Ishibabes

You no tross me?

Dey will take! Na that day they will know say kijipa kii ṣe awọ!

Anyway, why am I even surprised that crybabies are liars.

The whole edifice of Roman Catholicism is built on lies and fraud! So they are just following in the footsteps of their "fathers"!

Crybaby still looking for comfort.

Oh and he and the other crybaby trying to discuss by proxy --- the posts that they do not read!

Radoillo:

Well...*shrugs*... No point in continuing this conversation. Especially as you can't tell the difference between translating the Bible from Hebrew to Vulgar Latin (which was what Jerome did) and formulating a new canon. You guys, keep at it. I'll just watch from the sidelines, and leave when I eventually get bored.

#Peace.

I have already been bored because you brought a fat zero to the table and contributed nothing tangible as far as I can see. You could not even show enough comprehension and/or honesty about my post which mentioned Jerome.

Adios!

philfearon:
Bro,no matter How u try to disguise the question,You are still ending up Begging the Question{Petitio Principii}.....
2ndly,all you have been doing is having irrelevant conclusions{Ignoratio elenchi}....
Those your Japanese folks as you said,have a name,they have an organisation and they have people making sure that things get done......Whats Yours?{if you cant answer this simple question,that means you are not worth discussing with!}

Go and learn about the Church of Christ i.e. the Church that the apostle Paul described as "those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours"

Meanwhile what was the name of the church of those Japanese people?

Who says two or three people gathered together in Jesus' name cannot have an "organisation" and make sure that they get things done?

And are you aware of the various churches that met in houses in the Bible?

Radoillo: @ Enigma: Oh dear.... Did you miss what I wrote about the Old Testament already being in use by the Jews who compiled it into two parts, the Law (the Torah) and the Prophets even before Christianity came along?

What we've been arguing (I believe) is the origins of the Christian[i] Bible (comprising the [i]Old and the New Testament.)

I have not been "arguing" anything with you. What I have been doing is explaining and teaching.

Even as it is, you are better to go away and learn simple things first; the "protestants" and the Roman Catholics are agreed on the New testament (others disagree with both of them).

The disagreement between the "Protestants" and the Roman Catholics is centrally about the Apocrypha which you Roman Catholics call the Deuterocanonicals.

The secondary issue is when the books were "compiled" and by whom. And on that I have already shown that they were compiled from the apostolic age and essentially completed before there was any such thing as either "the Catholic Church" or the Roman Catholic Church.

My generosity is beginning to ebb and I'm beginning to think I should refer you to go and do your homework.

Radoillo:

You were wrong about Jerome; I pointed that out nicely. Still haven't gotten round to reading about Gregory and Cajetan.

Nope, I was not wrong whatsoever. You need to sharpen your comprehension my good mucker.

Read again what I wrote. And of course if we want to point to who was "wrong" you will have to admit to how much you were truly ignorant until you came across me today.

Let me show one further generosity especially about the canon identified by Athanasius being now denigrated by our friends as "private" or "unofficial". Yeah, right! lol

From another I made earlier - see what some people who even have a stronger claim than Roman Catholics to be called "the Catholic Church" say:

And naturally, the Eastern orthodox (unlike the Roman Catholics) give quite some respect to Athanasius' role in developing the canon of the Bible. Well, he was one of theirs after all.

From http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?

As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.

Radoillo:

Actually... not really. Some inaccuracies....But, u try. Still think all Christian churches are steeped in 'evil' (according to the OP's definition of 'evil'). Y'all should become Witnesses.

Yeah, now you know about Athanasius' letter which you probably had never heard of; so free "history" lesson there.

You also learned better about Carthage, Jerome, Gregory, Cajetan etc.

I have been quite generous.

philfearon:
I dont know Whether You have two Monickers,but someone i was chatting with sometime ago on this section,quoted the Exact passage you quoted........
Like i told the Person,not Unless you stay in your house and Worship by yourself alone,You sure should do yourself a favour by answering the question bro!!

Which time did I suddenly become your "bro"?

See you will do yourself a biiiig favour by finding out about the Church of Jesus Christ that consists of all believers/disciples of all ages and everywhere globally.

Let me give you an example from a post by a brother: https://www.nairaland.com/1140562/true-church

Ihedinobi: ... Then an amazing thing happened: A small band of Japanese visited the little mission chapel at Nagasaki and caught the eye of Father, later Bishop, Petitjean, by their unusually pious demeanor. Conversing with them, he was dumbfounded to learn that they were believing Christians who had secretly managed to hold onto the essentials of the Christian faith for two centuries, although without priests and totally isolated from the outside world. Other groups of these crypto-Christians were gradually discovered scattered in the islands and mountains around Nagasaki - numbering in all some ten thousand. Their organisation was almost everywhere the same: Usually there were two male leaders who conducted the prayers every Sunday, baptized, and ministered consolation to the dying.

When news of this reached the ears of the Japanese authorities they reacted with fury, for Christianity was still a proscribed religion. They meted out cruel punishment to these heroic believers, some of whom died, while others went into exile.

World opinion stirred up by press reports, however, finally brought an end to the persecution, and in 1889 complete freedom of worship was granted in the new constitution.

You see that? No priests, no "popes"! BUT they are still members of my Church, members of the Christian Church.

I know that the Roman Catholic Church will not allow such to share in "the eucharist" BUT they are welcome to 'holy communion' with me anytime!

Radoillo:

*sigh* OK. Why do I bother....

At least you have learned a thing or two about "history" today.

That's got to count for something.

Radoillo:

LOL. Its amusing that my stance on this debate is taken as evidence that I'm Catholic.The only time i have ever engaged in a religious debate on this forum, I did state that I didn't have belief in organized religion.

https://www.nairaland.com/1317012/amazing-accounts-near-death-experiences/7#19225555



I'm still trying to figure out how the posts you pointed out implied I was Catholic.

Like I said, if you tell me that you are not a Roman Catholic, I will take that at face value.

philfearon:
Exactly What i knew You Would say..Thats What The Previous folks has been saying,and You are not Different From Them.......
2ndly,I dont take a jibe at people,so if i called You a foool,that means You are a fooool!!
Alwaz quick to remove a speck in a another persons eyez,but You have Solid stones in Yours!!

Just like I knew what you would say -- the same thing that the mumu ogas at the top of Roman Catholicism have brainwashed you people with.

Come let me show you my Church; please remember to first take off the Roman Catholic glasses preventing you from seeing!

1 Corinthians 1:2

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours

philfearon:
Thank God You said "Popes"..............."Popes" is nobody's name!!
2ndly,i dont know What You being a "fooooool" has to do With Christ!! I see You are hell bent on condemning Catholics...But then,Be bold enough to answer this Question:
What Church do You Worship With?
If you wont answer this{of course i know You wont},Then Shut Your mouth Already....
,.....If you dont answer my question,then this follows:
If You are a Catholic on Thread,Please just keep quiet,let the thread die naturally as it should...NO COMMENTS======>The thread dies!
@OP and Enigma,you can talk urselves out!!

I am being nice to you, you just don't know. I could easily have pointed out to you that you too must have come out from the loins of a fool.
I chose not to but to focus on historical facts about Roman Catholic "popes" instead.

As for my "church", I am part of the Church, I am part of the Christian Church. You will see my "church" anywhere you see two or three people gathered in Jesus' name.

If you mean where you suggested that you were Roman Catholic, there is this post and and this post and and this post as well as one or two others where you were going on about "dogmas" and all that.

If you now tell me you are not a Roman Catholic I will take your word at face value but I have seen a lot of tricks and see through a lot of things.

Radoillo:

I believe I already stated i'm not Catholic. I'm not even particularly a religious person. My interest in all of this is purely academic. Christians pointing fingers and calling one another names (like the OP has been doing) is so funny i'm sick of laughing at it. And only those who haven't delved into the Church's history with critical, open minds will engage in it.

I didn't know Jerome compiled a new biblical canon. I always thought what he did was to translate the Bible into Latin (what is called the Latin Vulgate). Perhaps you should look again at your sources. Is your source objective and not anti-Catholic? Cajetan and Gregory, I'll look up when I have the time, 'cause I really don't know the roles they played in Bible-compiling history.

I am certain you suggested in a number of posts that you were a Catholic. And I did read your posts.

I would say go and do the looking up you want to do then come back and seek any further clarification you then require. On my part, I stand by what I have posted.

Ihedinobi:
Big bro, you have mail.

Thanks, I will look into it.

philfearon:
A "FOOL" means someone Who lacks good Sense or Judgement....Its a pity how people dont undastand simple English....
You said there was nothing like "Authority" among the early Christians,and i showed You that it existed then by referring You to "Acts15" ...What did you do? You started saying i was "lying deliberately or ignorant".......What does that make You? It suggests You are a Fooooool,and a Big one at that!!

As I said, I don't mind being called a "FOOL"; BUT then Roman Catholic "popes" are worse because they are generally LIARS, many have been fraudsters, murderers, heretics, adulterers etc. Look, even Roman catholic bishops and historians say so! I can give you "quotes" if you want.

And of course you are ignorant about Acts 15 having been brainwashed by the fraudulent Roman Catholic interpretation of the passage; I would have explained it to you but it is not even worth my while.

Yep, so I am a "Fooooool"; but Roman Catholic "popes" are murderers, heretics, fraudsters, liars etc.

Ask yourself which is worse.

Radoillo:

Ukuts, it will be nice if you shut up now. I'm trying to focus on the far more intellectual points Enigma is making.

@Enigma, I gotta admit I didn't quite know about disagreements between Rome and Carthage at that time. The sources I see state that Boniface, who later became the Bishop of Rome was represented at that council in Carthage.

Also I tend to agree with the guy who said that the list made by Anasthasius and others were non-canonical, non-official.

The books of the Bible (and some that didn't finally make it into the Bible) were in use and were read. Just that they were individual books, not yet compiled into the single volume we use today.

If you are talking about what you Roman Catholics use which you "canonised" in the 16th century, then I will not really be all that bothered. Roman Catholic Bible is Roman Catholic Bible. Meanwhile even during its canonisation in the 16th century, they did not know which version of the Vulgate was accurate. So that is Roman catholic business.

A question that I have put to your fellow Roman Catholics, if Carthage had canonised the Roman Catholic Bible then why did Jerome up to 20 years later, Gregory I up to 200 years later and Cajetan up to 1400 years later(!) all not see that Carthage had "canonised" the Roman catholic Bible?


As for Athanasius' list, I will leave you again to read what he said as I quoted above and see if you can still say that was "unofficial". Oh, and of course as I also said, the lists of "popes" by Irenaeus, Eusebius etc must also be seen as "unofficial" with the implication that they are unreliable --- and they are what Roman Catholics are relying upon (which in any event even conflict with Jerome and Tertullian's lists).

Well, the Christian Bible started being compiled during the apostolic era and the "compilation" was essentially completed before there was any such thing as "the Catholic Church" or even the Roman Catholic church.

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.

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".

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!

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!

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.

^^^ 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: 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.

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".

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.

philfearon:
If you Were wise enough,You would have realised that there was nothing like The Bible in that period.....
But even at then,there was "Authority" and there was "Primacy":
"Acts15" will tell you that there were constituted Authorities within the Early believers that decided on matters!

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!

C.Ovo:

Please tell them o!These catholics are so blind and ignorant.They even claim they started christianity,that paul founded the church.

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

blink182: when you accept Jesus, you have been placed above and dead to sin. You can not go to hell whatever lifestyle you choose. What happens when you disobey God thereafter is the breaking of communion and the hedge of protection around you.

Actually, in light of this post I should say that my interest on this thread is not on whether anyone, RCC or not, is going to hell. I take the view that it is presumptuous and wrong to say anyone is going to hell.

My interest on this thread is about false claims e.g. concerning the Bible etc.

philfearon:
So Who are the Christians You are talking About?

People who believed in Christ but did not know about the "authority" or "primacy" of some "pope". In fact, the ones I'm talking about never even heard of any such thing called "pope".

Go and do some research. I know you are also familiar with my posts on other threads.