Slashdot Mirror
Vatican/HP To Put Library Online
darkuncle writes "I first read it in the LA Times print edition this morning, but the story is also available on several websites via news.google.com. Apparently the Vatican has enlisted Hewlett-Packard in an effort to put the contents of the Vatican Library online, including many rare Bible texts and previously unavailable manuscripts, including handwritten notes by the likes of Martin Luther and Michelangelo."
We can finally see if Samuel Jackson was actually quoting the bible in Pulp Fiction, or if he was just making shit up...
...to Slashdot the Vatican? I guess we just might find out!
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Hey, maybe I'm just a religion n00b, but I was under the impression that all the text of the Bible was, uh, in the Bible.
Are they talking about original scans or something?
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It will be interesting to see if this stuff is public domain (you would think), or does the Vatican claim copyright ownership, in the manner of Scientology?
Unfortunately the DMCA forbids them from putting any of Leonardo's work on the Web, since he used a simple encryptation system and didn't write them an access license.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I mean there are documents going back to the Roman Empire. Could you imagine if it all was available online? And searchable? The man-hours to do it would be incredible.
I mean, there are rumors of intelligence reports from Pontius Pilate being archived there. Watch all the Bible geeks have a field day.
Plus I imagine, a copy of every forbidden book written since then. Kept around, just as evidence.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You never know with religion, maybe there's something to it, maybe there isn't. Maybe life imitates art, art imitates life.
In the case of Raiders of the lost Arc the movie was done so well that one could almost "imagine" it to be real. Does the vatican hold onto ancient relics with seemingly supernatural powers? Could some of these be alien technology recovered years ago by clerics?
What of other things such as Exorcisms, demonic possesions, spirit speak and the like, will the cases surrounding these events be made public.
I was baptized catholic, but thats about it. I'm really curious to see if any of the cool stuff that went on in hollywood catholisism goes on in real life.
It's about time. The Vatican has, arguably, the worlds most diverse collection not just of religious writings, but also of scientific, historical, mathematic, political and cultural documents known to man.
Looking forward to seeing whats online.
=U= "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"
But this project was to allow access to specified scholars. It's nice to see expanded access.
This happened when the Dead Sea Scrolls were fist reseased to a set of specific people. A data set was made available to the general public of word occurrences and relationships. A group of people used this data to compile the original texts, and released them to everyone. It pissed a lot of ivory tower types off, IIRC.
I wonder if it includes the Vatican's extra specail collections.
There's a "Holy See Plus Plus" joke here somewhere.
I object to that article, and to the next reply.
Just as a correction, they are releasing their WWII era documents. And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion.
I think IBM Global Services was doing some work in this area. I guess the estimate was too much, even for the Vatican.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Or will it jsut put texts to show the struggle of the cahtholic religon to make it look more appealign to the general public?
Spelling aside, why would the Vatican care what 1400 texts people read online? Your experience as a Catholic must be limited to a pew.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I heard the Vatican had a huge archive of erotic art & such. If it's true I wonder if any of it is going online.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
1. Nail decree on church door
2. ???
3. Prophet!!!
" Is there any specific reason that the Vatican would pick HP over other candidates?"
Remember the Compaq merger? HP's got a reputation for fudging facts. Precisely what's required for a job involving the Catholic church and ancient texts.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I would imagine most Slashdotters are aware that the Vatican is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Another factoid, but possibly not so obvious, is that the Bible as we know it today -- most people are familiar with the King James Version -- is a collection of works whose inclusion (or exclusion if you want to think of it that way) is more or less arbitrary. For example, "Esther" is omitted (yes, I'm serious).
So what I'm getting at is whether the Vatican plans on opening up all works for perusal or do they plan on omitting certain works based, possibly, on how well the information fits in with the desired line of thinking.
What if there are works that don't dovetail with the accepted works? What if some writings in their collection outright contradict other writings? Is the Vatican ready to drop the line that theology is too important to leave to the commoners, really?
My
Limekiller
And the cathedrals! Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit. It existed for how many centuries before the people even understood a single word of mass? The cathedrals are castles that were funded by the faithful who really had no clue what their faith was. The crusades were financial ventures, that much is common knowledge.
I'll most likely be modded as flame bait, but that would really only prove my point. There has never been any type of openness or disclosure about what the Catholic church is up to, and for a very good reason. It siphons money from believers in order to fortify its position and find a reason to exist. So they'll publish their library, so what? This certainly won't be the dawning of a new age of responsibility, accountability, righteous ethics, or social service in the Church.
So, anyhow, the moderators can prove me right by marking this as flamebait. If I were wrong, there would be more than enough people to explain why I'm mistaken and stupid, but barring that unlikely scenario, mod me to -1 so nobody gets the sniffles or sheds a tear.
For instance, only one page from the rare "B" version of the "Codex Vaticanus" Bible is available online.
Coming soon: The Holy Bible - Special Edition
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Thanks. Very mature of you. More /. posters should be as considerate.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
And by the way, I'm not atheist and not a follower of some trendy-flavor-of-the-week-fringe religion. I am religious, I do believe in the God of Abraham, but am certainly not a fan of Catholicism.
The news.google.com results:
... 4567222). I thought for a fleeting moment that The Vatican had acquired ...
...blargle...
Vatican/HP To Put Library Online
Slashdot - 4 minutes ago
HP. I would've liked to have seen the org chart for that one...
[snip]
My other sig is also a
" BTW I am a cathlic, and I am not bashing, just curious."
Don't feel bad, I'm Catholic and I bash 'em all the time. Between 4 years of Sunday school and 9 years of Catholic schooling, I pretty much figured out that I want nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Probably, the price was right.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Christianity is of course an amalgmam of pre-existing religous/ cultural beliefs and a new tradition. The point is, it had one pretty good leader and he had a bunch of followers who weren't to shabby either. Discredit?, far from it. Exhibit failings? absolutely. That's a huge difference. It still will be those who choose to believe, will believe. Those who refuse to believe, won't.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
If the Vatican puts the contents of the Vatican library I guarantee they will censor the living hell out of what goes online. They wouldn't dare put the old Pre-Nicean Counsel (sp) texts up on the library. I am certain all the old Gnostic works will still be locked up in a vault. The pre-latin translation, arimeic, (sp) texts and countless other "forbidden" texts won't make it in. This is a joke right? It's hard enough when I was studying theology to get Pre-Vatican II texts from them. The bulk of what is in the library I doubt will ever see the light of day. I wonder if they still have the notes and comments from the Nicean Councel on what was removed and what was kept and what was changed. (Case in point the whole Virgin thing is in question as prior to most Latin text Mary wasn't mentioned as being a Virgin. So maybe his brother really was a half brother) I will be interested in seeing the results of this no doubt but I have a feeling we'll only get the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. Yes I know I butchered this but I have no spell checker at the moment.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Hasn't happened yet as far as I know...
Most of the external stuff runs on Alpha hardware (May explain the HP connection there).
Funny aside: It's rumored that the Pope is an avid surfer.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
How can the Vatican Library exert copyright over a document written by, of all people, Martin Luther. I suppose he was a Monk at the time he wrote it....
Are they simply exerting copyright over the photograph of the document, and not on the contents of the document itself? Is that okay, even?
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Pr0n, pr0n and more pr0n.
The Vatican supposedly has the largest collection of erotica in the world.
Cecil Adams disagrees, though, so I suppose it must not be true.
--
E_NOSIG
No basis to criticize, the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility mandates that HP is divinely suited to do this job.
Considering all the brainpower that seems to be concentrated(?) at the /.-ers PCs when it comes to more or less mindless trivia like asteroids threatening Earth, new ways to make ultra-thin condoms or whatever, it's rather scary to see all the glibness and plain ignorance at a moment like this.
The fact that a tremendous lot of historical data will be acessible is, in it self, fantastic news.
Of course, it will be selected and skewed, and no, the p)0(rn will not be there, but that's not the point. It will be THERE, to help all those interested to learn more. Like any great museum, if you will.
I'm not a Catholic, I'm not a bit religious, but I think things like this make the Net something great!
"Not to mention, it would bring out a lot of texts that would show just how modern Christianity and Catholicism was practically invented by Roman Councils picking, choosing, and editing text as they pleased, and how all the text of the Bible either came from oral history or history written 70 years after Jesus' death, of which none of the original texts still exist."
Yeah, whatever. You obviously know absolutely nothing about Historical Criticism. Your bias against Christianity has scewed your view of New Testament development so severely that you lack any objectivity. Though, IMHO, traditional authorship (as claimed by Christians) of NT texts has a tendency to be incorrect, save for Paul's writings (and even some of those are up for contention), it's a stetch to say "modern Christianity and Catholicism was practically invented by Roman Councils picking, choosing, and editing text as they pleased" and "written 70 years after Jesus' death". There are some that argue (including myself) that Mark and "Q" predate the revolt/Temple destruction and 'Luke'/'Mat.' reliance on said texts shows a level of care in constructing their gospels that sceptics don't want to admit.
I'm probabally wasting my time...
Learn some Biblical history and take your anti-Christian bias out of the picture, it makes you look immature, even to non-Christians (like myself).
Burn Hollywood Burn
Well, they're putting the notes of Martin Luther online. If you don't know the relation of Martin Luther to the Catholic church, then you might need spend some time with the Googline Oracle.
All in all, that's not very favorable material to the Catholic Church considering what the movement he started was and why he started it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That's kind of like saying that because a couple of Muslims got together and killed a few thousand innocent citizens, the entire Islamic religion will be discredited. While witch hunts, pedophilia, and God-knows what other atrocities have been committed in the name Christianity (Crusades...), any rational person would attribute that to the zealots who took a good thing and perverted it.
I have strong doubts that exposing historical atrocities commited in the name of Christianity will be the "nail in the coffin." I didn't even realize there was a coffin for that matter...
Actually, If I understand you, Ester (Esther?) is only omitted in the protestant version of the bible, as well as all the books of wisdom.
The protestant and catholic versions of the bible differ in number of books and content in many areas.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
I think this is an excellent move for the Catholic church. I am not catholic nor do I like the practice much, but I see the potential the church has if it ever becomes righteous...
"And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion."
While I agree it's never good to make "wildly opinionated and unsupported comments", I don't think that's the case here. After spending all my years in schooling up 'til college in either Sunday school (first 4 years) or a Catholic school (the rest), I learned a great deal about the Catholic Church and its history. And you know what? (S)He's right. The statements made aren't supported by links etc., but generally speaking, facts stand on their own. If you would like to debate anything that was said, feel free. I'm more than willing to find a plethoria of evidence to support each and every claim made in that post.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I'm not sure what this 'Catholic conspiracy' thing is... Is that like an 'enemies are bad' conspiracy? I never intended to 'let anyone in on it', but to point out that it is hardly going to be a surprise when the Vatican omits large portions of their library from public view. I mean, let's be honest, inciteful or not, the Catholic Church is simply NOT an organization known for being open about themselves. There is a well established history of concealing their documents and actions. Does that incite you? It certainly should not, since it ought to be very common knowledge at this point.
As for things to contribute to the conversation, I've already shared my expectations with regards to the publication of materials critical of or harmful to the Church. It won't happen. That's a type of transparency and accountability which goes against hundreds of years of Vatican policy. That much is fact. If that is inciteful, the fault is not with me. If I'm modded down for pointing out these facts, it only serves to justify my criticisms, specifically that the Catholic Church has no excuse for itself and must therefore silence criticism rather than address it.
Thanks for the response.
Doesn't the Vatican have the largest collection of porn in the world? Well, that's one way to build bigger churches! :-)
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Just as a correction, they are releasing their WWII era documents. And try to refrain from making wildly opinionated and unsupported comments about something as sensitive as religion...any religion.
Yes.
It is OK to laugh at an adult who believes in Santa Clause, and with the right judge, you can probably get said adult committed and their next-of-kin awarded power of attorney.
But do not ever question religious beliefs, or express unflattering opinions thereof, and for god's sake don't ever imply that religious beliefs might be on the same order of silliness as a belief in Santa Clause!
Conviniently, we have decided pointing out the foolishness of adults who believe in modern day myth to be rude, while of course their expounding on the eternal torture of those who do not believe in precisely those same myths, or do believe in those same myths, but with slightly differing interpretations thereof, and proseletyzing such beliefs to others, whether or not the victim of such proseletyzing wants to hear it, is merely an "expression" of their "faith."
So have some tolerance, and for crying out loud stop calling a jack-of-diamonds a jack-of-diamonds.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Those are far from the only reasons... Read this:
English - Are Roman Catholics Christians? ©1985 by Jack T. Chick LLC
The posters here criticizing the Catholic Church have for the most part no clue what they're talking about. Anyone who thinks they can define the actions of billions of people in dozens of countries across 2000 years of history that simply has a screw loose.
In my experience the people who criticize the Catholic Church the most know the least about it (blah blah they only want money blah blah).
Anti-Catholicism doesn't bother me; I personally have a lot of problems with the Church both as a political as well as theological entity, and have no problem criticizing them (I'm not a practicing Catholic because of some of these reasons). Ignorance, however, DOES bother me, and these inane blanket comments about what the Church is about just reek of profound ignorance.
The work that IBM did was over 10 years ago... and they were working on the library management system and creating a local system to view digital versions of documents that shouldn't be handled frequently. However none of that work translated to the web very well...
The1Genius - Littera Scripta Manet
Okay, I'll take the challenge.
Myth #1: Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit.
Fact: Catholicism is niether a corporation nor for profit. It is a widely held misconception that the Catholic church is obscenely rich, when in fact it has relatively limited liquid resources (everything is in priceless sacred art, buildings, etc). And the vast majority of what money that comes into Rome goes into making the Church the world's #1 providor of care of AIDS, and countless other charitable activities.
Myth #2: It's an entire heirarchy built around the practice of duping people into coughing up cash for rewards in a future life.
Fact: Buying indulgences was never a licit practice in the Church and has been soundly rejected over and over again.
Myth #3: The crusades were financial ventures, that much is common knowledge
Fact: Many historians would disagree (Hillare Belloc for example). In fact, the Crusades were incredibly costly, rather than profitable. And a question: While you're bashing, why not claim they just wanted to masacre Jews and Muslims? That's another common one you seemed to have missed. Most anti-Catholic historians seem to take that position.
I could go on, but frankly, there's no point. You haven't provided any support for your points, so there's really nothing to argue against rather than your opinions.
Esther is in my Bible, as well as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. There are some books the Roman Catholic Church considers to be Scripture such as Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Maccabees books, III and IV Esdras (I think?), etc., that most Protestants do not.
Not sure where the poster above got the idea that Esther was omitted in Catholic or Protestant Bibles...
I figure I'm capable of examining each book myself on its merits and deciding if it is Scripture or not myself. People were doing so long before any councils decided what was canon and what was not.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Certainly you could find many sources. And I could find many counter-sources as well. No doubt you would refer to something like 'Hitler's Pope' while I would counter by pointing to all the Jewish historians and leaders who have shown their support for Pius IX. It would go on and on. But above all what the poster and most others fail to do is to distinguish between what Catholics do and what the Church teaches. No doubt there have been many individual Catholics who, in forsaking Church teachings, have brought shame to the institution as a whole. It is vitally important to make the distinction.
"Rare texts" are rare, because it's easy to use them agains (sic)Catholic Church. I think they'll stay "rare".
No, rare texts are rare because few copies exist. Why not? For one thing, many of the books and manuscripts that we're talking about predate the printing press. No need to come up with conspiracy theories to explain it.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Actually the King James Bible probably isn't the one most people are familiar with. It's one of the great works of English literature, but for day-to-day use most people use modern versions such as the New International Version.
So will they use the dated Theological Markup Language (ThML)? Or do they go with Cocoon/TomCat to mark-up this data the same way the CCEL does?
--- have you healed your church website?
Including the prediction of the fall of the cathlic empire?
;)
As they are putting up texts by Martin Luther, the answer is yes.
Tor
Damn! Google is fast. I clicked the link in the Slashdot story, then without looking, clicked the top link on the news.google.com site -- which was back to the Slashdot story!
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
That said, I'm not searching for anything spiritual and it is truly inconceivable that Catholicism is The Answer for me (or anyone, but that's just my opinion ;) I won't be surprised when the online Vatican library is not comprehensive and suppose I was a bit too opinionated in saying so.
The Catholic Church has a bunch of original works by the Martin Luther? Author of 95 theses? One of the founders of the Reformation and perhaps the biggest and most influential critic of the Vatican? I'm curious as to why they have them. History shows they weren't exactly the most open-minded bunch back when they collected them. Was it to "learn thy enemy"?
That's like finding out Linus has a collection of signed First Edition books written by Bill Gates.
What if some writings in their collection outright contradict other writings
This would probably have no additional effects, as there are already self-contradictions within the bible.
Some Christians would still not admit that such contradictions disprove a fundamentalist interpretation (which they do)
And some Atheist would keep telling us that such contradictions disprove Christianity in general (which they don't)
Tor
"No doubt there have been many individual Catholics who, in forsaking Church teachings, have brought shame to the institution as a whole. It is vitally important to make the distinction."
This is true in any organization, and is one of the inherent weaknesses of organized religion. That being said, the Catholic Church itself has, throughout the years, advocated everything from slavery, to torture, to execution.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
As soon as there is a post that mentions religion, the trolls come out of the wood work to flame and run. The really sad part is that this posting is of much more significance than religion. Some of those manuscripts may contain clues to unlock mysteries in history. A lot have nothing more that just historical significance, but that's enough. We should all be happy that more information is being put into the mainstream, not flaming it because we just don't like the people it's coming from.
When the Bible was first assembled from the Gospels, Acts, Revelations, and the various letters of the apostiles to the early churches, there was much debate as to which versions of various books to include. Most of the books of the Bible had various differences as they were copied by various scribes attempting to preserve them before the first collections of them were gathered. Here's a good timeline of the history of the Good Book.
Furthermore, there's the Pseudepigrapha. These are rejected books of the Bible that scholars of various times either considered falsified or otherwise not worthy to include in the Bible. Usually, they purport to be written by a Biblical figure, but were generally not believed to have actually been written by them at the time of the Council of Laodicea. Then you have the books where are in the Catholic Old Testament but not in the Protestant Old Testament. These are the books most commonly labelled as Apocrypha.
Here's some more info on early church texts.
Here's a FAQ on the history of the Bible.
You can find a lot of this on Google if you know what to look for, but I've been nice and included links without bizarre obscurist religious or UFO ranting. The "lost" books of the Bible are a rich source of material for people with fringe beliefs that are looking to justify them or people who have an axe to grind with mainstream Christianity.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What, then, is the Church about?
In your opinion, should I expect to find the known-to-exist-but-tightly-guarded material regarding Hitler's final solution online? Should I expect to see everything the Vatican has about the Dead Sea Scrolls online?
I'm not trying to troll, but seriously asking for you opinion about these. It's my hypothesis that both of these documents would cause quite an outrage, loss of favor, and a serious cut in revenue for Catholic Churches around the world. I suspect that would be reason enough to keep them concealed. I think that this would be precisely the reason to publish them if The Powers That Be in the Church felt that theirs was the true way to God; a "trust in Him and be humble and glory will be yours" type of thing. Turn the other cheek, let down your guard, and God will deliver victory because Catholicism is the way to Him.
But I think that's pretty unlikely. I will be mightily impressed if the Vatican DOES fully disclose all of these secrets. What do you think? What is the Church about and why do you think they will publish everything?
A great many of the Vatican's (and many other Church libraries') works are actually in other languages besides Latin. German, Greek and French works outnumber those in Latin at any theological library I've seen.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
inherently evil. Hard to keep track of that rascally Catholic church.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
For the last 15 years, the Vatican has been working on transferring many texts and artwork to a secure digital format in hopes of saving it for all future generations.
Most of the text that the project has successfully transferred (and a good majority of text that has not been transferred) is available here. You do have to fill out some forms and then the materials are copied and sent to you.
All jokes and criticisms aside, the Vatican possesses the majority of the world's greatest works of literature, art, and historical documentation. I hope that they make all of it available to the world very soon.
'King James Version .... For example, '"Esther" is omitted (yes, I'm serious).'
Actually, Esther was in the original King James Version of the Bible. The 14 books of the Apocrypha were officially removed in 1885. See, e.g., this google search.
"he was referring to the claim that the Vatican would hide the records of such past sins. That claim was provided entirely without evidence, unless we're to believe that "that's just the sort of thing that those Catholics would do." To the extent that the original poster was implying that, I am rightly offended."
I think the poster was referring to what the Catholic Church tends to do; and I have to agree. Nobody likes to admit mistakes, and the Catholic Church is no different; they try to bury that which does not make the Church look good. Unless you're a Catholic Cardinal, I don't think you should be offended at all. Personally, as a Catholic myself, I'm offended by the way my Church has acted in the past and in the present. The Vatican has been ordering NDA's for settlements for years in abuse cases (despite calls for reconciliation by a number of bishops), and now one of the things the Vatican is fighting is reporting of molestation accusations to local authorities. That offends me greatly, as it should you and every other good and decent human being on this Earth. The poster wasn't Catholic-slamming, (s)he was Catholic Church-slamming; something I do every chance I get. Why? I'm Catholic, and I was taught that the stuff my church is doing is wrong.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Too bad the Catholic church isn't Christianity...
You're a moron. According to the dictionary, Christianity is defined as The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus. That definition could be (and has, in the distant past) interpreted to mean that only Catholics are Christians. No matter what, the Church is founded on both scripture and tradition, which itself is merely interpretation of scripture. Take your fundie slander elsewhere, please.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
In a letter addressing the pastoral treatment of homosexuals, the Catholic Church gave what some perceive as permission (or at least acceptance) of violence towards homosexuals:
"People should not be surprised when a morally offensive lifestyle is physically attacked." --The Vatican
It would be a nice gesture, in my opinion, if the Vatican proved both the existence and authority of the superior deity which allows this "unsurprised" attitude toward physical violence. Until then, perhaps they should not be surprised when their own intolerant lifestyles are physically attacked.
[What's that smell? Ah, my karma burning.]
Inclusion of text into the bible was not arbitrary. Texts were chosen based upon a set of fairly clear criteria that became established over centuries of debate. Not everyone agrees with the final decision, but that hardly makes it arbitrary.
Additionally, BS Catholic conspiracies aside, they have no earthly reason to hide works that they disagreee with. In fact the works they are putting onine were already available to visiting scholars and practically anyone with an interest. I, for instance, have the full text on the 20-something different Gospels we have discovered to date at home on my shelf...and if you read them all, you'd see pretty quick why some were excluded. I also have the many of the other non-canonical texts. No great hidden secret. Just order them from Amazon like I did.
There is no great scholastic coverup to keep the juicy religious bits away from the masses.
Disclaimer: I am not Catholic, but I do have a degree in Religious Studies.
-Tom
No, rare texts are rare because few copies exist. Why not? For one thing, many of the books and manuscripts that we're talking about predate the printing press.
I know of a few famous texts, written before the advent of the printing press, that reached wide circulation. Name one? Oh... it's right at the tip of my tongue.
Sorry, can't remember at the moment. Maybe I'll get back to ya.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
The Catholic Church has a bunch of original works by the Martin Luther? Author of 95 theses [iclnet.org]? One of the founders of the Reformation and perhaps the biggest and most influential critic of the Vatican? I'm curious as to why they have them. History shows they weren't exactly the most open-minded bunch back when they collected them. Was it to "learn thy enemy"? That's like finding out Linus has a collection of signed First Edition books written by Bill Gates
And the Master [Sun Tzu] said: 'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles'
But seriously, Martin Luther was much more than just an enemy of the Vatican, he was also one of it's greatest reformers. Letters of forgiveness were eventually abandoned - in no small part due to his criticism.
Tor
It would be really great if they made scans of scores of medieval and renaissance sacred music available. For hundreds of years, church music was the only music written down. Plus, many of the choirbooks are works of art in themselves.
No disrespect to Martin Luther's handwritten notes, but give me Josquin Desprez's scores any day.
What, then, is the Church about?
I know you weren't asking me, but I couldn't resist. In a word: Christ.
In your opinion, should I expect to find the known-to-exist-but-tightly-guarded material regarding Hitler's final solution online? Should I expect to see everything the Vatican has about the Dead Sea Scrolls online?
Again, I know you weren't asking me, but...
It's tough to say whether documents noone has ever seen but "know to exist" will show up online. There's really not a whole lot of secrecy involved in the modern Vatican. It's possible that we'll see some suprising things turn up online, but chances are, nothing very scandelous, because, chances are, these documents don't actually exist. Either they never did, or they were so "earthshattering" that they have already been destroyed. The Pope and those near him with unrestricted daily access to the Library are pretty dedicated to the Church (obviously). Don't you think they'd be a little shaken in their faith if documents proving the fallacy of their belief systems were kept in their basement? Most of the great Chruch thinkers have had easy access, both chronologicallly (lived near the times in question), or physically (lived in/near the Vatican) to such works, and yet were very faithful men. Take that for what it's worth.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
First off all the King James Version is protestant not catholic. You want something like the Saint Jerome Bible for a Catholic bible. Second the inclusion list for the Kind James isn't arbitrary its following the organization from Martin Luther's Geneva Bible.
e =UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&selm=4ne7kh%24qq6%40geneva.rutgers.e du
Anyway here is an old list with pretty good information about what got included when
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&i
If his hand written notes include a rant against nefarious Jews and a couple mentions of a pink elephant that keeps following him around then it would be somewhat favorable to the Church in that it casts a bad light on Martin Luther.
Need more paint!
Love,
Michelangelo
PS: My back is killing me!
Ed Wedig
Graphic design services
docbrown.net
I think you're jumping to conclusions when you assume that the citation wasn't ironic.
I write in my journal
Couple of points:
(1) Esther is in both. The books that are not in both include Tobit (an excellent novel, worth reading, and amusing at some points. Did you know you get cataracts from sleeping outdoors with your eyes open? Birds poop in them, you see...), Maccabbees (an excellent documentary), Daniel and Susannah, maybe Wisdom.
(2) Martin Luther, if I understand correctly, picked the Hebrew Bible because he liked the feeling he got that he'd understand things better in the original Hebrew. The RC Church picked the Septuagint, which was archived in Greek in the Library of Alexandria, because this was archived *before* the time of Christ, and was generally accepted as scripture at the time of Christ. The Hebrew Bible was written by Sadducees after Masada, and does include some significant changes. Sadducces did not believe in the Resurrection, for example, and thus did not include books that pointed heavily towards the Resurrection. Also, "virgin" was changed to "maid" (neanis) at the part where the prophet says to the king "is it not enough that you should weary the ears of men? Must you weary God as well? But since you do not ask for a sign, this shall be a sign unto you: a virgin shall concieve, and shall bear a son..." One can only guess the reason for such a change.
There is something to be said for both sides. I prefer the RC side, though.
(3) Then you get to books like the Gospel of Thomas. This is a case where you especially have to look at the source. The paper is quite old, and indeed would be one of the earliest gospels based upon the age of the paper. However, the ink dates back to the time of the Saracen invasion of Spain, and the pollens in the ink seem to place the writing in Italy. So it would appear, especially since that book supports Islam more than Christianity, that it was a work of fiction written at that time. Perhaps it was written on very old paper to try to support Islam -- perhaps not.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Isn't the Web "the largest collection of erotica in the world"?
No, it's not a collection.. more of a loose colaboration
Pretty argumentative. Sure, you can name one, but can you name 100? 1000? Texts written by hand before the invention of the press have to be wildly popular to remain in print. Even modern books go out of print, and become hard to get ahold of.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
When they put their copy of ol' Alhazrad's Necronomicon online then I'll be impressed.
Da Blog
No. More /. posters should feel unrestrained to attack belief systems which:
1) are responsible for large amounts of documented hatred, intolerance, and violence, and
2) fail to prove the existence of a deity which their hatred, intolerance, and violence is committed in the name of.
Sure, but are you really in favor of wildly opinionated and unsupported attacks? That seems odd.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
Had anyone but a few people bothered to read the article, or even the headline of it at the LA Times link
Have you ever seen the LA Times website? It was probably impossible to tell the article from the ads.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
It's time for me to play the devil's advocate again, this time more literally than usual.
You could easily say that any religious standpoint is one of ignorance since it is a blind belief in an untested theory -- remember, one definition of "fact" is a theory which has been tested and is repeatable.
When it is all said and done, any church which actively recruits is about attempting to impose a belief system on others. Whether this is altruistic or not is another issue which is outside the scope of this document. I'd say that the question of altruism in catholicism is still up for debate, much more so than (say) the "church" of scientology. Even that organization doubtless contains many members, even above the lowest echelons, who believe they are doing a good thing.
Life is politics. If you have more than two people and a limited set of resources, you have politics, even if they are completely benign. Given that no two people are identical, they will want different things. You cannot have politicking between two people because there is never a third party to influence in order to bring more influence to bear to achieve your goals; there is only discussion, debate, argument, or violence (unless there is concord.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What, then, is the Church about?
It's about a lot of things.
In your opinion, should I expect to find the known-to-exist-but-tightly-guarded material regarding Hitler's final solution online? Should I expect to see everything the Vatican has about the Dead Sea Scrolls online?
The Vatican's behavior during the Holocaust does bear scrutiny, but I don't think they deserve all of the bad press they had. There were two options Pope Pius had; protest Hitler's actions and bring the Church openly against him, or maintain diplomatic relations publicly while privately trying to help Jews behind the scenes. The Church chose the latter, and managed to smuggle several thousand Jews out of Germany and provide a safe haven (many ended up in the Swiss Guard). I think it was probably a mistake, considering the horrific loss of life that took place, and that they should have come out publicly against Germany. I think it would probably have saved more lives in the long run by publicizing the plight of Jewish Holocaust victims, but I don't think they were complicit in the deaths as some people feel.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Dead Sea Scrolls; I don't pretend to know everything, or even that much about the Church, so perhaps you can enlighten me. As far as I know the Scrolls are held by the Israel Antiquities Authority, and any information the Vatican has would have had been from the same sources as any scholar; a reading of the scrolls themselves.
But I think that's pretty unlikely. I will be mightily impressed if the Vatican DOES fully disclose all of these secrets. What do you think? What is the Church about and why do you think they will publish everything?
Of course they won't publish everything, but they're not saying they will. The article I read explicitly said "selected".
Besides, every book in the Vatican != every book in the Vatican library. The real secret stuff I'm sure is kept somewhere else.
Why would you? No, really.
sic transit gloria mundi
but can we read it?
Are they going to translate the works/documents, or put them up in the native raw text.
I would love to sift thru the piles of text, but I don't speak Latin, especially not Latin of 2000 years ago.
This is going to be an incredible tool for the educated, but nearly useless for the common folks. Afterall think about all the various translations of the Bible, the differing opinions on words, etc.
Who do we trust to translate these documents?
Tournament Management Online &
Then I guess you're ex-Catholic
//m
Yea, but its an interpreted document, and the interpretations were selected by councils, popes, etc.
When/who wrote it is less important than the uses it was put to, and the interpretations it inspired, and that was done by the church.
A complete record of all their changes of opinion, selective enforcement of canon law, and their political intrigues would make for very interesting reading.
Theres probably 2000 years of history in that library, all of it important, and all of it affecting the modern church. There's much more in there than just early copies of the New Testament gospels, and while important, the gospels are not the only thing that influenced, informed, and motivated the early church and early Europe.
Europe and the rest of the western hemisphere by extension owe their existence to the church, and as such, their history is really the history of the west. Keeping it locked up in the basement of the Vatican is not where this should be.
What? TLD's don't exist for the US states?
Is this internet thing, like, international or something? Call in the marines, I say!
- Colin
Tuus crepidae innexilis sunt.
Isn't that what realigion, well, is?
sic transit gloria mundi
to say your prayers before clicking the link, and you will be absolved.
Don't use python, and don't work on an Apple, and everything will be fine.
I was watchin' something on PBS last night about the Vatican Archives and the rush to get them all digitized and such before time destroys them and one of the things they covered was that there is no prejudice given -- all will be preserved regardless of content, starting with those on greatest disrepair.. Stuff like the original letter sent by a certain English King demanding a divorce and the the official records of the trial of Galileo, stuff that doesn't shine to brightly on them now.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Ha, ha, ha...there is no such thing as an ex-Catholic. Even if you took the ex- to mean excommunicated, even it doesn't end your relationship with the Church. Excommunication is merely meant to make you see the error of your ways, it doesn't expel you from the Church. Being Catholic is like being in the Yakuza...once you get tattoed you're in for life, even if you later denounce it.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I'm wondering if we'll see some writing like the following that was mysteriously discovered by the church:
Forget the whales - save the babies.
At least according to Google, The only source anybody lists for that quote is Peter McWilliam's book "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consentual Crimes in Our Free Country". The online edition (it's in a yellow box, find for "vatican") atribbutes it to "THE VATICAN", with no details about who exactly said it or when, and the book doesn't appear to have any footnotes.
--
Benjamin Coates
Check it out here
;)
-- -=innocent ramblings from the mind of an insomniatic programmer=-
Your assertion the Jesus is "NOT" God is incorrect, from a Roman Catholic perspective. The dogma of the Holy Trinity holds that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, are one, and indivisible in nature. They are all God.
I'm pretty sure even the protestant faiths (at least the ones I'd call mainstream) hold the same beliefs.
That's funny, I was under the asumption that until I denounced my faith or was excummunicated, I was still a Catholic. I was, after all, Baptized and Confirmed in the Catholic Church. Just because I disagree with my church doesn't change what I know, nor does it change my beliefs. Another thing I was always taught was that if you can object to a teaching/belief/doctrine of the Catholic Church and be correct/go to heaven. Why? Because the Catholic Church is an institution created by men, and is therefore both imperfect and subject to mistakes, corruption, etc. (See: Middle Ages, church extortion - See Also: Present day, pedophile priests and bishop/cardinal/Vatican cover-ups)
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Some chapters are omitted from Protestant Bibles... or some chapters are added in Catholic Bibles?
I'm looking at a Jewish Bible right here, and Esther (an Old Testament book) jibes precisely with the King James - same number of chapters and same number of verses in each chapter.
In case you want to verify this, take note of the following: In Christian Bibles, Esther comes between Nehemiah and Job. In the Jewish Bible, Esther (Ester) comes between Ecclesiastes (Kohelet) and Daniel (Dani'el).
If I were wrong, there would be more than enough people to explain why I'm mistaken and stupid
(raises hand) Ooh! Ooh! Can I be first?
It's an entire heirarchy built around the practice of duping people into coughing up cash for rewards in a future life.
The Church is a hierarchy indeed, just like any other organization. I'm pretty sure that's part of what makes an organization an organization. However, coughing up cash doesn't garauntee any sort of salvation. In fact, it was until only recently by papal decree that Works were considered as important as Faith in detirmining your eternal destination. Works would include donations. Faith would include prayer.
And the cathedrals!
"And the Whitehouse!" People would have a lot less pictures of Europe if it weren't for these amazing structures. Every major religion has some sort of elaborate temple-like structure. This is because any church is made up of people who like to have a pretty building in which to worship. Makes them feel closer to God. Anyone with any common sense knows this.
Catholicism is the first multinational corporation dedicated to its self preservation and profit.
Even if that were true, don't you think the Roman Empire deserves mention? Just shows your ignorance.
It existed for how many centuries before the people even understood a single word of mass?
It also kept the written word in existence in many parts of the world. Much of modern mathematics and philosophy is derived from work done by Catholic monks. You are also wrong in other ways: the Mass wasn't said exclusively in Latin until centuries after it was said for the first time, and Latin isn't exactly a secret language. Many church-goers understood what they were saying. I read a little Latin myself, in fact.
There has never been any type of openness or disclosure about what the Catholic church is up to,[...]
Now you're not even making sense. Since when? Have all 1 billion of us been keeping secrets from the rest of the world? I lived in a monastery for over a year. I didn't find out anything I couldn't have learned from history books. Do you have any first-hand, intimate knowlege of the topics you're discussing? No, a few years of Catholic school don't count.
This certainly won't be the dawning of a new age of responsibility, accountability, righteous ethics, or social service in the Church.
Says who? You? Bah! For one, the Church is the single largest charitable organization in the world. Its track record for social service is plain.
Who's next?
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
> I'll most likely be modded as flame bait
No you won't. The only way to get modded down in this discussion is to profess to be a follower of a religion (in particular Catholic).
In all the years spent as an Atheist (really more agnostic, at least while intoxicated), never had any problems BECAUSE of my non-beliefs...
I find it humorous to listen to people bitch about being persecuted for being atheist. Why? Most of the time that "persecution" revolves around the fact that someone at some point have the NERVE to say they followed some religion and maybe ask if they did or had heard of it. That's not persecution that's conversation. Tell'm to shutup and they typically will. Other complaints about persecution revolve around those fundies of all religions (be they Krishna's or whatever) who seem determined to bug them at airport/subway or ring the bell on weekends with junk. Annoying? Yes. Persecution no.
There is little, if no, persecution for being an atheist in the USA. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Show me the facts and figures where people are losing their jobs, houses or being treated like second-class citizens because they don't profess some faith.
I see a crap load more persecution these days of anyone who professes some sort of faith, be it Wiccan, Christian, Moslem or whatever, than I see of atheists. Maybe it's just because I've lived places where Christians and the like would get eaten for lunch.
BTW Whadda want to bet this winds up at a -1 Flamebait because I dared to not to the party line...
Bugs Bunny was right.
Now, perhaps, I'll find the reason that the Gospel of St. Thomas was kept out of the New Testament. Which is interesting considering that the experts think it's the oldest, and most accurate, version....
Actually the Vatican approached us when I was working at a consultancy (not IBM) to do this project. "Mmm, cool," thought I. "They have loadsa money."
Ah, but not so, grasshopper. We met with their librarians and "IT" people and when it came to money, not only did they try and make us feel guilty about charging the Church (I'm Jewish..that didn't work on me) but they wanted us to PAY for the privilege. Yes, we would eat all production costs, hardware, hosting, travel costs, encoding, delivery, etc...AND we were expected to make a "sizable honorarium" to the RCC for the privilege of being permitted to work on the project. (Picture: Ellen Feiss going "nnnnggggh?")
"Hmm, well they have lots of money...they'll pay us for the next project," thought I.
Ah, not so. When I asked as to $$ arrangements for future work we were told that if they liked the library project, we could expect more work, but each project would require an additional honorarium.
"Wow, look at the time, I gotta run," said I. We never even considered doing the work.
Looks like HP got the same treatment, as evidenced by this line in the press release:
"HP's contribution included technical consulting along with donated computer servers, scanners and other hardware items.
Didier Philippe, HP's director of strategy and development in Europe, said the motivation for the donation had more to do with history and art than with business.
But he recognized that the Catholic Church could be a huge buyer."
So they are HOPING the RCC buys some hardware in the future, after they already gave them a couple mil worth of free stuff. Great business sense, eh?
I'm calling my broker now.
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
Look! It's still there in the KJV! Scroll down about 1/3 of the page and you'll seen Esther with ten chapters.
It's been in every version of the Bible I've ever seen, including the 1889 Darby Bible. Of course, the additional apocryphal text is not there.
Oh, sure, HP'll do the scanning for cheap, but wait until they get the bill for the ink cartridges...
--
Benjamin Coates
"that I want nothing to do with the Catholic Church."
So are you catholic or not? If you want nothing to do with them then don't say your a catholic. Your not branded you know.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
If the banner above is flashing you might go to heaven?
Priests, click here instead of abusing the children in your church. Look, but don't touch.
Okay, that was bad, I'm going to hell...
Wow.. I really didn't expect that!! I guess nobody does..
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Really, nomadic, I hope you don't take this in a negative way. Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "practicing Catholic." Please correct me if I'm way off base, but I've seen your kind of response before.
Are you saying that you have forsaken faith in the Savior because other Catholics aren't, in your estimation, living morally enough? Have you, in effect, opted for Hell because there were hypocrites in the church?
Jesus said "Follow me" not "Follow people who claim to follow me." Jesus will never let you down. If your faith is in Him, the whole world going to Hell around you (literally and/or figuratively) should have no influence on your beliefs.
Neither omitted nor added, exactly, though maybe saying omitted from Protestant bibles is closer to the truth.
This is a gross oversimplification, but there are two major forms of the OT involved here: the Massorah (Hebrew, first millennium AD), and the earlier Septuagint (Greek, ~2nd century BC). Neither is the original Hebrew, though to put it in perspective, they are better attested than most accepted historical documents of the era.
There aren't huge differences between them for the most part, but the Septuagint contains the additional books in question. It also (generally) matches the Dead Sea scrolls more closely than the Masoretic.
Palestinian Jews of Christ's era spoke primarily Greek and Aramaic (as a result of the Persian/Syrian/Alexandrian conquests), and consquently used the Septuagint. Naturally the early church also used it (OT quotations in the NT are from the Septuagint).
Modern Jews do use the Massorah. Luther and later Protestant reformers also adopted their canon from the set of Masoretic books, but to the best of my knowledge up until the Reformation, Christians used the OT canon as in the Septuagint.
IIRC, the Greek Orthodox church actually still uses the Septuagint directly, since they never made the switch to Latin.
Modern translations (whatever canon they use) often look at both the Septuagint and Masoretic copies (in addition to other sources), since they both offer valuable material for the translator.
I'd encourage you to research the history of the various documents on your own -- I am not an expert and this is only a very cursory treatment.
DNA just wants to be free...
First off all the King James Version is protestant not catholic.
Acutally the Authorised/King James version is Anglican. You'll hardly ever see it in the US, but King James's translators definitely did translate the Apocrypha and a complete edition of the KJV will include those texts.
Check the
Articles of Religion for the Anglican view of the Apocrypha.
Second the inclusion list for the Kind James isn't arbitrary its following the organization from Martin Luther's Geneva Bible.
The Geneva Bible had nothing to do with Luther. It was the work of English exiles in Geneva during the reign of Mary Tudor. It is much more Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) in outlook than Luther would have been.
The books included in the Protestant canon are those selected in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The idea that Pius XII did and said nothing about Nazism is about as true as the idea that the holocaust never happened. Also, no one ever mentions the fact that MILLIONS of CATHOLICS were also put to death by Hitler. Yes, it's true. Read a history book if you don't believe me.
As for the idea that Pius XII didn't speak out, I suggest everyone read this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/piusjews.htm
It even quotes the New York Times of the day giving MUCH well-deserved praise to Pius XII.
I hope this get's modded up...
I've dealt with the man, he bases all opinions about anything on opinion and hear-say. If you show proof his is incorrect about something, he just barley stops short of puting his hands on his ears and going la-la-la-la.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm using Webster's. What are you using?
I only go by what the Bible says, not tradition....it's not slanderous. Go to http://justforcatholics.org for more info....
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
I know this is a bit off topic, but when I clicked on the link for news.google.com, there was a link at the top to a story titled "Vatican/HP To Put Library Online" (sound familiar?). Clicking on that link, I was confused to find that I was at the Slashdot article. Turns out that news.google.com is referring to the Slashdot story that refers to the news.google.com story - WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END???
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
I was browsing through the U.S. State Department's online "dossier of countries" (whatever it's called), which includes some interesting statistics for each country.
The Vatican is the only country in the world to have a literacy rate of 100%. (Granted, there's only a few thousand citizens, but still...)
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Collections of the earliest manuscripts are called codices, and are given a name usually based on where the codex was first discovered, or is kept.
Codices and variants on codices are also given single-character abbreviations. I have a very good book on how Bible translations are done, but I can't reach it right now (broken leg), anyhow I believe "B" is one of the more complete manuscripts ever.
The contents of the early manuscripts can be fascinating. For example, the Lord's Prayer originally didn't end like it does today.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Very few /.-ers are historians, or very interested in history unless we're talking about 8-bit hardware. The greatest contribution of Christianity, in my opinion (former Catholic school kid), is all those dutiful monks painstakingly copying documents that otherwise would have perished in the Dark Ages. Now we'll get to see some more of 'em. As someone pointed out, maybe not anything that could embarrass the church, but who knows?
The Pope isn't lurking /. with unlimited mod points.
Are you sure? Taco's been awfully friendly to him. As recently as when Geeks In Space aired, at least. Maybe Kurt's been given an editor account.
WW2 -- One also has to consider that the Vatican doesn't exactly have a standing army, has a land area best measured in acres rather than miles, and at the time was surrounded by an Axis power -- not the best time to stand up in opposition of one's neighbour's allies. It would have been all too simple to bomb the Vatican out of existance, and dead they'd have been no help to anyone.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
He is using the meaning of "anti" which means "against", and he is using the meaning of "semitic", which means "of semite heritage". Semites are Arabs, racial Jews, Babylonians, etc... The literal meaning of anti-semite is that you are against those races and their culture.
A true seeker doesn't choose according to his "tastes." Religion is about changing your tastes, not gratifying present tastes, which amounts to nothing more than worship of self.
Literally speaking, if I lived according to my tastes, I would eat nothing but candy corn and jelly-filled, chocolate donuts. Then I would die because of my rejection of wisdom. So it is with choosing religion (except the consequences are infinitely more intense and lengthy).
No, it was religious. It was meant against hereticals, and the trials were by clerics according to canonical law.
Only after a religious trial, and with full support from the Roman hierarchy.
Huh? The threat was restricted to South-Central Europe (Balkans), but the Inquisition ranged from the Americas to Prussia. And it was not target at heathens, but at reformists and heretics.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
That he wasn't, except retroactively in Papist spin. Simon Peter was one of the leaders (Apostles) of the so-called Primitive (first century) Church, together with Paul of Tarsis and Yagov the Just (James the brother of the Lord) among others, perhaps 12 in total. Actually Paul is the most influent in Scripture, and Yagov was probably the most respected of the original Apostles due to his blood brotherhood with the Messiah, to his living in Jerusalem, and to his reputation for fairness and pureness of heart.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Actually "Catholic" means "Universal", and thus apply to the set all faithful Christians, the specifics is known only to God. That the Roman Church calls itself Catholic is but propaganda.
The name was more properly applied in the middle ages to denote all the people who subscribed to the orthodox doctrines, but the whole point was lost when the Roman Church got corrupted from too much power and the Eastern Church got corrupted by submission to temporal power. Even so the name was never intended to denote an institution, just a body of people.
Anyway when there was the split between Rome and the East, both sides lost rights to the title "Catholic". Perhaps Rome lost it more clearly, because its doctrines had changed more, and strikingly continue to do so; by any standards but itself's, Rome is heretical against the Scriptures and the Apostles' standards, and becomes even more so every few decades by proclaiming new, Scripturally unwarranted dogma. The same holds mostly true for the Eastern churches, and BTW for all the self-named Catholic church at least since the Iconoclasts were defeated, and probably since somewhat before Constantine; it's just more striking about Rome.
The few Protestants who really know some History still call themselves Catholic, but with an eyewink. We know Rome won the propaganda war to call itself Catholic. Think Wintel calling Unix on RISC "proprietary" and itself "open standards".
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Actually you contradict yourself.
The orthodox, universal, apostholic and Scriptural historical doctrine of the Trinity says "One God, Three Persons". The One God is said to be not only One being, but a Triune one. While you can think of "parts" of God as you did, you can't think of modes or functions as in your analogy with a man; this would be the so-called modal heresy. Your error appeared when you wrote "a person can't be three people", because it is not one person and three people, but three persons in one being.
It is not clear by any means, but that's what comes of the finite (us) thinking about the infinite (Him).
Please read the Creeds, specially the Athanasian. And look for "The Forgotten Trinity" from James White.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
He didn't. I do and I don't like it.
So called High Criticism is just applying to Scripture a methodology that has long been discredited in both History and Literature.
I forgot the specifics, but around and after the turn from the XIX to the XX century there was an academic fashion that denied the historical existence of several authors, from Homer to Shakespeare. This based on differences found thru textual analysis between several texts attibuted to the same author.
The fashion got discredited both because of the good historical evidence for several so "deconstructed" authors and because it was realised that the differences found thru textual analysis where there for good reasons: different themes being tackled in different styles and forms at different times by the same author.
Archaeological discoveries of manuscripts and other evidence keep putting nails to High Criticism's coffin.
That Scriptural High Criticism still gets a following a century after being discredit says more about its proponents than about Scripture.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
At the request of the civil authorities without the support of the Pope.
full support from the Roman hierarchy.
not true
The threat was restricted to South-Central Europe (Balkans)
Outrageously inaccurate. Southern Spain was taken and occupied by the Turks and was in serious danger of falling completely. This was the major inroad made by the Turks into Europe.
ot target at heathens, but at reformists and heretics.
The Inquisition that most people think of happened in Spain directed at Turks long before (hundreds of years) any major reformist movment threatened the Church.
The trouble I have with the response about "If they had these earthshattering documents, wouldn't their faith be challenged?" does imply a certain level of faith and good will by the people involved. I'm not trying to troll or be a jerk, just pointing out that I might not agree with that assessment of the higher-ups, therefore I would expect that they disregard the "earthshattering" documents as quickly as (I perceive) they disregard the message of God. I repeat that I'm not trying to be a jerk, though it must be tough to see, eh?
I find it tough to accept when people say that one "can't take the history of the Church and use it to condemn the contemporary Catholic Church," yet at the same time, the whole reason for its existence, authority, reverence, and influence is its history. Without even examining the merit of either side of this issue, that so many people insist on (what seems to me to be) an idiosyncratic rational (doublespeak, if you will) is terrifying. It strikes me as the type of "Work makes Freedom" or "War Is Peace" type of philosophy. "Ignore History While Preserving It", if you will.
And to be honest, it is comforting that documents by Martin Luther will be published, but we all know that there have been crates of literature critical of the Church produced through the years. When the Shah of Iran put a death sentence on Salmon Rushdie, the world took notice - he wasn't some third-tier hack slinging mud, his book was important enough to earn a death sentence, so there MUST be some substance to it. (I haven't read it, however.) By the same token, when the Vatican chooses to keep concealed what could be the only existing copies of scathingly critical literature, it implies that there is substance to them. And further, if we can't trust an organization that supposes to be the one true path to God to be fully open and humble before the world, then what? Not that I'm surprised by that (considering what has been called my "Catholic conspiracy theories") but still the honey-tongued-cloaked-dagger impression this gives me is horrible.
Not to ramble or anything, but I do look forward to the Vatican Library Online, in whole or in part. To all those people who hope for full disclosure, I wouldn't expect it at all.
Sit around idly?? By no means! Idle hands are the devil's workshop. The word church means "the called out ones." Jesus tells us to GO! Go and make disciples of all people - every tribe, tongue, and nation. Feed, clothe, help, encourage, evangelize, teach, give, pray, etc, etc, etc. Anything but idle.
Muslim scholars are out for the truth, which should also be what the Church wants. So they actually read Rushdie's book, and found the obvious flaws in it, and debunked them. There is no effort to hide the work, just point out it's slander. The price on his head was not to coverup his work, only make him withdraw his slander.
Now you will have to prove it. References, please.
You are mixing up the Turks and the Moors.
By the time of Reformation, the Moors were already being totally routed from Spain, but the Inquisition continued in full force to erradicate the Reformation wherever it lacked civil authorities support or at leat protection.
Even pre-reformists in Central Europe were killed by the Inquisition (OK, by civil authorities because of Inquisition trials) and other branch of Romanism even if they were not connected neither to Turks nor to Moors, and very far away from the places of conflagration. One of them was assassinated by a Council even after the Emperor had guaranteed his personal safety.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
Essential Guide to Bible Versions, ISBN 0-8423-3484-X
The first chapter is an introduction, discussing the various problems involved in translating any part of the Bible (or any other ancient text). The next N chapters deal specifically with Old Testament manuscripts. The N chapters after that do the same thing for New Testament manuscripts.
The important part is that those 2N chapters also introduce the names and abbreviations for the various codices.
One of the final chapters is a list of New Testament verses that have appeared or disappeard over the years, as compared to the abbreviations of the codices (which is why you need to read the whole book, not just skip to this chapter).
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)