Enigma, I'm so convinced you have nothing really to say. What does Jerome have to do with books prior to the Council of Nicaea?! Either he wasn't born or was an infant at that time.

Also you haven't still mentioned any canonical collection adopted.

No mind the guy jare.Maybe he is referring to the heretical canon proposed by Marcion of sinope

Kay 17: Enigma, I'm so convinced you have nothing really to say. What does Jerome have to do with books prior to the Council of Nicaea?! Either he wasn't born or was an infant at that time.

Also you haven't still mentioned any canonical collection adopted.

And

Enigma: 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?

Whenever you are ready . . . .

^^^
You can't be giving me tasks, when you have a duty and a burden to prove /lay your case.

Enigma, this is simple; there was no such canonical collection/ Bible prior to the Council of Nicaea. Most christian fathers lived without a Bible, further proving that Christianity isn't laid on a foundation of the Bible but of tradition.

Also you are unable to point out the era where the Roman Catholic Church as you say, emerged.

I don't have any burden or duty to prove anything to you. I said something, you challenged it; your own challenge has no demonstrated basis. All I am doing is trying to help you; but if you will not do little tasks, I am not going to stress myself.

Let me remind you that this pattern has repeated itself between us a number of times.

Even on this very thread it was the same way you remained intransigent about what is meant by "the bible" and especially the Protestant Bible until you found yourself in a corner --- when you could have prevented the humiliating u-turn by similarly doing a little task then.

I suspect you sense that the tasks I've set you will lead you to another corner where you will have to make another u-turn as you did only a few pages earlier on this thread.

As I said, your choice how you want to play. You don't do those tasks, I provide no further explanations. Simples.

Pls stop with the allegations.

I have temporarily suspended the Bible argument, all that is left for you is to provide the CC (canonical collection) that was prior to the Council of Nicaea, simple. Just tell us! Enigma simply answer or admit your error, no one will kill you.

^^^ If you want to admit your ignorance, go ahead and do so clearly.

Anyway, (a) your ignorance on this matter is very clear to me and (b) I have already proved your ignorance on a related matter and which you had to admit on this very thread.

As for the curremt matter, I know what I am talking about; and you need to do your homework or at least some worthwhile background work.

Kay 17: Enigma, I'm so convinced you have nothing really to say. What does Jerome have to do with books prior to the Council of Nicaea?! Either he wasn't born or was an infant at that time.

Also you haven't still mentioned any canonical collection adopted.

Na today you sabi Enigma?

He has no permanent beliefs. He latches unto anything that favours him depending on the argument.

^^^ Crybaby.

Keep up the lying and slandering. It's all cool.

Enigma: ^^^ Crybaby.

Keep up the lying and slandering. It's all cool.

u just didnt answer the question!
Interesting

^^^ You want to perform the tasks I set him? Or you too are not brave enough?

Enigma: ^^^ You want to perform the tasks I set him? Or you too are not brave enough?

My friend u have ntn reasonable to say. Just keep quiet.

^^^ Well, people who are waaay older, more informed and more educated than you are failing or afraid to perform the task ---- because it will expose the falsehood of the arguments that Roman Catholic apologists use to hoodwink people.

So I do not expect you to be able to do it; also, it is normal for your type to resort to tantrums when unable to address an argument.

Na today una sabi Enigma? When caught in a web he will just continue rigmaroling.I gave up discussing with him months ago.

^^^ Another crybaby!

You gave up discussing with him "months" ago, yet you were begging him on this very thread to teach you about the first use of the expression "the bible" only just over a week ago.

Anyway, you are a known liar; remember your lie about Paul and the other apostles teaching baptism for the dead?

Here, take a lollipop and lick your wounds --- that the arguments of Roman Catholic apologists are being shown to be falsehoods.

Mumu.Who needs beg a mumu

^^^ Here, take another lollipop to suck for ya pain.

Akpuruka liar for nothing.

chukwudi44: Mumu.Who needs beg a mumu

My brother must you insult those who are yet to see the reason they should agree with you?

Back to the topic.

I still maintain the Catholic Church is responsible for the compilation of the Bible, via a mandate from Tradition. Also that the reading of the Bible is not necessary for being a Christian.

The Catholic Church was born upon the ascendancy of Peter on the seat of Rome, and his exercise of control over the Church's doctrines and bishops of other cities. Schisms from the Church, provide it the distinct character it has today.

^^^ And I still maintain that you are wrong and misinformed.

Several threads have dealt with the issue but I provide the link to one centrally on the point.

https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

Enigma believes that anywhere on earth that you find two people gathered in Jesus' name, you have found 'his' Catholic Church.

^^^ And they don't need to be subject to some "Roman Pontiff".

All they need is the assurance of their Lord and the only Head of the catholic Church i.e. of The Christian Church.

Matthew 18:20

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them

The Roman Catholic "Church" and its 'you must be subject to the "Roman Pontiff"' rubbish is another matter altogether.

Roman Catholic church made all this people atheist by feeding them lies.

Kay 17: Back to the topic.

The Catholic Church was born upon the ascendancy of Peter on the seat of Rome, and his exercise of control over the Church's doctrines and bishops of other cities. Schisms from the Church, provide it the distinct character it has today.

which peter?

After peter escaped from prison by the help of an angel in the hands of a Roman Governor/Ruler, the scriptures became silent concerning any reference to peters whereabout.

How can he(peter) escape from the hands of a Roman leader and run to Rome?

Smh for systematic ochestrated lies to deceived people.

Is that not why you are an atheist today?:

Kay 17:

I still maintain the Catholic Church is responsible for the compilation of the Bible, via a mandate from Tradition. Also that the reading of the Bible is not necessary for being a Christian.

this word "catholic" is irrelevant.

Is it this Iraniuse of a man that decides who go to heaven? Why then take this sentiment of this his word "catholic" over the one contain in the bible(christian)?

Should not being followers of christ be the aspiration of all lovers of christ? What with the word "catholic or Catholic" that is not even biblical?

Are you followers of Iraniuse?

Compiled a book they dont follow/respect and fought to destroy, prevent people from reading it.
Smh.

Enigma will answer anything but the question that was asked him.

He will rather discuss Syria's civil war than answer Kay's question.

Such a fraud.

^^^ Crybaby, sorry oh!

If you are looking for the real fraud, look at the Roman Catholic "Church" and its apologists.

Here, you too take a lollipop.

@truthlight

I would want to agree with you tha Peter would naturally avoid the Capital of Christian prosecution, but it wasn't till Emperor Nero's reign that Christians were targeted by Roman authorities. If you noticed King Herod was the individual that prosecuted and imprisoned Peter. The prosecution of Christians prior to Nero was the Judaist institution.

The distinction btw Catholic and catholic is hopeless and useless unfounded semantics. You are unable to prove the particular date the Roman Catholic Church emerged. Also you are unable to prove that all Christians at a point never had divergent views of what Christianity was. Religions are not built to be universally agreeable. At that time, ppl were gnostics, arians, christians/neoplatonists etc. The only claim you can lay is to a True Church.

Kay 17: . . . .The distinction btw Catholic and catholic is hopeless and useless unfounded semantics.

Sheer demonstration of ignorance as to be pitiful. So when Christians say:

"We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church"

they are saying they believe in (a) The Roman Catholic Church, and (b) The Apostolic Church?

Which "The Apostolic Church"? CAC? Agbala Itura? etc etc?)

Kay 17: You are unable to prove the particular date the Roman Catholic Church emerged.. . ..

Are you able to tell us?

Kay 17: .....

The distinction btw Catholic and catholic is hopeless and useless unfounded semantics. .....

Come to think of it, even the Roman Catholic Church makes the distinction between 'Catholic' and catholic. In other words even they acknowledge the distinction between their capital letter 'Catholic' and the small letter catholic.

Those who know where to look can readily find that information.

Una still de here de argue with mumu?una get tymoo

This one really bothers me. Can the pope be infallible?

Reyginus: The Pope's Infallibility
The immunity to error. To us, the infallibility of the pope, flows naturally from the infallibility of the church.
The question is, is the church(catholic) infallible to begin with?
That you'll answer yourself by the time I'm done.
I am not confusing infallibility with impeccability please. Only that, for infallibility to exist where their is no impeccability, is not possible.
Accordingly, when he(the Pope) defines an article of faith/moral he is infallible, except otherwise. I think we have a problem. Does the Pope operate as a dual entity?
Is it not the same person that makes the moral and faith truths, make the non-impeccable entity?
Can character be dualistic?
I am not trying to act like luther who described the papacy as a 'human invention',but infallibility of the Pope I will look with a similar lense.
Their was a time we had two popes. How do you weigh them in the infallible scale?
This notion is wrong. Let's drop it.
Examples:
i) Pope Gregory xiv was misled by corrupt officials.
ii) Pope innocent xiii made his brother cardinal and practised nepotism
iii) Pius vii crowned napoleon emperor in paris, but later excommunicated him after the emperor occupied rome. Lol.
What infallibility? It is a contradiction of infallibility to breed fallibility.
When we believe a thing for the sake of faith-preservation, we're preparing the faith for self-termination.

For the benefit of anyone interested, I have started a thread which is examining the word "Catholic" especially in the capitalised sense and will also look at the small letter catholic.

https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

For those interested in genuinely understanding this issue of "canons of the Bible", and able to put 2 and 2 together, but perhaps not for those keen on propagating and spreading falsehoods, here is something to ponder:

http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/39/

Question Number 39:

What is the Old Testament canon of the Orthodox Church? Is the Apocrypha recognized as canonical?


ANSWER:
The Orthodox Old Testament includes both canonical (or protocanonical) books and supplemental books which are not considered canonical (i.e. protocanonical) but deuterocanonical or in Greek Anaginoskomena ("to be read" ).

Deuterocanonical is used here in a sense that is different than the Roman Catholic sense. In Roman Catholic terminology, "deuterocanonical" means approved later but with the same canonical authority. In the Orthodox use, "deuterocanonical" means having secondary authority, but useful and part of the Biblical library (no Orthodox Bible would not contain them). The Scriptures testify to Jesus Christ and since neither Protestants nor Jews recognize these Scriptures, their power to serve as witness is inferior. However, they are read in the Orthodox churches and have great value.

This view is faithful to the position of the earliest Christians (i.e. Justin, Origen) as well as the distinction connected with Athanasius and other important Fathers.