Actually, maybe we can clarify things this way:

1. The Christian Bible which was made in the first century came before "the Catholic Church" - let alone the Roman Catholic Church.

2. The Christian New Testament was produced by the Church and is a continuation of the Christian Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) which existed before the Church of the Day of Pentecost.
------

3. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Bible which was only made in 1546, and which is contrary to the Christian Bible of Christian tradition, was agreed by the Roman Catholic Church at a meeting with an unclear vote. That one came some 1500 or so years after "the Catholic Church" and also after the Roman Catholic Church.

One I made earlier
----------------------------


For a start Jesus and the early Christians had a Bible --- it is called the Hebrew Bible or what Christians call Old Testament.

Jesus preached the gospel from it. The apostles and early Christians preached the gospel from it. A clear example is Philip preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch.

It is simply false to say that the Bible did not come into existence until 300 years after the death of Christ. It is a very bad lie!

The New testament was completed and in circulation by the end of the 1st century. There is clear evidence of this.

Christians already had and were using the Bible by the end of the 1st century.

Yep, I know people could raise issues about canonicity but those have already been addressed on several other threads.

EDIT And which "church" "gave birth" to the Old Testament?

vickyO:
Its through the Bible many of us today know about Christianity. The Bible is our guide to seeking and knowing the fullness of God.

Amidst a whole lot of senseless things even one of the important Roman Catholic documents, Dei Filius from Vatican I, says:

"Even the Holy Scriptures, which had previously been declared the sole source and judge of Christian doctrine ..."

Ajodun ayo, okunrin meta!

And by the way regarding the Old Testament, I suppose it was even the Roman Catholic Church who "canonised" that one --- for Jesus Christ Himself!

^^ In addition, Paul apparently quotes Luke. Peter refers to Paul's epistles. Paul asked the Colossians to share that epistle with others!

Look, even their Roman Catholic encyclopaedia does not deny some of these things.

When necessary, I will quote from it.

It is still a lie and will always be a lie to claim that the Roman Catholic Church canonised the Bible anything in the 4th century.

By the way, the reason that Christians through the ages including the vast majority of the "church fathers" do not reckon books of the Apocrypha and others as part of the canon --- is because they recognised that the Jews did not recognise them as part of the Hebrew Bible ergo they were not part of the Old Testament canon.

This recognition existed long before the 4th century. The Roman Catholics with their Apocrypha are the ones going against tradition -- as indicated by even their own encyclopaedia with the extract posted earlier.

The real "Catholics" of the 4th century i.e. the Eastern Orthodox confirm, in the 4th century and even before (e.g. Origen), that the canon of the Old Testament being based on the Hebrew Bible does not include the Apocrypha and others.

See this example that I've given in the past:

From http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

Interesting! Have a blessed week too.

Oh, by the way, Christ is king indeed!

For a start Jesus and the early Christians had a Bible --- it is called the Hebrew Bible or what Christians call Old Testament.

Jesus preached the gospel from it. The apostles and early Christians preached the gospel from it. A clear example is Philip preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch.

It is simply false to say that the Bible did not come into existence until 300 years after the death of Christ. It is a very bad lie!

The New testament was completed and in circulation by the end of the 1st century. There is clear evidence of this.

Christians already had and were using the Bible by the end of the 1st century.

Yep, I know people could raise issues about canonicity but those have already been addressed on several other threads.

EDIT And which "church" "gave birth" to the Old Testament?

By the way, here is a friendly "hint" that I gave to one member of your side only today.

From https://www.nairaland.com/1529429/what-difference-between-sunday-service#19754269

Enigma: ^^ If Roman Catholics had good sense to explain their own position like above (rather than saying others do not have this, that or the other) many people will leave them alone and not bother to criticise them for what they believe --- even those who don't agree with them.

^^ My posts on Roman Catholicism are now not charitable because:

1. When in the past I was friendly to you and your fellow Roman Catholics, your side was not charitable to me.
2. There is a clear example above when I even stated clearly that I was consciously not being disrespectful to the Roman Catholic Church. Is that not "charity"? What did I get in return from your side?
3. Your side has for a long time not been charitable: were members of your team not referring to other people's Churches as "shops"? And you know that we are talking about established churches here!
4. Your side uses arguments that are based on untruths; some deliberate untruths and slander even. That is not charitable and you can expect what you get.
5. Did you or did you personally not see your side calling people names include such things as heretics, bastards, "organisms" etc etc etc? What have I called any of you that is as "uncharitable" as any of that?

Look this is the summary: respect begets respect! If your side shows respect and charity to others, I for one will show it respect. If your side maintains its current policy, as I once said in warning to you lot, let's get ready to rumbleeeeeeee!

^^^ Whatever mistakes he might have made he did not remove books from the Bible. That is Roman Catholic propaganda which even includes manipulating web sources, Wikipedia and the like.

If Luther "removed" books, then so did the Roman Catholics like the "church father" Jerome, like the "pope" Gregory I etc etc etc

^^^ Bros, hopefully someone else will feel competent to advice.

Cheers.

Empredboy: Thanks typing error noted. Den y do dey attack catholics

Let me give you an advice: it is better that you try your best to understand Jesus' words as best as you can and to follow them. If you make honest mistakes, my view is that that is fine. What is more, they will be your mistakes --- not those of others causing you to stumble.

Now why do "they" attack Roman Catholics?

Because long long long ago, the Roman Catholics declared everyone else to be heretics or schismatics and anathema --- for not submitting to the Roman Catholic "pope".

In effect, Roman Catholic doctrine is that those who deliberately reject the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope" --- are all going to hell.

And the others say they cannot accept the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope" because they believe that the Roman Catholics have many things wrong. Apart from basic things like Mary and icons and all that, the more important is that the others believe that what it takes to be saved by Jesus is not what the Roman Catholic Church says.

So because of these, both sides have been fighting each other for over a thousand years!

Is it worth your while to spend your time focusing on that fight --- or is it better for you to try and understand Jesus and follow him?

Look, Roman Catholic is Roman Catholic.

Christianity can be said to have started on the day of Pentecost; it has stood till now since then; it is continuing to this day; it will continue until Jesus returns.

By the way go and learn the spelling of 'Christians'; it is annoying and almost insulting to see the way you spell it in your title!

Empredboy: Ans d rest of d questn.

Is that an order? Have you heard of basic manners?

If by your question you are referring to the part concerning the (Roman) Catholic Church, the answer is simple: a person does not have to be part of the Roman Catholic Church to be a Christian. A Christian does not need to have any business with the Roman Catholic Church.

If in the interest of unity, some Christians wish to associate with the Roman Catholic Church --- they will soon find that the Roman Catholic Church says it is impossible; it says that they have to become Roman Catholics first.

@OP

The Church is primarily - Christians. It is not primarily organisations, whether CAC, Apostolic, Anglican, Roman Catholic, Cutlass Sharp Sharp ministry or whatever.

Jesus remains always with Christians ---- since the Holy Spirit is with them.

Those things which you identify as programs e.g. "singles and married" etc are human programs! And those wither away ........

Martin Luther is being accused of removing/trying to remove books from the Bible!

Here are just a few Roman Catholics who also "removed" at least 7 books from the Bible

Jerome, Erasmus, "pope" Gregory I, "Cardinal Cajetan (the same Luther's opponent)

Oh, meanwhile the Roman Catholics only voted to add the 7 books in 1546 by: 25 for, 15 against and 16 abstained --- they couldn't even get a clear majority!

Oh, and here is something from the Roman Catholic organisation's own encyclopaedia http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm lol

"38. But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not "Canonical" but "Ecclesiastical:" that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have read in the Churches.

These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken."

The Roman Catholic Bible of 25 for, 15 against and 16 abstained is even contrary to tradition.

"Papal infallibility"

Something that even Roman Catholics don't even understand. Most Roman Catholics do not even know what it means or involves.

On this Nairaland alone, I have schooled a number of Roman Catholics on it including particularly one my "special friend" like that!

Let us catch them out

1. In the 6 years or so that he was "pope", how many things did Ratzinger teach infallibly?
2. Can any Roman Catholic list the things that Ratzinger taught infallibly?

This next one is more important:

3. In the entirety of the history of the Roman Catholic Church, how many things has it taught infallibly and can any Roman Catholic list them?

I promise you that Roman Catholics don't know: some say only two, some say several etc.

I added the above because I know that the Nairaland Roman Catholics are too weak for the task.

^^ If Roman Catholics had good sense to explain their own position like above (rather than saying others do not have this, that or the other) many people will leave them alone and not bother to criticise them for what they believe --- even those who don't agree with them.

OK: so we are to submit to the Roman Catholic "pope" or be anathema?

But what if the "pope" is a heretic?

And many of the Roman Catholic "popes" have been heretics. An example of one who was formally declared a heretic is "pope" Honorius. In fact for decades after, before taking office each new "pope" had to declare that the old chap was a heretic and anathema!

Some mumu Roman Catholics (including some in their enclave here) try to deny that the old fellow was declared a heretic but even their own encyclopaedia could not deny it and says:

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!

Ubenedictus

You raise a number of points in your post and I disagree with many of them.

However, let me start with the positive: I appreciate your apology in the event that I feel maligned by you. And I respect that you acted big to do that.

Second, you know that you had my respect generally; beyond generally, you still have my respect for your knowledge of Church history (if sometimes with a Roman Catholic bias)

On the other hand:

1. I do not accept that you raised a white flag on the other thread.
2. I have been thoroughly disappointed in you for some time because you did not do what you should have done (except for some small tokens) as an 'elder' of sorts to your Roman Catholic crew.
3. Worse, you too engaged in unsavoury things
4. On this thread I accept that you brought up my name in good faith; BUT once the numpties started saying negative stuff, you failed woefully in what you should have done. Not only that, you actually joined in!

More general

- if you feel my posts about the Roman Catholic Church are half truths all you need to do is to counter them with the real truths! If you succeed, you will then show me to be a liar. Simples!

- whenever I give the impression that Roman Catholics are liars, I back it up with facts; again disprove the facts and show me to be the liar!

- I do not take any direction from you or anyone here about how and what to post on this thread; I will post whenever and whatever I consider necessary.

Pax vobiscum

DrummaBoy: @ Enigma, I notice how these 'papist' have avoided your posts like a plague! Lol. Well done. Oh, if only my pentecostal friends could see how the Pope is so incredibly similar to their General Overseers and how papal infallibility has been replaced with ,thus saith the Lord" or "leading of the Spirit", they will take heed. Well done.

Bros, you see am? Indeed "pope", "papa" and "Daddy G.O." are really all the same thing and no better than one another in the end.

As for the papists, don't mind those ones. They have used all manners of tactics: one of them said he does not read my posts yet he kept going to cry to moderators about them and so on and on and on ...

As I said on their own thread:

"It is not good to be wedded to lies and fraud; when the light of truth is shone on lies and fraud, this is what happens - it tends to cause pain to children of darkness."

They can use these lies to fool a lot of people because most people are ignorant and uninformed and some are/were even ignorant that they are/were ignorant at least until they started understanding my posts - such as a number of Nairaland's self acclaimed "intellectuals".

Oh sorry, I forgot; how could I! Of course they top the rubbish by again swearing for us!

"So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."

Vatican I is not only one of the most idiotic things, it is even satanic!

Let me add one more.

Considering that some people were talking yada about Acts 15 earlier, here now see the Roman Catholic church denomination basically declare that it does not believe in Acts 15!

"Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

That is another of those things technically known as --- utter rubbish.

^^ Yes ma; sorry ma!

Seconds out, rooooound ...... whatever!

Ishi you see!

Last night someone or other suggested I was 'feuding' and privately I laughed at the 'foolishness'.

On my part what I have been doing (God forgive me) is ----- toying!

lol lol lol

The Roman Catholic Church that talks a lot of bull --- whether in papal bulls and elsewhere!

An example of utter rubbish talked by the Roman Catholic Church from one I made earlier:


Them even dey swear for us sake say we no accept the fraudulently claimed "authority" and "infallibility" (both rubbish!) of them Roman Catholic "popes"!

One I made earlier!

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Oh and the other nonsensical claim of "papal infallibilty"

. . . we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility . . .

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

Nice!

Will come in handy some time soon.

^^^ No copyright on it.

But if you can find a gif for it .........................

Whenever Roman Catholics try to confuse others and to mix up the Roman Catholic Church with "the Catholic Church", it is helpful to point out the following!

When they say or imply that "they" are "the Catholic Church", they are simply engaging in wuruwuru Mathematics. According to their fraudulent mathematics 5-4=5 (five minus four = five)

The Catholic Church = Alexandria + Antioch + Constantinople + Jerusalem + Rome!

The Roman Catholic Church = Rome

So, they are simply trying to pass off only Rome i.e. the Roman Catholic Church as "the Catholic Church".

In any event, whether it is the Roman Catholic church denomination or even "the Catholic Church", the Bible had been written and "compiled" before either of them came into existence --- by Christians! Hallelujah.

If you want to catch them out, when they say "the Catholic Church", ask them which one e.g. the Orthodox Catholic Church aka Eastern Orthodox who even have a better claim to be called "the Catholic Church" than the Roman Catholic church denomination?