The trinity and it’s false theology.
Comments
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Well said, there is no such thing as "catholic epistles" in the NT, for "catholic epistles" come from the fourth century as far as their "origins", are Not Inspired.
Therefore, when a person refers to "catholic epistles" they are referring to "catholic dogma" not found in "the Inspired Word of God". The person is not only indigenous but leading away from the teaching of Jesus Christ.
We're not communicating. Your assessment of my most recent reply to you is completely mistaken.
There ARE such things as "catholic epistles" in the NT, for that is the category name given to the NT books called James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude. Yes, that category name didn't exist until the fourth century C.E. long after the seven books themselves were written, but those seven ARE IN FACT referred to as the "catholic epistles."
Scholars refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the "synoptic Gospels" (synoptic = "from the same eye") because of their similar structures and content. No, the words "synoptic Gospels" do not appear in the NT and were attached to Matthew, Mark, and Luke centuries after those books' compositions, but there ARE synoptic Gospels in the NT. Similarly, though the term "catholic epistles" came along centuries after the composition of the literary works to which it refers, that term DOES refer to seven NT books, and there ARE catholic epistles in the NT. In your own references to those seven NT books you may choose not to use the term "catholic epistles." YOUR CHOICE!! But the term exists, and when properly employed refers to James, 1/2/ Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude.
And NO, the term "catholic epistles" does NOT refer to "catholic dogma" (or to write it accurately, "Catholic dogma" - with a capital "c"). The term "catholic epistles" (lower case "c" and "e") refers to seven specific NT books and NOT IN ANY WAY to a particular dogma - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or otherwise.
Again we're not communicating.
In my previous reply, I made NO reference to ANY fourth century doctrine, inspired or otherwise. Instead I referred to your inference of the existence of what you called "the Catholic Epistles dating from the fourth century." My point was that the Wikipedia article reports that only the TERM "catholic epistles" dates to the fourth century. The article makes NO assertion that the seven epistles themselves date to the fourth century.
Well said, and thank you for this timely and gracious reply covering in a more full manner the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles for @Brother Rando.
Your manner of quoting those words suggests that I wrote them. I did not. @Pages wrote them.
So when a trinitarian speaks I know for a fact they are telling an untruth. Notice @Bill_Coley thanks for him for his deception "of the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles.
In none of the more than 2,600 posts I've made to these forums over the years have I EVER thanked ANYONE for their "deception" of ANYTHING. As I read @Pages's words that you quoted but attributed to me, @Pages expressed gratitude for the content of my post on the historical background of the term "catholic epistles." @Pages's comment made NO comment about ANY "deception" of ANYTHING.
Claiming credit that "the historical definition of what has been termed in the NT as the catholic epistles" is not true for there from the first century.
One can claim the "Inspired Epistles" are James; 1/2 Peter; 1/2/3 John; Jude but claiming them as "catholic epistles" in the fourth century and beyond are Uninspired.
To my reading of this thread, no one has claimed "credit" for the historical definition of the term "catholic epistles." The Wikipedia article to which I previously referred simply reports the historical fact that the "convention" of referring to James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude as the "catholic epistles" arose in the fourth century C.E. The Wikipedia article makes NO claim regarding the inspiration of that term.
And one final reminder: When NOT CAPITALIZED, the adjective "catholic" means "general;" it DOES NOT IN ANY WAY refer to the Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or its adherents.
-
@Bill_Coley - We're not communicating. Your assessment of my most recent reply to you is completely mistaken.
Okay, fair enough. Thank you for responding.
@Bill_Coley - There ARE such things as "catholic epistles" in the NT, for that is the category name given to the NT books called James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude. Yes, that category name didn't exist until the fourth century C.E. long after the seven books themselves were written, but those seven ARE IN FACT referred to as the "catholic epistles."
Claiming that catholic epistles existed in the NT in the first century is an untruth. The term did not exist in the first century at all. Nor where they referred to as such. The catholic dogma came about in the 4th century. Therefore, the catholic epistles are non-existent nor were INSPIRED nor contained the Inspired atuographs of the NT from the first century.
Matter of fact, the language of choice for the universal trinitarian sect was Latin. Nobody could hardly call the translation a bible since the scriptures were changed, manipulation, some outright deleted. The removal of God's Name from the Inspired Writings of the OT was Enemy #1.
Try looking up (Psalms 83:18) In the Latin Vulgate. Not there! It's not only Un-inspired but a real trick of Deception.
In the Catholic Deception of verse (Psalms 83:12) in the Latin Vulgate. Notice the evolving of removing "the Lord God" to God?
- uia sol et scutum Dominus Deus gratiam et gloriam dabit Dominus
Notice "the Lord God" already replaced Jehovah God and "the Lord" replaced Jehovah, their Deception even went deeper when we read what is their Book of Deception: (For God loveth mercy and truth: the Lord will give grace and glory.)
They were trying to make "the Lord God" into "two separate persons" while the actual scripture is speaking about one. Now, look up the real scripture @ (Psalms 83:12)
It's Wormwood... which stands for Satan's Bitter Poison, he spews upon the earth to kill off a third of the population. So many have taken the wormwood and are dying the second death.
And the name of the star was called Wormwood, and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many people died from the waters because they were made bitter. (Rev 8:11)
Matter of fact the star that led the magic practitioners to Herod. Also led Herod to murder off boys of two years of age and younger. What a treat! That same star is worshiped by trinitarians, as they put a star or angel on top of Christmas tree during Saturnalia giving an act of worship in order to get a promised present.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christfavorite Holy Day is the Winter Solstice by his own admission... things that make you go ummmmmmm....- The Pagan celebration of Winter Solstice (also known as Yule) is one of the oldest winter celebrations in the world.
- While it may be mostly Pagans who celebrate the Yule holiday today, nearly all cultures and faiths have held some sort of winter solstice celebration or festival.
- December 25th is widely recognized as the birth of Jesus, but the Winter Solstice is among the pagan holidays that have long been cause for celebration in various religions and mythologies, from the Roman worship of Mithras to British druidic ceremonies. It’s one of many Christian holidays, like Easter, that has traditional ties to paganism.
- Dating back centuries before
Christ, cultures brought evergreen trees, plants, and leaves into their homes upon the arrival of the winter solstice, which occurs in the northern hemisphere between December 21st and 22nd.
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Claiming that catholic epistles existed in the NT in the first century is an untruth. The term did not exist in the first century at all. Nor where they referred to as such. The catholic dogma came about in the 4th century. Therefore, the catholic epistles are non-existent nor were INSPIRED nor contained the Inspired atuographs of the NT from the first century.
Your comment focuses on a chronological inevitability rather than a substantial issue.
Yes, James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude were not called the "catholic epistles" in the first century. What the Wikipedia article to which earlier I provided a link called the "convention" of calling those seven NT books the "catholic epistles" didn't arise until the fourth century. But so what? The seven epistles DID exist in the first century! What they were called before the convention of grouping them as the "catholic epistles" arose is not a significant matter. The fact that they came to be called the "catholic epistles" wasn't a significant matter because, as @Pages and I have pointed out to you multiple times, the word "catholic" in that NON-capitalized setting HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, CATHOLICISIM, OR ITS ADHERENTS. Rather, in that context, the word "catholic" (NOT capitalized) means "general." In other words, the "catholic epistles" are the "general epistles." How is that possibly controversial?
It's akin to saying, on that shelf in the library are the "general interest" magazines, while on the shelf below it are the "special interest" magazines. In those instances, neither the word "general" nor the words "special interest" assert ANYTHING about the quality of the magazines grouped under them. They simply categorize the magazines for the benefit of library patrons. If you're not helped by those groupings, you're free to disregard them, create your own, or build your own library. Most library patrons will care FAR more about the content of the magazines than they will about how the library categorizes them.
With all due respect, I don't understand your obsession with how those seven epistles were commonly categorized beginning in about the fourth century when the category name meant nothing more than "general" and had NOTHING to do with the content of the epistles themselves and equally NOTHING to do with Roman Catholicism.
As for your claim that "the catholic epistles are non-existent nor were INSPIRED nor contained the Inspired atuographs of the NT from the first century," because the "catholic (i.e. 'general') epistles" are nothing other than James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude, please realize that you're now saying that "James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude are non-existent nor were INSPIRED nor contained the Inspired autographs of the NT from the first century." I can't imagine that you believe those seven NT books are "non-existent" and not inspired.
There were other substantive components to my previous response to you, but you chose not to address them. So be it. Should you ever have the inkling, I'd welcome your engagement on any of them. The remainder of your most recent post mines your concerns about Catholicism and what you call the "Catholic Deception." That's a discussion you'll have to hold with others.
-
@Brother Rando July 19 @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christfavorite Holy Day is the Winter Solstice by his own admission... things that make you go ummmmmmm....Please provide source for @Brother Rando claim about me. My favorite Holy Day is described in Psalm 118, which happened on 17 Nissan 3790 (Julian Calendar Sunday 9 Apr 30). My second favorite Holy Day is the Jewish Holy Feast context for John 7:37. My third favorite Holy Feast celebrates a miracle by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.
Remember יהוה will judge false witnesses:
Exodus 20:16 LEB => “You shall not testify against your neighbor with a false witness.
Deuteronomy 5:20 LEB => ‘And you shall not falsely bear evidence against your neighbor.
Thankfully יהוה sent one voice portion of יהוה to be clothed in a Holy human body, which was joyfully offered as the substitute sin sacrifice on 14 Nissan 3790. My research for date of Holy King Jesus ("Light of the World") birth resulted in 25 Elul 3759 (Julian Calendar Monday 25 Aug 2 BCE), the day before a conjunction in the Eastern Sky shortly before sunrise announced Holy King Jesus birth. My faith believes יהוה Salvation (יֵשׁוּעַ Yeshua) paid the righteous penalty for my sins against יהוה so God's Holy blood is redeeming me from sin.
Remember my observation: humans are stubborn. I am powerless to change personal belief in someone else. Every human has free will choice for what to ❤️ love most, which is expressed by actions and words. Only one narrow righteous way results in Holy God's ❤️ Loving presence: now & forever. I want to keep 🙏 worshipping & ❤️ loving Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God with all of me ❤️🙏
@Brother Rando July 19 December 25th is widely recognized as the birth of Jesus, ...
When did Hippolytus establish December 25th as the birth of Jesus ?
Keep Smiling 😊
-
"The only time John referred in the Inspired Epistles to (generality or something becoming unisersal) was:"
Based on your own conception of what "Inspired" means regarding scripture in your writing, i.e. autograph, how are you able to not only refer to; but, also read from these autographs?
But this argument presented above is not at all coherent to argue your disagreement on the historical convention regarding the seven epistles as catholic in nature ("they were not addressed to a specific church but to Christians in general" (Patzia, A. G., & Petrotta, A. J. (2002). Pocket dictionary of biblical studies (p. 24). InterVarsity Press.)).
An apostle's "generality" on any particular subject within their writing is not an equivalent to what you are in disagreement with; that being, the descriptive (catholic) applied to those seven named books (epistles) of scripture.
It is a historical term, like it or not, if you personally don't care to use that terminology, fine – don't use it. That so much time and effort, on your part, is spent to get around, and discredit, a fact of history with erroneous Roman Catholic claims is astonishing, as well as absurd, in my view.
"Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."
Bousset, as anyone, is certainly welcome to express their opinion on matters; but, Mt. 28:19 is neither relevant, nor under discussion anywhere in this particular thread. Below is an unedited quote from Bousset's work:
- "The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula down into the second century is so overwhelming that on this basis Conybeare's surmise acquires high probability, that even in Matthew 28:19 the trinitarian formula was only later inserted and Eusebius had actually read an older text which ran: ...." (Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos, Abington Press, 1970 page 299)
-
"Try looking up (Psalms 83:18) In the Latin Vulgate. Not there! It's not only Un-inspired but a real trick of Deception."
The above is due to the difference in the text versification found between the MT, OL, and English in certain areas of scripture.
You're looking at Ps. 83:18 in the English text, which is 83:19 (Hebrew), and 82:19 in (Latin) – no trick of deception, just the matter of how the versification is existing between texts.
"In the Catholic Deception of verse (Psalms 83:12) in the Latin Vulgate. Notice the evolving of removing "the Lord God" to God?"
"uia sol et scutum Dominus Deus gratiam et gloriam dabit Dominus"
Versification differs here as well, 83:12 (Latin) is 84:11 (English) and 84:12 (Hebrew); and the Latin follows the Hebrew which is Lord God to God: יהוה אלהים חן וכבוד יתן יהוה
So, there is no deception here as imagined, no conspiracy; just someone, you, who has copied and pasted erroneous material into their post because it serves their theological ideals – and, most obviously one who didn't take the time to verify the credibility of that same material.
If, you weren't previously aware of the sometime arising issue of different versification between texts, you do now. Always check that first before making claims.
-
@Bill_Coley Your comment focuses on a chronological inevitability rather than a substantial issue.
Yes, James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude were not called the "catholic epistles" in the first century. What the Wikipedia article to which earlier I provided a link called the "convention" of calling those seven NT books the "catholic epistles" didn't arise until the fourth century. But so what? The seven epistles DID exist in the first century! What they were called before the convention of grouping them as the "catholic epistles" arose is not a significant matter. The fact that they came to be called the "catholic epistles" wasn't a significant matter because, as @Pages and I have pointed out to you multiple times, the word "catholic" in that NON-capitalized setting HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, CATHOLICISIM, OR ITS ADHERENTS. Rather, in that context, the word "catholic" (NOT capitalized) means "general." In other words, the "catholic epistles" are the "general epistles." How is that possibly controversial?
@Brother Rando - Well then, you should be reminded that the Capitalization of letters weren't even used in the first century. So I would bring to your attention that Your comment focuses on a chronological inevitability that the "general epistles" that deceptively are "catholic epistles". Such a superlative amount of "word play" to try to prove the unprovable.
Catholics are not Christians but are trinitarians that continue to worship Babylonian pagan deities and its Pagan Holy Days masked in the veneer of Christianity. "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons," (1 Timothy 4:1)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christfavorite Holy Day is the Winter Solstice by his own admission... things that make you go ummmmmmm....- The Pagan celebration of Winter Solstice (also known as Yule) is one of the oldest winter celebrations in the world.
- While it may be mostly Pagans who celebrate the Yule holiday today, nearly all cultures and faiths have held some sort of winter solstice celebration or festival.
- December 25th is widely recognized as the birth of Jesus, but the Winter Solstice is among the pagan holidays that have long been cause for celebration in various religions and mythologies, from the Roman worship of Mithras to British druidic ceremonies. It’s one of many Christian holidays, like Easter, that has traditional ties to paganism.
- Dating back centuries before
Christ, cultures brought evergreen trees, plants, and leaves into their homes upon the arrival of the winter solstice, which occurs in the northern hemisphere between December 21st and 22nd.
-
More about false prophecies from @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christ-My research for date of Holy King Jesus ("Light of the World") birth resulted in 25 Elul 3759 (Julian Calendar Monday 25 Aug 2 BCE), the day before a conjunction in the Eastern Sky shortly before sunrise announced Holy King Jesus birth.Numerous @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christpredictions provide legitimate reasons NOT to trust the humankind organization. True Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God prophets (communication channels) pass test of 100% accuracy.@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus United Allied States (UAS) => https://uas.govt.agency First Presidential Election is Thu 30 July 2020, the 9th of Av 5780 whose history includes Holy Temple destruction in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 3336 (423 BCE) and by the Romans in 3829 (69 CE).
My apologies for not checking historical Jewish Temple destruction year dates from Jewish website Chabad.org before posting to Christian Discourse in the NEWS & CURRENT EVENTS category (when watching in June 2020 to see who would be elected as the first UAS president).
Post edited by Brother Rando on -
"Try looking up (Psalms 83:18) In the Latin Vulgate. Not there! It's not only Un-inspired but a real trick of Deception."
@Pages -The above is due to the difference in the text versification found between the MT, OL, and English in certain areas of scripture.
@Brother Rando - "In the Catholic Deception of verse (Psalms 83:12) in the Latin Vulgate. Notice the evolving of removing "the Lord God" to God?" "uia sol et scutum Dominus Deus gratiam et gloriam dabit Dominus"
@Pages - Versification differs here as well, 83:12 (Latin) is 84:11 (English) and 84:12 (Hebrew); and the Latin follows the Hebrew which is Lord God to God: יהוה אלהים חן וכבוד יתן יהוה
@Brother Rando - Ahhh and there we have it. Witness marks that God's Holy Name was replaced by catholic dogma.
No, I am looking at scriptures being completely deleted from (Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18) The removal of these scriptures applied to them in removing God's Name. Read the warning that they deleted.
14 Like a fire that burns up the forest,
Like a flame that scorches the mountains,
15 So may you pursue them with your tempest
And terrify them with your windstorm.
16 Cover their faces with dishonor,
So that they may search for your name, O Jehovah.
17 May they be put to shame and be terrified forever;
May they be disgraced and perish;
18 May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth.
(Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18 are missing by deception) Sorta reminds of the catholic epistles that can't be found. Neither are these scriptures in their false rendition the Vulgate, it only goes up to verse 13... what else are they hiding?
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Well then, you should be reminded that the Capitalization of letters weren't even used in the first century. So I would bring to your attention that Your comment focuses on a chronological inevitability that the "general epistles" that deceptively are "catholic epistles". Such a superlative amount of "word play" to try to prove the unprovable.
Capitalization practices of the first century are not relevant to whether the word "catholic" was capitalized in the fourth century as part of the term "catholic epistles," or whether said word/term is capitalized today, in the 21st century.
In addition, first century capitalization practices are of no consequence to the meaning of the word when used in the term "catholic epistles" beginning in the fourth century.
In our several exchanges, @Brother Rando, you have yet to demonstrate that the term "catholic epistles" as introduced in the fourth century and widely used since means ANYTHING other than "general epistles," or that the term has ANY CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to the Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or its adherents. I contend - without fear of contradiction - that you haven't accomplished either of those ends because you can't, because the term "catholic epistles" means EXACTLY what @Pages and I have claimed it means.
But I encourage you to prove us wrong! Please provide links to one or more sources that support your view and contradict ours regarding the term "catholic epistles."
-
"No, I am looking at scriptures being completely deleted from (Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18) The removal of these scriptures applied to them in removing God's Name. Read the warning that they deleted."
As stated previously, nothing has been deleted or removed; at least not in this particular case. The Latin 82:15-19 is the same as 83:15-19 (Hebrew) and the same as Ps. 83:14-18 in the English. See below:
Latin:
"quomodo ignis conburit silvam et sicut flamma devorat montes 16 sic persequere eos in tempestate tua et in turbine tuo conturba eos 17 imple facies eorum ignominia et quaerent nomen tuum Domine 18 confundantur et conturbentur usque in saeculum et erubescant et pereant 19 et sciant quia nomen tuum est Dominus solus tu Excelsus super omnem terram" (82:15–19 Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. (Ed. electronica). (2005). Logos Bible Software..)
Hebrew:
”כאש תבער יער וכלהבה תלהט הרים כן תרדפם בסערך ובסופתך תבהלם מלא פניהם קלון ויבקשו שמך יהוה יבשו ויבהלו עדי עד ויחפרו ויאבדו וידעו כי אתה שמך יהוה לבדך עליון על כל הארץ" (Psa. 83:15-19)
English:
As fire burns a forest, and as a flame sets afire mountains,
15 so pursue them with your tempest and terrify them with your storm.
16 Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek your name, O Yahweh.
17 Let them be ashamed and terrified forever, and let them be humiliated and perish
18 that they may know that you, whose name is Yahweh, you alone, are the Most High over the whole earth. (The Lexham English Bible (Ps 83:14–18)
"(Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18 are missing by deception) Sorta reminds of the catholic epistles that can't be found. Neither are these scriptures in their false rendition the Vulgate, it only goes up to verse 13... what else are they hiding?"
Missing? Really? In what universe do you reside in where the answer is provided, in this instance different versification of the specific text; which is verifiable, but yet ignored by yourself to allow for the continued unfounded and erroneous claims made by yourself.
-
@Bill_Coley - Capitalization practices of the first century are not relevant to whether the word "catholic" was capitalized in the fourth century as part of the term "catholic epistles," or whether said word/term is capitalized today, in the 21st century.
For someone who claims "Capitalization practices of the first century are not relevant" you sure made a big stink about it. But it does matter "catholic epistles" are not Inspired, and the "Inspired Epistles" of the First Century never mention or refer to such a thing.
@Bill_Coley - In our several exchanges, @Brother Rando @Bill_Coley, you have yet to demonstrate that the term "catholic epistles" as introduced in the fourth century
Actually, In our several exchanges, @Bill_Coley and @Pages, Neither of You have yet are able to demonstrate that the term "catholic epistles" were introduced in the first century
They don't exist. Peter, John, Jude, even Timothy were not catholics. They were Christians of the Way. The term "catholic epistles" come from the introduction of the 4th century.
The catholic epistles (also called the general epistles [1]) are seven epistles of the New Testament. Listed in order of their appearance in the New Testament, the catholic epistles are: Naming The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century.
So I will quote what I stated earlier and stand firm against you and the catholic dogma of trying to take credit for something they never did.
Claiming that catholic epistles existed in the NT in the first century is an untruth. The term did not exist in the first century at all. Nor where they referred to as such. The catholic dogma came about in the 4th century. Therefore, the catholic epistles are non-existent nor were INSPIRED nor contained the Inspired autographs of the NT from the first century.
-
@Brother Rando "(Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18 are missing by deception) Sorta reminds of the catholic epistles that can't be found. Neither are these scriptures in their false rendition the Vulgate, it only goes up to verse 13... what else are they hiding?"
@Pages - Missing? Really? In what universe do you reside in where the answer is provided, in this instance different versification of the specific text; which is verifiable, but yet ignored by yourself to allow for the continued unfounded and erroneous claims made by yourself.
YES. The Deception of the Catholic Latin Vulgate has deleted verses Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18
-
You continue to misconstrue nearly every aspect of my posts.
@Brother Rando posted:
For someone who claims "Capitalization practices of the first century are not relevant" you sure made a big stink about it. But it does matter "catholic epistles" are not Inspired, and the "Inspired Epistles" of the First Century never mention or refer to such a thing.
My comments about first century capitalization practices were a response to YOUR comment:
Well then, you should be reminded that the Capitalization of letters weren't even used in the first century.
- "catholic epistles" is group name, and nothing more. It doesn't add to or take away from a single letter, word, sentence, paragraph, or chapter in any of the seven writings known as James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude.
- NO ONE claims that the term "catholic epistles" is "inspired." NO ONE.
- WE ALL claim that the aforementioned seven NT writings ARE inspired. WE ALL DO.
- The term "catholic epistles" simply - and un-inspiredly - refers to those seven NT as a group, in the same way that the term "Pentateuch" refers to the first five books of the Old Testament, or "synoptic Gospels" refers to Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There is NOTHING "inspired" about the term. NO ONE claims there is anything inspired about the term, any more than anyone claims special literary significance to referring to a stack of fiction books as "novels."
- None of the seven NT writings refers to the "catholic epistles" - each composed in the first century - because the term didn't become a convention for naming them until the fourth century.
Actually, In our several exchanges, @Bill_Coley and @Pages, Neither of You have yet are able to demonstrate that the term "catholic epistles" were introduced in the first century
Neither of us has EVER claimed that the term "catholic epistles" was introduced in the first century. I remind you of the quotation from a Wikipedia article that I provided in my first post in this exchange (emphasis added):
"The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century. At the time, that word simply meant "general", and was not specifically tied to any denomination, for example, what would later become known as the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, to avoid the impression these letters are only recognised in Catholicism, alternative terms such as "general epistles" or "general missionary epistles" are used."
The term "catholic epistles" dates from the fourth century, NOT the first, and neither of us has EVER suggested otherwise.
They don't exist. Peter, John, Jude, even Timothy were not catholics. They were Christians of the Way. The term "catholic epistles" come from the introduction of the 4th century.
- The seven epistles known as James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude DO exist, as does the term "the catholic epistles." You're free not to like or use that group name, of course; but it DOES exist.
- I agree that Peter, John, Jude, and "even" Timothy were not Catholics (capital "C").
- I also agree that the term "catholic epistles" arose in the fourth century.
So I will quote what I stated earlier and stand firm against you and the catholic dogma of trying to take credit for something they never did.
"Claiming that catholic epistles existed in the NT in the first century is an untruth. The term did not exist in the first century at all. Nor where they referred to as such. The catholic dogma came about in the 4th century. Therefore, the catholic epistles are non-existent nor were INSPIRED nor contained the Inspired autographs of the NT from the first century."
Your dispute with the term "catholic epistles" "stands firm" only against objective fact. There is NOTHING Catholic (capital "C") about the term; neither is there anything dogmatic about it. NOTHING. If there were, you would have complied with the request I made at the close of my previous post: that you provide links to one or more sources that prove your point. You didn't do so. Actually, you CAN'T do so, because your claim is false. (And once again I invite you to prove me wrong. Don't just "stand firm." Prove me wrong.)
-
"Actually, In our several exchanges, @Bill_Coley and @Pages, Neither of You have yet are able to demonstrate that the term "catholic epistles" were introduced in the first century"
As far as my reading of these posts, neither myself, or @Bill_Coley , has stated that this term – giving you great discomfort – "catholic epistles" was formulated in first century AD.
And subsequently, neither myself, or @Bill_Coley , have engaged in any effort to promote, or demonstrate, that it was – quite the contrary.
Bill, has, with great effort, continued to correct your misconstruing of his written word in almost, if not all, of his postings to you. Or, if you prefer different language, his continued correction of the twisting and distortion of his printed word by yourself.
-
"YES. The Deception of the Catholic Latin Vulgate has deleted verses Psalms 83:14 through Psalms 83:18"
Perhaps if you actually tried 82:15-19 instead of 83:14-18 in the Latin you would find your missing verses as has been directly stated to you more than once in plain English; even providing the text you erroneously claim is missing.
Using the same Vulgate link you provided for chapter 83 in you post; but, I now have provided a link to chapter 82 instead – scroll down to verse 15-19 and enjoy; having found your lost verses.
-
@Bill_Coley - Your dispute with the term "catholic epistles" "stands firm" only against objective fact. There is NOTHING Catholic (capital "C") about the term; neither is there anything dogmatic about it. NOTHING. If there were, you would have complied with the request I made at the close of my previous post: that you provide links to one or more sources that prove your point. You didn't do so. Actually, you CAN'T do so, because your claim is false. (And once again I invite you to prove me wrong. Don't just "stand firm." Prove me wrong.)
The term "catholic epistles" dates from the fourth century, NOT the first, and neither of us has EVER suggested otherwise.
The 'cathoilc epistles" are neither Inspired nor from the First Century. Agreed, as I stated earlier. AS you yourself stated "The term "catholic epistles" dates from the fourth century, NOT the first, and neither of us has EVER suggested otherwise."
@Bill_Coley As for the reference to the 4th century found in the Wikipedia content I quoted in my previous post, please note that said reference referred to the origins of the "convention" of applying the word "catholic" to those NT epistles, and NOT to the origins of the epistles themselves. Hence, you need give no further attention to your concern about the inspiration of epistles "dating from the fourth century;" the Wikipedia "catholic epistle" article makes absolutely no such suggestion.
Applying the word "catholic" to the Autographed Inspired Epistles of the NT to the First Century leads to fanaticism.
@Bill_Coley - the historical fact that the "convention" of referring to James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude as the "catholic epistles" arose in the fourth century C.E.
The Catholic Dogma that arose from the fourth century claiming that the "Autograph Inspired Epistles" James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude are 'catholic epistles' is Pure Uninspired Catholic Dogma.
So the referring of the 'catholic epistles' in the Fourth Century to the Inspired Epistles of James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude of the First Century is Catholic Dogma. It is the replacement of Jesus Christ Words by deleting them and inserting CATHOLIC DOGMA. The Dogma has NOTINHING to do with the Inspired Epistles of James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude at all.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
-
I discern glimmers of progress in our exchange in your most recent reply.
@Brother Rando posted:
The 'cathoilc epistles" are neither Inspired nor from the First Century. Agreed, as I stated earlier. AS you yourself stated "The term "catholic epistles" dates from the fourth century, NOT the first, and neither of us has EVER suggested otherwise."
To be clear: It is the group name "the catholic epistles" that is "neither [i]nspired nor from the [f]irst [c]entury." The epistles themselves - the seven NT writings known as James, 1/2/ Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude - ARE inspired.
For additional clarity: We all use uninspired language to characterize Scripture, and do so frequently. That the term "catholic epistles" isn't inspired does NOT mean it's not useful or accurate. I bet your Bible has a "table of contents." That's not an inspired term, but I bet you agree such a feature can be useful for some Bible readers.
Applying the word "catholic" to the Autographed Inspired Epistles of the NT to the First Century leads to fanaticism.
With due respect, @Brother Rando, your several baseless and chaotic responses to "the catholic epistles" in this thread, a term which for centuries has been widely-accepted and non-controversial, lends credence to your "fanaticism" claim.
The Catholic Dogma that arose from the fourth century claiming that the "Autograph Inspired Epistles" James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude are 'catholic epistles' is Pure Uninspired Catholic Dogma.
So the referring of the 'catholic epistles' in the Fourth Century to the Inspired Epistles of James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude of the First Century is Catholic Dogma. It is the replacement of Jesus Christ Words by deleting them and inserting CATHOLIC DOGMA. The Dogma has NOTINHING to do with the Inspired Epistles of James, 1/2 Peter, 1/2/3 John, and Jude at all.
Here ends the progress previously discerned.
Your argument is, "It was Catholic Dogma that called those seven NT writings 'the catholic epistles,' so therefore, it was Catholic Dogma that called those seven NT writings 'the catholic epistles.'" Such self-referential assertions prove nothing. It's as if I argued that the moon is made of cream cheese in this manner: Since the moon is made of cream cheese, the moon must be made of cream cheese.
You can't use your conclusion - i.e. that the term "catholic epistles" is Catholic Dogma - as the premise of your argument to prove your conclusion that the term "catholic epistles" is Catholic Dogma.
I welcome you to the conclusions of your choice regarding the Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, and/or what you call "Catholic Dogma." But the term "the catholic epistles" is not the product of any of those.
Post edited by Bill_Coley on -
@Bill_Coley - With due respect, @Brother Rando, your several baseless and chaotic responses to "the catholic epistles" in this thread, a term which for centuries has been widely-accepted and non-controversial, lends credence to your "fanaticism" claim.
Fact: The catholic epistles came from the Fourth Century and are nothing more than made up conjecture from the Catholic Church trying to find cover for their books of various pseudepigraphs that are considered Apocrypha satire.
Non-Controversial? I don't think Burning people at the stauros and torturing them is non-controversial.
The σταυρός (stauros) was simply an upright pale or stake to which Romans nailed those who were thus said to be crucified, σταυρόω, merely means to drive stakes. It never means two pieces of wood joining at any angle. Even the Latin word crux means a mere stake. The initial letter Χ, (chi) of Χριστός, (Christ) was anciently used for His name, until it was displaced by the T, the initial letter of the pagan god Tammuz, about the end of cent. iv.
— A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to The English and Greek New Testament, 1877
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Fact: The catholic epistles came from the Fourth Century
Actually False. It is only the group term "catholic epistles" that dates from the fourth century. As I have noted on multiple occasions in our exchanges, all seven of the NT writings to which that group term refers were written in the first century.
Question: What approximate creation date to you attach to each of the following New Testament books:
- James
- 1/2 Peter
- 1/2/3 John
- Jude
PLEASE NOTE! I am NOT asking you to provide a date for the creation of the term "catholic epistles." I am solely and specifically asking you to provide your estimate as to when each of those seven NT writings was created.
and are nothing more than made up conjecture from the Catholic Church trying to find cover for their books of various pseudepigraphs that are considered Apocrypha satire.
The term "catholic epistles" is not conjecture. It is the name given to a group of seven NT writings none of which is considered part of the Apocrypha.
The Apocrypha, as commonly defined, includes the following books:
- 1 Esdras
- 2 Esdras
- Tobit
- Judith
- Rest of Esther
- Wisdom
- Ecclesiasticus
- Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy
- Song of the Three Children
- Story of Susanna
- The Idol Bel and the Dragon
- Prayer of Manasseh
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees
Non-Controversial? I don't think Burning people at the stauros and torturing them is non-controversial.
I don't think "burning people at the stauros and torturing them" is non-controversial; in this thread, however, such a practice IS irrelevant.
-
"That's my point Sherlock Holmes."
Thank you for the compliment; but, unfortunately in this case even Sherlock questions what "That's my point" would be in reference to.
Is this point acknowledging that the verses exist in the Latin and you recognize the error of this "Latin Vulgate has deleted verses" claim, having now visited the website and read (82:15-19 VGCLEM)? Or, is the point something else entirely? My dear Watson, clarity is appreciated when the "game is afoot".
-
The catholic epistles (also called the general epistles [1]) are seven epistles of the New Testament. Listed in order of their appearance in the New Testament, the catholic epistles are: Naming The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century.
-
@Pages - Is this point acknowledging that the verses exist in the Latin and you recognize the error of this "Latin Vulgate has deleted verses" claim, having now visited the website and read (Ps. 82:15-19 VGCLEM)? Or, is the point something else entirely? My dear Watson, clarity is appreciated when the "game is afoot".
The proof that the Catholics deleted scripture is that Psalms 83 is not there... it's in Psalms 82 not 83 Sherlock. Look at other Bibles Psalms 83:18. Now try it in the Latin Vulgate... it's missing a whole chapter by cutting this and cutting that. You figure it out Holmes... the words Jehovah and Yahweh have more characters than (Lord) now doesn't it.
-
@Brother Rando posted:
The catholic epistles (also called the general epistles [1]) are seven epistles of the New Testament. Listed in order of their appearance in the New Testament, the catholic epistles are: Naming The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century.
- In the piece of Wikipedia's definition that you quoted, the word "catholic" is NOT capitalized, which means it does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or its adherents.
- The quoted section of the definition makes clear that what "dat(es) from the 4th century" is the "convention" of using the word "catholic" in the term "catholic epistles." The quoted section does NOT say that the epistles themselves date from the fourth century. [FROM THE SECTION YOU QUOTED: "The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century."]
- From the same Wikipedia definition of the term "catholic epistles," in fact, the sentences that appear in the same paragraph and immediately following the two sentences you quoted: "At the time, that word ["catholic"] simply meant "general", and was not specifically tied to any denomination, for example, what would later become known as the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, to avoid the impression these letters are only recognised in Catholicism, alternative terms such as "general epistles" or "general missionary epistles" are used. In the historical context, the word catholic probably signified that the letters were addressed to the general church, and not to specific, separate congregations or persons, as with the Pauline epistles."
Your claim in a previous post was that "The catholic epistles came from the Fourth Century." That claim was and remains false. NOTHING in Wikipedia's definition of the term "catholic epistles" supports your claim. Nothing CAN support your claim because your claim is false.
In my previous post, I posed the following question, which you chose not to address in your reply, so I ask it again:
Question: What approximate creation date to you attach to each of the following New Testament books:
- James
- 1/2 Peter
- 1/2/3 John
- Jude
PLEASE NOTE! I am NOT asking you to provide a date for the creation of the term "catholic epistles." I am solely and specifically asking you to provide your estimate as to when each of those seven NT writings was created.
[NOTE: If you're not going to address my questions, please tell me so and I will stop asking them. Some time ago I stopped engaging you in these forums on matters of opinion and theology because you routinely refused to answer -- in fact, usually refused even to acknowledge the existence of -- the questions I put to you. That's a deal breaker for me, so if you're not going to answer my questions even about issues of fact such as this one, I will also end my engagement with you on them as well. Please advise.]
-
@ Pages - Your claim in a previous post was that "The catholic epistles came from the Fourth Century." That claim was and remains false. NOTHING in Wikipedia's definition of the term "catholic epistles" supports your claim. Nothing CAN support your claim because your claim is false.
Remember my story about the blind man who was asking me to turn the light on when it was already on? Maybe you will bump into some furniture and walls and READ what I QUOTED?
The catholic epistles (also called the general epistles [1]) are seven epistles of the New Testament. Listed in order of their appearance in the New Testament, the catholic epistles are: Naming The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century.
-
Perhaps you will explain why you appear to attribute content from my previous post to @Pages?
@Brother Rando posted:
Remember my story about the blind man who was asking me to turn the light on when it was already on? Maybe you will bump into some furniture and walls and READ what I QUOTED?
This is basic English grammar, the nouns and verbs of the sentence, "The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century:
- WHAT DOES THE WORD "NAMING" MEAN? The word "Naming," which introduces your quotation from the Wikipedia article, is actually a topic heading and is not part of any sentence or paragraph. Its role is to inform us that its section will give us information as to how the "catholic epistles" came to be named the "catholic epistles"
- WHAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE BOLD-FACED SENTENCE? "the word catholic in the term catholic epistles." Importantly, the subject of the bold-faced sentence is NOT "the catholic epistles."
- WHAT DOES THE BOLD-FACED SENTENCE TELL US ABOUT "the word catholic in the term catholic epistles"? That it "has been a convention dating from the 4th century." WHAT has been "a convention dating from the 4th century? NOT "the catholic epistles"! According to the bold-faced sentence, what's been a convention dating from the fourth century is "the word catholic in the term catholic epistles."
From the beginning of this increasingly senseless exchange of ours I've noted that the TERM "catholic epistles" dates from the 4th century. That's the essence of the bold-faced sentence when it says, "the word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century." The bold-faced sentence does NOT say that the catholic epistles themselves date from the fourth century!!! It says the word "catholic" in the TERM "catholic epistles" dates to the 4th century. That is, those seven epistles -- written in the first or perhaps early 2nd centuries -- began to be called by the group term "catholic epistles" in the 4th century.
BOTTOM LINE: Your claim was, is, and will always be false.
I'm about done exchanging posts with you, @Brother Rando. This is the last time I will pose the following question to you. If you don't respond to it this time, that will end my interactions with you on matters of fact. I simply don't abide refusals to acknowledge and reply to my questions.
Question: What approximate creation date to you attach to each of the following New Testament books:
- James
- 1/2 Peter
- 1/2/3 John
- Jude
PLEASE NOTE! I am NOT asking you to provide a date for the creation of the term "catholic epistles." I am solely and specifically asking you to provide your estimate as to when each of those seven NT writings was created.
-
@Bill_Coley@Bill_Coley - The word "Naming," which introduces your quotation from the Wikipedia article, is actually a topic heading and is not part of any sentence or paragraph. Its role is to inform us that its section will give us information as to how the "catholic epistles" came to be the "catholic epistles"
It proves that the quote is accurate and that you are wrong.
The catholic epistles (also called the general epistles [1]) are seven epistles of the New Testament. Listed in order of their appearance in the New Testament, the catholic epistles are: Naming The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century.
-
@Bill_Coley - Question: What approximate creation date to you attach to each of the following New Testament books:
James
1/2 Peter
1/2/3 John
Jude
@Brother Rando Not in the Fourth Century. It's Catholic Dogma trying to claim the Inspired Epistles are somehow attached to the catholic epistles which came from and named in the Fourth Century. The trinity was named in the fourth century by whom... Not the the Inspired Epistles but from Catholic Dogma.
The catholic epistles (also called the general epistles [1]) are seven epistles of the New Testament. Listed in order of their appearance in the New Testament, the catholic epistles are: Naming The word catholic in the term catholic epistles has been a convention dating from the 4th century.
Whoopie do duh... the apostate religion had a convention and tried to steal credit from the names of the Inspired Epistles that were written in the first Century. Doesn't wash. The naming of the trinity... not in the Inspired Epistles either. The worship of Ishtar with bunny rabbit and eggs and naming it Eastre;... whoopie do duh.... Worshipping the sun god and the winter solace by naming it Christmas after a convention from the fourth century. It's Catholic Dogma and came from CATHOLISIM. WHEN? In the the 4th Century!
-
@Brother Rando posted:
Not in the Fourth Century. It's Catholic Dogma trying to claim the Inspired Epistles are somehow attached to the catholic epistles which came from and named in the Fourth Century. The trinity was named in the fourth century by whom... Not the the Inspired Epistles but from Catholic Dogma.
Between this paragraph and the other one in your most recent reply, you actually respond to a question, at least in good measure. Your answer to when those epistles were written is "not in the fourth century," (first paragraph) and "in the first century" (second paragraph). Real progress.
You and I now agree that those seven epistles were written in the first - NOT the fourth - century, and that the term "catholic epistles" came from the fourth - NOT the first - century. That's what I've been saying from the beginning of this exchange.
It proves that the quote is accurate and that you are wrong.
Back to the nonsense.
Well, the progress was nice while it lasted.
Whoopie do duh... the apostate religion had a convention and tried to steal credit from the names of the Inspired Epistles that were written in the first Century. Doesn't wash. The naming of the trinity... not in the Inspired Epistles either. The worship of Ishtar with bunny rabbit and eggs and naming it Eastre;... whoopie do duh.... Worshipping the sun god and the winter solace by naming it Christmas after a convention from the fourth century. It's Catholic Dogma and came from CATHOLISIM. WHEN? In the the 4th Century!
It wasn't that type of convention.
A "convention" CAN be a meeting or assembly of people, but it can ALSO be a commonly accepted practice. As one online dictionary defines it, "a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity." A naming convention is not a meeting of people (or of names!); it's a commonly accepted way of naming something. No "apostate religion" involved.
As the Wikipedia article makes clear, when NOT capitalized, the word "catholic" DOES NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church, Catholicism, or its adherents. Rather, it means "general." I am beyond mystified that after as many reminders as I've given you about said definition, you STILL appear not to get it.
I've reached the end of my ability to cope with the frustration of this exchange. I wish you well.
