Re:Structured Bible Data API in Multiple Translations
by skissane on Monday September 13, 2021 @08:22AM
(#28510546)
> As someone else pointed out, I'm not talking about every individual church as a separate 'Christian church', I'm referring to the primary denominations, so Catholocism and Eastern Orthodox would be two churches. Most of the rest do not accept those books as part of the Bible canon.
Part of the problem with this whole approach is that there is no agreement on how to slice Christianity into "primary denominations". Indeed, most presntations of Christianity – in fields such as comparative religion or church history – don't start with "denominations", they start with branches. Some divide Christianity into two main branches – Western (Catholics and Protestants) and Eastern (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East). And as you can see, each of those two main branches in turn has some major sub-branches. (There are also some hybrid cases which straddle the East-West boundary, most notably the Eastern Catholics.) And then Protestantism in particular is in turn divided into some major sub-sub-branches, such as Anabaptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, etc. And then in turn those major branches of Protestantism contain denominations within them – for example, the US has three major Lutheran denominations, the mainline-to-liberal ELCA, the conservative LCMS, and the (arguably even more) conservative WELS, along with over 30 minor ones. Now, at which level of this tree do you count? Because if you count at the level of individual denominations, no doubt Protestants outnumber everyone else, simply because they are (by far) the least unified branch of Christianity. But, if you drill up the tree, to the level of major branches, then on many issues Protestants end up being "the odd ones out".
> including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ
Church history is complicated, and terms like "Catholicism" have multiple meanings. Whether what you just said is true may depend on what exactly you mean by the word "Catholicism".
> The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon.
I don't agree with you there. I think there is good historical evidence of their acceptance as part of the Bible by many of the Church Fathers.
Part of the problem with this whole approach is that there is no agreement on how to slice Christianity into "primary denominations". Indeed, most presntations of Christianity – in fields such as comparative religion or church history – don't start with "denominations", they start with branches. Some divide Christianity into two main branches – Western (Catholics and Protestants) and Eastern (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East). And as you can see, each of those two main branches in turn has some major sub-branches. (There are also some hybrid cases which straddle the East-West boundary, most notably the Eastern Catholics.) And then Protestantism in particular is in turn divided into some major sub-sub-branches, such as Anabaptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, etc. And then in turn those major branches of Protestantism contain denominations within them – for example, the US has three major Lutheran denominations, the mainline-to-liberal ELCA, the conservative LCMS, and the (arguably even more) conservative WELS, along with over 30 minor ones. Now, at which level of this tree do you count? Because if you count at the level of individual denominations, no doubt Protestants outnumber everyone else, simply because they are (by far) the least unified branch of Christianity. But, if you drill up the tree, to the level of major branches, then on many issues Protestants end up being "the odd ones out".
> including Catholicism, which didn't even exist until at least 300 years after Christ
Church history is complicated, and terms like "Catholicism" have multiple meanings. Whether what you just said is true may depend on what exactly you mean by the word "Catholicism".
> The purely historical argument, outside of any denomination makes it clear that the Deuterocanonical books were not considered part of the Bible canon.
I don't agree with you there. I think there is good historical evidence of their acceptance as part of the Bible by many of the Church Fathers.