Posted on 01/29/2005 6:12:28 AM PST by NYer
Hamilton, Ontario, Jan. 28, 2005 (CNA) - Canadian archaeologist Russell Adams, a professor at McMaster University has recently unearthed evidence, which helps to show the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Professor Adams and his team of colleagues have found information that points to the existence of the Biblical Kingdom of Edom existing at precisely the time Scripture claims it existed.
The evidence flies in the face of a common belief that Edom actually came into existence at least 200 years later.
According to the Canadian Globe and Mail, the group’s findings “mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking.”
The Kingdom of Edom, mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and a continuous source of hostility for Biblical Israel, is thought to have existed in what is now southern Jordan.
The group made their discovery while investigating a copper mining site called Khirbat en-Nahas.
According to the Globe and Mail, radiocarbon dating of their finds, “firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.”
The evidence is also said to suggest that the Kingdom existed at the same time David, who scripture recounts as warring with Edom, was king over Israel.
Right. Unconvinced. Ridiculous is not an appropriate word. But I do find many of these teachings bizarre. What you've described are man-made opinions using strained interpretations of scripture. You are out on a skinny limb.
All Churches have their teachings and are entitled to them. Just don't expect people to be convinced by your arguments since they appear quite weak to me. But what do I know? I'm no theologian and don't pretend to be one. In Christ, Peace.
There is nothing man-made about my opinion. It's right there in Scripture, in the original Greek words used, as a matter of fact, and in the jist of the narrative itself. You simply can't face the truth of what I've said and need to pretend to yourself it is my personal opinion and not the weight of the evidence. This is why your responses are so vague and sweeping. I notice you cannot address the specifics--because you cannot reasonably deny them.
No. It's not right there in scripture. These weird Catholic teachings are the result of man-made interpretations which are only believed by Catholics and then only because it has been passed down by men, not because Catholics pick up the Bible and clearly see it for themselves.
I'm underwhelmed by your haughty attitude as you speak down to the rest of us about your vast knowledge of greek and the like. I've already said I don't pretend to be a theologian. I don't need to be one. It is you that think you have to go out on that skinny limb and defend that branch. I'm just pointing out to you that your arguments are weak, unconvincing and rambling (and haughty).
Good luck!
Passed to them by Jesus Christ Himself. Remember, these were His disciples. He handpicked each one of them, lived with them, taught them, led them. The difference between the disciples that wrote the gospels, and the subsequent "apostles" of Catholic apostolic tradition could not be more clear.
"The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth.""
But you must change scripture to make that statement. Certainly you must realize that there were churches before the Catholic church. The word "church" in the Bible does NOT refer to the Catholic church. It is an English translation of the Greek word ekklasia. It specifically means assembly or congregation. The fact that many Catholics chose to capitalize the word "church" in the Bible does not in any way change the reality that they are merely misquoting scripture. I will say it again, if you must rewrite scripture, or take a single verse of scripture from its context to support your "necessary logic," then your logic is not based on reality. It is based on a false premise.
"The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth."
Assigning a role to the church does not make it infallible. Christ gave similar roles to His disciples, but they made errors and were not infallible. Not even Peter.
"So Jesus tells us to take our disputes to churches other than the one that He founded?"
Yes. Because at the time, He had not founded His church. He assigned that role to His disciples to accomplish after His death. And while you say Matthew 16:18 makes it clear Christ isn't speaking in the future tense, why does He say "...on this rock I will build my church"? Clearly, His church has not yet been built. You state you believe "the Church" was existent before Christ's death. Where is it? Why did He specifically task His disciples with building something that already existed?
"And why would Jesus command us to take our disputes (obviously including doctrinal disputes) to churches with various doctrines?"
Your repeated insistence on misquoting scripture leads me to believe you either have no access to a Bible, or you are unable to read it. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion if you insist on continuing to misrepresent scripture. You have completely ignored Matthew 18:15-16 to draw a false conclusion from a false quotation of Matthew 18:17. I KNOW this is not what the Catholic Church teaches in its doctrine. I'm not sure why you chose to do it. I could use a similar tactic to insist that Peter is actually Satan. In Mark 8:33 Jesus says to Peter, "Get behind me Satan." I could also use Peter's three denials of Christ to "prove" Peter was absolutely fallible in matters of faith and morals, despite claims of the Catholic church to the contrary. But I refuse to rip single verses of scripture from there context, and rewrite them to prove anything. I refuse to do that, because it would be a lie.
I don't speak down to you at all. It is not speaking down to you to present evidence to disprove your claims, especially when it was you who went on the attack initially by calling what Catholic believe "bizarre". I merely responded with the traditional Catholic argument regarding John's narrative. If you find such a rebuttal "haughty", then you are being extremely unreasonable, since it was you who raised the issue in the first place. You might at least have addressed the points made to you in response. The fact that you didn't, but resorted to an airy dismissal and then to insults, indicates to me you not only don't know what you are talking about, but are too lacking in humility to say so.
Remember, it was you who accused me of not being able to interpret the Bible as well as you and who now call my arguments weak and rambling--without deigning to respond to a single one of them. In fact I suspect they were right on target and that you are the one who hasn't got a clue about the real interpretation of the passage under discussion. You simply assume Jesus was speaking metaporically, because this is what you, and those with whom you associate, wish to believe. To your mind wishing makes it so and what you want to believe outweighs everything else--the evidence of the text itself, as well as the testimony of the early Church, including the that of the ante-Nicene writers, who were the disciples of the apostles themselves. Such an attitude is without any merit whatsoever. It is not haughtiness on my part to point this out.
reply back to me in 1000 words or less when you have something to say.
Did Jesus recount the Annunciation, or did Mary? I suppose that it's possible that Jesus could have done it given his Divine nature. But two problem exists. First, the Gospels largely record Jesus' public ministry. This indicates that the writers were depending upon their own memories and those of their contemporaries. Only a handful of events prior to Jesus' public ministry are recorded. Secondly, Scripture does not record a command from Jesus to His disciples to record His life and teachings in writing. It was not until many years after Jesus' death, in some cases decades, that the disciples, realizing that the Second Coming would not be immediate, determined to set into writing the events of Jesus' life. This lapse of time would allow memories to fade. It seems more than probable that the Gospel writers would have depended upon the memories of others, as well as their own, divinely inspired of course, to recount the events of Jesus' life. In other words, Jesus didn't directly dictate the words of the NT, nor did He command the compilation of the NT. Both were the inspired work of His Church.
"The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth."
But you must change scripture to make that statement. Certainly you must realize that there were churches before the Catholic church.
No, there were not. The Kingdom that Christ proclaims is His Kingdom, His Church, and He established Its ecclesial structure with the selection of the 12 Apostles with Peter as His vice-regent.
"The Church enjoys this special charism as "the pillar and foundation of truth." Assigning a role to the church does not make it infallible. Christ gave similar roles to His disciples, but they made errors and were not infallible. Not even Peter.
Similar roles, but not the same. Only Peter is given the keys of the vice-regency. Again, the Church that Christ established is "the pillar and foundation or truth." How do we know when the Church is teaching infallibly? When the Church tells us so.
"So Jesus tells us to take our disputes to churches other than the one that He founded?"
Yes.
Fallible churches, correct? Then why would Jesus (who is Truth itself) issue a divine command, with concommitant divine sanctions, to His followers to obey without qualification the pronouncement of a fallible church? He would be knowingly commanding His followers to obey false teachings.
Because at the time, He had not founded His church. He assigned that role to His disciples to accomplish after His death. And while you say Matthew 16:18 makes it clear Christ isn't speaking in the future tense, why does He say "...on this rock I will build my church"? Clearly, His church has not yet been built. You state you believe "the Church" was existent before Christ's death. Where is it? Why did He specifically task His disciples with building something that already existed?
The selection of the 12 Apostles who are given the power to bind and loose along with the selection of Peter as the vice-regent of His Kingdom is obviously a break with Judaism. Jesus states repeatedly throughout His public ministry that the Kingdom is at hand, His Kingdom, with Peter as His vice-regent.
What is interesting to me, is that everyone is throwing scathing accusations at everyone else when obviously there were a lot of people doing a lot of NOT thinking when posting. Frankly, and I speak as someone who was born and raised Catholic, that technically speaking from MY experience, we were never allowed to READ the Bible ourselves nor were we ever allowed to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ, as we were required to go through the Priests of whatever Parish one belonged to (I've belonged to six in my lifetime, both in Illinois and in California)and that the Priest would act as a liaison between myself and God. This, of course, was church doctrine, and something that was widely taught. Anyone that gets their hackles up because people are criticizing their doctrine and start thumping their Bibles in response, must realize it does no good..nor do those doing the criticizing getting up on their high horse to put others' down because of their beliefs. Now if ANYONE here is in God's perfect image, then let he throw the first stone. Frankly, I see a lot of Pharisees, but of course that's just IMHO.
Thank you for your input to this discussion thread. As a cradle catholic, educated pre-Vatican Council II, acclimated to the changes introduced post VCII and now attending an Eastern Rite Catholic Church, I do not recall anyone ever telling me NOT to read the Bible. The emphasis was not placed on us having to read it because we heard it each week at Mass. In fact, catholics who attend Mass each week are exposed to more of the Bible than their protestant brethren. This is the Truth! You hear and, hopefully, learn more about Holy Scripture at a Catholic Mass than if you were to attend a Baptist Revival Meeting.
I would be interested in understanding what you mean by "having a personal relationship with Christ".
Clearly, some events recorded in the Gospels happened before the writers of the Gospels could have witnessed them. But those events make up only a tiny fraction of the Gospels. That is why we have so few details of Christ's life before He called His disciples. They did not write much about what they did not witness. Let's take a look at the Gospels. There are 28 chapters in the book of Matthew. Jesus calls His disciples in chapter 4. There are 16 chapters in the Book of Mark. The disciples enter in chapter 1. There are 24 chapters in Luke. The disciples appear in chapter 5. There are 20 chapters in John. The disciples appear in chapter 1. CLEARLY, almost all of what they recorded happened while they were with Christ to witness it.
"It seems more than probable that the Gospel writers would have depended upon the memories of others, as well as their own, divinely inspired of course, to recount the events of Jesus' life."
That is a little different than your original statement that much of their knowledge had been passed to them orally. But I still disagree that the Gospel writers had to "depend" on the memories of others to write the Gospels. Think for a second. You live for three years with one of the most amazing people you've ever met. You drop everything you own to follow Him and listen to His teaching. You eat with Him and sleep with Him. You witness His death on the cross, and then witness His resurrected spirit. You dedicate the rest of your life to faithfully spread the word of the good news that Christ brought into this earth. But then, when it comes time to write your memories of those three years, you "depend" on the memories of others to recall what happened?
"In other words, Jesus didn't directly dictate the words of the NT, nor did He command the compilation of the NT. Both were the inspired work of His Church."
I don't think anyone would argue that Jesus dictated the words of the NT. But I agree with the doctrine of the Catholic church, which states, "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." If you believe they are the inspired work of the Catholic church, you are in opposition to your own church.
"No, there were not. The Kingdom that Christ proclaims is His Kingdom, His Church, and He established Its ecclesial structure with the selection of the 12 Apostles with Peter as His vice-regent."
No. You are just flat wrong here. Again, your statement is not only Biblically incorrect, it does not match the doctrine of your own church. Read John 18:36. Christ says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." And in Luke 23:42, the penitent thief calls to Jesus saying; "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!" To which Jesus replies "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
"Only Peter is given the keys of the vice-regency."
Which you have argued gives him the charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals. Yet, moments after receiving the keys, Peter immediately declares Christ would never be killed and resurrected. And days later, he denied ever knowing Christ at all. How could the keeper of the keys be infallible on matters of faith, yet so obviously demonstrate he was anything but infallible.
"How do we know when the Church is teaching infallibly? When the Church tells us so."
Whew. That is a tangled web.
"Then why would Jesus (who is Truth itself) issue a divine command, with concommitant divine sanctions, to His followers to obey without qualification the pronouncement of a fallible church?"
I'm not sure what you are referring to here. If it is Matthew 18:17, then for the umpteenth time, you have wildly misquoted the verse and yanked it from the context provided by Jesus Christ Himself. For your sake, let me repeat Matthew 18:15-17 here, as it appears in The New American Bible.
"15 If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
Using your distorted interpretation, one could say Christ issues a "divine command" for His followers to solve their "disputes" OUTSIDE of the church. That is, after all, the very first step of His multi-step approach to addressing a brother who sins. Now certainly you do not believe Christ's individual followers are infallible. Yet, Christ's first command is that His followers solve their problems without involving the church. Aquinasfan, can you not understand how wrong it is to so grossly distort the words of Christ. I just can't understand why you insist on doing it.
"Jesus states repeatedly throughout His public ministry that the Kingdom is at hand, His Kingdom, with Peter as His vice-regent."
No. He does not. Twice He says the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Twice He says the Kingdom of God is at hand. NEVER does He say His Kingdom is at hand. The Catholic church VERY CLEARLY teaches that the Kingdom of God has yet to come. Again, your own beliefs fall outside of scriptural truth and Catholic doctrine.
The SynopticsInfallibilityThese resemblances and differences, the extent and complexity of which grow upon the student who compares carefully the Synoptic Gospels and contrasts them with St. John's narrative, constitute a unique phenomenon in ancient and modern literature. They are facts which no one can refer either to mere chance, or to the direct influence of inspiration. On the one hand, the resemblances are too numerous and too striking to be regarded as explicable on the hypothesis that the first three Evangelists wrote independently of one another. On the other, the differences are at times so significant as to imply that they are due to the use of different documents by the Evangelists, as for example in the case of the two genealogies of Jesus Christ. The harmony and the variety, the resemblances and the differences must be both accounted for. They form together a literary problem, -- the Synoptic Problem, as it is called, -- the existence of which was practically unknown to the ancient ecclesiastical writers...
All attempts at assigning the cause of the resemblances and differences of the first three Gospels admit of being classified under three general heads, according as the relationship of the Synoptics has been explained by appealing to: A, oral tradition; B, mutual dependence; or C, earlier documents...
A. Oral DependenceThe satisfactory hypothesis, yet to be formulated, must be a combination hypothesis gathering and uniting, in due proportions, all the truths presented by the various opinions, and also a more thorough theory taking fully into account both the data of Patristic tradition and those disclosed by literary analysis. Such theory, when framed, will undoubtedly supply the fullest vindication of the historical value of our Synoptic records.The hypothesis of oral tradition implies that before our Gospels arose there were no written records of Christ's ministry, or at least none which was used by the Synoptists. It asserts that these Evangelists have drawn from narratives of sayings and deeds of Jesus which eye-witnesses of His public life handed on by word of mouth, and which gradually assumed a greater or less degree of fixity with constant repetition. According to this theory, the resemblances between the first three Gospels can be easily accounted for...
B. Mutual Dependence
The hypothesis of mutual dependence assumes that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels used each other's writings, each successive writer availing himself of earlier contributions, so that the second Evangelist (in the order of time) borrowed from the first, and the third from both first and second...
C. Earlier Documents
The documentary hypothesis is the prevalent theory among non-Catholics. Its general principle of solution of the Synoptic Problem is that in the composition of their writings, the first three Evangelists have all made use of earlier written material. The application of this general principle has given rise to a great number of suppositions, the principal of which may be briefly considered. Since Eichhorn (close of the eighteenth century), and especially since Resch (close of the nineteenth), attempts have been made to get behind our Greek Gospels to one or more Semitic documents used in them, and thus to account for the relationship of the Synoptics. This written source, the primitive contents and wording of which might still be detected, was Hebrew according to Resch and Abbott, Aramaic according to Marshall, Hoffmann, etc. In general, the variation in the words and clauses in our Gospels is accounted for by the different translations given to the Aramaic or Hebrew words. It is undoubted that the recent advocates of the hypothesis of a Semitic source have displayed great learning and ingenuity in pointing out the Semitic expressions which might underlie the divers readings noticeable in parallel passages of the Synoptics. It is undoubted, too, that the general background of the Gospels is Semitic in thought and forms of expression, and even that Semitic documents (for instance, Christ's genealogies) have been used by their authors.
By itself alone, however, the theory of a Semitic source does not appear a satisfactory solution of the Synoptic Problem...
PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE1. In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. Even considered as purely human documents they furnish us, we maintain, with a trustworthy report of Christ's sayings and promises; and, taking it to be a fact that Christ said what is attributed to Him in the Gospels, we further maintain that Christ's promises to the Apostles and their successors in the teaching office include the promise of such guidance and assistance as clearly implies infallibility. Having thus used the Scriptures as mere historical sources to prove that Christ endowed the Church with infallible teaching authority it is no vicious circle, but a perfectly legitimate iogical procedure, to rely on the Church's authority for proof of what writings are inspired.
2. Merely remarking for the present that the texts in which Christ promised infallible guidance especially to Peter and his successors in the primacy mlght be appealed to here as possessing an a fortiori value, it will suffice to consider the classical texts usually employed in the general proof of the Church's infallibility; and of these the principal are:
Matthew 28:18-20;Matthew 28:18-20. In Matthew 28:18-20, we have Christ's solemn commission to the Apostles delivered shortly before His Ascension: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." In Mark 16:15-16, the same commission is given more briefly with the added promise of salvation to believers and the threat of damnation for unbelievers; "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned."
Matthew 16:18;
John 14, 15, and 16;
I Timothy 3:14-15; and
Acts 15:28 sq.
Now it cannot be denied by anyone who admits that Christ established a visible Church at all, and endowed it with any kind of effective teaching authority, that this commission, with all it implies, was given not only to the Apostles personally for their own lifetime, but to their successors to the end of time, "even to the consummation of the world". And assuming that it was the omniscient Son of God Who spoke these words, with a full and clear realization of the import which, in conjunction with His other promises, they were calculated to convey to the Apostles and to all simple and sincere believers to the end of time, the only reasonable interpretation to put upon them is that they contain the promise of infallible guidance in doctrinal teaching made to the Apostolic College in the first instance and then to the hierarchical college that was to succeed it.
In the first place it was not without reason that Christ prefaced His commission by appealing to the fullness of power He Himself had received: "All power is given to me", etc. This is evidently intended to emphasize the extraordinary character and extent of the authority He is communicating to His Church -- an authority, it is implied, which He could not personally communicate were not He Himself omnipotent. Hence the promise that follows cannot reasonably be understood of ordinary natural providential guidance, but must refer to a very special supernatural assistance.
In the next place there is question particularly in this passage of doctrinal authority -- of authority to teach the Gospel to all men -- if Christ's promise to be with the Apostles and their successors to the end of time in carrying out this commission means that those whom they are to teach in His name and according to the plenitude of the power He has given them are bound to receive that teaching as if it were His own; in other words they are bound to accept it as infallible. Otherwise the perennial assistance promised would not really be efficacious for its purpose, and efficacious Divine assistance is what the expression used is clearly intended to signify. Supposing, as we do, that Christ actually delivered a definite body of revealed truth, to be taught to all men in all ages, and to be guarded from change or corruption by the living voice of His visible Church, it is idle to contend that this result could be accomplished effectively -- in other words that His promise could be effectively fulfilled unless that living voice can speak infallibly to every generation on any question that may arise affecting the substance of Christ's teaching.
Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?
One may not appeal to the inspired authority of the Scriptures, since for the fact of their inspiration the authority of the Church must be invoked, and unless she be infallible in deciding this one would be free to question the inspiration of any of the New Testament writings. Nor, abstracting from the question of inspiration, can it be fairly maintained, in face of the facts of history, that the work of interpreting scriptural teaching regarding these mysteries and several other points of doctrine that have been identified with the substance of historical Christianity is so easy as to do away with the need of a living voice to which, as to the voice of Christ Himself, all are bound to submit.
Unity of Faith was intended by Christ to be one of the distinctive notes of His Church, and the doctrinal authority He set up was intended by His Divine guidance and assistance to be really effective in maintaining this unity; but the history of the early heresies and of the Protestant sects proves clearly, what might indeed have been anticipated a priori, that nothing less than an infallible public authority capable of acting decisively whenever the need should rise and pronouncing an absolutely final and irreformable judgment, is really efficient for this purpose. Practically speaking the only alternative to infallibility is private judgment, and this after some centuries of trial has been found to lead inevitably to utter rationalism. If the early definitions of the Church were fallible, and therefore reformable, perhaps those are right who say today that they ought to be discarded as being actually erroneous or even pernicious, or at least that they ought to be re-interpreted in a way that substantially changes their original meaning; perhaps, indeed, there is no such thing as absolute truth in matters religious! How, for example, is a Modernist who takes up this position to be met except by insisting that definitive teaching is irreversible and unchangeable; that it remains true in its original sense for all time; in other words that it is infallible? For no one can reasonably hold that fallible doctrinal teaching is irreformable or deny the right of later generations to question the correctness of earlier fallible definitions and call for their revision or correction, or even for their total abandonment.
From these considerations we are justified in concluding that if Christ really intended His promise to be with His Church to be taken seriously, and if He was truly the Son of God, omniscient and omnipotent, knowing history in advance and able to control its course, then the Church is entitled to claim infallible doctrinal authority. This conclusion is confirmed by considering the awful sanction by which the Church's authority is supported: all who refuse to assent to her teaching are threatened with eternal damnation. This proves the value Christ Himself set upon His own teaching and upon the teaching of the Church commissioned to teach in His name; religious indifferentism is here reprobated in unmistakable terms.
Nor does such a sanction lose its significance in this connection because the same penalty is threatened for disobedience to fallible disciplinary laws, or even in some cases for refusing to assent to doctrinal teaching that is admittedly fallible. Indeed, every mortal sin, according to Christ's teaching, is punishable with eternal damnation. But if one believes in the objectivity of eternal and immutable truth, he will find it difficult to reconcile with a worthy conception of the Divine attributes a command under penalty of damnation to give unqualified and irrevocable internal assent to a large body of professedly Divine doctrine the whole of which is possibly false. Nor is this difficulty satisfactorily met, as some have attempted to meet it, by calling attention to the fact that in the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible. For, in the first place, the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional; and in the next place, internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience -- this conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles.
To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience. Finally it should be observed that fallible provisional teaching, as such, derives its binding force principally from the fact that it emanates from an authority which is competent, if need be, to convert it into infallible definitive teaching. Without infallibility in the background it would be difficult to establish theoretically the obligation of yielding internal assent to the Church's provisional decisions.
Matthew 16:18. In Matthew 16:18, we have the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" against the Church that is to be built on the rock; and this also, we maintain, implies the assurance of the Church's infallibility in the exercise of her teaching office. Such a promise, of course, must be understood with limitations according to the nature of the matter to which it is applied. As applied to sanctity, for example, which is essentially a personal and individual affair, it does not mean that every member of the Church or of her hierarchy is necessarily a saint, but merely that the Church, as whole, will be conspicuous among other things for the holiness of life of her members. As applied to doctrine, however -- always assuming, as we do, that Christ delivered a body of doctrine the preservation of which in its literal truth was to be one of the chief duties of the Church -- it would be a mockery to contend that such a promise is compatible with the supposition that the Church has possibly erred in perhaps the bulk of her dogmatic definitions, and that throughout the whole of her history she has been threatening men with eternal damnation in Christ's name for refusing to believe doctrines that are probably false and were never taught by Christ Himself. Could this be the case, would it not be clear that the gates of hell can prevail and probably have prevailed most signally against the Church?
John 14-16. In Christ's discourse to the Apostles at the Last Supper several passages occur which clearly imply the promise of infallibility: "I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The spirit of truth . . . he shall abide with you, and shall be in you" (John 14:16, 17). "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you" (ibid. 26). "But when he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth (John 16:13). And the same promise is renewed immediately before the Ascension (Acts 1:8). Now what does the promise of this perennial and efficacious presence and assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth, mean in connection with doctrinal authority, except that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity is made responsible for what the Apostles and their successors may define to be part of Christ's teaching? But insofar as the Holy Ghost is responsible for Church teaching, that teaching is necessarily infallible: what the Spirit of truth guarantees cannot be false.
I Timothy 3:15. In I Timothy 3:15, St. Paul speaks of "the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"; and this description would be something worse than mere exaggeration if it had been intended to apply to a fallible Church; it would be a false and misleading description. That St. Paul, however, meant it to be taken for sober and literal truth is abundantly proved by what he insists upon so strongly elsewhere, namely, the strictly Divine authority of the Gospel which he and the other Apostles preached, and which it was the mission of their successors to go on preaching without change or corruption to the end of time. "When you had received of us", he writes to the Thessalonians, "the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed" (I Thessalonians 2:13). The Gospel, he tells the Corinthians, is intended to bring "into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (II Corinthians 10:5). Indeed, so fixed and irreformable is the doctrine that has been taught that the Galatians (1:8) are warned to anathematize any one, even an angel from heaven, who should preach to them a Gospel other than that which St. Paul had preached. Nor was this attitude -- which is intelligible only on the supposition that the Apostolic College was infallible -- peculiar to St. Paul. The other Apostles and apostolic writers were equally strong in anathematizing those who preached another Christianity than that which the Apostles had preached (cf. II Peter 2:1 sqq.; I John 4:1 sqq.; II John 7 sqq.; Jude 4); and St. Paul makes it clear that it was not to any personal or private views of his own that he claimed to make every understanding captive, but to the Gospel which Christ had delivered to the Apostolic body. When his own authority as an Apostle was challenged, his defense was that he had seen the risen Saviour and received his mission directly from Him, and that his Gospel was in complete agreement with that of the other Apostles (see, v.g., Galatians 2:2-9).
Acts 15:28. Finally, the consciousness of corporate infallibility is clearly signified in the expression used by the assembled Apostles in the decree of the Council of Jerusalem: "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you", etc. (Acts 15:28). It is true that the specific points here dealt with are chiefly disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and that no claim to infallibility is made in regard to purely disciplinary questions as such; but behind, and independent of, disciplinary details there was the broad and most important dogmatic question to be decided, whether Christians, according to Christ's teaching, were bound to observe the Old Law in its integrity, as orthodox Jews of the time observed it. This was the main issue at stake, and in deciding it the Apostles claimed to speak in the name and with the authority of the Holy Ghost. Would men who did not believe that Christ's promises assured them of an infallible Divine guidance have presumed to speak in this way? And could they, in so believing, have misunderstood the Master's meaning?
Thanks for the articles you posted. With regard to "The Synoptics"; hypothesis and theory are infallible proof of nothing. While I agree with much of what the article says, I'm not sure what its relevence is to the discussion we've been having. Each of the Gospels was written with a specific audience in mind. While each discuss essentially the same events, each give a slightly different emphasis on the image of Christ (as a king, as a messiah etc). I'm not sure why there should be mystery attached to the fact that the Gospels are all very similar. They were written at approximately the same time, by close acquaintances all describing the same events. I would find it more of a mystery if they were all very different.
With regard to infallibility; while a subtitle within the article says "Proof from Scripture", what follows is a full paragraph explaining the qualifiers and conditions that must be accepted to uncover this "proof". The actual fact remains, that in exactly none of the scriptures listed does Jesus Christ say ANYTHING about the Church or any of its members being infallible. The assumptions and theories posited by the author of this article must be accepted without considering the fact that Christ never specifically discusses what would obviously be an incredibly significant power of His church. Since Christ was very careful to describe what authority and powers His disciples would have in spreading His good news, I think it is very significant that He NEVER mentions their infallibility.
Personal relationship, you understand what that is?? one-on-one relationship and I explained that further in that statement
"nor were we ever allowed to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus Christ, as we were required to go through the Priests of whatever Parish one belonged to (I've belonged to six in my lifetime, both in Illinois and in California)and that the Priest would act as a liaison between myself and God."
I thought it was perfectly self-explanitory.And technically, one doesn't always learn more about the Bible during Catholic mass since there are basically only three readings done during the mass, the first and second readings, then the Gospel, the Gospel being the only one actually discussed. Just so you know I was going to church every day, during Catholic school and no one found it important enough to want to discuss with me why I found certain fallicies in certain doctrine. You weren't allowed to question anything...ever. And I'm not Baptist. More I study the Bible itself and do not partake with any religions doctrine. I hope that makes things a bit more clear.
Then there is mention in ancient Egyptian records of the "Habiru", which is somewhat controversially linked to "Hebrew".
There is also mention of "Israel" by an ancient "Pharaoh", as his having defeated them in battle. A little more glowing for Pharaoh in the sense mentioned by Prager in the earlier article.
In short, it seems to me that "something" occurred out there some three millenia ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.