True enough, except that if a person holds all orthodox Christian beliefs, one would necessarily believe that Jesus was divine, and that He inspired the writers of the Gospels and the rest of the NT.
Also quite possibly true. The Catholic Church (although not Protestant denominations, or at least not most of them) believes that Tradition with a capital “T” has the same teaching authority as the Bible. **Bricker **puts this much better above.
The meanings of the words divine and inspired are not universally agreed-upon.
True enough. But orthodox Christians are in general agreement on the meaning of the word “divine” in this context, if not on the meaning of “inspired.”
Maybe because the people who hold them don’t happen to agree with you about the essentiality of those beliefs?
As it happens, I subscribe to the Virgin Birth: it’s universally taught by the two Scriptural references and all early writers alluding to it, contradicted by none, within God’s capabilities, fits with the theological stance of Christ, etc. But I can easily see how a Jesus conceived in the normal way could have been precisely what he historically and theologically was; I don’t see it as an essential belief.
(By the way, I have never seen Jack Spong’s (a personal acquaintance, by the way) name rendered as “Shelby Spong” without his first name “John” being also present except in mockery by those who would condemn him, usually because they misunderstand what he has to say.
You might also note that he is a retired bishop, with absolutely no authority even within ECUSA except the occasional right of the floor at House of Bishops’ meetings.
Absolutely. Peter Seebach, a personal friend and sometime Christian writer, so describes himself. His explanation? “I believe in [various doctrines of Christian orthodoxy, as relevant to the particular discussion]. But I don’t know them with the certitude with which I know that 2+2 equals four. It’s a matter of faith. So I’m an agnostic – a Christian agnostic.”
Someone else brought it up, I said I thought it was irrelevant. That’s all!
The reason I posted my question is because I am curious what other people think. Perhaps this was the wrong forum, but I figured it’d be moved here eventually
I’m really not interested in the official policy of a church. I want to hear what people think and believe, many times, people believe things in spite of what officials of their church say.
I’m not interested in attacking anyone or trying to convince them that they are wrong and why. I want to understand what makes people hold certain beliefs that to me seem baffling.
And that is why I asked. Maybe I didn’t frame my question well, but when I was attending church regularly and visited others when I was searching for a religion where I felt comfortable, you had to accept certain things like the virgin birth and resurrection. If he was just a regular guy and there was nothing ‘special’ about him, why is he so much more revered than say other god-men like Horus or philosophers like Plato or Aristotle?
Then what makes a Christian? Like you said, it is universally taught and is referenced in the Bible. This is the same problem I have with the vague term ‘spiritual’. It really doesn’t seem to mean anything other than what the individual wants it to. There is no framework behind it. I’m not saying they can’t believe the way they want, I just don’t understand it.
I meant no disrespect. I read some of his books probably back in the 80’s and really enjoyed his work. He helped me when I was searching and trying to figure out what I believed. He is one of those people I think would be interesting to talk to over dinner party some day. I honestly forgot his first name was John.
I really do not care that he is no longer is in a position of authority. I’m not interested in the official policies of a church. I am interested in what and why people think like they do and would like to understand them.
That’s not an easy question to answer (in a way that everyone would find satisfactory), and we’ve had whole long threads about it.
I will merely say that you seem to be assuming that a religion (or at least some religions, including Christianity) starts with its “holy book,” which defines and codifies what that religion consists of, and that the only options are to accept everything 100% as “literally true,” to pick and choose parts like a “cafeteria believer,” or to reject it outright.
Although there are plenty of people who seem to believe and preach this approach to scripture and religion, it is not the only possible approach nor is it the only one actually held by genuinely religious people.
I, for one, would say that Christianity begins with, is based on, and is defined by, not a Book but a Person (i.e. Jesus Christ).
My personal observation is that a lot(but not all) of Christianity is based on the life of Jesus, and the teachings of Paul.
I don’t understand why practicing a religion necessitates believing in scriptural inerrancy. I think describing religions as “faiths” is a bit misleading and Christian Protestant-centric (although I acknowledge that, for most English-speakers, the concept of religion is a Protestant one), but even so, who decided scriptural inerrancy was so important?
I suspect in America it was The Fundamentals in the early 20th century, but it doesn’t make sense to expand a conservative Christian Protestant doctrine out to all religions and then take them to task for not believing it.
Right.
Well, then here is a data point for you: I, personally, believe that the Bible is NOT intended to serve as the “fairly understandable, rational to people across the ages” guide to what God wants – that it can only be properly understood in the context of tradition, of the magisterium, the Church’s teaching authority.
OK?
I also have not found many Roman Catholic who believe otherwise. So your attempt to dodge this issue by disavowing interest in “official Church policy” is largely unavailing when it comes to Catholics.
Do you have any other questions to ask Catholics, or about Catholics?
this.
Christ did not dictate his teachings nor was the Christian bible written as a contiguous book. It is a compilation of various other “books” put together by men. The lack of dictation on Christ’s part imply that his message was so basic it did not require interpretation.
Man, on the other hand, seems compelled to seek meaning from images of toast.
Couldn’t it imply that the Dictaphone was broken? Or perhaps that after Pentecost, Pete decided to mail all the tapes and transcripts back to Nazareth for safekeeping, on account of the fuzz being on their tails, and everything got lost?
Something like that, anyway.
Your undoubtedly correct interpretation of Catholic (and your doctrine) in no way resolves the problem - or makes it a strawman. After all, in my understanding lay Catholics were not even supposed to read the Bible until the Reformation, correct?
I don’t think anyone claims that God wrote the Bible - inspired and/or dictated rather. But let us consider a god who wishes to communicate vitally important information to his people. If he mumbles (“blessed be the cheesemakers”) then the words are unreliable and the fault is his, which is impossible because he is god and without fault. If he spoke accurately and clearly, but the scribe did not accurately write the words, and God chose the wrong scribe, which is again his fault, which is impossible. Perhaps some non-inspired person snuck in a book that did not come even indirectly from God, but then God, through a Pope, should be able to state that the given book is false. I assume that the doctrine is that this was done in the Councils selecting the books that would make up the Bible, right? There are certainly parts which are confusing or clearly stories, but much of the current debate is on very clear directives. Of course a deity should be able to dictate things which are clear, since He is not bound by the knowledge of the time, or he can issue a third edition. (Fourth if you are a Mormon, I suppose.)
That we talk about which parts to follow can mean, if you assume a perfect God, that God does not care if the Bible is accurate. Perhaps if there is a god he care more about us making our own moral choices than following the words of a clearly flawed book (or a clearly flawed church hierarchy).
So you see the problem of a perfect God inspiring an imperfect book is not a strawman at all, but has significant consequences.
The dictaphone was his disciples and there is no evidence that they were tasked with recording his words.
Why would they need to? Jesus was coming back soon, after all. There’s no need to write a book when the primary source has merely stepped out for a brief trip to the john.
Either you didn’t realize I was joking, or I can’t tell when you are.
Not correct.
There were a couple of occasions during the Medieval period where specific bishops prohibited the translation of the bible into the local language of recent converts for fear that the translations would corrupt the word prior to the general education of the populace in Christianity.
Later, during the Albigensian heresy and crusade around 1230, two synods of bishops in Southern France, (and only there, for that period), ordered that the laity not be permitted to have copies of scripture in reaction to the ideas promulagated by the Albigensians based on translations into the vernacular. Just after 1400, an edict was posted in England, following the uproar with the Lollards that only officially approved translations of scripture could be created in the vernacular.
It was not until the Reformation occurred, during the Renaissance, that the church, upset by the ways that Luther, Calvin, and others read scripture, issued rules, beginning in 1564, that “learned” men had to have the permission of the bishop to read vernacular editions. (Anyone who could read Latin was always permitted to read the bible in that tongue.) Various edicts continued this practice until 1836, when it was decided that as long as the translation was one approved by the church, anyone could read it.
So, for a bit under 300 years, the laity had to get permission to read translations into their own languages and it has been almost 175 years since that rule was removed.
The bible although divinely inspired was written by scribes in Greek and then converted several times. Jesus didn’t write it so it is not perfect. Or was it converted to Greek and then English?
I collect old books and tried reading one from the 1700’s. I had a really hard time following it with all the obscure words that they used. Still the bible has so much wisdom in it.
I am in a couple of bible studies right now and we use a NAB bible which is a bit easier to read. I really enjoy struggling with the rest of the group to find the deeper meaning in the texts. Most of us are in our 40’s-60s and some as old as 80. We laugh a lot and share and it is fun. I don’t remember one argument in all the time I have been going.
In my 40’s I started to realize that life is more then money, power and prestige. I became disabled and started volunteering and getting more involved in charities. I also wanted to tackle the bible and try and get through it before I die. So far I have met some goals and learned some new things about myself. Got rid of some things that needed to go.That what doesn’t grow goes!
I can’t believe I was finally able to forgive everyone and anything that I held a resentment against. I had to humble myself to do it but it was worth it. Today I wear the world as a loose garment and don’t have the need to wet nurse every resentment I ever had. That was God not me. Nobody loved holding a grudge more then I did.
Czar- I’m reading a daily reflections on Saint Paul right now. This is the year of Saint Paul in my faith. Yes, I am trying to learn to live in a way that would be pleasing to Jesus. I have a long way to go but am loving the ride.
Thanks for not flaming me for being such a buffoon. I’m surprised someone didn’t tell me to get off the cross someone might need the wood!
*Also is their a way to edit on SD? I often won’t notice a spelling error until I have posted. I try and use spell check. I did graduate HS in 1980 but was never a great at spelling or grammar as some on here are.
Pax~
You get five minutes. I use it a lot.
Thanks. That is far more recent than I thought. Before that, having it available only in Latin was very close to not having it available at all, though with the close connection of the schools and the church, I suspect anyone who could read Latin was properly trained.