₦airaland Forum

Meanwhile the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox has 81 books --- even more than the 73 of the Roman Catholics!

From another old post 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.

Again, something from an old post https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/12#13346747

Technically ... different Christian groups actually have their own particular canons though they are all very very similar in that the corpus i.e the bulk of books are usually the same with differences only about whether to include or exclude a very small number of books which could be just one or two or the most well known 7 deutero-canonical (or apocryphal) books that the Roman Catholics retain.

Interestingly, contrary to popular thought the Roman Catholic canon was only finalised in the 16th century (Canon of Trent) which further undermines the false/erroneous claim that the Roman Catholic Church "compiled" the Bible. The credit for "compilation" and for the earliest canons go to the "church fathers" and others ------ most of whom were not Roman Catholics.

This summary below from (and the table that follows it in) Wikipedia gives an idea of the point being made with this post.

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

Canons of various Christian traditions

Full dogmatic articulations of the canons were not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[37] the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Other traditions, while also having closed canons, may not be able to point to the exact years in which their respective canons were considered to be complete. The following tables reflect the current state of various Christian canons.

@ All

My plea is this:

Let us all completely forget who started the "trouble", who fanned it and who added to it etc.

Let us all learn from it and try to be more sensitive in situations like this*.

In this situation*, let us be temperate in pointing out shortcomings. And let those who are reproached (especially the organisers) show greater understanding of the reproaching viewpoints, humility to consider if things could have been done/said better.

Let us try and work together to make the best of this occasion and together to make future similar initiatives better and friction-free.



*I am ephasizing "this situation" because my view is that in the regular rumble of normal forum activities forcefulness and stridency is often required especially in the face of dishonest smears and/or potential spiritual endangerment.

Previously posted here https://www.nairaland.com/1232929/jesus-name-all-knees-bow/54#16952691

Enigma: ....

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

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

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

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

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

^^^ Start with this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Then read this one https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

There are yet many others ...........

I am saddened and sorry to read just now that this initiative is bringing division. I personally did not think of being divisive when I agreed to take part. In fact this position of mine is more so as I knew that two of the other presenters are not even Trinitarians.

I hope the matter of divisiveness is resolved quickly and that the initiative is not blighted (further?) by this matter.

Good initiative.

I am also quite happy with my allotted topic.

Tgirl4real: Lol @ Enigma and Frosbel.

I actually did laugh.

@ Enigma,

Hi, it's been a while. Thanks for accepting the invite. You should know what...

Looking forward to a balanced teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit from all the teachers. I pray you all yield yourselves as an instrument to be used by God.

Shalom!

Yes indeed, I do know what ..... and you can guess that I'm looking forward to it.

Tgirl4real: I this case, scriptures tell us he pre-existed as The WORD.

Tgirl4real

As a matter of simple comprehension, i.e. simple ability to read and understand, only people with very poor comprehension (or even dunces) will say that the Bible does not teach that Jesus preexisted his human existence/incarnation.

Ask anyone who is not even a Christian but who is able to read and understand, to study the relevant passages and, if they are answering with good comprehension and honesty, they will inevitably conclude that according to the Bible, Jesus Christ preexisted.

Now note that they don't have to believe it! They can say: well, the Bible says so but I don't believe it. Now that would be a quite honest stance! To say the Bible does not teach Christ's preexistence is simply an idiotic stance.

There are some people who have a diabolical agenda and who therefore look for all sorts of crazy and disingenuous ways to interprete the Bible to say that Christ did not exist. The sad thing is that some professing Christians are fooled by these people because they lack the capacity to think properly or because they are too emotive and attached to a particular emotional position and are incapable of critically reexamining that position or also, unfortunately, simply because they are dunces.

I have already outlined the task in simple enough terms!

OK, you should see a link (even more than one) with arguments refuting Mr tbaba's plagiarised work.

Take some of the arguments and present them here, using tbaba's style that you call "citation".

In other words, "citation" versus "citation".

^^^ You don't know what you are talking about.

OK here is your test:

1. google 'jerald dirks refuted'
2. take from your result and come and post here using "citation" just like tbaba234 your champion (the plagiarist)

And what did God the Father call Him?

"O God"! Hebrews 1:8

asadokie: oh u believe that christ preexisted but u dont agree with the trinitarian dogma? ur brand is a new one i guess. smh.

you r all wasting your time arguing about things u know nothing about. how much sense does it make that one man dies and his blood washes away my sins? someone who Lived thousands of years ago. do yourselves a favor and live the christian life of genuine charity and holiness, not arguing on things u know nothing about, and things that would not affect you rating in the sight of God wether u r right or wrong.

Good point!

^^^ Asokale anfani, toba bros.

Hi Goshen

I just called you a few moments ago. I will try again later.

Takia

@ MKO2005

I was using a phone earlier so I didn't see clearly and didn't really understand your question. Now I do I am laughing.

It's quite nice that the Christians were not resorting to underhand methods --- unlike erm hmmmmmmmmmm ...

tbaba1234: Not really, I have probably made my last post. I don't think my christian brothers can debunk the evidence.

Don't worry, it is not a common occurence.

Look at this one lying as though this is the first time he has been doing this anti-Christian nonsense --- using lies and plagiarism to boot. As I said, davidylan and I once similarly exposed his yansh when he strayed here out of their slavish enclave.

Meanwhile, of course he did not take up the task he was set to come and post, using "paraphrasing" and "content analysis" (aka plagiarism), the counter arguments to the rubbish and lies he was posting earlier on.

In fact, I even want to simplify the task for him so that he will not say he couldn't find counter arguments.

Hey tbaba234, google 'refuting jerald dirks' --- then take from the result to come and copy and paste here for your counter argument "paraphrasing" and "content analysis".

@mko2005

Pls give me a couple of hours. I'm on the road atm.

You replied copy n paste with copy n paste PLUS plagiarism. And you are not ashamed of yourself!

As I said, we will continue to find you out - insha Allah.

You copied the ones I pointed out! Thankfully you do not deny it.

You are the one who turned the thread into a copy and paste battle.

Your last few posts defending frosbel's post show that you too are simply copying, paraphrasing and plagiarising Islamic websites or fraudulently and indiscrminately using anti Christian materials.

We will continue to find you out --- insha Allah.

Let me make a little fun of the tbaba234 fellow again before letting the copy and paste battle to continue. As I said, his plagiarism will not go unnoticed --- insha Allah!


OK: when he manages to write in his own words, his English often lacks smoothness and contains ibons e.g. in his earlier posts you will see him refer ungrammatically to "evidences" etc and in his latest post you will see something like: "The author case was built on quick sand and an anti-islam sentiment rather than objectivity".

Yet in his latest post you can easily tell when he is lifting and plagiarising:

Examples:

tbaba1234: .... John Burton, at the end of his substantial work on the Quran’s compilation, states that the Quran as we have it today is: ....

Compare from where he again lifted/plagiarised the line and its quote: http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/18/ (and possibly elsewhere)

John Burton, at the end of his substantial work on the Quran’s compilation, states that the Quran as we have it today is: ....

tbaba1234: Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that .....

Copied verbatim again from http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/19/ (and possibly elsewhere)

Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that .....

In summary it seems tbaba234 is incapable of composing a post of argument without plagiarising ---- not even mere copy and paste which many people do ---- but actual plagiarism. All he does is form a few sentences of his own with ibons and juxtapose other people's work into his post to make them look like his writing.

Disgraceful!

Even when it is not pointed out tbaba234's plagiarism will not go unnoticed --- insha Allah!

So oya, let the copy and paste battle recommence!

And for a wider forum issue:

1. Let us see if frosbel's post/s will be deleted!

2. Let us see if the thread will now be moved to the Islam section where frosbel's post/s (and maybe others) can be deleted.

^^^ It is called hypocrisy and duplicity. The guy is a proven fraud.

frosbel: I don't need your approval Enigma in any form or shape, just carry on with your discussion.

Shaa let the copy and paste battle begin.

For once, I actually approve of copy and pasting by frosbel.

1. Oya now, let each side be arguing by copy and pasting all over!

2. In this case by frosbel, he has shown honesty by placing the copy in quotes and giving the source[/b].

So oya let the copy and paste battle begin!

And if tbaba234 wants to do his own in fraudulent style, he will once again be exposed -- insha Allah!

Sissie: Oh please, this is tiring, is that the best you can do, shout plagiarism.

like tbaba said it's not his duty to post counter arguments, let the christians do so. He's to post his own side of the argument, he has no business posting the counter arguments.

Let me teach you a little bit about honesty and how to think properly.

1. Apart from the fraudulent plagiarism, it is cheating in the debate/discussion for tbaba234 to do what he did (see further no 2 below)
2. His fellow discussants/debaters were doing their best to articulate their points with their own words; he was fraudulently using words lifted from a book etc --- pretending he too was articulating. That is cheating --- unless of course Islam knows no such morality.
3. The others are put at a disadvantage because their spontaneous words and even thoughts will naturally not be as structured/considered/polished as those in a book that probably took years to write and think (even if the substantive content is nonsense).
4. It is like one person fighting with bare hands while the other conceals a dagger or sword behind his back.

Finally:

5. It is very easy for the Christians too to go and find books to copy and paste here., but
(a) if all people do is copy and paste alone, then what is the point of discussion? Each party should just be doing their own copy and paste! Tbaba234 did not just do it with one post but with several!
(b) More, any sensible person who has been through a proper educational institution will tell you about how despised plagiarism is; and what tbaba did is clearly plagiarism. He was passing other people's writing off as his own -- sometimes even using footnotes that the original author did --- as though they were his (i.e. tbaba's) sources when he probably hasn't read them.

[quote author=Mai-suya]@enigma

If u have bothered to read through the post u will notice that tbaba actually quoted the original author on that website I.e Jerald Dirk in many places. How can you plagiarise and still reference the person? For your information it is called content analysis or more loosely, paraphrasing. (I guess while at it u would also accuses Dirk of plagiarising others he referenced in his write up).

Quit the ranting and provide a rebuttal already, or stop distracting.[/quote]Let us test your honesty with the test that I set your champion aka the fraud tbaba234.

Go and find the counter arguments: then come here and do "paraphrasing" or "content analysis" (aka fraudulent plagiarism) --- and present them here. I will even accept for you to do it in exactly the same manner that tbaba234 did.

Doing such fraud to defend/support Christianity or even to bother to attack Islam is beneath me.

So that's your test.

tbaba1234: I understand...

Good!

Also, acknowledge that you understand that you are a fraud!



EDIT I see that in fact you already acknowledged that in your post.

Double good!

tbaba1234: So you have no response.

It is beneath me to respond substantively to your fraud!


Of course it is easy enough for me to find a couple of books or articles to plagiarise like you and pretend to be making some "response". But, heaven forfend the day that I'll resort to fraud and plagiarism to support Christianity let alone to even bother to attack Islam! Attacking Islam is not even worth my time. Al taqiyyah alone tells a lot of story about Islam.

tbaba1234:

That is your job.... prove what has been written wrong.

So do you know that there are counter arguments --- and you pretend here? Then you further confirm yourself to be a fraud.

Or you are not aware that there are counter arguments, then you show yourself to be an ignorant dunce.

Either way, your choice.

tbaba1234: First of all, enigma,

Read through, most of what was written were referenced. You can argue improperly, but be fair.

I don't have to present a counter argument, that is what you are supposed to do.

It is beneath me to respond substantively to your fraud.

So all I can be bothered to do here is to show as I have done that - you are a fraud!

Do the exercise I have set you!

OK, for present purposes only, I will even accept for you to plagiarise the counter arguments in exactly the same way that you have done with your "arguments".

tbaba1234: I was very careful with references, and the author was referenced particularly in verbatim quotes bar few .

I think, you are distracting from the issue.

Conclusion

I. Peter potrayal as brave hero and than a coward stretches the imagination a bit far.


2. Peter could actually be saying the truth afterall, because Jesus, the Galilean could be s different person from Jesus.

Actually, let me teach you a little lesson about intellectual objectivity.

I will do it by setting you a little exercise as follows:

As you could find and plagiarise the arguments that you presented, now go out and find the counter arguments then come back and post those counter arguments here!

You are even allowed to copy and paste ---as long as you do it in quotes and state upfront where you are doing the copying from.

Finally, if you do not know that there are counter arguments to the arguments you have presented, then you must be very slow indeed and perhaps that partly explains your disposition towards fraud.