"inerrant" or "literal" - Page 4

[dado]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nursing Mother

I believe the Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of Sola Scriptura

there never was such a principle to "return" to, Luther created it, essentially out of whole cloth. (yes, Karaitic sects existed, but (a) they were Jewish and (b) never in meaningful numbers)). before luther there never existed in c'ianity the concept of "scripture only".

even at that Luther can't rightly be credited with too too much since once he had claimed the principle for himself, he denied it to everyone who didn't agree with him (Knox, Calvin, Zwingler, Munzer, etc etc etc). in fact he denied it so strenuously most of his original followers felt compelled to create their own branches of the reformation and then they, in turn, supressed people who didn't agree with them(!).

it would have been comical if so many people hadn't died as a result.

...meaning then the Scriptures were not materially sufficient or complete.

except we can definitevely prove scripture is dependent oral tradition. in fact, it's extremely easy to prove.

the Pauline branch tossed out most of Judaic tradition, but what they did keep, and what remains to this day in the RC church explicitly (and most everywhere else implicitly), is the acknowledgement that not everything is, or even can be, written in a handful of books.

[DaryLLL]

Okay, this is the first time I have heard of the Latin term sola scriptura! I guess it means there is only one right way to interpret the Bible and the Cath Church has it?

Without being disrespectful, may I say that is outside the realm of possibility. That would be one leap of faith. For me. But then I am a dyed in the wool free thinker.

Do I have it right or is there more to it?

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
[B]Yes, I think I have a reasonable reply, but again I am protestant and a evangelical at that

I know the Protestant doctrine says that scripture alone is the primany and absolute source of authority and final appeal of all doctrine and practice. That we hold the Bible as infallible, meaning it is sufficient alone....we don't rely upon "traditions".

What do you mean, do you mean "the Protestant doctrine?" B/c I do not think all Protestants think the Bible as a whole is infallible. That would mean all Prot's were literalists wouldn't it? Are you trying to say all Prots are literalists? I am confused. Please elucidate without generalizing, thanks!

Even Luther, before his formal break with the Roman church, (yes I'm a fan of Martin Luther)knew that the Scripture must take precedence over the traditions of the church.

For Catholics, how do you define tradition? Is it books, gospels, outside the canon? how do you differentiate non-canonical gospels/ traditions from what Prots call heresy?

It must be more. Like the Mary Queen of Heaven thing. Constantine's mom finding the "True Cross." I know some traditions are from non-canonical gospsels tho. Anyone?

We all know how bogged down the Roman Catholic church was then and certainly a "reformation" was needed.

I find this offensive, NM. Be careful with the phrase, " we all know." News flash, we do not all agree with Mrt Luther!

All I know is what I believe to be true. There can be alot of division over a topic like this. I wish it were not so.

Hmmm, Christians have to live with this problem as they claim to have the One True Faith. But then each Xtian or Xtian sect decides they and they alone have it "right." This has been in effect since at least 30 CE and I don't think it's ever going away.

:
:

[kama'aina mama]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all know how bogged down the Roman Catholic church was then and certainly a "reformation" was needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I find this offensive, NM. Be careful with the phrase, " we all know." News flash, we do not all agree with Mrt Luther!

I dunno... I think most everybody can look at the state of the RC church in the middle ages and agree some things really had gone wrong and very much needed to change. Which is why Luther did as he did and why the Church herself has changed dramatically since that time. I think the proof that no one thinks the church was doing it right at that time is that no one is doing it that way any more!

So.. one can disagree with Luther and still agree that the Church had grown too corrupt to continue on it's path.

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Okay, this is the first time I have heard of the Latin term sola scriptura! I guess it means there is only one right way to interpret the Bible and the Cath Church has it?

in pure form, it means the exact opposite. a direct corollary of quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum is that it becomes impossible to prove *any* private scriptural interpretation incorrect. in essence, every individual becomes their own theologian. i bet know what you're thinking, darylll, and no, this is not quite as nirvanic as it sounds, lol.

but it's all moot anyway because sola scriptura falls down on first principles.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by dado
[ i bet know what you're thinking, darylll, and no, this is not quite as nirvanic as it sounds, lol.

What am I thinking, and is it Greek to you?

but it's all moot anyway because sola scriptura falls down on first principles. [/B]

Being?

This thread is making way too many assumptions for me.

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
What am I thinking, and is it Greek to you?

it was a feeble attempt at combining a joke with a compliment. my apologies!

the basic flaw in sola scriptura is one i'm sure (really ) you'll appreciate: nowhere in scripture does it say what constitutes scripture. so if you throw away the extra-scriptural tradition, there isn't even a canon on which to exercise sola scriptura. there is no basis on which to decide what books go in, what books stay out, which are inerrant, which are the work of overworked imaginations, on what basis do you include gosp of j but not gosp of t, etc etc etc?

the problem is even worse than this, really, because we know from Godel's work in foundational logic it is impossible to even create a canon "complete enough" to answer everything...but that is a huge topic in and of itself.

[dado]

i need to get some sleep, important thoughts just leaking out my head willy nilly. in the previous post i forgot the paragraph explaining why it is impossible for a Jew to subscribe to any notion of sola scriptura.

Torah - all of Tanakh, really - is written in Hebrew without vowels and without punctuation. it would not be incorrect to say even written Torah is actually oral Torah because it is impossible to read it correctly without knowing the traditions passed down often orally but always extra-scripturally.

so unless Luther was intending to dismiss with the Jewish scriptures altogether the idea is a complete non-starter. come to think of it, even getting rid of the Jewish scriptures wouldn't be enough since so much of it is quoted verbatim in the c'ian books.

---

' nd t gt sm slp 'mprtnt thghts jst lkng 't m' hd wl nl. 'n th prvs pst ' frgt th prgrph xplng w 't 's 'mpsbl fr ' Jw t sbscib t 'n ntn 'f sola scriptura Trh 'l f Tnk rl 's wr'tn 'n Hbr wtht vwls 'nd wtt pnctn 't wd nt b 'ncrct t s' 'vn wrtn Trh 's 'ctul rl Trh bcs 't 's 'mpsbl t rd 't crctl wtt n'g th trdtns psd dn ftn 'rl bt 'lws 'xtr scrptrl s 'nls Ltr ws 'ntndng t dsms wt t Jws scrptrs 'ltgr t id' 's ' cmplt nn strtr cm t tnk 'f 't 'vn gtng rd 'f t Jws scrptrs wdnt b 'nf snc s mch 'f 't 's qtd vrbtm 'n t crstn bks

---

not so hard, you say? ah. did i forget to mention the original texts also dispensed with...
spaces?

'ndtgtsmslp'mprtntthghtsjstlkng'tm'hdwlnl'nt prvspst'frgttprgrphxplngw't's'mpsblfr'Jwtsbscib
t'nntn'fsola scripturaTrh'lfTnkrl'swr'tn'n Hbrwthtvwls'ndwttpnctn'twdntb'ncrcts''vnwrtn
Trh's'ctulrlTrhbcs't's'mpsbltrd'crctlwttn'gttrdtns psddnftn'rlbt'lws'xtrscrptrls'nlsLtrws'ntndngt dsmswttJwsscrptrs'ltgrtid''s'cmpltnnstrtrcmttnk 'f't'vngtngrd'ftJwsscrptrswdntb'nfsncsmch'f't's
qtdvrbtm'ntcrstnbks

i challenge anyone to reconstruct my original post from that...without the "extra-scriptural" knowledge of what was in my original post.

[barbara]

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
I think the proof that no one thinks the church was doing it right at that time is that no one is doing it that way any more!

So.. one can disagree with Luther and still agree that the Church had grown too corrupt to continue on it's path.

Well said, and a point worth making!

[DaryLLL]

While lots of Caholics are good people, sadly, it is obvious if you read history that the Catholic Church was begun for reasons of political power by Constantine. It continued as an arm of the Empire, using religion as an excuse for land grab and attainment of luxuries (gold, silkand velvets, jewels, paintings, mansions, fine food and drink, etc etc) for it leaders, who were allied with emperors and kings in the most obvious ways. Its corruption was built in. Its name insists it is a universal church and the irony is that universalism is said to be for the salvation of men's souls, but this universalism was also for the worldly gain of its priests and bishops.

If anyone had any contact with the news in the US the last couple yra, the horrendous coverup of the child sex ring, which went all the way up to the cardinal level if not higher, it is again obvious this corruption continues, using powerless children in the most disgusting ways. The Marquis de Sade was right.

[Sean]

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
So.. one can disagree with Luther and still agree that the Church had grown too corrupt to continue on it's path.

Well said, and a point made by the Council of Trent!

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
it is obvious if you read history that the Catholic Church was begun for reasons of political power by Constantine.

Well, I read some history, and I've found that the Catholic Church was in fact founded by a fella in Jerusalem roundabout 30 A.D. And even if you dispute that, it was certainly founded loooong before Constantine's granddad was born. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, already referred to the Catholic Church, with Bishops and everything, and that was in 110 A.D. I'll not comment on the rest of your post, except to note that sin is bad.

[Sean]

Originally posted by dado
Trh'lfTnkrl'swr'tn'nHbrwthtvwls'ndwttpnctn

Wht'p'n'nth'ssthtmstb

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by Sean
Well, I read some history, and I've found that the Catholic Church was in fact founded by a fella in Jerusalem roundabout 30 A.D. And even if you dispute that, it was certainly founded loooong before Constantine's granddad was born. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, already referred to the Catholic Church, with Bishops and everything, and that was in 110 A.D.

Yes, the forged letters of Paul referred to the establishment of bishops (based on the hierarchy in the Roman army, BTW) earlier than 325, I will grant you that. The idea that it was or could be universal was wishful thinking. I was referring to a bigger militarily enforced organization with an orthodox creed. Before 325, early Xtianity had a diverse belief system, which was far from universally homogeneous. Not all followers of the Way wanted to only meet and practice in officially bishop sanctioned/overseen ways. This is seen in the heavily biased Pastorals.

Jesus established the Catholic (or catholic?) Church? Where do you read that in "history books?" Do you call the bible "history?" Your own Church in the magisterium I have quoted elsewhere, warns against using the bible as unbiased and accurate history as we define it today. But quote away, if you like. Do not bother quoting the redacted lines from Josephus. I already know about the Christos/Chrestus issue.

My understanding is, proto-Xtianity was seen as a Jewish sect for quite some time after 30 CE. Altho its similarity to Mithraism and other religions of the day would have been obvious to most as well.

The Jews had/have a little idea Judasim would some day be universal as well. We can all dream, can't we? Neither religion is universal. That they ever will be is a matter of faith.

I will go all gnostic on you and share that the perennial philosophy underlying Xtianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and all the other isms is indeed universal, on a deep level. The details of the narratives in the sacred scriptures do not matter. Only their metaphors understood do. OOOOMMMM....

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Jesus established the Catholic (or catholic?) Church?

that's a new one. Yeshua - and his brother after him - worshiped and taught at the temple in Jerusalem. even at that time it wasn't a (small-c) catholic faith because it had already splintered into subsects.

it is true that a segment of the c'ian world then was the root of modern Roman Catholicism, but it is certainly not true that the c'ians of that time were Catholics in any meaningful sense. as you pointed out, it wasn't until the Pagan leader Constantine orthodoxed "catholicism" in 325 that the term took on a solid definition.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Yes, the forged letters of Paul referred to the establishment of bishops (based on the hierarchy in the Roman army, BTW) earlier than 325, I will grant you that.

That was a letter from St. Ignatius I linked to, and it was only to show you the oldest extant reference to "the Catholic Church." At some point in the first century, people had to distinguish the universal orthodox Christian Church from the gnostic heretic pretender congregations that were starting to sprout. So instead of just saying "the Church," they started calling it "the Catholic Church."

You'll grant that bishops were established before 325? You might as well, since bishops were established on the first Pentecost, 50 days after Christ's Resurrection. The first bishops were the eleven surviving apostles. They ordained others.

The idea that it was or could be universal was wishful thinking.

Yeah it was wishful, and still is. You're talking about that like it's a bad thing, though.

I was referring to a bigger militarily enforced organization with an orthodox creed.

So, you didn't mean the Church was "begun by Constantine" like you said, right? Just, what, it got bigger and more organized during his reign? Fine.

Before 325, early Xtianity had a diverse belief system, which was far from universally homogeneous. Not all followers of the Way wanted to only meet and practice in officially bishop sanctioned/overseen ways.

That was indeed the case. Before 325, after 325, and today. The Catholic Church has always frowned on that sort of thing.

Jesus established the Catholic Church? Where do you read that in "history books?" Do you call the bible "history?"

I'm not quite sure what your opposing theory is. That the Church was founded by the Apostles, but they lied about being Apostles? Or that there were no Apostles? Peter, John, Paul, Stephen, and the rest? No evidence that they existed, or founded churches? And the Church Fathers who were the disciples of the original Apostles: Polycarp, Irenaeus, and that lot? They didn't exist either, or they lied about knowing the Apostles? Your "Constantine" theory isn't helping much here, do you care to propose another?

OOOOMMMM....

Oh sure, now you go all gnostic.

[DaryLLL]

delete

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
people had to distinguish the universal orthodox Christian Church from the gnostic heretic pretender congregations that were starting to sprout like weeds

that isn't really an acceptable description for the purposes of this discussion. you are turning this into a "defend RCism at any cost" discussion and this is simply not the point. there is nothing to defend, because there is nothing wrong with being a RC and there is no reason the RC shouldn't exist.

if you don't have a thick enough skin to participate, don't take it out on darylll. or anybody else, for that matter.

That the Church was founded by the Apostles

no, the point is the apostles did not establish "a" church, they established a multitude of churches/beliefs. that they themselves immediately branched into incompatible sects - not unlike what happened with Luther and the reformation - and that in the end, what became to be known as orthodoxy was established by those with no firsthand knowledge of Yeshua.

those with such knowledge - who had been hanging out teaching at the temple, gaining enormous respect amongst the populace, circumcising their kids and eating kosher, were pushed aside in favor of beliefs established by those with no first hand knowledge.

the point is that Paul had no more a legitimate claim to the "correct" interpretation of the teachings than any of the other second-handers who were later labelled heretics. if anything he had less since he was explicitly rejected by those who knew Yeshua best.

from where i sit it looks like you are practicing your own version of "sola scriptura". the boundary isn't "scripture only" but "scripture plus approved supplementary material only" but the effect is exactly the same.

[Sean]

that isn't really an acceptable description for the purposes of this discussion.

I suppose you're right. Sorry. I have deleted the words "like weeds" from the sentence in question, as they may have been taken as a negative value judgment. The rest of that sentence is accurate, I think, but I'm open to suggestion.

you are turning this into a "defend RCism at any cost" discussion

Not at all. I was correcting a falsehood, viz., that Constantine founded the Church. The evidence that the Catholic Church predates Constantine is what I presented.

[Sean]

Originally posted by dado
from where i sit it looks like you are practicing your own version of "sola scriptura". the boundary isn't "scripture only" but "scripture plus approved supplementary material only" but the effect is exactly the same.

Not exactly, but at least it's getting us back within hailing distance of our topic. While Catholics don't hold to sola scriptura, they do regard scripture as inerrant (as has been noted previously in more detail). (Couldn't possibly espouse sola scriptura, since the Church predates all the New Testament, see?)

What the Church does teach is that Scripture and Tradition are both infallible. There's some confusion (often deliberate confusion, like with Jack Chick comics) about what is meant by Tradition, but it means the definitive teaching of the Church from Apostolic times. It doesn't suffer from the logical contradictions inherent in sola scriptura, but I can see how the effect would look the same to you, as it does result in certain truths being held as dogma.

[merpk]

T

... by DaryLLL
... The Jews had/have a little idea Judasim would some day be universal as well ...

No. They don't. (Maybe a few assorted folks do, since, hey, ya' can think what ya' want, right?)

The idea is that G!d will be accepted universally ... but *not* that Judaism would be. Y'all can stay how y'all want to stay, no problem there.