Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sotto voce · 01-10-2013, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

An interesting question would be whether resistance to Catholicism have taken a different turn had the printing press been widely available and economic conditions in the century or two before Luther had existed. Plus the earlier reformers such as Wycliff, Huss, Savonarola, etc were rather different than Luther.

I'm convinced that the printing press made the Reformation possible.

Because?

Religion is for the common people true, for the wise false and the rulers useful.

Very, very true. But 'religion' is never Christianity.

As your posts unwittingly bellow at us here.

And it never will be. Never forget Chesterton's words of wisdom. Write them on your monitor. Repeat them like a Buddhist mantra.

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

So the Vatican had ensured basically faithful translation in its Vulgate.

Ah what would we do without our late 4th century heresiologist Jerome, protogee of the dreadedly despotic and eminently successful warlord Pope Damasius who fought with his army in the streets of Rome to become the lawful Bishop of Rome, and who was rewarded for his troubles by securing the tile of Pontifex Maximus from the lineage of Roman Emperors? Business was fucking business.

Quote:

There were no egregious alterations, because they would have looked egregious. The problem (or the cunning plan) was that few could read Latin, even priests, even in Italy, let alone in the farther reaches of Europe where papal influence tended to be weak. Then in the 14th century people began to read in the vernacular, the Wyclif Bible being translated from the Vulgate, and producing a sort of proto-Protestantism, long before Luther. So the massive, diametrically opposed theological differences between Dark Age and Renaissance, between Catholic and Protestant, were not due to source texts. They were due to literacy, and then the printing press, that caught the Vatican by surprise.

But not for long.

They hit back with the Index Librorum Prohibitorum which had been a scribal index since the 4th century.

What do Giordano Bruno, Edward Gibbon, Johannes Kepler, Jean Paul Sartre, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, John Milton, John Locke, Galileo Galilei and Blaise Pascal, to name only a few, have in common?

Quote:

The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (English: List of Prohibited Books) was a list of publications prohibited by the Catholic Church. A first version (the Pauline Index) was promulgated by Pope Paul IV in 1559, and a revised and somewhat relaxed form (the Tridentine Index) was authorized at the Council of Trent. The promulgation of the Index marked the "turning-point in the freedom of enquiry" in the Catholic world.[1]

The final (20th) edition appeared in 1948, and it was formally abolished on 14 June 1966 by Pope Paul VI.[2][3][4]

I think that the formal abolition is bullshit and that retrospective to 1966 Pope Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger I continued the equivalent List of Prohibited Books (and people) by using internet publications.

sotto voce · 01-10-2013, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

So the Vatican had ensured basically faithful translation in its Vulgate. There were no egregious alterations, because they would have looked egregious. The problem (or the cunning plan) was that few could read Latin, even priests, even in Italy, let alone in the farther reaches of Europe where papal influence tended to be weak. Then in the 14th century people began to read in the vernacular, the Wyclif Bible being translated from the Vulgate, and producing a sort of proto-Protestantism, long before Luther. So the massive, diametrically opposed theological differences between Dark Age and Renaissance, between Catholic and Protestant, were not due to source texts. They were due to literacy, and then the printing press, that caught the Vatican by surprise.

But not for long.

So Australia is a Catholic country.

Do post when you have something to say.

Toto · 01-10-2013, 05:34 PM

Abercius has his own thread

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

So the Vatican had ensured basically faithful translation in its Vulgate. There were no egregious alterations, because they would have looked egregious. The problem (or the cunning plan) was that few could read Latin, even priests, even in Italy, let alone in the farther reaches of Europe where papal influence tended to be weak. Then in the 14th century people began to read in the vernacular, the Wyclif Bible being translated from the Vulgate, and producing a sort of proto-Protestantism, long before Luther. So the massive, diametrically opposed theological differences between Dark Age and Renaissance, between Catholic and Protestant, were not due to source texts. They were due to literacy, and then the printing press, that caught the Vatican by surprise.

But not for long.

So Australia is a Catholic country.

Ask Pemulwuy

mountainman · 01-10-2013, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

An interesting question would be whether resistance to Catholicism have taken a different turn had the printing press been widely available and economic conditions in the century or two before Luther had existed. Plus the earlier reformers such as Wycliff, Huss, Savonarola, etc were rather different than Luther.

I'm convinced that the printing press made the Reformation possible.

Because?

Religion is for the common people true, for the wise false and the rulers useful.

Very, very true. But 'religion' is never Christianity.

What's kept inside all the various Christian churches?

Who built the churches?

Why are they tax exempt?

Chili · 01-10-2013, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

An interesting question would be whether resistance to Catholicism have taken a different turn had the printing press been widely available and economic conditions in the century or two before Luther had existed. Plus the earlier reformers such as Wycliff, Huss, Savonarola, etc were rather different than Luther.

I'm convinced that the printing press made the Reformation possible.

Because?

Religion is for the common people true, for the wise false and the rulers useful.

Very, very true. But 'religion' is never Christianity.

What's kept inside all the various Christian churches?

Who built the churches?

Why are they tax exempt?

They are Catholic churches with confessionals in them for sinners and windows so they might be seen as sinner to all.

srd44 · 01-11-2013, 11:30 AM

Actually, the early church did in fact deal with the contradictions. Learned church fathers in Alexandria and Antioch started a massive campaign to allegorically interpret such contraditions "away." This itself was the whole imputus behind the literary topos that this so-called "Book" was the word of god, and had to be figuratively interpreted to unveil its meaning. Such interpretive stances, however, have nothing to do with the texts, but how they were received by later readers.

In the enlightment, real biblical scholarship started to emerge, where the text's contradictions were understood as resulting from an editorial endeavor that stitched together the over 60 different textual traditions that have been co-opted by this later interpretive framework we call "the Bible."

There's a really awesome site that deals with all this, called contradiction in the bible. This guy attempts to post 1 contradiction a day, starting 1/1/13 and explain it. We're at #11. When was the name Yahweh first invoked: in the earliest generations of man or not till Moses at Sinai?

Duvduv · 01-11-2013, 11:33 AM

It still does not seem clear to me why the ancient authorities as the generations went by were not the least bit interested in explaining the contradiction or introducing "midrash" or "hadith" material to deal with it.

It's just as interesting why the same reformers who saw the contradictions in other areas of church life in the centuries leading to and following Martin Luther were not intereste in examining the content of the canon texts using the same criteria.

srd44 · 01-11-2013, 11:41 AM

It might be that "contradictions" they never saw, but rather a singled authored "Book" with a homogenuous story. Under this interpretive framework, any contradiction would become an "apparent contradiction" --- line of poor reasoning still used by the apologists

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2013, 05:34 PM	#74
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Abercius has his own thread

01-11-2013, 11:30 AM	#78
srd44 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Houston, in body only Posts: 25	Actually, the early church did in fact deal with the contradictions. Learned church fathers in Alexandria and Antioch started a massive campaign to allegorically interpret such contraditions "away." This itself was the whole imputus behind the literary topos that this so-called "Book" was the word of god, and had to be figuratively interpreted to unveil its meaning. Such interpretive stances, however, have nothing to do with the texts, but how they were received by later readers. In the enlightment, real biblical scholarship started to emerge, where the text's contradictions were understood as resulting from an editorial endeavor that stitched together the over 60 different textual traditions that have been co-opted by this later interpretive framework we call "the Bible." There's a really awesome site that deals with all this, called contradiction in the bible. This guy attempts to post 1 contradiction a day, starting 1/1/13 and explain it. We're at #11. When was the name Yahweh first invoked: in the earliest generations of man or not till Moses at Sinai?

01-11-2013, 11:33 AM	#79
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	It still does not seem clear to me why the ancient authorities as the generations went by were not the least bit interested in explaining the contradiction or introducing "midrash" or "hadith" material to deal with it. It's just as interesting why the same reformers who saw the contradictions in other areas of church life in the centuries leading to and following Martin Luther were not intereste in examining the content of the canon texts using the same criteria.

01-11-2013, 11:41 AM	#80
srd44 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Houston, in body only Posts: 25	It might be that "contradictions" they never saw, but rather a singled authored "Book" with a homogenuous story. Under this interpretive framework, any contradiction would become an "apparent contradiction" --- line of poor reasoning still used by the apologists

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.