Hot Thread Time Machine

[Awful_Things]

Just for fun, let’s go back to a random date before the printing press - 1256 in some random place in Europe (Eastern Francia?). Let’s pretend, for the sake of the experiment, that everyone spoke 21st century American English back then (it would be a vey limited thred otherwise). Let us also pretend we are all physically gathered and speaking to one another, rather than chatting on a thread.

None of the Catholics who contribute to this thread are Christian in this scenario, though our hearts are open to it. The purpose of this thread is to ask any Bible-only Christians to transport themselves back to this merry little group through the Hot Thread Time Machine and help steer us to Christ, but away from the trappings of the “corrupt Catholic Church”, with all of its traditions and man-made rules.

For the sake of atmosphere, we are roasting some rabbit and there is a cool evening breeze.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Can you clarify for all participants? So we are pretending it’s the year 1256 and anyone here who is Catholic will play the role of non-believer here. And it’s up to a sola scripturist to convert us, correct?

 

[Awful_Things]

Can you clarify for all participants? So we are pretending it’s the year 1256 and anyone here who is Catholic will play the role of non-believer here. And it’s up to a sola scripturist to convert us, correct?

Yes, I think that sums it up. The sola Scripturist is welcome to bring back in time any of the logic and proofs he would otherwise use today, but not a personal copy of Scripture. He just shows up in whatever clothes are necessary for 1256.

 

[grannymh]

Just for fun, let’s go back to a random date before the printing press - 1256 in some random place in Europe (Eastern Francia?). Let’s pretend, for the sake of the experiment, that everyone spoke 21st century American English back then (it would be a vey limited thred otherwise). Let us also pretend we are all physically gathered and speaking to one another, rather than chatting on a thread.

None of the Catholics who contribute to this thread are Christian in this scenario, though our hearts are open to it. The purpose of this thread is to ask any Bible-only Christians to transport themselves back to this merry little group through the Hot Thread Time Machine and help steer us to Christ, but away from the trappings of the “corrupt Catholic Church”, with all of its traditions and man-made rules.

For the sake of atmosphere, we are roasting some rabbit and there is a cool evening breeze.

Interesting apologetics exercise…

Considering that Thomas Aquinas would be around 30 years old in 1256. where would he fit in? Could he use philosophy? What about arguments from the other “scholastic scholars”? Somebody should be using reason to establish God and then look at Scripture from a historical point of view which would lead to the person named Jesus.

As for atmosphere, how about a bit of wine for you all. I will have a Pepsi please.

Blessings,
granny

John 3: 16-17

 

[DavidFilmer]

Just for fun, let’s go back to a random date before the printing press - 1256 in some random place in Europe (Eastern Francia?).

Sounds like fun, but we need a better setting.

The Kingdom of Eastern Francia ended early in the Tenth Century. By the Thirteenth Century the territory would have been part of the Holy Roman Empire. Are we assuming the parties to the conversation would have been Thirteenth Century citizens of the HRE (and, thus, all Catholic)? Are we pretending that a protestant traveled from (at least) the Sixteenth Century to try to proselytize these Catholics with protestant ideas?

 

[Kaninchen]

For the sake of atmosphere, we are roasting some rabbit

Not without my lawyer present.

 

[Awful_Things]

Sounds like fun, but we need a better setting.

The Kingdom of Eastern Francia ended early in the Tenth Century. By the Thirteenth Century the territory would have been part of the Holy Roman Empire. Are we assuming the parties to the conversation would have been Thirteenth Century citizens of the HRE (and, thus, all Catholic)? Are we pretending that a protestant traveled from (at least) the Sixteenth Century to try to proselytize these Catholics with protestant ideas?

Thank you for the clarification. History isn’t my strong point, so I appreciate the clarificaton. I think your revised scenario is fair enough. Obviously, the point I’m getting at is the challenge of using 1) a sola Scriptura approach and 2) proposig worship outside of the Catholic Church. I proposed that we were heathens because I wanted to see a SS Christian try to proclaim Christ absent of the preaching of that Church.

 

[grannymh]

Thank you for the clarification. History isn’t my strong point, so I appreciate the clarificaton. I think your revised scenario is fair enough. Obviously, the point I’m getting at is the challenge of using 1) a sola Scriptura approach and 2) proposig worship outside of the Catholic Church. I proposed that we were heathens because I wanted to see a SS Christian try to proclaim Christ absent of the preaching of that Church.

Can a SS Christian still use reason or philosophy of sorts? I’m awful when it comes to scripture duels.
Come to think of it. I have also been known to be unreasonable.

 

[Awful_Things]

Can a SS Christian still use reason or philosophy of sorts? I’m awful when it comes to scripture duels.
Come to think of it. I have also been known to be unreasonable.

Sure, of course I wouldn’t see why not.

 

[Nita]

Can I read?
(Or is that one of those tough decisions I’m to determine.)

 

[Awful_Things]

Can I read?
(Or is that one of those tough decisions I’m to determine.)

Historians can correct me, but for that age, I think the probability would be that you can’t. None of us are scholars or individuals of great wealth and power, though, so our literacy would be little if any. We certainly wouldn’t be able to go back and dig into the original Greek or Hebrew.

 

[DysonSphere]

I walk up to this bunch of heathens:

“Mark 6:57 says you should never say a creed, that faith alone in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation, and that you should never base any moral or theological truth on anything outside the Bible. It’s right there!”

I’d wait a moment…

“What? You mean you don’t have access to a Bible, and even if you did you couldn’t read it? Well, trust your literate better, it’s there, and you better believe it. It’s the Bible, after all, and you don’t want to burn in hell for denying God’s Truth, do you?”

 

[Awful_Things]

I walk up to this bunch of heathens:

“Mark 6:57 says you should never say a creed, that faith alone in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation, and that you should never base any moral or theological truth on anything outside the Bible. It’s right there!”

I’d wait a moment…

“What? You mean you don’t have access to a Bible, and even if you did you couldn’t read it? Well, trust your literate better, it’s there, and you better believe it. It’s the Bible, after all, and you don’t want to burn in hell for denying God’s Truth, do you?”

Excellent. Possible responses:

Thank you. You are truly our neighbor for sharing these great truths. I will seek out one who knows Latin and can interpret so I can hear these inspiring words first hand. Verses 57, you say?

Or: I seek to follow God, not some book. Why do you put so much confidence in this Bible?

Or: What does 6:57 mean? (NT verses having not been divided yet)

Or: Did God, himself, write this Bible? If men had a hand in authoring it, I see no reason to put confidence in the wiles and motivations of other men.

Or: Tell me, good friend, who invited you to eat from that rabbit? I was saving that for my wife.

 

[DysonSphere]

Thank you. You are truly our neighbor for sharing these great truths. I will seek out one who knows Latin and can interpret so I can hear these inspiring words first hand. Verses 57, you say?

“Please consider John 14:31, which states that those who use the language of Rome to communicate theology are of the devil, and will lie to you. In my experience, they try to tell you that Bible chapters are shorter than they really are.”

“I seek to follow God, not some book. Why do you put so much confidence in this Bible?”

“God inspired it. Even the bad Christians over there hold that he did, even though they mistranslate it and cut parts out, like the ones I listed above, for their own evil gains. And there are many other good reasons to believe it. I, being educated, know this. If you became educated, you could know this, too.”

What does 6:57 mean? (NT verses having not been divided yet)

“It involves a new system I invented for referring to parts of the Bible. If we had one handy and you could read, I’d show you how it works.”

“Did God, himself, write this Bible? If men had a hand in authoring it, I see no reason to put confidence in the wiles and motivations of other men.”

“You are one smart fellow. We can’t have that.” I’d tie him up, burn him at the stake, and ask his friends what they think about the authority of the Bible. (Outside the time-warp, I agree mostly with this position; why trust something to be perfect that men had any involvement with?)

Tell me, good friend, who invited you to eat from that rabbit? I was saving that for my wife.

“Depending on other possible answers you give to me, I may have an idea about something with which to replace the rabbit.”

 

[Awful_Things]

“Please consider John 14:31, which states that those who use the language of Rome to communicate theology are of the devil, and will lie to you. In my experience, they try to tell you that Bible chapters are shorter than they really are.”

“God inspired it. Even the bad Christians over there hold that he did, even though they mistranslate it and cut parts out, like the ones I listed above, for their own evil gains. And there are many other good reasons to believe it. I, being educated, know this. If you became educated, you could know this, too.”

“It involves a new system I invented for referring to parts of the Bible. If we had one handy and you could read, I’d show you how it works.”

“You are one smart fellow. We can’t have that.” I’d tie him up, burn him at the stake, and ask his friends what they think about the authority of the Bible. (Outside the time-warp, I agree mostly with this position; why trust something to be perfect that men had any involvement with?)

“Depending on other possible answers you give to me, I may have an idea about something with which to replace the rabbit.”

Eating from my wife’s rabbit is one thing, good sir, but you just took a sip of my ale. Your words can be nothing short of lies and deception. Begone with you now.

 

[DysonSphere]

Eating from my wife’s rabbit is one thing, good sir, but you just took a sip of my ale. Your words can be nothing short of lies and deception. Begone with you now.

Well, I tried my best. A side note:

As one who left the Catholic Church relatively recently for a Disciples of Christ denomination (“no Creed but Christ”), and as one with maybe a more unusual slant, I agree with the first part of the Catholic argument: there were no protestants until the 1500’s, not really. Before that it was pretty-much Catholic and Orthodox (in the West, the Catholic Church was the only game in town). I don’t think people from the 1200’s would be open to the Protestant movement, or that that sort of reformation would be appropriate for them. Protestantism, and the more open Christianity that followed, required many things unavailable: literacy and the publication of western literature by press being two of them.

I see the reformation as an improvement on Christianity, from the way that it was, which itself was an improvement from the way the Apostles had it. Christ’s vision can be interpreted only speculatively, and likely was more far-reaching and more decentralized than people would have it. It must have gotten “messed up” very early on; or, rather, Christianity, like any other religion, must be influenced by its own culture and time-period.

We are more sophisticated now. I’d expect Christianity to follow the trend.

 

[grannymh]

Or: Tell me, good friend, who invited you to eat from that rabbit? I was saving that for my wife.

Did you forget that you invited your granny-in-law.

You know what summer is like. My carriage detoured so the peasants can finish the road construction by filling the holes with fresh mud. Take my cloak and bring me a Pepsi quickly so I can refresh myself while I listen to the conversation. If only my late husband Fred were here. He would set you straight about Jesus. Fred knew where Jesus came from because Fred figured out that there had to be a Creator of all the stuff in the world we see.

 

[Awful_Things]

Well, I tried my best. A side note:

As one who left the Catholic Church relatively recently for a Disciples of Christ denomination (“no Creed but Christ”), and as one with maybe a more unusual slant, I agree with the first part of the Catholic argument: there were no protestants until the 1500’s, not really. Before that it was pretty-much Catholic and Orthodox (in the West, the Catholic Church was the only game in town). I don’t think people from the 1200’s would be open to the Protestant movement, or that that sort of reformation would be appropriate for them. Protestantism, and the more open Christianity that followed, required many things unavailable: literacy and the publication of western literature by press being two of them.

I see the reformation as an improvement on Christianity, from the way that it was, which itself was an improvement from the way the Apostles had it. Christ’s vision can be interpreted only speculatively, and likely was more far-reaching and more decentralized than people would have it. It must have gotten “messed up” very early on; or, rather, Christianity, like any other religion, must be influenced by its own culture and time-period.

We are more sophisticated now. I’d expect Christianity to follow the trend.

Sounds surprising similar to what the Mormon boys try to sell. Given that this “improvement” called for a complete reversal of doctrines that the Church held for a number of years, many of them diametrically opposed to previous doctrines, it seems like we are dealing with something much different from an improvement.

 

[DysonSphere]

Sounds surprising similar to what the Mormon boys try to sell. Given that this “improvement” called for a complete reversal of doctrines that the Church held for a number of years, many of them diametrically opposed to previous doctrines, it seems like we are dealing with something much different from an improvement.

Maybe so. I’ll let you get back to your time-warp. Maybe someone with better manners will have more luck.

eats the rest of the rabbit, drinks the ale, and quickly prances off laughing like a little school girl

 

[inocente]

How would a Baptist convert a pagan? Same way as today. Make friends, give help and support, lead by example and let God do that thing that God does so well. I know, because I was that pagan.

Of course, Baptists don’t have access to devices that may or may not have been used to frighten superstitious surfs into submission, like ghosts and consecrated ground, or priests in finery with a hot-line to God. We don’t really go in for all that hell-and-damnation business either.

Offended?

No not really, you get used to it, but thanks for asking.

Source: Romans 14 (that’s in the book marked “Bible”, toward the back if memory serves)

Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.

Rom 14:13 NIV

(wanders off to give the road menders some of the rabbit)