Richieboyn:

YES. It is NOT the final authority. We had started exsisting ever before we compiled the Bible. God was speaking to us then, He still does so now...

and what is one of those things God still tells u?...

ijawkid: all this run around is just for d Catholics to justify why they worship dead meats and graven images ......

if not iI see no reason why one would neglect d scriptures and then cling on to traditions...pagan traditions for that matter...

U see no reason? Good. We see many reasons. Now will you just shut up and walk out?

Richieboyn:

YES. It is NOT the final authority. We had started exsisting ever before we compiled the Bible. God was speaking to us then, He still does so now...

Instead of cutting and joining points when it suits you, indulge fully.
Does the bible contain the word of God or not?

Ihedinobi: ^^ Well, if the Bible is Scripture, it's still final authority along with tradition, according to your argument, isn't it?

ok, u've gat an handle on it. I guess d right arguement is "the bible is not the 'sole' authority"

Reyginus: Instead of cutting and joining points when it suits you, indulge fully.
Does the bible contain the word of God or not?

Yes it does.

Richieboyn:

Yes it does.

Thank you. For your own good read Post 638.

Reyginus: Thank you. For your own good read Post 638.

datz my post. Av read it and I still maintain my stance. Post 638 doesn't imply that the Bible doesn't contain the word of God. Be smart!

Richieboyn:

datz my post. Av read it and I still maintain my stance. Post 638 doesn't imply that the Bible doesn't contain the word of God. Be smart!

Lol. He's angry, for what I don't know.

Richieboyn:

YES. It is NOT the final authority. We had started exsisting ever before we compiled the Bible. God was speaking to us then, He still does so now...

@ Reyginus, this post, in no way says that the Bible does not contain the word of God.

Really...be smart.

italo:

@ Reyginus, this post, in no way says that the Bible does not contain the word of God.

Really...be smart.

italo, before coming up to any conclusion, you should have followed the discourse from the basis.
I wish I'm on pc.
This was how it went.
It began with his statement on what the final authority is. According to him, following ubenedictus argument, the word of God is the final authority which came to us through scripture and tradition. I posited that since the bible does contain the word of God, the scriptures and tradition, it is the final authority. He replied no, that it is not. I inquired if the bible is the word, he replied yes. That's the contradiction I've been trying to understand.
The bible cannot contain the word of God as ubenedictus said, 'the scriptures and traditions' and yet, not the final authority. Do you how that is possible?

Reyginus: italo, before coming up to any conclusion, you should have followed the discourse from the basis.
I wish I'm on pc.
This was how it went.
It began with his statement on what the final authority is. According to him, following ubenedictus argument, the word of God is the final authority which came to us through scripture and tradition. I posited that since the bible does contain the word of God, the scriptures and tradition, it is the final authority. He replied no, that it is not. I inquired if the bible is the word, he replied yes. That's the contradiction I've been trying to understand.
The bible cannot contain the word of God as ubenedictus said, 'the scriptures and traditions' and yet, not the final authority. Do you how that is possible?

The Bible itself is only a product of Sacred (Church) Tradition. Nowhere does Sacred Scripture mention it...or that anything ;like it should be made or compiled.

God's word comes to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both are interpreted to us by the Church.

How then can the Bible which only came about in the 4th century be the final authority?

What then, was the final authority in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries?

.

We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

Enigma: We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

Pls point any Christian authority (Church Fathers or Christian writers) in such periods that mentioned the Bible.

Kay 17:

Pls point any Christian authority (Church Fathers or Christian writers) in such periods that mentioned the Bible.

Question 1: what do you mean by "the Bible"?

NB Bear in mind our recent discussions on that matter.

Enigma: We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

So when this Bible of yours come about and who were these "christians" that saw to it?

italo:

The Bible itself is only a product of Sacred (Church) Tradition. Nowhere does Sacred Scripture mention it...or that anything ;like it should be made or compiled.

God's word comes to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both are interpreted to us by the Church.

How then can the Bible which only came about in the 4th century be the final authority?

What then, was the final authority in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries?

My friend, the contents of the bible, by that I mean the books, have been in existence before the compilation. I don't know if you understand that.

Reyginus: My friend, the contents of the bible, by that I mean the books, have been in existence before the compilation. I don't know if you understand that.

Well over 18 gospels and 100 epistles were written so how come you are not quoting other books as scriptures

Enigma:

Question 1: what do you mean by "the Bible"?

NB Bear in mind our recent discussions on that matter.

This time I will give you the latitude to say your mind on what you believe a Bible is.

^^^ I already gave you one definition of the Bible or a Bible as you seem to be making a modification. Is that modification accidental or due to the U-turn you had to make when you accepted you had a faulty understanding of what "the Bible" means?

Anyway, here is that definition I pointed out to you: for the third time on this thread, alas!


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books" ) is a canonical collection of texts considered sacred in Judaism or Christianity. Different religious groups include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. Christian Bibles range from the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon to the eighty-one books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church canon.

If (a) you digest that definition carefully and (b) you try and mug up properly on the history of the "compilation" of the Bible, you will learn that it is false to say that the Bible was not "compiled" till the 4th century. We have evidence of use of various books of the Bible by early Christians some 200-300 odd years before the 4th century. Historians tell us that Origen was probably using or familiar with all 27 books that make up the modern/western New Testament in the early 3rd century.

Kay17, please go and study these things carefully then come back to assist in the arduous task of combating the spread of falsehood by different people with various agenda or agendaS to use the lazy English pluralisation.

Enigma: ^^^ I already gave you one definition of the Bible or a Bible as you seem to be making a modification. Is that modification accidental or due to the U-turn you had to make when you accepted you had a faulty understanding of what "the Bible" means?

Anyway, here is that definition I pointed out to you: for the third time on this thread, alas!


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible



If (a) you digest that definition carefully and (b) you try and mug up properly on the history of the "compilation" of the Bible, you will learn that it is false to say that the Bible was not "compiled" till the 4th century. We have evidence of use of various books of the Bible by early Christians some 200-300 odd years before the 4th century. Historians tell us that Origen was probably using or familiar with all 27 books that make up the modern/western New Testament in the early 3rd century.

Kay17, please go and study these things carefully then come back to assist in the arduous task of combating the spread of falsehood by different people with various agenda or agendaS to use the lazy English pluralisation.

Ok, I will concede to your definition and leave that issue for another time.

Given your definition, can you point out any

canonical collection of sacred texts

used by the Christians before the 4th century. Note that a individual texts themselves don't count as a collection, rather a number of individual texts adopted together

I wouldn't mind historical references too.

--- In relation to the Bible what do you think is meant by "a canonical collection of sacred texts"?

--- Or, what do you understand by "the canon of the Bible"?




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

Kay 17:

Ok, I will concede to your definition and leave that issue for another time.

Given your definition, can you point out any used by the Christians before the 4th century. Note that a individual texts themselves don't count as a collection, rather a number of individual texts adopted together

I wouldn't mind historical references too.

hehehehe enigma it seems u were caught in ur web

^^^ What web?

Anyway, you will see me show how Roman Catholic arguments are the ones that amount to a web of deceit when I provide further detail after Kay17's reply!

@enigma

Since they are your words, you ought to have the foundation for them.

The similarity I find in both is: approval by religious institutions

You see that we are going round in circles? Because I know that I have answered this question for you in the past but you did not look into what I said.

For example, I once specifically referred you to this old post of mine https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/12#13346747

I reproduce parts of it:

Enigma: . . . . . .


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, first of all digest that and let me know what you understand, then we'll take things from there.

Meanwhile as for the Roman Catholics and the "web" matter, I will actually be quoting from Roman Catholic sources to deal with those ones.

^^^

Enigma, my question was:

Given your definition, can you point out any
canonical collection of sacred texts
used by the Christians before the 4th century.

My question is indifferent over Catholics.

You ask a simple question. They fill the whole thread with a million words and still refuse to answer the question.

Kay 17: ^^^

Enigma, my question was:



My question is indifferent over Catholics.

And I ask you again:

--- In relation to the Bible what do you think is meant by "a canonical collection of sacred texts"?

--- Or, what do you understand by "the canon of the Bible"?


Until, you are able to address and properly answer the question(s) above, my explanation will be lost on you. Thus, I am not going to explain; rather I am going to set you further tasks. You want to know, then you have to do the work! If you answer those then I will explain and answer your question specifically.

The task is this: I will now set down a quote from a Roman Catholic source and ask you a couple of questions based on those quotes. {For now, I will withold a second Roman Catholic source and my questions based on it}

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. . .

1. What do you understand by the words "the Canon" that I have bolded in red?

2. What do you understand by the phrase "conception of canonicity" that I have bolded in red?

Enigma, are you serious?! You used the terms! The responsibility to explain and expantiate is yours not mine.

I'm still waiting for your answer nevertheless.

Besides check out Jerome's birth date.

It's up to you how you want to play it. You don't do the basic tasks I have set you, I provide you no further explanations. Simples.

Oh and of course I am aware of the time of Jerome's birth; if you did the task I aked you to do, you will then understand why his date of birth is neither here nor there in this context.

Ah, out of generosity of my heart, let me help you a bit by pointing you again to a point I once made to you.

What book or books was/were being used by the opponents at the Council of Nicea to support their respective arguments?

The deuteronocanonicals were not the only books of the present bible that was disputed in the early church.The entire books from hebrews to revelations were also disputed.

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