/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>792428

Cathodox don't believe in scriptural inspiration or authority

>>792428

>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

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.

>>792430

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.

>>792428

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.

>>792429

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.

>>792433

No because my community of faith, my Lutheran faith, says those books are not inspired but useful.

>>792434

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?

>>792438

>>792436

>>792436

>>792431

By your logic, why do you need a community to decide which books are inspired and which aren't?

>>792441

Because that is what God organized.

>>792442

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.

>>792428

>Christians throughout the centuries, whether orthodox or heretic, tended to hold these books in common with one another

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.

>and Christians today all agree on these books.

Queue apostolics and protestants losing their shit over deuterocanonicals.

>>792428

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?

>>792428

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.

>>792615

8 ecumenical councils?

>>792428

>because we all agree so in our common faith

Except we don't because you cut out the Apocrypha since it didn't line up with your heresies.

>>792428

>>792431

>>792436

The Lutheran church does affirm the first seven councils buddy

>>792428

Look at how many Protestant denominations there are and you'll know the answer.

>>795214

pretty sure this is fake

>>795216

Its not if the encyclopedia britannica (14th edition though, not the cucked one) is a source for information on this.

>>792704

They don't

>>795214

>>795216

>>795233

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.

>Warning three: A small number of sites (many fewer, though, since I first wrote this article years ago) do give a citation, which looks like this:

>(Encyc. Brit., 14th Ed. Xix, pg. 217).

>No one, however, actually picked up a 14th Ed. Of Britannica and found this quote. Britannica's 14th edition was printed from 1929-1973. I had photocopies made, with the help of an alert reader in the UK, of the page where this quote is supposed to be (14th edition, Vol. 19) and it does not contain the article on Leo X, which is actually instead in Vol. 13. Vol. 19 is from "Raynal to Sarreguemines" and p. 217 is the middle of an article on Respiration. Nice pictures of a pigeon's lungs and a goat's branchiole, but no Leo.

>The actual Leo article from pp. 926-7 of Vol. 13 says a lot about Leo's lackadaisical attitude towards spending, but has no mention of the "fable" quote either way.

>As an added note, the 15th edition of Britannica, which I have access to, does not say anything about this quote in its article on Leo, and I have received a copy – from an associate in a New Zealand library – of the 11th edition article, which also lacks the quote. Britannica does not know about this quote at all.

http://tektonics.org/lp/popeleox.php

>>795235

It is on page 127 of Vol. 19.

>>795235

Also where is the source for your pic?

>>795240

Just turn 100 pages over to page 127. It's on the second column near the top.

>>795245

>>795241

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".

>>795249

After doing some more searchinf, here's the supposed Latin original.

>quantum nobis notrisque hace fabula de Christo profuerit notum est

>>795245

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.

>At ban∣queting he delighted greatly in wine and musike: but had no care of preaching the Gospell, nay was rather a cruell persecutour of those that began then, as Luther and other to reueale the light thereof: for on a time when cardinall Bembus did moue a question out of the Gospell, the Pope gaue him a very contemptuouse aunswere saiyng: All ages can testifie enough howe profitable that fable of Christe hath ben to vs and our companie:

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A02895.0001.001/1:41.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

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."

https://sixteenthcenturyscholars.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/john-bale/

>>795255

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.

>His piety cannot truly be described as deep or spiritual, but that does not justify the continued repetition of his alleged remark: "How much we and our family have profited by the legend of Christ, is sufficiently evident to all ages." John Bale, the apostate English Carmelite, the first to give currency to these words in the time of Queen Elizabeth, was not even a contemporary of Leo. Among the many sayings of Leo X that have come down to us, there is not one of a sceptical nature. In his private life he preserved as pope the irreproachable reputation that he had borne when a cardinal. His character shows a remarkable mingling of good and bad traits.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

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.

https://archive.org/details/DasNeweTestamentDeutzsch1522/page/n19

>>795255

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).

>Bale helped to shape the English reformation on various levels but, also, helped to create the myth of protestant suffering and victory. As in his own autobiographical accounts Bale’s works carry a certain mythological and fictive element to them. Indeed, Lesley P. Fairfield, one of Bale’s many modern biographers called Bale ‘mythmaker for the English Reformation’. Such a title for a biography at once gets to the crux of Bale and offers us a warning not to examine him and his work without a significant amount of caution.

>>795233

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.