Replies

FK: From what I could find your Church does not discriminate between what you are calling the words of men and the red letter words.

Not insofar as their inspired status is concerned ......... The Orthodox have a saying lex orandi, lex credendi, loosely translated "how we pray is how we believe." In other words, the Church liturgically sets the Gospels apart and above all other scripture because it considers the Gospels apart and above all other scripture, through which all other scriptures is interpreted and reconciled.

The CCC I quoted said flat out that the words of the Bible ARE the words of God. How can some of God's words be above other of God's words as a general matter? The effect is naturally to have God trumping Himself through contradiction. I can't imagine why God would leave such a legacy to His beloved. I also do not recall Jesus ever ranking the values of the OT scriptures. In fact He referred to "every jot and tittle". That would seem to indicate that Jesus had no interest in setting any of God's word above any other.

Frankly, it seems to me that this "everything through the prism" routine was conveniently invented since all claimed authority of the hierarchy of the Apostolic Church comes from the Gospels. In order to make sure that authority was "super duper" true, it was decided that everything else in the Bible was lesser than the Gospels in value. This way the super duper true high authority could interpret the lesser non-Gospel words of God any way they wanted, including effectively voiding them as needed. More than once the response I have gotten to my quoting of scripture has been "But that's not in the Gospels", as if my point was moot unless something in the Gospels specifically backed it up. If that isn't putting man above scripture I don't know what is. :)

The CCC I quoted said flat out that the words of the Bible ARE the words of God

Actually it doesn't. CCC 105 says "have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Now, under the inspiration is not the same as "dictated" or written down directly by God.

But, then, the Catechism is a book written and translated by mortals and capable of incompletely expressing the faith, even gross errors. Take for instance CCC 101, which says that God "became like [sic] man."

So, why should I uncritically assume that everything in the Catechism is necessarily correct and error-free any more than another book written and rewritten, copied, and recopied, adulterated, added-to, "harmonized" and what not throughout the history such as the Bible, and still insist that is "the word of God?"

Everything in the Catechism you quoted form indicates that it was not God actually writing or dictating the Bible, but that he was "working in and through" (whatever that means) the human authors to express the truth.

In other words, the truth is believed to be expressed in the books the Church deemed to be scriptures. That can mean a lot of things, FK. It can mean that every word is the word of God, or that every word is true even if it is not the word of God (such as Paul's own commandments, and his own gospel). Or it can mean that, overall, the message of the Bible expresses truth, but not necessarily in every word.

I also do not recall Jesus ever ranking the values of the OT scriptures. In fact He referred to "every jot and tittle". That would seem to indicate that Jesus had no interest in setting any of God's word above any other.

That is convincing for the pagan Greeks and equally ignorant Christians of other backgrounds, but anyone who knows a little about Judaism realizes that this was something written by Christian authors for effect.

Jesus, being a pious Jew, would have believed, as all Jewish believers do, that only the Five Books of Moses are the very words of God (directly dictated to Moses), and that these books are set apart and above all the rest.

In fact, just as the Christians stand only when the Gospels are read, the Jews stand only when the Five Books of Moses are read. Clearly, both Jews and Christians differentiate what are believed to be God's living words, from those written by human authors under God's (presumed) guidance. Knowing this, he could not have said that, or else he wasn't telling the truth.

Actually, that "super-duper" idea comes straight from Judaism. Apostolic Chirstianty is a direct derivative of Judaism and was, at one time, considered a sect thereof. Of course, this is alien to a German, man-made religion, literally created in the city of Worms (of all names!) some 1500 years later. From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Nevertheless, a distinction was made between the Torah, on the one hand, and the Prophets and the Hagiographa, on the other; for, while the study of the latter books would bring the same reward as would that of the Torah (Lam. R. i. 13, iii. 10), the Prophets and the Hagiographa were not of equal importance with the Torah..."
"Any inference drawn from the Prophets or the Hagiographa had to be authenticated in the Torah (Yer. Kid. 66a). Simeon b. Lakish said outright, "What need have I of the Psalms? It is stated in the Torah" (Pesik. R. 21b; compare 22a, below; 146a, 10; 174a, below). The Prophets and the Hagiographa are only transmitted (Naz. 53a; M. K. 5a), so that no legal (Torah) deductions are to be drawn from the prophecies ( , B. K. 2b, etc.)..."

There is also a difference recognized between the Prophets and the Writings (the non-Torah sections of the Pharisaical Bible):

"Tradition thus distinguished, as to rank, between Moses and the other prophets; but it knew nothing of a difference between the prophetical gift and the Holy Spirit (), as defined by Maimonides: such distinction rests upon verbal expressions for "prophets" and "Holy Writings." In the treatise Soferim, and elsewhere, the Hagiographa are called ("holiness") in distinction from the Prophets, which are styled ("revelation").

Clearly, the Torah (Pentateuch) stands above revelation. The Torah, it is said, existed eternally and was given (not revealed).

More than once the response I have gotten to my quoting of scripture has been "But that's not in the Gospels", as if my point was moot unless something in the Gospels specifically backed it up

Insofar as Christianity is concerned, Christ did not reveal the Gospels, but the Gospel was given to his disciples. It, being considered a direct word of God, is higher than the knowledge gained by others through indirect revelation. I mean it borders on ridiculous that some self-styled Chrstians consider Christ's own words on the par with human prophets. Christ was no prophet. At least not in the eyes of the Apostolic Church.