₦airaland Forum

Ihedinobi: ^^^ You know, I totally agree. The Scriptures say that knowledge puffs up or makes proud but charity or love edifies. It's so easy to get away from Love which is all the Cross is about.

I understand how all that high-sounding stuff judt muddles up everything and leaves the believer in a serious funk. I think that it's why I've been in one myself for some time now and your insight just helped me realize that. The truth is that once we get down to how this or that is love for God and love for neighbor we're home.

No mystery of the Kingdom is so great that it gets away from Love. All the wonderful mysteries of the ages are rooted and built up in love. It's a wonderful thing for me to dwell on right now.

And the Scriptures ask how we know that we love God and responds that it is by our love for the brethren. So, it is impossible to claim that a thing is done out of love for God when it is not done out of love for the brethren as well. I think that's a safeguard for those of our number who are prone to mysticism. Love is very practical.

The problem for me right now is when one is certain that God is leading them in a particular direction with their lives and their obedience is prone to cost those they say that they love something. How can the believer in such a situation be sure that it is indeed the Lord when his obedience might be costly to other people whom he owes a debt of love?

First of all, if God leads and one's actions will cost oneself or others --- my own answer would be Amen! In other words, "so be it". Even Jesus' words/actions sometimes cost others (or would cost others); to one fellow, 'go and sell all you have'; on another occasion 'he who forsakes family' etc. In the Old Testament about the direction to Hosea?

The critical thing is to be sure that one is truly following God's leading. What the Bible instructs repeatedly is for us to keep checking ourselves repeatedly e.g. 'be filled with the Holy Spirit' which scholars tell us that from the original language is more accurately translated as keep on being filled . . . .

The above is an implicit example of the "fanciful stuff" we are talking about that causes divisions. And let me point out to others that the post is in my view a not even too subtle attempt to push the "doctrine" of a particular denomination.

Anyway: the thief at the right hand on the cross ate the flesh of Jesus and drank his blood ----- and that is why he ended up in Paradise.

Meanwhile, on Jesus as literal bread, how about John 6:51 --- "I am the living bread that came down from heaven".

Anyway this thread is about the infallibility of The Christian Church not the "infallibility" claimed by any particular denomination.

Thanks, guys.

There are several promises made that we perhaps do not grasp fully. As one song says: "a thousand promises declare thy constancy of love."

Look at this promise in Rev 3:20 -- "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."



_{@Ihe bros, I've been behind on dealing with some emails lately but I'm almost back up to speed; feel free anytime though.}

Zikkyy: But Bros, you know pastors are always coming up with something new, what happens to those that cannot read (depend on others including pastor to feed them)? i mean all they know is what been taught (probably by pastor). How will the Holy Spirit influence this?

I understand where you are coming from and my post actually anticipated this. However, your question actually combines a number of things which though related are different slightly or differentiable.

1. How about those who cannot read?

It is not a problem as big as might be thought. Even those who can read might not necessarily understand. Let us take the example of the Ethiopean eunuch and look at his case from two perspectives: (a) initially he could read but did not even understand what he was reading; (b) but after he was taught the gospel by Philip ---- who was going to teach him other things? Did he have the New Testament, which were not (mostly at least) even written yet?

2. How about people being fed by pastors?

Let us start with the apostle John. Why would he say the below?

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

You see, it still boils down to each individual listening to what Jesus said and letting the Holy Spirit remind oneself of what Jesus taught. However, we come back to how to know what Jesus ---- but look at the basic things that I focused upon: (1) Jesus is the Way of Life and (2) We respond by trusting him and following the teaching love God and love neighbour. Before I go on, is that something that any Church no matter that they may be in error on other things will have difficulty to teach ----- even to an illiterate?

Now if we are taught those two things {Jesus is the way; we respond by loving God and neighbour); and if we remind ourselves to follow them e.g. anything we want to do we say is this loving of God and neighbour ----- then we will be yielding to the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that "churches" like to go on teaching all kinds of sometimes fanciful stuff (and good stuff too admittedly) but really it is important that the church focus on the gospel, the central message ---- and to use what really I find difficult to acknowledge as a cliche --- the Cross.

^^^ And the thread in the following link discusses one way to look at the infallibility of the "Church".

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

^^^And you are saying it ---- out of sheer ignorance.

Ubenedictus: actually u would be likened to the heretic in those days, those who held fully, truly and wholly d truths of Christ wrote the bible, not those wu have rejected and or added to the the truth with falsehood.

It would be a badge of honour for me to be called a heretic by Roman Catholics. The kind of thing that I'm complaining of that makes you want to call me a heretic was also complained of by men and Christians far greater than me --- like Cyprian of Carthage, like Augustine of Hippo. It is of course the kind of thing that led the Roman Catholic (though not them exclusively) to cause the Great Schism. And of course here we are today because of the recalcitrance of Roman Catholics.

Ubenedictus: "roman" is d tag given to us to differentiate us from d "anglo catholics". You have introduced a false comparism.

Nah, official documents of the Roman Catholic Church add the 'Roman'; the last pope and the one before him referred to the church they headed as Roman Catholic.

Ah, by the way, go and read again the text of the "Habemus Papam" by which the Roman Catholic Church announces the appointment of its popes including the most recent announcement concerning Mr. Bergoglio --- and see whether the RCC is not referred to as Roman.

Ubenedictus: i was ur "in other circumstances", unfortunately, to provide a quote out of d blue without context is as good as misleading.

Nah, not to read carefully and understand properly is to mislead yourself.

Ubenedictus: i'm sure you will accuse ignatius of heresy becos he bears witness that even in his days (1st/2nd century) the roman church presided in love over all d others.
Universal jurisdiction didnt start in d 4th century, ignatius bears witness to it even earlier.
Peace.

Naah, I'm not going to bother myself about this here. I have already in the past dealt with that thoroughly. Let me just say Ignatius who first used the word "catholic" in relation to The Christian Church will not recognise what the Roman Catholics are now calling "catholic".

^^^ Search the forum and you will see that we have long discombobulated the arguments of the Roman Catholic apologists on those matters --- comprehensively.

When I come back from Church (today is Palm Sunday afterall) and if I am in a generous mood, I could find a post that lists various threads on which those matters were sorted.

Syncan: Exactly my point. Gregory 1 is seen here affirming the humility of past popes and exhorting the future ones to follow same. But The Westminster version, instead of exhorting the Archbishop of Canterbury, decided to delve into another territory. If you cannot see the difference in the two then it's your making.

The Roman Catholic "popes" asked for the kind of inflammatory statement in that chapter of the Westminster Confession (especially from about the late 4th century though the Reformation and to some extent till now) with their claim of "universal jurisdiction" and headship of the Church.

Unfortunately, many present day Roman Catholics are themselves calling for that attitude ---- including very clearly quite a number on this very thread.

Ubenedictus: i agree with it somewhat. The correct thing is, catholics wrote the bible. Technically the apostles were catholics.

Yes the apostles were catholics in the sense of the Westminster Confession. However they were not Roman Catholics.

So yes, we catholics (and NOT Roman Catholics) wrote the Bible.

Ubenedictus: u have absolutely no idea of what gregory was talking about. He was condemning d bishop of constantinople who was using dat title to mean that he is d only priest, it is dat insinuation that gregory was condeming as heretical.
Gregory later excommunicated the bishop.

Ah, sorry but (a) you are ignorant of what I know and (b) you have not read my post carefully and did not understand it. Read it again and pay attention to the words "in other circumstances".

And funny enough there will only be slander on their "pope" according to that Westminster Confession if the "pope" claims to be Head of the Church and therefore pit himself against Christ. (Or if the pope's followers so pit him against Christ)

You know what is more interesting? A former Roman Catholic "pope" said pretty much the same thing in other circumstances.

From the words of Gregory I or Gregory the Great/the Dialogist then as simply Bishop of Rome (or according to Roman Catholics, "Pope" Gregory I).

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.

And further on that Council of Carthage and the claim of "ratification" by Rome

From http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

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." 8

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. 10

Ubenedictus: . . .
and your source doesn't say he was commissioned to revise the gospels alone, so your claim that he was commissioned to revise only the gospel still remains unfounded.

I don't think you read and understood either me or that Roman Catholic author well.

Ubenedictus: i'm curious if you know any scholar that claims Jerome translated the epistle to the laodiceans. This my dear was and addition and had nothing to do with Jerome.

You fell right into a trap! lol

You claim Jerome had a "canon" or must have had a "canon" before he began to translate (initially suggesting it was from Damasus before acknowledging the forgery I pointed out). Now, you acknowledge that not everything in The Vulgate was done by Jerome.

Of course, scholars tell us that Jerome definitely translated the gospels and some books of the New Testament; but then they say that it is not proven that he translated all the books of the New Testament found in editions of The Vulgate. Look, even at the Council of Trent they struggled to conclude which edition of The Vulgate to accept!

If that is the case where is the "canon" to be found in Jerome's own Vulgate (with its incompleteness suo motu) or in the instructions from Damasus?

Again, according to a Roman Catholic source http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

It has not yet been definitely established whether Jerome also revised the other books of the New Testament. The majority of scholars are inclined to favor such a revision.

The last sentence probably needs clarification on whether it refers to all other NT books. And if you want another summary on parts of the Jerome Vulgate, see here (which points to the presence/inclusion of the 'Epistle to the Laodiceans' in 'The Vulgate') http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate#Authorship

Ubenedictus: On the issue of jerome and d deuterocanon, we at d early stages witness that he called them aprocrypha but he change that view, he later in his writting clearly state that they are scripture. To claim that Jerome translated those book and considered the not scriptures is to call Jerome an hypocrite. According to Jerome he changed his former views and translated the deutero because of "the judgement of the churches". This brings me back to my point that Jerome translated and accept d deutero because d church had accepted them.

Jerome didnt translate what he believe to be to be non canonical, instead he accepted the decision of d church as regards the canon.

Well, here is what a Roman Catholic source, the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, says:

St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books. In appreciating his attitude we must remember that Jerome lived long in Palestine, in an environment where everything outside the Jewish Canon was suspect, and that, moreover, he had an excessive veneration for the Hebrew text, the Hebraica veritas as he called it. In his famous "Prologus Galeatus", or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and Judith are not on the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine. An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase.

But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way.

Ubenedictus: the text of d council of carthage is there for all to see! The representatives of d pope was present at the council and d pope was asked to ractify it. This is not a claim, it is there in d very text of d council.

Na so! The same people of Carthage who rejected the authority of Rome and its "popes" on a number of occasions (both before and after their synods setting out their biblical lists) -- including that of "pope" Stephen in c. 256 under Cyprian and that of "pope" Celestine in the early 5th century. The suggestion is that in the spirit of the oneness of the Church in those days they thought "the Church beyond the sea" could be consulted about the selection they had made.

hehehe, this is an untrue claim made by william webster and white, it has no basis.

Na so! And does the Roman Catholic Bible/Canon include Psalm 151?

Ah cool, Ube' let's play some more!

Ubenedictus: a refinement? What so said earlier is substantially different from your later assertion. Did trent set d canon? NO, Your "refinement" is a readjustment.

No, my stance did not change, What I conceded was that my use of "finalised" amounted to a "refinement". However, I stand by the point that the Roman Catholics did not set a canon at a council until the Council of Trent.

And here again are Roman Catholic sources on that point:

From http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

On April 8, 1546, two Biblical Decrees were solemnly promulgated by the Tridentine {i.e. Trent Council} Fathers. The first, called "Sacrosancta," declares the Catholic rule of faith in regard to the Sacred Scriptures by repeating the value of divine tradition, defining the inspiration of the Bible, and listing officially the books of the Canon. Then for the first time these books were formally canonized. This first Decree is a formal dogmatic definition of the Church.

Then from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The Council of Florence (1442)

In 1442, during the life, and with the approval, of this Council, Eugenius IV issued several Bulls, or decrees, with a view to restore the Oriental schismatic bodies to communion with Rome, and according to the common teaching of theologians these documents are infallible statements of doctrine. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.

The Council of Trent's definition of the canon (1546)

. . . the Council of Trent among its first acts solemnly declared as "sacred and canonical" all the books of the Old and New Testaments "with all their parts as they have been used to be read in the churches, and as found in the ancient vulgate edition". During the deliberations of the Council there never was any real question as to the reception of all the traditional Scripture. Neither--and this is remarkable--in the proceedings is there manifest any serious doubt of the canonicity of the disputed writings. In the mind of the Tridentine Fathers they had been virtually canonized, by the same decree of Florence, and the same Fathers felt especially bound by the action of the preceding ecumenical synod. The Council of Trent did not enter into an examination of the fluctuations in the history of the Canon. Neither did it trouble itself about questions of authorship or character of contents. True to the practical genius of the Latin Church, it based its decision on immemorial tradition as manifested in the decrees of previous councils and popes, and liturgical reading, relying on traditional teaching and usage to determine a question of tradition. . . .

I think I'll deal with your other points in a following post.

OK, so that last post was a tease --- since it referred to Origen on the Old Testament. Here now is one on Origen and the New Testament.

Note again that I am quoting from a Roman Catholic source ---- this time the modern version of the one above.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Origen's travels gave him exception opportunities to know the traditions of widely separated portions of the Church and made him very conversant with the discrepant attitudes toward certain parts of the New Testament. He divided books with Biblical claims into three classes:

those universally received;
those whose Apostolicity was questions;
apocryphal works.

In the first class, the Homologoumena, stood the Gospels, the thirteen Pauline Epistles, Acts, Apocalypse, I Peter, and I John. The contested writings were Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, James, Jude, Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and probably the Gospel of the Hebrews. Personally, Origen accepted all of these as Divinely inspired, though viewing contrary opinions with toleration. Origen's authority seems to have given to Hebrews and the disputed Catholic Epistles a firm place in the Alexandrian Canon, their tenure there having been previously insecure, judging from the exegetical work of Clement, and the list in the Codex Claromontanus, which is assigned by competent scholars to an early Alexandrian origin.

He he he indeed , ube; because on this one truthislight is actually right!

Meanwhile, we no dey play again? Because I still get plenty yarn!

Let me give you this bit about Origen. Note that I am quoting from a Roman Catholic source!

From http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Canon_of_the_Old_Testament

The Alexandrian tradition is represented by the weighty authority of Origen. Influenced, doubtless, by the Alexandrian-Jewish usage of acknowledging in practice the extra writings as sacred while theoretically holding to the narrower Canon of Palestine, his catalogue of the Old Testament Scriptures contains only the protocanonical books, though it follows the order of the Septuagint. Nevertheless Origen employs all the deuterocanonicals as Divine Scriptures, and in his letter of Julius Africanus defends the sacredness of Tobias, Judith, and the fragments of Daniel, at the same time implicitly asserting the autonomy of the Church in fixing the Canon (see references in Cornely). In his Hexaplar edition of the Old Testament all the deuteros find a place.

All I know is that it was not the Roman Catholic Church that gave us the Bible (whether it was "wrote" or 'compiled'").

Instead, it was the catholic Church aka, the Church catholic, aka the universal Church, aka The Christian Church.

italo: The New Testament, not the Old, was written by Catholics for Catholics.

Yes indeed! The catholics referred to below!

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXV
Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Hallelujah! Thank God for the catholic Church; thank God for the Church catholic.

italo: The Old Testament was written before the advent of the Catholic Church at pentecost but the New Testament was written by Catholics for Catholics.

Yes indeed! The catholics referred to below! (Although I will say they wrote for the benefit of all mankind not just catholics like themselves.)

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXV
Of the Church

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church has been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

V. The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.[12]

VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

Hallelujah! Thank God for the catholic Church; thank God for the Church catholic.

Ubenedictus: this is essentially different from what you said earlier, you said d catholic church didnt have a council to set the canon until trent, you only subtlely changed it to "finalised" after you saw my post on florence. Even subtlely you seemed to have d ability to readjust your views even though you do so dishonestly by claiming it wasnt readjusted.

I'm afraid I haven't said anything different even though I agree that my use of "finalised" did make a 'subtle' "refinement".

Ubenedictus: that the was a fifth council of rome under damascus is a fact. The fact that damascus seems to commision d jerome for d vulgate almost immediately after, allows me to reasonable infer that while d above document may be a forgery it may actually be a catolog of what happened in that council.
the gospels only This is very untrue and i challenge you to provide a source document.

Yes there was a Rome Council; ah and now you "subtly" acknowledge that the claims about a canon at that council might be false and based on a forgery! Though you want to say it "may" have been a catalog of what happened. lol

As for Jerome's commission, let me quote from a Roman Catholic source: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7470

Because of his knowledge of the East, Pope Damasus had invited Jerome to Rome to help settle the Meletian schism. The Roman Synod did not accomplish its purpose, but this second Roman residence of Jerome was of the greatest importance for his literary activity. In these years he revised the Latin Gospels, and perhaps also the other books of the New Testament. Upon the death of Pope Damasus (December 10, 384) Jerome was forced to leave Rome. He now travelled to Antioch

Jerome's activity as revisor and translator was threefold.

(1) Because of the many variant readings in the Old Latin text, Pope Damasus requested Jerome to revise the Latin translation of the Four Gospels. Hence, he did not give us a new translation, but about the year 383 revised the then current Latin text in accordance with some Greek MSS. Vogels has established that for Luke, xxii. 39-xxiv. 11 Jerome used a Latin text akin to the Old Latin MSS. — Veronensis (fifth century), Palatinus (fifth century), Corbeiensis (fifth century) and Vindobonensis (fifth-sixth century). It is still a matter of research what particular pre-Vulgate MSS. were used for the remaining parts of Luke, and for Matthew, Mark and John. The same may be said for the Greek MSS., though it is generally conceded that Jerome's text very frequently is allied to the Neutral Family, of which Codex Vaticanus is the chief representative. It has not yet been definitely established whether Jerome also revised the other books of the New Testament. The majority of scholars are inclined to favor such a revision.

Ubenedictus: this again is untrue! Jerome used d hebrew in translating and even went d extra mile of translating d greek to make sure d deutero books were not omitted. This is borne witness to by the fact that at d jerome had all the deutero books in his vulgate.
i know d heated dialogue and augustine didnt accuse Jerome of removing any books and if he did it would be negated by d fact that d vulgate contained d deutero books.

Jerome translated many books ---- including books that he did not consider to be "canonical". That is the whole point! Look, some editions of the Vulgate even include a/the supposed "Epistle to the Laodiceans"!

Ubenedictus: the catholics arent "claiming", na so e b! Even d acts of d council of carthage themselves bear witness to d fact. Your use of d word "claim" makes it seem as though it didnt happen.

We will have to agree to disagree. In my view the Roman Catholics are trying to claim and appropriate the African synods which were regional; some of us refuse to be fooled by that.

Ubenedictus: i never referenced Decretum gelasianum, you did. You brought that topic, dont ascribe it to me as if i made arguement quoting d document.

Again, you are making a false accusation; I never said you brought up the Decretum Gelasianum!

Ubenedictus: this again is a lie, do you just make assertions? Tell me one book that differentiates d canon proclaimed in carthage and dat in trent.

Agh look at you: the Trent Canon has Ezra and Nehemiah as representing its books of Esdras while the followers of the Septuagint like Augustine at the time of the synod of Hippo had an extra book of Esdras. Don't tell me you didn't know that?

Ubenedictus: when i used d word "officially close" i am refering to the addition of d anathemas following d list. I do not subscribe to what you wrote above that is wasn't finalised, in 401 d pope wrote to a fellow xtian and gave him a list of d canonical scripture which is d same with dat of d vulgate and dat of florence, trent and hippo. Not a single book added or removed till today, for me that prettymuch defines finalised.

Let me ask you this: did "Pope Gregory I accept the Apocrypha as "canonical"?

Ubenedictus: origen didnt quote from some today n tes writtings and he never decleared he had those books. That is simply a guess work dat has no backing. And if absence of those quotes is taken as proof of absence, it may be infer he didnt have them.

Look, the scholarship reveals that Origen started out with quite a large collection including e.g. the Shepherd of Hermas before eventually paring down what he believed to be canonical to essentially the 27 books of the modern New Testament. You may disagree; but that is what is in the literature.

Ubenedictus: . . . you can prove this.

This seems to be the only point of apparent serious dispute in your last post. It is about Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica.

From here: http://www.thegospelofchrist.org/edictthess.html

Edict of Thessalonica

"It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.

We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.

They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict." - —Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2

Ubenedictus: this my dear is a lie,

I stand by my statement that the Roman Catholic Church only finalised its own canon at the Council of Trent.

Ubenedictus: even before hippo and carthage the roman church had a canon set in d council of rome.

I wonder if you are aware that this claim about the Council of Rome is widely seen as arising from a fraud and forgery based on the Decretum Gelasianum?

Ubenedictus: It was after dis council that pope damascus gave jerome d commision to make d vulgate. I put it to you, how can damascus commission Jerome to make the vulgate if the was no canon of the Roman church? Take note dat jerome started d vulgate b4 d council of hippo an carthage. Again even d council of carthage was held before representatives of d pope asked d pope to ractify their resolutions.

This is a misrepresentation, I am afraid.

1. Although Jerome eventually produced a Latin translation of the whole Bible, his commission originally related only to the gospels. Thus his commission was not originally an indication of the then existence of an authoritative or conclusive canon.

2. The absence of a conclusive canon is exposed clearly when you remember that Jerome rejected some of the books in the Septuagint; he did not consider them as "canonical".

3. Don't forget the dialogue of Jerome and Augustine --- the latter who of course supported the Septuagint.

Ubenedictus: So how is the catholic trying to claim ownership over a council that it ractified. I put it to you that the council of trent didn't make any new canon and didnt debate about any books it only confirm d already exist canon of the roman church and decleared it officially closed. This will lead you directly to d part of trent http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html trent never claim to make a canon they simply confirm d canon damascus commission Jerome to translate,

1. The Roman Catholics are of course free to claim to "ratify" anything they want
2. I have already explained the position about Jerome above and the false claims about a Damasian list/canon by my reference to the Decretum Gelasianum.
3. Let me throw in one point here: the canon confirmed at Trent is believed to be different from what the synods of Hippo/Carthage approved/adopted

Ubenedictus: to futher buttress my point i also posit that even before d council of trent the council of florence confirmed d books of scripture http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/Florence.htm#5. These should sufficently prove my point that d catholic church already had a canon before trent, d one used by d vulgate.

1. The Council of Florence was in the 15th century. Do you want to tell us and list the books of the canon according to that Council of Floerence.
2. Notice that just above you yourself said that it was at Trent that the Roman Catholic Church declared the canon "officially closed" --- which means the RCC "canon" (if any at all then existing) was not finalised until the Council of Trent ----- in the 16th century!

Ubenedictus: My dear, i'll be sincere with you, if u write that d catholic church only had a canon at trent again, i'll have no problem accusing you of delibrately distorting the truth.

As you know, other Roman Catholics have already called and accused me of worse; so, no problem.

Ubenedictus: and it too about 3 centuries to fully do so. Yeah we technically agree.

OK

Ubenedictus: it is a belief that has nothing to do with facts. How do you account for the fact that origen didnt quote any of d books not found in d septuagist, and didn't quote other nt books. Origen never said he had those book.

We will have to agree to disagree. It is widely believed among scholars that Origen was probably using all 27 books of the modern New Testament. Second part of that quote of yours is funny, prompting me too to ask: did Origen say he didn't have all the books?

Ubenedictus: unless i misunderstood u and i apologise.-/quote]

OK

[quote author=Ubenedictus]the catholic church.
that is what you think, no proof. Show a church father dat considered d heretic as catholic, if you cant then you have no point.
i would request that you produce texts where heretics that ofcourse have been proven to teach unwholesome doctrines were called catholics.
but they aren't seen as catholics.
You seem to misunderstand reyginus who seems to say by some funny logic that the arians weren't christains.

I guess we disagree fundamentally about the word "catholic" and in my view that you are not acknowledging the various transformations in its meaning and usage.

I don't know if I misunderstood Reyginus, maybe; but the point remains that both the Arian and Trinitarian disputants were all seen as Christians.

Ubenedictus: if i misunderstood then i apologise. But my contention with reyginus is that the arians weren't catholic and what i quoted seem to support that idea by claiming that arianism is a form of catholicism.
Nevertheless i apologise if i misunderstood.

It would not be entirely correct to say that the Arians were not "catholic" --- at least initially; it was only Theodosius' edict of 380 that declared that only those holding to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity would be entitled to being called "Catholic".

@Ubenedictus

Do you agre with the statement below? Or do you think that such statements should be corrected and discouraged so as to prevent the spreading of falsehoods?

Richieboyn: . . . the Bible they are quoting was first written by the same catholics they are criticising. . . .

@ Ubenedictus

Do you agree with the statement below? Or do you think such statements should be corrected and discouraged so as to prevent the spreading of falsehoods?

Richieboyn: . . . . This Bible, u are always talking about, u have forgotten it was FIRST written by the Catholics abi? . . . .

Ubenedictus: . . . .
this is propaganda. The eastern church didnt have a council to set the canon! So what does d above mean. D councils reponsible for d canon was the synod of rome, the synod of hypo, the council of carthage. . . .

Bros, the Roman Catholic Church did not have a council to set the canon ----- until the 16th century Council of Trent. And bros, the real propaganda is for the Roman Catholic Church to try and claim ownership of the synods of Hippo and Carthage.

Ubenedictus: oh yeah, during d time of d apostles some xtian communities had as many as 3 letters of d apostle and some didn't have any. . . .
It too about 3 century for those letter to circulate to every community and even at that very few communities had d complete stuff and not every xtian had immediate access to it. . .

Bottomline: for about 3 century there was hardly a xtian community with a complete new testament.

So, at least we are agreed that different early communities had at least some of the books of the New Testament and that Paul's epistles circulated beyond the particular communities they were addressed to.

Ubenedictus: that is interesting, it shows dat d epistles had started circulating but yet none of those u name had our currently canon and few considerd them scripture. . . .

It is generally believed that Origen had virtually all the books that make up present versions (note plural 'versions') of the present day New Testament (i.e. present NT canonS; again note plural).

Ubenedictus: I made a statement earlier dat u insulted my intelligence,

this was what i meant all heresy start from within the church arainism was no different! . . . .

Bros, how could I have insulted your intelligence when you have here clearly agreed with what I said? I even tried to soften my own language by twice using the word 'technically'!

Arianism started within "the church" --- these are your words. Interestingly, I'd be grateful for you to clarify what you mean by "the church".

Ubenedictus: . . . .thus neccesitating the nicean council and condemn arainism and decleared his adherent under anathema. At that moment d arains weren't considered catholics.

1. Yes at the Council of Nicea, Arianism was deemed heretical.
2. The red bolded is not quite accurate; at the time of the Nicene Council the word "catholic" had not acquired the technical and legal meaning that it was to acquire under Theodosius' edict.
3. The use of the word 'catholic' then still stemmed from the usage by Ignatius and was not 'exclusive' in a legal sense; I will agree though that even Ignatius use of 'catholic' supposes churches teaching 'wholesome' doctrine.
4. Importantly, this is where Reyginus has a strong point: all these people were still (seen as) Christian ---- whether they were Arian or Trinitarian!

Ubenedictus: The claim arainism was simply a form of catholicism is a fraud and i do consider it an insult to my intelligence.

Bros, I point out to you that you are making a false accusation here! I never said or claimed what you are saying here. You quoted my statement and even bolded some part; read my statement again and compare with what you are claiming here.

Ubenedictus: The moment something is decleared heretical, it adherent were considered outside d church that is why a church father used d phrase "outside d church no salvation" he was refering to d heretics.

1. This is not as straightforward as you are presenting it ---- particularly in relation to the Arian controversy.
2. Even after Nicea, Arianism did not immediately (if at all) die out within the Church of that era.
3. Even Constantine later became more sympathetic towards the Arians; in fact he was eventually baptised by an Arian bishop!
4. Arius himself was later exonerated and admitted again to communion with the Church!
5. Would you believe that Athanasius, the chief Trinitarian advocate, was exiled?
6. Successors of Constantine including his son Constantius II were Arians and welcomed back the Arians i.e. Arian bishops etc
7. It was only after Theodosius' edict in 380 (strongly influenced by Damasus) that it was declared that only Trinitarians were allowed to use the word "catholic" --- marking the beginning of the legal use of the word in an exclusive sense.

^^ No problem, bros. How is Yank land?

@Goshen360

I think you should pay careful attention to what Ihedinobi is saying. What the scriptures, the apostles, the early Christians and 'church fathers' all repeatedly refer to is ---- Jesus Christ. I do not think the effort to make a distinction between 'Jesus' and 'Christ' is sustainable at all.

And another 'twitterer' said

looking at Dawkins' fetus-pig tweet, I'll say this about fetuses and Dawkins: both have the potential to become mature adult humans

@ belabela

Actually, the Roman Catholics did not have a canon of their own until the Council of Trent in as late as the 16th century! It was only after the shenanigans with Martin Luther etc that the Roman Catholics finally defined their own canon.

Yes, other people came up with their own idea of a canon e.g. the African churches at regional synods in Hippo and Carthage (EDIT) i.e. in the 4th century and more than 1000 years before the Roman Catholic Council of Trent! Even before that there were other compilations by different people/groups. The Roman Catholics try to lay claim to the African synods but a proper examination of the situation will disprove the Roman Catholic claims.

italo: *Enigma!* lol

That man believes the Church Fathers until they start speaking in favour of Catholicism. He loved quoting St. Ignatius until I showed him how St. Ignatius was disproving his point.

Dont you see how he trivialized the part where Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons and Saint Cyprian of Carthage proclaim that the Bishop of Rome ‘presides in love and honour.’?



Then he suddenly loves to talk about the Church Fathers again:



But notice that the Church Fathers he mentions do not include Ignatius, Irenaeus and Cyprain.

Whether this was nothing serious...or a deliberate omission... I leave you to evaluate.

For me, the only word I can use is...

F R A U D

LoL ;d

This one keeps crying waa waa waa all over the forum like a little child whose dummy has been tak3n away; and spewing lies and insults ----- all because there are informed people more than capable of comprehensively debunking the lies and fraudulent arguments of Roman Catholic apologists.

Pele oh!

;d

Technically, Arius and Arianism arose when the word "catholic" had not yet acquired the meaning that today's Roman Catholics like to give to it or even the meaning given to it within the Edict of Theodosius.

Thus technically, arianism developed as an aberrant teaching yes but within the Church catholic, or within the catholic Church.

Look, if not why were the "Trinitarians" debating with the Arians at the Council of Nicea? Because they were all still within the Church catholic and needed to establish as between the two views what was the right position and correct Christian theology and especially Christology.

Re foregoing

At the same time, a theist (even a Christian specifically) has no duty to explain anything to an atheist - especially a mocker. Yep, in the process of evangelism, the matter is different ---- but this forum is not exactly for evangelism as such, at least not primarily.

Ah by the way:

Mr A: Could you provide the answer for this sum i.e. what is 2 + 2?

Mr B: The answer to 2 + 2 is 5.

Mr A: That is not really the answer!

Mr B: I have provided an answer.

Mr A: Ok.