• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mystery Solved

nPeace

Veteran Member
One asked me to provide a link. I provided and one commented on it. I disagreed and I am establishing my point from the passage of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
That is it.
Regards
So do you disagree with my response to the link? Please state why, and show why it is false.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
One asked me to provide a link. I provided and one commented on it. I disagreed and I am establishing my point from the passage of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
That is it.
Regards
Thank for the link. I responded to that link.

The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the canon, and reference is made to the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397), where catalogues of books were formulated.

Councils of Carthage (397)
The Councils of Carthage, or Synods of Carthage, were church synods held during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries in the city of Carthage in Africa.
CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Carthage (A.D. 419)

The canon however, was already settled by then, not by the decree of any council, but by the usage of Christian congregations throughout the ancient world.
One authority says,
"The organized church, as such, did not create the Canon; It recognized the canon which had already been created... For it goes without saying that the Church, understood as the entire body of believers, created the Canon. But this Canon grew, in fact, from the bottom upwards, in the communities, among the believers, and only later was officially legitimized from the top... it was not the reverse; it was not imposed from the top, be it by bishops or synods.”

It is not the RCC that determines the authenticity of the scriptures, which I pointed out, and was asking you confirmation about, but if you don't want to address it that's fine.
The fragments of Muratori is a small part of that evidence.

The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon(18:02) or Canon Muratori, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament. The fragment, consisting of 85 lines, is a 7th-century Latin manuscript bound in a 7th or 8th century codex from the library of Columbanus's monastery at Bobbio Abbey; it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written about 170 or as late as the 4th century. Both the degraded condition of the manuscript and the poor Latin in which it was written have made it difficult to translate. The beginning of the fragment is missing, and it ends abruptly. The fragment consists of all that remains of a section of a list of all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its original compiler. It was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by Father Ludovico Antonio Muratori (1672–1750), the most famous Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740.

The unidentified author accepts four Gospels, the last two of which are Luke and John, but the names of the first two at the beginning of the list are missing. Scholars find it highly likely that the missing two gospels are Matthew and Mark, although this remains uncertain.

[GALLERY=media, 8614]Canon by nPeace posted Aug 6, 2018 at 4:41 PM[/GALLERY]
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Document states that the writer of this Bible book was a physician. (Colossians 4:14)

The Fragment confirms that the book of Acts of Apostles was written by Luke for the “most excellent Theophilus.” (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1) Then it goes on to list the letters of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians (two), to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Galatians, to the Thessalonians (two), to the Romans, to Philemon, to Titus, and to Timothy (two). The letter of Jude and two letters of John are also mentioned as inspired books. The apostle John’s first letter was already alluded to, along with his Gospel. Apocalypse, or Revelation, concludes the list of the books considered inspired.

The Muratorian Fragment evidently confirms that most of the books now found in the Christian Greek Scriptures were already considered canonical in the second century C.E.

Other evidence...
Clement and Origen of Alexandria recognized Paul as the author of his letters.
Clement of Alexandria
Titus Flavius Clemens, also known as Clement of Alexandria (Greek: Κλήμης ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς; c. 150 – c. 215), was a Christian theologian who taught at the Catechetical School of Alexandria. A convert to Christianity, he was an educated man who was familiar with classical Greek philosophy and literature. As his three major works demonstrate, Clement was influenced by Hellenistic philosophy to a greater extent than any other Christian thinker of his time, and in particular by Plato and the Stoics. His secret works, which exist only in fragments, suggest that he was also familiar with pre-Christian Jewish esotericism and Gnosticism. In one of his works he argued that Greek philosophy had its origin among non-Greeks, claiming that both Plato and Pythagoras were taught by Egyptian scholars.[3] Among his pupils were Origen and Alexander of Jerusalem.

Clement is usually regarded as a Church Father. He is venerated as a saint in Coptic Christianity, Ethiopian Christianity and Anglicanism. He was previously revered in the Roman Catholic Church, but his name was removed from the Roman Martyrology in 1586 by Pope Sixtus V on the advice of Baronius.

Eusebius of Caesarea
The names of the apostles of our Saviour are known to every one
from the Gospels. But there exists no catalogue of the seventy
disciples. Barnabas, indeed, is said to have been one of them, of
whom the Acts of the apostles makes mention in various places, and
especially Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians.

They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote tothe Corinthians with
Paul, was one of them.

Paul, that "chosen vessel," "not of men neither
through men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ himself and of
God the Father who raised him from the dead," was appointed an
apostle, being made worthy of the call by a vision and by a voice
which was uttered in a revelation from heaven.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184 – c. 253), also known as Origen Adamantius, was an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and biblical hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality. He was one of the most influential figures in early Christian theology, apologetics, and asceticism. He has been described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced".

What gives evidence that the Bible’s books are the product of holy spirit is their content. They all support the authorship of Jehovah God and are in complete harmony. The harmony and balance of the 66 canonical books of the Bible testify to their unity and completeness. 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I believe it was never a mystery, just misunderstanding of the Christianity people and misleading them by Paul- the self-acclaimed and fake disciple.
Regards
If you’re not part of the religion, you don’t have any privileges in determining who is fake or not. By your standards, I could claim that Muhammad is fake, and that you’re all misled. But that wouldn’t be very respectful. Please back off the judgement of others’ religions.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Quoting from your source...
The existence of numerous and, at times, considerable differences between the four canonical Gospels is a fact which has long been noticed and which all scholars readily admit. Unbelievers of all ages have greatly exaggerated the importance of this fact, and have represented many of the actual variations between the Evangelical narratives as positive contradictions, in order to disprove the historical value and the inspired character of the sacred records of Christ's life. Over against this contention, sometimes maintained with a great display of erudition, the Church of God, which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15), has always proclaimed her belief in the historical accuracy and consequent real harmony of the canonical Gospels; and her doctors (notably Eusebius of Cæsarea, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine) and commentators have invariably professed that belief. As can readily be seen, variations are naturally to be expected in four distinct, and in many ways independent, accounts of Christ's words and deeds, so that their presence, instead of going against, rather makes for the substantial value of the Evangelical narratives. From among the various answers which have been given to the alleged contradictions of the Evangelists we simply mention the following. Many a time the variations are due to the fact that not one but two really distinct events are described, or two distinct sayings recorded, in the parallel passages of the Gospels. At other times, as is indeed very often the case, the supposed contradictions, when closely examined, turn out to be simply differences naturally entailed, and therefore distinctly accounted for, by the literary methods of the sacred writers, and more particularly, by the respective purpose of the Evangelists in setting forth Christ's words and deeds. Lastly, and in a more general way, the Gospels should manifestly be treated with the same fairness and equity as are invariably used with regard to other historical records.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
When asked to explain how Jesus can be God, and at the same time be subject to God, many religious leaders reply with the words, "It is a mystery." o_O

The scriptures evidently show that this teaching is a mystery, and solves it.
How so?

God - Jehovah
Isaiah 44:6
This is what Jehovah says, The King of Israel and his Repurchaser, Jehovah of armies: I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.

Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.”

According to scripture, Jehovah - the almighty God - had no beginning. He is the beginning - Alpha and Omega.


The only begotten son - Jesus the Christ (Messiah)
John 1:14
So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth.

John 3:16
For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

1 John 4:9
By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him.

Colossians 1:15
...is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

According to scripture, Jesus the Christ, is the only begotten son of God brought forth first and foremost of all of God's creation.

From everlasting Jehovah God is.
The firstborn son of God did not exist for everlasting. He had a beginning. He was brought forth - begotten.

So apparently from what we see in scripture, persons who teach that Jesus is God, prefer to teach something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain, because they do not want to teach the simple truths from God's word.

The Bible gives a description of these persons. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15
Mystery solved. :)
You’re biggest problem here lies in trying to reconcile two completely different theological understandings of “God.” The “simple truth” is that we’re dealing with very complex layers of theological meaning, derived from different cultures, and trying to be mashed together by a neophyte from a different culture yet.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
You’re biggest problem here lies in trying to reconcile two completely different theological understandings of “God.” The “simple truth” is that we’re dealing with very complex layers of theological meaning, derived from different cultures, and trying to be mashed together by a neophyte from a different culture yet.
There is no need to do that, Torah and Quran define G-d and his attributes. Jesus' teachings were never different from them, please.

Regards
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You’re biggest problem here lies in trying to reconcile two completely different theological understandings of “God.” The “simple truth” is that we’re dealing with very complex layers of theological meaning, derived from different cultures, and trying to be mashed together by a neophyte from a different culture yet.
It is indeed complex, from particular vantage points. That's why I am saying we have to shift our perspective.
However, since we are also different individuals, I understand the complexity will not get any less complex.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Whilst not speaking for nPeace I would like to ask you if you know when the trinity doctrine was adopted by the Catholic Church? It appears as if this doctrine was not part of original Christian teaching and the Catholic Church admits it.
The doctrine of the Trinity was adopted by The Church, not “The Catholic Church.” The doctrine was adopted before the Schism of 1054 that identified the Western Church as a separate entity. Since the writings of the NT appeared (and, given a very early date of some of the writings), there has been the teaching that some status of Divinity was ascribed to Jesus. It’s apparent in the writings, themselves, which have their origin in early oral stories.

So where did this idea come from? Would it surprise you to know that non-Christian religions have had trinities of gods for hundreds of years before Christ, and that the concept goes back to ancient Babylon?
Would it surprise you to know that the writers of Genesis had a henotheistic concept, and not a monotheistic concept? Would it surprise you to know that many of the OT stories have their origin in ancient, Babylonian myth?

There is only one truth and we mustn't settle for anything less. We have an enemy who plated seeds of false Christianity very early in Christian history
Pfft. Don’t be such an alarmist and frighten the atheists. Your statement simply cannot be coroborrated with any degree of fact.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
There is no need to do that, Torah and Quran define G-d and his attributes. Jesus' teachings were never different from them, please.

Regards
Don’t forget the rest of the Judaic texts and the NT texts. And don’t forget that Christians don’t use the Quran to define God.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It is indeed complex, from particular vantage points. That's why I am saying we have to shift our perspective.
However, since we are also different individuals, I understand the complexity will not get any less complex.
You’re missing the point. The point is that there exists no overarching vantage point such as you’re trying to construct here.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
You’re missing the point. The point is that there exists no overarching vantage point such as you’re trying to construct here.
I think I get the point, and I think you are demonstrating what I mean. I'm not sure you may be understanding what I am trying to project.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The doctrine of the Trinity was adopted by The Church, not “The Catholic Church.”
"The Church" still considered itself "Catholic" (Universal) though, didn't it?
Who cares what fragmentation took place? Christianity today is the world's most fragmented religion.

The doctrine was adopted before the Schism of 1054 that identified the Western Church as a separate entity.

Schism or not, the trinity is universally accepted by almost all "Christian" churches, both Catholic and Protestant. But acceptance doesn't make it right or true. It is not found in scripture unless you twist ambiguous verses. They are easily dismissed by the rest of the Bible. If Jesus was God, don't you think he would have told his apostles such an important truth? He said the opposite. The Father was his God. (John 14:28; John 17:3; John 20:17)

Since the writings of the NT appeared (and, given a very early date of some of the writings), there has been the teaching that some status of Divinity was ascribed to Jesus. It’s apparent in the writings, themselves, which have their origin in early oral stories.

It doesn't alter the fact that there is no trinity in the Hebrew Bible. Jesus was Jewish and never argued about their strict monotheism. (Deuteronomy 6:4) The divine origins of the Christ are not in dispute, but his equality with the Father finds no biblical support at all.

Would it surprise you to know that the writers of Genesis had a henotheistic concept, and not a monotheistic concept?

References please.

Would it surprise you to know that many of the OT stories have their origin in ancient, Babylonian myth?

Would it surprise you to know that older cultures wrote down details about ancient events (like the flood) that weren't recorded until later in the Hebrew Scriptures? Just because those nations recorded them first doesn't mean that the Hebrew writers plagerized them.

Nimrod was not a Babylonian myth. He was Noah's great grandson......and it was this man that we can thank for all the false religious ideas that spread all over the world....including the trinity and mother goddess worship. Hell was added later along with immortality of the soul....none of which come from the Hebrew Scriptures. They are not in the Greek scriptures either.

Pfft. Don’t be such an alarmist and frighten the atheists. Your statement simply cannot be coroborrated with any degree of fact.

On the contrary, we have the testimony of Jesus himself, as well as the apostles that Christianity was going to be overgrown with "weeds" sown by the devil. Jesus was going to allow this fake Christianity to grow to full maturity until the "harvest time".
(Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42; 2 Peter 2:1; Acts 20:30)

I believe that the separation has been going on for some time and soon Jesus will instruct his angels to gather the weeds to be destroyed forever.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The Church" still considered itself "Catholic" (Universal) though, didn't it?
Small “c,” not Capital “C.” The Church has always considered itself small-c universal, until some splinter groups began to claim that they were the “true” church.
But acceptance doesn't make it right or true.
It does, actually. The church authorities agreed. And, despite what you say, it is biblically-based.
It is not found in scripture unless you twist ambiguous verses
Not intact, no. But it is implied.

If Jesus was God, don't you think he would have told his apostles such an important truth? He said the opposite. The Father was his God
He did.

Jesus was Jewish and never argued about their strict monotheism. (Deuteronomy 6:4) The divine origins of the Christ are not in dispute, but his equality with the Father finds no biblical support at all.
That’s why one of the base concepts of the doctrine is that Jesus was fully human. You keep forgetting that part.

References please.
Exegete Genesis. It’s right there.

Just because themselves nations recorded them first doesn't mean that the Hebrew writers plagerized them
Yah it really does. That’s how copying works.

On the contrary, we have the testimony of Jesus himself, as well as the apostles that Christianity was going to be overgrown with "weeds" sown by the devil
We also have the testimony of Jesus that the weeds and wheat should grow up together, and you can’t always tell the difference. That’s the whole overarching message of Matthew.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Small “c,” not Capital “C.” The Church has always considered itself small-c universal, until some splinter groups began to claim that they were the “true” church.

What Jesus began was never going to be small. His instruction to "go! and make disciples of people of all nations" and his assurance that 'the good news of the kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth before the end would come' (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14) shows that it was going to be no small exercise. But he did foretell that an apostasy would take place. Most do not acknowledge that this happened very early in Christian history.

It does, actually. The church authorities agreed. And, despite what you say, it is biblically-based.

There is no trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not biblically based. If you think it is please supply those scriptures where God says that he would incarnate becoming a mere human. Jesus never specifically refers to himself as God or ever accepted worship from humans.

Not intact, no. But it is implied.

"Implied"? Please show us where Jesus ever implied it. Please also show us how it doesn't breach the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)


Back up your assertions. These are just empty words.

That’s why one of the base concepts of the doctrine is that Jesus was fully human. You keep forgetting that part.

Being fully human was a specific requirement of his mission....do you know why? Do you also understand that if Jesus was God that he was also immortal, which means that he could not really die. Jesus could not be "fully God" and "fully man" at the same time because his death is what cleanses us from sin. If Jesus did not die, we are still condemned.

Exegete Genesis. It’s right there.

Is it? Genesis is one of my favourite books of the Bible....I find no belief in other or lesser gods in the Jewish religion; Genesis was written by Moses. Any god other than YHWH was a false deity, like Baal.

There is no henotheism in Genesis.

In Greek, the terminology is a little different. The Greeks had no word for the one true God of Israel because they were polytheistic. If they referred to one of their gods it was by name....collectively, they were simply called "the gods". At the time of writing the NT, the Jews has ceased uttering the divine name so in order to identify the one God of the Jews, they used the definite article (the) to distinguish him from other gods. He was referred to as "the God". (ho theos)

The meaning of the word "god" in Greek (theos) was a "mighty" or "powerful one". Jesus is called a "god" in that sense, but then, so is the devil. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) God called human judges "gods" because of their divine authority and power. ( John 10:31-37) In this case, the Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy for claiming to be God, but you will notice that he only ever said he was "God's son". He never claimed to be God....not even once.

Yah it really does. That’s how copying works.

Moses was inspired by God to write the Pentateuch. There was no copying because Moses was inspired to draw on history that up until that time, was beyond man's knowledge. Genesis goes back to the creation of the universe.

We also have the testimony of Jesus that the weeds and wheat should grow up together, and you can’t always tell the difference. That’s the whole overarching message of Matthew.

Indeed. It was only at "the time of the end" (the harvest) when the difference would become obvious. In the beginning, there were only small differences, but as time went on, the embellishments continued to be added until "the church" was no longer recognizable as the one started by Jesus Christ.

The prophet Daniel said that at that time, God would 'cleanse, whiten and refine' his worshippers. (Daniel 12:9-10) Why would a 'cleansing and whitening' be necessary unless his worship had been soiled and stained? Why would they need 'refining' unless impurities had crept in that needed to be brought to the surface and eliminated?

He also foretold that an abundance of knowledge would be available, (Daniel 12:4) so today we have no excuse for ignorance. All the knowledge we need is at our fingertips.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What Jesus began was never going to be small. His instruction to "go! and make disciples of people of all nations" and his assurance that 'the good news of the kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth before the end would come' (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 24:14) shows that it was going to be no small exercise
You’re completelay glossing over the point I made.

There is no trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is not biblically based. If you think it is please supply those scriptures where God says that he would incarnate becoming a mere human. Jesus never specifically refers to himself as God or ever accepted worship from humans
I never referred to the Hebrew texts. If it weren’t biblically-based, then the ecclesial leaders (who established the criterion of biblical-basis) wouldn’t have formulated the doctrine. I could supply plenty, but you’ll find some way to eisegete the texts to explain it away, because that’s what you do. I’m not going to waste my time trying to pry off your blinders.

"Implied"? Please show us where Jesus ever implied it. Please also show us how it doesn't breach the first Commandment
See above.
Back up your assertions. These are just empty words
One obvious place is in John, where Jesus asserts in his prayer that he and the zfather are one. But I’m sure you’ll twist your way out of that, because that’s what you do.

Being fully human was a specific requirement of his mission....do you know why? Do you also understand that if Jesus was God that he was also immortal, which means that he could not really die. Jesus could not be "fully God" and "fully man" at the same time because his death is what cleanses us from sin. If Jesus did not die, we are still condemned
If you’re going to argue against the doctrine you need to understand it first. Your whole argument is a straw man. Additionally, you’re assuming that substitutionary atonement is either the only, or the best, construct for salvation theology. I don’t believe it is.

Is it? Genesis is one of my favourite books of the Bible....I find no belief in other or lesser gods in the Jewish religion; Genesis was written by Moses. Any god other than YHWH was a false deity, like Baal.

There is no henotheism in Genesis
You need to go back to school and study it, then.

Moses was inspired by God to write the Pentateuch
This right here makes any debate impossible. If you can’t argue reality, don’t bother. There is no evidence that !oses was a real person, and, if he were, the nature, history and origin of the texts shows it to have been impossible for such a man to have written it. Your ignorance of such basics is precisely why you need more work in the exegesis of Genesis.

Indeed. It was only at "the time of the end" (the harvest) when the difference would become obvious. In the beginning, there were only small differences, but as time went on, the embellishments continued to be added until "the church" was no longer recognizable as the one started by Jesus Christ.

The prophet Daniel said that at that time, God would 'cleanse, whiten and refine' his worshippers. (Daniel 12:9-10) Why would a 'cleansing and whitening' be necessary unless his worship had been soiled and stained? Why would they need 'refining' unless impurities had crept in that needed to be brought to the surface and eliminated?

He also foretold that an abundance of knowledge would also be available, (Daniel 12:4) so today we have no excuse for ignorance. All the knowledge we need is at our fingertips
Mush. Not even worth a response.

Your argument fails utterly by any standard of exegetical prowess.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That is the reason that the Pauline Christianity has a wrong concept of G-d.
Regards
Xy and Paul’s writings precede Islam. I don’t see how it COULD have referred to documents that had not yet been written. You should quit throwing rubber chickens at the debate.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Xy and Paul’s writings precede Islam. I don’t see how it COULD have referred to documents that had not yet been written. You should quit throwing rubber chickens at the debate.
Preceding does not make it right, many religions precede Christianity, does it make their concept more correct than Christianity, please.

Regards
 
Top