truthislight:



Nope, Italos question is fales and decetful from its base.

The early christians of 1ce who lived with the apostles and who received those writings, mark, acts etc new the writers and hence considers them as inspired. This were all done befor the end of 1ce, befor the word "chatholic" was used the first time in the 2ce, and this books where used for teaching by the 1st century christians.

It is note worthy that all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles, hence, colation of this apostolic writings was a straigth forward thing since none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles.

The OT was fully complete befor the 1st ce, and was written exclusively by Yahweh prophet, Yahweh anointed king. The livites. Qed.
All this writers are Jews.

So, anything done after 1ce has nothing to do with this unique collections of books that where there during the time of the apostles.

It is the Jews tradition to keep the writings of their prophets and anointed kings, and the NT writers are also Jews.

Did they wait for Canonisation befor keeping the books of the prophets of the OT ? No.

Why then will they have to wait for the canonisation of the writing of the Apostles for them to consider the apostolic writings as inspired befor collation ?

Why will the books written by Jews have to wait to be canonised by gentiles about 400yrs later ?

If you swallow Italos lies, you are gradually on your way to atheism.

The gospel of Mark likewise the other gospels were anonymous.The same church fathers who told us these books were written by Mattew,Mark,Luke and John also told us Peter was the first pope of the catholic church and that Linus,Cletus and Clement were his direct successors.

If the OT was compiled by the 1st century CE how come some of the NT writers like Mattew,Jude and. Paul were quoting outside the OT? How come some of the OT writers were quoting and even referring us to other books outside the bible

The jewish council of Jamnia held in 100CE was convoked in response to the threat of the new religion(xtianity) using the same scriptures as them and the need for a delineation

truthislight:



Nope, Italos question is fales and decetful from its base.

The early christians of 1ce who lived with the apostles and who received those writings, mark, acts etc new the writers and hence considers them as inspired. This were all done befor the end of 1ce, befor the word "chatholic" was used the first time in the 2ce, and this books where used for teaching by the 1st century christians.

It is note worthy that all the books of the NT used for teaching were writen by christ apostles, hence, colation of this apostolic writings was a straigth forward thing since none apostolic writings has no basis to be considered as inspired like that of the apostles.

The OT was fully complete befor the 1st ce, and was written exclusively by Yahweh prophet, Yahweh anointed king. The livites. Qed.
All this writers are Jews.

So, anything done after 1ce has nothing to do with this unique collections of books that where there during the time of the apostles.

It is the Jews tradition to keep the writings of their prophets and anointed kings, and the NT writers are also Jews.

Did they wait for Canonisation befor keeping the books of the prophets of the OT ? No.

Why then will they have to wait for the canonisation of the writing of the Apostles for them to consider the apostolic writings as inspired befor collation ?

Why will the books written by Jews have to wait to be canonised by gentiles about 400yrs later ?

If you swallow Italos lies, you are gradually on your way to atheism.

You are saying that the books of Mark and Luke are not inspired since they weren't apostles.

You mean the Catholic Church lied when they said these books were inspired.

You call Italo and the Catholic Church liars.

Should we then follow you who knows the truth and remove Mark and Luke from the Bible?

chukwudi44:
hope you dont mind telling us about those historical books that Paul quoted

Numenius discussed this men, as we got from the quotation of Eusebius. (Praeparatio Evangelica, 9:8; cf. Origines, Contra Celsium, 4:51)

I never said Paul quoted this book. in fact Paul was recounting the story of what happened in the past. that Paul mentioned the names of these men that we never find in the scriptures is no reason to conclude that he was quoting a different book. Even if he got the knowledge from or quoted a secular book, that doesnt make the book an inspired book.

bros just tell us which scripture Mattew quoted shikena.Isaiah's prophecy never said "he shall be called a nazarene" stop twisting the scriptures

True there is no verbatim support from the Prophets to support this. Atimes a quotation from the hebrew scriptures do not always have a verbatim support from the hebrew scriptures. Quotation could also be figurative.

However, Jesus’ being called a Nazarene evidently refers to the application to him of the Hebrew word nétser. This word means “branch” or “sprout.” It was used prophetically of Jesus at Isaiah 11:1, which reads: “And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout [nétser] will be fruitful.” Noteworthy is the fact that the name of Jesus’ hometown, Nazareth, is apparently derived from this same Hebrew word, nétser, and means “Branch-town.”

If we conclude that there is another scripture that Matthew was quoting, it becomes hard to back it up with a support from the "OT". We know of no other Prophetic writings catalogued by the jews. We are thus caged as it were to find the support from the catalogued Prophets.

[/quote] never said Paul quoted this book. in fact Paul was recounting the story of what happened in the past. that Paul mentioned the names of these men that we never find in the scriptures is no reason to conclude that he was quoting a different book. Even if he got the knowledge from or quoted a secular book, that doesnt make the book an inspired book. [quote]

Bros I don't get you are you saying Paul quoted Numenius,Eusebius or origen? BTW how do we know a piece of writing is inspired? What makes acts of the apostles inspired and acts of peter not inspired? Hope you don't mind expatiating on the criteria for saying a book is not inspired even if an apostle quoted from it

[/quote]f we conclude that there is another scripture that Matthew was quoting, it becomes hard to back it up with a support from the "OT". We know of no other Prophetic writings catalogued by the jews. We are thus caged as it were to find the support from the catalogued Prophets [quote]

Bros no make me laugh naa!! Are you really that ignorant? Over 20 other scriptures were mentioned in the OT especially in 1,2 chronicles,1,2 Kings e.t.c please try and study about biblical history before comming to debate in a public forum like this

chukwudi44: Bros I don't get you are you saying Paul quoted Numenius,Eusebius or origen? BTW how do we know a piece of writing is inspired? What makes acts of the apostles inspired and acts of peter not inspired? Hope you don't mind expatiating on the criteria for saying a book is not inspired even if an apostle quoted from it

the bolded question was answered by my comment you quoted.

Inspired writings:

the writings catalogued by jews for the Hebrew scriptures were inspired. During the time of the great synagogue this was done. during Ezra's time.

For greek scriptures:

Internal evidence gives a hint as to its authenticity. Again, the early christians after the apostles do confirm the writings they viewed as canons at the time. though contents of it has a large role to play.

Some writings are quoted in the scriptures that are not part of the catalogue.

Esther 10:2

As for all his energetic work and his mightiness and the exact statement of Mor′de·cai’s greatness with which the king magnified him, are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Me′di·a and Persia?

Bros no make me laugh naa!! Are you really that ignorant? Over 20 other scriptures were mentioned in the OT especially in 1,2 chronicles,1,2 Kings e.t.c please try and study about biblical history before comming to debate in a public forum like this

This books are not inpired writings, not minding their names. These were not among the writings catalogued by the great synagogue. the jews are known to value their sacred heritage. For them not to catalogue it means that God never had the plan to include them as part of His sacred books. they will be viewed as history books. though just few of them could just be a name of some of the canonical books we have, but bearing a name different from what we know them to be today. They simply have, the law, the prophets and psalms.

OR can you name another books of the prophets among the jewish catalogue that word of Matthew could be found in? this is the issue we are discussing here, i think. Of course you also know that Jesus and the apostles used these jewish list of inspired books.

JMAN05:

the bolded question was answered by my comment you quoted.

Inspired writings:

the writings catalogued by jews for the Hebrew scriptures were inspired. During the time of the great synagogue this was done. during Ezra's time.

For greek scriptures:

Internal evidence gives a hint as to its authenticity. Again, the early christians after the apostles do confirm the writings they viewed as canons at the time. though contents of it has a large role to play.

Some writings are quoted in the scriptures that are not part of the catalogue.

Esther 10:2

As for all his energetic work and his mightiness and the exact statement of Mor′de·cai’s greatness with which the king magnified him, are they not written in the Book of the affairs of the times of the kings of Me′di·a and Persia?



This books are not inpired writings, not minding their names. These were not among the writings catalogued by the great synagogue. the jews are known to value their sacred heritage. For them not to catalogue it means that God never had the plan to include them as part of His sacred books. they will be viewed as history books. though just few of them could just be a name of some of the canonical books we have, but bearing a name different from what we know them to be today. They simply have, the law, the prophets and psalms.

OR can you name another books of the prophets among the jewish catalogue that word of Matthew could be found in? this is the issue we are discussing here, i think. Of course you also know that Jesus and the apostles used these jewish list of inspired books.

Bros the first part you said paul quoted Nemedius,Eusebius and Origen is quite funny since origen and eusebius lived centuries after the death of Paul so how could Paul have quoted them?

You have still failed to answer my key questions

What is/are the criterion/criteria for saying a religious piece of writing is inspired?

How do we know the anonymous books belong to their acclaimed authours or how do we know there are inspired?

To your last points Do you know the prophets Ahijah,Nathan also wrote books which was mentioned in the bible? Why should a book called the prophecy of ahijah not be inspired?

Mattew quoted from a scripture which is now lost in that quotation "he shall be called a nazarene".

The truth is that idea of sola bible is quite ridiculous as ypu can see even the biblical authours did not practice it.The apostles did not know or use any bible.

The bible is just a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourth century.It did not exist prior to the fiourth century shikena

The Roman Catholic Church did not canonise anything in the fourth century; it is a lie.

It is also a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church "canonised" the "Bible" in the fourth century --- especially with the subliminal insinuation that it is the Roman Catholic church denomination.

Let us start with Roman catholics: if they say they "canonised" the Bible in the 4th century, then they confirm that their "church" is NOT "infallible"! Why? Because the 4th century lists that they say they "canonised" are different from what they did indeed canonise at Trent in the 16th century. In fact they even pronounce anathemas on people who rely on such lists as the lists of the fourth century.

By this token, they would render Jerome subject to the anathema; they would also render Cajetan (Luther's antagonist) subject to the anathema. Both of these said the Apocrypha is not part of the canon ---- and they were referring to a canon that existed before them and before the fourth century. Meanwhile over 1000 years later, the Roman Catholic Church declares people who rely on such lists as anathema.

The earliest fourth century list that we know of is that of Athanasius --- which the Roman Catholics do not claim and always try to keep quiet about because it exposes their falsehood.

Anyway, the more interesting thing is that Athanasius lets us know that the canon on which he based his list existed looooong before the fourth century. He said it was handed down as accredited and divine to the fathers by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

We know of course of canons much earlier than the fourth century e.g. Origen; so it is no surprise that Athanasius refers to what was handed down.

The Roman Catholic church denomination people might lie till kingdom come. History is that they did not formalise a canon of their own till the 16th century at the Council of Trent. Even then they did not know which was the authentic version of even their own Latin Vulgate and had to commission that it should be prepared --- leading to the comedic infallibility-destroying episode of "pope" Sixtus V.

Ah, by the way, here is Cajetan (A Roman Catholic and Luther's antagonist no less!) unwittingly letting us know that Roman Catholics claiming to have "canonised" the Bible in the fourth century are liars!

From one I made earlier: https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible/1#18271154

Per "Cardinal" Cajetan

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."


Note a few things:

1. Apocrypha books are not truly canonical for confirming matters of faith; they may only be for edification
2. He suggests this is what Council of Carthage decided; which means that what the Roman Catholics did hundreds of years later at Trent does not even agree with Carthage. Yet the Roman Catholics declared "anathema" those who take the position of Cajetan! Is Cajetan now also "anathema"? What irony!
3. Cajetan completely contradicts the lie that Roman Catholics spread today by confirming what some of us have been saying: Carthage was merely a provincial council!
4. If Carthage was authoritative or had truly been "ratified" by Rome, why then did Rome need Trent to finalise its "canon"?
5. If Rome already had a settled canon in the 4th century how come it needed to establish a canon hundreds of years later in the 16th century?
6. Was any of Rome's claimed canons ever binding on the other people who set out canons e.g Athanasius etc?

Enigma: The Roman Catholic Church did not canonise anything in the fourth century; it is a lie.

It is also a falsehood to say that the Catholic Church "canonised" the "Bible" in the fourth century --- especially with the subliminal insinuation that it is the Roman Catholic church denomination.

Let us start with Roman catholics: if they say they "canonised" the Bible in the 4th century, then they confirm that their "church" is NOT "infallible"! Why? Because the 4th century lists that they say they "canonised" are different from what they did indeed canonise at Trent in the 16th century. In fact they even pronounce anathemas on people who rely on such lists as the lists of the fourth century.

By this token, they would render Jerome subject to the anathema; they would also render Cajetan (Luther's antagonist) subject to the anathema. Both of these said the Apocrypha is not part of the canon ---- and they were referring to a canon that existed before them and before the fourth century. Meanwhile over 1000 years later, the Roman Catholic Church declares people who rely on such lists as anathema.

The earliest fourth century list that we know of is that of Athanasius --- which the Roman Catholics do not claim and always try to keep quiet about because it exposes their falsehood.

Anyway, the more interesting thing is that Athanasius lets us know that the canon on which he based his list existed looooong before the fourth century. He said it was handed down as accredited and divine to the fathers by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning.

We know of course of canons much earlier than the fourth century e.g. Origen; so it is no surprise that Athanasius refers to what was handed down.

The Roman Catholic church denomination people might lie till kingdom come. History is that they did not formalise a canon of their own till the 16th century at the Council of Trent. Even then they did not know which was the authentic version of even their own Latin Vulgate and had to commission that it should be prepared --- leading to the comedic infallibility-destroying episode of "pope" Sixtus V.

Roman catholic is built on falsehood. Everyone knows that. They are all bunch of liars. And italo and his crew dnt want to be free. I pity them sha.

Ukuts gp: Roman catholic is built on falsehood. Everyone knows that. They are all bunch of liars. And italo and his crew dnt want to be free. I pity them sha.

Yet Truthislife (Protestant) insists that Mark and Luke arent inspired books.

Adsonstone (Deeper Life) says that I called one "Enigma" "liar."

Mko2005 (Protestant) says that Catholicism teaches that non-Catholics are going to hell.

...I have not even mentioned your big-daddy in fraud...all on this thread alone.

In other threads recently, another Protestant said the Rosary prayer doesn't make mention of "Jesus." Another one said he was made to swear an oath of secrecy in seminary to keep the dirty secrets of the Church.

All without one shred of evidence to back up their claims even though these are all easily verifiable.

There are dozens more...these are just the ones I dont have to think to remember.

It seems that it is Protestantism that is built on falsehood that's why you guys must resort to lies to defend it.

We know that satan is the father of lies. If the Catholic Church were built on lies, you wouldn't need lies to challenge it.

Afterall, satan cannot fight his own self.

I've not really been having so much access here (cos of the issues I av with my phone), I'm just trying to keep up with the updates here.

@Enigma, thank you for your post. I learned from it.

Back to Italo, you requested the church fathers who did not have the same practices as you do (Catholic).

Polycarp
Jerome
Clement of Alexandria (this man's name was even removed due to the 'mago mago' of Pope sixtus)
John Chrysosotom
Cyprian of Catharage.

When you get back to study, read on this men and stop concluding what is not.

adsonstone: I've not really been having so much access here (cos of the issues I av with my phone), I'm just trying to keep up with the updates here.

@Enigma, thank you for your post. I learned from it.

Back to Italo, you requested the church fathers who did not have the same practices as you do (Catholic).

Polycarp
Jerome
Clement of Alexandria (this man's name was even removed due to the 'mago mago' of Pope sixtus)
John Chrysosotom
Cyprian of Catharage.

When you get back to study, read on this men and stop concluding what is not.

For starters, I requested many things, including proof of your LIE against me. This is at least the fifth time I'm requesting this.

Lets see if you have any integrity left.

Why should anyone engage a shameless liar in any reasonable discussion?

What stops you from saying white is black or red is blue or Pope Francis is not Catholic?

You'll just keep lying your way around, wont you?

Like teacher, like student.

adsonstone: I've not really been having so much access here (cos of the issues I av with my phone), I'm just trying to keep up with the updates here.

@Enigma, thank you for your post. I learned from it.

Back to Italo, you requested the church fathers who did not have the same practices as you do (Catholic).

Polycarp
Jerome
Clement of Alexandria (this man's name was even removed due to the 'mago mago' of Pope sixtus)
John Chrysosotom
Cyprian of Catharage.

When you get back to study, read on this men and stop concluding what is not.

Polycarp,Jerome,John Chrysostom,st Cyprian not catholics? Bros wait till I dissect and tear your lies apart.

St Polycarp of smyrna was one of those privileged to hear from the apostles and had seen and conversed with the Apostle John.He was a companion of Papias and hearer of John as described by his foremost disciple Ireneaus from whom we knew a lot about his life.

His only suviving work is his letter to the philipians.Other work about him is the 'matyrdom of st Polycarp written by an unkwnown disciple sortly after his death.Most of what we know about him is written by his disciple st Ireneaus who was the most prolific christian writer of the second century.

In 150CE he went to visit Pope Anicetus to resolve disagreements in the date of easter,in all his writings and description of him by his disciples he was described as catholic and never had issues with the catholic church so from where did you get the idea from that his doctrines were @ variance with that of the catholic church?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp

St Jerome was a secretary to Pope Damasus 1 who later commisioned him to produce the vulgate the second major translation of the scriptures in the late fourth century.

Yes he had disgreement with st Augustine regarding the canonicity of some books of the septuagint which was later canonised by the church.But such disagreement was common in the early church as the church fathers themselves disgreed among themselves about the canonicity of a lot of books before the canon was compiled by the church.He wrote a letter to Pope Damasus affirming the age long belief that the Pope was the successor of st Peter and also wrote extensively defending the catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome

St Jerome's letter to Pope Damasus

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” ⁠John 19:23⁠ since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, ⁠Song of Songs 2:15⁠ and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” ⁠Song of Songs 4:12⁠ I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for “the pearl of great price.” ⁠Matthew 13:46⁠ “Wheresoever the body is, there will the eagles be gathered together.” ⁠Matthew 24:28⁠ Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold; but here the seed grain is choked in the furrows and nothing grows but darnel or oats. ⁠Matthew 13:22-23⁠ In the West the Sun of righteousness ⁠Malachi 4:2⁠ is even now rising; in the East, Lucifer, who fell from heaven, ⁠Luke 10:18⁠ has once more set his throne above the stars. ⁠Isaiah 14:12⁠ “You are the light of the world,” ⁠Matthew 5:14⁠ “you are the salt of the earth,” ⁠Matthew 5:13⁠ you are “vessels of gold and of silver.” Here are vessels of wood or of earth, ⁠2 Timothy 2:20⁠ which wait for the rod of iron, ⁠Revelation 2:27⁠ and eternal fire.

2. Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! ⁠Matthew 16:18⁠ This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. ⁠Exodus 12:22⁠ This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. ⁠Genesis 7:23⁠ But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; ⁠Matthew 12:30⁠ he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

3. Just now, I am sorry to say, those Arians, the Campenses, are trying to extort from me, a Roman Christian, their unheard-of formula of three hypostases. And this, too, after the definition of Nicæa and the decree of Alexandria, in which the West has joined. Where, I should like to know, are the apostles of these doctrines? Where is their Paul, their new doctor of the Gentiles? I ask them what three hypostases are supposed to mean. They reply three persons subsisting. I rejoin that this is my belief. They are not satisfied with the meaning, they demand the term. Surely some secret venom lurks in the words. “If any man refuse,” I cry, “to acknowledge three hypostases in the sense of three things hypostatized, that is three persons subsisting, let him be anathema.” Yet, because I do not learn their words, I am counted a heretic. “But, if any one, understanding by hypostasis essence, deny that in the three persons there is one hypostasis, he has no part in Christ.” Because this is my confession I, like you, am branded with the stigma of Sabellianism.

4. If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all. In the whole range of secular learning hypostasis never means anything but essence. And can any one, I ask, be so profane as to speak of three essences or substances in the Godhead? There is one nature of God and one only; and this, and this alone, truly is. For absolute being is derived from no other source but is all its own. All things besides, that is all things created, although they appear to be, are not. For there was a time when they were not, and that which once was not may again cease to be. God alone who is eternal, that is to say, who has no beginning, really deserves to be called an essence. Therefore also He says to Moses from the bush, “I am that I am,” and Moses says of Him, “I am has sent me.” ⁠Exodus 3:14⁠ As the angels, the sky, the earth, the seas, all existed at the time, it must have been as the absolute being that God claimed for himself that name of essence, which apparently was common to all. But because His nature alone is perfect, and because in the three persons there subsists but one Godhead, which truly is and is one nature; whosoever in the name of religion declares that there are in the Godhead three elements, three hypostases, that is, or essences, is striving really to predicate three natures of God. And if this is true, why are we severed by walls from Arius, when in dishonesty we are one with him? Let Ursicinus be made the colleague of your blessedness; let Auxentius be associated with Ambrose. But may the faith of Rome never come to such a pass! May the devout hearts of your people never be infected with such unholy doctrines! Let us be satisfied to speak of one substance and of three subsisting persons— perfect, equal, coeternal. Let us keep to one hypostasis, if such be your pleasure, and say nothing of three. It is a bad sign when those who mean the same thing use different words. Let us be satisfied with the form of creed which we have hitherto used. Or, if you think it right that I should speak of three hypostases, explaining what I mean by them, I am ready to submit. But, believe me, there is poison hidden under their honey; the angel of Satan has transformed himself into an angel of light. ⁠2 Corinthians 11:14⁠ They give a plausible explanation of the term hypostasis; yet when I profess to hold it in the same sense they count me a heretic. Why are they so tenacious of a word? Why do they shelter themselves under ambiguous language? If their belief corresponds to their explanation of it, I do not condemn them for keeping it. On the other hand, if my belief corresponds to their expressed opinions, they should allow me to set forth their meaning in my own words.

5. I implore your blessedness, therefore, by the crucified Saviour of the world, and by the consubstantial trinity, to authorize me by letter either to use or to refuse this formula of three hypostases. And lest the obscurity of my present abode may baffle the bearers of your letter, I pray you to address it to Evagrius, the presbyter, with whom you are well acquainted. I beg you also to signify with whom I am to communicate at Antioch. Not, I hope, with the Campenses; for they— with their allies the heretics of Tarsus — only desire communion with you to preach with greater authority their traditional doctrine of three hypostases.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001.htm[b][/b][b][/b]

Jerome on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary-Against Helvidius.

This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters” and “brethren” of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the “sisters” and “brethren” spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar's “Early Days of Christianity,” pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.

Jerome maintains against Helvidius three propositions:—

1st. That Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary.

2d. That the “brethren” of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren.

3d. That virginity is better than the married state.

1. The first of these occupies ch. 3-8. It turns upon the record in Matt. i. 18-25, and especially on the words, “Before they came together” (c. 4), “knew her not till, etc.” (5-.

2. The second (c. 9-17) turns upon the words “first-born son” (9, 10), which, Jerome argues, are applicable not only to the eldest of several, but also to an only son: and the mention of brothers and sisters, whom Jerome asserts to have been children of Mary the wife of Cleophas or Clopas (11-16); he appeals to many Church writers in support of this view (17).

3. In support of his preference of virginity to marriage, Jerome argues that not only Mary but Joseph also remained in the virgin state (19); that, though marriage may sometimes be a holy estate, it presents great hindrances to prayer (20), and the teaching of Scripture is that the states of virginity and continency are more accordant with God's will than that of marriage (21, 22).

1. I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defeating. There was the further consideration that a turbulent fellow, the only individual in the world who thinks himself both priest and layman, one who, as has been said, thinks that eloquence consists in loquacity and considers speaking ill of anyone to be the witness of a good conscience, would begin to blaspheme worse than ever if opportunity of discussion were afforded him. He would stand as it were on a pedestal, and would publish his views far and wide. There was reason also to fear that when truth failed him he would assail his opponents with the weapon of abuse. But all these motives for silence, though just, have more justly ceased to influence me, because of the scandal caused to the brethren who were disgusted at his ravings. The axe of the Gospel must therefore be now laid to the root of the barren tree, and both it and its fruitless foliage cast into the fire, so that Helvidius who has never learned to speak, may at length learn to hold his tongue.

2. I must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was a mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her son was born. We have no desire to career over the fields of eloquence, we do not resort to the snares of the logicians or the thickets of Aristotle. We shall adduce the actual words of Scripture. Let him be refuted by the same proofs which he employed against us, so that he may see that it was possible for him to read what is written, and yet to be unable to discern the established conclusion of a sound faith.

3. His first statement was: “Matthew says, Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Notice, he says, that the word used is betrothed, not entrusted as you say, and of course the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And the Evangelist would not have said before they came together if they were not to come together, for no one would use the phrase before he dined of a man who was not going to dine. Then, again, the angel calls her wife and speaks of her as united to Joseph. We are next invited to listen to the declaration of Scripture: ⁠Matthew 1:24-25⁠ “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her son.”

4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man's wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, “the word used,” he says, “is betrothed and not entrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock.” But when he continues, “the Evangelist would never have applied the words, before they came together to persons who were not to come together, any more than one says, before he dined, when the man is not going to dine,” I know not whether to grieve or laugh. Shall I convict him of ignorance, or accuse him of rashness? Just as if, supposing a person to say, “Before dining in harbour I sailed to Africa,” his words could not hold good unless he were compelled some day to dine in harbour. If I choose to say, “the apostle Paul before he went to Spain was put in fetters at Rome,” or (as I certainly might) “Helvidius, before he repented, was cut off by death,” must Paul on being released at once go to Spain, or must Helvidius repent after death, although the Scripture says “In sheol who shall give you thanks?” Must we not rather understand that the preposition before, although it frequently denotes order in time, yet sometimes refers only to order in thought? So that there is no necessity, if sufficient cause intervened to prevent it, for our thoughts to be realized. When, then, the Evangelist says before they came together, he indicates the time immediately preceding marriage, and shows that matters were so far advanced that she who had been betrothed was on the point of becoming a wife. As though he said, before they kissed and embraced, before the consummation of marriage, she was found to be with child. And she was found to be so by none other than Joseph, who watched the swelling womb of his betrothed with the anxious glances, and, at this time, almost the privilege, of a husband. Yet it does not follow, as the previous examples showed, that he had intercourse with Mary after her delivery, when his desires had been quenched by the fact that she had already conceived. And although we find it said to Joseph in a dream, “Fear not to take Mary your wife”; and again, “Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife,” no one ought to be disturbed by this, as though, inasmuch as she is called wife, she ceases to be betrothed, for we know it is usual in Scripture to give the title to those who are betrothed. The following evidence from Deuteronomy establishes the point. ⁠Deuteronomy 22:24-25⁠ “If the man,” says the writer, “find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her, he shall surely die, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife.” And in another place, ⁠Deuteronomy 22:23-24⁠ “If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then you shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he has humbled his neighbour's wife: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.” Elsewhere also, ⁠Deuteronomy 20:7⁠ “And what man is there that has betrothed a wife, and has not taken her? Let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.” But if anyone feels a doubt as to why the Virgin conceived after she was betrothed rather than when she had no one betrothed to her, or, to use the Scripture phrase, no husband, let me explain that there were three reasons. First, that by the genealogy of Joseph, whose kinswoman Mary was, Mary's origin might also be shown. Secondly, that she might not in accordance with the law of Moses be stoned as an adulteress. Thirdly, that in her flight to Egypt she might have some solace, though it was that of a guardian rather than a husband. For who at that time would have believed the Virgin's word that she had conceived of the Holy Ghost, and that the angel Gabriel had come and announced the purpose of God? And would not all have given their opinion against her as an adulteress, like Susanna? For at the present day, now that the whole world has embraced the faith, the Jews argue that when Isaiah says, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” the Hebrew word denotes a young woman, not a virgin, that is to say, the word is Almah, not Bethulah, a position which, farther on, we shall dispute more in detail. Lastly, excepting Joseph, and Elizabeth, and Mary herself, and some few others who, we may suppose, heard the truth from them, all considered Jesus to be the son of Joseph. And so far was this the case that even the Evangelists, expressing the prevailing opinion, which is the correct rule for a historian, call him the father of the Saviour, as, for instance, ⁠Luke 2:27⁠ “And he (that is, Simeon) came in the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, that they might do concerning him after the custom of the law;” and elsewhere, ⁠Luke 2:41⁠ “And his parents went every year to Jerusalem at the feast of the passover.” And afterwards, “And when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not of it.” Observe also what Mary herself, who had replied to Gabriel with the words, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” says concerning Joseph, ⁠Luke 2:48⁠ “Son, why have you thus dealt with us? Behold, your father and I sought you sorrowing.” We have not here, as many maintain, the utterance of Jews or of mockers. The Evangelists call Joseph father: Mary confesses he was father. Not (as I said before) that Joseph was really the father of the Saviour: but that, to preserve the reputation of Mary, he was regarded by all as his father, although, before he heard the admonition of the angel, ⁠Matthew 1:20⁠ “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost,” he had thoughts of putting her away privily; which shows that he well knew that the child conceived was not his. But we have said enough, more with the aim of imparting instruction than of answering an opponent, to show why Joseph is called the father of our Lord, and why Mary is called Joseph's wife. This also at once answers the question why certain persons are called his brethren.

5. This, however, is a point which will find its proper place further on. We must now hasten to other matters. The passage for discussion now is, “And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife and knew her not till she had brought forth a son, and he called his name Jesus.” Here, first of all, it is quite needless for our opponent to show so elaborately that the word know has reference to coition, rather than to intellectual apprehension: as though anyone denied it, or any person in his senses could ever imagine the folly which Helvidius takes pains to refute. Then he would teach us that the adverb till implies a fixed and definite time, and when that is fulfilled, he says the event takes place which previously did not take place, as in the case before us, “and knew her not till she had brought forth a son.” It is clear, says he, that she was known after she brought forth, and that that knowledge was only delayed by her engendering a son. To defend his position he piles up text upon text, waves his sword like a blind-folded gladiator, rattles his noisy tongue, and ends with wounding no one but himself.



The article in entirety is too lenghty to be posted here in full.If you want to read up everything kindly follow the link below.The key thing here is that Jerome was a key member of the catholic church and adhered to its doctrine.He was particulary a very keen disciple of Pope Damasus 1 as seen from the numerous letters that flowed between the two.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

St Cyprian of carthage the matyred bishop of the catholic church of carthage wrote one of the finest pieces on the unity of the catholic church.Here he affirms the popular catholic teaching that the church was founded on the chair of the apostle Peter and anyone one who does not come under this chair cannot claim to profess the true faith


"Since the Lord warns us, saying, “You are the salt of the earth,” ⁠Matthew 5:13⁠ and since He bids us to be simple to harmlessness, and yet with our simplicity to be prudent, what else, beloved brethren, befits us, than to use foresight and watching with an anxious heart, both to perceive and to beware of the wiles of the crafty foe, that we, who have put on Christ the wisdom of God the Father, may not seem to be wanting in wisdom in the matter of providing for our salvation? For it is not persecution alone that is to be feared; nor those things which advance by open attack to overwhelm and cast down the servants of God. Caution is more easy where danger is manifest, and the mind is prepared beforehand for the contest when the adversary avows himself. The enemy is more to be feared and to be guarded against, when he creeps on us secretly; when, deceiving by the appearance of peace, he steals forward by hidden approaches, whence also he has received the name of the Serpent. That is always his subtlety; that is his dark and stealthy artifice for circumventing man. Thus from (he very beginning of the world he deceived; and flattering with lying words, he misled inexperienced souls by an incautious credulity. Thus he endeavoured to tempt the Lord Himself: he secretly approached Him, as if he would creep on Him again, and deceive; yet he was understood, and beaten back, and therefore prostrated, because he was recognised and detected.

2. From which an example is given us to avoid the way of the old man, to stand in the footsteps of a conquering Christ, that we may not again be incautiously turned back into the nets of death, but, foreseeing our danger, may possess the immortality that we have received. But how can we possess immortality, unless we keep those commands of Christ whereby death is driven out and overcome, when He Himself warns us, and says, “If you will enter into life, keep the commandments? ” ⁠Matthew 19:17⁠ And again: “If you do the things that I command you, henceforth I call you not servants, but friends.” ⁠John 14:15⁠ Finally, these persons He calls strong and steadfast; these He declares to be founded in robust security upon the rock, established with immoveable and unshaken firmness, in opposition to all the tempests and hurricanes of the world. “Whosoever,” says He, “hears my words, and does them, I will liken him unto a wise man, that built his house upon a rock: the rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.” ⁠Matthew 7:24⁠ We ought therefore to stand fast on His words, to learn and do whatever He both taught and did. But how can a man say that he believes in Christ, who does not do what Christ commanded him to do? Or whence shall he attain to the reward of faith, who will not keep the faith of the commandment? He must of necessity waver and wander, and, caught away by a spirit of error, like dust which is shaken by the wind, be blown about; and he will make no advance in his walk towards salvation, because he does not keep the truth of the way of salvation.

3. But, beloved brethren, not only must we beware of what is open and manifest, but also of what deceives by the craft of subtle fraud. And what can be more crafty, or what more subtle, than for this enemy, detected and cast down by the advent of Christ, after light has come to the nations, and saving rays have shone for the preservation of men, that the deaf might receive the hearing of spiritual grace, the blind might open their eyes to God, the weak might grow strong again with eternal health, the lame might run to the church, the dumb might pray with clear voices and prayers— seeing his idols forsaken, and his lanes and his temples deserted by the numerous concourse of believers— to devise a new fraud, and under the very title of the Christian name to deceive the incautious? He has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the darkness of the old way, he circumvents and deceives by the error of a new way. He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness; so that, although they do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ; so that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety. This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master.

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; ” ⁠John 20:21⁠ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” ⁠Song of Songs 6:9⁠ Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one , one , one God? ” ⁠Ephesians 4:4⁠

5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters.” ⁠Matthew 12:30⁠ He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one; ” ⁠John 10:30⁠ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” ⁠1 John 5:7⁠ And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

7. This sacrament of unity, this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by those who cast lots concerning Christ's garment, who should rather put on Christ. Holy Scripture speaks, saying, “But of the coat, because it was not sewed, but woven from the top throughout, they said one to another, Let us not rend it, but cast lots whose it shall be.” ⁠John 19:23-24⁠ That coat bore with it an unity that came down from the top, that is, that came from heaven and the Father, which was not to be at all rent by the receiver and the possessor, but without separation we obtain a whole and substantial entireness. He cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ. On the other hand, again, when at Solomon's death his kingdom and people were divided, Abijah the prophet, meeting Jeroboam the king in the field, divided his garment into twelve sections, saying, “Take you ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, and I will give ten sceptres unto you; and two sceptres shall be unto him for my servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen to place my name there.” ⁠1 Kings 11:31⁠ As the twelve tribes of Israel were divided, the prophet Abijah rent his garment. But because Christ's people cannot be rent, His robe, woven and united throughout, is not divided by those who possess it; undivided, united, connected, it shows the coherent concord of our people who put on Christ. By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.

"8. Who, then, is so wicked and faithless, who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it— the garment of the Lord— the Church of Christ? He Himself in His Gospel warns us, and teaches, saying, “And there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” ⁠John 10:16⁠ And does any one believe that in one place there can be either many shepherds or many flocks? The Apostle Paul, moreover, urging upon us this same unity, beseeches and exhorts, saving, “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” ⁠1 Corinthians 1:10⁠ And again, he says, “Forbearing one another in love, endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” ⁠Ephesians 4:3⁠ Do you think that you can stand and live if you withdraw from the Church, building for yourself other homes and a different dwelling, when it is said to Rahab, in whom was prefigured the Church, “Your father, and your mother, and your brethren, and all the house of your father, you shall gather unto you into your house; and it shall come to pass, whosoever shall go abroad beyond the door of your house, his blood shall be upon his own head? ” ⁠Joshua 2:19⁠ Also, the sacrament of the passover contains nothing else in the law of the Exodus than that the lamb which is slain in the figure of Christ should be eaten in one house. God speaks, saying, “In one house shall you eat it; you shall not send its flesh abroad from the house.” ⁠Exodus 12:46⁠ The flesh of Christ, and the holy of the Lord, cannot be sent abroad, nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church. This home, this household of unanimity, the Holy Spirit designates and points out in the Psalms, saying, “God, who makes men to dwell with one mind in a house.” in the house of God, in the Church of Christ, men dwell with one mind, and continue in concord and simplicity:

9. Therefore also the Holy Spirit came as a dove, a simple and joyous creature, not bitter with gall, not cruel in its bite, not violent with the rending of its claws, loving human dwellings, knowing the association of one home; when they have young, bringing forth their young together; when they fly abroad, remaining in their flights by the side of one another, spending their life in mutual intercourse, acknowledging the concord of peace with the kiss of the beak, in all things fulfilling the law of unanimity. This is the simplicity that ought to be known in the Church, this is the charity that ought to be attained, that so the love of the brotherhood may imitate the cloves, that their gentleness and meekness may be like the lambs and sheep. What does the fierceness of wolves do in the Christian breast? What the savageness of dogs, and the deadly venom of serpents, and the sanguinary cruelty of wild beasts? We are to be congratulated when such as these are separated from the Church, lest they should lay waste the doves and sheep of Christ with their cruel and envenomed contagion. Bitterness cannot consist and be associated with sweetness, darkness with light, rain with clearness, battle with peace, barrenness with fertility, drought with springs, storm with tranquillity. Let none think that the good can depart from the Church. The wind does not carry away the wheat, nor does the hurricane uproot the tree that is based on a solid root. The light straws are tossed about by the tempest, the feeble trees are overthrown by the onset of the whirlwind. The Apostle John execrates and severely assails these, when he says, “They went forth from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, surely they would have continued with us.” ⁠1 John 2:19⁠

10. Hence heresies not only have frequently been originated, but continue to be so; while the perverted mind has no peace— while a discordant faithlessness does not maintain unity. But the Lord permits and suffers these things to be, while the choice of one's own liberty remains, so that while the discrimination of truth is testing our hearts and our minds, the sound faith of those that are approved may shine forth with manifest light. The Holy Spirit forewarns and says by the apostle, “It is needful also that there should be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” ⁠1 Corinthians 11:19⁠ Thus the faithful are approved, thus the perfidious are detected; thus even here, before the day of judgment, the souls of the righteous and of the unrighteous are already divided, and the chaff is separated from the wheat. These are they who of their own accord, without any divine arrangement, set themselves to preside among the daring strangers assembled, who appoint themselves prelates without any law of ordination, who assume to themselves the name of bishop, although no one gives them the episcopate; whom the Holy Spirit points out in the Psalms as sitting in the seat of pestilence, plagues, and spots of the faith, deceiving with serpent's tongue, and artful in corrupting the truth, vomiting forth deadly poisons from pestilential tongues; whose speech does creep like a cancer, whose discourse forms a deadly poison in the heart and breast of every one.

11. Against people of this kind the Lord cries; from these He restrains and recalls His erring people, saying, “Hearken not unto the words of the false prophets; for the visions of their hearts deceive them. They speak, but not out of the mouth of the Lord. They say to those who cast away the word of God, You shall have peace, and every one that walks after his own will. Every one who walks in the error of his heart, no evil shall come upon him. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. If they had stood on my foundation (substantia, ὑποσταLord points out and designates these same, saying, ‘They have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and have hewed them out broken cisterns which can hold no water.’ ⁠Jeremiah 2:13⁠ Although there can be no other baptism but one, they think that they can baptize; although they forsake the fountain of life, they promise the grace of living and saving water. Men are not washed among them, but rather are made foul; nor are sins purged away, but are even accumulated. Such a nativity does not generate sons to God, but to the devil. By a falsehood they are born, and they do not receive the promises of truth. Begotten of perfidy, they lose the grace of faith. They cannot attain to the reward of peace, since they have broken the Lord's peace with the madness of discord.”

12. Nor let any deceive themselves by a futile interpretation, in respect of the Lord having said, “Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” ⁠Matthew 18:20⁠ Corrupters and false interpreters of the Gospel quote the last words, and lay aside the former ones, remembering part, and craftily suppressing part: as they themselves are separated from the Church, so they cut off the substance of one section. For the Lord, when He would urge unanimity and peace upon His disciples, said, “I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth touching anything that you shall ask, it shall be given you by my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them; ” showing that most is given, not to the multitude, but to the unanimity of those that pray. “If,” He says, “two of you shall agree on earth: ”He placed agreement first; He has made the concord of peace a prerequisite; He taught that we should agree firmly and faithfully. But how can he agree with any one who does not agree with the booty of the Church itself, and with the universal brotherhood? How can two or three be assembled together in Christ's name, who, it is evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? For we have not withdrawn from them, but they from us; and since heresies and schisms have risen subsequently, from their establishment for themselves of diverse places of worship, they have forsaken the Head and Source of the truth. But the Lord speaks concerning His Church, and to those also who are in the Church He speaks, that if they are in agreement, if according to what He commanded and admonished, although only two or three gathered together with unanimity should pray— though they be only two or three— they may obtain from the majesty of God what they ask. “Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, I,” slays He, “am with them; ”that is, with the simple and peaceable— with those who fear God and keep God's commandments. With these, although only two or three, He said that He was, in the same manner as He was with the three youths in the fiery furnace; and because they abode towards God in simplicity, and in unanimity among themselves, He animated them, in the midst of the surrounding flames, with the breath of dew: in the way in which, with the two apostles shut up in prison, because they were simple-minded and of one mind, He Himself was present; He Himself, having loosed the bolts of the dungeon, placed them again in the market-place, that they might declare to the multitude the word which they faithfully preached. When, therefore, in His commandments He lays it down, and says, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am with them,” He does not divide men from the Church, seeing that He Himself ordained and made the Church; but rebuking the faithless for their discord, and commending peace by His word to the faithful, He shows that He is rather with two or three who pray with one mind, than with a great many who differ, and that more can be obtained by the discordant prayer of a few, than by the discordant supplication of many.

13. Thus, also, when He gave the law of prayer, He added, saying, “And when you stand praying, forgive, if you have ought against any; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” And He calls back from the altar one who comes to the sacrifice in strife, and bids him first agree with his brother, and then return with peace and offer his gift to God: for God had not respect unto Cain's offerings; for he could not have God at peace with him, who through envious discord had not peace with his brother. What peace, then, do the enemies of the brethren promise to themselves? What sacrifices do those who are rivals of the priests think that they celebrate? Do they deem that they have Christ with them when they are collected together, who are gathered together outside the Church of Christ?"

14. Even if such men were slain in confession of the Name, that stain is not even washed away by blood: the inexpiable and grave fault of discord is not even purged by suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he cannot attain unto the kingdom who forsakes that which shall reign there. Christ gave us peace; He bade us be in agreement, and of one mind. He charged the bonds of love and charity to be kept uncorrupted and inviolate; he cannot show himself a martyr who has not maintained brotherly love. Paul the apostle teaches this, and testifies, saying, “And though I have faith, so that I can remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profits me nothing. Charity is magnanimous; charity is kind; charity envies not; charity acts not vainly, is not puffed up, is not easily provoked, thinks no evil; loves all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things Charity never falls.” “Charity,” says he, “never fails.” For she will ever be in the kingdom, she will endure for ever in the unity of a brotherhood linked to herself. Discord cannot attain to the kingdom of heaven; to the rewards of Christ, who said, “This is my commandment that you love one another even as I have loved you: ” ⁠John 15:12⁠ he cannot attain who has violated the love of Christ b faithless dissension. He who has not charity has not God. The word of the blessed Apostle John is: “God,” says he, “is love; and he that dwells in love dwells in God, and God dwells in him.” ⁠1 John 4:16⁠ They cannot dwell with God who would not be of one mind in God's Church. Although they burn, given up to flames and fires, or lay down their lives, thrown to the wild beasts, that will not be the crown of faith, but the punishment of perfidy; nor will it be the glorious ending of religious valour, but the destruction of despair. Such a one may be slain; crowned he cannot be. He professes himself to be a Christian in such a way as the devil often feigns himself to be Christ, as the Lord Himself forewarns us, and says, “Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.” ⁠Mark 13:6⁠ As he is not Christ, although he deceives in respect of the name; so neither can he appear as a Christian who does not abide in the truth of His Gospel and of faith.

15. For both to prophesy and to cast out devils, and to do great acts upon the earth is certainly a sublime and an admirable thing; but one does not attain the kingdom of heaven although he is found in all these things, unless he walks in the observance of the right and just way. The Lord denounces, and says, “Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and in Your name have cast out devils, and in Your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.” ⁠Matthew 7:22⁠ There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge; we must obey His precepts and warnings, that our merits may receive their reward. The Lord in His Gospel, when He would direct the way of our hope and faith in a brief summary, said, “The Lord your God is one God: and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment; land the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” ⁠Mark 12:29-31⁠ He taught, at the same time, love and unity by His instruction. He has included all the prophets and the law in two precepts. But what unity does he keep, what love does he maintain or consider, who, savage with the madness of discord, divides the Church, destroys the faith, I disturbs the peace, dissipates charity, profanes the sacrament?

16. This evil, most faithful brethren, had long ago begun, but now the mischievous destruction of the same evil has increased, and the envenomed plague of heretical perversity and schisms has begun to spring forth and shoot anew; because even thus it must be in the decline of the world, since the Holy Spirit foretells and forewarns us by the apostle, saying, “In the last days,” says he, “perilous times shall come, and men shall be lovers of their own selves, proud, boasters, covetous, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, hating the good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a sort of form of religion, but denying the power thereof. Of this sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, which are led away with various lusts; ever learning, and never coming to the knowledge of the truth. And as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; but they shall proceed no further, for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, even as theirs also was.” Whatever things were predicted are fulfilled; and as the end of the world is approaching, they have come for the probation as well of the men as of the times. Error deceives as the adversary rages more and more; senselessness lifts up, envy inflames, covetousness makes blind, impiety depraves, pride puffs up, discord exasperates, anger hurries headlong.

17. Yet let not the excessive and headlong faithlessness of many move or disturb us, but rather strengthen our faith in the truthfulness which has foretold the matter. As some have become such, because these things were predicted beforehand, so let other brethren beware of matters of a like kind, because these also were predicted beforehand, even as the Lord instructs us, and says, “But take heed: behold, I have told you all things.” ⁠Mark 13:23⁠ Avoid, I beseech you, brethren, men of this kind, and drive away from your side and from your ears, as if it were the contagion of death, their mischievous conversation; as it is written, “Hedge your ears about with thorns, and refuse to hear a wicked tongue.” And again, “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” ⁠1 Corinthians 15:33⁠ The Lord teaches and warns us to depart from such. He says, “They are blind leaders of the blind; and if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch.” ⁠Matthew 15:14⁠ Such a one is to be turned away from and avoided, whosoever he may be, that is separated from the Church. Such a one is perverted and sins, and is condemned of his own self. Does he think that he has Christ, who acts in opposition to Christ's priests, who separates himself from the company of His clergy and people? He bears arms against the Church, he contends against God's appointment. An enemy of the altar, a rebel against Christ's sacrifice, for the faith faithless, for religion profane, a disobedient servant, an impious son, a hostile brother, despising the bishops, and forsaking God's priests, he dares to set up another altar, to make another prayer with unauthorized words, to profane the truth of the Lord's offering by false sacrifices, and not to know that he who strives against the appointment of God, is punished on account of the daring of his temerity by divine visitation.

18. Thus Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, who endeavoured to claim to themselves the power of sacrificing in opposition to Moses and Aaron the priest, underwent immediate punishment for their attempts. The earth, breaking its fastenings, gaped open into a deep gulf, and the cleft of the receding ground swallowed up the men standing and living. Nor did the anger of the indignant God strike only those who had been the movers (of the sedition); but two hundred and fifty sharers and associates of that madness besides, who had been mingled with them in that boldness, the fire that went out from the Lord consumed with a hasty revenge; doubtless to admonish and show that whatever those wicked men had endeavoured, in order by human will to overthrow God's appointment, had been done in opposition to God. Thus also Uzziah the king—when he bare the censer and violently claimed to himself to sacrifice against God's law, and when Azariah the priest withstood him, would not be obedient and yield—was confounded by the divine indignation, and was polluted upon his forehead by the spot of leprosy: he was marked by an offended Lord in that part of his body where they are signed who deserve well of the Lord. And the sons of Aaron, who placed strange fire upon the altar, which the Lord had not commanded, were at once extinguished in the presence of an avenging Lord.

19. These, doubtless, they imitate and follow, who, despising God's tradition, seek after strange doctrines, and bring in teachings of human appointment, whom the Lord rebukes and reproves in His Gospel, saying, “You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition.” ⁠Mark 7:9⁠ This is a worse crime than that which the lapsed seem to have fallen into, who nevertheless, standing as penitents for their crime, beseech God with full satisfactions. In this case, the Church is sought after and entreated; in that case, the Church is resisted: here it is possible that there has been necessity; there the will is engaged in the wickedness: on the one hand, he who has lapsed has only injured himself; on the other, he who has endeavoured to cause a heresy or a schism has deceived many by drawing them with him. In the former, it is the loss of one soul; in the latter, the risk of many. Certainly the one both understands that he has sinned, and laments and bewails it; the other, puffed up in his heart, and pleasing himself in his very crimes, separates sons from their Mother, entices sheep from their shepherd, disturbs the sacraments of God; and while the lapsed has sinned but once, he sins daily. Finally, the lapsed, who has subsequently attained to martyrdom, may receive the promises of the kingdom; while the other, if he have been slain without the Church, cannot attain to the rewards of the Church.

20. Nor let any one marvel, beloved brethren, that even some of the confessors advance to these lengths, and thence also that some others sin thus wickedly, thus grievously. For neither does confession make a man free from the snares of the devil, nor does it defend a man who is still placed in the world, with a perpetual security from temptations, and dangers, and onsets, and attacks of the world; otherwise we should never see in confessors those subsequent frauds, and fornications, and adulteries, which now with groans and sorrow we witness in some. Whosoever that confessor is, he is not greater, or better, or dearer to God than Solomon, who, although so long as he walked in God's ways, retained that grace which he had received from the Lord, yet after he forsook the Lord's way he lost also then Lord's grace. And therefore it is written, “Hold fast that which you have, lest another take your crown.” ⁠Revelation 3:11⁠ But assuredly the Lord would not threaten that the crown of righteousness might be taken away, were it not that, when righteousness departs, the crown must also depart.

21. Confession is the beginning of glory, not the full desert of the crown; nor does it perfect our praise, but it initiates our dignity; and since it is written, “He that endures to the end, the same shall be saved,” ⁠Matthew 10:22⁠ whatever has been before the end is a step by which we ascend to the summit of salvation, not a terminus wherein the full result of the ascent is already gained. He is a confessor; but after confession his peril is greater, because the adversary is more provoked. He is a confessor; for this cause he ought the more to stand on the side of the Lord's Gospel, since he has by the Gospel attained glory from the Lord. For the Lord says, “To whom much is given, of him much shall be required; and to whom more dignity is ascribed, of him more service is exacted.” ⁠Luke 12:48⁠ Let no one perish by the example of a confessor; let no one learn injustice, let no one learn arrogance, let no one learn treachery, from the manners of a confessor. He is a confessor, let him be lowly and quiet; let him be in his doings modest with discipline, so that he who is called a confessor of Christ may imitate Christ whom he confesses. For since He says, “Whosoever exalts himself shall be abased, and he who humbles himself shall be exalted; ” ⁠Luke 18:14⁠ and since He Himself has been exalted by the Father, because as the Word, and the strength, and the wisdom of God the Father, He humbled Himself upon earth, how can He love arrogance, who even by His own law enjoined upon us humility, and Himself received the highest name from the Father as the reward of His humility? He is a confessor of Christ, but only so if the majesty and dignity of Christ be not afterwards blasphemed by him. Let not the tongue which has confessed Christ be evil-speaking; let it not be turbulent, let it not be heard jarring with reproaches and quarrels, let it not after words of praise, dart forth serpents' venom against the brethren and God's priests. But if one shall have subsequently been blameworthy and obnoxious; if he shall have wasted his confession by evil conversation; if he shall have stained his life by disgraceful foulness; if, finally, forsaking the Church in which he has become a confessor, and severing the concord of unity, he shall have exchanged his first faith for a subsequent unbelief, he may not flatter himself on account of his confession that he is elected to the reward of glory, when from this very fact his deserving of punishment has become the greater
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

Cyprian like Jerome states the church is founded on the chair of the apostle Peter and thus who ever is not in communion with this chair cannot claim to belong to the church of God.

chukwudi44:

Bros the first part you said paul quoted Nemedius,Eusebius and Origen is quite funny since origen and eusebius lived centuries after the death of Paul so how could Paul have quoted them?

i quote:

" I never said Paul quoted
this book. in fact Paul was
recounting the story of what
happened in the past. that Paul
mentioned the names of these men
that we never find in the scriptures
is no reason to conclude that he
was quoting a different book. Even
if he got the knowledge from or
quoted a secular book, that doesnt
make the book an inspired book."

You have still failed to answer my key questions

What is/are the criterion/criteria for saying a religious piece of writing is inspired?

How do we know the anonymous books belong to their acclaimed authours or how do we know there are inspired?

I also quote;

"Inspired writings:

the writings catalogued by jews for the
Hebrew scriptures were inspired.
During the time of the great
synagogue this was done. during Ezra's
time.

For greek scriptures:

Internal evidence gives a hint as to its
authenticity. Again, the early christians
after the apostles do confirm the
writings they viewed as canons at the
time. though contents of it has a large
role to play."

To your last points Do you know the prophets Ahijah,Nathan also wrote books which was mentioned in the bible? Why should a book called the prophecy of ahijah not be inspired?

I quote;

" This books are not inpired writings, not
minding their names. These were not
among the writings catalogued by the
great synagogue. the jews are known
to value their sacred heritage. For
them not to catalogue it means that
God never had the plan to include
them as part of His sacred books. they
will be viewed as history books.
though just few of them could just be
a name of some of the canonical books
we have, but bearing a name different
from what we know them to be today.
[size=15pt]They simply have, the law, the
prophets and psalms.[/size]

OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books."

Mattew quoted from a scripture which is now lost in that quotation "he shall be called a nazarene".

The truth is that idea of sola bible is quite ridiculous as ypu can see even the biblical authours did not practice it.The apostles did not know or use any bible.

Granted the apostles didnt catalogue the NT at the time, but the OT has long been catalogued by the jews.

I quote;

"OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books.

can you answer the bolded question or better still, tell us the prophets used at that time that got lost?

the second bold. are you saying that Jesus and others never used any scripture?

If they were using no bible or scripture at that time, why say that Matthew quoted a lost book? was he quoting what the catholic canonized after his existence?

The bible is just a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourth century.It did not exist prior to the fiourth century shikena

If your point is that the OT and NT has not been assembled together in the first century, you are correct, however, assemblage is not equal to canonization.

Even catholic knows quite well that the OT and NT have been in use before the fourth century. for the OT, all were accepted as canon. before the second century, the NT writings has been in use. apart from the apocryphal writings that start to pop up after the death of the apostles, it now was time for the then xtians to state what they view as canon while the apostles were alive. towards the end of the 2nd ccentury many of these writings were undisputable, only few were debated. so even before the coucel of trent, the writings have been in use as scripture. hey! this doesnt include the OT.

When you say the apostles used no scripture, I wonder wether you mean the compendum of the two. but that the two were not together never meant it wasnt canonised or that it wasnt a scripture/bible.

Hmm, interesting! If anyone says that the apostles did not use scriptures then that is beyond a joke! The apostles used both Old Testament and New Testament scriptures --- as the Bible informs us.

Oh, and there is evidence that the New Testament books were assembled by the late first century and certainly by the second century.

In one single letter, Polycarp alone quotes from several books (some say all 27 books) of the New Testament! How could he have done that if he did not have the New Testament books "assembled" for his use.

In fact, I am now going to do a separate post highlighting some lessons from Polycarp's letter.

Ah, actually I've just got an idea.

After I finish with the post on Polycarp's letter, I am going to do a number of posts using quotes from the "church fathers" and other sources to show their views on Peter, 'The Rock', and that they did not believe in any "pope" and certainly not in a "universal jurisdiction" of any "pope".

Interesting stuff.

[/quote]chukwudi44:

Bros the first part you said paul quoted Nemedius,Eusebius and Origen is quite funny since origen and eusebius lived centuries after the death of Paul so how could Paul have quoted them?


i quote:

" I never said Paul quoted
this book. in fact Paul was
recounting the story of what
happened in the past. that Paul
mentioned the names of these men
that we never find in the scriptures
is no reason to conclude that he
was quoting a different book. Even
if he got the knowledge from or
quoted a secular book, that doesnt
make the book an inspired book."



You have still failed to answer my key questions

What is/are the criterion/criteria for saying a religious piece of writing is inspired?

How do we know the anonymous books belong to their acclaimed authours or how do we know there are inspired?


I also quote;

"Inspired writings:

the writings catalogued by jews for the
Hebrew scriptures were inspired.
During the time of the great
synagogue this was done. during Ezra's
time.

For greek scriptures:

Internal evidence gives a hint as to its
authenticity. Again, the early christians
after the apostles do confirm the
writings they viewed as canons at the
time. though contents of it has a large
role to play."



To your last points Do you know the prophets Ahijah,Nathan also wrote books which was mentioned in the bible? Why should a book called the prophecy of ahijah not be inspired?


I quote;

" This books are not inpired writings, not
minding their names. These were not
among the writings catalogued by the
great synagogue. the jews are known
to value their sacred heritage. For
them not to catalogue it means that
God never had the plan to include
them as part of His sacred books. they
will be viewed as history books.
though just few of them could just be
a name of some of the canonical books
we have, but bearing a name different
from what we know them to be today.
They simply have, the law, the
prophets and psalms.

OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books."



Mattew quoted from a scripture which is now lost in that quotation "he shall be called a nazarene".

The truth is that idea of sola bible is quite ridiculous as ypu can see even the biblical authours did not practice it.The apostles did not know or use any bible.


Granted the apostles didnt catalogue the NT at the time, but the OT has long been catalogued by the jews.

I quote;

"OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books.

can you answer the bolded question or better still, tell us the prophets used at that time that got lost?

the second bold. are you saying that Jesus and others never used any scripture?

If they were using no bible or scripture at that time, why say that Matthew quoted a lost book? was he quoting what the catholic canonized after his existence?



The bible is just a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourth century.It did not exist prior to the fiourth century shikena

When you say the apostles used no scripture, I wonder wether you mean the compendum of the two. but that the two were not together never meant it wasnt canonised or that it wasnt a scripture/bible. [quote]

Bros abeg I take God name beg you "do not accuse me falsely".

I said the apostles did not use any bible.I never said the apostles did not use any scriptures.The words scriptures and bibles are not synonyms and must not be used interchangeably.

The bible is simply a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourt century

[/quote]chukwudi44:

Bros the first part you said paul quoted Nemedius,Eusebius and Origen is quite funny since origen and eusebius lived centuries after the death of Paul so how could Paul have quoted them?


i quote:

" I never said Paul quoted
this book. in fact Paul was
recounting the story of what
happened in the past. that Paul
mentioned the names of these men
that we never find in the scriptures
is no reason to conclude that he
was quoting a different book. Even
if he got the knowledge from or
quoted a secular book, that doesnt
make the book an inspired book."



You have still failed to answer my key questions

What is/are the criterion/criteria for saying a religious piece of writing is inspired?

How do we know the anonymous books belong to their acclaimed authours or how do we know there are inspired?


I also quote;

"Inspired writings:

the writings catalogued by jews for the
Hebrew scriptures were inspired.
During the time of the great
synagogue this was done. during Ezra's
time.

For greek scriptures:

Internal evidence gives a hint as to its
authenticity. Again, the early christians
after the apostles do confirm the
writings they viewed as canons at the
time. though contents of it has a large
role to play."



To your last points Do you know the prophets Ahijah,Nathan also wrote books which was mentioned in the bible? Why should a book called the prophecy of ahijah not be inspired?


I quote;

" This books are not inpired writings, not
minding their names. These were not
among the writings catalogued by the
great synagogue. the jews are known
to value their sacred heritage. For
them not to catalogue it means that
God never had the plan to include
them as part of His sacred books. they
will be viewed as history books.
though just few of them could just be
a name of some of the canonical books
we have, but bearing a name different
from what we know them to be today.
They simply have, the law, the
prophets and psalms.

OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books."



Mattew quoted from a scripture which is now lost in that quotation "he shall be called a nazarene".

The truth is that idea of sola bible is quite ridiculous as ypu can see even the biblical authours did not practice it.The apostles did not know or use any bible.


Granted the apostles didnt catalogue the NT at the time, but the OT has long been catalogued by the jews.

I quote;

"OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books.

can you answer the bolded question or better still, tell us the prophets used at that time that got lost?

the second bold. are you saying that Jesus and others never used any scripture?

If they were using no bible or scripture at that time, why say that Matthew quoted a lost book? was he quoting what the catholic canonized after his existence?



The bible is just a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourth century.It did not exist prior to the fiourth century shikena

When you say the apostles used no scripture, I wonder wether you mean the compendum of the two. but that the two were not together never meant it wasnt canonised or that it wasnt a scripture/bible. [quote]

Bros abeg I take God name beg you "do not accuse me falsely".

I said the apostles did not use any bible.I never said the apostles did not use any scriptures.The words scriptures and bibles are not synonyms and must not be used interchangeably.

The bible is simply a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourt century

Before getting to Polycarp's letter and its lessons, a few quick points:

- If the apostles did not know/use "the Bible", the apostles did NOT know of anything called "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church

- The apostles did NOT know of anyone called or titled "pope" or any monstrosity such as the "papacy".

- Roman Catholics who claim that they "canonised" the Bible in the fourth century are still lying.

- Here an example of Roman Catholics admitting that they did not finalise their own Bible till as late as the 16th century.

From one I made earlier (taken from the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia) https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible#18265482

"The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." {Note the "Tridentine Council" took place from AD 1546 onwards. }

[/quote]chukwudi44:

Bros the first part you said paul quoted Nemedius,Eusebius and Origen is quite funny since origen and eusebius lived centuries after the death of Paul so how could Paul have quoted them?


i quote:

" I never said Paul quoted
this book. in fact Paul was
recounting the story of what
happened in the past. that Paul
mentioned the names of these men
that we never find in the scriptures
is no reason to conclude that he
was quoting a different book. Even
if he got the knowledge from or
quoted a secular book, that doesnt
make the book an inspired book."



You have still failed to answer my key questions

What is/are the criterion/criteria for saying a religious piece of writing is inspired?

How do we know the anonymous books belong to their acclaimed authours or how do we know there are inspired?


I also quote;

"Inspired writings:

the writings catalogued by jews for the
Hebrew scriptures were inspired.
During the time of the great
synagogue this was done. during Ezra's
time.

For greek scriptures:

Internal evidence gives a hint as to its
authenticity. Again, the early christians
after the apostles do confirm the
writings they viewed as canons at the
time. though contents of it has a large
role to play."



To your last points Do you know the prophets Ahijah,Nathan also wrote books which was mentioned in the bible? Why should a book called the prophecy of ahijah not be inspired?


I quote;

" This books are not inpired writings, not
minding their names. These were not
among the writings catalogued by the
great synagogue. the jews are known
to value their sacred heritage. For
them not to catalogue it means that
God never had the plan to include
them as part of His sacred books. they
will be viewed as history books.
though just few of them could just be
a name of some of the canonical books
we have, but bearing a name different
from what we know them to be today.
They simply have, the law, the
prophets and psalms.

OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books."



Mattew quoted from a scripture which is now lost in that quotation "he shall be called a nazarene".

The truth is that idea of sola bible is quite ridiculous as ypu can see even the biblical authours did not practice it.The apostles did not know or use any bible.


Granted the apostles didnt catalogue the NT at the time, but the OT has long been catalogued by the jews.

I quote;

"OR can you name another books of the
prophets among the jewish catalogue
that word of Matthew could be found
in? this is the issue we are discussing
here, i think. Of course you also know
that Jesus and the apostles used these
jewish list of inspired books.

can you answer the bolded question or better still, tell us the prophets used at that time that got lost?

the second bold. are you saying that Jesus and others never used any scripture?

If they were using no bible or scripture at that time, why say that Matthew quoted a lost book? was he quoting what the catholic canonized after his existence?



The bible is just a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourth century.It did not exist prior to the fiourth century shikena

When you say the apostles used no scripture, I wonder wether you mean the compendum of the two. but that the two were not together never meant it wasnt canonised or that it wasnt a scripture/bible. [quote]

Bros abeg I take God name beg you "do not accuse me falsely".

I said the apostles did not use any bible.I never said the apostles did not use any scriptures.The words scriptures and bibles are not synonyms and must not be used interchangeably.

The bible is simply a collection of scriptures canonised by the catholic church in the fourt century

- If the apostles did not know/use "the Bible", the apostles did NOT know of anything called "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church

- The apostles did NOT know of anyone called or titled "pope" or any monstrosity such as the "papacy".

- Roman Catholics who claim that they "canonised" the Bible in the fourth century are still lying.

- Here an example of Roman Catholics admitting that they did not finalise their own Bible till as late as the 16th century.

From one I made earlier (taken from the Roman Catholic Encyclopaedia) https://www.nairaland.com/1447015/catholic-church-compiled-bible#18265482

"The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council." {Note the "Tridentine Council" took place from AD 1546 onwards. }

A propos Polycarp, a little titbit for now.

Polycarp is certainly known to have quoted 18 books of the New testament (I will provide evidence later); some even say he quoted all 27.

Anyway, Polycarp who knew the New Testament well said to the Philippians that they were well trained in the "sacred writings"!

"For I am persuaded that ye are well trained in the sacred writings, and nothing is hidden from you."

Is it not reasonable to conclude that the Philippians too had books of the New Testament as well as the Old of course?

What is more, the Philippians evidently had the apostle Paul's epistle (written to them) and is that not part of what Polycarp called "sacred writings" that he said the Philippians were well trained in?

[/quote]" I never said Paul quoted
this book. in fact Paul was
recounting the story of what
happened in the past. that Paul
mentioned the names of these men
that we never find in the scriptures
is no reason to conclude that he
was quoting a different book. Even
if he got the knowledge from or
quoted a secular book, that doesnt
make the book an inspired book." [quote]

Bros you are the one calling it a secular source without any proof whatsorever.Even if I were to assume it is a secular source like you claim,the mere fact that. Paul would cite a secular source to buttress his scriptural teachings makes nonsense of your sola bible doctrine.Once again the doctrine of sola bible is disgraced