If you think Mormonism is retarded, why you think the Bible is any different?

[The Minsky Moment]

How do we know that Jesus died for our sins? The Bible.

Christians know that Jesus died for their sins because the "good news" has been conveyed to them through a living chain back to the original witnesses to the fact (the apostles).  That knowledge is independent of any textual formulation, it would exist and be true even if the New Testament had never been written down.  There is a tendency to forget this 2000 years after the event, in a highly literate age where the written word is paramount.

Christian doctrine is discussion of and commentaries on the bible since the bible is the primary source for the minstry of jesus and the works of the apostles who were divinely inspired. If the foundation is lacking the doctrine falls not matter how internally consistent.

The text is the foundation but stating that only begs the question of how the text is be understood and what it means.  Answering that question is the hard part and focus of Christian doctrinal and theological effort for 2000 years.  The reality of doctrinal and sectional division within Christianity indicates that there have been multiple answers to that question, and the reason for that is that the text, like all texts, can be read in different ways.

[Viking]

I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.

I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.

And religion philosophy?

fyp

[Barrister]

My northern sola scriptura roots are yearning to disagree there...

Sola scriptura simply means that theology can be derived entirely from a reading of the text, and without recourse to conciliar pronouncements.  It doesn't require or even suggest a literal reading, and indeed neither Luther, Zwingli, nor Calvin adopted such a reading.  Moreover; sola scriptura was not strict, at least for the Luterans who accepted the Nicaea.

I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.

It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.

Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.

You aren't contradicting anything Minsky said though.

[garbon]

The idea that religions that have been around for millenia and have had millions of followers seem a little less crazy?

Why? Just because something is older doesn't mean it's better.

I think it does make it harder to just dismiss out of hand.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.

It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.

Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.

It's not my intent to lecture, but I did notice you said nothing to contradict me here.  The requirement for Biblical sourcing is not a requirement of literal reading and none of the figures you mentioned adopted fundamentalist readings in the sense we understand today.  In some cases their readings were quite radical and far from obvious "plain meaning" interpretations.

EDIT: also can't help but point out that since Lutherism ultimately is just another Jewish heresy, my lecturing privileges ought to be reinstated. 

[Razgovory]

I'll wait till you respond to Joan's post but I must say again it is odd that you'd give so little weight to millenia of scholarship on the issues.

I put the same weight on millennia of scholarship on this issue as I put on any other issue from astrology astronomy to alchemy chemistry.

And religion philosophy?

fyp

Try again. 

[Maximus]

As anabaptists post date the middle ages, that would be tough.

The usage of that term post-dates the middle ages. There is some indication their beliefs do not.

[Maximus]

I think it does make it harder to just dismiss out of hand.

But that's not what I was doing. Rather I was objecting to dismissing something out of hand because it was newer.

[Viking]

How do we know that Jesus died for our sins? The Bible.

Christians know that Jesus died for their sins because the "good news" has been conveyed to them through a living chain back to the original witnesses to the fact (the apostles).  That knowledge is independent of any textual formulation, it would exist and be true even if the New Testament had never been written down.  There is a tendency to forget this 2000 years after the event, in a highly literate age where the written word is paramount.

I am not asserting that the bible is itself revealed. It is an inspired compilation and restatement of the experience of the witnesses of that revelation. Jesus' preaching is the revelation and the bible is the report of that good news. It is still the primary source. There is no other in orthodox (note, uncapitalized) Christianity.

Christian doctrine is discussion of and commentaries on the bible since the bible is the primary source for the minstry of jesus and the works of the apostles who were divinely inspired. If the foundation is lacking the doctrine falls not matter how internally consistent.

The text is the foundation but stating that only begs the question of how the text is be understood and what it means.  Answering that question is the hard part and focus of Christian doctrinal and theological effort for 2000 years.  The reality of doctrinal and sectional division within Christianity indicates that there have been multiple answers to that question, and the reason for that is that the text, like all texts, can be read in different ways.

This just supports my problematization. We don't know how it is to be understood and what it means. The entire topic of theology exists to resolve this problem. I'm saying we've had 2000 years and the problem just keeps getting bigger. Theology is itself a failure and has produced no resolution to any issue since the council of Nicea. The lord is not the author of confusion, but alas he is.

I am saying that if it were true then it wouldn't need interpretation; I'm also saying that the fact that it needs interpretation means that it has no meaning other than what the reader brings to it. This means that it is just as useful as Huck Finn (actually much less so) as a source for inspiration, morality and spirituality.

[Razgovory]

As anabaptists post date the middle ages, that would be tough.

The usage of that term post-dates the middle ages. There is some indication their beliefs do not.

True, Christianity does predate the middle ages altogether, and thus some beliefs of the Anabaptists predate the renaissance, but that's not really very relevant.

[Viking]

I've learned not to lecture you about Judaism, you shouldn't lecture me about Lutheranism.

It means that everything must be sourced in the bible and the holy spirit helps you realize what the bible means in each case. Which is the reason protestantism immediately fractured because Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Wesley etc.etc. all understood it differently and were equally well justified in the interpretations.

Any argument for a theological interpretation must start with you pointing to a verse in the bible.

It's not my intent to lecture, but I did notice you said nothing to contradict me here.  The requirement for Biblical sourcing is not a requirement of literal reading and none of the figures you mentioned adopted fundamentalist readings in the sense we understand today.  In some cases their readings were quite radical and far from obvious "plain meaning" interpretations.

EDIT: also can't help but point out that since Lutherism ultimately is just another Jewish heresy, my lecturing privileges ought to be reinstated. 

sigh, at times like this I can appreciate why Luther was a venomous anti-semite 

I shifted the emphasis from your suggestion that any sola scriptura protestants thought that there was a source of knowledge of god outside the bible to pointing out that they believe that it is still god helping the reader understand the bible through inspiration from the holy spirit. The main difference between catholics and protestants is that the catholics think that the holy spirit acts on the group at prayer while the protestants think the holy spirit acts on the individual reader at prayer.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am saying that if it were true then it wouldn't need interpretation; I'm also saying that the fact that it needs interpretation means that it has no meaning other than what the reader brings to it.

The same could be said against the entire corpus of Western philosophy.

[Razgovory]

You know, I tried to point this out...

[garbon]

I think it does make it harder to just dismiss out of hand.

But that's not what I was doing. Rather I was objecting to dismissing something out of hand because it was newer.

But that's what always happens. Something new with few adherents lacks a sense of legitimacy that something older and established has. It doesn't ultimately mean that the older thing is right or better but that's what people do.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am not asserting that the bible is itself revealed. It is an inspired compilation and restatement of the experience of the witnesses of that revelation. Jesus' preaching is the revelation and the bible is the report of that good news. It is still the primary source. There is no other in orthodox (note, uncapitalized) Christianity.

Missed this.
It is the primary written source.
But the gospel at its base is an oral report, transmitted orally.  Every Christian knows that the written gospels in the NT were written down decades after the fact.  The written form is useful because it fixes the text and protects it against intentional or unintentional tampering.  But the primary source is the spoken, not the written word of the good news.