Religious Threadjacks

[Patagoniagirl]

The Rule here is: You may not criticize anything Catholic last you unleash the Wrath of Sur.

We have law enforcement members who regularly call out bad law enforcement officers, practices and actions.

We have attorneys who regularly ridicule and mock bad lawyers/lawyering.

We have health care professionals and educators who do not hesitate to speak up about bad actors and policies in their professions.

Hell, we even have grammer police (see what I did there) and strict fact-checkers.

I would like to explore the actual origins of the books of the bible, the translations, the lost books,and much more. I'd even like to learn more about the Koran, Buddhism and indigenous beliefs without it devolving into self-righteous, one-sided screaming matches.

But there is that rule I mentioned above.

[Patagoniagirl]

In the late 1980s, my ex-wife and I met an elderly Chinese gentleman in a restaurant in NYC's Chinatown (it may have been Sey Ohm Lok - Cantonese for 4-5-6). He was a soldier during the Sino-Japanese War in the 1930s and 1940s. At one point, his unit was trapped and starving, and he ended up eating part of one of his dead compatriots. He relayed that humans taste like lamb/goat. Not sure if he was telling the truth, but it was one odd conversation.

Congrats! You thread jacked the religious thread Jack thread!

[RTH10260]

In the late 1980s, my ex-wife and I met an elderly Chinese gentleman in a restaurant in NYC's Chinatown (it may have been Sey Ohm Lok - Cantonese for 4-5-6). He was a soldier during the Sino-Japanese War in the 1930s and 1940s. At one point, his unit was trapped and starving, and he ended up eating part of one of his dead compatriots. He relayed that humans taste like lamb/goat. Not sure if he was telling the truth, but it was one odd conversation.

Congrats! You thread jacked the religious thread Jack thread!

No... no... no... no thread jack, he religiously stuck with the theme, he added to the menu choice of the bear

[Uninformed]

Dated but funny. You have to watch the long sketch to get to the last joke that is appropriate to this thread.

[roadscholar]

The Buddha, Moses and Jesus walk into a Hooters.

God appears and says “Hey! What are you guys doing in a Hooters?!”

They say “Umm... we... we’re just here for the chicken wings.”

And God says “Then why do you all keep staring at my tits?”

[Patagoniagirl]

The Buddha, Moses and Jesus walk into a Hooters.

God appears and says “Hey! What are you guys doing in a Hooters?!”

They say “Umm... we... we’re just here for the chicken wings.”

And God says “Then why do you all keep staring at my tits?”

Bahahahaha! The bestest!

[Foggy]

The Rule here is: You may not criticize anything Catholic lest you unleash the Wrath of Sur.

Not my rule. However, ol' Wifehorn did not appreciate my rant above. She thinks even recovering attorneys like to argue too much, can you believe that nonsense? She knows I really like Suranis, despite his lack of self-control. She writes on a big Facebook group, and she offered a turmoil-free alternative, based on what the admins there do.

"If someone acts like that on our Facebook group, the admins simply delete the offensive posts. No notice, no warning, no debate, and definitely no discussion. You act like a jerk, your posts are gone. If you have a problem with that, you can write a PM to the admins and they'll explain IN PRIVATE. If you make a big deal about it on the public part of the group page after that, they will kick you out permanently."

So, umm ... yeah. I'ma try that one for a while. Quick, easy, and I think that might help reduce my level of crankiness, even.


If any of you notice a post or two missing, please ask me for an explanation IN A PRIVATE MESSAGE. If you simply complain about it in public, I'll delete that, too also. But I will try to respond to PMs. If you subsequently insist on making a public outcry about it, matters may escalate. I think, under this new system, there will be so few posts that actually get zapped, nobody will notice. Besides, I'm rarely on the forum for more than a few hours a day now. Chances are that many poor souls gentle readers will have seen your offensive post before I find it and smush it like a bug.

Global moderators can also delete posts, in case you were wondering.



Carry on ...

[sugar magnolia]

No more opt-in FEMA camp?

[Foggy]

When was the last time I put anyone in the FEMA camp? Sovcits and birthers are very different animals online, the birthers were far more willing to join up just to hassle us. A few Sovcits have done that, but not in a very long time. The FEMA camp was to spare our more sensitive members from flame wars, while allowing us to respond in kind. But for a long time now, we haven't had any real flame wars. If the need for the FEMA camp returns, so be it.

I imagine that the next thing I'll have to do is to make sure the Sports threads are only seen by people who want to see them. Any day now, John Thomas8 will be creating weekly threads for college and pro football pick 'ems. Then there will be ... requests, based on past history. Those requests will be honored, as in the past.

[scirreeve]

When was the last time I put anyone in the FEMA camp? Sovcits and birthers are very different animals online, the birthers were far more willing to join up just to hassle us. A few Sovcits have done that, but not in a very long time. The FEMA camp was to spare our more sensitive members from flame wars, while allowing us to respond in kind. But for a long time now, we haven't had any real flame wars. If the need for the FEMA camp returns, so be it.

I imagine that the next thing I'll have to do is to make sure the Sports threads are only seen by people who want to see them. Any day now, John Thomas8 will be creating weekly threads for college and pro football pick 'ems. Then there will be ... requests, based on past history. Those requests will be honored, as in the past.

Last time I remember was Nathan Pieters (aka Mr. Pootymouth).

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[keith]

So... uh in response to the very very long list I gave of English translations of the Bible. You said it was PARTS of the Bible and therefore don't count and therefore Catholics are evil and suppressing the Bible.

I absolutely said no such thing. I said that the vast majority of the population could not read, and in fact several languages had no written forms as yet. What was the point of the exercise of producing 500 translations if nobody could read them? The educated = the Nobility, the Church, some Artisans and Artists could read Latin. I am in no way criticizing the Church in that statement.

I do not understand why you are working so hard at being outraged by this.

I say that's complete hogwash. I gave a reason for it (the difficulty of copying books) and the fact is the Church did NOT have complete control of the Bible. The Bible was available for those who had the education to read it Europe wide. It wasn't censored. No parts were suppressed. And I've never heard of the "convocation of Oxford" and a google search does not throw anything about it up either.

WTF are you on about here? The "difficulty of copying books" is not the problem, even if it takes 1600 sheepskins to produce one copy. The problem is that it takes several years of work to produce ONE translation, let alone 500 different ones, including some for languages that do not have a writing system yet, and I repeat who is going to read them?

The vast majority of the population COULD NOT READ. They got their knowledge of the Bible from homilies, from morality plays, from stained glass windows, from paintings and statues, from minstrels and troubadors, etc. These methods were all necessarily filtered through the Priests and artists - none are a direct experience of the scripture. That is simple truth and was a necessary method to promote the gospel at the time. Certainly specific 'bits' were translated, for use by missionaries and local communities. My entire discussion is based on the translation of the entire Bible, for which there was no particular pressure to produce until around the 13th century. And the Church sought to suppress these translations, no matter how 'orthodox' they were, for hundreds of years.

Try a Google search on "Convocation of 1408" - my system returns over 2.1 million hits. No doubt the vast majority are garbage, but "throwing up nothing" it is certainly not. The hits on the top of the search are in the context of Wycliffe's and other Biblical Translations. The first one in my list is the Wikipedia entry for Wycliff's Bible. If Google doesn't work for you, perhaps you could start there.

Also found by the above Google search: the book A History of the Convocation of the Church of England: from the earliest period to the year 1742 (Rev. Thomas Lathbury, 1853) mentions it. (That link should take you to the page).

Also found by the above Google search: http://www.bible-researcher.com/arundel.htmlArchbishop Thomas Arundel’s Constitutions against the Lollards (promulgated at the Convocation of 1408).

...
7. The translation of the text of Holy Scripture out of one tongue into another is a dangerous thing; as blessed Jerome testifies, because it is not easy to make the sense in all respects the same; as the same blessed Jerome confesses that he made frequent mistakes in this business, although he was inspired: therefore we enact and ordain that no one henceforth do by his own authority translate any text of Holy Scripture into the English tongue or any other by way of book, pamphlet, or treatise. Nor let any such book, pamphlet, or treatise now lately composed in the time of John Wicklif aforesaid, or since, or hereafter to be composed, be read in whole or in part, in public or in private, under pain of the greater excommunication, till that translation have been approved by the diocesan of the place, or if occasion shall require, by a provincial Council. Let him that do contrary be punished in the same manner as a supporter of heresy and error.

EDIT: How are "supporters of heresy and error" punished? The Lollard, William Sawtrey was burned at the stake in 1401. Wikipedia has a Lollard Martyrs Category Page which links to 11 other pages of Lollard martyrs discussion pages.

Arundel's argument is what I describe as GAS-LIGHTING - in the same way that Lindell is gas-lighting about his so-called 'data'.

In actual fact, Wycliffe's translation made no error, and the Church had an extremely difficult time of suppressing it because of that.

The idea that you are controlling the word by putting it in a different language THAT YOU THEN TEACH is so ludicrous its laughable. Its like the Russians having secret messages and giving the key codes away.

That is not the point that Wycliffe and the Lollards was making (and certainly NOT mine). Their argument, and also that of the Cathars by the way, was that certain CHURCH DOCTRINE had no basis in Scripture and since nobody could read what Scripture actually said, they were at the mercy of the Priests. You want an egregious example: indulgences - a predatory, grifting fraud that preyed on people's fears.

PLUS you are making the mistake of equating Vernacular with English.
The Codex Gigas from the 13th century, held at the Royal Library in Sweden.

No, in fact, I am not. I know the meaning of vernacular, thank you.

The Codex Gigas is in Latin - what does that have to do with a discussion about translating into vernacular?.

Pope Innocent III in 1199 banned unauthorized versions of the Bible as a reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. The synods of Toulouse and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of such renderings. There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted while others were being scrutinized.

Here is an extract from Innocent's decision:

... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

Source: Bridging the Gap - Lectio Divina, Religious Education, and the Have-not's by Father John Belmonte, S.J.

Innocent is EXPLICITLY saying that the 'mysteries' are only for the elite. The faith must be filtered through qualified Priests. Perhaps if the peasants were allowed to read the Bible (assuming they could read in either Latin or their vernacular) and think about it for themselves, the Church might lose its power?

More gas-lighting.

The complete Bible was translated into Old French in the late 13th century. Parts of this translation were included in editions of the popular Bible historiale, and there is no evidence of this translation being suppressed by the Church.[14] The entire Bible was translated into Czech around 1360.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

The "Old French" (which appears to be a name, not the language - or maybe its both?) and Czech translations are new to me. By those dates, the Old French was about 100 years before Wycliffe, and the Czech 10 or 20 years before. Thank you.

However, I find it odd, that a page dedicated to the history of the French Bible does not mention it unless it is confusing the 1377 Bible with the “Thirteenth-Century Bible”.

History of the French Bible
* The Bible of Charles V of France This translation, in manuscript form as it was produced before the age of printing, was made by Raoul de Presles in 1377, and dedicated to the French King, Charles V. Roughly contemporary with Wycliffe

* New Testament Printed at Lyon in 1476, this French New Testament was a translation from the Latin Vulgate. New Testament only, 100 years after Wycliffe

* Rely Bible This translation was made by Jean de Rely in 1487, and was called the "Great Bible". It was not a translation in the sense that we would understand it today, but was called a Bible History. It was adapted from the work of Guiard des Moulins towards the end of the thirteenth century. well after Wycliff, of course

If the Cathars were making Changes to the Bible, damn right the Pope should have banned unauthorised versions of it. Yo are missing that part of it, that in their Vernacular Translations they were altering the bible to fit therir idea. And as you can see complete translations were bien gmade less than 100 years after Innocents ban, and vernacular translations existed at the same time with no problems,

ANyway I gotts run. Later.s

I do not have the impression that the Cathars were 'making Changes to the Bible' - they were merely translating it so that it could be read by the ordinary people. Certainly they entirely rejected the Old Testament so they would not have been interested in translating it. They seem to have had vernacular translations of some of the New Testament, but none have been identified for sure (perhaps John) - Inquisition records don't really make it clear. They did have their own commentary and documents discussing their theology and doctrine, which was in many cases the antithesis of Roman doctrine.

Anyway, the Roman Church didn't object to the Cathar's because of the Bible, but because they were not Catholic. Sure, there were probably charges lists in the Inquisition that included 'unauthorized' translations, but then the Church also banned (primarily Cathari) scribes producing legal documents (wills and deeds and such) in Latin - which was a privilege reserved for the Priests. So the Cathar's were the 12th century 'Ubers' - disrupting the status quo!

The Cathars rejected everything to do with the Roman Church, especially Papal and Priestly Authority, and the Cathari doctrines were the anti-thesis of Roman doctrine in countless ways. The Roman Church just couldn't tolerate that.

The Cathar's theology and mythology, what can be known about it today, is very interesting and beautiful.

[Suranis]

Ok Honestly, I think Kieth and I are in broad agreement in general terms. Plus I'm not in the mood today to go into an in depth argument about all that

But I have to call him out on using a false citation

Pope Innocent III in 1199 banned unauthorized versions of the Bible as a reaction to the Cathar and Waldensian heresies. The synods of Toulouse and Tarragona (1234) outlawed possession of such renderings. There is evidence of some vernacular translations being permitted while others were being scrutinized.


Here is an extract from Innocent's decision:

... to be reproved are those who translate into French the Gospels, the letters of Paul, the psalter, etc. They are moved by a certain love of Scripture in order to explain them clandestinely and to preach them to one another. The mysteries of the faith are not to explained rashly to anyone. Usually in fact, they cannot be understood by everyone but only by those who are qualified to understand them with informed intelligence. The depth of the divine Scriptures is such that not only the illiterate and uninitiated have difficulty understanding them, but also the educated and the gifted (Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum 770-771)

Source: Bridging the Gap - Lectio Divina, Religious Education, and the Have-not's by Father John Belmonte, S.J.

That's not what Innocent said at all, and its an example of the delibera slander that has been put against the Catholic church by Prodestants over the centuries.

Cum ex injuncto (1199) [in part]

Truly our venerable brother the Bishop of Metz has signified to us in his letter that both in the diocese and in the city of Metz the multitude of laymen and women, drawn in no small way by desire, have had the Scriptures, Gospels, the Pauline epistles, the Psalter, the commentaries on Job and many other books translated for their own use into the French language, exerting themselves towards this kind of translation so willingly, but not so prudently, that in secret meetings the laymen and women dare to discuss such matters between themselves, and to preach to each other: they also reject their community, do not intermingle with similar people, and consider themselves separate from them, and do not align their ears and minds with them; when any of the parish priests wished to censure them concerning these matters, they stood firm before them, trying to argue from the Scriptures that they should not be prohibited in any way from doing these things. Some of them also scorned the simplicity of their priests; and when the Word of Salvation is shown to them by those priests, they grumble in secret that they understand the Word better in their little books and that they can explain it more prudently.

But although the desire to understand the divine Scriptures, and, according to the Scriptures themselves, the zeal to spread them, is not forbidden, but is rather commendable, nevertheless the arguments against it appear well-deserved, because those who do not adhere to such arguments celebrate their assemblies in secret, usurp for themselves the duty of preaching, mock the simplicity of the priests and reject their community. For God, the true light, which illuminates all men coming into this world, hates such works of darkness so much that when he was about to send his apostles out into the world to preach the Gospel to all creation, he ordered them clearly, saying: “That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops”; announcing openly in this way that the preaching of the Gospel must not be carried out in hidden communities, as heretics do, but in churches in the Catholic manner. For according to the testimony of Truth, “every one that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. But he that doth truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest: because they are done in God.”

Because of this, when the high priest “asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine, Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing.” Furthermore, if anyone objects that according to the Lord’s command “give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine”, since Christ himself also said “unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables”, he should understand that dogs and pigs are not things which happily bring holiness and willingly accept pearls, but things which tear apart holiness and scorn pearls, just like those who do not venerate the words of the Gospel and the ecclesiastical sacraments as Catholics, but rather detest them as heretics, who are always chattering and blaspheming, whom the apostle Paul teaches should be avoided “after the first and second admonition.”

The mysteries of the sacraments of faith should not be explained everywhere to everyone, since they cannot be understood everywhere by everyone, but only to those who can conceive of them by their faithful intellect. Because of this the Apostle said to the simpler people: “As unto little ones in Christ I gave you milk to drink, not meat.” For “strong meat is for the perfect”, as he said to others: “we speak wisdom among the perfect;” “for I judged not myself to know anything among you, but Jesus Christ: and him crucified.” Such is the profundity of divine Scripture, that not only simple and illiterate men, but even prudent and learned men do not fully suffice to investigate its wisdom. Because of this Scripture says: “They have failed in their search.” From this it was rightly once established in divine law that the beast which touches the mountain should be stoned; that is, so that no simple and unlearned man presumes to concern himself with the sublimity of sacred Scripture, or to preach it to others.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Cum_ex_injuncto_(1199)
(Emphasis added to show the snippets which were combined to create something the original text did NOT say!)

https://cathapol.wordpress.com/2013/09/ ... -citation/

So they basically pulled together 3 sentences from different paragraphs and in order to make Innocent say something that they wanted people to think Catholics were saying, when in fact the real document was nothing like that. You don't even have to agree with what innocent was saying to at least give him that.

So. in short, Kieth is the victim of the same sort of lies that are engulfing the world today. The Cite O copied this from lists a long list of anti Catholic sites and they lie about where they original quote came from, and do not give a link to Cum ex Injunto so people could check for themselves.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Anyway, Not in the mood for arguments today other than that.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I ain't arguing, Suranis, but if I were on a jury, I would vote that Innocent didn't want those folks translating and reading the Bible without a priest involved.

[Suranis]

Uh ya, that's kind of implied by the word "unauthorised" in the wiki article I posted.

But Keith was implying the Catholic Church was blocking Vernacular translations, and they weren't. Innocent was NOT talking about hiding the mysteries of Scripture, just having Scripture accurate accurate to the original texts to prevent misunderstandings. Authorised vernacular translations were fine.

And, frankly, having someone there to ensure the accuracy of the translation is not a bad idea. You see you can look at it as the church being authoritarian, or you can look at it as the church doing its best to ensure all translations were accurate. Or a mix of the 2.

[Uninformed]

“Religious groups in UK failing children over sex abuse, report says”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58420270

“It covers a series of religious groups including Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists, Methodists, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and non-conformist Christian denominations.”

[Suranis]

*Drops pin on the reporting of this*

*CLANG*

[MsDaisy]

Since this is a threadjack thread... I've never personally subscribed to any religious beliefs but just out of curiosity I googled "How many gods are there worldwide" and there's actually a bunch of websites for that, so I clicked on my top result just out of curiosity...

How many gods are there worldwide?

Throughout recorded history, we can count anywhere from 8,000–12,000 gods who have been worshiped. But we can only count around 9 different types of gods (based on theological characteristics) that have been worshiped. Every modern god also fits into one of these types, and 5 of them are Hindu types.

Also question is, how many gods have there been so far?
There have been nearly 3000 Gods so far but only yours actually exists.
(Okay, I did laugh at that, but no disrespect meant to anyone's personal beliefs)

Additionally, how many gods are there in Christianity? Christians believe that there is only one God, whom they call Father as Jesus Christ taught them.

Moreover, how many pagan gods are there?

The Di Selecti were considered the 20 main gods, while the Di Consentes comprised the 12 principal deities at the heart of the Roman Pantheon. Though taken from the Greeks, the grouping of 12 gods has pre Hellenic origins, probably in the religions of Lycian and Hittite, both Anatolian peoples.

https://askinglot.com/how-many-gods-are-there-worldwide

I cannot attest to the validity of any of this but thought it interesting...

[RTH10260]

Intersting, let my doG fight it out with your Dog - the better guy may win

[Patagoniagirl]

Where are these books of the bible?

1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Susanna, Additions to Esther, The Book of Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary.

[northland10]

Where are these books of the bible?

1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Susanna, Additions to Esther, The Book of Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, The Epistle of Jeremiah, The Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Mary.

Most of those are contained it what is referred to as the Apocrypha. In some denominations, such as Episcopal, they are not considered canonical like the Old and New Testaments but are still considered inspired and worthy of reading. They sometimes show up in our liturgical readings. Some bibles you buy have the Apocrypha squeezed in between the Old and New Testaments.

The mouse will have to explain the Roman Catholic standing for these. I assume most Protestants, especially the more evangelical or fundie side do not recognize these one bit.

Here is a common list for books in the Apocrypha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha - sorry Wiki link but it is the quickest).
1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
Tobit
Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4 – 16:24)
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasseh (Daniel)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

The Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Peter were, I think, later found texts which many scholars consider to be Gnostic texts. Generally not included in most traditions.

Enoch and Jubilees are, I think, texts that did not make the cut for canonical including in the bible. There are many. I get the impression that these are more often used in the Coptic Church of Ethiopia, and may be apocryphal books of the Jewish canon.

I am a bit out of my league here on the development of scripture as seminary was a while ago and I do deal much with scripture history now. I can go on and on and on liturgical music history, not to mention liturgical history.

[Suranis]

To be honest I'm not a scripture scholar so I would just be cribbing from Wiki, but ya most of them are in my Catholic Bible.

[northland10]

To be honest I'm not a scripture scholar so I would just be cribbing from Wiki, but ya most of them are in my Catholic Bible.

[northland10]

A bunch of my Bibles have the Apocrypha, but that's because it makes them bigger and better for Bible banging upside someone's head.

[Flatpoint High]

Mine's in Hebrew

[Suranis]

He brewed what?