Enigma:
I'm afraid I haven't said anything different even though I agree that my use of "finalised" did make a 'subtle' "refinement".

a refinement? What so said earlier is substantially different from your later assertion. Did trent set d canon? NO, Your "refinement" is a readjustment.

Yes there was a Rome Council; ah and now you "subtly" acknowledge that the claims about a canon at that council might be false and based on a forgery! Though you want to say it "may" have been a catalog of what happened. lol

i never argued to d contrary, as i said earlier i didnt base my thoughts of d document u seem to be refering to, though it stands to reason that d document may actually as been a catalog written from earlier accounts of d council which we no longer have.

As for Jerome's commission, let me quote from a Roman Catholic source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

and your source doesn't say he was commissioned to revise the gospels alone, so your claim that he was commissioned to revise only the gospel still remains unfounded.

Jerome translated many books ---- including books that he did not consider to be "canonical". That is the whole point! Look, some editions of the Vulgate even include a/the supposed "Epistle to the Laodiceans"!

i'm curious if you know any scholar that claims Jerome translated the epistle to the laodiceans. This my dear was and addition and had nothing to do with Jerome.
On the issue of jerome and d deuterocanon, we at d early stages witness that he called them aprocrypha but he change that view, he later in his writting clearly state that they are scripture. To claim that Jerome translated those book and considered the not scriptures is to call Jerome an hypocrite. According to Jerome he changed his former views and translated the deutero because of "the judgement of the churches". This brings me back to my point that Jerome translated and accept d deutero because d church had accepted them.

Jerome didnt translate what he believe to be to be non canonical, instead he accepted the decision of d church as regards the canon.

We will have to agree to disagree. In my view the Roman Catholics are trying to claim and appropriate the African synods which were regional; some of us refuse to be fooled by that.

the text of d council of carthage is there for all to see! The representatives of d pope was present at the council and d pope was asked to ractify it. This is not a claim, it is there in d very text of d council.

[quote]Again, you are making a false accusation; I never said you brought up the Decretum Gelasianum!

[quote]Agh look at you: the Trent Canon has Ezra and Nehemiah as representing its books of Esdras while the followers of the Septuagint like Augustine at the time of the synod of Hippo had an extra book of Esdras. Don't tell me you didn't know that?[quote] hehehe, this is an untrue claim made by william webster and white, it has no basis.

Ah cool, Ube' let's play some more!

Ubenedictus: a refinement? What so said earlier is substantially different from your later assertion. Did trent set d canon? NO, Your "refinement" is a readjustment.

No, my stance did not change, What I conceded was that my use of "finalised" amounted to a "refinement". However, I stand by the point that the Roman Catholics did not set a canon at a council until the Council of Trent.

And here again are Roman Catholic sources on that point:

From http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

On April 8, 1546, two Biblical Decrees were solemnly promulgated by the Tridentine {i.e. Trent Council} Fathers. The first, called "Sacrosancta," declares the Catholic rule of faith in regard to the Sacred Scriptures by repeating the value of divine tradition, defining the inspiration of the Bible, and listing officially the books of the Canon. Then for the first time these books were formally canonized. This first Decree is a formal dogmatic definition of the Church.

Then from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The Council of Florence (1442)

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.

The Council of Trent's definition of the canon (1546)

. . . the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as "sacred and canonical" all the books of the Old and New Testaments "with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition". During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. . . .

I think I'll deal with your other points in a following post.

@ubenedictus

I can't even believe you are having this discussion.

The Canon approved by the third Synod of Carthage (397 CE)

The first council that accepted the present New Testament canon was the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 CE); however, the acts of the council are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the third Synod of Carthage.

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: [then follows a list of Old Testament books]. The [books of the] New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews; one Epistle; of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

Note that Hebrews is listed separately from the other 13 epistles.

According to Zahn, in 419 another Synod held at Carthage gave the concluding words in the following form:

... Fourteen Epistles of Paul ..... the Revelation of John, one book. Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Ubenedictus: . . .
and your source doesn't say he was commissioned to revise the gospels alone, so your claim that he was commissioned to revise only the gospel still remains unfounded.

I don't think you read and understood either me or that Roman Catholic author well.

Ubenedictus: i'm curious if you know any scholar that claims Jerome translated the epistle to the laodiceans. This my dear was and addition and had nothing to do with Jerome.

You fell right into a trap! lol

You claim Jerome had a "canon" or must have had a "canon" before he began to translate (initially suggesting it was from Damasus before acknowledging the forgery I pointed out). Now, you acknowledge that not everything in The Vulgate was done by Jerome.

Of course, scholars tell us that Jerome definitely translated the gospels and some books of the New Testament; but then they say that it is not proven that he translated all the books of the New Testament found in editions of The Vulgate. Look, even at the Council of Trent they struggled to conclude which edition of The Vulgate to accept!

If that is the case where is the "canon" to be found in Jerome's own Vulgate (with its incompleteness suo motu) or in the instructions from Damasus?

Again, according to a Roman Catholic source http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

It has not yet been definitely established whether Jerome also revised the other books of the New Testament. The majority of scholars are inclined to favor such a revision.

The last sentence probably needs clarification on whether it refers to all other NT books. And if you want another summary on parts of the Jerome Vulgate, see here (which points to the presence/inclusion of the 'Epistle to the Laodiceans' in 'The Vulgate') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Authorship

Ubenedictus: On the issue of jerome and d deuterocanon, we at d early stages witness that he called them aprocrypha but he change that view, he later in his writting clearly state that they are scripture. To claim that Jerome translated those book and considered the not scriptures is to call Jerome an hypocrite. According to Jerome he changed his former views and translated the deutero because of "the judgement of the churches". This brings me back to my point that Jerome translated and accept d deutero because d church had accepted them.

Jerome didnt translate what he believe to be to be non canonical, instead he accepted the decision of d church as regards the canon.

Well, here is what a Roman Catholic source, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, says:

St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous "Prologus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase.

But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way.

Ubenedictus: the text of d council of carthage is there for all to see! The representatives of d pope was present at the council and d pope was asked to ractify it. This is not a claim, it is there in d very text of d council.

Na so! The same people of Carthage who rejected the authority of Rome and its "popes" on a number of occasions (both before and after their synods setting out their biblical lists) -- including that of "pope" Stephen in c. 256 under Cyprian and that of "pope" Celestine in the early 5th century. The suggestion is that in the spirit of the oneness of the Church in those days they thought "the Church beyond the sea" could be consulted about the selection they had made.

hehehe, this is an untrue claim made by william webster and white, it has no basis.

Na so! And does the Roman Catholic Bible/Canon include Psalm 151?

And further on that Council of Carthage and the claim of "ratification" by Rome

From http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

However, the sentence "Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon" cannot belong to either of these councils. Westcott writes:

The third Council of Carthage was held in the year 397 A.D. in the pontificate of Siricus; and Boniface did not succeed to the Roman chair till the year 418 A.D.; so that the allusion to him is at first sight perplexing. Yet this anachronism admits of a reasonable solution. In the year 419 A.D., after the confirmation of Boniface in the Roman epsicopate, the Canons of the African Church were collected and formed into one code. In the process of such a revision it was perfectly natural that some reference should be made to foreign churches on such a subject as the contents of Scripture, which were fixed by usage rather than by law. The marginal note which directed the inquiry was suffered to remain, probably because the plan was never carried out; and that which stood in the text of the general code was afterwards transferred to the text of the original Synod." 8

In connection with this, it has been observed that at least one manuscript indicates that the original wording of the sentence was “De confirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia consulatur” (“For the confirmation of this canon the church across the sea shall be consulted”). This is the reading adopted by Hefele for his reconstruction of the council of Hippo, and Westcott mentions it in a note. 9 More recent authors tend to present the canon of the third council of Carthage with this emendation. 10

Ubenedictus: d arian would have told u they live a christ-like life by grace, dat doesnt make their teaching any better.
the bitter truth is i'm not defined by what they think about me i'm defined by what God thinks and my accesment of my believes with a good conscience.
i didnt say protestanism even though i have a good reason to say so, luther himself after been condemned went on the condemn d catholic church as against christ. I also know protestant do also thinks so, oh! Check frosbels and ijawkids posts.
i thought u said you read d link chukwudi provided, didnt d link reveal d teachings? Arianism say Christ is a created being as witness say Jesus is an angel. This is just one point among many.

ofcourse I read it. The problem is that I don't know the doctrines of the jehovah witnessess.

The text of the fourth council of carthage in 419CE under the pontificate of pope Boniface

Fourth Council of Carthage (A. D. 419)

CANON XXIV.

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.

ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua the Son of Nun

The Judges

Ruth

The Kings (4 books)

The Chronicles (2 books)

Job

The Psalter

The Five books of Solomon

The Twelve Books of the Prophets

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Ezechiel

Daniel

Tobit

Judith

Esther

Ezra (2 books)

Macchabees (2 books)

The New Testament:

The Gospels (4 books)

The Acts of the Apostles (1 book)

The Epistles of Paul (14)

The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2)

The Epistles of John the Apostle (3)

The Epistles of James the Apostle (1)

The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1)

The Revelation of John (1 book)

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Ubenedictus: arianism was a heresy, i consider heresy unchristian but how does that affect the fact that arians had adherrent who claimed to posses d "pure christain doctrine"? I dont understan what u are saying.

what is difficult to figure out here. Anybody can lay claim to anything, but the determinant factor is evident once the claim is called to action.
You just labelled arainism unchristain, I wonder why you are trying to justify them in the christain community. How a thing like you are trying to do works, I don't know.

Ubenedictus: are u asking if images of Jesus are found in nature?

Not actually. What I am asking is if images as used by the catholic church, just like the books of the bible, are inspired potraits of God?

italo: @ Reyginus, are you following? lol

I am.

Enigma:
Let me ask you this: did "Pope Gregory I accept the Apocrypha as "canonical"?

i would love to see where this is leading.

Look, the scholarship reveals that Origen started out with quite a large collection including e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas before eventually paring down what he believed to be canonical to essentially the 27 books of the modern New Testament. You may disagree; but that is what is in the literature.

what literature?? The above is a scholarly guess! Origen travelled alot and may have heard about many of d books in today's canon but there is nothing in origens writtings that suggest he had them all.

Enigma: He he he indeed , ube; because on this one truthislight is actually right!

Meanwhile, we no dey play again? Because I still get plenty yarn!

Let me give you this bit about Origen. Note that I am quoting from a Roman Catholic source!

From http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Canon_of_the_Old_Testament

and how does this say origen had all d books in our present bible? It only talks about d already know old tes.

Enigma: OK, so that last post was a tease --- since it referred to Origen on the Old Testament. Here now is one on Origen and the New Testament.

Note again that I am quoting from a Roman Catholic source ---- this time the modern version of the one above.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

again i must ask, how does this say origen had all d books?

Enigma: Ah cool, Ube' let's play some more!

i guess u've turned it into a play.

No, my stance did not change, What I conceded was that my use of "finalised" amounted to a "refinement". However, I stand by the point that the Roman Catholics did not set a canon at a council until the Council of Trent.
And here again are Roman Catholic sources on that point:

From http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470



Then from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

hahahaha, it seem u skipped d 2nd link u quoted or u just didnt understand it. That link say d fathers of trent, didn't discuss
d books in question as they believe they were virtually canonised. They simply took to d decisions of d previous councils and ancient traditions. That canon already existed and was already in use it was already set, what trent did was to formally canonise what was already virtually canonised. So what do you mean that d canon was not set. For over 1000yrs before trent d catholic church has been using dat very same canon and u claim it wasn't "set"? What are u talking about?

chukwudi44: @ubenedictus

I can't even believe you are having this discussion.

oga as d matter tire u na so e tire me, i can only hope to correct d misinformation enigma seems to be speading.

E b like say ur head dey weave dada

Enigma:
I don't think you read and understood either me or that Roman Catholic author well.

you may want to tell me how i misunderstood,

You fell right into a trap! lol
You claim Jerome had a "canon" or must have had a "canon" before he began to translate (initially suggesting it was from Damasus before acknowledging the forgery I pointed out). Now, you acknowledge that not everything in The Vulgate was done by Jerome.
Of course, scholars tell us that Jerome definitely translated the gospels and some books of the New Testament; but then they say that it is not proven that he translated all the books of the New Testament found in editions of The Vulgate. Look, even at the Council of Trent they struggled to conclude which edition of The Vulgate to accept!
If that is the case where is the "canon" to be found in Jerome's own Vulgate (with its incompleteness suo motu) or in the instructions from Damasus?
Again, according to a Roman Catholic source http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470
The last sentence probably needs clarification on whether it refers to all other NT books. And if you want another summary on parts of the Jerome Vulgate, see here (which points to the presence/inclusion of the 'Epistle to the Laodiceans' in 'The Vulgate') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Authorship
Well, here is what a Roman Catholic source, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, says:

actually my dear i dont seem to get you arguement. I did make mention that the commissioning of Jerome for the vulgate allows me to reasonably infer that there was a canon, i never claimed in translated books he considered not scripture, you did! So my dear what is the long post about! Jerome may or may have not revise d whole new tes and so? But those he did revise and publish gives us and idea of the canon he worked with and interestingly Jerome himself said that he translated those books "according to the judgement of the churches" this goes on to prove my point that he had a canon. The above has no business with my point.

Na so! The same people of Carthage who rejected the authority of Rome and its "popes" on a number of occasions (both before and after their synods setting out their biblical lists) -- including that of "pope" Stephen in c. 256 under Cyprian and that of "pope" Celestine in the early 5th century. The suggestion is that in the spirit of the oneness of the Church in those days they thought "the Church beyond the sea" could be consulted about the selection they had made.

that isn't what the council text said! The text asked that their resolutions be confirmed.
Chukwudi just pasted d part of d text.

Na so! And does the Roman Catholic Bible/Canon include Psalm 151?

yeah it does depending on d number adopted.

Enigma: And further on that Council of Carthage and the claim of "ratification" by Rome

From http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

already explained by chukwudi

Reyginus: ofcourse I read it. The problem is that I don't know the doctrines of the jehovah witnessess.

ijawkid would be happy to enlighten you.
They say christ is a created being, an angel, actually they said jesus is angel michael. He isn't God.

Reyginus: what is difficult to figure out here. Anybody can lay claim to anything, but the determinant factor is evident once the claim is called to action.
You just labelled arainism unchristain, I wonder why you are trying to justify them in the christain community. How a thing like you are trying to do works, I don't know.

read what i said not what u think i said, i said i consider heresy unchristian! I have a long list of heresy including protestanism. Yet all the adherent of heresy all claimed to be xtians and no one was particularly anxious to remove d title from them.

Reyginus: Not actually. What I am asking is if images as used by the catholic church, just like the books of the bible, are inspired potraits of God?

interesting! I must ask you, is Jesus a mythical figure? Does he exist as an idea of faith alone?
My dear, d trinity is an idea of faith for which i may need inspiration, but d figure of jesus was seen, he lived on earth, his figure was put in portraits by the early christians. I dont need an inspiration to draw my grand mum, i drew her from memory, and if this my drawing still exist to my 20th generation, then d portriat can still be reproduced. My 20th generation don't need and inspiration they'll simply copy a copy of my drawings.

Ubenedictus: ijawkid would be happy to enlighten you.
They say christ is a created being, an angel, actually they said jesus is angel michael. He isn't God.

Wow! Is that all?

Ubenedictus: read what i said not what u think i said, i said i consider heresy unchristian! I have a long list of heresy including protestanism. Yet all the adherent of heresy all claimed to be xtians and no one was particularly anxious to remove d title from them.

What is this about heresy. Who determines what is heresy and, what defines it?

Ubenedictus: interesting! I must ask you, is Jesus a mythical figure? Does he exist as an idea of faith alone?
My dear, d trinity is an idea of faith for which i may need inspiration, but d figure of jesus was seen, he lived on earth, his figure was put in portraits by the early christians. I dont need an inspiration to draw my grand mum, i drew her from memory, and if this my drawing still exist to my 20th generation, then d portriat can still be reproduced. My 20th generation don't need and inspiration they'll simply copy a copy of my drawings.

Interesting. If you observed, I never made mention of the trinity as a problem in this introspection. I've got no problem with it. There is no reason for the lecture.
Let me focus on the grand mum analogy.
If I have a potrait of my grandmum, the only purpose it serves me is easy recall. Once I glance at the picture, the highest I expect to get is a psychological, physical and emotional homeostasic/inhomeostatic balance.
Any expectation of an elevation to the spiritual horizon is like chasing the wind. To venerate it, will only seem to be a normal physical exercise.
The same thing for the images we're talking about here.
That it is now a necessity for worship, can only amount to two options.
One. The images possess power to transform a soul to the other dimension. It is either this is a lie or their is another spirit, not from God in the image.
Two. That the image is there to spice the worship.
Any way you look at it, the implication is that this images relegate the power of God to the trashcan. We don't need a potrait of christ to draw close to God. What we need is the word of God in our spirit.

Its deceptive to state that there had always been one single Church and a single voice/doctrine prior to and at the Council of Niaecea. Therefore saying the "Church" compiled the bible is equally deceptive.

Kay 17: Its deceptive to state that there had always been one single Church and a single voice/doctrine prior to and at the Council of Niaecea. Therefore saying the "Church" compiled the bible is equally deceptive.

Drive it home please.

Kay 17: Its deceptive to state that there had always been one single Church and a single voice/doctrine prior to and at the Council of Niaecea. Therefore saying the "Church" compiled the bible is equally deceptive.

So how many "churches" did Christ found? One million?

How many doctrines did Christ give us? One million?

Who compiled the Bible?

When was the Bible compiled?

Reyginus: Drive it home please.

Help Kay drive home the answer, please.

I am saying that at the time of the Council of Niacaea, there were many churches/denominations with their diverse doctrines alongside the Catholic Church.

Hence its illusory to claim the entire "body of Christ" compiled the bible whereas it was one denomination doing so.

^^^And you are saying it ---- out of sheer ignorance.

Kay 17: I am saying that at the time of the Council of Niacaea, there were many churches/denominations with their diverse doctrines alongside the Catholic Church.

Hence its illusory to claim the entire "body of Christ" compiled the bible whereas it was one denomination doing so.

Fafafa fowl!!! The councils that canonised the bible are listed below

The council of Rome 382

Synod of hippo 393

Council of carthage 397

Council of carthage 419

All the people involved in these church councils were catholics and catholics alone.

The first major breakaway in catholicism occured -n 451CE @ the council of chalcedon 451CE when the churches of egypt,ethiopia and armenia broke away from the catholic church.The second major schism was in 1054 when the eastern churches broke away.

Reyginus: What is this about heresy. Who determines what is heresy and, what defines it?

the church does.