₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus: we spent two pages getting distrated by name calling and cheap insult and questions on Jerome when asked "for a canonical list of sacred text before d 4th century excluding those of individual christians", now that is an interesting point of concern, mayb i do not know your state of mind enough to use word "afriad", but d insults were there and so was d delay.

You see now --- even when I have just said I will try and reciprocate.

OK the long and short of it is that your post was a lie or at least it contained a lie.

You said that instead of answering Kay17's question, I was afraid and insulted him.

That is a lie because my post that you referred to was not directed to Kay17; it was directed to italo who had contributed nothing but thrown an insult.

You realised very clearly that my post was directed at italo and instead of you to do the right and Christian thing you started to vaccillate. I guess because italo is one of your fellow Roman Catholics; so we can close eyes to that.

Ubenedictus: Hehehehe,
i do not need some sort of previledge to be earned. My atitude towards you have been largely consistent! I will speak on what i think, it is yours to accept or reject!
Treat me the way you wish, i won't be bothered, i'll do you the curtesy of smiling at anything you say about me! And by God's grace that won't change me! I'll continue to treat you as you really are to me and that is a brother and consider each word you paste on nl be they insults or good points.
Lastly, i wasn't trying to preach to you, just airing my expectations, i still have much peaching to do to myself.

Peace

After some initial skirmishes, I have always treated you with respect and one thing I expect of people I treat with respect is honesty.

Anyway, I will be mindful of what you have said and will be happy to reciprocate - within bounds.

Ubenedictus: ... athanasius canon was missing many books in both old and new testament .....

Meanwhile, even at the risk of digression, the above is a falsehood!

Here is Athanasius' list.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

Ubenedictus: .... i guess this was rhetorical.

This is the only part of your post that is really on point; and what it shoes is that you do not even understand the question or the task.

I am not asking you for a canon that Jerome made.

I am not asking you for a canon that Athanasius made.

I am asking you for a canon that both Athanasius and Jerome said was already existing.

Athanasius said:

"the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine"

Maybe you want to say that something he said was handed down and divine was not "authoritative"

Look when you find ""the canon" that Jerome and Athanasius recognised, let's talk.

^^ And what did you do about this false accusation?

Ubenedictus: hehehe, u are afraid of his question and you resorted to cheap insult.

That is gross

^^^ As I said in my post immediately above yours, all of that is neither here nor there.

Ubenedictus: no need for the long explanation, i get the feeling, you don't feel respected and my catholic brothers seem to be throwing some personal attacks your way, probably emotional residue of some threads i'm not aware of.
I've done my bit of cautions most times with chukwudi, italo has d posibility of not using derogatory remark, but clearly, i in no way believe that one wrong justifies another, i imagined you'll rise above the insults.

I don't care; please don't preach to me; you have totally lost that privilege today; you will have to earn it again.

At the moment, I just treat you as one of the Roman Catholic crew, I'm afraid!

Ubenedictus: as regard scripture d merriam webster dictionary defines canon as "an authoritative list of books accepted as holy scripture".
Accordingly,
__canonical collection of sacred text refers to an authoritative list/collection of sacred text.
__the canon of the bible refers to the authoritative list of sacred text that make up d bible.
I have answer your task. Do well to answer the question.
Peace.

Your answer is incomplete. And you have not performed the other part of the task: what did Jerome refer to as "the canon"?

Now just to show you that I could answer your question easily if I choose to: the definition you have given above does not say a canon must be agreed "at a council".

Certainly some texts were considered to be "an authoritative list/collection of sacred text" at least before Athanasius in 367 (he said so himself); at the Nicea Council in 325 (otherwise why would they be arguing using books that were not authoritative?); and even well before Nicea as Athanasius suggests, saying "the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine".

So what was "the canon" that Athanasius on one hand and Jerome on the other recognised as already existing?

Ubenedictus: be honest with what? That you replied insult with insult, is that commendable?
Ok, if your aim was to guilt me, you win,
sorry, next time i'll just imagine you just part of the insult throwing group and move on. Sorry!
Now can we return to d discussion at hand?

So now, I too am just going to treat you as part of the Roman Catholic dishonest and insult throwing crew.

In any event, I even gave you a chance on another occasion; and on that occasion ou showed yourself to be one of them; except I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. You remember when I asked you twice about the fellow who said the Bible was written by Catholics supported by the other who said it was written by Catholics for Catholics?

So yes, you guys are dictating how you want to be treated. If you guys choose to maintain the dishonest and pompous approach, I too know how to deal with that.

Then my own tone hardened and I also gave a warning (as below); they continued, sometimes viciously! So now, them fellas are now seeing my own hand - and only small for that matter!

From https://www.nairaland.com/1125170/pentecostal-christians-existed-before-roman/4#13397291

Enigma: 1. It seems this matter is really paining you people! In other words, that we are combatting the lies and misrepresentations that the Roman Catholic Church has fed you lot and the world is being exposed is causing you people wahala. Make una sorry oh; make una sorry gaaan. Truly, if you na like sef, make una no sorry at all! The truth hurts sometimes and you will just have to suck it, I'm afraid.

2. You may lie all you like about my "insincerity" ----- well, my posts about Ignatius' statement remain there for all to see. The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church has always lied and twisted that statement of Ignatius in the same way that it has always lied and twisted statements of other "church fathers". Now that someone with proper comprehension explains the statement accurately here, it exposes the lies and misrepresentations of the Roman Catholic Church. Because that one dey pain una, you label the person "insincere". Well, na una wahala be that.

3. This one is just a notice: if una wan play nice, I will be nice to you people; if una wan play rough, then let's get ready to rumbleeeeeee!

This is all ridiculous and even a waste of time but I have deliberately chosen to do it this way so that the background to my own actions is clear.

First of all, I tried very hard and for a long time to avoid making the Roman Catholic discussions acrimonious. I pleaded for a long time with your Roman Catholic friends; I even endured their abuses for a long time without return, Instead they got worse and worse. I then warned them, they did not heed the warning. So now, they are seeing my own hand,

And actually you are or must/should be aware of the above. Anyway, a small sample follows:

First I tried to play nice and even begged .....

From https://www.nairaland.com/1016132/catholic-position-dont-point/3#11815576

Enigma: @ Chukwudi44

Nna Bros

NOPE!!! I do not have a bias against the Roman Catholic Church.

I have just stated that I even have strong Catholic credentials and connections.

I say again that on one of the earliest anti-Catholic threads on this forum in 2005 I was one of those defending the Catholics. Edit I have also defended the Catholic Church on other occasions.

I am not one of those who will tell you that Catholics are not Christians.

I am nether "Pentecostal" nor even "Protestant" so I am not bothered about all those nonsense about 'upstart evangelicals'; that is the problem of those who are interested in that.

The point is not about antagonism of the (Roman) Catholic Church --- the point is about being truthful and realistic on the history of The Christian Church. Please note the importance of that deliberate expression --- The Christian Church.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11864468

Enigma: ^^^ You are right I said we should close the argument. Sorry, something came up, well disappeared really, is what caused me to make one more post. lol

The answers to all of your questions are contained in the various links that I've provided. I could and can answer them very easily but where will it lead us? Probably going round in circles and fostering animosity unnecessarily. I think the attention that I've paid to the particular point that I've sought to address is enough.

I will remind you that I have not and have not even tried to antagonise or malign The Roman Catholic Church.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/3#12099185

Enigma: In all the recent discussions, I have tried to be polite to individual catholics and very deliberately to maintain a tone of respect for the Roman Catholic Church. Even when chukwudi has thrown some mild personals my way, I have tried to overlook them; even you, specifically, italo have always enjoyed politeness from me in the past. Personally, I would prefer things to remain cordial ---- and mercifully this your post is very very mild so let us keep it cordial.

^^^ If you feel guilty, it is because of your own actions.

You claimed, I used insult to avoid answering a question. You were wrong!

You claim I made a "cheap insult" but you conveniently completely overlooked the fact that I was insulted first.

It was pointed out to you that my words were directed at italo because of his action --- you have nothing to say to italo. And you vaccillated between knowing this and not knowing this. Quite pitiful, that!

Now you come up with the nonsensse whether it is right to reply insult with insult --- you forgot that even you made digs (or minor insults) at me on this thread.

So what are you saying? Who is guilting you?

Meanwhile I am going to make one more post in a moment.

Enigma: ^^^ Ah ha! So you now admit that the Roman Catholic Church is fallible on some things after all.

Cool.

Ah well, we might as well have a little knockabout with the quotation explaining "papal infallibility" that my friend has taken from nothing less than the Catholic Encyclopaedia itself.

So, according to my friend, from the encyclopaedia we read:

....the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

In other words, doctrinal teachings of the pope which are not made ex cathedra are indeed ---- not infallible; oh that means they are fallible.

These would include erm encyclicals, papal bulls, sermons, exegeses, theological writings etc etc etc.

Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

Doctrinal decisions or instructions of the "congregations" of the Roman Catholic Church are not infallible; again that means they are fallible.

Oh by "congregation" do we include such an eminent body (or should I say 'eminentissimum') as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

^^^ Ah ha! So you now admit that the Roman Catholic Church is fallible on some things after all.

Cool.

^^^ I don't think you are capable; since you do not even understand it.

Further the simple point is lost on you that if the Roman Catholic Church claims "infallibility" on only a small range of things or teachings, it is then fallible on things/teachings outside that range.

Oh and even I thought you were on a "pedestal" that honesty could be expected of you.

^^^ Don't hold me to any pedestal; just be honest!

^^^ And what infallibillity have I claimed for myself?

Meanwhile, see yourself now vaccillating so badly on one page; on this page!!

Very disappointing!

Ubenedictus: Interesting! Since u made a request, i'll answer. it was directed to italo! The challenge "if u are brave enough" was what was addressed to me.
Are we ok?

Ubenedictus: your response, probably addressing italo but directed to nobody in particular.

^^^ Look, I prefer we sort out this "Crybaby" matter first; otherwise I am really not keen on discussing anything further.

In any event, the tasks I set remain and I stand by my posts that you are quoting.

^^^ And my response to you remains:

Enigma: ^^^ You want to perform the tasks I set him? Or you too are not brave enough?

^^ And that is not a "cheap insult"?

From someone who contributed nothing to the discussion I was having with Kay17?

Purely gratuitous insult? Unprovoked?

And as between that one and "Crybaby", which is worse?

And which did you see fit to 'condemn'?

I have not insinuated anything so far. In fact, I have tried to treat you as a honourable person and that is why I repeated the question several times.

Anyway, it is all well and good to accuse a non-Roman Catholic of making "cheap insults" but not to see "cheap insults" when Roman Catholics who were not contributing anything to the discussion between two other people were calling others various things like "mumu", "fraud" etc.

No, problem! As I said, I will know whether to confirm what I'm beginning to think in my mind.

Ubenedictus: Interesting! Since u made a request, i'll answer. it was directed to italo! The challenge "if u are brave enough" was what was addressed to me.
Are we ok?

And what did italo do or say before the word was directed at him?

Here once more:

Meanwhile, I ask you again categorically to answer this post:

Enigma: Who was the word* directed to and what did he do or say? ....

* i.e. 'crybaby'

^^^ Perform the tasks; and answer the specific question about Athanasius.

Meanwhile address the "Crybaby" question. If you do not, I will know whether what I'm beginning to think is right.

^^ I saw my own copy of Bokkenkotter's book recently; I'll check later if it is still handy.

Meanwhile, I ask you again categorically to answer this post:

Enigma: Who was the word* directed to and what did he do or say? ....

* i.e. 'crybaby'

^^^ Go back and read your own posts replying to my charges ---- about page 16 or so of this very thread!

Ubenedictus: oh, i saw that, and believe me it didn't answer the question, you were asked to provide a link before the 4th century, not what some orthodox christian thinks about the deuterocanon.
It would interest you to note that the view espouse above is not widely accepted in the orthodox church and even rejected by others.
These orthodox site show what i mean http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuterocanon/Deuterocanon-Apocrypha_El-Aster_El-Kanoneya_El-Taya__O-index.html
http://www.suscopts.org/evangelism/frames/know_your_bible.html

lol lol lol

And he produces two links: one to some dead site in Arabic (of all things) and the other to what some fellow thinks.

You'd better go back and read the link I gave carefully.

Meanwhile, I put it to you that you are either too afraid or too duplicitous to perform the tasks I set. Hey, I have even made them simpler with the introduction of Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter.

^^^

Answer this post

Enigma: Who was the word* directed to and what did he do or say? ....

* i.e. 'crybaby'

Before any of the things/events which the Roman Catholics claim to be where they set "the Canon" of the Bible, the Eastern Orthodox people had already looooong identified "the Canon" of the Bible.

The things events claimed by the Roman Catholics as where "they" established "the Canon" of the Bible are:

1. Council of Rome 382; this has been questioned and the supposed list of Bible books identified with it shown to be a forgery or at least a document produced hundreds of years later; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

2. Synod of Hippo 393 --- this was actually simply a regional synod of African churches!

3. Synods of Carthage 397 etc --- again these were regional synods of African churches!

4. Council of Trent 1546 etc --- this is truly where the Roman Catholics set their canon, at least finally; see how late, how recent i.e. 16th century!

Compare with Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter of AD 367 --- at least 15 years before number 1 above (Rome 382); this is also before one goes to study the contribution of people like Origen also of Alexandria going back nearly 200 years even earlier!

Part of Athanasius' Letter of 367 http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with 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; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.