 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Father, Son, and Holy Scriptures
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So it's unclear from the blog how that works exactly. He says that he no longer believes in Jesus because he believes in the Bible, but that he believes in the Bible because he believes in Jesus. The distinction is clear, but what does it mean? ...
If we want to borrow religious language, Jesus is the Rock, not scripture is the Rock.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Let's look at the passage to which you allude.
quote:
24 ‘Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.’
Where do we find the these words of Jesus?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
I would suggest that in "hears these words of mine and puts them into practice" the most crucial term is "and".
An understanding of the library of books that form the bible, as well as a knowledge of source and form criticism, to be able to best place the words in appropriate context and hence draw out an appropriate interpretation is all well and good. But to have that knowledge and keep it in an ivory tower is as nothing if we don't act upon it.
That's how I understand the "faith without works is dead" from James 2.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where do we find the these words of Jesus?
Presumably in the sentences before the one you quoted here. This seems to be an odd way to justify something about the bible - presumably one could hear the words of Jesus quoted accurately by someone (say as part of a liturgy) totally outwith of the written text.
In fact, the context seems to imply that the important thing is not how or where you hear the words, but whether or not you put them into action.
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I'll buy that.
I'll also buy what EE said upthread about us accepting God's ability to work in and through imperfect human beings and means of expression etc.
(Not be oleagenous but to show that I do agree with EE despite my unfortunate tendency to lock horns with him at times - for which I blame myself not him).
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Where do we find the these words of Jesus?
Presumably in the sentences before the one you quoted here.
Precisely. Sentences which are now, for us, enscripturated. The point is that Jesus explicitly compares the hearing and doing of his words with building on rock. The rock is the hearing and the doing of Christ's words. Those words are now found in the scriptures.
quote:
This seems to be an odd way to justify something about the bible - presumably one could hear the words of Jesus quoted accurately by someone (say as part of a liturgy) totally outwith of the written text.
Yes, you could and do. We do it in church all the time. However, the discerning Christian will go to scripture to see if the words being spoken are indeed the words of Jesus. We can't attribute anything we like to the mouth of Jesus in our liturgy. It has to be governed by what we know he has said. And we go to scripture to find those words.
quote:
In fact, the context seems to imply that the important thing is not how or where you hear the words, but whether or not you put them into action.
True. But without scripture we wouldn't have any words of Jesus to ignore or to obey would we?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
]Yes, you could and do. We do it in church all the time. However, the discerning Christian will go to scripture to see if the words being spoken are indeed the words of Jesus. We can't attribute anything we like to the mouth of Jesus in our liturgy. It has to be governed by what we know he has said. And we go to scripture to find those words.
So what of all the Christians who lived in times where there was limited or no access to the written words of Jesus? For centuries one would have had to be literate in Latin to read Scripture. Let alone Christian converts in the time before the Gospels or books of the Bible had been selected.
Surely Jesus was still speaking to His followers in these times, even though there was no way for them to actually observe those words with their eyes themselves? Which means - prayer, worship, fasting, and the other parts of the Christian live through which we interact with Jesus - are essential parts of the picture. And means by which Christians can discern, as you mention above, whether what is being preached to them is in line with Christ's message.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes, you could and do. We do it in church all the time. However, the discerning Christian will go to scripture to see if the words being spoken are indeed the words of Jesus. We can't attribute anything we like to the mouth of Jesus in our liturgy. It has to be governed by what we know he has said. And we go to scripture to find those words.
So what of all the Christians who lived in times where there was limited or no access to the written words of Jesus?
Oral tradition.
quote:
For centuries one would have had to be literate in Latin to read Scripture. Let alone Christian converts in the time before the Gospels or books of the Bible had been selected.
Yes. And the pastoral abuses and erroneous teaching that resulted are a reproach upon the church to this very day. And in very large part it's why the Reformation happened.
quote:
Surely Jesus was still speaking to His followers in these times, even though there was no way for them to actually observe those words with their eyes themselves?
Yes, this is why we believe in the Apostolic church. Jesus was speaking through the teaching of the Apostles, teaching which was handed on carefully (cf. 2 Tim 2:2; Jude 3) which would eventually also become enscripturated. quote:
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others.
quote:
Which means - prayer, worship, fasting, and the other parts of the Christian life through which we interact with Jesus - are essential parts of the picture.
We use the things you mention as the means of engaging with the word of Christ which we have been entrusted. For the early church that word would have been entrusted to them through direct Apostolic teaching or the teaching of their delegates as per 2 Timothy 2:2 (quoted above). For the church in subsequent ages we use the things you mention as a means of engaging with that word as it is enscripturated in the canonical texts.
quote:
And means by which Christians can discern, as you mention above, whether what is being preached to them is in line with Christ's message.
No, I don't think so.
[ 21. February 2014, 14:32: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
For centuries one would have had to be literate in Latin to read Scripture.
[/QB]
Two problems with that statement.
Firstly prior to the time of Tyndale there were literally hundreds of different translations of Scripture into the vernacular languages of Europe including English.
Secondly in Westetn Europe almost every person who could read at all was able to read Latin.
There is a third implied idea that the Church deliberately contrived to keep most of the population dependant upon them. This too is untrue, it is simply the case that universal literacy is practically un achievable until a society develops the technology to manafacture cheap paper and can print on it. Non-Catholic societies had precisely the same difficulties in this regard as Christian Europe.
Here are some helpful links which throw some doubt on your argument
Who gave us the Bible in English?
Bible-burning and other allegations
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
For centuries one would have had to be literate in Latin to read Scripture. Let alone Christian converts in the time before the Gospels or books of the Bible had been selected.
Yes. And the pastoral abuses and erroneous teaching that resulted are a reproach upon the church to this very day. And in very large part it's why the Reformation happened.
To SteveHep's excellent points, I add this:
You seem to be implying that abuses and erroneous teaching ceased with the Reformation. The widespread availability of Bibles has hardly ended abuses and erroneous teaching. Multiplied it, more like. Now everybody has the scriptures to misread according to his own fancy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Two problems with that statement.
Firstly prior to the time of Tyndale there were literally hundreds of different translations of Scripture into the vernacular languages of Europe including English.
Secondly in Westetn Europe almost every person who could read at all was able to read Latin.
Can these both be true? What would be the point in having versions in the vernacular if every who could read read in Latin?
quote:
There is a third implied idea that the Church deliberately contrived to keep most of the population dependant upon them. This too is untrue, it is simply the case that universal literacy is practically un achievable until a society develops the technology to manafacture cheap paper and can print on it. Non-Catholic societies had precisely the same difficulties in this regard as Christian Europe.
Here are some helpful links which throw some doubt on your argument
Who gave us the Bible in English?
Bible-burning and other allegations
That seems to me to fly in the face of the actual evidence - namely that the church attempted to prevent unauthorised copying of the bible in languages it did not approve of.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
There is a third implied idea that the Church deliberately contrived to keep most of the population dependant upon them. This too is untrue, it is simply the case that universal literacy is practically un achievable until a society develops the technology to manafacture cheap paper and can print on it. Non-Catholic societies had precisely the same difficulties in this regard as Christian Europe.
Neither implied nor intended.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To SteveHep's excellent points, I add this:
You seem to be implying that abuses and erroneous teaching ceased with the Reformation. The widespread availability of Bibles has hardly ended abuses and erroneous teaching. Multiplied it, more like. Now everybody has the scriptures to misread according to his own fancy.
I agree with this. It seems it didn't come across in my post, but I was trying to say that Christians have been capable of having legitimate faith in the absence of written evidence of Jesus's words, and never having heard them directly from the Apostles or first-hand witnesses.
As you rightly point out, proliferation of cheap Bibles in everyone's local language has not reduced confusion or multiple interpretations.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
For centuries one would have had to be literate in Latin to read Scripture. Let alone Christian converts in the time before the Gospels or books of the Bible had been selected.
Yes. And the pastoral abuses and erroneous teaching that resulted are a reproach upon the church to this very day. And in very large part it's why the Reformation happened.
To SteveHep's excellent points, I add this:
You seem to be implying that abuses and erroneous teaching ceased with the Reformation. The widespread availability of Bibles has hardly ended abuses and erroneous teaching. Multiplied it, more like. Now everybody has the scriptures to misread according to his own fancy.
Yes. The democratisation of heresy as an argument against the dissemination of scripture. Good one. Oh for the days when heresy was the privilege of the elite.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
[Can these both be true? What would be the point in having versions in the vernacular if every who could read read in Latin?
That seems to me to fly in the face of the actual evidence - namely that the church attempted to prevent unauthorised copying of the bible in languages it did not approve of. [/QB]
On the first point. English now occupies a position somewhat analogous to Latin in that many educated people around the world can and do read it with perfect ease. Such people also often rather like reading things in their own language. Also, since many sermons were in the vernacular as were some commentaries on Scripture then it was more than helpful to have Scriptures in these languages.
The key thing in your second point is the word 'unauthorised'. It was not faithfully translated Scriptures that posed a problem, the evidence that there were literally hundreds of such things in pre-Reformation Europe is irrefutable, what was at issue was questionable translations of contentious passages and/or the linear notes accompanying the Bibles. It was heresy that the Church was combatting not a growth in Biblical knowledge. You may argue that the Church was over harsh in its response but there are no grounds for supposing that it wished to suppress vernacular translations per se.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To SteveHep's excellent points, I add this:
You seem to be implying that abuses and erroneous teaching ceased with the Reformation. The widespread availability of Bibles has hardly ended abuses and erroneous teaching. Multiplied it, more like. Now everybody has the scriptures to misread according to his own fancy.
Christians have been capable of having legitimate faith in the absence of written evidence of Jesus's words, and never having heard them directly from the Apostles or first-hand witnesses.
Evidence?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
StevHep said:
It was heresy that the Church was combatting not a growth in Biblical knowledge.
Are you serious? ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
On the first point. English now occupies a position somewhat analogous to Latin in that many educated people around the world can and do read it with perfect ease. Such people also often rather like reading things in their own language. Also, since many sermons were in the vernacular as were some commentaries on Scripture then it was more than helpful to have Scriptures in these languages.
It is certainly true that few educated people could read, that those who could tended to be well educated and tended to be clerics of the church, so the bibles tended to be in Latin. I don't think it is proven that many bibles at all were in the vernacular before Wycliffe. I'm not even sure that there is much evidence of sermons in the vernacular.
quote:
The key thing in your second point is the word 'unauthorised'. It was not faithfully translated Scriptures that posed a problem, the evidence that there were literally hundreds of such things in pre-Reformation Europe is irrefutable, what was at issue was questionable translations of contentious passages and/or the linear notes accompanying the Bibles. It was heresy that the Church was combatting not a growth in Biblical knowledge. You may argue that the Church was over harsh in its response but there are no grounds for supposing that it wished to suppress vernacular translations per se.
I dispute this. The fact is that the only authorised versions were those of the church which were in Latin. If they were interested in having bibles in the vernacular, they'd have made some themelves - they didn't, because they believed scripture should only be in Latin.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evidence?
The Didache was used as a teaching and catechism document by the early church and doesn't seem to even properly reference Jesus as the risen Christ. As an example.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evidence?
The Didache was used as a teaching and catechism document by the early church and doesn't seem to even properly reference Jesus as the risen Christ. As an example.
Que? The Didache is, as you rightly say, a written document. So, precisely how is that evidence that faith in Christ can exist without access to either Apostolic teaching or NT Scripture?
[ 21. February 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evidence?
The Didache was used as a teaching and catechism document by the early church and doesn't seem to even properly reference Jesus as the risen Christ. As an example.
Yet the Didache draws heavily from Matthew's gospel, which is pretty clear on recognising Jesus as the Messiah (Christos) (c.f. Matt 16:16) and that he was risen (c.f. Matthew 28). So whoever wrote the Didache could hardly have been unaware of the link, even if they chose not to highlight it (or didn't choose to highlight it, depending on how you like your semantics).
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evidence?
The Didache was used as a teaching and catechism document by the early church and doesn't seem to even properly reference Jesus as the risen Christ. As an example.
Que? The Didache is, as you rightly say, a written document. So, precisely how is that evidence that faith in Christ can exist without access to either Apostolic teaching or NT Scripture?
It's not the written words of Jesus - which is what we've been talking about for the past page or so.
Let me re-quote myself for your benefit:
quote:
It seems it didn't come across in my post, but I was trying to say that Christians have been capable of having legitimate faith in the absence of written evidence of Jesus's words, and never having heard them directly from the Apostles or first-hand witnesses.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I ask what evidence you have for the idea that faith in Christ can exist without Apostolic teaching via oral tradition or access to the enscripturated words of Christ? You seem to be suggesting that the Didache somehow provides evidence for such an idea? That would be like arguing that scripture isn't necessary because your great-grandma owned a copy of the BCP but not a bible.
[ 21. February 2014, 16:34: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That would be like arguing that scripture isn't necessary because your great-grandma owned a copy of the BCP but not a bible.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif) I've come across a fair few very conservative anglicans who have a far higher regard for the BCP than for the bible. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I ask what evidence you have for the idea that faith in Christ can exist without Apostolic teaching or access to scripture? You seem to be suggesting that the Didache somehow provides evidence for such an idea? That would be like arguing that scripture isn't necessary because your great-grandma owned a copy of the BCP but not a bible.
You are moving the goalposts now, my friend. A quote from yourself on page 2:
quote:
The point I'm making is that what is written doesn't change throughout the generations. There is a solidity and a permanence about what is written that transcends human lifetimes, traditions, experiences, and ways of reasoning.
OK - so you were saying before written Scripture is of utmost importance. Now you're saying, OK oral tradition counts, non-canonical books and documents count, the BCP counts, etc.
I'm not really sure what I'm debating with you about at this point.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Are you suggesting that an argument for the primacy of scripture must be predicated on the non-existence of everything else?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Are you suggesting that an argument for the primacy of scripture must be predicated on the non-existence of everything else?
No, I'm just honestly confused as to what you are trying to say.
You have spent pages saying that the written form of Jesus's message - that is The Bible - is supreme over any other method of conveying that message. You have made analogies about hammers and anvils to such effect.
But now you're saying you didn't exactly mean that, and that lots of other stuff that isn't The Bible also counts because it was inspired by the Bible or by Apostle's oral message. Which is a pretty different position that that you originally seemed to be making.
I'm probably misunderstanding something, if you are actually saying that non-Biblical sources can be used to develop and grow faith in Christ then we're on the same page.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That would be like arguing that scripture isn't necessary because your great-grandma owned a copy of the BCP but not a bible.
I've come across a fair few very conservative anglicans who have a far higher regard for the BCP than for the bible.
Well, in encases the Coverdale translation which is superior to the KJV.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
... I don't think it is proven that many bibles at all were in the vernacular before Wycliffe. I'm not even sure that there is much evidence of sermons in the vernacular....
.... If they were interested in having bibles in the vernacular, they'd have made some themelves - they didn't, because they believed scripture should only be in Latin.
Have you ever read the Preface to the Authorised Version written by the translators commissioned by King James? Referring to pre-Reformation times they themselves wrote
quote:
...the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which themselves understood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) but also for the behoofe and edifying of the unlearned which hungred and thirsted after Righteousnesse, and had soules to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did. shortly after their conversion, heare CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Minister onely, but also by the written word translated
And also quote:
Much about that time, even in our King Richard the seconds dayes, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seene with divers, translated as it is very probable, in that age.
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
And Thomas Cranmer the leading Reformer wrote
quote:
"The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found."
Vernacular Scriptures Plentiful before Wycliff
See also this for evidence that Lutherans tried to keep the Bible out of the hands of the laity.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Are you suggesting that an argument for the primacy of scripture must be predicated on the non-existence of everything else?
No, I'm just honestly confused as to what you are trying to say.
You have spent pages saying that the written form of Jesus's message - that is The Bible - is supreme over any other method of conveying that message. You have made analogies about hammers and anvils to such effect.
Precisely. Scripture is the anvil. Other stuff is other stuff.
quote:
But now you're saying you didn't exactly mean that
No I'm not. I still mean that, with a few modifications which I've already conceded.
quote:
... and that lots of other stuff that isn't The Bible also counts because it was inspired by the Bible or by Apostle's oral message. Which is a pretty different position that that you originally seemed to be making.
Not at all. The Apostolic oral tradition was, as I've said, enscripturated. We call it canonical scripture. The other stuff all falls into Tradition, the fidelity of which is measured against scripture.
quote:
I'm probably misunderstanding something, if you are actually saying that non-Biblical sources can be used to develop and grow faith in Christ then we're on the same page.
Of course they can. My bookshelves are full of books which aren't the Bible, but none of them has the same authority as the Bible. Their worth is measured against the Bible.
[ 21. February 2014, 18:05: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
... I don't think it is proven that many bibles at all were in the vernacular before Wycliffe. I'm not even sure that there is much evidence of sermons in the vernacular....
.... If they were interested in having bibles in the vernacular, they'd have made some themelves - they didn't, because they believed scripture should only be in Latin.
Have you ever read the Preface to the Authorised Version written by the translators commissioned by King James? Referring to pre-Reformation times they themselves wrote
quote:
...the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which themselves understood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbours with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) but also for the behoofe and edifying of the unlearned which hungred and thirsted after Righteousnesse, and had soules to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did. shortly after their conversion, heare CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Minister onely, but also by the written word translated
And also quote:
Much about that time, even in our King Richard the seconds dayes, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seene with divers, translated as it is very probable, in that age.
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
And Thomas Cranmer the leading Reformer wrote
quote:
"The Holy Bible was translated and read in the Saxon tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remaineth yet divers copies found in old Abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common use, because folks should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found."
Vernacular Scriptures Plentiful before Wycliff
All of which are intended as polemical appeals to history against current ecclesiastical policy. In other words, "If people had bibles in English the past, they can have bibles in English now. Up yours Pope."
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
You do realise don't you that the vernacular translations referred to were all commissioned and used by and with the enthusiastic consent of the Roman Catholic Church?
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
You do realise don't you that the vernacular translations referred to were all commissioned and used by and with the enthusiastic consent of the Roman Catholic Church?
If you say so, although the word "consent" rankles somewhat. The point, I think, is that the Roman. Catholic Church was no longer commissioning such translations when the people cite we're expressing a desire for them.
[ 21. February 2014, 20:42: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
@daronmedway.
So you would refute and reject with contumely the allegation that the Church had a deliberate policy extending over centuries to keep vernacular translations of the Bible out of the hands of lay people. The worst that could be said, you will no doubt argue, is that for a limited period and for particular contingent reasons during an epoch of rebellion she attempted to restrict unauthorised translations produced by those she considered heretics.
A serious enough allegation if true no doubt but still a long way from the foundational Protestant myth that wicked Rome never had any truck with any vernacular translations and always suppressed them until the heroic Reformers appeared on the stage of history.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
For centuries one would have had to be literate in Latin to read Scripture.
Two problems with that statement.
Firstly prior to the time of Tyndale there were literally hundreds of different translations of Scripture into the vernacular languages of Europe including English.
Secondly in Westetn Europe almost every person who could read at all was able to read Latin.
There is a third implied idea that the Church deliberately contrived to keep most of the population dependant upon them. This too is untrue, it is simply the case that universal literacy is practically un achievable until a society develops the technology to manafacture cheap paper and can print on it. Non-Catholic societies had precisely the same difficulties in this regard as Christian Europe.
Here are some helpful links which throw some doubt on your argument
Who gave us the Bible in English?
Bible-burning and other allegations
This controversy is probably a tangent as regards this particular thread, but that's bad history and those links are about as historically convincing as the sort of thing produced by the Protestant Truth Society or KJV Only merchants.
I agree with point 3. It's also clear that until the matter of the king's divorce, the state was as interested in discouraging the public from being religiously restless as the church was. King and Cardinal were batting for the same team.
However:-
On 1. there were quite a lot of vernacular translations of scripture or parts of scripture in Europe before the Reformation, but into other languages, not English. One of the reasons may have been that whereas other parts of Europe had had all sorts of exotic heresies, Cathars, Bogomils, Fraticellis, Hussites etc. Lollardy seems to have been the only one that disturbed England, and that had homed in on what the New Testament actually said. The medieval English were devout, but don't seem to have been that interested in theology. Lollardy being the only heresy they'd had to deal with, had made the authorities particularly suspicious of rude mechanics wanting to read the scriptures for themselves. There is some evidence of samizdat transcripts of Wycliffe's translation still being copied by hand and passed around in the early 1500s.
On 2. literacy is now thought to have been more widespread in the late middle ages than people have often imagined, but I don't think anyone really knows how many of the literate understood much Latin or how well. I suspect it tended to depend on what people did for a living and how much they needed it. It's generally thought that literate women were less likely to have known Latin than literate men.
Prior to the invention and spread of printing, books were much more expensive, and there were far fewer of them. However, between 1476 and the Reformation, one of the things early presses churned out was a lot of religious books. What would sell gives a good impression of what people wanted to read.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
@daronmedway.
So you would refute and reject with contumely the allegation that the Church had a deliberate policy extending over centuries to keep vernacular translations of the Bible out of the hands of lay people. The worst that could be said, you will no doubt argue, is that for a limited period and for particular contingent reasons during an epoch of rebellion she attempted to restrict unauthorised translations produced by those she considered heretics.
A serious enough allegation if true no doubt but still a long way from the foundational Protestant myth that wicked Rome never had any truck with any vernacular translations and always suppressed them until the heroic Reformers appeared on the stage of history.
It very much depends on what "heresy" the church was seeking to suppress through the restriction of bible translation. If the anathemas of Trent are any indication the "heresy" being suppressed was the gospel of grace.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
@enoch
quote:
On 1. there were quite a lot of vernacular translations of scripture or parts of scripture in Europe before the Reformation, but into other languages, not English
England had a very small population so very few people spoke English and even fewer could read it. So you would expect there to be fewer translations in that language than in more popular ones.
quote:
One of the reasons may have been that whereas other parts of Europe had had all sorts of exotic heresies, Cathars, Bogomils, Fraticellis, Hussites etc. Lollardy seems to have been the only one that disturbed England,
If you are saying that the existence of widespread heresy prompted the Church to smile favourably on the translation of Scripture into the vernacular then that would tend, if true, to strengthen my argument and knock the stuffing out of the Protestant foundational myth.
quote:
On 2. literacy is now thought to have been more widespread in the late middle ages than people have often imagined,
The primary educators in literacy, in the sense of providing the most teachers and teaching the most students, was the Church. It is implausible that they excluded the official and much used language of the Church, Latin, from their curriculum. Therefore many people would have learnt to read that language at the same time as or instead of the vernacular one.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
I believe that the Bible did not come into its present form until the 4th century. That being true I hardy think that the early Christians could have seen anything other then Jesus as the word of God.
I once was told by a Moslem that his," Holy Quern was not like our Bible, but rather like our Jesus." It would seem he would have agreed with the view that Jesus not the Bible is the word of God.
I also find when Scripture is called the word of God, I feel a bit of a cringe.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What did King Alfred translate? The fantasy that there were no vernacular bibles before the Reformation is just that.
The problem in part was that only the rich could afford Bibles because a Bible took several herd of goats to make. Each folio took one goat. Until the invention of cheap pulp paper, few could afford Bibles, and until the invention of Fourdrinier's remarkable machine, they could not be mass produced (where "mass produced" means "more than one at a time and that sparingly").
I suppose you could argue that there would never have been Gutenburg's movable type or Fourdrinier's paper machine without the Reformation. I can't see how a sane person could argue that, but the internet is nothing if not full of surprises.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The democratisation of heresy as an argument against the dissemination of scripture. Good one. Oh for the days when heresy was the privilege of the elite.
Um, what does this add, if anything, to the conversation?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But now you're saying you didn't exactly mean that
No I'm not. I still mean that, with a few modifications which I've already conceded.
"You're saying you didn't mean exactly that."
"No, I'm saying I mean that, with a few modifications."
Bahahaahahahahaha! This is as beautiful an example of doublespeak as has appeared on the ship in a year.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Graven Image:
I believe that the Bible did not come into its present form until the 4th century. That being true I hardy think that the early Christians could have seen anything other then Jesus as the word of God.
I once was told by a Moslem that his," Holy Quern was not like our Bible, but rather like our Jesus." It would seem he would have agreed with the view that Jesus not the Bible is the word of God.
I also find when Scripture is called the word of God, I feel a bit of a cringe.
The fact the canon wasn't finalized until the 4th century doesn't mean the books that make up the canon, all of which date much earlier than the 4th century, aren't divinely inspired. In fact, saying the Bible isn't the word of God means that God didn't speak before the Incarnation. Again, Christians believe God spoke through the prophets. What God said to God's prophets is the word of the Lord. How about this? Scripture is the word of the Lord but it is not the Divine Logos. By the way, it makes very little sense to argue that scripture is not the word of the Lord but to claim that Jesus is the Word of God because we claim Jesus is the Word made flesh because scripture says Jesus was the Word made flesh. If scripture isn't the word of the Lord, who cares what scripture says about Jesus being the Divine Logos?
A Muslim's opinion on Christians theology is as irrelevant as my opinion of Islamic theology.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In fact, saying the Bible isn't the word of God means that God didn't speak before the Incarnation.
The Bible can CONTAIN the Word of God without BEING the Word of God, so this is not true at all.
quote:
By the way, it makes very little sense to argue that scripture is not the word of the Lord but to claim that Jesus is the Word of God because we claim Jesus is the Word made flesh because scripture says Jesus was the Word made flesh. If scripture isn't the word of the Lord, who cares what scripture says about Jesus being the Divine Logos?
Scripture can be true and trustworthy without being the "Word of God." And what it said about Jesus would still be worth knowing.
This almost seems to be saying that Jesus is the Scriptures made flesh. Which is more than a little heretical.
quote:
A Muslim's opinion on Christians theology is as irrelevant as my opinion of Islamic theology.
Depends if you know as much about Islam as he does about Christianity, or vice versa. A Muslim could have a hell of a lot more knowledge about the history and theology of the Christian Church than I do. Her being a Muslim wouldn't change that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What did King Alfred translate? The fantasy that there were no vernacular bibles before the Reformation is just that.
The problem in part was that only the rich could afford Bibles because a Bible took several herd of goats to make. Each folio took one goat. Until the invention of cheap pulp paper, few could afford Bibles, and until the invention of Fourdrinier's remarkable machine, they could not be mass produced (where "mass produced" means "more than one at a time and that sparingly").
I suppose you could argue that there would never have been Gutenburg's movable type or Fourdrinier's paper machine without the Reformation. I can't see how a sane person could argue that, but the internet is nothing if not full of surprises.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The democratisation of heresy as an argument against the dissemination of scripture. Good one. Oh for the days when heresy was the privilege of the elite.
Um, what does this add, if anything, to the conversation?
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
But now you're saying you didn't exactly mean that
No I'm not. I still mean that, with a few modifications which I've already conceded.
"You're saying you didn't mean exactly that."
"No, I'm saying I mean that, with a few modifications."
Bahahaahahahahaha! This is as beautiful an example of doublespeak as has appeared on the ship in a year.
What's wrong with conceding that my "anvil / forge" analogy didn't work at one point? That's not double speak. I admitted it straight away. The rest I think still works.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There were certainly abuses that needed to be addressed at the time of the Reformation ... and some would argue that the Reformation went 'too far' ...
As for Trent - well, yes, I can see what daronmedway is getting at but the onus would then be on him to prove that the 'gospel of grace' (by which he presumably means the Calvinistic gospel) was what had always been believed from the outset but which had been mangled and distorted by Rome over the centuries ...
That's where the Protestant foundational myth comes in - the idea that the teaching of the Reformers was - to all intents and purposes - commensurate to that of the Fathers and the Early Church. There are certainly correlations, but this idea that everyone from about 33AD until around the time of Constantine were somehow 16th century Europeans in togas rather than doublet and hose is far-fetched at best ...
That's not to let Rome off the hook, but it is to acknowledge that the Protestant schema isn't as neat and clear cut as many would like it to be.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In fact, saying the Bible isn't the word of God means that God didn't speak before the Incarnation.
The Bible can CONTAIN the Word of God without BEING the Word of God, so this is not true at all.
quote:
By the way, it makes very little sense to argue that scripture is not the word of the Lord but to claim that Jesus is the Word of God because we claim Jesus is the Word made flesh because scripture says Jesus was the Word made flesh. If scripture isn't the word of the Lord, who cares what scripture says about Jesus being the Divine Logos?
Scripture can be true and trustworthy without being the "Word of God." And what it said about Jesus would still be worth knowing.
The idea that the Bible can hold these completely Divine pieces of information without being the Word of God makes perfect sense from a historical point of view.
For example, I hold a very similar view about the accounts of Christopher Columbus I've read. I have every confidence that he existed, that he did in fact do what historians claim, and that this had a huge effect on our world.
But every account written about the so-called "discovery" of the New World, including his own, has been full of inaccuracies, exaggerations, and many have included ridiculous claims. I have the most confidence in the most recent histories, which often refute the older ones.
I would look at virtually any historical document or account in the same way.
But when we say "Word of God" we mean something entirely different. The term involves divine revelation to or through an individual directly from God, something that the science of history simply doesn't and can't deal with at all.
From a historic point of view it is ridiculous to even claim this. So saying the Gospel writers were inspired by God, and therefore that what they wrote is from Him, is a ludicrous claim.
What I'm struggling with is the idea that there is some middle ground between completely laughing at the idea that this is divine information from God, and accepting it as His words put down on the page. I love compromise, but it doesn't make sense to me that some of this supposedly divine account could be genuine but not all of it.
It makes more sense to think that IF I can accept that Jesus' claim to be God is true, I also ought to accept that the account itself is true.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can understand how and why you are struggling with that, Freddy but I don't see how divine inspiration should preclude something being mythological or partly mythological and partly historic (in the modern sense).
I've not read Columbus's accounts but I've read the account that Marco Polo had published about his travels and they clearly contain direct observation and 'fact' and completely mythological or literary elements - there's a battle description in there, for instance, that sounds like any other conventional chivalric battle description from the Middle Ages.
That doesn't mean that the battle didn't take place, but that it probably didn't conform to the idealised standard account.
Howbeit, when all is said and done, I don't really see what the problem is in referring to the Bible as the word of God - provided we hold that Christ is the Word of God with a capital wuh ...
It seems to be a litmus test of Orthodoxy among some Orthodox to say, 'No, no, no, it's Jesus who is the Word of God, not the Bible ...'
But it can be both/and - and word with a small 'w'. I've heard Bishop Kallistos Ware saying as much as he's impeccably Orthodox, surely ...
Although some of the die-hard types might consider him a tad liberal ...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if we can accept a Chalcedonian approach to our understanding of the nature of Christ - fully man and fully God - both/and - then where is the difficulty in accepting the scriptures as both the words of men and the word of God?
Equally, why does divine inspiration mean that everything that was written and which went into the canon has to be 'historical fact' in the modernist sense of the term?
I don't see how that follows.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Equally, why does divine inspiration mean that everything that was written and which went into the canon has to be 'historical fact' in the modernist sense of the term?
I don't see how that follows.
That's a good question.
I'm not an inerantist. I don't think that everything in the Bible is historical fact. What I do think is that everything that was written in the Bible is there for a reason and that God put it there for the sake of its spiritual message.
So the Bible cannot be quoted as "proof" that some particular historic event happened as stated.
But the Bible CAN be quoted as doctrinal "proof" that some particular theological thought is true or false.
I think that it is obvious that these two things are bound up together to some extent. It is also obvious that many different points of view can be justified by biblical "proofs."
If it wasn't hard they wouldn't pay us so much to do it. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Maybe the real question is "What is the Word of God?"
I think that the Word of God is the Divine Truth. Jesus is that Word because He came "to bear witness to the truth" (John 18). To me the question in regard to the Bible is about whether it contains the Divine Truth, and so whether it should be believed in obeyed.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I want to compare two parts of your post, Freddy:
quote:
What I do think is that everything that was written in the Bible is there for a reason and that God put it there for the sake of its spiritual message.
So the Bible cannot be quoted as "proof" that some particular historic event happened as stated.
But the Bible CAN be quoted as doctrinal "proof" that some particular theological thought is true or false.
compare
quote:
I think that it is obvious that these two things are bound up together to some extent. It is also obvious that many different points of view can be justified by biblical "proofs."
<snip>
To me the question in regard to the Bible is about whether it contains the Divine Truth, and so whether it should be believed in [and] obeyed.
Yes, but whether whose point of view of what the Bible says should be believed in and obeyed? As you admit, you can argue many different points of view from Scripture. So in what way does it constitute doctrinal "proof" of anything?
It's only proof when you supply, from outside, the hermeneutic or major premises needed to get it to say one thing and not another. So you (this is all the generic "you" by the way) aren't just going by the Bible, but the Bible + Hermeneutic. At some point, calling the Bible the "Word of God" ceases to have any useful meaning, unless you are willing to call our hermeneutic the "Word of God" also.
Of course one can argue that one's hermeneutic is informed and inspired by the Bible. But it can't be from the bible simpliciter, because as you point out, multiple doctrines can be "proven" from the Scriptures. No matter how you slice it, something has to come from without.
___
*simply, only, in and of itself
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, but whether whose point of view of what the Bible says should be believed in and obeyed? As you admit, you can argue many different points of view from Scripture. So in what way does it constitute doctrinal "proof" of anything?
It's only proof when you supply, from outside, the hermeneutic or major premises needed to get it to say one thing and not another. So you (this is all the generic "you" by the way) aren't just going by the Bible, but the Bible + Hermeneutic. At some point, calling the Bible the "Word of God" ceases to have any useful meaning, unless you are willing to call our hermeneutic the "Word of God" also.
Of course one can argue that one's hermeneutic is informed and inspired by the Bible. But it can't be from the bible simpliciter, because as you point out, multiple doctrines can be "proven" from the Scriptures. No matter how you slice it, something has to come from without.
___
*simply, only, in and of itself
You've got it.
I do think it is possible to have a hermeneutic that is informed and inspired by the Bible. The intelligent comparison of every part and word with every other part and word can yield that result.
But it always requires something else, even if only the Holy Spirit's inspiration of the individual reader, enabling the reader to understand God's meaning.
In most people's case, though, they come at it from some doctrinal framework that they have learned and accepted from someone or somewhere.
In my own case it is Swedenborgian, in yours it is, I assume, the early Fathers of Orthodoxy.
I don't think any of this takes away from the Bible itself being the Word of God. It is the absolute truth against which we test and compare our doctrinal frameworks - even though we can only come at the Bible through that doctrinal framework.
Again, if it was easy to do they wouldn't pay us so much to do it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
The Bible can CONTAIN the Word of God without BEING the Word of God, so this is not true at all.
Well, if the Bible contains the word of God, then the Bible is the word of God because the Bible is nothing more than words. Paul says all scripture is God breathed. Hence, all scripture is the word of the Lord. Of course, not all scripture should be interpreted in the same way.
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Scripture can be true and trustworthy without being the "Word of God." And what it said about Jesus would still be worth knowing.
This almost seems to be saying that Jesus is the Scriptures made flesh. Which is more than a little heretical.
How would John know about the very nature of the Godhead unless it was revealed to him by God? In fact, all that we know about Jesus comes from scripture. Most of the claims for Christ's divinity come from John and Paul. If John and Paul aren't pronouncing the word of the Lord, then claiming that Jesus is the Incarnate Word is idolatrous.
Calling the Bible the word of God is not akin to saying that Jesus is the scripture made flesh. Jesus is the Divine Logos made flesh. Scripture is record of God's revelation of Godself to humanity. So, the phrase word of God means two different but albeit related things when applied to Jesus and when applied to scripture.
More progressive Christians have a problem with fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy. I get that. The solution is to better explain what we mean by saying the Bible is the word of God rather than overcorrecting and claiming that the Bible shouldn't be called the word of God or the word of the Lord.
I remember a Baptist minister who had problems with the Roman Catholic doctrines concerning the Virgin Mary. Fair enough. Baptists don't have to believe in the Immaculate Conception, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption, or Coronation. My guess is he didn't really have much of an understand about what Roman Catholics actually believed about Mary but was uncomfortable with the whole lot of it. As a result, one Sunday he went too far. He told the congregation that Roman Catholics believe Mary is the Mother of God and that Mary isn't the Mother of God. With that statement, he went from disagreement with Roman Catholic Mariology to disagreement with the decree of the ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Doing the first made him a bog standard Protestant. Doing the second made him a heretic.
Now, he would probably respond that he doesn't give a damn about the Council of Ephesus. No sir, he only believes in the Bible. However, if asked asked if he believes that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God and that Mary is the mother of Jesus, he would have undoubtedly answered in the affirmative meaning that the Council of Ephesus only confirmed what even he believed to be taught in scripture. In overreacting to fundamentalism, more progressive Christians are doing the same thing. Truth be told, I've done the same thing when preaching sermons on the Incarnation.
quote:
originally posted by mousethief:
Depends if you know as much about Islam as he does about Christianity, or vice versa. A Muslim could have a hell of a lot more knowledge about the history and theology of the Christian Church than I do. Her being a Muslim wouldn't change that.
Perhaps but her knowledge would be about what the Christian Church actually believed. Her opinions on disagreements within Christianity are irrelevant. I can explain the disagreements between Shia and Sunni. My opinion on who is right is meaningless because I don't even share the same presuppositions shared by Sunni and Shia.
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are certainly correlations, but this idea that everyone from about 33AD until around the time of Constantine were somehow 16th century Europeans in togas rather than doublet and hose is far-fetched at best ...
Indeed
We know for a fact that everyone from that time period were good 20th century liberals in togas rather than tie dye and birkenstocks.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
