Biblical Innerancy Fallacy

Right its just called the New Testament.

This seems cart before the horse thinking, unless I've got it wrong?

The Catholics gathered a collection of writings regarded as canonical long before the Protestants came along. A collection in which books were added and discarded along the way in the early centuries, and which was formalised in the face of the Protestant Reformation.

It was the Protestants who rejected the traditional NT, eg poor Martin Luther who, tormented by his conviction that no one was deserving of God's favour. In desperation, he 'discovered' a theology of grace in St Paul's Letter to the Romans, by which justification was an undeserved gift from God.

From then on Luther saw "justification by faith alone" everywhere and determined that 'good works' was an illusion and a waste of time, as something essentially rotten cannot do good. Trouble was, James absolutely insists that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation (after all, the demons believed Jesus was the Son of God, so they should be top of the list!).

So Luther famously declared James "that right strawey epistle", meaning its conclusions were vague and uncertain. But he did question its place in the Canon.

If you mean Catholics believe in the NT as Protestants do, then you can't say that as Protestants don't even agree among themselves. As a Catholic, I use the materials of N.T. Wright and J.D.G. Dunn (both Protestant), but I don't use Jesus Seminar stuff ...

Thomas
 
Not to go too far from the point —

It seems that Dr. Bart Ehrman's claims are themselves somewhat overblown and fallacious ... no-one's defending him except Wil.

Thomas
 
Hi Wil —


And neither did I.

A more accurate representation, I think, is that from the Reformation on, the Protestant Church was arguing the Bible against Tradition (the Roman Catholic Church).

At the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Magisterium declared:


So the Church holds that She is the safeguard of truth and interpretation of the Scriptures. So the Catholic was, over time, led to inquire of the meaning of Scripture not of himself, but from the Church.

This probably horrifies the modern mind, so entrenched in the idea of its own autonomy, but these words were spoken in a different philosophical and cultural mileau. Nevertheless the simple truth holds ... just because you can read scripture does not mean you can understand it. No-one would assume that of poetry, or of literature, or art or music ... so why it is assumed of Revelation, escapes me.
Or in other words "Pipe down paeon! You are too stupid to understand without a corrupt class of elite elders".

Intelligence is no guarantee of faith.
Ignorance so often is. So it 'pays' to nurture ignorance. Something the CC has long understood and today remains what I would personally define as criminally culpable. Take the lies they tell about condom use for example.
 
Not to go too far from the point —

It seems that Dr. Bart Ehrman's claims are themselves somewhat overblown and fallacious ... no-one's defending him except Wil.

Thomas
Surely you mean on this thread or site Thomas. If you'll read critics that tout his book or read the average rating on Amazon from readers you'll see there are many more positive reviews from negative. Of course I am a aware that doesn't count.

On the flip side how many people on this site are indicating Bart is wrong? And how many of those have read his book to know what it is they are saying? So the statement 'no-one is defending' is as ludicrous and misleading as the statment by one of the critics you quoted indicating he doesn't show where Jesus was misquoted. But unfortunately one would have to read the book and not just the review in order to know this.

btw, I haven't received a pm yet as to where to send a book to...
 
I believe it has been known for centuries.

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible - Times Online

Hence the reason every Catholic I've personally met, whether they grew up being taught by nuns in Catholic school or just went through the aftershool teachings at church, never picked up a bible.

I think the church discovered years ago it couldn't teach out of the bible, that there would be to many questions with the discrepancies, so they created the catechism to move the focus to the scriptures which they preferred to teach from.

When I learned that the early catholics edited and tampered with it to satisfy political agendas, there is no way to go back and reconcile it for me. Very stupid but during that day and age, they could get away with it. It would not be possible to do that today. As people became educated & the book became popular in a modern day and more people took a closer look with other evidence, it became very appearant how much they messed with it. -So do other religions edit it to fit their own agenda-. That, in addition to your reasoning compliment each other as to why they created the bloody religion they created over the first few hundred years with so much that has nothing to do with the bible.


When I came across vital evidence of Matt 28:19 and Heb 5:7 and the last part of Mark being tampered with, the catholic=pagan agenda became very clear. If you can't beat em, join em, then destroy em, rings loud and clear. Thus all you ever get today is a bunch of bickering, bickering and more bickering. Perhaps if they had left well enough alone there would not be so much confusion and dishonesty? Atmospheres like this here are a terrible place to have a bible discussion anyway. I think the main difference between you and I concerning this, is you seem to have found the discrepancies/error was always there (?) as to why they do not use it, while I have found the people in that religion created the discrepancies to fit a political agenda, without realizing at the time that they would never be able to hide it forever.

(all this while I am regularly accused of picking and choosing)
Everyone, yes ALL persons pick and choose and ALL persons accuse of picking and chosing and quite frankly, some of those reasons are valid. You are not alone on that. I spoke to a young catholic priest in england a few years ago on some of this, who told me the only books I need to read and know anything about are in the first four gospels. LOL! (and we know why). I stopped listening to him.

I am sure that everything I just wrote is common knowledge today and does not need anything 'schoooolarly' to back it up.

It does not mean I don't trust the bible, it just means I use caution with the above knowledge and beware of the traps that wicked men created over the centuries. Reasoning and validating is a good thing. One can also reason his way to jumping off a 90 story building to his death.

Or in other words "Pipe down paeon! You are too stupid to understand without a corrupt class of elite elders".

That sums it up very nicely.
 
Bandit said:
That sums it up very nicely.
Hey, Bandit. I think that is a little bit harsh, especially to call it 'This bloody religion'. First of all, Christianity is a religion in which mystery plays a very big role, and not everything is as it seems. It is not intended to be a bloody religion.

You see problems, but you are just venting. I bet there are ways that you can make a difference, but uh not like that. Trouble is if you do not know anything about Catholics, then you really cannot know what the deal is. Is it Catholicism? Are you saying it is religion in general? It is like when I try to understand any religion I'm not familiar with. Just denouncing the religion, it just callouses people, causing protectionism. Think of it as yelling at your girlfriend on PMS day.
 
This seems cart before the horse thinking, unless I've got it wrong?

The Catholics gathered a collection of writings regarded as canonical long before the Protestants came along. A collection in which books were added and discarded along the way in the early centuries, and which was formalised in the face of the Protestant Reformation.

It was the Protestants who rejected the traditional NT, eg poor Martin Luther who, tormented by his conviction that no one was deserving of God's favour. In desperation, he 'discovered' a theology of grace in St Paul's Letter to the Romans, by which justification was an undeserved gift from God.

From then on Luther saw "justification by faith alone" everywhere and determined that 'good works' was an illusion and a waste of time, as something essentially rotten cannot do good. Trouble was, James absolutely insists that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation (after all, the demons believed Jesus was the Son of God, so they should be top of the list!).

So Luther famously declared James "that right strawey epistle", meaning its conclusions were vague and uncertain. But he did question its place in the Canon.

If you mean Catholics believe in the NT as Protestants do, then you can't say that as Protestants don't even agree among themselves. As a Catholic, I use the materials of N.T. Wright and J.D.G. Dunn (both Protestant), but I don't use Jesus Seminar stuff ...

Thomas
Ok, I never thought anybody would use the cart before the horse phrase on me. We have already established that the New Testament is gotten by the Protestants from the RC, unless the Protestants (as it is claimed) got it from God via a corrupted institution. The way you portray Luther as the leader of the reformation is interesting, but I do not know if it is realistic. How could he be responsible for so much trouble all by himself? I mean, a lot of people were quite ready to jump into the boat with him. I think it is already being discussed in another thread, so maybe I'll go back over that one.
 
Nativeastral, I'm trying to figure out how to categorize those two links in my bookmarks. Its a headache, thank you very much.
 
sorry about that, perhaps you can access this one Patriarchies

especially the Roman patrias potestas, the status of women in Roman times which was widespread throughout empire [though syncretised/adapted due to assimilation/marrying women from other cultures in the garrisons/hinterlands].

my point was just about inequality/dismissiveness in subaltern studies [the ones we dont hear about, since women didnt receive the same education etc and were considered inferior to men].
 
Hey, Bandit. I think that is a little bit harsh, especially to call it 'This bloody religion'. First of all, Christianity is a religion in which mystery plays a very big role, and not everything is as it seems. It is not intended to be a bloody religion.

You see problems, but you are just venting. I bet there are ways that you can make a difference, but uh not like that. Trouble is if you do not know anything about Catholics, then you really cannot know what the deal is. Is it Catholicism? Are you saying it is religion in general? It is like when I try to understand any religion I'm not familiar with. Just denouncing the religion, it just callouses people, causing protectionism. Think of it as yelling at your girlfriend on PMS day.

I know more than you give me credit for and that is ok because you don't know me, but thankyou for all those corrections. I did not spend 3 years in a catholic church as a paid musician and learn nothing and I do not have to explain that either. I was actually being very mild and it is a very bloody religion from where I am standing, intended or not. I never deonounced anything either. What I gave is my opinion as to how Wil sees it. You do not have to like my opinion that is fine, but it is not going to change either and it does not matter how much you/we talk about it. To me it IS a bloody religion and history confirms it.

I am not trying to make that different, it is what it is.
 
Ok, then I know very little about Catholics compared to you. I'm playing catch up on a lot of things. Could you give me some info about the "vital evidence of Matt 28:19 and Heb 5:7 and the last part of Mark being tampered with"? I have heard claims about Matt 28:19, but Heb 5:7 I have not heard about. Hebrews 5:7 is used by Protestant fundamentalist non-trins to support a Jesus who prayed to be saved from death as a sort of anti-trinity argument. Non trins of course reject everything non-literal, so this is a sort of king-of-conversation verse, depending upon whom you're talking to. Anyway, what were you saying?
 
That is my bad, not Hebrews.

It is 1 John 5:7,8. NOT Hebrews. It is not found in the early greek manuscripts. Someone dubbed extra stuff in. Then you find evidence of Matt 28:19 being recited completely different. And of course the end of Mark. Then when you follow the test of frequency on that thought pattern it does not exist anywhere else in the bible. This is why someone very important taught, let all things be established with more than one witness. Those scriptures fail all the tests.


Dream, you need to study this stuff for yourself and draw your own conclusions because I am not going to even begin a debate here or try to persuade people by linking. That is not my interest & rest assured I will clam up faster than a fly trap when someone starts that crap with me. I DONT CARE what people think about it because I do not have to answer for them or to them. You should also be aware that as you study, it will depend on which christian religion was trying to prove what dogma as to why that version got that way. Then compare all the versions and manuscripts available to the latin vulgate...that is where your date stamp is important.

As for Heb 5;7, I was not aware of that, so I just learned something and my mistake turned out ok, Nice.

In my adventure, I found Acts to be the purest of all 66 books. Good Luck! you are going to need it, it is a fun adventure.:)
 
Ok, I never thought anybody would use the cart before the horse phrase on me. We have already established that the New Testament is gotten by the Protestants from the RC, unless the Protestants (as it is claimed) got it from God via a corrupted institution. The way you portray Luther as the leader of the reformation is interesting, but I do not know if it is realistic. How could he be responsible for so much trouble all by himself? I mean, a lot of people were quite ready to jump into the boat with him. I think it is already being discussed in another thread, so maybe I'll go back over that one.

I actually found Luther to be a man ahead of his time and going in a better direction, not a troublemaker.
 
and not to ignore you, Dream, as it may appear. I do have seven house guests coming in from out of town tonight, including my brother & his wife to stay for a few days. That would be a good time for me to sign out of here as I do think I am pretty much done with this anyway.
 
I've just now read this article from the opening post. It seems overall to me like a positive move has been made. After going through the items listed, I get the gist of it I think. Still, they are really hard on a fundamentalist approach. Hopefully that does not mean the Church discourages taking a look from a fundamentalist perspective, because you can learn a lot that way.
 
I will extend that thought. It is a very positive move, and as Catholic members are encouraged to read Scripture as much as they are I'd say it is a move that Luther would have found hard to parry. Where is the Beast of Revelation that he proclaimed? Indeed, this does make it harder for the fundamentalist to rely upon the Bible alone.
 
I've just now read this article from the opening post. It seems overall to me like a positive move has been made. After going through the items listed, I get the gist of it I think. Still, they are really hard on a fundamentalist approach. Hopefully that does not mean the Church discourages taking a look from a fundamentalist perspective, because you can learn a lot that way.

I don't really like fundamentalism. I think it is a social problem, a bad habit, bad attitude and a bad exegetical position.

Although yes, there are some really nice people among the Fundie camp. But I would just rather that they were more natural in being who they presented themselves to be and "more human."

As for the rest of the Fundie camp . . .

. . . and before I continue, let me say this. We all have our different conceptualisations of fundamentalism, and you may say that what I describe as fundamentalism is just a straw man argument, but the phenomenon is what it is, and you will discover what I mean by "fundamentalism" as you read what I say.

What disturbs me about fundamentalism is that it is driven by slogans, banners and bumper stickers. It is a bunch of zealots and fanatics that have an inflexible way of thinking, whose words and ideas are always the same and who always chant the same slogans. They make heavy use of cliches and this cliche-saturated rhetoric just makes me cringe.

The Fundies who aren't nice people are divisive and demonise and vilify anything that is different to the way they think. They believe that anything that does not adhere to their core principles is a sign of disloyalty.

To the malign Fundies, anyone who doesn't believe as they do, the non-Fundies who are adherents of the same religion, have no respect for their religion. They believe they take their religion more seriously than the non-Fundies, which is offensive and insulting to the non-Fundies.

Anything that goes against what they have been taught, against ideas established in their respective communities comes from demons. They will debate anything except core principles. They are afraid to think outside the box.

Their beliefs aren't based on reasonableness. It's based on fear.

Christianity is about liberation and freedom. Fundies, however, especially the malign ones, are slaves of ideas established in their respective congregations, ideas that they believe are absolutely divine.

The "truth" for Fundies is that they don't have true liberation or freedom. Nor do I consider it to be true loyalty or respect for the Christian written tradition. I believe there are ways to be loyal and respectful of tradition even while changing one's way of thinking. Some things can change whereas other things can stay the same. Fundies aren't willing to change at all.

Fundies are a cynical group with conspiracy theories that anything that is unfavourable to their cause is evil, a source of evil or comes from the devil. They are quick to assume that bad things that happen are due to supernatural/cosmic and not human influences. It's not a very healthy mindset.
 
Fundamentalism = bad for you Salty? I don't mean people should take a bad approach, so thanks for pointing out what fundamentalism represents to lots of people. Ok, so lets scratch 'Fundamentalist' and instead use 'Dangerous'. Far be it from me to encourage people to be crazy or closed-minded as you are describing. I meant that I hope that people are not discouraged from using tools of study, just because those tools might be dangerous. Lots of things in life, such as fire, are dangerous, but they are also useful. This is, by the way, the most loudly voiced accusation that the Protestant churches have made against their Catholic heritage. I have personally been told by someone they they were forbidden, as a child in Italy, to read the Scriptures. I think my concern is related to that.
 
From Miisquoting Jesus:

Top Ten Verses that were not origionally in the New Teastament.

"were added by later scribes. These scribal additions were often found in medieval manuscripts but not in manuscripts of the earlier centuries."

1 John 5:7
John 5:4
John 8:7
John 8:11
Luke 22.44
Luke 22:20
Mark 16:17-18
Luke 24:12
Luke 24:51

Oh and that part about the adulteress at the well and doodling in the dirt and ye without sin casting the first stone...
 
So is fallacy the only point the thread could make? What about how will protestants deal with the information if its implications are fully brought to bear?
 
Back
Top