Medieval Bible Christians

[CopticChristian]

Friend, I read and study the scripture every day. My mornings begin around 4AM with coffee and scripture study for 30-40 mins…then I ‘enter into meeting’ for a period of time, seeking to Hear the Voice of God and seek to understand how what I’ve just read will impact my small portion of the world I live in…and I pray I will be known as “a friend of God”.

I believe the scriptures are an inspired witness of others search and understanding of God. They are not infallible because they were written by men, nor are they inerrant…as there is no single version, texual translation, manuscrpt that agrees 100% with each other…so for it to be inerrant one set of manuscripts would have to be 100% correct…but when we have different word choices, texual variants not every one of them can be inerrant…can they?

Within scriptue we can discern the Word of God, but the words themselves translated into English are not the Word…the Word of God is spoken inwardly, quietly, profoundly and calls us to service to our world. When the prophets wrote “The word of the Lord came to me saying…XYZ”, they wrote what they undestood God to be saying…I have a difficul time believeing they heard an audible voice.

They also testified that there would come a time when the word of the Lord would be spoken to each heart. Paul wrote that we have a “treasure in earthen vessels”, we have a Living God, not a God confined to a book. I believe it was Menno Simons who when confronted with scripture by the eccleiastics of his day…“We did not exchange a pope of flesh for a pope of paper.”

There is One Truth, but in this world we see “though a glass darkly”…One Day “face to face I will know…”, and until then as I taverse this mortal world I seek to discern what is the “word of the Lord” and how this Light Within, this Inner Word tell me how to live. God is not overly concerned in my estimation of telling me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether a great fish actually swallowed a man or if in fact the Earth stopped rotaiting on it’s axis for a time for Joshua to win his battle. The Word of the Lord is concerned on how I treat my neighbor, how I care for the “stranger within my gates”, if the child across the street has enough food to eat.

What brought me to the Society of Friends was not what they claimed to know about God, but what they claimed to know about how we should treat our neighbor and how scripture informs us in that respect…how do we as the People of God respond to those around us in need. We are His Body, we are His Presence in this world.

I care little of defining to the “nth degree” the meaning of “parthenagenesis”, or the subtle differenced between “penance” and “repentance” or what words must be used to make a water baptism valid, or what gestures and words make a eucharist “licit” vs “illicit”.

Authority to act in God’s name is not passed down like a keepsake. Authority to act in God’s Name lies in how well we reflect His Life, if we exhibit the “fruit of the Spirit” to those around us, if we bind up the wounded, and comfort the broken hearted, visit the captive or offer a cup of cold water in His Name to someone thirsty.

Working out one’s salvation in fear and trembling wouldn’t be so fearful or trembly if I had someone to tell me what I must do, when to kneel, when to pray, how to understand what I read…but I don’t other than the “Still Small Voice” within that calls me to view my neighbor as an opportunity to serve Him, for who knows, it just may very well be.

Theological certainty is of little comfort to me and has offered little hope to this world, in my opinion, the real changes have been when man and women of faith live His Life and share His love to those around us…I don’t find God in my meetinghouse, I find Him in the person sitting next to me at work, on the bus, in a movie theater, sleeping in a door way…I just need to figure out in “fear and trembling” what impact me ignoring the one who asks for bread or money as I walk by will have on my spiritual life…I find those times much more troubling than I do trying to decide was Jesus crucified on Passover or on the Day of Preparation.

Friend,

Then we see differently through that glass darkly fearing and trembling, shaking and quaking.

 

[Porknpie]

Friend, I read and study the scripture every day. My mornings begin around 4AM with coffee and scripture study for 30-40 mins…

Publisher, this is very admirable. What time do you go to bed? Do you use a commentary to help you understand scripture?

I believe the scriptures are an inspired witness of others search and understanding of God. They are not infallible because they were written by men, nor are they inerrant

What drives your belief that scripture is fallible? God can not work through humans? If God can raise Jesus from the dead, I would not limit him to work through humans to convey his Word infallibly.

…as there is no single version, texual translation, manuscrpt that agrees 100% with each other

…but when we have different word choices, texual variants not every one of them can be inerrant…can they?

What bible verses have different words that lead to different teachings on faith and morals? If I say 3+3=6 and 2+4=6 I’ve expressed the value of 6 differently but with the same truth. Variant should not be an issue if the truth being taught is the same.

The Word of the Lord is concerned on how I treat my neighbor, how I care for the “stranger within my gates”, if the child across the street has enough food to eat.

Faith and works…very Catholic.

Pork (friend too)

 

[Franciscanguy]

I dont get to say this often and mean it but - this is silly. Say it’s true. “Christians proper” go underground in the 4th century and they survive to the Reformation. Which group represents the “real Christianity?” It is Luther who advocates for the “Solas” and Luther is a devotee of Augustine who would be in the crucible of the switch toward this “new Christianity.” It doesn’t make any sense. What I think it is really about is being anti-intellectual. The idea that intrepretation is part of Christianity is just to much for them. This is silly as well because in order to have no mediation between God and human via the scripture there would be no need for a pastor because a sermon is, by definition, and intrepretation.

 

[Publisher]

Friend,

Then we see differently through that glass darkly fearing and trembling, shaking and quaking.

Exactly friend.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, this is very admirable. What time do you go to bed? Do you use a commentary to help you understand scripture?

**I usually go to bed around 8-8:30PM. I love the mornings when the world is still quiet and I get to hear the first stirrings of the birds…the racoons come by and finish off the cat food she didn’t finish…sometimes the skunks stop by…not my favorite visitor, especially when startled by the cat that comes to the back door and knocks to tell me to fill her bowl up again.

I sometimes find a book that intrigues me and will use it as a study guide. I enjoy the writings of Marcus Borg, John Spong, Richard Foster, Philip Gulley, Elton Trueblood, Rufus Jones and a host of others. I sometimes pick a theme. Deitrich Bonhoeffer has some good topics and I have used him as commentary. E. Stanley Jones is also a great source of topics.

I use the Oxford Annotated Study Bible with Apocrypha/Deuterocanical Expanded Edition RSV, some of the notes and study helps too give a great source of topic study. Sometimes I will simply sit and read a large passage or take a letter, gospel of OT book and read and meditate upon it…when I need to review a historical background as to why the book was written and when, that tends to assist in understandings it as well.**

What drives your belief that scripture is fallible? God can not work through humans? If God can raise Jesus from the dead, I would not limit him to work through humans to convey his Word infallibly.

God can and does work thru humans, but an infallible God would need to provide an infallible written source, which we do not have…if scripture was infallible and inerrant, there would be no textual variants, no disagreements as to word choices, no verses inquestion as to where they belong…or IF they belong…Yes, god can do anything, but He didn’t choose to provide an infallible inerrant document for us to read…if He did, there’d be no need to “work out our own salvation”…we would not “see through a glass darkly”…it would all be spelled out perfectly…and it just is not.

What bible verses have different words that lead to different teachings on faith and morals? If I say 3+3=6 and 2+4=6 I’ve expressed the value of 6 differently but with the same truth. Variant should not be an issue if the truth being taught is the same.

So we want to restrict what is 'infallible" and “inerrant” in scripture to simply mean as it pertains to “faith and morals” and not the textual variants themselves? The passage of the woman caught in adultry…is it inerrantly, infallibly placed in John or Luke? Can’t be both…or should it even exist at all? The ending of Mark…should it be a footnote or included in the text? Both cannot be inerrant and infallible if the word “inerrant” without error or “infallible” are to have any real meaning. The “Johannine coma”, is it part of scripture or not…can inflaiblility have two different versions…which version of John’s letter is inerrant?

Faith and works…very Catholic.

Fath and works, very Christian.

Pork (friend too)

 

[Porknpie]

Publisher:
Publisher -

IMHO, in any situation of life, using different words to tell the truth does not deny the truth. This is true in any courtroom with witnesses. Lawyers will tell you if two people used the same words to describe an event, word for word, that this would make them suspect of collaborating and their testimony would be suspect. It’s the slight differences that make witnesses credible while still testifying to the same truth.

I still don’t understand where you get the belief that infallbile = word for word commonality. The word “Infallible” does not mean that the truth can not be told in different words. Using different words does not mean that the truth varies or contradicts. Jesus fed 5,000 in all four Gospels but the words are slightly different in all three. Does this mean that Jesus did not feed the 5,000 and the story in not true? Same question can be asked about his death and resurrection. To point #3 below, are the doctrines touching faith or morals different?

Infallible defined by Webster:
1: incapable of error : unerring
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Common between us: I also have the Oxford Dictionary. It was given to me as a gift earlier in the Summer but my preference is still for the St. Ignatius Study Bible. I highly recommend it for the commentary for all catholics and Catholics.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher -

IMHO, in any situation of life, using different words to tell the truth does not deny the truth. This is true in any courtroom with witnesses. Lawyers will tell you if two people used the same words to describe an event, word for word, that this would make them suspect of collaborating and their testimony would be suspect. It’s the slight differences that make witnesses credible while still testifying to the same truth.

I still don’t understand where you get the belief that infallbile = word for word commonality. The word “Infallible” does not mean that the truth can not be told in different words. Using different words does not mean that the truth varies or contradicts. Jesus fed 5,000 in all four Gospels but the words are slightly different in all three. Does this mean that Jesus did not feed the 5,000 and the story in not true? Same question can be asked about his death and resurrection. To point #3 below, are the doctrines touching faith or morals different?

Infallible defined by Webster:
1: incapable of error : unerring
2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : certain
3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

Common between us: I also have the Oxford Dictionary. It was given to me as a gift earlier in the Summer but my preference is still for the St. Ignatius Study Bible. I highly recommend it for the commentary for all catholics and Catholics.

Friend, if you beleive that scripture is infallible and inerrant and by believing htat your faith Jouney into the Light makes more sense and confirms your faith that’s wonderful.

I have difficulty believing Jesus materialized bread and fish to feed 5000 people. The miracle for me in that story is that he inspired every one in that crowd to share their food with those who had none. I don’t believe people who lived in a desert community would trave out into the desert or wilderness to hear a rabbi teach and not be prepared for that journey, as mistakes in the desert can kill you.

The scriptures are records of how others experienced God. The gospels in particular are “interpretive” stories of God dealing anew with Israel in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

As I said…if believing in an inerrant book of scripture makes your faith real. Wonderful. I see no “inerrancy” in scripture…I see a very human book…gloriously human trying to convey as best it’s writers could the experiences they had with God.

They used religous languange, metaphore, hyperbole, simile to try to convey the “other worldy” aspect of this experience.

My relationship with God has been enhanced and deepened by seeing scripture in this way. If viewing the miracles as “objective historical facts” does that for you, who am I to challenge it? I haven’t been able relate to God in that way…part of the “fear and trembling” and “through a dark glass” aspect of “working out” one’s salvation I think.

 

[pablope]

Suppose this is right - God intended to use Luther to spotlight and correct the abuses that had crept into the Church through corrupted individuals. And suppose that Satan, that father of lies, tried to thwart this by using Luther to split the church instead.

…

Luther had free will…he could have chosen otherwise…to remain in the Church…and have the patience for his intended reforms to begin to come to fruition.

Catherine of Sienna…a reformer priot to Luther…also had dealt with problems regarding the Papacy…but she did not cause a split in the Church…or see a need to cause a split. She was patient and trusted in the HS…to effect the reforms she was praying for.

So let me ask…did Luther chose wisely and Catherine did not?

 

[2cents]

I have difficulty believing Jesus materialized bread and fish to feed 5000 people. The miracle for me in that story is that he inspired every one in that crowd to share their food with those who had none. I don’t believe people who lived in a desert community would trave out into the desert or wilderness to hear a rabbi teach and not be prepared for that journey, as mistakes in the desert can kill you.

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 14:13-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Friend,

It says that the people followed him out of the cities, but it doesn’t say how far. The disciples asked Jesus to send them back into their cities, so they probably were not far off. The people heard Jesus was on the move and left their cities quickly not bothering to take a large meal with them.

Anyway, if you believe that the people knew better than to go out without food, then there wouldn’t be any reason to share. They would already have food.

Even if you view the event as highly improbable, it seems to me that this is far to small of a reason to change the bible to fit your personal beliefs/interpretation. The way you wish to read the Bible is fundamentally changing the actual meaning of it. That is a really dangerous thing to do. The Bible must form us. We are incapable of forming it.

The scriptures are records of how others experienced God. The gospels in particular are “interpretive” stories of God dealing anew with Israel in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

If you place no authority on the Bible, Church, or Tradition… where do you place it? I hope you don’t place it on yourself. If you believe that the Bible is in error because of human imperfection, then you yourself must be imperfect, and I wouldn’t trust you or myself over the Bible. God wouldn’t leave a matter so great in only the hands of humans like myself. The Catholic Church would not have lasted, unchanging, this long without the Holy Spirit.

BTW: Looking at ancient, pre-Christ, copies of the Old Testament, Medieval ones, and current ones, the accuracy over time is incredible, and, might I say, super-human

Back to the OP…

As others have said before, there were no Bible-only Christians in Medieval times because there wasn’t any way to copy and distribute books. Bibles would cost much more than your house! (That BTW is why bibles were chained to the lecterns.) It is no coincidence that Sola Scriptura made its grand entrance shortly after the printing press.

There could not have been any Bible-only Christians before 400AD-ish either. Not only did they have the same problem about the price of Bibles, they also had no official New Testament. They would need to decide for themselves what books were in the bible, but for that they would need to rely on themselves not the Bible. The bible has no “Table of Content” That list on page three of your bible was not written by Saint Paul.

 

[Publisher]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 14:13-17[/BIBLEDRB]

Friend,

It says that the people followed him out of the cities, but it doesn’t say how far. The disciples asked Jesus to send them back into their cities, so they probably were not far off. The people heard Jesus was on the move and left their cities quickly not bothering to take a large meal with them.

Anyway, if you believe that the people knew better than to go out without food, then there wouldn’t be any reason to share. They would already have food.

Even if you view the event as highly improbable, it seems to me that this is far to small of a reason to change the bible to fit your personal beliefs/interpretation. The way you wish to read the Bible is fundamentally changing the actual meaning of it. That is a really dangerous thing to do. The Bible must form us. We are incapable of forming it.

If you place no authority on the Bible, Church, or Tradition… where do you place it? I hope you don’t place it on yourself. If you believe that the Bible is in error because of human imperfection, then you yourself must be imperfect, and I wouldn’t trust you or myself over the Bible. God wouldn’t leave a matter so great in only the hands of humans like myself. The Catholic Church would not have lasted, unchanging, this long without the Holy Spirit.

BTW: Looking at ancient, pre-Christ, copies of the Old Testament, Medieval ones, and current ones, the accuracy over time is incredible, and, might I say, super-human

Back to the OP…

As others have said before, there were no Bible-only Christians in Medieval times because there wasn’t any way to copy and distribute books. Bibles would cost much more than your house! (That BTW is why bibles were chained to the lecterns.) It is no coincidence that Sola Scriptura made its grand entrance shortly after the printing press.

There could not have been any Bible-only Christians before 400AD-ish either. Not only did they have the same problem about the price of Bibles, they also had no official New Testament. They would need to decide for themselves what books were in the bible, but for that they would need to rely on themselves not the Bible. The bible has no “Table of Content” That list on page three of your bible was not written by Saint Paul.

Friend, I didn’t say the scriptures had no authority…I simply do not view them as “inerrant” or “infallible” but very human writings on how others experienced God. Our common experience, our God given minds and insights and our common understanding point to an “authority” that we can reasonably rely on…but in the end, each of us must make the decision for himself how to respond to the Light Within…each of us stands before God, not based on what others believe and how they act, but how we live our lives and conduct ourselves in this world…I wouldn’t want it any other way…I want to be judged as ME and only ME and how I respond to my understanding of Truth…not on how someone else responds.

 

[robwar]

Because when Luther attempted to engage the Church in discussion the Church hardened its position, demanded he recant his position, and threatened him with excommunication if he refused. He chose to follow God rather than the corrupt Church officials and was excommunicated.

Luther himself wrote that he had not intended to split from the Church he loved and served. It is unfair to pin all of this on the Reformers. The Catholic church shares the responsibility for failing to address serious abuses.

Luther was just as stubborn and dug in his heals just as much as the Catholic Church is being accused here.

 

[robwar]

Luther had free will…he could have chosen otherwise…to remain in the Church…and have the patience for his intended reforms to begin to come to fruition.

Catherine of Sienna…a reformer priot to Luther…also had dealt with problems regarding the Papacy…but she did not cause a split in the Church…or see a need to cause a split. She was patient and trusted in the HS…to effect the reforms she was praying for.

So let me ask…did Luther chose wisely and Catherine did not?

that is true with a number of saints which include St. Francis of Assisi and St. Clare of Assisi. Also at the time of St. Catherine of Sienna was St. Bridget of Sweden who likewise was a reformer and encouraged the Pope at the time to move back to Rome. Other reformers were St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. There are many of them. Luther had a problem with authority, he had an abusive father, he was not dealt with properly in his religious order over his excessive scrupulosity and anger. his anger and frustration focussed on the Pope. Sadly, the split is the result.

 

[robwar]

Friend, I didn’t say the scriptures had no authority…I simply do not view them as “inerrant” or “infallible” but very human writings on how others experienced God. Our common experience, our God given minds and insights and our common understanding point to an “authority” that we can reasonably rely on…but in the end, each of us must make the decision for himself how to respond to the Light Within…each of us stands before God, not based on what others believe and how they act, but how we live our lives and conduct ourselves in this world…I wouldn’t want it any other way…I want to be judged as ME and only ME and how I respond to my understanding of Truth…not on how someone else responds.

would that be the standard view by most Quakers? This very much lines up with liberal protestantism which I think most on CAF are not familiar with. This is what I was taught in the Methodist church I grew up with.

 

[Publisher]

The Evangelical Friends would have a more “Catholic” view, but those of us in unprogrammed meetings would be comfortable with my statement concerning scripture.

 

[Porknpie]

The Evangelical Friends would have a more “Catholic” view, but those of us in unprogrammed meetings would be comfortable with my statement concerning scripture.

Publisher

Friend. Do you believe in the OT that God gave the Israelites Manna and that it was bread from heaven? Or do you believe this was a fable? Curious…

 

[Publisher]

Publisher

Friend. Do you believe in the OT that God gave the Israelites Manna and that it was bread from heaven? Or do you believe this was a fable? Curious…

If…IF…the sojourn in the wilderness as recorded in Exodus has it’s roots based in an actual sojourn, the manna would have been a “natural” occurance perhaps…not divinely provided…except in the way that all things are divinely provided.

 

[Porknpie]

If…IF…the sojourn in the wilderness as recorded in Exodus has it’s roots based in an actual sojourn, the manna would have been a “natural” occurance perhaps…not divinely provided…except in the way that all things are divinely provided.

Publisher (Friend) -

Do you believe that the Ark of the Covenant existed? If so, why did the Israelites put the Manna in it? Hebews 9:4:

having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Again, just curious…

 

[Publisher]

Publisher (Friend) -

Do you believe that the Ark of the Covenant existed? If so, why did the Israelites put the Manna in it? Hebews 9:4:

having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Again, just curious…

I’m sure the ark existed as a religous icon in Israel’s history…I do not believe tablets carved by the finger of God and manna provided by divine intervention that were in the ark existed. If there were tablets, they were man made, if manna is a naturally occuring staple or a man made item, I see no reason why it wouldn’t be placed within the iconic ark.

 

[Reuben_J]

Friend, I didn’t say the scriptures had no authority…I simply do not view them as “inerrant” or “infallible” but very human writings on how others experienced God. Our common experience, our God given minds and insights and our common understanding point to an “authority” that we can reasonably rely on…but in the end, each of us must make the decision for himself how to respond to the Light Within…each of us stands before God, not based on what others believe and how they act, but how we live our lives and conduct ourselves in this world…I wouldn’t want it any other way…I want to be judged as ME and only ME and how I respond to my understanding of Truth…not on how someone else responds.

Sorry, friend, but I stop reading after that sentence. It is one thing to dialogue with Bible believing Christians which we all are regardless of our affiliation but it is another for someone who does not believe it in its entirety.

 

[Porknpie]

I’m sure the ark existed as a religous icon in Israel’s history…I do not believe tablets carved by the finger of God and manna provided by divine intervention that were in the ark existed. If there were tablets, they were man made, if manna is a naturally occuring staple or a man made item, I see no reason why it wouldn’t be placed within the iconic ark.

Publisher. Friend. Are there any stories in the OT or NT that you believe to be historically true? Any stories that you believe to be true where God devinely acted in human history?

Just trying to get your perspective…