/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21837949]

>"sola scriptura"
>what makes up the "scriptura" was decided by the Catholic Church

[Anonymous No.21837957]

>>21837949
This is why you only directly talk to God like Saint Davis.

[Anonymous No.21837966]

some fat gay protestant at my work tried the "umm that's not askhually in the bible" with me. i dislike that guy now. i'm not even religious, but that was fucking insulting.

[Anonymous No.21837970]

>>21837949
The church didn't decide on Scripture. God decided. When it comes to the living word, Men are merely instruments of God.

[Anonymous No.21837974]

>>21837970
Doesn't that mean I could also decide on the scripture? I'm an instrument of god

[Anonymous No.21837976]

except for the books they removed from the catholic list

[Anonymous No.21837980]

>>21837974
Some men are pens, some men are shovels.

[Anonymous No.21837984]

>yfw the source for hanukkah is in the catholic bible not the hebrew bible
what did they mean by this

[Anonymous No.21837985]

>>21837980
Yes indeed, and I'm whichever one of those is the good one

[Anonymous No.21837987]

>>21837949
The Bible clearly refutes sola scriptura. How do protestants cope with Acts 8:30-31?

[Anonymous No.21837994]

>>21837970
>Men are merely instruments of God.

[Anonymous No.21837998]

>>21837987
picrel
>>21837985
then pray to God
you won't be able to write anything on the Bible's level without God's providence.

[Anonymous No.21838001]

>>21837998
what makes you the authority on god's provenance? maybe I'm ready to start shovellin right here and now

[Anonymous No.21838080]

>>21837949
No organization decided on the Canon, it just evolved.

The Jews do not appear to have had an organized Canon when Christ lived but they most certainly had a core set of texts that were undisputed and a collection of less accepted ones. Some of these are extremely ancient, for example, lines from Numbers appear in proto-Hebrew from the mid-700s BC and the Noah story is among the oldest texts ever found, and includes the text "two by two," in Sumerian (although the Ark is round in this fragment).

We also know the texts changed over time due to errors and larger changes. Many of the prophetical books appear to have had multiple authors writing in the tradition of a single named author, although Ezekiel shows significant unity.

The main controversy today is the addition of books that are in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible that was widely in use at the time of Christ. These books were excluded during the Reformation.

Part of this exclusion was political. Maccabees was a target because it gave support for Purgatory and thus indulgences, and Sirach talks about redemption through works. However, Luther also wrote about removing James and Revelations because they seemed to contradict "faith alone."

The compromise was to use only the texts used by the Jews of at that point. The problem is that the Jewish text wasn't consolidated until the Middle Ages and the Targum, commentaries in the Bible, mentions books from the Greek translation that are now excluded.

Jesus and the Apostles quote from non-canoncial books, including Enoch, which only the Ethiopians take as Canon. However, it is argued that Jesus uses a different phrase to refer to Canonical works. Problem here is that he does not always use this phrase when referring to undisputed Canonical works, so it seems like a weak correlation.

Further, it was thought that the excluded books were originally all written in Greek, but there is now evidence that some existed at earlier dates in Hebrew.

The Catholic Church didn't make an official Canon until the Reformation, no one disputed the issue before, it grew organically. Early Bibles had non-canoncial works of the Church fathers included in them fairly often as well, complicating interpretation of early finds.

The Jews turned away from the Greek translation in response to Christianity, so that could have been the motivation to drop these tests, to avoid Christian influence and to keep Hebrew alive in the diaspora.

The NT quotes from the Greek translation, including Christ, and some differences in that version have now been traced to older Hebrew texts, so they don't seem to all be translation errors.

Both sides claim Josephus' history as supporting them but actually his number of sacred Hebrew books matches neither side (and the Greek version was created for Jews by Jews in the first place).

[Anonymous No.21838101]

>>21838080
The Targum questions some of the Apocrypha but it also questions some Canonical books as well.

The Bible was not published in English without these books until the 1800s and they were dropped due to printing costs. The modern aversion to them in US Protestantism, which avoids including then even in "ancient study Bibles," is a very recent cultural phenomena, a response to the unfamiliar, but a historical accident.

Unfortunately, material on this that comes up on top in Google or that you find in study Bibles is almost always misleading to support one side.

It is very frustrating that groups who think personal scholarship of the Bible is so crucial also feel the need to lie to students to "protect" them. Presumably, they don't think the Holy Spirit can do this.

Generally, a source will just omit any evidence undermining their side and make broad claims about "majority opinion." Really, there is no clear answer.

There is nothing particularly shocking in the Apocrypha. It reads very similar to the rest of the Bible. You lose the Chanukah story and some Wisdom literature. The parts in Sirach about works vs faith aren't any more forceful than similar references to works in Ezekiel.

The Oxford Study Bible helpfully includes all of these except for books used by a small minority of churches and Jews, e.g., the books of Enoch, Jasheer, Jubilees, etc. and the books used by extinct lines of Christianity (Gospel of Thomas, the Thunder, Zostrianos, etc.). Also the Book of Mormon isn't included.

If you includes all this historically used books the Bible doubles in size.

[Anonymous No.21838112]

>>21838101
And of course, if you use all the books, some of which clearly have fake authors, you get an absolute mess. You have the Apocryphon of John claiming the Genesis story is about Yaldaboath and his Archons gang raping Eve, Cain is the hylic child of this assault, etc. side by side with Mormonism and some of the super Platonist texts.

A number of "lost books of the Bible," never appear to have been in particularly wide circulation, and it isn't shocking given there was no set Canon early on and a lot of diversity.

[Anonymous No.21838163]

>>21837949
That's why you also need to include the Gospel of Thomas, two Books of Enoch, and other apocrypha.

[Anonymous No.21838241]

>>21837949
wtf a frogposter making a good point? the end of days is night

[Anonymous No.21838665]

>>21837970
>God actually came down from heaven and gathered all the bishops and told them which books were true and which weren't.
>Christians actually believe this.
HUMANS decided. And then they claimed that "God was working through them", but considering the fact that there was heated debate between the bishops on which books to allow it's clear that it wasn't God working through them (since it would have been a unanimous vote in that case) but their own personal biases.

[Anonymous No.21838712]

God exists, but Christianity and all other religions are just human-made fantasies that dressed God up with. Nothing about God can be known beyond the fact that he exists, since he must exist.

[Anonymous No.21838717]

>>21838712
this.
organized religion is just snake oil salesman taking advantage of people's low iq gullibility.

[Anonymous No.21838726]

>>21838712
>Nothing about God can be known beyond the fact that he exists, since he must exist.
Interesting. How about we discuss some more about this existence of his, and in what way that manifests? Perhaps we will write a book or two about it. Get some other people involved. Once enough people see it, maybe they will also start believing in our cause. Maybe they will even start an organization that will do such a thing, compile our books, and spread it to more people. Maybe it will grow even bigger in the future long after we're dead, so much so that millions of people would believe in our books.

[Anonymous No.21838734]

>>21837970
there's like 20 different canons anon

[Anonymous No.21838742]

>>21838712
This is the same as saying God doesn't exist. Spinozists are braindead.

[Anonymous No.21838750]

>>21838712
why must he?

[Anonymous No.21838837]

>>21838742
>saying God exists is the same as saying God doesn't exist.
and you have the gall to accuse someone else of being braindead? lmao

[Anonymous No.21838846]

>>21837949
>"sola scriptura"
>Believes in the trinity
Protestantism is really a non-starter.

[Anonymous No.21838858]

>>21838712
https://web.archive.org/web/20190709032709/http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cult-of-gnon
"“Nature or Nature’s God” is not a statement, but a name, internally divided by tolerated uncertainty. It has the singularity of a proper name, whilst parenthesizing a suspended decision (Pyrrhonian epoche, of which much more in a future post). It designates rigidly, but obscurely, because it points into epistemological darkness — naming a Reality that not only ‘has’, but epitomizes identity, whilst nevertheless, for ‘the sake of argument’, eluding categorical identification. Patient in the face (or facelessness) of who or what it is, ‘we’ emerge from a pact, with one basic term: a preliminary decision is not to be demanded."

"Gnon is no less than reality, whatever else is believed. Whatever is suspended now, without delay, is Gnon. Whatever cannot be decided yet, even as reality happens, is Gnon. If there is a God, Gnon nicknames him. If not, Gnon designates whatever the ‘not’ is. Gnon is the Vast Abrupt, and the crossing. Gnon is the Great Propeller.
Spinozistic Deus sive Natura is a decision (of equivalence), so it does not describe Gnon. Gnon’s interior ‘or’ is not equation, but suspension. It tells us nothing about God or Nature, but only that Reality Rules."

[Anonymous No.21838870]

>>21838742
>This is the same as saying God doesn't exist. Spinozists are braindead.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190704065822/http://www.xenosystems.net/gnon-theology-and-time/
"Evidently, Gnon-Theology cannot be dogmatic, even in part. Instead, it is hypothetical, in a maximally reduced sense, in which the hypothesis is an opportunity for cognitive exploration unshackled from ontological commitments. The content of Gnon-Theology is exhausted by the question: What does the idea of God enable us to think?

And ‘the idea of God’? — what in the name of Gnon is that? All we know, at first, is that it has been grit-blasted of all encrustations from either positive or negative faith. It cannot be anything with which we have historical or revelatory familiarity, since it reaches us from out of the abyss (epoche), where only time and / or the unknown remain.

Glutted on forbidden fruit, Gnon-Theology strips God like an engine, down to the limit of abstraction, or eternity for-itself. Does any such perspective exist? We already know that this is not our question. All such ‘regional ontology’ has been suspended. We are nevertheless already entitled, through the grace of Gnon (which — remember — might (or might not) be God), to the assumption or acceptance of reality that: for any God to be God it cannot be less than eternity for-itself. Whatever eternity for-itself entails, any God will, too.

What it entails, unambiguously, is time-travel, in the strong sense of reverse causation, although not necessarily in the folk/Hollywood variant (which has also had serious defenders) based on the retro-transportation of physical objects into the past. Knowledge of the future is indistinguishable from counter-chronic transmission of information."


"No Christian can consistently deny the reality of time-travel. The objection ‘if (reverse) time-travel if possible, where are the time-travellers?’ is annulled by the Christian revelation itself. Messianic Incarnation (of God or eternity for-itself), along with all true prophecy, providential history, and answered prayer, instantiates time-travel with technical exactitude. There can be no truth whatsoever to the Christian religion unless time-travel has fundamentally structured human history. Whatever else Christianity might be, it is a time-travel story, and one that at times appears to be peculiarly lacking in clear self-understanding."

[Anonymous No.21839750]

>>21838080
>what is the Council of Rome

[Anonymous No.21839758]

>>21837949
Watching /lit/ go from depraved DFW wet dreaming to frog-posting about Protestantism is just heavenly.

[Anonymous No.21839765]

>>21838726
I don't know anon - you're kinda smelly but if we all have souls, then maybe we try to make it work.

[Anonymous No.21839777]

>>21837987
>2 Thess 2:15
Protestant sisters... I don't feel so good

[Anonymous No.21839778]

>>21838101
Yes, the Apocrypha are still included in Anglican and Lutheran Bibles.

[Anonymous No.21840401]

>>21838734
>>21838665
cope
God decided
your inability to understand this is a YOU problem
I told youo I'm in the clear

[Anonymous No.21840413]

>>21837949
>sola scriptura
>relies on edited Jewish texts that sought to refute Christ’s claims of being the Messiah after his death

[Anonymous No.21840626]

>>21838837
>Redefining God so that "existence" and "non-existence" are equivalent is not braindead

[Anonymous No.21840644]

>>21839777
Nice trip but this doesn't scare protestants at all. Paul clearly wasn't referring the Thessalonians to "Tradition" made up 500+ years later.

[Anonymous No.21841846]

>>21837949
>sola scriptura
>except james

[Anonymous No.21842349]

>>21840626
existence in downstream of God
God is not contingent on existence.