JMAN05: Most at times i here catholics make that comment. they even claim to be the first church.

I want my catholic friends to explain this claim and why they think its true.

Waiting....

JMAN05: Most at times i here catholics make that comment. they even claim to be the first church.

I want my catholic friends to explain this claim and why they think its true.

Waiting....

♥Dεs•Chγκσ♥:



<<Trouble is no hobby my friend. The truest faith is your conscience. It tells you what to believe and can never lead you sideways. >>

conscience is trained by God's word, if not, it can mislead sometimes.

<<Instead of trying to debate on what was instituted long before your great-grandfather's ancestors touched down, focus your time on knowing your true identity and when your conscience speaks to you.. Blind faith, they say, is an enemy of true knowledge..

chukwudi44:
A LITTLE STUDY WILL DO YOU NO HARM.BY THE WAY WHY DONT YOU START BY NAMIMG THE CHURCHES THAT PRECEDED THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

[/quote]I like it if you will paraphrase the parts that prove your point.

Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX),[15] perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito's canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time

The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[28] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[29] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[25] or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[30] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[31]

In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[32] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[33] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon
[quote]

[/quote]the first christian church was in Jerusalem, the apostles.[quote]

Enigma: ....

The Roman Catholic Church itself did not finalise its own canon of the Bible until the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

Alternatively, Roman Catholics like to point to regional synods of Hippo and Carthage which were African affairs and were not subject to the authority of the Church of Rome --- granted in the spirit of that age they essentially informed the Church of Rome of their decision for "consultation" NOT ratification.

In any event even that was predated by the canon identified by Athanasius (of Alexandria) without any involvement of the Church of Rome ---- several years before.

On top of which Athanasius said that this was a canon that had been handed down.

As I said, we can trace even much earlier canons down to Origen (and even earlier than that). .....

chukwudi44:

<<Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX),[15] perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito's canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time
>>

are you in effect stating that the NT were never viewed as a scripture or an guiding authority till the fourth century?

<<The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[28] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[29] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[25] or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[30] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[31]

In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[32] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[33] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon

chukwudi44:

<<Though the Early Church used the Old Testament according to the canon of the Septuagint (LXX),[15] perhaps as found in the Bryennios List or Melito's canon, the Apostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead, the New Testament developed over time
>>

are you in effect stating that the NT were never viewed as a scripture or an guiding authority till the fourth century?

<<The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[28] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[29] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[25] or if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[30] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[31]

In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[32] Thus, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today),[33] and by the 5th century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon

chukwudi44: @Jman05

<<This is not about who wrote the scriptures but rather about wo created the bible.Let me rephrase who decided the books that should be in the bible.

The words bible and scriptures are not synonyms.The bible is a term used to describe the group of scriptures canoniosed by the catholic church in the fourth and fifth centuriers.>>

well, if you guys have a different meaning as to what bible means is not my concern. the latin word BIBLIA means "little books". and from its derivatives, it is a word used in describing the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which primitive form of paper was made. in time this word came to mean the collection of little books that make up the bible. So the word is not for catholic canons but for little books that make up the bible. what catholic call bible may not be what i call bible. they made up their own bible.

<<The Apostles did not leave any canon hence hundreds of writings were in circulations after their deaths in the 1st,2nd,3rd and 4th centuries CE purported to be written or used by them.>>

by the first century or early second century, all the apostles of Jesus were dead. if they left no canon, where did you get the one that form your new testament? their writing were there only that other writings came out too.

the apostles had no need of creating a catalogue cos they already had one, the one made by the great synagogue. they never used the apocryphal aspect of the septuagint. the statement of Josephus indicates that they never accepted the apocryphals in their canon.

<<It was a in the middle of this confusin that the catholic church then created the canon of scripures(the bible) from scriptures then extant.This was done over 1000 years before the council of trent @ Rome,hippo and carthage>>

the confusion came only when the apostles died. but the writings by the apostles were still there and the then church were using them.

I do not know how the catholic started creating a catalogue. because the OT catalogue has already been established as far back as during Nehemiah's time. even when the apocryphals surfaced, Jesus and his disciples never quoted from them.

Now those whom you said "made" their bible took the apocryphals even when these were not among the catalogue of the great synagogue.

<<73 books were chosen and not 66.The protestants centuries after the reformation went to adopt the jewish canon developed at the council of jamnia in 100ce.it is instructive to note that this council did not even recognise Jesus christ and d entire NT.Thus the protestants today are using a hybrid canon.A catholic NT and the jewish canon.

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.

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.

chukwudi44: the first christian church was in Jerusalem, the apostles.

HOPE YOU DONT MIND TELING ME WHERE THIS CHURCH IS TODAY AND HOW ONE CAN LOCATE IT.FURTHERMORE IT WILL BE NICE TO READ ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS CHURCH ACROSS THE CENTURIES

chukwudi44: the first christian church was in Jerusalem, the apostles.

HOPE YOU DONT MIND TELING ME WHERE THIS CHURCH IS TODAY AND HOW ONE CAN LOCATE IT.FURTHERMORE IT WILL BE NICE TO READ ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES OF THIS CHURCH ACROSS THE CENTURIES

JMAN05: >>

true the council of jemnia didnt include the apocryphals. after the great synagogue during Nehemiah's time, the jews had scribes that copied their bible as time pass. neither Jesus nor his disciples accused the scribes of adding apocrypha to the original catalogue. the jewish catalogue was long established before the time of Jesus and the jews had it in the synagogues. Jesus and the apostles used it. the berians had it. So that they did not believe in Jesus doesnt mean that the jews will accept anything on top of their heritage.

Josephus confirmed that they never accepted the apocryphals.

I do not agree with you that the protestants were the ones who excluded the apocryphals.

leading bible scholars and "church fathers" of the first century gave the apocryphals the inferior position. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, even the "best hebrew scholar", Jerome was the first to use the word apocrypha to designate non-canonical books. so leave protestants out of it. catholics made their bible not ours.

without their incomplete Vatican 1209, the sinaiticus is there. and this manuscript was never found in a catholic terretory.

JMAN05:

hellooooooo. that the apostles had died doesnt mean they never existed before. the early church was later known as christians.

no christian churches now in existence can claim to be the original christian religion. ALL began as sects or offshoots.

Christian religion started in Jerusalem and as at that time, there were no single follower of christ in Rome. the headquarter was in Jerusalem not in Rome.

Christian activities were organised in Antioch and in which they were called christians not Rome. none of the 12 apostles established a headquarter in Rome nor did they even come there.

it was after the apostles died that great struggle began so as to establish one as heretic and the other as orthodox.

Even by far greater number of second and third century "fathers" were not based in Rome. the cities of so-called christian theology was not in Rome, but Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Caesarea, Jeruslem and various cities in Asia minor.

the first Ecumenical Council was held in Rome only from 1123 CE. But before then a great schism had occurred between Rome and the Eastern churhes, the first split having occured in 867CE. and the final on 1054. so the most earlier "universal" council was not held in Rome.

so all what we see today are sects that sprang from the first church formed in Jerusalem.

worthy if note is that even when Emperor Gratian granted Damasus to be a bishop, other christians contested it. their were no one doctrine by then. ie 382 CE. Their were different doctrines by these sects.

the fact that Rome received a different name apart from christian, doesnt make it the first church. church is not a building nor a city but a congregation.

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

chukwudi44: @JMAN05

Still waiting for your reply

JMAN05:

i will respond later.

chukwudi44:

<<Bros I think you still need to research a lot into church and biblical history before comming to debate this topic further.First and foremost the 73 books of the catholic canon are not even the only scriptures in existence.>>

Not the only SCRIPTURES?

<<perharps when ever you see the word apocryphal you seem to restrict to just the 7 books in the catholic canon which the protestant removed from their bible.but in reality the word apocryphals means differant things to differant people.>>

I know others exist. We are discussing the "bible" the catholic "made". That is why am restricting it to that.

<<I already told you that before the catholic church councils that met in the fourth and fift centuries to decide the canon hundreds of scriptural writings were been circulated.people were busy listing out their own canons(differant of course) first was marcion of sinope who was the first to list out a christian canon, then we had origen given his own list, then people like Athanasius,Jerome and Cyril.Mind you all of these were catolics(except for marcion after he was excommunicated by the catholic church).
The point is that people were given their own differant opinion in the absense of a defined canon for the church.You claimed Cyril and Athanasius rejected the so called apocryphals but the canon proposed by Athanasius contained some of the so called apocryphal books like the books of Baruch and the letter of jeremiah.Furthermore books like esther was regarded by athanasius as apocrypha.

The canon proposed by Cyril also contained some of the apocryphal books like 1 and 2 Esdras,Baruch,letter of jeremiah while books like Revelation and the letter to the hebrews were not listed in his Canon.>>

I know they did, though my comment didnt show it. they contained some of the apocryhals, however they evidently gave these a secondary position.

Well we do not know the esdras Cyril meant, whether they were Ezra and Nehemiah as this is possible. I do not know what you mean by letter of Jeremiah because Cyril mentioned no such thing.

Ya, they mentioned Baruch was there even when this is obviously unspired. This is the more reason why we have to accept jewish catalogue because the apostles made use of it. Of course it was not catholic that catalogued them, which is the point under discussion here.

And see no point a topic on which the catalogue has long been established by the great synagogue. Ezra 7:1-11. The apostles didnt oppose this. I just the point as an additional point.

<<I womder where you got the idea that Josephus did not regard the apocraphals as scripture.I bought his complete works(hard copy even bigger than the bible) years ago and and have also read a lot about him.>>

He states: “We do
not possess myriads of inconsistent
books, conflicting with each other. Our
books, those which are justly accredited,
are but two and twenty [the equivalent of
the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures
according to modern division], and contain
the record of all time.” He thereafter
clearly shows an awareness of the
existence of Apocryphal books and their
exclusion from the Hebrew canon by
adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own
time the complete history has been
written, but has not been deemed
worthy of equal credit with the earlier
records, because of the failure of the
exact succession of the prophets.”—
Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (.


<<The story of the translation of the septuagint(which includes the so called apocryphals) and the story of Judas Macabees and his brothers were well detailed in his writings. I wonder why you say he did not regard the so called apocryphals as scripture.>>

Firstly, the jews has catalogued their sacred books before this translation.

Secondly, no one knows whether this translators during Ptolemy's reign really translated the apocryphals as well. Why? Because one - we do not have the originals today and two - many of the apocryphals were written AFTER the translation.

Part 2

[quote author=chukwudi44]

<<I asked you to tell me where I can locate this your first Jerusalem church and you are here blabbing? Tell me what happened to them @ least in the first,second,third and fourth centuries CE.>>

My friend, when was the church established? Was it after the death of the apostles?
I ask you, define the world "church" biblically. Pls i am expecting it.

Remember apostasy took its course AFTER the apostles died. These people were raising their ugly head during the apostles times. None of the apostles survived up to the middle of the second century, so we recognise the lawless ones by weighing the written heritage they left, the bible.

<<So only churces in Rome are catholic baa? Where did you even get the idea the apostles did not come and found any church in rome ? To whom was Paul writing to in his letter to the Romans? Like I told you before you need to study about church histrory before you debate this topic.Imagine you saying the first ecumenical council was held in Rome in 1123CE.I could not help but laugh at your ignorance.

First and foremost no ecumenical council was ever held in rome(at leat until the 1st and 2nd vatican councils held just recently).The first ecumenical council was the council of Jerusalem by the apostles held around 49-54 ce.the second ecumenical council was the council of Nicea in 325 ce.Then we had councils of constantinopoles 381ce, ephesus 431,chalcedon 454 e.t.c.None of the early ecumenical councils was ever eld in rome.>>

I ask you, whom did apostle Paul wrote in Philipi, Ephesus, Corinth, Thesalonica, Crete, etc etc? Did he establish hquarter their too? Remember he wasnt among the twelve.

My dear, the discussion of the first century christians is not an ecumenical council meeting. Catholic only recognises only 21 of such meeting, ranging from 325 - 1962-65.

Check what such means at THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA, Vol 8, page 85.

How can you say that none was held in Rome till recently?

Read:

" ERA TWO: The first latin general council of
the Roman Church is in 1123 ce, the First
Lateran Council . It is the first called
by a pope as compared to eight Greek-
speaking Ecumenical Councils
previously called by civil authority. "
http://www.catholica.com.au/gc1/tm2/065_tm_250209.php

At least you agreed that many Ecumenical meeting were not held there. Could it have been the first church and these councils were held elsewhere?

Before the council was even held in Rome, division had already occurred.

<<The church began in Jerusalem like you said but the headquarters later moved to anthioch and finally rome.>>

Good. So do you now belief that they were not the first church?

It were never any of the 12 that moved it there. The prominence of Rome came after the death of the apostles.

And Rome had that prominence cos of its riches over other poorer churches.

Note that it was not the council that appointed the pope but Gratian. Catholicism was for the pagans too, not the christians alone. So their were fusion, to the extent that Pope Damasus picked up a pagan title, Pontifex Maximus.

Part 3

<< [quote author=chukwudi44]The apostles did groom people before they died.It is not just that they died and the whole church just collapsed.That is where you protestants get it wrong.After the death of the apostles,their immediate successors took over.The Three most popular of their immediate successors ( called the apostolic fathers by theologians and church historians) are Saints Clement of Rome,Ignatius of antioch and polycarp of smyrna.They left beind some writings for us.St Ignatius was even the first person to apply word 'Catholic' to describe the church in 107Ce
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers