₦airaland Forum

chukwudi44: I do my thingz my own way.I don't bother to see what a mumu thinks

Enigma: Meanwhile, even at the risk of digression, the above is a falsehood!
Here is Athanasius' list.

Enigma: 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:
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.

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

Enigma: 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!

Enigma: 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?

Enigma: 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.

Enigma: 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



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.

Enigma: 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
From https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11864468
From https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/3#12099185

Enigma: 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
From https://www.nairaland.com/1006902/friends-want-me-catholic-thoughts/8#11864468
From https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church/3#12099185

truthislight: The pope can be infellible as long there is "tradition" to cover all his extracurricular teachings and actions = infellibility shield.
With that open field and long rope to play ball how can he fail? = tradition of RCC.

Not minding this instruction:
NIV/ESV/
Now brothers, these things i have transferred so as to apply to myself and apollos for your good, that in our case you may learn the (rule): "Do not go beyond the things that are written" ...................
(1cor4:6)
........................................................................................

But he the pope seems to give care to his "traditions" only = infellibility of popes.
^^^ Why not? Even me self will be infellible with such long rope of tradition of no boundaries.
Can someone show me the boundaries of "tradition" if any?

Enigma: --- In relation to the Bible what do you think is meant by "a canonical collection of sacred texts"?
--- Or, what do you understand by "the canon of the Bible"?




EDIT: this post has again been reedited after I accidentally modified it even unwittingly earlier!

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

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

Very disappointing!

Reyginus: Beautiful! I have to agree with you. But their is another problem. Looking at the era we had two popes, I find hard to figure out how this infallibility will function on any of the two.

Enigma: 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.

Kay 17: Ok, I will concede to your definition and leave that issue for another time.

Given your definition, can you point out any *canonical collection of sacred text* used by the Christians before the 4th century. Note that a individual texts themselves don't count as a collection, rather a number of individual texts adopted together

I wouldn't mind historical references too.

Enigma: We already had "the Bible" waaaaaaay before the 4th century; Christians who were mostly not Roman Catholics had already seen to that.

Ubenedictus: u just didnt answer the question!
Interesting

Enigma: ^^^ Crybaby.

Keep up the lying and slandering. It's all cool.

italo: Na today you sabi Enigma?

He has no permanent beliefs. He latches unto anything that favours him depending on the argument.

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

Enigma: 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.

Reyginus: Don't get it twisted, ube. It is not hypocrisy at all.
The catholic understanding of papal infallibility could be described as a permanent state of holiness. This neglects the fact that once anything is described infallible, the probability of it being peccable is zero.
In the light of first and second peter. The infallibility he exhibited in the writing of the scriptures was dependent on the inspiration from the infallible holy spirit. The assignments he carried out were done not under a state of permanent holiness but a temporary state of infallibity guaranteed by the inspiring holy spirit. While one, in this case is assuming infallibility, the other, Peter, only was infallible within the period of the inspiration.

Enigma: ^^^
Answer this post
* i.e. 'crybaby'

Enigma: 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



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)

Enigma: ^^^ 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.

Ihedinobi: And I consider you guys' insistence on avoiding the tasks he gave and replying with unwarranted insults and rather bogus accusations proof that you realize that performing those tasks will answer Kay 17's question in a manner that will demolish your arguments.

If you are not afraid that the tasks will effectively put paid to your arguments, why have you guys not even attempted to answer his question and make clear as day that Enigma is only avoiding the issue when he fails to respond in kind with his own answer?

Enigma: 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: 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

Boomark: John 10:30-35
King James Version (KJV)
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of thoseworks do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


Whose report do these Catholics believe oo!? Isaiah 53:1.
Ubenedictus, do you believe Jesus now. Or do you still stand with the error in the hearts and heads of the Jews.

Boomark: Hebrews 5;6...
6 And he says in another place,
“You are a priest forever ,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

2 Timothy 1:9
King James Version (KJV)
9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
where you there at the beginning of the world to received your own grace?
You call the revelation of Christ through the Holy spirit sentiment?
I have always known that Catholics are not Christians(Christ followers). They have their own reports.