ok, something i thought about the other day is that:

1. Some people view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and believe that it logically follows that the scripture is perfect in every way.

2. Most of these people (with the exception of a few fringe extremists) view Catholicism as a viable (albeit sometimes weird) form of Christianity.

3. Catholics have a different Bible. It contains a few books that the Protestant Bible does not (the so-called Apocrypha).


How can you be an inerrist, yet still view Catholics as Christians? It seems to me that if you're going to view Catholics as Christians, you would believe that God wouldn't lead such a large number of his followers astray by letting them have the wrong Bible...yet if you are an inerrist, you don't believe that Man just picked and chose the books he wanted to include in the Bible. you believe that it was divinely appointed or whatever.

obviously this would work in the opposite way from the viewpoint of a Catholic inerrist. I just think of Protestants when I think of Biblical inerrancy.

8/22/2005 12:58:07 PM

well, considering that the catholics were first...wouldnt the protestant bible be the one that was actually "changed"?

Quote :

"Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading. "

i say this because the protestants "dropped" those sections from the bible....so they were the ones that actually changed what was accepted as the "standard bible"



[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:15 PM. Reason : hg]

8/22/2005 1:09:24 PM

err, i don't remember enough about the history of the apocrypha to say whether or not the catholic version of the bible was first, but it was certainly before the protestant bible (unless the protestant bible is just a return to what was used before the apocrypha were added, if they weren't part of the "original" bible).

either way, it doesn't matter. it works both ways. i just wrote it from a protestant perspective, because, well, i'm protestant, and i'd wager that the majority of biblical inerrists are protestant.

^well there you go...but it still doesn't make any difference. and sorry, i couldn't remember the catholic term for those books.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:18 PM. Reason : asfdads]

8/22/2005 1:15:34 PM

Quote :

"well there you go...but it still doesn't make any difference. "

sure it does....the protestant movement started with people in the catholic church who were unhappy, so they broke away and started their own religion. in the process, they decided to drop parts of the bible that they didnt agree with.

i think its hard to argue that catholics are the ones who arent christians when the protestants were the ones who left and essentially "changed" the bible. it seems that if you are going to argue that one side is more christian then the other (due to altering the bible), then the catholics would win.

i personally dont think that either one is more "christian" then the other....i dont agree with really what you are saying, but if you think about it, the protestants (in simple terms) took the bible and changed it.



[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:29 PM. Reason : d]

8/22/2005 1:22:52 PM

you're not arguing the same thing as i am, but i don't really know how to explain it in any clearer terms. maybe someone else will come along and re-phrase what i'm getting at in a different way.


maybe it'll help to look at it this way:

How could you be a Catholic Biblical inerrist, yet still view Protestants as Christians?

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:31 PM. Reason : that's why i say that it doesn't matter for the point I'M arguing]

8/22/2005 1:27:47 PM

as a side note, i dont believe that the bible is free of error. it may be the word of God, but it was written by humans....which makes me have a hard time believing that its free of errors.


[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:32 PM. Reason : l;]

8/22/2005 1:29:27 PM

but i'm not arguing that, either. neither am i arguing when the bible should be interpreted literally.

read the original post again carefully. i really don't know how to make the point any differently.

8/22/2005 1:32:23 PM

Quote :

"How could you be a Catholic Biblical inerrist, yet still view Protestants as Christians? "

i see your point now.....and im not a inerrist, so i dont agree with that statement

BUT....

i honestly dont see how a someone can be a Protestant Biblical inerrist, when the protestant bible was formed by people taking the bible, and then leaving out parts. i can understand where a Catholic Biblical inerrist is coming from, but not a Protestant Biblical inerrist.

Quote :

"but i'm not arguing that, either"

from my understaning, a biblican inerrist is someone who believes that bible is free from error.

Quote :

"Inerrancy refers to text is considered accurate, truthful, reliable, totally free of error, without mistake and absolutely authoritative. "

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:36 PM. Reason : df]

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:38 PM. Reason : df]

8/22/2005 1:35:09 PM

i can see where both of them are coming from...

i just don't see how an inerrist from either side could accept the other side while holding to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Quote :

"from my understaning, a biblican inerrist is someone who believes that bible is free from error. "

yeah, pretty much...i'm just saying that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is NOT what i'm arguing, here. that's another argument for another day.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:40 PM. Reason : asdfads]

8/22/2005 1:38:18 PM

What unites Christians are the writings contained in the New Testament. I don't think it's so crucial that the Protestants chose to disgard parts of the OT.

8/22/2005 1:39:03 PM

Quote :

"i can see where both of them are coming from... "

..so if someone believe that the bible was the acual, literal word of God, how can they just leave out sections?


[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:41 PM. Reason : g]

8/22/2005 1:39:53 PM

from what i've heard...catholics veiw the Apocrypha as being a "secondary canon" and don't typically teach a whole lot out of them. I could be wrong though. I've got Catholic friends who have never heard of any of those books before.

I also think that nowadays...Catholics and Protestants are trying to focus on the things they have in common...rather than differences

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/22/2005 1:41:54 PM

Quote :

"What unites Christians are the writings contained in the New Testament. "

true...i didnt even think of that. that answers your question Duke.

8/22/2005 1:41:58 PM

Quote :

"..so if someone believe that the bible was the acual, literal word of God, how can they just leave out sections? "

because they believe that THEIR version of the Bible is the actual (and some believe always literal) Word Of God. that's the whole argument over the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical texts. it's debated whether or not those 7 books are, uhh, endorsed by God, for lack of a better term.

I can see where that debate comes from. I can see how people hold to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy of their respective "accepted" versions of the Bible. What I DON'T get is how an inerrist from one "side" can view the other "side" as a viable form of Christianity, when they don't use the same Bible. Again, they would have to believe that God allowed an ERRANT version of his Word to be disseminated to his followers, which is in direct contradiction to the foundation of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

Quote :

"What unites Christians are the writings contained in the New Testament. I don't think it's so crucial that the Protestants chose to disgard parts of the OT. "

a good point, but again...they would have to believe that God allowed an ERRANT version of his Word to be disseminated to his followers, which is in direct contradiction to the foundation of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

8/22/2005 1:47:28 PM

so i think what you are getting at is that Biblical inerrists, no matter what side they are on, are full of shit.

8/22/2005 1:50:16 PM

unless they're willing to view the "other side" as non-Christians, condemned to an eternity in Hell.

that's the only way I can see how the inerrancy doctrine could work. Maybe someone will have an explanation I haven't thought of. i THINK that GrumpyGOP is an inerrist, but I'm not sure about that.

8/22/2005 1:53:57 PM

A lot of Protestant churches believe that Catholics aren't Christians. A lot of Catholics believe that Protestants aren't Christians. (especially before Vatican II)

I also think that when most Christians speak of scriptural inerrancy...they are referring to the actual text...not the accepted canon of Scripture.

We know Protestants disagree with the canon...thats part of the "protest" in "Protestant". However, I think most Protestants and Catholics agree that their scripture is both divinely inspired and inerrant. They simply disagree on which books to place in that list of holy canon.

8/22/2005 1:54:23 PM

On a side note, does the dropping of the Apocrypha really make much of a theological difference? If I remember, most of the theological conflicts that occur between Catholics and mainstream Protestant groups are not over scripture from the Apocrypha but from books that both still accept as canon.

As for the value of the Apocrypha, a Protestant pastor told me that even when you drop it from the Bible, the fundimental message of scripture doesn't change. He also pointed out that all the books of the Apocrypha are Old Testament texts; none of the conflicts come from New Testament books. These books also fall in that period between the traditional Protestant Old Testament and New Testament. Protestants disagree with Catholics that these books are God-inspired. From what I gather, they've been controversial even before the Protestant movement.

8/22/2005 1:55:23 PM

i dont know enough about biblical inerrancy to really comment on how they would interperet things like that.

i do find the whole notion of biblical inerrancy to be pretty silly though.

8/22/2005 1:56:02 PM

Quote :

"We know Protestants disagree with the canon...thats part of the "protest" in "Protestant". However, I think most Protestants and Catholics agree that their scripture is both divinely inspired and inerrant. They simply disagree on which books to place in that list of holy canon."

Again, it needs to be said that the books in question are not "core" books for Christian fundimentals; Catholics, Orthodox, and mainstream Protestant denominations are all in agreement with the New Testament and the vast bulk of the Old Testament. These are simply a small number of books that while adding some details, do not make any real changes to the overall message.

8/22/2005 1:58:36 PM

Quote :

"A lot of Protestant churches believe that Catholics aren't Christians. A lot of Catholics believe that Protestants aren't Christians. (especially before Vatican II) "

yeah, they're out there on both sides, but i think those factions are a pretty slim minority.

Quote :

"I also think that when most Christians speak of scriptural inerrancy...they are referring to the actual text...not the accepted canon of Scripture....They simply disagree on which books to place in that list of holy canon. "

I don't see how you can possibly seperate the selection of the Canon from the doctrine of inerrancy.

Quote :

"On a side note, does the dropping of the Apocrypha really make much of a theological difference? "

well, as per the whole premise of my argument here, it makes a HUGE difference if you're an inerrist!

and your views on that particular subject, i believe, indirectly affect everything. I mean, if you don't hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, then you acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is right. THEN, how do you know what's important and what's not?

8/22/2005 2:03:09 PM

Quote :

"I mean, if you don't hold to the doctrine of inerrancy, then you acknowledge that not everything in the Bible is right. THEN, how do you know what's important and what's not? "

if thats the case, then how can you claim to follow a faith and NOT be an inerrist?

8/22/2005 2:08:23 PM

From the Catholic vantage:

The Bible is inerrant. However, remember that with the exception of the Pope, man is not infallible. (And the Pope is only infallible in certain circumstances when he exercises that charism) And God allows us free will, to choose sin or to choose Him. Therefore, it is not outside the realm of possibility that fallible man (Martin Luther, among others) made the decision to cut certain books out of the Bible because they did not suit his philosophies. That does not take away from the inerrancy of the Bible, it simply means that certain people choose not to look at some parts of the Bible.

8/22/2005 2:15:39 PM

Critical distinction: While Catholics do believe that the Bible is completely inerrant, we do not believe that it is the completeness of divine revelation. That is why we have a Magisterium, the Pope and the Bishops united with him.

8/22/2005 4:16:02 PM

^ good distinction.

8/22/2005 4:26:13 PM

Quote :

"i THINK that GrumpyGOP is an inerrist, but I'm not sure about that."

Close enough.

The Bible isn't wrong. Of course, in order to find out what the Bible actually says sometimes you have to look at a lot of different versions and translations and determine what they have in common is. With that I think you're pretty sure to get something that is true -- you just might have lost some of the other true things in the translation, as it were.

And as was said, just because the Bible the truth doesn't mean it's the whole truth, you know? Obviously some fairly important shit didn't get laid out in there too clear.

Anywho...the Orthodox have the Apocrypha as well, unless I've really confused myself, but that doesn't make me view Protestants as nonchristians. Every individual is wrong about plenty of things, even if the Bible isn't, so just because a bunch of people are wrong in an organized and dogmatic fashion doesn't necessarily exclude them from Christianity.

8/22/2005 4:38:57 PM

anyone who excepts Christ as the Messiah and their personal lord and savior is a Christian

the rest is just details

8/22/2005 4:40:41 PM

^i concur

which is why i have a hard time justifying the inerrist view of things.


but then, like i said before, if you don't take that view of things, it makes it a real bitch to figure things out.

8/22/2005 5:16:19 PM

Quote :

"i concur which is why i have a hard time justifying the inerrist view of things."

I don't see how the two are inconsistent. What gives you a hard time in justifying the inerrist view?

8/22/2005 5:56:07 PM

well, are you following me up through the part about how the inerrist viewpoint seems incompatible with Protestants viewing Catholics as Christians (and vice-versa, although maybe to a SLIGHTLY lesser extent in light of your statement about "it simply means that certain people choose not to look at some parts of the Bible.")?

i think you're tracking up through that part, right?

well, if you agree with AxlBonBach's statement (i do), and you are of the opinion that i am (unless someone sways my opinion) in terms of the premise of this thread, do you not see how that makes a conflict with the idea of inerrancy?

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 11:00 PM. Reason : asddfadsfas]

8/22/2005 10:53:41 PM

The definition of "Christian" is pretty broad. Do you believe in and worship Jesus as He is basically described in the Bible? Yeah? OK, that pretty much covers it. Within that, of course, it is possible to be a "wrong" or "right" Christian when it comes to certain issues, some of which may be rather large and important, but which still don't quite overshadow the whole "believing-in-Jesus" part.

8/23/2005 8:35:46 PM

right, right, certainly there are issues that aren't really central to Christianity. I'm not trying to argue that either Protestants or Catholics aren't legitimate Christians. I think that's asinine.

I'm saying that, with that in mind, I find it hard to take an inerrist view of things.

8/23/2005 11:05:34 PM

Quote :

"Some people view the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and believe that it logically follows that the scripture is perfect in every way."

Quote :

"well, considering that the catholics were first...wouldnt the protestant bible be the one that was actually "changed"?"

Inspired is the key word, I suppose the protestants believe god inspired the drop

8/23/2005 11:08:11 PM

of course, but then isn't it a little bit of a stretch to think that God would give half of his followers the wrong Bible?

8/23/2005 11:15:51 PM

No more of a stretch than the original assumption that he leaves most of humanity in the dark

8/23/2005 11:21:00 PM

Quote :

"well, if you agree with AxlBonBach's statement (i do), and you are of the opinion that i am (unless someone sways my opinion) in terms of the premise of this thread, do you not see how that makes a conflict with the idea of inerrancy? "

Well from the Catholic perspective, Protestants do not look at all of divine revelation. (Of course, divine revelation includes the teachings of the infallible Magisterium also). But that does not take away from the fact that all divine revelation is inerrant, it just means that Protestants choose for their own reasons not to consider all of divine revelation.

And from the Protestant perspective, Catholics look at things such as the so-called "Apocrypha" and Magisterium in addition to what Protestants consider to be "divine revelation". Again, that does not take away from the inerrancy of "divine revelation" from the Protestant standpoint, it just means that they think we are looking at more than we should.

It's a matter of "you're looking too broadly and your sight is over-inclusive" versus "you're looking too narrowly and your sight is under-inclusive". In either case, the parts that we do agree on are inerrant.

8/27/2005 7:02:50 PM

I'm just going to say that I REALLY hope the bible has some mistakes or exaggerations created by man in it.

If not, god is SCARY

8/27/2005 7:14:58 PM

umm jesus is really an old egytian god guys.....sorry

8/27/2005 7:56:03 PM

Quote :

"well, considering that the catholics were first...wouldnt the protestant bible be the one that was actually "changed"?"

Sober won this thread.

8/27/2005 9:16:01 PM

bttt

5/7/2006 11:49:01 PM

Many of the stories Jesus is accredited with are copies from supernatural beings in older religions. Hercules has the same problem, as a popular figure he was tacked on to countless stories that he didn't really belong in just b/c he was the son of god like his getting stuck in the story of the Argonauts with Jason & Medea and all that.

Water to wine tricks, Moses stories, great floods, the fall of man, women causing the fall(your eve/Pandora type), immaculate conceptions, serpent/goatmen evil beings, and many more were common place before Christianity came around, plenty copied from Apollo (halos & crown of thorns & other pictorial devices were straight up copied to depict Jesus, I think that’s why the Vatican holds on to so much Apollo stuff) and to a lesser extend Dionysus, and from Zoroastrianism… although I guess you can go the same route as with the dinosaur bones… those earlier copies of Jesus stories are just there to test our faith.

Christianity has as many supernatural creatures as any polytheistic religion with its god, its host of angels/intelligences, its half god/half man, mortals, differently ranked demons/fallen angels, & the devil.

Although with older religions we just look at the as stories that reflect something on the society. Water to wine tricks show societies value on being able to preserve juices since lots of food was perishable back then. Other stories reflect migrations of peoples and languages that we can pretty much confirm were natural things rather than supernatural things based on the movement of art styles in the pottery/statues, tablets, writing, & other evidence.

If you are going to accept the supernatural, then just assume it’s all inspired by God & he gives each group of Christians what they need/what they can bear, and everyone can get along. There’s nothing wrong with being religious, but you should use it to stop fights, not to start them.

5/8/2006 12:21:05 AM

that really has little or nothing to do with my question, though.

5/8/2006 12:33:32 AM

1) my point was that if people can ignore all those other problems, they should be able to ignore that people are using different bibles. 2) or assume the god gives each group what they need in their own bible through his inspiration.

"How can you be an inerrist, yet still view Catholics as Christians?"
my 1st sentence was just a general point about religious differences in a thread on religious differences saying that religion ignores so many issues, that there's no point in fighting over the ones it doesn't ignore.

"that really has little or nothing to do with my question, though."
But i'm pretty sure my 2nd sentence here (repeating an idea from my last post) is one way someone could call themselves an inerrist & still believe both protestants & catholics are christians.

5/8/2006 12:44:48 AM

Quote :

"although I guess you can go the same route as with the dinosaur bones… those earlier copies of Jesus stories are just there to test our faith."

That isn't the tack most Christians would take, I think.

If there really was a great flood, it stands to reason that it would be referenced in other stories and religions as well, since an event of such magnitude would surely be passed down and remembered even after people started splitting off and worshipping differently. Ditto most of the other similarities. To a certain mindset, seeing the same things recurring in several stories in several cultures would serve only to reinforce the likelihood that those things had a reasonably strong basis in reality.

Certain aspects of the Jesus story are a little bit trickier, since presumably they would not have happened up until the time of Christ's actual appearance on Earth. Still, though, you won't find a lot of people saying, "Oh, those are just to test us," but rather that certain elements of the story are ingrained in all humanity and would thus be liable to show up in one form or another in various places.

Exactly why God would see fit to pre-program every human being with concepts about resurrections and sons of god, I can't say. Possibly to make it more palatable to us when it actually happened, possibly for some incredibly obscure reason that I simply don't have any inkling of.

5/8/2006 1:38:34 AM

Hey, a good story's a good story.

Odin on the world tree, the J-Man on the cross, it's fucking DRAMA. People love that.

5/8/2006 1:45:02 AM

to All You People Here:

"inerrist" is not a word, nor is it a theological stance.

try: "biblical literalist" ... or you can speak of a belief in "biblical inerrancy"

but "inerrist" just sounds like you dont know what you're talking about




[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 1:53 AM. Reason : ]

5/8/2006 1:46:53 AM

"To a certain mindset, seeing the same things recurring in several stories in several cultures would serve only to reinforce the likelihood that those things had a reasonably strong basis in reality."

So if the repetition of stock character/story types in Christianity adds to legitimacy, then Christianity’s recycling of several stories also adds legitimacy to any other religion that uses the stories before or after Christianity came about. But if other religions are starting to become legitimate then there are a lot worse problems than trying to figure out whether it’s the Catholics or Protestants are right.

“Exactly why God would see fit to pre-program every human being with concepts about resurrections and sons of god, I can't say.”

It doesn’t take a lot of pre-programming to come up to come up with Hercules… he’s just superman without the laser eyes or flying. The underworld being thought of more as a physical location rather than a spiritual one allowed half god/half mortals to travel there & travel back so all the major demi-gods do it. Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Aeneas etc… stock type long before Jesus. The more modern people think of death as spiritual rather than physical the more amazing resurrection seems. Even the medieval theologians, such as Aquinas I believe, had the belief that you take your physical body to the afterlife.

5/8/2006 8:31:55 AM

Quote :

"of course, but then isn't it a little bit of a stretch to think that God would give half of his followers the wrong Bible?"

I'm not so sure the protestants think that God gave half of his followers the wrong Bible. I'd say that in their minds God gave them additional inspiration for them to follow and half of his followers chose not to accept that additional inspiration.

I'd also say that this is the reason a protestant is a protestant. If they felt like the Catholic church was guided by inspired leaders and they wanted to be a part of God's church then there wouldn't be any protestant churches.

I'd say that division into various sects in Christianity is maintained because each sect believes that it adheres more to the truth that the others. I don't think that the majority of people that hold to their particular sect do so believing that God has given one set of revelation to their sect and different set to another. They believe that they are they only true church - - otherwise there wouldn't be an incentive to belong to their particular sect.

It doesn't come down to Christians thinking that God is handing out different sets of truths to different sects of Christianity. I'd say that it comes down to each sect believing that their brand of Christianity is following God more closely that the others.

[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 9:13 AM. Reason : d]

5/8/2006 9:10:41 AM

If you believe that the Bible is 100% literal fact, you're so removed from reality that you really aren't even going to seriously consider this stuff.



[Edited on May 8, 2006 at 9:30 AM. Reason : .]

5/8/2006 9:21:14 AM

I'm not sure he's trying to capture Biblical Literalists in his definition. Do you necessarily mean people who think it is literally true?

5/8/2006 11:15:36 AM