"inerrant" or "literal"

[kama'aina mama]

I would like to define these terms more closely. More specifically I would like people who use these terms to define their beliefs to share what they mean when they say that. I have been understanding them to be largely interchangeable but a comment on another thread has me questioning that.

[dado]

my understanding of how people are generally using them...

literalist - someone who attempts to read nothing into the text but what is intended by the author.

inerrant - the scriptural words we have today are exactly as they were originally spoken/written.

there seem to be differing opinions on how literal/inerrant one can expect to be with translations.

[kama'aina mama]

See dado, I am pretty sure you are short of the mark on at least one if not both definitions. Many people who use one word or the other to explain their beliefs seem to mean not simply that they aren't reading anything into the text or that the text has not changed but that it is 100% true. That God molded us by hand out of a piece of the Earth. That it took 7 days to make the world. etc... on through the texts. It is one thing to say "I am going to read this text and try to really hear what the author is trying to say to me" and another to say "I will read this text and believe it to be 100% true."

I guess I am asking the believers in "100% true" which word means that to them when they use it or if they both do.

[dado]

See dado, I am pretty sure you are short of the mark on at least one if not both definitions.

oh, i don't doubt it for a moment, lol. maybe after a few more responses we can put up a verse and see how people put their definitions into action.

(yes, i have a candidate ;))

[DaryLLL]

Candidate for verse, or for literalist believer?

Do people believe every word was written from the beginning exactly as we have the gospels today? I find it hard to understand how they could.

Yet, I heard Franklin Graham last night on Fox say all 4 gospels were written by eye-witnesses. Is it possible a world famous preacher/preacher's son has not heard of the synoptic issue?

The fact of the matter, tiny example, is one of the scraps of Mark we have from way back when differs from the Mark we have today.

[Nursing Mother]

This is what I believe. I think you must take all these things into context when trying to interpret the scriptures.

Literal interpretation
Illumination by the Holy Spirit,
Grammatical Principles,
Historical Context, and
Scriptural Harmony.

I guess a true literalitst would take the idea that when Jesus said "He is the door" or "the branch" they would actually have to belive he was a real door or branch from a tree. A true literalist would be just that ....word for word for word...that would be a mistake and border on the ridiculous imo.

One must always take into consideration figures of speech and figurative language, Imagery, parables, etc.

Historical context is important too, and I think a biblical text is best understood when one is familiar with the customs, cultrue, and historical context of biblical times. There ae a host of great books and Bible handbooks and commentaries to aid us in understanding the cultures, people, and places of the Bible.

I think Individual passages of Scripture must always be in harmony with Scripture as a whole. The biblical interpreter must keep in mind that all of Scripture - though communicated through various human instruments - has a single Author (God). And, of course, God does not contradict Himself. (my belief anyway)

. First Corinthians 2:12 says: "We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us." Because the author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). - So that is why I think someone who has embraced Christianity , accepted the Lord as their Savior and who has the Holy Spirit's indwelling is able to understand more the "heart" and "intentions" of the scriptures.

The Holy Spirit provides insights that permeate the mind and provides illumination to the heart in my opinion. Other's may not begin to grasp the concept of God's love, forgiveness, mercy, etc. unless they asked for a "spirit of understanding" from the Holy Spirit. Often the words come alive when read with the Holy Spirits guidance.

I think studying the Bible is a great pursuit....and when I attempt to interpret scripture I try to apply the logic above.

[Nursing Mother]

Is it possible a world famous preacher/preacher's son has not heard of the synoptic issue?

The fact of the matter, tiny example, is one of the scraps of Mark we have from way back when differs from the Mark we have today.

Being a theological student I'm sure Franklin Graham has heard of the so-called "synoptic issue" of the Gospels. But there are explanations to all those questions and so-called contridictions. DaryLLL. ...I remember discussing this last year quite extensively.

Of course we came to a dead end.....

[Arduinna]

as much as we all hate dictionary definitions, I figured I'd post them for argument :love

literal
· adj.
1 taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory. Ø free from distortion. Ø informal absolute.
2 (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
3 lacking imagination.
4 of, in, or expressed by a letter of the alphabet.
· n. Brit. Printing a misprint of a letter.
– DERIVATIVES literality n. literalize (also literalise) v. literalness n.
– ORIGIN ME: from OFr., or from late L. litteralis, from L. littera (see letter).

inerrant
· adj. incapable of being wrong.
– DERIVATIVES inerrancy n. inerrantist n.

From Oxford Dictionary

[dado]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
The Holy Spirit provides insights that permeate the mind and provides illumination to the heart in my opinion.

that sounds like a complicated way of saying you bring your beliefs to the text rather than deriving your beliefs from the text.

as for Franklin Graham...AFAIAC nobody who calls Islam a "very evil and wicked religion" has any credibility whatsoever on religious matters.

but back to the issue: i'm hearing you say you aren't, in fact, a literalist, except when the holy spirit illuminates you to be. is that a fair description?

[DaryLLL]

My in-laws are, as per my def of the word, literalists. Not that I know they have even heard of the term. More likely they think of themselves as "Bible believers" or at the outside, fundamentalists.

They have a set of books in their guest room, one book to interpret each book(let) of the Bible. (Except for like, Jude or those other real short ones.)

The author of the set (which was originally a radio show) recommends the reader believe the Bible's words literally as possible, only going for metaphor when absolutely neccessary (as in NM's ex of a tree or root analogy).

His view just sucks all the juice out of it all, especially the true books of Paul. IMNSHO.

And BTW, he refused to discuss the "disgusting" rape of Lot by his daughters! He found it too repulsive.

Heh.

[dado]

i'm just shaking my head at this. what your inlaw and NM have both said is "if you read the bible completely literally, it is errant". i believe NM actually used the word "ridiculous". and to decide what should and shouldn't be read literally, they turn to non-biblical sources.

the problem here should be obvious. in both cases, the meaning of the bible - the word of G-d - is being subjugated to non-biblical sources - the word of Man.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
Being a theological student I'm sure Franklin Graham has heard of the so-called "synoptic issue" of the Gospels. But there are explanations to all those questions and so-called contridictions. DaryLLL. ...I remember discussing this last year quite extensively.

Of course we came to a dead end.....

Since we may not refer to another thread on this one, I will leave this alone.

I will only say, there is a difference between scholarship and apology/gloss.

And I will say, my end is not dead.

[Nursing Mother]

And I will say, my end is not dead

Good, neither is mine.....but together we sure couldn't agree, could we;)

[kama'aina mama]

Okay... here is my stumbling block with literalism/inerrancy (and we still haven't sorted those one from the other to my satisfaction, but... bygones, I guess!) NursingMother, you say God does not contradict himself (and I agree) but the Scripture does. For a start, and in some ways the simplest example, the creation stories. There are two, side by side in the first chapters of Genesis. They contradict each other on many points. Now, as a non-literalist this causes me no problems at all. But when I was trying to be a literalist it made my head throb something fierce. One of the rallying points of literalists tends to be a belief in strict creationism... but how does that work when the two stories don't even agree? I am honestly at a loss. Anyone who can explain to me how they reconcile the differences and still believe it verbatim will have done me a great service.

[Nursing Mother]

There are two, side by side in the first chapters of Genesis. They contradict each other on many points

Well tell me what the many points are, then maybe I could help?

I'm not aware of what contradictions here you are talking about?

The 24 literal hours of the day....or the days being longer as in years?....during creation????

I am aware of the different views on the creation story.

[DaryLLL]

kama, i would enjoy that.

I guess you already know about the Elohist and Yahwist material in the Hebrew Scriptures? (Not to mention the Priestly. Is there one more category? Deuteronomist? I forget. )

[kama'aina mama]

Okay... I am in a huge time crunch right now so will be more specific (chapter and verse) later NM, but off the top of my head: The first account, beginning with Gen 1.1 has God creating the universe, the earth and then covering it with plants, animals, etc and then at the very end creating man and woman at the same time, both equally in His/Her image to be His companion and to enjoy the world He has made. (This is the story that uses the "day" motif) The second account which follows directly after the first starts with God creating man and then realising He needs a place to put the cute lil guy... and then creating the world. The animals are created as companions for man but are inadequate so there is the bit with the rib.

So: Contradiction in the order of creation. Man first or man last?
Cantradiction as to where women came from. In the image of God or a subsidiary of man?

daryll, yeah.. I am. I can never keep them straight in my head with footnotes constantly reminding me though! Do you know of a book where they are seperated out by source rather than shuffled together by chronology/tradition?
Oh, and to clarify Nursing Mother, i am not getting into evolution v creation, length of days, true or untrue... simply this: Many literalists say "I believe the Creation story, period." So I am just trying to understand: which story? How do you reconcile the discrepencies?

[DaryLLL]

My understanding is, the first story is a later story. It was written by the Priestly class, to help Jews define Judaism once the first Temple was destroyed. The Jews needed something to identify with besides Temple worship. A 7 day week, including a Sabbath, was one example of tribal identity. So, viola! the priests came up with the story of the 6 work days, and one of rest.

The older story has a tribal god, YHWH, who was working on a tribe, his people, in a specific place, his own little garden. It was created to explain , in retrosepct, why women were subordinate to men, and to put down the Goddess' role (the snake being Her symbol) in Jewish life. BTW, it wasn't a rib, but a side.

Do you know of a book where they are seperated out by source rather than shuffled together by chronology/tradition?

No, sorry. I learned about all of it in the Oxford Annotated.

[dado]

kama - the first thing to realize is differences invisible in the english translation are quite visible in the original texts. they are distinct stories, written at different times, in different places. the second story is much much older than the first and it shows in the very nature of the Hebrew used in the writing. (ed - a major reason i don't think it makes any sense at all to claim "literalism" and NOT use the original texts.)

if you take them in context of Judaism as a whole - which can be viewed as a continuing journey away from unfettered superstition and towards a subtler understanding of G-d and our existence - the second story essentially de-mythologizes much of the creation. now there are specific explanations of how things happened. G-d is still omnipotent, and still the creator, but now we understand a little better where the boundaries between G-d and the physical world we interact with are drawn. plants don't pop into existence from nothing, they grow from seeds. we have a deeper understanding of how G-d's world works.

so now, instead of praying that crops appear magically on their own, we can gather seeds, and plant them, and pray that our seeds will grow for us the way we know they grew for G-d at the time of creation. the later story enables us to take more responsibility for our lives, to exercise more of the free will and curiosity G-d gave us.

the evolution of the stories in many ways parallels the evolution of our understanding of our place in the universe, and of our free will. forcing them into an ultra-literal framework is a way of forcing our own free will back into a box. by forcing them into an ultra-literal framework, you are saying "these stories cannot grow with my growth".

i cannot accept this would be G-d's intention.

at the time they originated, the stories were as "true" as they could be and - this is key - and still be understandable to the people of the time. as our understanding grew, the story could grow. in time, we had grown so much we needed a bigger, more complicated story. we were ready to take a step forward. if we were to write the story today, it would no doubt look different, again.

but even if on the surface it looked like it was contradicting earlier stories, it wouldn't be, not really, because it would be talking about things not known to the earlier authors and readers.

it's difficult to put this into words, i hope i'm at least close to being understandable.

[barbara]

My definition of inerrant (in the case of scriptures)is that the original texts were inspired by God and therefore His inerrant thoughts. However, translations are subject to human error, as is interpertation. I think this is where most Christians depend on the indwelling Holy Spirit to give them discernment. I'm sure that sounds like gobble-de-gook to those that do not believe. Therefore you can simply assume that Christians use their intellect to discern the meaning behind scriptures.

I believe that scripture is ment to be understood on many levels and that metaphors and analogies are just that and not to be taken as literal texts.

I do not claim "literalism" but I certianly agree that those who do ought to use the original texts. I guess some think they do when they make claims that the King James Version is the only acceptable one.
:rolleyes: (I'm sorry if that offended anyone. I simply don't see the logic, or the faith, in the hard line literalist view.)

[kama'aina mama]

Okay Barbara, so what you are saying is that by inerrant you do not neccesarily mean that (to continue with the same example) the Creation story/ies are factually, catagorically true, but that if you read them prayfully, with a heart open to the Holy Spirit you will see in them God's love for us and Her desire that we have love and companionship with each other, etc.. ??? Am I reading you right, for the most part?

[dado]

Originally posted by barbara
I think this is where most Christians depend on the indwelling Holy Spirit to give them discernment. I'm sure that sounds like gobble-de-gook to those that do not believe.

i don't think it's gobbleygook at all. what i'm hearing yoy say is your beliefs and meditations are helping your interpret the words, helping you decide what should be literal and what needs more interpretation. this makes complete sense to me.

I guess some think they do when they make claims that the King James Version is the only acceptable one.

hey! no trolling! :)

[barbara]

Okay Barbara, so what you are saying is that by inerrant you do not neccesarily mean that (to continue with the same example) the Creation story/ies are factually, catagorically true, but that if you read them prayfully, with a heart open to the Holy Spirit you will see in them God's love for us and Her desire that we have love and companionship with each other, etc.. ??? Am I reading you right, for the most part?
hmmm....I think that most Christians I know would say that, but I can not say that they are "factually, catagorically true." I don't rule out that possibility, but I'm not so sure the creation story is ment to be a literal story of the creation, as much as it is myth, allegory, and metaphor. As Daryl said somewhere else, (more eloquently than I) the fact that a story is myth does not negate it being true, at least in part.

i don't think it's gobbleygook at all. what i'm hearing yoy say is your beliefs and meditations are helping your interpret the words, helping you decide what should be literal and what needs more interpretation. this makes complete sense to me. :thumb

[pammysue]

deep breath...

No the words inerrant and literal are not interchangeable.

inerrant: "Without error, non-errant. In Christianity, inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original documents, is without error regarding facts, names, dates, and any other revealed information. Inerrancy does not extend to the copies of the biblical manuscripts." link (http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_i-k.htm#Inerrancy)

literal: "according with the letter of the scriptures; adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression; actual; free from exaggeration or embellishment (the literal truth); characterized by a concern mainly with facts (a very literal man); exact, verbatim-({word for word} a literal translation)" link (http://www.christiankeys.ca/DictionaryL1.html)

This sums up what I believe:
However, classic Christianity rests on the assurance that the Bible is completely accurate. It may contain statements that are (1) figures of speech; (2) non-technical descriptions; or (3) difficult to understand. But actual errors would fall into a different kind of category. If there are any errors in Scripture, no matter how small, the book can no longer be our standard of truth. I become the standard of truth, as I determine which Bible statements are right and which are wrong. And if I can't trust God to get the facts straight on things like dates and measurements (where I can check on Him), why should I expect Him to be more accurate in areas like sin and salvation (where I can't check on Him)?

The Bible doesn't use the word "inerrant," but the idea is obvious.

Psalm 19:7-9 - "The law of the Lord is perfect ... the testimony of the Lord is sure ... the commandment of the Lord is pure ... the judgments of the Lord are true forever."
Psalm 119:43 - "the word of truth."
Psalm 119:142 - "Thy law is the truth."
Psalm 119:160 -"Thy word is true from the beginning."
John 17:17 - "Thy word is truth." link (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-t001.html)

Now as far as the creation story contradictions, I think the verses you are speaking about are Genesis 1:1-2:22. For the sake of space I will not quote the entire text on this post, but I will post this link (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Genesis+1%3A1-2%3A22&SUBMIT=Lookup&version=NIV&language=english) and just pull passages as I reference them. Note: I am using the NIV translation.

1) Man first or man last?
Man last. 2:8-9 says: "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."
The key word here is HAD. The garden of Eden was already created when God put Adam there and then he made the trees IN THE GARDEN grow for Adam to look at and eat from. Only the trees in the garden, not all of the trees. God created MORE trees in the garden for Adam.

2)The animals are created as companions
No, the animals are created before Adam and then brought to Adam in the garden. 2:19 says:"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."
Again the key word is HAD. If God was creating the animals after Adam was already in the garden, why did he bring them to Adam? Wouldn't it make more sense to create them in the garden, have Adam name them (and try to find a companion among them) and then send them out?

3) creating man and woman at the same time, both equally in His/Her image to be His companion and to enjoy the world He has made. ...The animals are created as companions for man but are inadequate so there is the bit with the rib.

1:27 vs 2:21-22
In the first verse it says:"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
BUT the second verses say God created Eve after Adam. The first chapter is an overview of creation and then the second chapter goes into more deatil about the creation of man and woman. So, in the first chapter God is quickly telling us what he created and when and then He retells the same story of how man and woman were created completing the story. The first is looking at creation as a whole and the second focuses specifically on the creation of man and woman. Have you ever told a story quickly leaving out many of the specific details, being vague and then when given more time completed the story with all the details or just the details of one portion of the story? same thing.

4) Cantradiction as to where women came from.the image of God or a subsidiary of man?

Woman was created in the image of God using the rib (as the NIV states) of Adam. I am created in the image of God, but God used my father's sperm and my mother's egg to create me. I am not physically created in the image of God (or we would all look like God). I am physcially created using physcial matter (sperm and egg).

note: all bold faced and italicized type are my embellishments.

[dado]

Originally posted by pammysue
inerrant: "Without error, non-errant. In Christianity, inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original documents, is without error regarding facts, names, dates, and any other revealed information. Inerrancy does not extend to the copies of the biblical manuscripts."

that's a very interesting definition, and not one i have seen many c'ians use in actual practice. in fact there appears to be quite a bit of wiggle room for normal, understandable types of transcription errors and it acknowledges the importance of the original languages.

two questions come to mind: what constitutes "original documents" and - for c'ians - is this level of inerrancy required for both Jewish and post-Herodian books?

[Philosopher King]

*

[kama'aina mama]

You are placing a lot of weight on the word HAD which does not appear in this story in the Bible in my lap.

Also, the contradictions I mention are far more evident when you read the two stories start to finish and get full context. The places in Chapter 2 where you keep emphasizing HAD are framed at the begining with
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [4] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [5] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [6] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [7] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
It clearly says.. there were no shrubs, no plants of the field, then God made man.

[Philosopher King]

*

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by pammysue
inerrant: "Without error, non-errant. In Christianity, inerrancy states that the Bible, in its original documents, is without error regarding facts, names, dates, and any other revealed information. Inerrancy does not extend to the copies of the biblical manuscripts."

Since we do not have one single original document, this definition/belief is useless.

Some of the tiny scraps of docs of Greek Scripture we do have going back to the 3rd century, differ from the ones in the canon. What then should we do with our errant canon?

2)The animals are created as companions
No, the animals are created before Adam and then brought to Adam in the garden. 2:19 says:"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

I wonder, did God create each female animal from the "rib" of each male?



3) creating man and woman at the same time, both equally in His/Her image to be His companion and to enjoy the world He has made. ...The animals are created as companions for man but are inadequate so there is the bit with the rib.

1:27 vs 2:21-22
In the first verse it says:"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
BUT the second verses say God created Eve after Adam. The first chapter is an overview of creation and then the second chapter goes into more deatil about the creation of man and woman. So, in the first chapter God is quickly telling us what he created and when and then He retells the same story of how man and woman were created completing the story. The first is looking at creation as a whole and the second focuses specifically on the creation of man and woman. Have you ever told a story quickly leaving out many of the specific details, being vague and then when given more time completed the story with all the details or just the details of one portion of the story? same thing.

Any scholar will tell you these are 2 distinct stories with different agendas, written at different times. Trying to fit them together is a matter of personal need, but has nothing to do with the motivation of the original authors.


Woman was created in the image of God using the rib (as the NIV states) of Adam.

The original (inerrant?) Hebrew word would be "side." Your "rib" is a politically motivated mistranslation.

[kama'aina mama]

hhmm... and looking at the specificity of no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [4] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up
as compared with
1.11-13
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Plants bearing seed covers every cultivated crop I can think of. Certainly every early crop, which is what I would take "plant of the field" to mean. ie, an intentional plant as opposed to an incidental one.

It's just that any way I try to read it the first story is far more detailed on so many points that to call it the broad story and the second the 'now we're going back and filling in greater detail' version of the same story just makes no sense to me. And the order is simply different. They each in their own way place emphasis on the importance of man.. but one does it by creating a perfected world and then creating man to inhabit it and the second does it by 'first made = most inportant'.

[hotmamacita]

My Torah says, “These are the products of the heaven and the earth when they were created on the day that HASHEM God made earth and heaven---now all the trees of the field were not yet on the earth and all the herb of the field had not yet sprouted, for HASHEM God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the soil. A mist ascended from the earth and watered the whole surface of the soil. And HASHEM God formed the man of dust from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life; and man became a living being.” Genesis 2:4-7

[dado]

Originally posted by Philosopher King J(I am of the opinion that Moses is the primary author, but that is a bit of a digression).

Moses is an important point even apart from discussions of who wrote when. the same difficulty that exists with Yeshua also exists with Moshe: none of what we currently consider to be original texts have either individual speaking in their own language. according to the texts we have, Yeshua only spoke greek and Moses spoke Hebrew as much as 1000 years before Hebrew even existed. in particular, he conversed with the egyptian pharoah(!) in Hebrew.

this is a real problem for traditional inerrancy unless the definition is fully enforced and we say that much of what we currently have can not rightly be claimed inerrant and the truly original texts are still waiting to be found.

[dado]

an alternate...

These are the begettings of the heavens and the earth: their being created.
At the time of YHWH, G-d's making of earth and heaven,
no bush of the field was yet on earth,
no plant of the field had yet sprung up,
for YHWH, G-d, had not made it rain upon the earth,
and there was no human (Adam) to till the soil (Adama) --
but a surge would well up from the ground and water all the face of the soil;
and YHWH, G-d, formed the human, of dust from the soil,
he blew into his nostrils the breath of life
and the human became a living being.

(Everett Fox, Schocken Bible)

transliterating the (most) original text yields something like this (any inerrancies to be blamed on the typist (me))...

002:004 ALH TVLDVT HSMYm VHARc BHBRAm BYVm OsVT YHVH ALHYm ARc VSMYm.
002:005 VKL sYX HsDH +Rm YHYH BARc VKL-OsB HsDH +Rm YCMX KY LA HM+YR YHVH ALHYm OL-HARc VADm AYn LOBD AT-HADMH.
002:006 VAD YOLH Mn-HARc VHSQH AT-KL-PNY-HADMH.
002:007 VYYCR YHVH ALHYm AT-HADm OPR Mn-HADMH VYPX BAPYV NSMT XYYm VYHY HADm LNPS XYH.

here's an interlinear (errancies belong to me ;))...

these are the historical origins of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created in the day of the making of JHWH God's earth and heaven and every bush of the field not yet had come to be in the earth and all the vegetation of the field not yet had it sprouted because not had caused JHWH G-d upon the earth and man was not to cultivate the redness and a mist would go up from the earth and watered all the face of the redness and went on to form YHWH G-d the ruddy-man-earthling of dust from the redness and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life and came to be the ruddy-man-earthling a soul living

whew! and that's an *easy* passage!

[Sean]

Hiya. Good thread. Good answers.

Inerrant simply means "without error." But what is meant by it can get complicated. What, exactly, is without error? The original documents only, or also the copies and translations handed down to us? And are they entirely free of error, or only where it's important? (And if the latter, then what are the inerrant parts, and how can we tell the difference?) These questions are answered differently by different bodies of Christians. I could use up two thousand words finessing the similar but varying beliefs of conservative Protestants, Catholics and liberal Christians about inerrancy, citing source documents like Church Fathers, Popes and Councils, and Reformation treatises. But luckily, somebody did it already. Look at this page I found (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran1.htm) for a pretty accurate treatment of the whole inerrancy thing. Not everything's how exactly how I would have said it (and some of the Latin has been translated a bit off), but it's very civil and fair to all sides without advocating any of them.

As for literalism, I don't know anyone who thinks Scripture should be interpreted literally even when it's meant figuratively. (Just maybe "literalists" don't exist, or if there are people who call themselves "literalists," they must mean something else by that. Will anyone here own up to being a literalist, and then explain it?) Language that employs figures of speech can still be true, even when it's not literally true. Just for instance, I can truthfully say the sun rose this morning, even though for a fact the sun didn't go anywhere but rather the earth rotated into such a position that sunlight reached Kansas this morning. Similarly, poetry, metaphors, allegories, parables, visions, these can all be free of error (inerrant) without being literally true.

Oftentimes, it's obvious where Scripture is being literal and where it's not. ("I am the true vine" is a metaphor.) Other times, it's less obvious.

[DaryLLL]

I agree, Sean.

"Christ was born in a temporary dwelling in Bethlehem." I take this non-literally too!

(Christ lives in me, that's the ticket. See, I don't need any of it to be literal. Saves lots of stress. )

[kama'aina mama]

Originally posted by Sean
Will anyone here own up to being a literalist, and then explain it?
There are actually many people here who proudly call themselves literalists. I do not know why none of them will help us understand what that means. I really hoped they would. All these definitions are interesting but since this is a belief system we are talking about I wish someone who is a believer would explain it.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
I agree, Sean.
Really? Cool. But don't do that too often, I nearly choked on my coffee when I read that.
See, I don't need any of it to be literal. Saves lots of stress.
Yes, I can see how it would. So you're a, what's the word, an illiteralist? There's certainly something to be said for it.

[Nursing Mother]

Oftentimes, it's obvious where Scripture is being literal and where it's not. ("I am the true vine" is a metaphor.) Other times, it's less obvious

Ummm thats kind of like I said.

There are actually many people here who proudly call themselves literalists. I do not know why none of them will help us understand what that means. I really hoped they would. All these definitions are interesting but since this is a belief system we are talking about I wish someone who is a believer would explain it

I consider myself a literalist, (not proudly though) if one reads my first post here on this thread (that I adhere to)....then maybe I'm not in the true sense of the word.

I think we are talking semantics here.....where the classification of word meanings can differ.

Kama, I'm still not sure what it is you want explained. The defination of what I think the word means?

Sorry I didn't follow up on your other question. My internet connections been up and down all day. I'm on my dh's computer now outside in his office....not convenient as I can't watch the kids.

I explained my belief system before....and it has alot to do with the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit".

Well I'm gone for the weekend....can't reply until Monday.

Who knows there this thread could go by then:D

[kama'aina mama]

NM, no worries my friend. I've been online about 15 years and realised long ago that no response = meaningless, ya know? As in... I don't assume someone is avoiding or snubbing or whatever if I don't get a swift response.

Well, I guess part of the question at this point is: Who decides what is "obviously allegory/metaphor" and what is to be taken literally. It seems to me that one of the biggest breaches is the Creation, so I have tried often to make literal sense of it. I simply cannot. To me it is clear that it is a story that illustrates God's love for us, that he wanted us and continues to want us. That it is very much His desire to care for us. I see all that in those stories. I have often thought that the tone, of the first Creation in particular, has a very similar feel to the way parents tell their kids the story of how they met and fell in love and became a family. It is very poetic and loving on that level, you know? What I do not see is any factual basis for understanding how our world came to exist. I know that this seperates me from my literal sisters and brothers. I think I can be, have been, quite clear about how I arrive at this understanding. I have never found a literalist who could take me step by step to understanding that point of view.

From Genesis my next huge issue is usually Job. I simply cannot, will not entertain the idea of a God who would actually treat one of His beloved children that way. Not for that purpose in that context. Maybe that is my flaw.. but that is where I am. I can view it as a parable or an allegory... that sometimes misfortune simply happens. Bad things ARE. But that is a seperate thing from the love of God.

That last paragraph was sort of off the cuff. I got caught up in talking to NM and then after realised .. hey! Public forum! I simply ask that those of you who do not know me as NM does go easy if you chose to go after my Job issues. I reserve the right to clarify my statement when I haven't spent hours slogging thru a driving rain with a preschooler. Thanks.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
Ummm thats kind of like I said.

Yeah, it's very much like you said, I was agreeing with you. I think we're all more or less on the same page on that.

I'm sorry I didn't know you called yourself a literalist, Nursing Mother. Maybe you called yourself that in other threads, but I'm new here, and I didn't see 'em. In this thread you did say that you believe in literal interpretation where that's what Scripture intends (which I also believe), but you also said, "A true literalist would be just that ....word for word for word...that would be a mistake and border on the ridiculous," so I thought you were saying you weren't one, or even that true ones don't exist.

I've heard the word "literalist" used before in informal discussions (never in formal writing), by Christians and non-Christians, but always in the negative, as in, "well we don't want to be literalist about it," or, "since when do I have to be a literalist to be a Christian?" So the word "literalist" was, on these occasions, a put-down with an apparently elastic definition, meaning something like "someone who interprets Scripture more literally than I want to." But since that definiton is too subjective to be of any use, I would refrain from characterizing someone's beliefs as "literalist" unless I heard him or her say "I'm a literalist, and here's what I believe..." And until now, I had never heard anyone say that. (But like I said, I'm new here.)

(edited to fix a typographical error)

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by Sean
Yes, I can see how it would. So you're a, what's the word, an illiteralist? There's certainly something to be said for it.

You're joking again? I prefer not to be defined by what I am not, but by what I am.

Calling myslef an "illiteralist" (besides sounding perilously close to "illiterate"), would be as ridiculous as calling myself a non-artificial-baby-milk-feeder, instead of a breastfeeder.

The opposite of literalist, as per Freke and Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries, is gnostic. Which means knower. One striving towards enlightenment or the gnosis.

I am also a mystic and a skeptic and an intellectual. Not just a believer. Just not a believer. Unless something is very very convincing. Which the Bible narratives/polemics are not. To me.

The underground stream, the perennial philosophy, which runs thru all sacred literature, however, inspires me in untold ways.

There, how is that for running away from the topic exactly 180 degrees?

[Sean]

It is a tangent, DaryLLL, but I don't mind exploring a tangent for a post or two. Especially since NM won't be with us again till Monday. We gotta keep busy somehow, right?

Nobody (and nobody's beliefs) can be defined by what they aren't; but they can and must be described by what they aren't, when it is relevant to do so. Let's look at some hypothetical examples before coming back to personal experience.

Just for instance, let's say you don't smoke. I don't know if you do or not, but if you do, imagine you don't, because we're being hypothetical. Would it bother you to be considered a nonsmoker, (as in "nonsmokers live longer than smokers")? And if it would bother you, what else would you call it? "People who, no matter what their other qualities, happen not to smoke" comes to mind, but it's cumbersome, and still defines the class by what they're not. You might try to strike a more positive note and say, "the opposite of smoker isn't 'nonsmoker', it's 'thinker', because smokers don't think" or some such, which would avoid the whole negative-definition problem (if it was a problem), but only at the expense of accuracy, because that's not what thinker means.

Or, moving juuuuust a little closer to our real topic: suppose you were visiting a foreign city seeing some foreign sights, and suppose your guide were to explain at some shrine that, "Muslims are allowed to enter this site, but non-Muslims may not enter." Would it really chafe you to be considered a 'non-Muslim' in that context? Would you object that he should instead have listed all the faiths whose adherents aren't allowed in? That would take all day, and he'd still probably never get around to mentioning yours. And why not say non-Muslim when you mean non-Muslim?

So, then, to induce a general rule from the specifics

Sometimes it becomes necessary to classify people into mutually exclusive (non-overlapping) sets, based on some relevant descriptor.
The two sets which result from such a classification will be (1) those for whom the descriptor is true, and (2) those for whom it is false.
Sometimes English terms will exist which accurately describe each of the two sets (e.g., Jew & gentile, female & male, living & dead).
If such terms don't exist, the second set will just have to be described by its negatory relation to the first (e.g., nonsmoker, non-Christian, unwed, unemployed).


And finally, to apply the rule to our topic (if we still remember our topic): some people may be literalists. I still don't know how that word would be defined, but let's hypothetically say literalist means "one who interprets all of scripture literally." Its negation, I think, would have to be nonliteralist, meaning simply "one who does not interpret all of scripture literally."

When I said "illiteralist," I was trying to coin a term for a subset of nonliteralists, that means "one who interprets none of scripture literally," and yeah it was kind of tongue-in-cheek. There's probably a better word for that somewhere. I don't think "gnostic" is it (with apologies to Freke and Gandy), because while some gnostics may feel that way, some other famous gnostics believed some scripture (especially their own gnostic texts) should be interpreted literally.

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by Sean
[B]It is a tangent, DaryLLL, but I don't mind exploring a tangent for a post or two. Especially since NM won't be with us again till Monday. We gotta keep busy somehow, right?

Um, yeah.

Nobody (and nobody's beliefs) can be defined by what they aren't; but they can and must be described by what they aren't, when it is relevant to do so. Let's look at some hypothetical examples before coming back to personal experience.

There you go with your logic again. Sean, I do not find it very appealing. It just doesn't suit my personality or area of interest. No offense.


"Muslims are allowed to enter this site, but non-Muslims may not enter." Would it really chafe you to be considered a 'non-Muslim' in that context?

No. But I only call myself non-Xtian when I am afraid I will get judged for saying neo-pagan/gnostic/mystic. I prefer to be more specific on mdc.

When I said "illiteralist," I was trying to coin a term for a subset of nonliteralists, that means "one who interprets none of scripture literally," and yeah it was kind of tongue-in-cheek.

As far as I can tell at this point in my research, I am willing to concede 18% of the Greek Xtian gospels are historical, as the Jesus Seminar has found. Ie: Jerusalem and Pilate really existed in 30 CE, that kind of thing....

There's probably a better word for that somewhere. I don't think "gnostic" is it (with apologies to Freke and Gandy), because while some gnostics may feel that way, some other famous gnostics believed some scripture (especially their own gnostic texts) should be interpreted literally.

I would be curious as to whom you refer. As I have learned gnostic students (as Jews today) were encouraged to write their own gospels and midrashes as part of their education. So many gnostic writings are so fanciful and complicated, you'd have to be high on shrooms to take them literally.

[Sean]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
There you go with your logic again. Sean, I do not find it very appealing. It just doesn't suit my personality or area of interest. No offense.
None taken. I apologize for being so logical (to you and to anyone else who finds it unappealing but hasn't said so), but that's just how I go sometimes. Feel free to ignore the logical parts; I hope it doesn't mean we can't be friends.

As far as I can tell at this point in my research, I am willing to concede 18% of the Greek Xtian gospels are historical, as the Jesus Seminar has found. Ie: Jerusalem and Pilate really existed in 30 CE, that kind of thing....
I would say the Jesus Seminar isn't interpreting any of scripture literally, either (so they're "illiteralists," too). They aren't even interpreting scripture, so much as judging it. They're deciding what's true and what's not, based somewhat on other documents such as Josephus's Antiquities and the gnostic texts, and mostly based on a priori assumptions about what they're conception of Jesus is likely to have said or done. They are gracious enough to concede that 18 percent of Christ's words are likely to have been said by Jesus, but that's a far cry from scriptural interpretation of any sort.

I would be curious as to whom you refer.
Marcion. Others. I'll get back to you on that, my wife wants me.

[dado]

delete.

[Sean]

For anyone still curious if the gnostic Marcion thought any scripture should be interpreted literally, visit gnosis.org (http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcion/Harnack.html) to read "Marcion explained the Old Testament in its literal sense and rejected every allegorical interpretation." He felt the same way about the New Testament, after he rewrote it. Several other gnostics who... oh, but that tangent's ended, back to topic.

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
Well, I guess part of the question at this point is: Who decides what is "obviously allegory/metaphor" and what is to be taken literally.

Just like with the meaning of inerrant, the question of "Who decides" how scripture is interpreted is answered differently by different bodies of believers. One universal Christian tenet is that the Holy Spirit will guide believers to apprehend the true meaning. But even that idea is understood very differently by different parties.

Reformation Protestants believe in sola scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible alone is the rule of faith. A belief in private interpretation flows naturally from this doctrine: since no human is above, or even equal to, the Bible in authority, nobody is bound by anyone else's interpretation; rather, everyone has the right and the duty to interpret it for him or herself. If the believer prays for and is willing to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and if she uses the gifts of intelligence and discernment along with the tools available (including the scholarship of others), and puts in an honest diligent effort, she will be led to God's meaning. (I hope I've stated it fairly, but if any Protestants want to correct this paragraph, please let me know.)

Catholics believe instead that the Church is the ultimate authority on all essential matters of faith, including interpretation of the Bible. By way of analogy, if the Bible were the Constitution, the Church would be the Supreme Court, with a similar authority to issue binding decisions. Some people misunderstand how that authority is exercised, but it's a lot like a court: only when disputes arise, and with as little restrictions on individual freedom as possible. As a result, Catholics don't have any big book of what every word in the Bible really means; they have differing private interpretations much like Protestants. But what they do have are limits. There are some interpretations which the Church has judged "out-of-bounds" and forbidden to her members. In this scheme, the action of the Holy Spirit is something different from the Protestant sense, in that instead of guiding the believers individually, He guides them as a body.

As regards the creation account, for example, Catholics may interpret it literally, or -- within limits -- poetically. A Catholic may believe that each "day" of creation is a 24-hour day like ours, or a poetic way of expressing a longer period of time. (The Hebrew word yom is used both ways throughout Scripture.) I happen to think that the 24-hour sense is the better interpretation, but the Church has not forbidden the other. That was just an example, I don't want to turn this thread into a Catholic catechism, but I hope I've shown how the "Who decides" question is answered by Catholics.

From Genesis my next huge issue is usually Job. I simply cannot, will not entertain the idea of a God who would actually treat one of His beloved children that way. Not for that purpose in that context.
Neither could Job until Chapter 42. Some of the most beautiful yet haunting messages of all of the Bible are in Job. I can't read "Doth Job fear God for nought?" without feeling a chill up my spine. I get the message that God's love for us does not protect us from earthly trials, but rather, if we don't love Him through adversity, we don't love Him at all. I also get the message that His mind is unknowable, His purpose unquestionable. "Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it."

[barbara]

Just like with the meaning of inerrant, the question of "Who decides" how scripture is interpreted is answered differently by different bodies of believers. One universal Christian tenet is that the Holy Spirit will guide believers to apprehend the true meaning. But even that idea is understood very differently by different parties. hence the many different branches of Christianity.

[Sean]

Originally posted by barbara
hence the many different branches of Christianity.
Well, yeah. One reasonable objection to sola scriptura is that without an ultimate authority to resolve disputes, it could break down into quot capita tot sensus, "as many opinions as heads," destroying the unity which Christ desires for His Church ("and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd").

I don't mean to imply that that there is not a reasonable rejoinder to this objection, or that there aren't reasonable objections to the Catholic position from sola scriptura advocates. Are we still on topic? We could start another thread, or keep talking about it here, or drop the subject, what do y'all think?

Editing this post to add: I vote for dropping the subject. Having refreshed my reading of MDC guidelines, I think this isn't the place to discuss the objections to sola scriptura. There are other places to do that.

[dado]

Originally posted by kama'aina mama
From Genesis my next huge issue is usually Job.

you are free to read Sefer Iyov as literally as you like - or dare :) - but for millenia this has been understood to be a fictional story. straight from Talmud: "Job never existed, rather he is a parable." there isn't even a concensus on who Job was. opinions vary all over the map from pre-Jew Hebrew to an Egyptian advisor of the pharoah in Exodus(!) to a figment of Moshe's imagination.

a number of Jewish sages contend the core of Sefer Iyov - not including the G-d/haSatan prologue - predates most of Tanakh and comes from as far back as Yakov's time. but there are differing opinions: another widely held view is that Moshe himself wrote this in the desert to console the people.

[DaryLLL]

Again and again I thank goddess dado has come to the boards. :Bow Someone who knows the Jewish meaning and interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, how refreshing! (understatement)

Probably gives a nicebreak to amy and BB.

Now, from a liberal Xtian standpoint, I found Bishop Spong's interpretation of at least the motivation for Job in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism helpful. He said, and maybe this differs form actual Jewish teachings, that up to the point of Job, Jews thought God dealt out rewards to "good" people, and punishment to "bad" people, in their lifetimes. No afterlife, so no divine retribution to be longed for either. Job comes at a point where poeple were saying, hey wait a minute, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people, and criminals live the life of Reilly. Why, God?

[BelovedBird]

Originally posted by dado
you are free to read Sefer Iyov as literally as you like - or dare :) - but for millenia this has been understood to be a fictional story. straight from Talmud: "Job never existed, rather he is a parable." there isn't even a concensus on who Job was. opinions vary all over the map from pre-Jew Hebrew to an Egyptian advisor of the pharoah in Exodus(!) to a figment of Moshe's imagination.

a number of Jewish sages contend the core of Sefer Iyov - not including the G-d/haSatan prologue - predates most of Tanakh and comes from as far back as Yakov's time. but there are differing opinions: another widely held view is that Moshe himself wrote this in the desert to console the people.

I learned Iyov in seminary, but I certainly don't remember most of it. But I remember learning the gemara on who wrote Iyov/ who was he, and there were so many opinions- wasn't one that Iyov was Avraham?

[dado]

Originally posted by BelovedBird
...wasn't one that Iyov was Avraham?

yes! and another that he was Yakov. i'm guessing literal readings of Iyov began around the same time it became necessary to "prove" the existence of a rampaging satan.

[barbara]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Again and again I thank goddess dado has come to the boards. :Bow Someone who knows the Jewish meaning and interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, how refreshing! (understatement)

Probably gives a nicebreak to amy and BB.

Now, from a liberal Xtian standpoint, I found Bishop Spong's interpretation of at least the motivation for Job in his book Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism helpful. He said, and maybe this differs form actual Jewish teachings, that up to the point of Job, Jews thought God dealt out rewards to "good" people, and punishment to "bad" people, in their lifetimes. No afterlife, so no divine retribution to be longed for either. Job comes at a point where poeple were saying, hey wait a minute, sometimes bad stuff happens to good people, and criminals live the life of Reilly. Why, God? Yes Yes! isn't that the whole point of the book of Job? I didn't know there were theological views that contradicted that. I'm learning something new every day here! :thumb

Speaking of learning something new...dado I thought you were a "daddy" until DaryLLL called you a goddess! :o

[Nursing Mother]

From Genesis my next huge issue is usually Job. I simply cannot, will not entertain the idea of a God who would actually treat one of His beloved children that way. Not for that purpose in that context. Maybe that is my flaw.. but that is where I am. I can view it as a parable or an allegory... that sometimes misfortune simply happens. Bad things ARE. But that is a seperate thing from the love of God.

That last paragraph was sort of off the cuff. I got caught up in talking to NM and then after realised .. hey! Public forum! I simply ask that those of you who do not know me as NM does go easy if you chose to go after my Job issues. I reserve the right to clarify my statement when I haven't spent hours slogging thru a driving rain with a preschooler. Thanks.

Dear Kama, I'll take on this "issue" you have with Job, because I have that issue too.....(your honestly is refreshing) Of course I believe Job was actually a real man with a real story. Perhaps one of the oldest books of the Bible perhaps not. No one knows for sure who wrote this book (ancient Jewish tradition ascribed the book to Moses While Moses was in the wilderness of Midian (Ex 2:15.) (yes I know that can be debated).... he could have easily learned of the story from Job's immediated descendents too.) or exactly when, (that can be debated too, and not important imo)... to me what is important is WHY it was written....and to WHY it is included in the Bible.

I have been forced to deal with my "issues" with this book and the why's of human suffering.

Ever since Jordan died (its been 2.5 months now) I've wrestled with this idea "God allowing suffering".

I've suffered in a way I have never suffered before and this part of God that "allows" us to go through suffering has always been a mystery to me. It seems like God is uncaring or unconcerned about me (or others) , that He taunts me (us) as mere mortals as some sort of cruel, cosmic joke. Every description given to us in Scriptures seems to depict God as infinitely loving and kind , watching over his earthy children and hovering over us with His protection. (as he promises).

I am personally struggling with a circumstance that doesn't seem to make sense....and yes I have felt frustrated with God.....as Job was....yet Job chose to not curse God and die. I suppose I can get through my staggering personal loss and depression, as Job suffered so much more.

Sometimes it is the absence of meaning that makes my (and others) situation difficult. I try to find a spiritual meaning in everything in my life, but with this one I come up blank.(right now at least) My son had so much to offer, could have been (was) a great human being, loved God, was honest and sincere, intelligent, (oh I could go on and on as any mother could about her child)......some days I feel weak with grief and I'm still stunned at the severity of feeling this loss.

I've built my life upon a certain thelogocial understanding, and when my son died I was faced with this crisis that rattled my foundation. God whom I loved and worshiped and served turns out to appear silent and distant and even uncaring in the moment of my greatest need and distress. Yes I have felt his comfort and presence (given to me by those who comfort me and His words in the Bible), but I have also felt very far away and so confused as the questions seem to mount up.

Can such times comes even to the faithful? I think yes. Wasn't this precisely what happened to Job? This God-fearing man had done no wrong, yet he suffered horrible staggering losses in a matter of hours. I think Job's most intense frustration though was his inability of find God. That is the vital point in the story imo. Job lost everything, his children, his wealth, his servants, his reputation and his friends. But those tragedies, as terrible as they were, did not create his greatest agitation. He wanted to find God amongst all his sufferings. ....and he came up blank. (until the end).

Job said:

"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord taketh away; may the name of the Lord be praised" (Job 1:20-21)

I don't think Job's inability to find and communicate with God is so unique. I believe it can occur in many believers in some point in their life. I've been faced with it very recently.

What I have found though during my time of despair, even though I don't have my answers to why, is that God is there whether He choses to anwers my pleas of acknowledgement or not. My faith is based on the fact that God is and has been real in my life and He is still there now, even though I feel the blow of loss to the point where I weep and sob and beg God to take away the pain. Even Jesus asked why he had been abandoned by God in His final hours on the cross.

I believe Job's example and his dealings with God have been provided to help us understand a critically important phenomenon....that most believers are permitted to go through emotional and spiritual valleys that are designed to test our faith. Why? Because faith is important and ranks high at the top of God's priorities (imo). Without it, He said it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6) And what is faith? It is the substance of thngs hoped for, the evidence of thngs not seen" (Heb 11:1).

My determination to believe when the proof is not provided or the whys not answered is important to my relationship with the Lord .

I don't believe God will do anything to destroy our faith. In fact He guides us through times of testing specifically to cultivate a closer dependence on Him.....whether we realize its happening or not.

Still though, a theological answer of that nature doesn't take away the pain and frustration we feel when we go through hard, desparing times. (see my conflict?).

God could have prevented Job from being tested, or from my son dying unexpectedly at age 19. But He didn't....he "allowed" it to happen...and that is where my anger often comes to a head also. My mind goes back to "then why did God allow it to happen"...those questions are a never ending cycle in my mind....and I think it comes back to the word Sin. The very nature of sin rules this world. Our bodies become diseased, accidents happen, people choose evil, etc.... bad things really can happen to those who love God...we all know that, but I know I never wanted to "go there" with that thought.....but now I have been forced to deal and go into and experience an area I've never been before.

I've been reading some of C.S. Lewis' writings on suffering. He faced the same thing when his beloved wife died. He said he was forced to go into areas he'd never been before, but some of his greatest insights and writings came during the time of his worst grief.

I found it interesting that you brought up this topic on Job. (straying from the creation topic, which I failed to address:)) Thanks to those who did. I know we were more on the topic of defining the words "literal" and "illiteral" too , but since its your thread and you brought it up I thought I'd repond. Because I have been thinking about Job lately and just what it is God would wish ME to learn through this book on suffering.

I could go on and on about my feelings on suffering now. I've even wondered if "People are just pawns in God's chess game"...as it seems sometimes. Ya know the "you go here", "you go there" scenario......like God is indiscrimately "playing" a game with all of us and we are powerless to stop or change anything. Doesn't it seem like that sometimes?

We can be caught in events beyond our control and even feel manipulated by God or Satan. This all seems so unfair...but I have to believe there is another way....a higher way to interpret the circumstances of life. I haven't got it all figured out yet and only know what I've experienced in a short two months. Job didn't get it all figured out either. BUt at the end of the story there was restoration. God recongnized Job as a righteous man. Job stood his trials and God blessed again with prosperity.

Many unanswered questions remain. I struggle with the fact that some who are righteous have short lives that are cut off while others who evil or wicked enjoy wealth and long life. It all seems unfair in this life, but I have faith that in eternity all will be made right and all our questions will be answered.

[Nursing Mother]

I don't mean to imply that that there is not a reasonable rejoinder to this objection, or that there aren't reasonable objections to the Catholic position from sola scriptura advocates. Are we still on topic? We could start another thread, or keep talking about it here, or drop the subject, what do y'all think

Sean, Yes there is reason for discussion on this topic of solo scriptura.....and I know where I stand with it.

....and there has been discussion before pertaining to the topic on this forum. The thing is, the discussions do become debates. There is just no unification on a subject like this on a discussion board so diverse. The conversation can and has become quite intense.

However I do think a new discussion would be stimulating to say the least.

Right now my mind is geared more to "application" type discussion in pertaining to real life spiritual issues (as proven in my oratorical citation above):), but find the deeper type dialogue quite interesting and thought-provoking. (Just can't concentrate as well):(

If the believer prays for and is willing to accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and if she uses the gifts of intelligence and discernment along with the tools available (including the scholarship of others), and puts in an honest diligent effort, she will be led to God's meaning. (I hope I've stated it fairly, but if any Protestants want to correct this paragraph, please let me know.)

Protestant here:)...and yes I agree and even mentioned that before as the "Holy Spirits illumination" ....the gift of the Holy Spirit is given to all true believers who have acknowleged Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Without the Holy Spirits "illumination" I think its easy to get bogged down in semantics, "word meanings" connotations, and so forth.....were as the true meaning of the Scriptures gets lost and Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life gets overlooked or ignored.....and especially the thought of what one would do with Jesus' words on those topics. Its like "don't go there"....When Jesus said He is the only way....can one really understand that, unless elucidated by the Holy Spirit?

[BelovedBird]

ancient Jewish tradition ascribed the book to Moses While Moses was in the wilderness of Midian

One opion holds that Iyov was written by Moshe One of many. THAT is "ancient jewish tradition". I know you added that it is debatable, but it more than that- the answer is not known....

[dado]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
ancient Jewish tradition ascribed the book to Moses

first, jewish tradition is alive and well, it is not ancient. it has ancient sages, it has traditions that have survived since ancient times, but the tradition continues to live, evolve, develop.

second, there is no such thing as "the" tradition when it comes to issues like this. there are many and varied opinions. if there is any consistently correct meaning of "the tradition" it is the existence of such diversity itself that constitutes "the" tradition.

it also means the real answer to such questions is "nobody knows".

[DaryLLL]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
Again and again I thank goddess dado has come to the boards. :Bow Someone who knows the Jewish meaning and interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, how refreshing! (understatement)



barbara,

I did not call dado a goddess. I meant I thank Goddess, dado is here. Should have capitalized. :LOL

[Nursing Mother]

it also means the real answer to such questions is "nobody knows".

Uh...yeah, thats like I implied (can be debated and is not that essential)......the story of Job is relevent no matter how it got there)

Not quite sure why you decided to post on that, when I really went on and on and on and on......:LOL

[dado]

what you wrote attributed a fixed belief to Jewish tradition and the diversity of belief to the world at large when in fact the diversity of belief exists inside Jewish tradition itself.

[DaryLLL]

Yes, I can see dado made 3 points, not just one. B/c one of her points actually agreed with one of yours (albeit succinctly), you criticize her for posting?

[Sean]

Dado, BelovedBird, Nursing Mother: Would it be fair to say it was "an ancient Jewish tradition"? Would that be accurate?

Nursing Mother: :thumb Your reflections on Job touched my heart. Thank you!

About sola scriptura: I definitely agree that it was worth mentioning and explaining the doctrine of sola scriptura in this thread, as it has a direct bearing on how scripture is interpreted by hundreds of millions of believers. I'll also mention (though I forgot to mention it before) that belief in this doctrine has often influenced many positive developments in society, such as widespread literacy, scholarship, and religious tolerance. There may be a good deal more to be said about sola scriptura before this thread is over, in the spirit of "sharing faith and practice," as the Spirituality guidelines encourage.

Can we also mention and explain the objections to the doctrine, and then the rejoinders to those objections, and then the arguments against those rejoinders, et seq. without actually debating sola scriptura? Maybe we can; I'd be happy to enter that sort of discussion somewhere else. But I can't think of any good reason to do that here, and a couple of good reasons not to.

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
Dado, BelovedBird, Nursing Mother: Would it be fair to say it was "an ancient Jewish tradition"? Would that be accurate?


nope. saying it is a part of the Jewish spectrum of belief that goes back to ancient times - where it also was part of a wide spectrum of beliefs - would be closer. in general, any sentence even remotely suggesting "a" Jewish belief is "the" Jewish belief will probably be incorrect because Judaism simply doesn't work that way.

re: sola scriptura...

there is no such thing, imo. for starters, the very words being read/studied are not defined in scripture so right there, at the very beginning of the process, a non scriptura work - the dictionary - has to be introduced as a reference. not sure where you and NM are going with this, i'm assuming since NM has already posted several times that "the spirit" and cultural context guide her interpretations she is not a sola scripturista. from your posts i get the impression you're in about the same place...?

edit: in the paragraph above i'm talking about the "everything from scripture" definition, not the corrollary absolute right of private judgement of interpretation (which i do agree with).

[barbara]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother
the story of Job is relevent no matter how it got there)
AMEN

[Sean]

Originally posted by dado
re: sola scriptura...

there is no such thing, imo. for starters, the very words being read/studied are not defined in scripture so right there, at the very beginning of the process, a non scriptura work - the dictionary - has to be introduced as a reference. not sure where you and NM are going with this, i'm assuming since NM has already posted several times that "the spirit" and cultural context guide her interpretations she is not a sola scripturista. from your posts i get the impression you're in about the same place...?

Well, you're right about me; I don't personally believe sola scriptura. I can't speak for NM, except to say that I got a different impression than you did. I won't answer your objection to the doctrine (that scripture itself relies on outside points of reference) except to note that people who believe in sola scriptura have probably thought of that, and have a reasonable reply. As for where we're going with this, I hope we're going to "share faith and practice."

[dado]

Originally posted by Sean
... people who believe in sola scriptura have probably thought of that, and have a reasonable reply.

i hope someone shares one. Luther ended up in a circular argument where sola scriptura gave him authority to make private interpretation but denied others the same right - in a sense his was the first major argument for "papal" infallibility. which is ironic beyond all belief, lol!

[barbara]

Originally posted by Sean
As for where we're going with this, I hope we're going to "share faith and practice." me too! I haven't a lot to say (taming my tongue you know :D ) Very interesting thread!:thumb

[Nursing Mother]

except to note that people who believe in sola scriptura have probably thought of that, and have a reasonable reply. As for where we're going with this, I hope we're going to "share faith and practice."

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".


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. We all know how bogged down the Roman Catholic church was then and certainly a "reformation" was needed. The Church was the absolute authority back then and people even had to pay to have their sins forgiven. Wasn't that called indulgences (or something like that). The church had become corrupt.

As an Evangelical Protestant Christian I must realize the Bible is my creating Word. It forms the church. If God is a Mighty Fortress, Soverign in all His ways.... then surely the Word of God alone is sufficient for all I need to know about salvation, forgiveness, morality, values, eternal life/death, and standereds of living.

I believe the Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of Sola Scriptura, a principle which had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. I think initially the apostles taught orally but with the close of the apostolic age all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified and then written in the Scriptures.

Even today from what I gather in Roman Catholic circles there is still ongoing debate among their theologians on the nature of this topic. Way back I think the RC church thought that the scriptures only partially contained the written Scripture and some where contained through oral tradition.....meaning then the Scriptures were not materially sufficient or complete. Not sure if I have that right, but its what I remember from my Bible history class (oh so long ago:))

I do know the Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral Apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture. I assume it is still used today......maybe varying from church to church, even among the different denominations and branches of Catholism. (if there is such a thing:scratch)

I believe the Catholic responds that the Catholic Church not only has the authority to preserve, define and interpret scripture, but in addition, has the authority to define and declare what it calls "Tradition", which it claims is also the Word of God, and has the same validity as scripture. I'm not totally sure what the Catholic stance is now on that. I really don't have an issue with that, as long as the essential doctrines of the Christian faith remain in tact.

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.

What I do know, is that Catholic and Protestants both believe in the saving blood of Jesus Christ, why He came, what He came for and how it effects our lives today. To me that is what is essential and what should be concentrated on......at least in my little world of theology. I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, nor a great long-term studier of the deeper things in the Scriptures. I just know what I believe and how I hold all Scripture as the infallible, inspired word of God.....and all I need for my life today.

If I had the time it would be interesting to freshen up on the history of the church, from the apostolic age, to Catholism, the Reformation and so forth.....

I'm not really in the mood to debate the tidbits of history here, but would like to be enlightened (Sean?...any Catholics?) if I am even a little bit close in explaining the solo scriptura concept.

( I realize this is over simplified, but its about as far as I can go with it right now):).....not bad for a person who was up the whole night last night:LOL

[kama'aina mama]

To the best of my understanding it was never required to pay to have sins forgiven. One needed to atone to gain forgiveness and there were a variety of ways. One could say a proscribed set of prayers, make some other act of faith (a pilgrimage, for example) etc. Now there were folks who felt they were simply to busy to do these things, so they would pay others to pray for them. Now you've got people buying and selling indulgences and it ain't good. But it is my belief ( and I could be misinformed. That did happen once before :wink) that even the poorest were always able to earn their own forgiveness.

[dado]

Originally posted by Nursing Mother [quote]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 :censored 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. :foot 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.

:fence:
:argue:

[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! :D

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.

:)

[Nursing Mother]

I guess it means there is only one right way to interpret the Bible and the Cath Church has it?

No, it is the Roman Catholic church that does not adhere to the solo scriptura. Maybe dada explained that.

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.

I made it clear in my statement as was referring to my Evangelical protestant doctrine ...I said:

but again I am protestant and a evangelical at that

Sorry if that was confusing.

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

Sorry you took that offensively. I didn't mean it that way....I need no "news flash" about Luther:) I'm well aware Martin Luther is not everyones hero.

Concerning the Catholic church of the 1500's.......well what Kama says sounded good to me. (thanks for explaining that so well Kama):)...and that is what I was referring to in regards to corruption.

Christians have to live with this problem as they claim to have the One True Faith

You missed my point. My point was that "Christians" tend to argue and bicker about the things that are not so essential to our Doctrinal faith. Since we agree on most of the essentials (Trinity, Christ's Deity, salvation, love, forgiveness etc)....those are the things we need to focus on and find unity in. We can find harmony in that we both agree our faith is the One True Faith. (I wasn't even bringing into the scenario other religions other then Catholics and Protestants......we are more alike then many realize I think.

[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! :D

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm)!

[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 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm), 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]

:OT

... 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.

:hippie

[DaryLLL]

Oh, thanks, Amy. That would be YHWH tho? The tribal Jacobite diety? Not Vishnu, say? Or doesn't it matter?

[merpk]

Not exactly on topic, DaryLLL ... but polytheists should have no problem with the concept of accepting another G!d to hang out with, right? So where's the problem for Vishnuphiles, for example?

My disagreement was with the idea that Judaism also hopes for the world to unite within Judaism. That is absolutely false. The Jewish view of "a better world" is that there are many ways to G!d for the many different peoples of the world, and when that "better time" comes, all the different peoples of the world will turn to G!d from within their own paradigms.

The idea of "universalism" in Judaism is worldwide acceptance of The One. The hyperanalysis that posits that the "Jacobite tribal god" and The One of the Tetragrammaton are different "gods" is just that. Hyperanalysis. And the Jacobites would have been just as confused by it as their descendants.

:)

[dado]

Originally posted by merpk
[BMy disagreement was with the idea that Judaism also hopes for the world to unite within Judaism. That is absolutely false. The Jewish view of "a better world" is that there are many ways to G!d for the many different peoples of the world, and when that "better time" comes, all the different peoples of the world will turn to G!d from within their own paradigms[/B]

thank you, that was beautifully put!

:thumb

for a while there i was begining to feel like Hector outside the walls of Troy...

[DaryLLL]

Yes, I find that a lovely idea. Thanks you guys. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, but I was working....

So Buddhists and atheists, however, what about them? No god atall you see. Does inner enlightenment count?

[dado]

Originally posted by DaryLLL
So Buddhists...

a couple of books you might like...

"The Jew in the Lotus"
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-0060645741-0

"Stalking Elijah"
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=1-0060642327-5

they are written by Rodger Kamenetz, who was part of the Jewish contingent invited to meet the Dalai Lama and a group of leading Buddhists to discuss issues of faith. this was at the invitation of the Dalai Lama who views Jews as "survival experts".

by 1945 Judaism had lost maybe 3/4 of its teachers and the vast majority of its mystic leaders. this has left a gaping hole in Judaism, and without stealing Kamenetz's thunder, there are solid reasons why so many western buddhists are Jews and why of all the faiths Jews move to, so many choose buddhism.

[DaryLLL]

Thanks for the books recs, dado.

[dado]

just want to add that as the ranks of Jewish spiritual masters replenish, there should be less need to seek the mystical/meditative in an outside tradition. it is nice, though, that a pretty solid interfaith bridge seems to have been built between these two ancient beliefs. it was interesting to read of the Dalai Lama pointing out sanskrit words in hebrew and hebrew words in sanskrit!

[DaryLLL]

Gnostics of every faith have more in common with each other than do literalists of the same faith.

OOOMMM... :hippie

[dado]

nicely put! literalists can't seem to agree with other literalists of the same book, lol, never mind with those reading different books.

[DaryLLL]

(Cribbed it from FrekeGandy! [Read them yet?] Forgive me Father for I have plagiarized.)

[dado]

i don't have time to read anything right now, unfortunately. i gave myself a firm April 1 deadline for the first draft of play i'm working on and that is sucking up all my free time. and i'm only about 1/3 done. ugh.

[DaryLLL]

dado, BTW, i PMed you...

[hotmamacita]

Originally posted by dado
i don't have time to read anything right now, unfortunately. i gave myself a firm April 1 deadline for the first draft of play i'm working on and that is sucking up all my free time. and i'm only about 1/3 done. ugh.

I KNOW THIS IS OT but....

:thumb

You can do it, dado! I'll be thinking of you and sending loving energy and prayers your way!
:banana

[dado]

i have to find a way to work that dancing banana into the script...

:LOL

[hotmamacita]

oh i know. ... i am THIS close to being a banana worshiper...

:bow :banana

[DaryLLL]

In Asia, you get lots of those. You know, lingams on every street corner. In Japan, they have a yearly penis festival. They carry sculptures of them in parades. You can buy little penis pendants!

Oh, sorry, you were tawkin about bananas.

[BelovedBird]

:LOL :LOL
MDC SPIRITUALITY "PURIM TORAH"!
I love it.

HEhe!

A freilichen purim everyone!

Dado, visit the purim thread and share your shpeil with us. :):D

[dado]

Originally posted by BelovedBird
Dado, visit the purim thread and share your shpeil with us. :):D

i am so far behind it's not even funny...and just when i'm ready to turn off the silly computer and do some baking, a certain curmudgeon posts about going to "judeo-christian church".

AAAAAAHHH!!!!

[DaryLLL]

bumping