[alabastervlog]

> All that to say I'm not sure it really matters what exactly was written in the Bible because clearly a lot of the supposed followers of Christ never read it.

It’d be wild if they had. It’s a harder read than lots of books that the median reader struggles to understand, let alone enjoy enough to actually make it through. Most folks lack basically all historical context for the tales in it, and the book itself, so it reads as this unmoored set of confusingly-arranged-and-selected stories that have no hope of really making sense to them without a pile of reference books open alongside (what proportion of people are comfortable with and willing to engage in that style of reading?)

On the other hand, it’s also wild that more haven’t—one would think it’d be way up their list of life priorities. I take it as a sign they’re not really, under the veneer and trappings, convinced about the eternal (!!!) ramifications of the whole deal. “Well sure my eternal soul is on the line and I ‘believe’ I’m holding the literal word of the creator of the universe… but it’s haaaard and boring.” LOL.

[lo_zamoyski]

> It’s a harder read than lots of books that the median reader struggles to understand, let alone enjoy enough to actually make it through. [...] Most folks lack basically all historical context for the tales in it, and the book itself

This is why the Catholic Church speaks of both tradition and scripture. You need the lens of unbroken tradition to interpret scripture, as tradition is the cumulative knowledge over millennia (including period context) that allows for the possibility for grounded interpretation (never mind interpreting from bad translations). Indeed, tradition precedes canonical scripture historically: consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.

Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0]. The tacit doctrine at play is often that of perspicuity, which, given the endless proliferation of Protestant sects, would seems at the very least highly suspect.

[0] https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/logic-and-pr...

[graemep]

It does not have to be that tradition - purely secular history and cultural context will get you a long way.

> consider that the biblical canon was only established at the Council of Rome in 382, which means Christians had existed without a biblical canon for three centuries.

Yes, but the older testament was already well established, and the documents of the new testament were available. The Council made a firm decision of which ones were canon, but they were all documents which were already widely read.

There are other Biblical canons and they do not, in themselves, greatly change the doctrine.

> Compare this with sola scriptura which leads to either incoherence or the demotion of biblical scripture to the level of some stuff some guys wrote that you can read however you want [0].

A lot of protestant churches are prima scriptura, not sola scriptura.