Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[astra]

I am signing off from this silly topic.
Have fun!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I totally fail to see the connexion between the reformation and a humanitarian improvement. The reformation itself triggered a very long period of civil wars and massacres in Europe, and both sides seem to have been equally intolerant and bloodthirsty to me. As for the long-term effects, seen from the 21st century, I don't see more tolerance or humanity on the reformed side than on the catholic one.

don't you see the western world as being better off post reformation than pre? and as for the rest of your observations, doesn't that violence bear a great deal of similarity to another part of the world at the moment?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps we are talking about different periods when we refer to "the early church"? When I hear that term, I think of the first few centuries of the church when it used Latin simply because that was the language of the Empire.

I entirely agree with you that by, say, medieval times, the church really had very little to do with the lives of the everyday people; it was a state organ of power, pure and simple. People led such wretched lives that one of its primary purposes was to preach the message "we know your life is awful here, but obey your lord and master and you'll store up brownie points in heaven and live really nice lives in heaven".

the "early church" was not the all encompassing entity it became in the medieval times when the language of the common man was NOT Latin. the "early church" was an extremely small entity that did speak the common language and did not run roughshod over the governments and peoples of the western world. so yes, that is what I meant I suppose

Originally Posted by astra

I am signing off from this silly topic.
Have fun!

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

don't you see the western world as being better off post reformation than pre? and as for the rest of your observations, doesn't that violence bear a great deal of similarity to another part of the world at the moment?

A great many things happened during this period. The reformation was one of them, but I don't see what specifically it did to make the world better.

As for the violence, yes, there is a similarity. In both cases, people are killing each other in the name of god. I still fail to see how being killed, or killing, in the name of a christian god would make me better than killing or being killed in the name of a muslim one.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

A great many things happened during this period. The reformation was one of them, but I don't see what specifically it did to make the world better.

As for the violence, yes, there is a similarity. In both cases, people are killing each other in the name of god. I still fail to see how being killed, or killing, in the name of a christian god would make me better than killing or being killed in the name of a muslim one.

prior to the reformation the catholic church for all intents and purposes ran the western world. all authority came from god then to the church who would then give the authority to the king to rule. if the king stepped out of line the church took corrective measures. after the reformation it made it possible for countries to run themselves without church interference. there were no longer church courts, it was civil not secular law. of course a few countries were slower to respond than others.

I'm not attempting to infer that dying or killing in the name of any god is good, right, proper or any other acceptable philosophy

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With respect though, Pie, we know that bits of the Bible have been added over time. Probably the best known example is that of John 7:53-8:11 - the story of the woman accused of adultery. This is not present in any of the earliest extant manuscripts of John, and appears to have been added in about the 4th century. Most modern Biblical translations print it enclosed in brackets to indicate its doubtful provenance.

Actually, you have to be careful here. More accurately, it's that bits may have been added over time. One scholar I know, Bob Siegel, studied the "floating passage" (The Adultrous Woman) and concluded it was actually removed by "some prude of a monk" as he puts it.

What's important, though, is that, while we don't know for sure if they were in original manuscripts or not, they are left in our modern Bibles but flagged (typically put in brackets) with a notation stating that they're somewhat suspect.

In terms of the effects of errors, let me cite a modern scholar named Bruce Metzger.

Bruce Metzger:
"It should be mentioned that though there are thousands divergences of wording among the manuscripts of the Bible, the overwhelming majority of such divergent readings involve inconsequential details such as alternative spellings, order of words, or interchange of synonyms. In these cases, as well as relatively few instances involving the substance of the records, scholars apply such techniques as textual criticism in order to determine, with more or less probability, what the original wording was. In any event, no doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain."

Whole swathes of the bible were not included by the time of Constantine.
As to languages this sounds about right.

Technically, the Canonized Bible did not exist during Constantine's reign. All of the books of the New Testament, except Revelation, were included during the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD. So I'm not sure what "whole swathes" you're referring to here.

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Modern Bible scholars believe that some books of the New Testament weren't written until early in the 2nd century. I'm speaking here of I John, II John, and III John (100 CE), I and II Timothy (110 CE, written by an admirer of Paul), Titus (110 CE, also written by an admirer of Paul), Jude (115 CE, written by an admirer of Jude), and II Peter (130 CE, written by an admirer of Peter). All dates are, of course, approximate.

Now we get to the more consipracy-theory oriented stuff I was referring to in my initial post. Not the known corrupt texts, or the different manuscripts that vary from the oldest copies, but the wholesale denial of the extant texts.

There are certainly some scholars that dissent from the thousands of year of accepted teachings. There was even the Jesus Seminar which voted on which particular passages were spoken by Christ himself, eliminating quite a bit of the gospels in the process.

So, sure, you can find modern scholars who will say many things. But let's just take the most basic question to illustrate how problematic this case is: How do we know the books were written by an "admirer" of Peter or Paul? Especially when -- in the case of Timothy -- we have a direct claim of authorship, and no other evidence supporting a specific "other" author?

The earliest New Testament writings appear to be the undisputed letters of Paul along with Colossians and II Thessalonians, which are judged to be written by a disciple or admirer of Paul. All seven of the genuine epistles as well as Colossians and II Thessalonians are judged to predate Mark, the first gospel to be written.

I'm not sure where you got this information. Passive voice is very powerful... "it is judged" sounds official, but judged by whom is the real kicker.

The books of Paul were "judged" by the Council of Laodicea to be written by Paul himself. Authorship was a key component to inclusion in the original Canon. There is one specific book which some Bibles attribute to Paul's, but its authorship remains in question, and that's Hebrews. But it passed other tests of authenticity to earn it a spot in the Canon, regardless of authorship.

Okay, so my point was simply that adding or deleting from a book is a bad thing. (I would also now add to that making unsubstantiated claims about books is also a bad thing.) This, however, is totally different than deleting your own copy of the book. You're not editing or changing. You are merely deleting something you disagree with, don't like, or simply need to free up space.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

[I went overboard with this post, so I am cutting it and joining the points I made to the above.]

-Pie

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The books of Paul were "judged" by the Council of Laodicea to be written by Paul himself. Authorship was a key component to inclusion in the original Canon. There is one specific book which some Bibles attribute to Paul's, but its authorship remains in question, and that's Hebrews. But it passed other tests of authenticity to earn it a spot in the Canon, regardless of authorship.

Modern scholarship, however, is pretty clear about which of the 13 letters Paul did or did not write.

7 of them are regarded as being almost unquestionably written by Paul, since they are referred to by many ancient sources and have an internally consistent literary style and vocabulary:

Romans,
1 & 2 Corinthians
Galatians
Philippians
1 Thessalonians
Philemon

The three so-call "Pastorial Epistles" (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were almost certainly NOT written by Paul (they use vocabulary and phraseology not found in any of the other Pauline Epistles).

The other three (Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians) are disputed; some scholars think they are genuine, others do not.

Note that nobody is suggesting that these are deliberate forgeries: it was common practice in the ancient world for followers of a philosphical school to write letters, or other works, in the name of the founder of that school, and that is almost certainly the origin of these letters - written by later followers of Paul's teachings, and given Paul's name to give them more "authority".

Actually, you have to be careful here. More accurately, it's that bits may have been added over time. One scholar I know, Bob Siegel, studied the "floating passage" (The Adultrous Woman) and concluded it was actually removed by "some prude of a monk" as he puts it.

I'm sure that you would accept, though, that this is a view that is at odds with the mainstream of scholastic view. There are more early copies of various parts of the NT existing than of any other ancient text (literally dozens of fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as well as the more complete texts such as the "Codex Vaticanus" and "Codex Sinaiticus") and this story appears in NONE of them.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

prior to the reformation the catholic church for all intents and purposes ran the western world. all authority came from god then to the church who would then give the authority to the king to rule. if the king stepped out of line the church took corrective measures. after the reformation it made it possible for countries to run themselves without church interference. there were no longer church courts, it was civil not secular law. of course a few countries were slower to respond than others.

I'm not attempting to infer that dying or killing in the name of any god is good, right, proper or any other acceptable philosophy

This is so completely untrue that I don't even know where to start correcting you. You have a completely false vision of the history of Europe. Unfortunately I'm not a specialist myself so I couldn't really set you right, but really, I suggest you try reading a few history books and you will find that things are a lot more complex and interesting than this.

The reformation is part of a fascinating period when much of our current ways of thinking were born, but personally I see it (the Reformation) more as a result of these changes than as a cause, although it was probably a little of both. But your vision of its role in history is just completely wrong.

[Logseman]

While the general picture given by Kindlekitten was the ideal which the Church wanted to operate with, and there were stark influences from the Church towards the princes (the waging of Crusades, Church-declared truces), the real deeds were more complex than that. In the Middle Age of Europe the Pope acted like any other prince, dealing with all the other princes, including infidels, to his own profit and to augment his own power. That could lead to interesting consequences, like establishing the Papacy in a French city if it served the interests of the Pope.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

This is so completely untrue that I don't even know where to start correcting you. You have a completely false vision of the history of Europe. Unfortunately I'm not a specialist myself so I couldn't really set you right, but really, I suggest you try reading a few history books and you will find that things are a lot more complex and interesting than this.

The reformation is part of a fascinating period when much of our current ways of thinking were born, but personally I see it (the Reformation) more as a result of these changes than as a cause, although it was probably a little of both. But your vision of its role in history is just completely wrong.

sorry, I was only a history major. not sure what you are taking exception to

Originally Posted by Logseman

While the general picture given by Kindlekitten was the ideal which the Church wanted to operate with, and there were stark influences from the Church towards the princes (the waging of Crusades, Church-declared truces), the real deeds were more complex than that. In the Middle Age of Europe the Pope acted like any other prince, dealing with all the other princes, including infidels, to his own profit and to augment his own power. That could lead to interesting consequences, like establishing the Papacy in a French city if it served the interests of the Pope.

I was just trying to give a snapshot, nothing in depth

[terrazoids]

Yep, I don't have problem with deleting the Koran.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

prior to the reformation the catholic church for all intents and purposes ran the western world. all authority came from god then to the church who would then give the authority to the king to rule. if the king stepped out of line the church took corrective measures. after the reformation it made it possible for countries to run themselves without church interference. there were no longer church courts, it was civil not secular law. of course a few countries were slower to respond than others.

I'm not attempting to infer that dying or killing in the name of any god is good, right, proper or any other acceptable philosophy

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

sorry, I was only a history major. not sure what you are taking exception to

I was just trying to give a snapshot, nothing in depth

I am taking exception to giving a vision of history that is so simplified it ends up being distorted. This is not a snapshot, it's a lie.

The Church was a major power for many centuries, yes, and at some periods and/or in some regions it was sufficiently powerful and secular power sufficiently weak or at least atomized for the Church to gain the upper hand. At other times it was the other way around.

I wasn't a history major, but I know a little about at least French history (I'll admit my knowledge is far from extensive though). There was a constant power struggle between the French Monarchy and the Church, and obviously the Church was no small force, but at no single moment in French history did the Church simply dictate who could be King, or how he could behave. It was influential, yes, and I'm sure there were some times when they were in a position to decide events, but the Pope simply did not rule France, or any other European country. And if the King had to reckon with the Pope, the opposite was true also.

And I don't think what is true for a relatively powerful (for the times, which isn't saying much) central state like France is so far from the truth even in regions where power was more localized. There was simply no way, at that time, for any power to rule the whole of Europe.

But if you have references of books or serious websites that demonstrate how the Church ruled Europe, I'd be happy to look them up.

[kindlekitten]

kings ruled by "divine right", the popes gave, or endorsed divine right. they approved or dissapproved marriages, threatened monarchs with ex-communication if they would not come to heel with the wishes of the church. the church was THE authority in western Europe.

start with "Dungeon Fire and Sword" by John J. Robinson. it gives a good overview of the crusades, the church invovlement in it, your own country, their involvement and how they were completely manipulated by the pope.

quite honestly every entry level college European History class discusses this at length, and the books are full of many many details. some are textbooks, and some assigned reading. I've read countless numbers of them. so I decided to google "the papacy and europe" to see if some of the more outstanding books popped up. what popped up was pages and pages of what I have been talking about. have a look, and then if you have more questions, let me know.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

kings ruled by "divine right",

They still do, at least in these parts. It says so on every British coin:

ELIZABETH II D.G. REG

which is short for "DEI GRATIA REGINA" - "Queen, by the grace of God".

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They still do, at least in these parts. It says so on every British coin:

ELIZABETH II D.G. REG

which is short for "DEI GRATIA REGINA" - "Queen, by the grace of God".

at least the split with the catholic church got the pope out of the equation for you