Radoillo:

Um, you should wait till you have read the history of the Bible canon a little more deeply before making such assertions.

The council of Trent came about because Martin Luther and the reformers disputed the canonity of certain books (the Apochryphal books). The purpose of the council was to assert once and for all that the Apochryphal books were inspired, like the rest of the Bible books.

They did not make any addition at that council, but merely confirmed the books that had already been approved at the council of Florence in 1442 (before the Reformation).

And the list of books approved at Florence in 1442 was the same as the list formulated at the synod in Carthage (again, by the Catholic church) in the fourth century. And that's how far back we can trace the Bible as a compiled work.

The Bible did not, repeat, did not exist in its form in the 1st century. What we had were individual books and letters written by an assortment of people. The Jews had the Old Testament though, divided into the Law and the Prophets.

YES, the Catholic church brought those individual letters and books into a collection (our Bible) and gave them the present structure.

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and co, dropped the Apochryphal books (Sirach, Maccabees, etc). Other than that, the Protestants since use the Bible, as organized and edited by the Catholic Church.

THAT, MY FRIEND, IS THE HISTORICAL FACT.

You are ignorant of a lot of things ---- including my posting history.

For just starters try and educate yourself on these threads I started

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

https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

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


You can even simply read some of my most recent posts.

Anyway, I say again that the Roman Catholic denomination people only finalised their own Bible in the 16th century at the Council of Trent.

Enigma:

One of them said even Jesus and the apostles were "Catholics"! Then I ask, was Jesus also subject to some "pope"?

You could Imagine!

italo:

Do you have to lie and jeopardize your soul because you hate Catholicism?

Which Catholic told you Paul founded the Church?

Please provide evidence.

Or do you people lie because you believe in once saved always saved so no penalty for sin?

It's what my catholic friends say.I'll screen_grab some chats I've had with dem.Send me ur email.

Enigma:

Sorry, what you are displaying is exactloy what we are talking about: either ignorance or deliberate lying.

If you are wise, you will go and educate yourself --- with honesty!

I hate to say This,But i believe You are Fool!!

philfearon:
I hate to say This,But i believe You are Fool!!

Thank you! I am happy to be a "fool" for Christ and for the Christian Church!.

By the way, I hope you know that some of the "popes" of Roman Catholicism were murderers, heretics, inces.stuous people, adulterers etc. In other words they were worse than just being "Fool".

Enigma:

Thank you! I am happy to be a "fool" for Christ and for the Christian Church!.

By the way, I hope you know that some of the "popes" of Roman Catholicism were murderers, heretics, inces.stuous people, adulterers etc. In other words they were worse than just being "Fool".

Burning at stakes and also use of the guillotine.

So I checked out your threads, Enigma. Didn't read every word though. Just got a general picture. Much of what is there I already knew. I'm not Catholic, Just a historian. And I know its historically inaccurate to say the first-century Christians were Roman Catholics; they were no such thing.

But let's focus on this thread, yeah? You said Christians started compiling the Bible in the 1st and 2nd centuries. 'Compiling', not 'writing'. That's what you said. Are there any sources for that claim?

From my researches, the earliest known canonical lists of our Christian Bible were formulated at the synods in Carthage and Rome in the fourth century. Both places were under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and belonged to the Latin Church or the Roman Catholic church.

If you have dates from the first and second centuries of Bible compilations, perhaps you would like to share. Again, I emphasize 'COMPILATION'.

C.Ovo:

It's what my catholic friends say.I'll screen_grab some chats I've had with dem.Send me ur email.

I will open another email and send to you.

Enigma:

Thank you! I am happy to be a "fool" for Christ and for the Christian Church!.

By the way, I hope you know that some of the "popes" of Roman Catholicism were murderers, heretics, inces.stuous people, adulterers etc. In other words they were worse than just being "Fool".

The Reforming protestants did terrible things too. Just read the story of Geneva under Calvin, Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, the Puritans in North America, the witch executions in Salem, USA. The history of the church, Catholic and Protestant is soaked in blood.

Idolatory will not take anyone to heaven. Mark my words. The catholic are practising idolatory.

Radoillo: So I checked out your threads, Enigma. Didn't read every word though. Just got a general picture. Much of what is there I already knew. I'm not Catholic, Just a historian. And I know its historically inaccurate to say the first-century Christians were Roman Catholics; they were no such thing.

But let's focus on this thread, yeah? You said Christians started compiling the Bible in the 1st and 2nd centuries. 'Compiling', not 'writing'. That's what you said. Are there any sources for that claim?

From my researches, the earliest known canonical lists of our Christian Bible were formulated at the synods in Carthage and Rome in the fourth century. Both places were under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and belonged to the Latin Church or the Roman Catholic church.

If you have dates from the first and second centuries of Bible compilations, perhaps you would like to share. Again, I emphasize 'COMPILATION'.

The red bolded is wrong in many respects which I have addressed on the other threads. Thus you need to spend time to read those threads or at least to verify and update your information.

1. In the 4th century alone, Athanasius' Festal Letter of AD 367 and the canon it outlines preceded Carthage or anything else that the Roman Catholics can claim

2. The canon done by African Christians at Carthage was not under the "authority" of Rome anything. A very recent post of mine addressed the fraudulent claim based on forgery in respect of this.

3. Carthage might have belonged to the Latin Rite --- but it was not subject to the "authority" of Rome; in fact Carthage historically told Rome to mind its own business on many occasions.

4. There was no canon made at Rome; the one they want to base on a Synod or Council of Rome is known to arise from a forgery based on a document produced some 200 years after the supposed Council of Rome of 382.

Look into these things deeper, my friend.

^^^ I forgot to add that we do indeed have canons and "compilations" well before the 4th century e.g. Origen in the 2nd-3rd centuries and even going back to the 1st-2nd centuries with the books in the possession of people like Polycarp and so on.

Of course we could go into the Bible itself and see Paul quoting from one of the gospels, Peter referring to Paul's epistles and again Paul asking that one of his epistles should be read to another community and that the first community should read another epistle from the second community.

Radoillo:

The Reforming protestants did terrible things too. Just read the story of Geneva under Calvin, Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, the Puritans in North America, the witch executions in Salem, USA. The history of the church, Catholic and Protestant is soaked in blood.

When someone from them calls me "Fool", I will know what to say. For now the person who calls me "Fool" is the one who needed a comparison.

italo:

I will open another email and send to you.

Noted

The papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. This he did to spite bishop Ciriacus of constantipole who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius.
Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome refused the title, but his successor Boniface III, first assumed the title 'pope'.

Resolution of the Catholic Council of Carthage in 419 CE
Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

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, iv. books.

The Chronicles, ij. books.

Job.

The Psalter.

The Five books of Solomon.

The Twelve Books of the Prophets.

Isaiah.

Jeremiah.

Ezechiel.

Daniel.

Tobit.

Judith.

Esther.

Ezra, ij. books.

Macchabees, ij. books.

The New Testament.

The Gospels, iv. books.

The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.

The Epistles of Paul, xiv.

The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.

The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.

The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.

The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.

The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, 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.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm

Radoillo: So I checked out your threads, Enigma. Didn't read every word though. Just got a general picture. Much of what is there I already knew. I'm not Catholic, Just a historian. And I know its historically inaccurate to say the first-century Christians were Roman Catholics; they were no such thing.

But let's focus on this thread, yeah? You said Christians started compiling the Bible in the 1st and 2nd centuries. 'Compiling', not 'writing'. That's what you said. Are there any sources for that claim?

From my researches, the earliest known canonical lists of our Christian Bible were formulated at the synods in Carthage and Rome in the fourth century. Both places were under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and belonged to the Latin Church or the Roman Catholic church.

If you have dates from the first and second centuries of Bible compilations, perhaps you would like to share. Again, I emphasize 'COMPILATION'.

Radoillo:

The Reforming protestants did terrible things too. Just read the story of Geneva under Calvin, Oliver Cromwell in Ireland, the Puritans in North America, the witch executions in Salem, USA. The history of the church, Catholic and Protestant is soaked in blood.

It's refreshing to see a sensinble seemingly neutral person.

I dont exactly agree with the entirety...but you're making sense.

Ukuts gp: The papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. This he did to spite bishop Ciriacus of constantipole who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius.
Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome refused the title, but his successor Boniface III, first assumed the title 'pope'.

The Catholics have hidden themselves

Ukuts gp: The papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. This he did to spite bishop Ciriacus of constantipole who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius.
Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome refused the title, but his successor Boniface III, first assumed the title 'pope'.

You're also a pagan then. You celebrate Christmas that the 'pagan' pope instituted to celebrate his 'pagan' Lord.

A propos Carthage, here is one I made earlier. https://www.nairaland.com/1478018/why-churches-different-doctrines-denominations/23#19111959

So our friends like to claim that they "ratified" Carthage. They hang this on a quotation allegedly included in the acts of Carthage. But that is the very one that experts said (two posts above edit follow link on first line of this post) is probably not original. What is more, our friends have their own way of translating the passage to English as if the Africans were subjecting their canon to the "authority" of Rome. That is:

"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."

Meanwhile a late leading Roman Catholic historian (and bishop to boot), i.e. Hefele, admits (in agreement with other experts) that the true translation of the passage is not as the #masterforgers like to claim!

Again, from here http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

"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."

Again, #masterforgers we salute!

The heretic Marcion of sinope was first to propose a christian canon in the second century his heretical canon was rejected by the catholic church and he himself was later excommunicated for his heretic beleifs.later other Catholics like Origen,Athanasius(who was the catholic bishop of Alexandria) among others were listing their private lists which they felt was the canon but the catholic church(also called the roman catholic church) rejected all these private lists and held a church councils in 393 @ hippo to decide the books listed above,later councils held @ carthage in 397CE,419CE and lastly @ trent in 1546CE to ratify the hippo resolutions in use by the catholic church today.4 church councils held over 1000 years produced the same canon!!

C.Ovo:

The Catholics have hidden themselves

dont mind them. They are just deceiving themselves. If they go to heaven they will pollute it with their idols and dead skulls they worship as God

Another one I made earlier

When Roman Catholics tell lies and use fraudulent arguments, they tend to overlook that it can easily rebound on them.

If a person says the list of canonical books presented by Athanasius is "private", then of course:

- Irenaeus list of "popes" that they even gerrymander ----- is also only a "private" list.

- Eusebius' list of "popes" --- is also only a "private list".

And of course those are in any event contradicted by the lists of Tertullian and Jerome.

And of course none of these lists is said to be divine --- unlike Athanasisus' list of canonical books which is said to be accredited and divine and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning!

And one more from the factory

Athanasius list "private"! lol lol

Yeah right, something he said was divine, and delivered to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning' that one don become "private".

An extract from that statement of Athanasius I referred to. While identifying and listing the books of "the Bible" in AD 367 (long before anything that the Roman Catholics can claim) he referred to:

"... 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 ....... "

When it suits them the Roman Catholics claim "tradition". When Athanasius shows the world tradition that exposes Roman Catholic lies, they turn their backs to "tradition".

The resolution 22 confirms the identity of these bishops as catholic bishops.

Canon 22. (Greek xxv.)

That bishops or other clergymen shall give nothing to those who are not Catholics

And that to those who are not Catholic Christians, even if they be blood relations, neither bishops nor clergymen shall give anything at all by way of donation of their possessions.

When the issue concerning the catholic is raised, they always talk about the canonisation of the scriptures to defend their evil man-made traditions as if canonisation of the scripture will save them. They cant even be the one wu canonised the bible because if they do, they will nt blatantly and defiantly go against its teaching like that. This will simply tell u dat catholic is a pagan infested church.

The fact that the private lists of heretics like marcions and catholics like Athanasius and Origen is not in use by any church in existence today confirms the irrelevance of private canons as individuals can not be allowed to keep their individual canons wich would in turn breed anarchy.

Unless a private writing is endorsed by the church it remains the person's personal opinion and not binding on the church irrespective of the person involved Athanasius for instance been a Very revered Catholic Bishop who fought most gallantly for the divinity of Christ.

Ukuts gp: dont mind them. They are just deceiving themselves. If they go to heaven they will pollute it with their idols and dead skulls they worship as God

All this because you were told you celebrate pagan chrismas? My dear if catholics are going to hell fire, you are going before them period. At least they know their stand, you don't.

Ukuts gp: When the issue concerning the catholic is raised, they always talk about the canonisation of the scriptures to defend their evil man-made traditions as if canonisation of the scripture will save them. They cant even be the one wu canonised the bible because if they do, they will nt blatantly and defiantly go against its teaching like that. This will simply tell u dat catholic is a pagan infested church.

One of our "evil man-made traditions" is Christmas...and you participate in it.

You're evil then.

Teespice:

Word.

OP, you have been duly noticed. Attention seeker.

But Teespice, u no dey go church na .

Ah, another one from the ol factory

1. Jerome ('church father'), Gregory ('pope'), Cajetan ('cardinal') --- all Roman Catholics; all major Roman Catholics (all speaking before the Roman Catholics finally set their own canon) ---- all AGREE with the so-called "Protestants" about the books of the canon!

2. To clarify further, the King James version (originally and for a long time and still in some editions) took the same approach as Jerome, Gregory I, Cajetan as well as Athanasius that the books of the Apocrypha are not in the canon but can be useful in a secondary role. Thus the KJV used to include the Apocrypha but place them in a different part to mark their distinction from the main canonical books.

A further note of interest, even today, there are still "protestants" who use books of the Apocrypha in this secondary role.

The Roman Catholics like to muddy the waters, throw confusion and hope people will not notice their lies if they are not familiar with or clear on the history and development of the canon (or even canons) of the Bible.

Ukuts gp: When the issue concerning the catholic is raised, they always talk about the canonisation of the scriptures to defend their evil man-made traditions as if canonisation of the scripture will save them. They cant even be the one wu canonised the bible because if they do, they will nt blatantly and defiantly go against its teaching like that. This will simply tell u dat catholic is a pagan infested church.

Yet you go to church on the day they sanctioned, celebrate chrismas on the day they chose. Who is the ignorant pagan here?