italo:


1. Who then made the Bible as it is today and where did God command that any such thing should be made?


You should also note that Peter (the one who holds the keys to the kingdom) said many misinterpret Paul's epistles to their own destruction. This shows that a letter or book cannot be an authority in itself. The Church interprets it so that you don't use it to destroy your soul.

2. If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasnt writing error, why should you doubt the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?


3. The Bible is part of the teaching of the Church that was put down in writing. The Church existed before it and would still exist if it never made a Bible.

1&3. The same set of scrolls that were available to Jesus and the apostles (that they always referred to) is what is available to us now in a single book called the Bible (Old testament).
I disagree with the point you raised that the Bible is the teaching of the Church (maybe if you had said the New testament, I would have agreed). The church came into existence long after the old testament existed.

2. Now, Jesus appointed Peter to guide the church and not otherwise. So if Peter wrote an epistle, it is also to guide the church.

Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic#15239789

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".


A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

And also previously posted https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic#15239932

C. The New Testament

In fairness, this one is a bit complicated and care needs to be taken when trying to identify who "compiled" it.

Today, in the West, both Roman Catholics and "Protestants" accept 27 books as books of the New Testament. There have always been other books written in the Christian era which have not been accepted into the present New Testament -- which again is same for both Roman Catholics and "Protestants".


1. Authorship of New Testament Books

The authors are believed to be the apostles of Jesus Christ or people connected or associated with them. The authors were not members of the Roman Catholic Church or even of "The Catholic Church". Therefore any claim by Roman Catholics that they "wrote" the New Testament is patently false and a blatant lie.


2. Date of Writing and the Issue of "Compilation"

These 27 books are widely believed to have been written by 100-110 AD (though some scholars argue slightly later for some books). See an example of claimed timelines here http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ and a second example here http://www.newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

We know from the Bible itself that some of the books of the New Testament were already in circulation among the early Christian Communities e.g. 2 Peter 3: 15-17; Colossians 4:16 etc. In fact, it is believed that even in the apostolic era some of Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection. In other words, they were already "compiled"!

Furthermore, it is also known that some of the New Testament books were in circulation, if not indeed wide circulation among early Christians by AD 100. There is clear proof of this: letters by Clement of Rome in 97 AD, Ignatius of Antioch in c. 107 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna, close to that time as well, all quote from the books of the New Testament and, between them, these three letters quote from almost all 27 books of present New Testament.

Obviously, the books were written and also the books were already being "compiled" that early on. They were already being "compiled" before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church"!

Now, the complication is (a) that there was considerable debate and even doubt as to whether to accept some books as 'canonical' even including some of the books in the present New Testament; and (b) that eventually some extant books were rejected as not being 'canonical'; some were wholly rejected; some were seen as very useful even though not 'canonical' - two examples being The Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas.

Now how were some rejected and others accepted: it was by certain recognitions and practices of various church communities and respected early Christians (sometimes being believed to be students of the apostles). Very early on, again even before the era of "The Catholic Church", most churches in different places had recognised and accepted the four gospels of today and the same is said of most of Paul's letters. In fact, it is claimed that in 1 Timothy 5:18 even Paul himself quotes Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7) as "scripture"! It is similarly claimed that when Peter referred to Paul's letters, he was referring to them as "scriptures". So, already, we can say we have very good guides about the status of some books already.

About others, as noted earlier, very soon there was consensus from practices of the churches and of respected early Christians on some books as accepted, on some as disputed, and on some as rejected. Nevertheless, by the time of the Muratorian Canon (c.170-180 AD) and of Origen in early 200s AD, we already had the 27 book NT canon largely taking shape. Note that at this point, this was before the era when "The Catholic Church" had become exclusive and at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

In AD 367, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of today's New Testament as the books that make up the canon of the New Testament. This was before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church". It was also before the decree of Theodosius appropriating the word "Catholic" though, in fairness, by then some, e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem, had already started to use the word "Catholic" in a sense to exclude others --- considering especially that this was after Nicea. Again, nevertheless it was at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

Syncan:

Ha oga meeee! So we also need the Holy spirit to understand your conflicting statements abi?

Ok, now,

1.by "the church" you mean earthly gathering, and this can teach falsely.

Not like 2. "the true church" that cannot teach falsely.

Again, 3. any denomination teaching falsely is not the church

all these na you talk am, abeg which one we go take as true.

Comprehend what I say in the context I use then as it can mean any of the above.

The true church (the body of Christ with Christ as the Head) cannot teach falsely. Why: because they teach in line with what Christ taught.

Example: If Cutlass Sharp Sharp ministry (a gathering of 'Christians') teaches what is not in line with what Jesus taught, definitely, it is not part of the body of Christ, hence, not worthy to be called a church.

I believe you understand this.

italo:

...compiled by who...and when?

I believe you know the answer to this.

adsonstone:

I believe you know the answer to this.

I do. But I do not know if you do, based on all you've been saying.

Who compiled it and when?

-

Enigma: Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic#15239789

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".


A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

The word 'CATHOLIC' means universal and the word 'CHURCH' means body of believers. So Catholic Church means a universal body of believers. The appendage ROMAN was introduced after the Reformation by a one-time Catholic Monk. It was simply intoduced by the Protestants to Identify the Church from whom they broke away. The original Church stood and remains while the Lutheran Church continues defragmetizing and resulted in many denomination we have today. Many denominations apart from Anglican and East orthodox Church which still share semblance with Catholic Church started after the Reformation. Maybe you have never even heard of Reformation. Kindly read up

italo:


Okay so when and where did God ever mention "Bible" in the Bible?

When and where did God say that the book of Mark is inspired and the Acts of Peter is not?

Tell me!

Where did God ever say "dont pray through Mary?"

It seems like you're the one inventing doctrines.

Before you answer, please be careful.

Dont say anything you are not sure of. It could turn out very embarassing for you.

(John 14:6) -Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

The Lord made it clear that you can never ever !!!get to the FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM....WHY IN God's NAME SHOULD I PRAY THROUGH MARY WHEN THE LORD HIMSELF SAID I SHOULD COME TO HIM.....just don't get you Catholics some times.

italo:

I do. But I do not know if you do, based on all you've been saying.

Who compiled it and when?

The church in Rome (possibly Catholic)
I don't know exactly when it was compiled...probably in the early centuries.

adsonstone:

1&3. The same set of scrolls that were available to Jesus and the apostles (that they always referred to) is what is available to us now in a single book called the Bible (Old testament).
I disagree with the point you raised that the Bible is the teaching of the Church (maybe if you had said the New testament, I would have agreed). The church came into existence long after the old testament existed.

Who then made the Bible as it is today and where did God command that any such thing should be made?

adsonstone:

2. Now, Jesus appointed Peter to guide the church and not otherwise. So if Peter wrote an epistle, it is also to guide the church.

Question was:
If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasnt writing error, why should you the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?

It seems you're dodging my questions.

adsonstone:

The church in Rome (possibly Catholic)
I don't know exactly when it was compiled...probably in the early centuries.

LOL!!!

So if you are not really sure who or when, how are you sure the compilers didnt include books that were not inspired and exclude inspired books?

I once again put it to you that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church wasnt inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, the Bible cannot be trusted. If you disagree please answer the above question.

mufikings:


(John 14:6) -Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

The Lord made it clear that you can never ever !!!get to the FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM....WHY IN God's NAME SHOULD I PRAY THROUGH MARY WHEN THE LORD HIMSELF SAID I SHOULD COME TO HIM.....just don't get you Catholics some times.

Good. Mary and I believe that you can only go to the Father through Jesus. That is why I say Mother Mary, please let me go with you to JESUS so that I can get to the Father through him.

Mary doesnt take us away from Jesus. She takes us to him.

This has been a theological debate for about 500 years. It wasl not call to a lengthy debate prior to this. http://catholicdefense..com/2013/10/is-rock-of-matthew-1618-st-peter-or-his.html?utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=bufferad9fc&utm_medium=twitter&m=1

italo:

Who then made the Bible as it is today and where did God command that any such thing should be made?


Question was:
If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasn't writing error, why should you the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?

It seems you're dodging my questions.

I'm not dodging the questions in anyway.
I answered the question about those that made the bible as it is today. (They deemed it right to preserve those scriptures in a single book just as they were preserved in the early days).

By the way, I did not answer the second question that reads 'If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasn't writing error, why should you the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?'

Because you did not establish your fact for saying that. I did not learn that. I'll like you to show me where you saw that.

italo:

Good. Mary and I believe that you can only go to the Father through Jesus. That is why I say Mother Mary, please let me go with you to JESUS so that I can get to the Father through him.

Mary doesnt take us away from Jesus. She takes us to him.

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I [/b]will give you rest. Take [b]my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

—Matthew 11:28-30

“‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.’” —John 10:27-28

Bro you don't need mother Mary " for crying out loud" to accompany you to go to the father, Christ is your final sacrifice and atonement for redemption, forgiveness ,..... "made joint heirs " one with him i can go on and on........Please stop this ignorance.

If I give you permission to come to me through Mr X ,and made it clear that you can only do this through Mr X, the mere thought of asking Mr Y to accompany you is clear " disobedience or ignorance" its that simple.

God !!!

italo:

LOL!!!

So if you are not really sure who or when, how are you sure the compilers didnt include books that were not inspired and exclude inspired books?

I once again put it to you that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, the Bible cannot be trusted. If you disagree please answer the above question.

I'm sure some books were have been removed. 7 books or thereabout..

mufikings:


(John 14:6) -Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

The Lord made it clear that you can never ever !!!get to the FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH HIM....WHY IN God's NAME SHOULD I PRAY THROUGH MARY WHEN THE LORD HIMSELF SAID I SHOULD COME TO HIM.....just don't get you Catholics some times.

dont mind him. U dont have to waist ur time with him. He will never learn

italo:


What manner of love is it that lets you watch your brothers wallow in error that might be detrimental to their souls?

Your above is just perfect for pope Francis concerning gays ! He should tell the gays,atheists including Muslims the truth and not by hiding under the cover of 'Love message' and 'j[b]udge not[/b]' making the world a better place to go to hell from

God help us

mufikings:
"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I [/b]will give you rest. Take [b]my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

—Matthew 11:28-30

“‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give eternal life to them. They will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.’” —John 10:27-28

Bro you don't need mother Mary " for crying out loud" to accompany you to go to the father, Christ is your final sacrifice and atonement for redemption, forgiveness ,..... "made joint heirs " one with him i can go on and on........Please stop this ignorance.

If I give you permission to come to me through Mr X ,and made it clear that you can only do this through Mr X, the mere thought of asking Mr Y to accompany you is clear " disobedience or ignorance" its that simple.

God !!!

Jesus Christ wants me to come to him directly abi?

So It means going to him with "Mr Y" is a sin abi.

Okay I want to commit sin right now.

Mufikings, please pray for me.

That is a sin abi?

My friend, you need to look in the mirror before you use the word "ignorance."

italo:

Good. Mary and I believe that you can only go to the Father through Jesus. That is why I say Mother Mary, please let me go with you to JESUS so that I can get to the Father through him.

Mary doesnt take us away from Jesus. She takes us to him.

God help us all !

God help us

Ukuts gp: dont mind him. U dont have to waist ur time with him. He will never learn

Ukuts gp, pray for me.

I have sinned abi?

You need to look in the mirror to find who "will never learn."

italo:

LOL!!!

So if you are not really sure who or when, how are you sure the compilers didnt include books that were not inspired and exclude inspired books?

I once again put it to you that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church wasnt inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, the Bible cannot be trusted. If you disagree please answer the above question.

now tell me. Are they doing according to the bible that they claim that they compiled? If only that is true.

Sal C: Answering these^^^ questions honestly will open many peoples' eyes.

you do realize that, following this line of reasoning, one can pray through any biblical character, say, Jehoshaphat, after all, there is nowhere in the bible that God said do not pray through Jehoshaphat.

m.k.o2005:

Your above is just perfect for pope Francis concerning gays ! He should tell the gays,atheists including Muslims the truth and not by hiding under the cover of 'Love message' and 'j[b]udge not[/b]' making the world a better place to go to hell from

God help us

I see you want us to deviate entirely from the topic of the thread.

You're just here to oppose Catholicism, not to address the topic. I'm not even sure you've read the OP.

Fanatics like you have no regard for reason. You just attack what you dont like. ..good or bad.

adsonstone:

By the way, I did not answer the second question that reads 'If even the writer, Paul, had to go to the Church to be sure he wasn't writing error, why should you the believe the letter and doubt the Church that guides the author of the letter?'

Because you did not establish your fact for saying that. I did not learn that. I'll like you to show me where you saw that.

Gal 2: 1, 2.

italo:

Jesus Christ wants me to come to him directly abi?

So It means going to him with "Mr Y" is a sin abi.

Okay I want to commit sin right now.

Mufikings, please pray for me.

That is a sin abi?

My friend, you need to look in the mirror before you use the word "ignorance."

so if i am making intercessary prayer for you. What name will i use. My pastor's name or the name of Jesus? Answer me.

italo:

I see you want us to deviate entirely from the topic of the thread.

You're just here to oppose Catholicism, not to address the topic. I'm not even sure you've read the OP.

Fanatics like you have no regard for reason. You just attack what you dont like. ..good or bad.

I dnt play the attacking game ! But I'M very sure of correcting anyone who is bein mislead by others just like you pointed out earlier. I know for sure there is no perfect church,rather we are trying to be perfect and the holy spirit will help us to get to that level !
As for the roman catholic church,i know where i place them and will continue to help the ones around me untill the holy spirit perfect them all !

God help us

adsonstone:
I'm sure some books were have been removed. 7 books or thereabout..

How does this make any sense?

I said:

So if you are not really sure who compiled the bible or when, how are you sure the compilers didnt include books that were not inspired and exclude inspired books?

I once again put it to you that the Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit to do this, the Bible cannot be trusted. If you disagree please answer the above question.

Also, since you are sure that some books were removed, who removed them, when were they removed...and by what authority were they removed?

adsonstone:

Comprehend what I say in the context I use then as it can mean any of the above.

The true church (the body of Christ with Christ as the Head) cannot teach falsely. Why: because they teach in line with what Christ taught.

Example: If Cutlass Sharp Sharp ministry (a gathering of 'Christians') teaches what is not in line with what Jesus taught, definitely, it is not part of the body of Christ, hence, not worthy to be called a church.

I believe you understand this.

Aha so there should be that church which is traceable to the apostles and christ, which cannot teach falsely, or is this true church of yours no longer in existence?

rickymartin:

you do realize that, following this line of reasoning, one can pray through any biblical character, say, Jehoshaphat, after all, there is nowhere in the bible that God said do not pray through Jehoshaphat.

Through anyone the Church has identified as a Saint...meaning we are sure that the person in with God in heaven.

adsonstone:

The church in Rome (possibly Catholic)
I don't know exactly when it was compiled...probably in the early centuries.

And you believed that church was the true church then abi?