The trinity and it’s false theology.

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.

Your manner of quoting those words suggests that I wrote them. I did not. @Pages wrote them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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.

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.

I discern glimmers of progress in our exchange in your most recent reply.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I don't think "burning people at the stauros and torturing them" is non-controversial; in this thread, however, such a practice IS irrelevant.

1. 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.
2. 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."]
3. 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.]

Perhaps you will explain why you appear to attribute content from my previous post to @Pages?

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:

1. 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"
2. 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."
3. 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.