₦airaland Forum

Catching up on this thread now, I am amused that when the Roman Catholics here have been caught in their initial lies some of them are using style to introduce new ones.

Ah,about Jerome: if the Roman Catholic Church organisation had "canonised" the Bible at the synod of Hippo in 393, why was Jerome then ignorant of that fact? Imagine that Jerome, a whole "church father" did not know that his "church" had already canonised the Bible!

Oh, and of course over 100 years later, even "pope" Gregory I did not know that his own church had canonised the bible at the Synod of Hippo of 393! And as late as the 16th century, the Roman Catholic "cardinal" Cajetan did not know that his church had canonised the Bible at the Synod of Hippo -- such that Cajetan also said that the apocrypha was not part of the biblical canon.

How can we explain this?

Easy-peasy! The Roman Catholic apologists are lying when they say "they" "canonised" the Bible at the Synod of Hippo!

When the Roman Catholic organisation people truly set their own canon in the 16th century, they placed a curse/anathema on people who disagreed with their canon!

adsonstone:
pls, put it down for Chukwudi44 and educate him, he said the roman catholic and orthodox are 99.9999% in doctrinal concordance.

Bros, na small small and in little bits the information will be coming out just as it started with your post (and truly, I had listed those things among others).

For now, let me just drop one fom an earlier post; I have chosen this one because of all the lies and misleading statements and "half truths" that the "Catholics" "compiled" the Bible bla bla bla.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/1104124/problem-catholism-an-introspection/21#15206811

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.

adsonstone: If you say the catholic church is the 'true church' by the reason of the sins protestants accuse you of, and the orthodox is 'more guilty' definitely the orthodox must be the 'more true church'.

-They have 3more deuterocanonical books than you do. (worthy of note, they were part of the catholic church in the 4th century you claim you compiled the bible....how come you have two different books in one church?)

-They disagree with your concept of papal infalibility.
- Baptism by sprinkling is not left out of things they disbelieve in. Infact, they do their infant baptism by imersion.
- Infant communion.
- They allow priests to marry (i wonder where you guys learnt that priests shouldnt marry and made it a 'law' in your church).
- Finally, they reject the topic of this thread- purgatory!

Etc

Nice.

I have a similar compilation of things/doctrines that the Eastern Orthodox (aka Orthodox Catholic Church) disagree with the Roman Catholic church denomination about.

And of course you are right, Eastern Orthodox can actually be said to be the true "Catholics" and not so much the Roman Catholic organisation. Roman Catholic is Roman Catholic --- NOT "the Catholic".

Only by wuruwuru mathematics of 5-4=5 (or some other folly) will someone say that the Roman Catholic organisation is "the Catholic Church".

Before I go to bed, one more thing people should note (two in fact)!

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.

Meanwhile, people please note another thing!

The above post again shows that the Roman Catholic Church and its apologists are lying whenever they say they canonised the "Bible" in the 4th century!

1. The Ethiopean Church was part of "the Catholic Church" of the 4th century; how come then that its Bible and canon is different from that of the Roman Catholic Church?

2. Jerome was part of "the Catholic Church" of the 4th century, how come what he believed to be the canon in the 4th century is different from what the Roman Catholic Church actually canonised in the 16th century?

3. "Pope" Gregory I lived and was pope in the 5th or 6th century; he was part of what was known as "the Catholic Church"; how come what he believed to be the canon of the Bible in the 6th century differs from what the Roman catholic church later canonised in the 16th century at Trent.

4. Even in the 16th century in the early parts, "cardinal" Cajetan lets us know that the Roman Catholics did NOT have the canon that they were only to set later in that same 16th century! Shortly, before Trent and the so-called "counter reformation" of the Roman Catholic denomination where they set a canon that included the Apocrypha, "Cardinal" Cajetan of the very same Roman Catholic denomination stated clearly that the Apocrypha is not part of the canon!


These matters confirm that the Roman Catholics are lying repeatedly on this thread.

Meanwhile, let us play the Roman catholic denomination people at their own game!

Why did the Roman Catholic denomination people remove books from the Bible.

Many of the liars on this thread are ignorant that versions of their own Vulgate included more books than the 73 that they now have and that they say anyone who disagrees with is anathema.

What is more, the Bible of the Ethiopean Church contains 81 books ---- why did the Roman catholic church denomination remove 8 books?

From another one I made earlier https://www.nairaland.com/1104124/problem-catholism-an-introspection/18#14940233

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.

Let us put the lies of the Roman Catholic denomination people on this thread in stark relief. Here are three extremely prominent Roman catholic denomination people also "removing" books from the Bible --- what they liars here are accusing Luther of.

Note the ranking of these people in the Roman catholic denomination

Jerome: Roman catholic denomination people call him a "church father"; he is the one who came up with the Roman catholic people;s own very bible i.e. the vulgate!

"PopeE Gregory I aka Gregory "the Great" --- a whole Roman Catholic "pope"! In fact the Roman catholics think so much of him they call him "the Great"!

"Cardinal Cajetan --- a whole Roman catholic cardinal; the one who interrogated the same Martin Luther

Yet all these three people also "removed" books from the Bible ---- just like Luther is being accused of here at least with half truths (to borrow the words of one of my crybabies).


Jerome:

"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."


Per "pope" Gregory I or Gregory the Great

Just before referring to the Maccabees, he said

“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony.”


Per "Cardinal" Cajetan

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."



Now, according to the Council of Trent, each of the "church father", the "pope" and the "cardinal" would now be anathema because they all excluded books which the Roman Catholics include in their canon at Trent --- in 1546!

The Roman catholic denomination people are lying of course when they say that Luther removed 7 books from the Bible! On this very thread I have also shown how their own "pope" Gregory, "cardinal" Cajetan* and even Jerome all "removed" Apocrypha books too.

*EDIT Meanwhile Cajetan was the one who interviewed (or 'interrogated') Luther in the wake of Luther's 95 theses; yet he too agreed with Luther about the Apocrypha! Yet people are lying about Luther. smh

DrummaBoy: .... Nevertheless, the best of men are men at their best.

And that is why it is so wrong to uplift men and make them GO and such likes, as it is so common in the WoF movement. When they err, a whole generation can err with them as it is being seen with those following the teachings of Kenneth Hagin.

You this man! honestly you are talking far too much sense for one morning! I don't know how many + I want to put now.

Let's just say +1000.

Bros, you don't know how much of your post reads to me! I am busy now and cannot say much!

Let me just say that years ago I often went to Westminster Chapel to listen to RT especially when he did a series called "School of Theology" (IIRC); RT is a good man and well meaning but forgive for saying this of a respected elder, he is/was a bit naive and at one point even allowed Rodney Howard Browne to desecrate the Chapel!

God bless you deeply, bros!

EDIT PS I forgot to add that I am a huge fan of the late Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones.

Candour: We can all see the plentiful atheists you've been able to convert with your various expositions here particular the 'deep revelations' of tithing you have. I congratulate you and leave that ministry to you. You are 'obviously succeeding' nicely in it.

After reading the atheist deconversion thread, my ministry became correcting erroneous doctrine in the body of Christ before every believer becomes another atheist and judging from responses, we thank God for little mercies. .....

+1

When we present lies to people of a questioning mind, and they discover we have been lying even though it is on doctrinally inconsequential things such as tithing --- then we shouldn't be surprised if in intellectually lazy fashion (on their part), they simply reject everything else we say.

Similarly, when we build and seek to establish "authority" or "primacy" on the basis of an edifice of gigantic fraud, we should not be surprised when people who come to realise the gigantic fraud lose sight of and turn their back on the precious faith.

I am confident in my mind that of all the groups claiming to be Christian, the two from which people are most rapidly turning away and to atheism are:

1. The Word of Faith aka WoF aka Prosperity Gospel ---- in Nigeria, this is particularly bad with its penetration of all kind of hustlers hoping to cash in on tithes and "dangerous" seeds etc such that we see such things as "Cutlass Sharp Sharp Ministry" (ok I made the name up but what we see is not far from that!)

2. The Roman Catholic church denomination ---- for all the good that this one has done, it is just too full of too many lies and frauds; and when in the face of that it seeks to claim "authority" and moral ground, yet its priests are not leaving small pikin yanshes alone ...........

But then very happily, there will always be a remnant!

Crybabies giving one another self comfort! hahahahaha

Ajibam Bros

Thanks (I think you acted on my message?)

Have a good day all.

Let the Roman Catholic church denomination continue to peddle lies and forgeries and its apologists continue to push fraudulent arguments even when we ignore the vast majority of the lies and fraud.

Ah well, we might as well have a little play before returning to "interpretations" of the Bible by the Roman Catholic church denomination --- especially thinking back that one letter of Jerome was posted earlier.

Here, see the Roman Catholic Church denomination use style to admit that its own Book of Popes contains fiction and lies and that some of its authors are even unknown,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09224a.htm

"Historical criticism has for a long time dealt with this ancient text in an exhaustive way, especially in recent decades after Duchesne had begun the publication of his classic edition. In most of its manuscript copies there is found at the beginning a spurious correspondence between Pope Damasus and Saint Jerome. These letters were considered genuine in the Middle Ages; consequently, in those times St. Jerome was considered the author of the biographies as far as Damasus, at whose request it was believed Jerome had written the work, the subsequent lives having been added at the command of each individual pope. When the above-mentioned correspondence was proved entirely apocryphal, this view was abandoned.

In the sixteenth century Onofrio Panvinio on quite insufficient grounds attributed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius in the ninth century the continuation of the biographies as far as Nicholas I. A[b]lthough Baronius in great measure corrected this false impression, the earlier editions, which appeared in the seventeenth century, bear the name of Anastasius as the author of our book of the popes[/b]. The investigations of Ciampini ("Examen Libri Pontificalis seu Vitarum Rom. Pont. quæ sub nomine Anastasii circumferuntur", Rome, 1688), Schelstrate ("Dissertatio de antiquis Romanorum Pontificum catalogis", Rome, 1692), and other scholars, disprove any possible claim of Anastasius to the authorship of this work.

The conclusive researches of Duchesne have established beyond a doubt that in its earlier part, as far as the ninth century, the Liber Pontificalis war gradually compiled, and that the later continuations were added unsystematically. In only a few cases is it possible to ascertain the authors."

HumbledbYGrace: Nope, we can't.

Thanks, I managed to sort it. Sorry for late reply.

Example of "interpretation" of the Bible by the Roman Catholic church denomination and its "magisterium"!

Sample 3


Roman Catholic church

if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

versus

Jesus Christ

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all." (Mark 9:36)

Two examples of "interpretation" of the Bible by the Roman Catholic church denomination and its "magisterium"!


Sample 1

Roman Catholic church

Two or three people gathered in Jesus' name are not a church; they are a shop!

versus

Jesus Christ

Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sample 2


Roman Catholic Church

“We declare, state, define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. (‘Pope’ Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam; statement made ex cathedra, thus ‘infallibly’!)

Versus

Jesus Christ

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

woky: silent is the best answer givn to a fool.

So u blv all those trash dat enigma has bin postin.. Smh

I hope you know that if I'm talking trash then the Roman Catholic church denomination is talking trash too?

Let me give you too examples.

1. I say that Jerome did not regard the Apocrypha as part of the canon. If you say that is trash, the Roman Catholic denomination is talking trash too. You should check its Encyclopaedia.

2. I say that "pope" Gregory I did not regard some books of the Apocrypha as part of the canon. If you say that is trash, the Roman Catholic denomination is talking trash too. You should check its Encyclopaedia.

Bros, when it comes to scriptures na another matter for our friends oh! Na that time dem go rememba "tradition".

Scripture says to believe in Jesus Christ and be saved. Our friends say no! Dem say "tradition" says pesin must submit to the Roman pontiff to be saved.

But now wey tradition shows us how we got our Bible, dem say dem nor want know whether na scriptures oh or whether na tradition. Dem want "councils" --- councils of forgery and fake claims of "ratification". Na wa for awa people dem oh!

Oh by the way, apart form the fact that Origen personally is considered a heretic by the #masterforgers, none of Origen, Eusebius or Athanasius was a Roman Catholic.

What is more, the churches to which each one of them belonged is currently declared by the Roman Catholic denomination to be ---- anathema!

In fact, for the avoidance of doubt let us take this thing back 200 years before any of the "councils" that our friends like to claim!

Also note in the quote which follows, a pattern and connection from Origen, to Eusebius and to ------- Athanasius!

"Origen was largely responsible for the collection of usage information regarding the texts which became the New Testament. The information used to create the late-fourth-century Easter Letter, which declared accepted Christian writings, was probably based on the Ecclesiastical History [HE] of Eusebius of Caesarea, wherein he uses the information passed on to him by Origen to create both his list at HE 3:25 and Origen’s list at HE 6:25. Eusebius got his information about what texts were accepted by the third-century churches throughout the known world, a great deal of which Origen knew of firsthand from his extensive travels, from the library and writings of Origen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

Notes
1. The Easter Letter (aka Festal Letter) refers to the document in which Athanasius presented the list of books that he said was acccredited and divine and handed down to the fathers by eyewitnesses from the beginning.
2. Eusebius relied on Origen.
3. 200 years before any of our friends "councils", Origen already had all the 27 books of our present New Testament --- and then some!
4. The books of the Bible had already been "compiled"!

Oh and of course, Origen is officially a heretic according to our friends.

Oh, also, I have of course not so far bothered to address the Old Testament and The Apocrypha. These are books that were in existence even before Jesus Christ became incarnate and which were already "compiled" and included in The Septuagint. As I once said, only the fraudulent or extremely deluded can claim that Roman Catholics "wrote" or "compiled" those.

So, to recap, by the time of Eusebius the majority of Christians had recognised 26 out of the 27 books of our modern New Testament and at least 21 of those were universally recognised!

Since we also know similar about Origen going back about 200 years before the fourth century that our friends like to claim they "canonised" the "Bible", is it not clear that our friends are liars?

By the way, if they say Eusebius' list is private, they have two problems:

1. He did not say it was his list; he said he was reporting what the churches were already doing! (Just like Athanasius too 20 or more years later! Athanasius vindicated!)
2. Then the list of "popes" by Eusebius that they like to rely on must also be seen as "private" and nothing more!



Edited

Now, leaving aside the #masterforgers for a minute and a propos the role of tradition in the identification of the canon of the Bible.

First, FF Bruce says that Eusebius "gives an account of the New Testament writings current throughout the churches in his own time."

And then we read from Eusebius himself and that he categorised scriptures contending to be part of the canon into three (some argue into four) but these ones are certain.

A. Those universally acknowledged.

"In the first place should be placed the holy tetrad of the gospels. These are followed by the writing of the Acts of the Apostles. After this should be reckoned the epistles of Paul. Next after them should he recognized the so-called first epistle of John and likewise that of Peter. In addition to these must be placed, should it seem right, John’s Apocalypse."

Notes
1. Because he says there were 14 epistles of Paul, the view is extant that he includes Hebrews among the above.
2. Although he includes Revelation "should it seem right" he seems to acknowledge some doubt about Revelation.
3. Crucially when we count above: at the time of Eusebius loooong BEFORE any "council" claimed by our friends, Christians had already accepted at least 21 (or 22 counting Revelation) of the 27 books of the New Testament of today ------ universally and by tradition.
4. Remember also that Eusebius was going by what had been the practice of the churches for a long period.

B. Those Disputed BUT recognised by the Majority

"To the books which are disputed, but recognized by the majority, belong the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude,
the second epistle of Peter and the so-called second and third epistles of John, whether these are by the evangelist or by someone else with the same name."

Notes
1. The majority of churches recognised an additional 5 of 27 books of today's New Testament
2. That means that by Eusebius' time, the majority of Christian churches had recognised 26 out of 27 (leaving out Revelation for now) of our modern canon --- with 21 of the 25 being universally accepted.

C. "Spurious" (or rather uncanonical) books*

"Among the books which are spurious should be reckoned the Acts of Paul, 6 the so-called Shepherd, ’ the Apocalypse of Peter and in addition to these the so-called epistle of Barnabas’ and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles, ” and moreover, as I said, the
Apocalypse of John, should it seem right. For, as I said, some reject it, while others count it among the acknowledged books. Some have also included in the list the Gospel according to the Hebrews, ” in which special pleasure is taken by those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ."



* "Spurious" does not necessarily mean false authorship or even lack of usefulness or importance; The Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas are not seen as false; rather they are seen as useful --- just not canonical.

OK, now to the main point intended for post above.

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) 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!

OK, so there is no question that the council(s) of Carthage was an African affair. Remember that even a whole "Cardinal" Cajetan of the Roman catholic denomination called it a "provincial council".

Because this is undeniable, the #masterforgers like to claim that they "ratified" the council and its "canon"; it is a lie!

Before I get to the matter let me digress: at the later of the Carthage councils there were legates i.e. Representatives from Rome. This is normal --- just like even Bergoglio had people from the Eastern Orthodox and even people he did not regard as "churches" at all and even Moslems IIRC at his 'coronation'. Hmmm 'coronation'! Worldly nonsense!

Enuwe, at that council, the Roman legates i.e. representatives of the "pope" told the Africans that the Council of Nicea had given some powers of appeal to Rome and made some other claims. The Africans never did recognise the power (as opposed to perhaps influence) of Rome over any appeals from their decision. They did not believe the Roman legates' claim about what he said was in Nicea. The copies known to them did not have what the Roman legate was claiming. The Africans said that they would only accept what the Roman chap was saying ---- if it could be confirmed by other people to have been part of Nicea. They therefore reserved their position and said that they would be sending for Greek copies from churches at Antioch and at least two other places! Even at that time and at Carthage, the Africans did NOT trust the #masterforgers!

Now the digression has gone long, I will have to make my intended main point for this post in another post.

Back to my point about the fact that the acts of Hippo are lost and the #masterforgers are again lying when they say they have a list from Hippo.

Here is an explanation of (a) one of the places where they derive the argument of reconstructing Hippo through Carthage and (b) how it is not really sustainable: http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

Hefele maintains that this canon derives from an earlier council, convened in 393 at Hippo Regius, 7 and that the third council of Carthage simply incorporated it, along with many other statutes of the earlier council.

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. Westcott writes:

The third Council of Carthage was held in the year 397 A.D. in the pontificate of Siricus; and Boniface did not succeed to the Roman chair till the year 418 A.D.; so that the allusion to him is at first sight perplexing. Yet this anachronism admits of a reasonable solution. In the year 419 A.D., after the confirmation of Boniface in the Roman epsicopate, the Canons of the African Church were collected and formed into one code. In the process of such a revision it was perfectly natural that some reference should be made to foreign churches on such a subject as the contents of Scripture, which were fixed by usage rather than by law. The marginal note which directed the inquiry was suffered to remain, probably because the plan was never carried out; and that which stood in the text of the general code was afterwards transferred to the text of the original Synod."

Again, we see from the text emphasised with bigger font that the "canon" was fixed by usage rather than by law. It was fixed by ---- tradition.

More to the present point we see that some wuruwuru seems to be going on to see Hippo in Carthage --- even despite what Westcott calls the possibility of a reasonable explanation!

As for the italicised, part of the explanation goes that the plan for consultation was probably never carried out. I will actually make another point about that in a separate post.



#masterforgers we salute!

Ah well! Even beyond the infallibility 'epic fail' when Gregory I who was "pope" did not know that his own church had made or "ratified" a canon, there have always been question marks about the authenticity of the lists that people claim to be from Carthage.

Here is one example from here http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

"We also observe the peculiar manner in which the Epistle to the Hebrews is listed: “Epistolae Pauli Apostoli xiii., ejusdem ad Hebraeos una.” Here ejusdem looks like a later addition. In any case, the anachronism in the penultimate sentence shows that we do not have the canon in its original form here. The original canon has been edited by someone who has adapted it to churchly developments after 418 A.D.

Books of the Apocrypha are named in this list: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees; and the expression "five books of Solomon" implies the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Augustine, in his City of God and On Christian Doctrine, says that in addition to Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are often ascribed to Solomon). Some have attributed the inclusion of these books to the influence of Augustine in Hippo and Carthage, because in his writings he sometimes treats them as canonical. But the canon itself purports to give a list of books which were traditionally read in the African churches: “quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda.”"

At the underlined, don't put any tampering past the #masterforgers; I have had a look in their encyclopaedia and there is reason to suspect them.

And do you see the last bolded saying that even this canon derives from what was traditionally read in African churches. In other words even this "canon" derives ----- from tradition.

For the benefit of Christians, I will find time in a more sane atmosphere, e.g. a new thread, to explain thoroughly the process and to provide clarification on some of the matters that the #masterforgers have always liked to obfuscate.

Candour: I agree with you my brother. I can't thank you enough for bringing that devotional to remembrance. I used to believe that they were honest when they harped about Abraham but with Adeboye's devotional and this one by Oyakhilome, its obvious they are knowingly peddling falsehood.

I have therefore decided not to engage them too much on this issue henceforth. Anybody who wishes to know the truth on Naira land has enough threads to visit to learn.

However, these devotionals will be waiting for them whenever they start with their lies again anytime and on any thread on this forum.

Regarding the bolded:

For me this does not only apply to the supporters of "tithing" but to any group who chooses to pursue an agenda rather than to honestly try to portray biblical teaching and/or historical facts!

My attitude is that if the issue is important, I may consider it worthwhile to put the counterpoints on the relevant thread; but I do not necessarily have to engage directly with such people (unless they are decent enough or apparently innocent). What to counter are their ideas and arguments.

Roman Catholics can lie bare faced sha!

The records and acts of the Synod of Hippo are lost; so really, there is no list from the Synod of Hippo!

If anyone says they have an authentic list (or copy thereof) of the books of the canon from Hippo, they are lying!

Rather, what some have been doing is to use the list at the synods of Carthage to claim they have "reconstructed" what must have happened at Hippo.


Oh, and if Carthage is a Roman Catholic canon or was "ratified" by Roman Catholics, why did "pope" Gregory I not know either of this and why did he say the Apocrypha is not part of the "canon"? And which "canon"?

Oh and of course the said "pope" Gregory I is anathema for saying the Apocrypha is not part of the "canon" --- thereby contradicting Trent!

Or maybe "pope" Gregory I was not infallible ---- which then of course destroys the Roman Catholic nonsensical idea of "infallibility"!

The obfuscation will certainly die down before I do my posts on Polycarp and others. In fact, it is just possible that I will put the Polycarp matter on another thread; we'll see.

In the meantime let us have a play with Roman Catholic claims and the dates they claim to have "canonised" the Bible.

A. Council of Rome 382

1. For a start the list of books that the Roman catholic people try to base on this has been shown to be a forgery produced 200-300 years later! #masterforgers
2. If the canon had been set in 382, why then were they still setting or debating the canon years later e.g. that Jerome was supposed to be producing identifying the canon 10-20 years later? Oh Ho!
3. Why were Jerome and Augustine of Hippo still arguing what books were in "the canon".
4. NOTE both are assuming that a canon already exists! The very same thing that Athanasius suggested; a canon already existed --- according to the use and practice of the churches; according to tradition!

B. Synod of Hippo 393

1. This was actually simply a regional synod of African churches!
2. If it had set the canon, why then were they still setting or debating the canon years later e.g. Jerome and still, the synods of Carthage between 397 and 419AD.
3. Again, why then the debate between Jerome and Augustine?

C. Synods of Carthage 397-419 AD

1. Again these were African affairs!
2. It is the very one that the Roman Catholic "Cardinal" Cajetan referred to as "provincial".
3. If it settled the canon for Roman Catholics, why did a whole "pope" Gregory I contradict it 100 years later by saying that the Apocrypha is not part of the "canon"?
4. Which "canon" was Gregory referring to? Yep, the canon handed down as said by Athanasius; the canon according to the use and practice of the churches; the canon according to tradition.

^^ Bros, it is well known that the basis of the prevalent modern teaching of "tithing" is Malachi 3. The only reason some of them are now trying to take refuge in Abram and Genesis 14 is because deep within they know that using Malachi in that way is un-Christian and unbiblical!

Even the leading 'Daddy GO' has repeatedly said the same thing as above and arguably even worse because of the suggestion or argument which goes as follows:

- Robbers are going to "hell"
- Non-tithers are robbers
- Non-tithers are going to "hell"

This is one of the reasons I am grateful for that old post of the poster who used to defend tithing where these matters are brought to the fore.

In the past, there were also a number of posters who like to use the line that non-tithers are going to "hell"; now we don't see many of them --- maybe some of them have had a rethink!