₦airaland Forum

Let me even make the tasks a little easier somewhat still:

Here is Athanasius of Alexandria in a document going back to AD 367 (remember that even the 'Council of Rome' which is used for the fraudulent claim is dated AD 382 some 15 years later than this Athanasius' document).

Quoted from 39th Festal Epistle of AD 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.

To keep things brief, I omit the rest listing the books he considered canonical.

Now see the words "the canon" which I bolded in blue? What did Athanasisus mean by "the Canon"?

Remember this was before each or any of the things/events which the Roman Catholics like to claim is where "they" established "the canon"!

That is, before any of the Council of Rome 382 (already shown to be dodgy), the African Synod of Hippo 393, the African Synods of Carthage 397 etc. --- let alone the real place where the Roman Catholics truly set their canon, at least finally, if they want to be honest --- i.e. Council of Trent 1546 etc! (Edited)

^^^ Meanwhile he is the very same person who claimed earler on this same thread that Jerome must have had a "canon" before translating. He was going to base that on the fraudulent claim related to some Council of Rome until that was knocked down.

So once the Council of Rome thing is knocked out, what "canon" was Jerome using and what "canon" did he refer to - that being one of the questions in the tasks I set Kay17 originally.

Segeggs: RCC and its members should stop claiming as if they wrote the books of the bible which they only compiled.

They did not even compile the Bible. Their claim that they "compiled" it is fraudulent and based on falsehoods and twisting of the facts of history.

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

and now https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Meanwhile read this earlier post of mine and see that I have even started to answer the question despite the cowardice of you and others to perform the basic tasks set!

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

Enigma: For those interested in genuinely understanding this issue of "canons of the Bible", and able to put 2 and 2 together, but perhaps not for those keen on propagating and spreading falsehoods, here is something to ponder:


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.

Ubenedictus: this is again a long attempt to derial the discussion. A list before d 4th century and you are giving task of people that existed in d 4th century. I expected you to simply give d list. Your inability to do so is pitiful.

I also find your inability to perform the tasks pitiful and your excuses duplicitous. Simples.

^^^ Nice. Me, I jollified Easter and do so every year.

Now, if person wan say hin dey dere wen I dey worship some pagan god, I go jos laugh him ignorance.

Shikena.

Ubenedictus: now my dear, if crybaby isn't a cheap insult then whatelse is?

Who was the word directed to and what did he do or say?

Ubenedictus: Its been 2 pages now since the question was asked and he is giving "tasks" that are unrelated to the question. That is what i call fear.

And your inability to perform the tasks is what I call fear and/or duplicity; because performance of the tasks will expose the falsehood of the position of the Roman Catholic aologists --- without me even having to bother to say much more than I've done already.

^^^ Go and do some mugging up:

perhaps starting from here https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

and also here https://www.nairaland.com/1083381/apostle-peter-principle-inclusivity-via

^^^ If you can find the question, you should also be able to find the tasks I set him.

Find the tasks; perform the tasks; I answer the question. Easy peasy, no problemo!

Meanwhile, see my response above to your allegation of "cheap insult"; let's hear what you have to say.

Ubenedictus: i don't know d reason kay isn't here but clearly you didnt answer his question! And i still ask ya to answer it.

And I ask again, are you afraid to perform the tasks I set him?

Perform the tasks, I answer the question. That's deal. Otherwise, you can keep asking till kingdom come.

Ubenedictus: Ihend, this is what i call cheap insult.

Who was that directed to and what did that person say or do before it?

Ihedinobi: Where is the fear and what insult?

I wonder oh, bros, I wonderment!

Meanwhile the concerned fellow don mellow small after reading the thread on the Orthodox Catholic Church (aka Eastern Orthodox Church).

Meanwhile, this other comment makes a good suggestion for next (every!) Sunday and people can ask non-Roman Catholic Christians:

Did you go to ecclessial community today?

Enigma: Interestingly, in the sense that is paramount, there is only one Church. The Roman Catholic Church seems to accept this but at the same time some of its teachings and actions indicate different "Churches" in this paramount sense of capital C "Church"!

In the Introduction to Ut Unum Sint, we read;



What is the point of speaking of one Church, when you say there are other "Churches" (capital) and you say yet others are not even Churches at all but merely "ecclessial communities"?

Pointless!

Meanwhile, one interesting response to the Roman Catholic position on "Churches" and "Ecclessial Communities" (following the publication of a "Responses" thing by the RCC Congregation on Doctrine or summat like that in 2007)

From No, I'm Not Offended

I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement — it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right — not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

And see the Roman Catholic Church tacitly confirm what I have been saying that a lot of the "church fathers" were not Roman Catholics.

Para 15 of http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Moreover, in the East are found the riches of those spiritual traditions which are given expression especially in monastic life. There from the glorious times of the holy Fathers, monastic spirituality flourished which, then later flowed over into the Western world, and there provided the source from which Latin monastic life took its rise and has drawn fresh vigor ever since. Catholics therefore are earnestly recommended to avail themselves of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of the divine.

Meanwhile, see the Roman Catholic Church admit the crucial role of the Eastern Orthodox in some of the most important and significant events of early Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church even admits that it "drew" a lot from them 'Orthodoxen'!

Para 14 of www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much.

My brother, you see am?

Daalu, biko.

Meanwhile if a group changes a doctrine or teaching then it says it was not infallible --- at least in respect of its earlier position! And it does not matter that the earlier position was not 'defined dogmatically'!

And as Limbo was mentioned earlier, here is the then Cardinal Ratzinger (present 'Pope Emeritus' Benedict XVI) as quoted on Limbo.

This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.

(God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 401)

^^ Now you are beginning to see why I kept telling you to learn some basics. Anyway, your post is still wrong in a number of respects.

1. I don't think even Roman Catholics would agree with you that their church is called "Roman Catholic" because, at some point, it came under "the protection of the Roman Empire". If necessary, I will explain why; but knowledgeable people will not really require the explanation.

2. At the Council of Nicea, three (not two) primary Sees with oversight functions were recognised: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome (with special status for Jerusalem).

One of the things I've been pointing out to you is that the early Christians most influential in "compiling" the Bible, fighting out the Christology and Trinity debates etc, were actually mostly not from the Roman See but more properly belonged to the other Sees.

Now, I've been accused on this thread and a number of others of only quoting part of Ignatius' statement on "catholic Church"; I was even called a "fraud" for it.

Now look who has done exactly the same thing? It is only the Roman Catholic Church"! Oh, and it only did it in its Catechism!

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense: (795, 815-816)

First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation”308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

So who is the fraud now?

And, truly, there is indeed an element of fraud in the use of Ignatius' statement in this quote above.

Interesting description of "the Catholic Church" in the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Orthodox Catholic Church): http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

270. Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

Interestingly, in the sense that is paramount, there is only one Church. The Roman Catholic Church seems to accept this but at the same time some of its teachings and actions indicate different "Churches" in this paramount sense of capital C "Church"!

In the Introduction to Ut Unum Sint, we read;

The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.

What is the point of speaking of one Church, when you say there are other "Churches" (capital) and you say yet others are not even Churches at all but merely "ecclessial communities"?

Pointless!

Syncan: I will allow you enjoy that your thread in peace and keep reassuring yourself.

Thank you. More importantly, thank God Christians have the reassurance of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

Syncan: Meanwhile I wonder what you mean by my rush to judgement.

Meanwhile, I wonder what you mean by my "rush to conclusions"!

Syncan: You tried to say that a church teaching is wrong by using their own document, and i simply pointed out that they may not be that daft for such to be so obvious to you.

If that is the way you choose to understand and present what I "tried to say", you are welcome to it.

Syncan: Your next post actually showed i made sense.

If you think so.

Syncan: Could you state the Catholic Church claim on Infallibility?

I can't be bothered. Could you state it and show what I've said so far that derogates from it?

Enigma: ^^^

7. In fact they are the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"!

8. Also, they are the ones who originated the title "pope"! They were calling their partriarchs "popes" long before the Roman Catholic Church apropriated and arrogated the term!

Syncan: Do not rush to conclusions when reading such documents, remember those who composed it are not unlearned. The part in bold means a lot if you fully comprehend what infallibility teaching is all about.

Thus, once we "carefully distinguish" "the deposit of faith itself", the Roman Catholic church is fallible on every other thing. Q.E.D.

^^^ Do not rush to judgment! Take care to examine what a poster is saying. Learn to recognise that some posters know what they are talking about.

You may also benefit from reading the thread below on the "Infallibility" of the "Church of Christ".

https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach

A propos the statement earlier that even the Roman Catholic Church tacitly recognises that it is not really infallible:

Para 6 www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, in so far as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated - to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself - these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.

And here the Roman Catholic Church implicitly notes the oxymoronic effect of calling itself "Catholic".

Para 4 of http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons who, though attached to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all her bearings.

Just a round about way of saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not truly catholic.

For those interested in genuinely understanding this issue of "canons of the Bible", and able to put 2 and 2 together, but perhaps not for those keen on propagating and spreading falsehoods, here is something to ponder:

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.

For the benefit of anyone interested, I have started a thread which is examining the word "Catholic" especially in the capitalised sense and will also look at the small letter catholic.

https://www.nairaland.com/1254965/eastern-orthodox-church-orthodox-catholic

Well, according to Sondra Corbett-Wood in the song "I worship You" -- Jesus Christ is Almighty God!

I worship You, Almighty God,
there is none like You.
I worship You, oh Prince of Peace,
that is all I long to do.
I lift my hands for You are my righteousness.
I worship You, Almighty God;
there is none like You.

^^^

7. In fact they are the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"!