Ihedinobi:

I see. I agree with that. I find it funny that atheists who do not know the Lord take it upon themselves to educate His children on His Character.

Anyhow, I agree that we should avoid strife. I don't know if we can see how the principle that governed Jesus's cleansing of the Temple and His "unprovoked" "rude" utterances against the Sanhedrin relates to that attitude though.

The Bible teaches us that God is both severe and gentle. I think that His children are evidenced by similarity of behavior to Him. This is one reason the Scriptures ask, "who shall bring a charge against God's elect?" Anyone who accuses a child of God accuses God Himself. Within the Family, accusations are unknown. Rather is there discernment, judgment, the separating between that which is Christ and that which is not and the strengthening of the former to the detriment of the latter.

Outside the Family, everything is already condemned and the witness of the Christian is to declare that this is so, but that in Christ God has provided a way of escape. I think it is easy then to see why someone who would not accept God's Right to Rule would accuse such preachers of arrogance.

you guy are diverting the thread, this thread is not abt atheist, it is about theist especially xtian, the canon of scripture, the primacy of rome and the catholic church. You guy have refused to answer d questions u were asked instead u are talking about atheist.

Ubenedictus: you guy are diverting the thread, this thread is not abt atheist, it is about theist especially xtian, the canon of scripture, the primacy of rome and the catholic church. You guy have refused to answer d questions u were asked instead u are talking about atheist.

Are you surprised... They always try to dodge away from fact/truth... My own question to enigma is still unanswered and he only turned back to accuse me of lying.

Rich4god:
Are you surprised... They always try to dodge away from fact/truth... My own question to enigma is still unanswered and he only turned back to accuse me of lying.

lol, my protestant brothers have ran away from the discussion. Since they have decided to run away i think it would be wise to conclude that with so much proof the catholics here have done well to prove the primacy of d roman see, the work of d catholic church in the writting, compilation, canonisation and preservation of scripture. Let he who have eyes see, let him wu have ears hear.
Peace

Various discussions on other threads suggest that it is necessary to make a brief comment on one of the points that this thread originally intended to explain but which was left out in view of how things turned out.

The point is about the fact that there really isn't just one canon of the Bible as many think and as some like to argue wrongly.

Technically, as reflected in the opening posts, different Christian groups actually have their own particular canons though they are all very very similar in that the corpus i.e the bulk of books are usually the same with differences only about whether to include or exclude a very small number of books which could be just one or two or the most well known 7 deutero-canonical (or apocryphal) books that the Roman Catholics retain.

Interestingly, contrary to popular thought the Roman Catholic canon was only finalised in the 16th century (Canon of Trent) which further undermines the false/erroneous claim that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. The credit for "compilation" and for the earliest canons go to the "church fathers" and others ------ most of whom were not Roman Catholics.

This summary below from (and the table that follows it in) Wikipedia gives an idea of the point being made with this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

Canons of various Christian traditions

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[37] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other traditions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons.

Now mr enigma has resurrected a dead thread

Enigma: Various discussions on other threads suggest that it is necessary to make a brief comment on one of the points that this thread originally intended to explain but which was left out in view of how things turned out.

The point is about the fact that there really isn't just one canon of the bible as many think and as some like to argue wrongly.

no one claim there is only one canon!!! But i have claim with very clear proof that the canon accepted by the early church councils is ONE and that the said canon is used by the catholic church.

Technically, as reflected in the opening posts, different Christian groups actually have their own particular canons though they are all very very similar in that the corpus i.e the bulk of books are usually the same with differences only about whether to include or exclude a very small number of books which could be just one or two or the most well known 7 deutero-canonical (or apocryphal) books that the Roman catholics retain.

Interestingly, contrary to popular thought the Roman Catholic canon was only finalised in the 16th century (Canon of Trent) which further undermines the false/erroneous claim that the Roman catholic Church "compiled" the Bible.

the canon was officially closed at trent, nothing was added by trent. So yeah it seem the canon used by d early christain council is the catholic canon

The credit for "compilation" and for the earliest canons go to the "church fathers" and others ------ most of whom were not Roman Catholics.

the problem is dat u have created a false dichotomy, none of the "church fathers" identified themselves as protestants! They as called themselves catholics! And d last time i checked ignatius made it clear dat the church of rome "presided in love over the entire church" so to claim they weren't catholic is a lie u wish to tell yourself.

This summary below from (and the table that follows it in) Wikipedia gives an idea of the point being made with this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Canons_of_various_Christian_traditions

and at the end the conclusion is: catholic bishops in catholic councils compiled scriptures and yet you claim that the scriptures weren't compiled by the catholic church.
It seems u pulled d mat from beneath thy feet.

Humble pie time!

I have edited two posts on the first page because on reading this evening, I realise that I was wrong on a specific point of history. Those posts are here https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church#12070216 and also https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church#12071026

Mercifully, that error has only limited effect in respect of those specific posts in that it remains correct that the Synods of Hippo and Carthage were not a Roman Catholic affair.

Above all, the error on the narrow historical point did not detract at all from the central argument made throughout this thread.

My apologies.