₦airaland Forum

And also previously posted https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic#15239932

C. The New Testament

In fairness, this one is a bit complicated and care needs to be taken when trying to identify who "compiled" it.

Today, in the West, both Roman Catholics and "Protestants" accept 27 books as books of the New Testament. There have always been other books written in the Christian era which have not been accepted into the present New Testament -- which again is same for both Roman Catholics and "Protestants".


1. Authorship of New Testament Books

The authors are believed to be the apostles of Jesus Christ or people connected or associated with them. The authors were not members of the Roman Catholic Church or even of "The Catholic Church". Therefore any claim by Roman Catholics that they "wrote" the New Testament is patently false and a blatant lie.


2. Date of Writing and the Issue of "Compilation"

These 27 books are widely believed to have been written by 100-110 AD (though some scholars argue slightly later for some books). See an example of claimed timelines here http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ and a second example here http://www.newtestamenthistorytimeline.com/

We know from the Bible itself that some of the books of the New Testament were already in circulation among the early Christian Communities e.g. 2 Peter 3: 15-17; Colossians 4:16 etc. In fact, it is believed that even in the apostolic era some of Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection. In other words, they were already "compiled"!

Furthermore, it is also known that some of the New Testament books were in circulation, if not indeed wide circulation among early Christians by AD 100. There is clear proof of this: letters by Clement of Rome in 97 AD, Ignatius of Antioch in c. 107 AD and Polycarp of Smyrna, close to that time as well, all quote from the books of the New Testament and, between them, these three letters quote from almost all 27 books of present New Testament.

Obviously, the books were written and also the books were already being "compiled" that early on. They were already being "compiled" before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church"!

Now, the complication is (a) that there was considerable debate and even doubt as to whether to accept some books as 'canonical' even including some of the books in the present New Testament; and (b) that eventually some extant books were rejected as not being 'canonical'; some were wholly rejected; some were seen as very useful even though not 'canonical' - two examples being The Didache and The Shepherd of Hermas.

Now how were some rejected and others accepted: it was by certain recognitions and practices of various church communities and respected early Christians (sometimes being believed to be students of the apostles). Very early on, again even before the era of "The Catholic Church", most churches in different places had recognised and accepted the four gospels of today and the same is said of most of Paul's letters. In fact, it is claimed that in 1 Timothy 5:18 even Paul himself quotes Luke's gospel (Luke 10:7) as "scripture"! It is similarly claimed that when Peter referred to Paul's letters, he was referring to them as "scriptures". So, already, we can say we have very good guides about the status of some books already.

About others, as noted earlier, very soon there was consensus from practices of the churches and of respected early Christians on some books as accepted, on some as disputed, and on some as rejected. Nevertheless, by the time of the Muratorian Canon (c.170-180 AD) and of Origen in early 200s AD, we already had the 27 book NT canon largely taking shape. Note that at this point, this was before the era when "The Catholic Church" had become exclusive and at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

In AD 367, Athanasius of Alexandria listed the 27 books of today's New Testament as the books that make up the canon of the New Testament. This was before there was any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church". It was also before the decree of Theodosius appropriating the word "Catholic" though, in fairness, by then some, e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem, had already started to use the word "Catholic" in a sense to exclude others --- considering especially that this was after Nicea. Again, nevertheless it was at a point when, strictly speaking, there was not any such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" but simply "the Church of Rome"! And the Church of Rome alone did not mean "The Catholic Church"!

Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic#15239789

Let me say from the outset that the point of this post is to show that at the time when the Bible was written and initially "compiled", there was NO such thing as "the Roman Catholic Church" or even "The Catholic Church".

Yep, and I repeat: there was NO such thing as "The Roman Catholic Church" or "The Catholic Church" at the time when the Bible was written and initally "compiled".


A. The Old Testament

Obviously, the Old Testament was written even before Jesus Christ. So how it can be said that the Roman Catholic Church or "The Catholic Church" wrote or "compiled" that must be something that only the ignorant, fraudulent or deluded are capable of!


B. The so-called 'Apocrypha' or so-called "deuterocanonical" books

Here we are talking about books in the Roman Catholic Bible and at least in some "Protestant" Bibles (e.g. KJV for a long time), and supposedly/allegedly part of the Old Testament, which at least some Christians accept for some purposes even if not as 'canonical'.

Again as these were written even before Christ and were in The Septuagint, it would take an ignorant, fraudulent or extremely deluded person to claim they were written or "compiled" by The Roman Catholic Church or even "The Catholic Church".

chidachris: Its quite unbelievable that you say the apostles didn't know the bible. Even though it wasn't called bible in those days but "scriptures" which were contained in scrolls, on many occasions both jesus and the apostles in their teachings quoted the books of moses, isiah, daniel, samuel, psalms and all other prophets. So how did they know all this if they didn't have the scriptures?
The guide to a christian life is the bible cos it contains the word of God.
Jesus christ didn't preach doctrines but salvation and apostle paul said "we are saved by grace not by works that no man should boast in himself"
The only way to salvation is jesus christ and not a church.
The bible says " in those days the commandments were written on tablets of stone but now its written our hearts.
And lots more

The apostle Paul is believed to have quoted from Luke in 1 Timothy 5:18.

The apostle Peter referred to Paul's epistles; not only that, he referred to them as scriptures.

And also see more info on this threads:

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

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

And Amen at the Blue bolded!

Jesus said "I am the Way"

One denomination says: no person can be saved unless s/he submits to the Roman Pontiff!

So who is a Christian to believe?

Sal C: When you mentioned followshiping with your two friend, did you mention me?

OK my sister, I don't mind changing my example to accommodate what you are asking. So here:

Me and two friends believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son incarnate of the virgin Mary. We meet regularly to pray together and sing hymns. We invite you to join us whenever you are able anytime that we are meeting together.

Will you join us and will you see us as your brothers or simply as your separated brethren?

chidachris: My brother b4 u call someone olodo you must have first done a wide range of research and holistic review of the subject matter.
1. Jesus was not talking about a physical rock neither did he build the church upon testimony.
But rather was refering to himself as Petra- (meaning Bedrock) which was as a result of the revelation that He is God made by peter.
2. Remember the bible was translated and Jesus did not speak english. If you check the greek translation of the bible, you will discover that jesus called simon 'petros' -meaning rock stone. And he said "upon this Petra (meaning bedrock- talking about himself) - I will build an Ekklecia (meaning assembly) and the gates of 'hades' (meaning hell) shall not prevail against it.
3. The word church which u see in english translations is as a result of translating the bible. Jesus never meant a particular denomination
4. The word 'church' is gotten from a greek word 'kuriakê [oikia]' meaning The Lords House
5. I will not go into details on the origin of the word 'church' cos it was first used by roman emporor constantine who was a servant of 'Lord Mithras' - let's leave that for later.
6. It may also interest to note that apostle peter was never in rome so the first church was not in rome.
7. Finally the word church as seen in mt 16:18 does not mean a physical church but an assembly of saints.
So if you want to be in the assembly of Gods people who the gate of hell shall not prevail against then live like a saint and don't be bound by the religious dogma many denominations use in claiming ownership of the church

They don't even know who is their own first "pope"!

The "church fathers" have conflicting accounts of who the first three "popes" were including whether na Linus or Anacletus (abi na Clarus sef)!



(I could have got a name wrong; I'll check later)

Sal C: You answered your own question. You meet with your friends, how does that not make you my seperated brethren? I know you rare obessed with the seperated aspect of it, but you should rather happy that you are still a brother.

So how am I "separated" from you?

On what basis?

Do I meet with Christians in Jerusalem? Am I their "separated brethren"?

Do I meet with Christians in Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople? Am I their "separated brethren"?

OK, for my part I am willing to call you my sister ---- as long as you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God the Son incarnate of the virgin Mary.

Another question I asked of woky:

are the people on the Christian Chat thread also your "separated brethren" and "separated sistren"?

Remember that they just see you as a sister!

And my final question that I also asked woky: who then is causing division?

adsonstone: My answer: Jesus is. (His teaching)
I'll appreciate it if you also answer this question.

Absolutely!

There is a hymn which starts "The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord"

Also, see the points made on the same issue in this thread of mine: https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach

@Sal C

One more question actually, do you agree or disagree with what the "cardinal" said?

Anyway here is what someone who himself very nearly became a "pope" said:

Per "Cardinal" Baronius

"The chief lesson of these times is that the Church can get along very well without popes. What is vital to the Church's survival is not the pope but Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope."

Sal C: Enigma you can do better than this repetition which has lost its meaning. Stop trolling and contribute if you have any.

You mean you can't see my other contributions! And how many times have I posted this? Or is it because what the "cardinal" said is true --- that we do not need "popes"?

And what do you have to say about the Roman Catholic posters and their posts?

By the way, I pose this question to you too!

Question:

Myself and two other friends believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God the Son born of virgin Mary. We meet regularly to pray and sing hymns together. Would you call us {your} brothers or would you call us {your} "separated brethren"?


{Please, kindly give reasons/explanation for your answer, thanks.}

Enigma: My dear sister, do you see now that between you and I and in our little single question and answer, we have already demonstrated at least how denominationalism can start!

You say that the Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists are Churches.

BUT some Roman Catholics, including at least three on this very thread, disgaree with you because they say that the Baptists etc are NOT Churches!

They will tell you that those people are only "ecclessial communities" or "Christian communities". And that is when they are being charitable! Otherwise they say those people are "religious institutions" or even "shops".

And you know why they do it? Because the Roman Catholic Church told them to. They cannot think for themselves.

My dear sis, I said I had more than one question but would only ask you one. I am now going to pose another question in a following post. I am going to direct it to woky because of some recent exchange between me and him.

Please let us together watch what happens after I ask him the question.

@ okpurukata

I wonder if you followed the exchange between me and woky. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you the same question please.

Question:

Myself and two other friends believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God the Son born of virgin Mary. We meet regularly to pray and sing hymns together. Would you call us {your} brothers or would you call us {your} "separated brethren"?


{Please, kindly give reasons/explanation for your answer, thanks.}

Ah, let me remind my crybabies one more time.


Anyway here is what someone who himself very nearly became a "pope" said:

Per "Cardinal" Baronius

"The chief lesson of these times is that the Church can get along very well without popes. What is vital to the Church's survival is not the pope but Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope."

A yes, a propos "confession"

Per Ambrose of Milan, who was a Roman Catholic

"Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God’...Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven’...Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favored His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread’; and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)...Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him."

Another one for my crybaby --- in light of criticisms of the Reformation and the unique English Reformation.

This one even from someone who is an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church denomination.

"For some years before Luther and Calvin there was in the church almost no religion left." (according to him, because the papacy had almost eliminated Christianity)

per "Cardinal" Bellarmine.

Sability: Actually, the church cannot be built on a man. The church is built on the truth which is the confession of Peter that Christ is the Son of God .

Actually, you are making an important point and many of the "church fathers" agreed with you.

Here is part of a post I made some time ago: https://www.nairaland.com/1083381/apostle-peter-principle-inclusivity-via/3#12755673

On the technical issue of the interpretation of "on this rock . . .", in general at least two approaches can be discerned: (a) the rock is Peter's confession of faith i.e. 'you are the Christ'; or (b) the rock is actually Jesus Christ Himself. In fact Augustine seems to have started with position (a) and later shifted to position (b).

Just because one of my crybabies talks of 'non-solid foundation'

"For many years, abominable things have taken place in the chair of Peter, abuses in spiritual matters, translations of the commandments, so that everything here has been wickedly perverted."

And guess what? The statement was only made by a Roman Catholic "pope" i.e. "pope" Adrian VI.

^^^ Dem dey deceive themselves.

Anyway here is what someone who himself very nearly became a "pope" said:

Per "Cardinal" Baronius

"The chief lesson of these times is that the Church can get along very well without popes. What is vital to the Church's survival is not the pope but Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope."

I'm cool -- as always.

^^ Good evening my brothe non-brother!

@woky

What about the people on the Christian Chat thread? Are you also not able to call them your brothers and sisters?

If so, I say to you again: then, who is causing division?

woky: when u ar ready to answer my questions, then we can talk

Ah, na so? So, basically you can't see me as a brother?

So which one of us is causing division now?

woky: Despite the fact dat we both profess faith in christ our head, bt do you belief in the BODY AND BLOOD of CHRIST(Holy Eucharist), do you believe in the Sacrament of Confession Answere the above questions 1st

I believe in the commemoration of the last supper that Jesus Christ instituted. I also believe in the biblical teaching to confess our sins to one another. (EDITED)


OK: now so are you able to call me your brother or are you only able to regard me as one of the "separated brethren"?

Let me be upfront: I am ready to call you my brother --- if you believe in Jesus as the Son of God and God the Son born of the virgin Mary?

So what say you?

Ukuts gp: D catholic are d genesis of division in christendom. Many break away because of their fetish practices and barbaric doctrine. Now tell me do they even know jesus christ the saviour than their high esteem pope dat they worship as God? I just shake my head in lamentation for them.

And about some of the so-called "popes" read up about what is known as Saeculum Obscurum when the "whole "pope" thing was known as the "Pornocracy" ruled by women everyone saw as wh.ores.

Crybabies united --- again!

Abi Jr: moses wrote five books of the bible are u sayin dat he is a catholic membr? ......

Following is something I have posted a couple of times in the past:
-------------------

Previously posted here: https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic#17636669

The arguments of the Roman Catholic apologists that "they" "compiled" the Bible are based on falsehoods, misrepresentations and deliberate propaganda. I'm sorry to say that the propaganda even includes entries in Wikipedia and people should judge carefully when they read about Roman Catholicism in places like that. One would need to look beyond not so rigorous sources like Wikipedia.

Anyway here is a couple more helpful threads:

Short thread with short posts and quick to a number of significant points: https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Longer with arguments from different sides: https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church



Addendum: and of course the thread from which the post came originally https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic

@woky

In case you missed it, I reproduce below a question that I first asked you yesterday. Any answer?
-----------------------------------------------------

@woky

Bros, I hope you will answer me one question. Again, this is meant to help us understand the causes of all this denominationalism.

Also please note that I will be most grateful to hear an answer that you have thought through yourself rather than one based on what any institution or body might have said historically.

Question:

Myself and two other friends believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and God the Son born of virgin Mary. We meet regularly to pray and sing hymns together. Would you call us {your} brothers or would you call us {your} "separated brethren"?


{Please, kindly give reasons/explanation for your answer, thanks.}

FECOSON: Romans 16:17-18
New International Version (NIV)
17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.Keep away from them.18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ,but their own appetites.By smooth talk and flattery they deceivethe minds of naive people

Yep, especially people who say things that are clearly anti-Christ like the example below.


“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’)


Yep, it is people who say such idiotic things in the quest for both religious and political power that are the principal causes of division.

Yeah, the matter dey tru tru pain my crybabies.

[quote author=Tropical_Dr]Have you discussants heard about the Early church fathers? (they are first few generation disciples of the Apostles). From their writing we can get to know what the Apostles taught them about the faith and its practices. Thank God for the information age it is easier getting their writings than before. They include Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smynr both students of John the longest surviving Apostle, Ireneus student of Polycarp and Clement of Rome student of Peter the Apostle just to mention a few. Most of the questions you have, have been asnwered before by them.[/quote]Interesting! And do you see that those I bolded were NOT Roman Catholics.

^^^^ I can see the Apostolic Church and the Pentecost Church on the day of Pentecost but I can't see the Roman Catholic Church denomination there ---- because it came later.

What about the Church in Corinth? Or the Church in Thessalonica? Or the Church in Ephesus? Or the Church that met in Prisca's house?

When did those become part of the Roman Catholic Church denomination?

^^ So the Church of St Peter is the Apostolic Church and also the Pentecost Church.

The Roman Catholic Church denomination came much later.

^^ Read the thread! I did the thread.

Read it and educate yourself; I promise it would do you good.

adsonstone: Don't say things blindly. It is clear that you don't even know the origin of the bible.

Some of them do not know the origins of the Bible and have been sold a dummy by their denomination. Others know better but also choose to join with the falsehood and even fraud of their denomination/organisation --- especially the Roman Catholic denomination.

Here are some threads where the origin of the Bible has been discussed:

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

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