attacks your way, probably emotional residue of some threads i'm not aware of.
I've done my bit of cautions most times with chukwudi, italo has d posibility of not using derogatory remark, but clearly, i in no way believe that one wrong justifies another, i imagined you'll rise above the insults.

Enigma: First of all, I tried very hard and for a long time to avoid making the Roman Catholic discussions acrimonious. I pleaded for a long time with your Roman Catholic friends; I even endured their abuses for a long time without return, Instead they got worse and worse. I then warned them, they did not heed the warning. So now, they are seeing my own hand,
And actually you are or must/should be aware of the above. Anyway, a small sample follows:

First I tried to play nice and even begged .....

From https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11815576
From https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11864468
From https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/3#12099185

no need for the long explanation, i get the feeling, you don't feel respected and my catholic brothers seem to be throwing some personal attacks your way, probably emotional residue of some threads i'm not aware of.
I've done my bit of cautions most times with chukwudi, italo has d posibility of not using derogatory remark, but clearly, i in no way believe that one wrong justifies another, i imagined you'll rise above the insults.

Ubenedictus: as regard scripture d merriam webster dictionary defines canon as "an authoritative list of books accepted as holy scripture".
Accordingly,
__canonical collection of sacred text refers to an authoritative list/collection of sacred text.
__the canon of the bible refers to the authoritative list of sacred text that make up d bible.
I have answer your task. Do well to answer the question.
Peace.

Your answer is incomplete. And you have not performed the other part of the task: what did Jerome refer to as "the canon"?

Now just to show you that I could answer your question easily if I choose to: the definition you have given above does not say a canon must be agreed "at a council".

Certainly some texts were considered to be "an authoritative list/collection of sacred text" at least before Athanasius in 367 (he said so himself); at the Nicea Council in 325 (otherwise why would they be arguing using books that were not authoritative?); and even well before Nicea as Athanasius suggests, saying "the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine".

So what was "the canon" that Athanasius on one hand and Jerome on the other recognised as already existing?

Ubenedictus: no need for the long explanation, i get the feeling, you don't feel respected and my catholic brothers seem to be throwing some personal attacks your way, probably emotional residue of some threads i'm not aware of.
I've done my bit of cautions most times with chukwudi, italo has d posibility of not using derogatory remark, but clearly, i in no way believe that one wrong justifies another, i imagined you'll rise above the insults.

I don't care; please don't preach to me; you have totally lost that privilege today; you will have to earn it again.

At the moment, I just treat you as one of the Roman Catholic crew, I'm afraid!

Enigma: Then my own tone hardened and I also gave a warning (as below); they continued, sometimes viciously! So now, them fellas are now seeing my own hand - and only small for that matter!

From https://www.nairaland.com/1125170/pentecostal-christians-existed-before-roman/4#13397291



This is all ridiculous and even a waste of time but I have deliberately chosen to do it this way so that the background to my own actions is clear.

who am i to judge anothers' servant?
If you feel having a good background is a justification, i say, have it your way. I am not your judge.

^^^ As I said in my post immediately above yours, all of that is neither here nor there.

Enigma:
So now, I too am just going to treat you as part of the Roman Catholic dishonest and insult throwing crew.

interesting!

In any event, I even gave you a chance on another occasion; and on that occasion ou showed yourself to be one of them; except I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You remember when I asked you twice about the fellow who said the Bible was written by Catholics supported by the other who said it was written by Catholics for Catholics?

and i vaguely remember giving you an answer cordially, if that qualifies me as a pompous, insult throwing catholic then wow! I don't have a word of defense for myself.

So yes, you guys are dictating how you want to be treated. If you guys choose to maintain the dishonest and pompous approach, I too know how to deal with that.

hehehehe, accusations! Have it your way.

Peace.

^^ And what did you do about this false accusation?

Ubenedictus: hehehe, u are afraid of his question and you resorted to cheap insult.

That is gross

Enigma:
Your answer is incomplete. And you have not performed the other part of the task: what did Jerome refer to as "the canon"?

an interesting question. Jerome canon was changing, a proof that it wasn't fixed. At first his old testament canon excluded d books not found in the jewish bible, later he adds them and says no one should blame him because he has decided to follow the decisions of the church.

Now just to show you that I could answer your question easily if I choose to: the definition you have given above does not say a canon must be agreed "at a council".

it says it should be authoritative!

Certainly some texts were considered to be "an authoritative list/collection of sacred text" at least before Athanasius in 367 (he said so himself); at the Nicea Council in 325 (otherwise why would they be arguing using books that were not authoritative?); and even well before Nicea as Athanasius suggests, saying "the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine".

hahaha, i imagined you were coming here, athanasius canon was missing many books in both old and new testament just to tell you there was no set canon, before athanasius many books were already under dispute this should clearly show you that the was no authoritative list.

So what was "the canon" that Athanasius on one hand and Jerome on the other recognised as already existing?

i guess this was rhetorical.

Ubenedictus: .... i guess this was rhetorical.

This is the only part of your post that is really on point; and what it shoes is that you do not even understand the question or the task.

I am not asking you for a canon that Jerome made.

I am not asking you for a canon that Athanasius made.

I am asking you for a canon that both Athanasius and Jerome said was already existing.

Athanasius said:

"the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine"

Maybe you want to say that something he said was handed down and divine was not "authoritative"

Look when you find ""the canon" that Jerome and Athanasius recognised, let's talk.

Hehehehe,

Enigma:
I don't care; please don't preach to me; you have totally lost that privilege today; you will have to earn it again.

At the moment, I just treat you as one of the Roman Catholic crew, I'm afraid!

i do not need some sort of previledge to be earned. My atitude towards you have been largely consistent! I will speak on what i think, it is yours to accept or reject!
Treat me the way you wish, i won't be bothered, i'll do you the curtesy of smiling at anything you say about me! And by God's grace that won't change me! I'll continue to treat you as you really are to me and that is a brother and consider each word you paste on nl be they insults or good points.
Lastly, i wasn't trying to preach to you, just airing my expectations, i still have much peaching to do to myself.

Peace

Ubenedictus: ... athanasius canon was missing many books in both old and new testament .....

Meanwhile, even at the risk of digression, the above is a falsehood!

Here is Athanasius' list.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Enigma: ^^ And what did you do about this false accusation?

we spent two pages getting distrated by name calling and cheap insult and questions on Jerome when asked "for a canonical list of sacred text before d 4th century excluding those of individual christians", now that is an interesting point of concern, mayb i do not know your state of mind enough to use word "afriad", but d insults were there and so was d delay.

I do my thingz my own way.I don't bother to see what a mumu thinks

Ubenedictus: Hehehehe,
i do not need some sort of previledge to be earned. My atitude towards you have been largely consistent! I will speak on what i think, it is yours to accept or reject!
Treat me the way you wish, i won't be bothered, i'll do you the curtesy of smiling at anything you say about me! And by God's grace that won't change me! I'll continue to treat you as you really are to me and that is a brother and consider each word you paste on nl be they insults or good points.
Lastly, i wasn't trying to preach to you, just airing my expectations, i still have much peaching to do to myself.

Peace

After some initial skirmishes, I have always treated you with respect and one thing I expect of people I treat with respect is honesty.

Anyway, I will be mindful of what you have said and will be happy to reciprocate - within bounds.

Ubenedictus: we spent two pages getting distrated by name calling and cheap insult and questions on Jerome when asked "for a canonical list of sacred text before d 4th century excluding those of individual christians", now that is an interesting point of concern, mayb i do not know your state of mind enough to use word "afriad", but d insults were there and so was d delay.

You see now --- even when I have just said I will try and reciprocate.

OK the long and short of it is that your post was a lie or at least it contained a lie.

You said that instead of answering Kay17's question, I was afraid and insulted him.

That is a lie because my post that you referred to was not directed to Kay17; it was directed to italo who had contributed nothing but thrown an insult.

You realised very clearly that my post was directed at italo and instead of you to do the right and Christian thing you started to vaccillate. I guess because italo is one of your fellow Roman Catholics; so we can close eyes to that.

Hehehehe, ok i get the picture.

Enigma:
This is the only part of your post that is really on point; and what it shoes is that you do not even understand the question or the task.
I am not asking you for a canon that Jerome made.
I am not asking you for a canon that Athanasius made.
I am asking you for a canon that both Athanasius and Jerome said was already existing.
Athanasius said:
Maybe you want to say that something he said was handed down and divine was not "authoritative"
Look when you find ""the canon" that Jerome and Athanasius recognised, let's talk.

you certainly wish to drag me into discussing the development of scripture. I see you quoted athanasius' use the word "handed down", which ofcourse means the "canon" he is teaching was given to him. Again it is also interesting to note that that phase doesn't answer the question kay asked. A canon as handed to athanasuis in d 4th century, that doesn't in any way answer the question d list of sacred text before d 4th century.

Enigma:
Meanwhile, even at the risk of digression, the above is a falsehood!
Here is Athanasius' list.

ok! I made a mistake, the only books missing are d deuterocanonical ones.
Sorry, and thanks for the correction.

chukwudi44: I do my thingz my own way.I don't bother to see what a mumu thinks

oga hold it oh, if i were not busy at the moment, i would have open a thread for all the people you've insulted and believe me they will give you a thorough mouth washing. Better reconsider how you address people. Follow peace with all men.

Enigma:
After some initial skirmishes, I have always treated you with respect and one thing I expect of people I treat with respect is honesty.

Anyway, I will be mindful of what you have said and will be happy to reciprocate - within bounds.

Enigma:
After some initial skirmishes, I have always treated you with respect and one thing I expect of people I treat with respect is honesty.

Anyway, I will be mindful of what you have said and will be happy to reciprocate - within bounds.

cool

Ubenedictus: Hehehehe, ok i get the picture. you certainly wish to drag me into discussing the development of scripture.

No, I do not wish to drag you into anything. Remember I was discussing this matter with Kay17 before you jumped in.

Ubenedictus: I see you quoted athanasius' use the word "handed down", which ofcourse means the "canon" he is teaching was given to him. Again it is also interesting to note that that phase doesn't answer the question kay asked. A canon as handed to athanasuis in d 4th century, that doesn't in any way answer the question d list of sacred text before d 4th century.

You are making a mistake here and you are making a wrong and misleading presentation of that Athanasius quote.

Where did he say the canon was handed down "to him in the 4th century"? Here again is what he said, read it again and when you understand it let's talk:

"the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine"

Maybe it will help to referesh your memory of another part of the quote:

the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers

So, do you want to try again?

Ubenedictus: ok! I made a mistake, the only books missing are d deuterocanonical ones.
Sorry, and thanks for the correction.

For that matter, you still need to read his Old Testament list --- again --- and carefully.

And if all we have was Athanasius' canon in 367 AD ---- that alone shows that it is a LIE what the Roman Catholics claim that they "compiled" the Bible yada yada!

Meanwhile, I hope you notice a slightly earlier post of mine in which I said one of your own posts contained a lie i.e. about what I said and who I said it to.

Enigma:
You see now --- even when I have just said I will try and reciprocate.
OK the long and short of it is that your post was a lie or at least it contained a lie.

You said that instead of answering Kay17's question, I was afraid and insulted him.

i didnt say the bolded!

That is a lie because my post that you referred to was not directed to Kay17; it was directed to italo who had contributed nothing but thrown an insult.
You realised very clearly that my post was directed at italo and instead of you to do the right and Christian thing you started to vaccillate. I guess because italo is one of your fellow Roman Catholics; so we can close eyes to that.

the truth is i assumed it was refering to italo because it came directly after italo's accusation. I didnt say you insulted kay, nor myself, dat particular post says you didnt answer the question and decided to go with the cheap insults. I may be off by a mile on the "afraid" part. But the part on d insults are there.

Enigma:

No, I do not wish to drag you into anything. Remember I was discussing this matter with Kay17 before you jumped in.



You are making a mistake here and you are making a wrong and misleading presentation of that Athanasius quote.

Where did he say the canon was handed down "to him in the 4th century"? Here again is what he said, read it again and when you understand it let's talk:

Maybe it will help to referesh your memory of another part of the quote:

So, do you want to try again?




For that matter, you still need to read his Old Testament list --- again --- and carefully.

And if all we have was Athanasius' canon in 367 AD ---- that alone shows that it is a LIE what the Roman Catholics claim that they "compiled" the Bible yada yada!

this doesn't relate to who compiled d bible, d point so far has been kay's question, which to a large extent is unanswered. The interesting thing though is that those church fathers can't be called protestants. They are catholics.

The posts are there; I'm not quoting anything again. I see your post above as wriggling instead of doing the honourable thing.

I am even minded to end discussing with you here and now. Afterall I was discussing with Kay17 originally, and I guess he'd be back at some point.

Ubenedictus: this doesn't relate to who compiled d bible, d point so far has been kay's question, which to a large extent is unanswered. The interesting thing though is that those church fathers can't be called protestants. They are catholics.

Cheap and unworthy nonsense. Whoever said they were "protestants"? All I have ever said is that they were not Roman Catholics. That is the pretense and false impression that the Roman Catholics have been spreading to hoodwink people --- especially in the Western world.

Enigma:
No, I do not wish to drag you into anything. Remember I was discussing this matter with Kay17 before you jumped in.

i remember, and i'm unaware of d laws that prevent me from "jumping in" on discusions.

You are making a mistake here and you are making a wrong and misleading presentation of that Athanasius quote.
Where did he say the canon was handed down "to him in the 4th century"? Here again is what he said, read it again and when you understand it let's talk:
Maybe it will help to referesh your memory of another part of the quote:
So, do you want to try again?

hehehe, d mocking "do you want to try again" was interesting. I put it to you that the canon of the new tes wasn't handed on from the apostles, it was developed by bishops over the centuries till it was set at d councils. St Athanasuis only had the books that were collected by his predecesors and transmitted as canonical. What he had was handed to him as he ascends the bishopric.

For that matter, you still need to read his Old Testament list --- again --- and carefully.
And if all we have was Athanasius' canon in 367 AD ---- that alone shows that it is a LIE what the Roman Catholics claim that they "compiled" the Bible yada yada!

hehehe, athanasuis would have no problem addressing himself as catholic.
Peace