I don't understand Cathodox when they claim we need some magisterium of tradition with councils and fathers to decide which books belong in the Bible That's just false, we don't need anything else but our common faith. Christians throughout the centuries, whether orthodox or heretic, tended to hold these books in common with one another, and Christians today all agree on these books. Why do I believe that Hosea is inspired? Not because I need some tyrannical magisterium headed by one guy to tell me what is inspired, but because my Lutheran Church says so because we all agree so in our common faith, along with Methodists, and along with Anglicans, and of course with Cathodox Bibles which contain all the books we agree are inspired (and others which are questionable). We believe the Holy Spirit has inspired the canon itself to the extent that the knowledge of it is known in the genuine Christian community which we are a part of through our baptisms.
I don't understand Cathodox when they claim we need some magisterium of tradition with councils and fathers to decide...
Other urls found in this thread:
tektonics.org
archive.org
quod.lib.umich.edu
sixteenthcenturyscholars.wordpress.com
newadvent.org
archive.org
twitter.com
Cathodox don't believe in scriptural inspiration or authority
And those books were declared canon by the Church and councils. Otherwise you would have "gospel" of "thomas" and "apocalypse" of "peter" or books of Enoch with half-bred giants.
And my community of faith, the Lutherans, reject the books of Enoch, Thomas, etc. Why? Not because some silly council but because my pastors says so, my teachers say so, my god parents say so, my community says so. We all agree.
Following this logic, you should consider the deuterocanon to be inspired, no?
Unless you think that a bunch of reformers in Western Europe in the 16th century have the same authority as the 15 centuries of shared faith that came before them.
This is blatantly false. The Divine Liturgy quotes the OT 94 times and the NT 114 times and the Evangelion is treated as an icon of Christ. This alone should make you acknowledge that you're wrong.
No because my community of faith, my Lutheran faith, says those books are not inspired but useful.
If we were in the 14th century however, not one church would claim this. Or did the Body of Christ changes its doctrine over time? Then how can you even claim with confidence that you belong to the same religion that most pre-Reformation Christians did?
And if we consider that the minimum that we agree on is our shared faith, why not extend this to Gnostics and say that only the NT is inspired? Why not extend this to Mormons and Muslims and say that Jesus was a guy and God is one?
...
By your logic, why do you need a community to decide which books are inspired and which aren't?
Because that is what God organized.
But what happens when two communities teach something contradictory about it? Can they both be right? If not, do we keep to the minimum that's agreed on? If that's not the case too, then you must face the reality that only one of these two communities is led and organized by God, and we're back to square zero.
Wrong.
We had apocrypha, some inspired books were in some early Bibles, and even stuff like Hebrews(in the West) and Revelations(in the West) were rejected at times.
Queue apostolics and protestants losing their shit over deuterocanonicals.
That's purely subjective. If I, and a group of fellow believers, came together and said we believe that Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelion of James, and 1st Clement are all, in fact, inspired Scripture, as other Christians have claimed in the past? On what grounds can you say that we are right or wrong? Even today, the Ethiopian monophysites consider Enoch to be inspired scripture. What gives you the knowledge of whether they are correct or incorrect?
First of all that's pride OP. You're assuming your small 21st century protestant community knows the faith better than those saints and church fathers who went out and founded Christianity.
Second there is a high risk of heresy. You are resting your immortal soul on fallible, modern Pastor X and not true Christianity as clarified by the 8 ecumenical councils.
Begome Orthodox.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy, sorry bro U just got logic'd *tips fedora*
man, it's 2019 and Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox denominations still can't agree.
8 ecumenical councils?
Except we don't because you cut out the Apocrypha since it didn't line up with your heresies.
The Lutheran church does affirm the first seven councils buddy
What did Luther mean by this? 🤔
Look at how many Protestant denominations there are and you'll know the answer.
What did he mean by this?
pretty sure this is fake
Its not if the encyclopedia britannica (14th edition though, not the cucked one) is a source for information on this.
They don't
Even if we take the Encyclopedia Britannica as a reliable source, have you confirmed with your own eyes that it is in fact in the Encyclopedia Britannica? This blogger says it's not.
It is on page 127 of Vol. 19.
Also where is the source for your pic?
LOL. I even went through the trouble of looking it up. Please show us where on page 27 this supposed quote is given. And please recall this embarassing incident to your mind the next time you feel compelled to spread lies and falsehoods.
archive.org
Just turn 100 pages over to page 127. It's on the second column near the top.
My apologies. I misread your post. You are correct.
In any event, the quote still sounds like a fake quote. The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't offer any citation for the quote, and the explanation that it ultimately traces back to John Bale sounds more likely.
Actually, if you want to look further into the authenticity of the quote, a good line of inquiry would be to look into other languages. If it were authentic, I would suspect the original version were Latin. If not in Latin, does this same quote exist in other languages? If it's only in English, that points toward an English origin (like John Bale). If the English quote were a translation of a Latin quote, I would suspect that "profit" stands for "lucrum" and "fable" for "fabula", though I didn't find any results searching for "Leo lucrum fabula".
After doing some more searchinf, here's the supposed Latin original.
I'm just interested to know where you got your picture from actually. I'm not even Lutheran.
With regard to the primary source of the Britannica, it seems interesting that despite no other known primary source connecting the EB quote from one satire written by John Bale many centuries earlier, it seems unlikely that two independent sources would independentally of one another attribute similar quotes to the same exact person, while yet clearly neither is copying from the other. It seems unlikely that a John Bale-original quote would exist all by itself and make its way by word of mouth or through lost sources to the Encyclopedia Britannica. The existing evidence I'm aware of almost seems to me to suggest like there had to be a real quotation behind both known instances. Nothing else would explain how John Bale's quote somehow by itself survived that long and by itself inspired the EB version, even with no known written sources along the way. Yet if it was the real source that was directly used by the EB quote, why are the two so grammatically different. I'd be interested to find other sources predating the encyclopedia to help confirm or refute this idea, yet at the same time I realize finding such evidence if it exists would also generally serve to further establish this.
But anyway, you can just discard the encyclopedia. That's ok, I'll accept it if you do. I'd rather like to know what source was for your pic because it would be useful for me to know this.
For anyone who might be curious, he's the original passage from Bale.
quod.lib.umich.edu
It looks like Bale's first edition of this was in Latin, titled "Acta Romanorum Pontificum." This was itself extracted from an earlier work of Bale, his "Catalogus."
sixteenthcenturyscholars.wordpress.com
It's hard to say what was popular roughly a century ago. The Catholic Encyclopedia, which was published earlier (1910 versus 1929), goes through the trouble of refuting the quote. But then again, the EB Renaissance article may have had the same quote in an earlier EB edition.
newadvent.org
Regarding Luther, the picture I posted earlier was a table of contents from an edition of his German New Testament translation published during his lifetime. The interesting thing there is he clearly separates four books (Hebrews, James, Jude and Revalation) from the rest and doesn't assign them numbers. But Luther explained his thinking about those books further in his prefaces. I found a scan of the full thing for you if you're curious.
archive.org
Back to Bale, the "16th Century Scholars" blogger, who presumably is knowlegable about John Bale, says that his works should be taken as a mixture of myth and fact (which I'm assuming was an understood feature of the polical genre Bale was writing in during that time).
Why should it be a good source? What source does the encyclopedia brittanica cite? An encyclopedia is only as good as it's sources, afterall.