Posted on 01/29/2014 4:53:38 PM PST by NKP_Vet
This little book about the Bible grew out of lectures which the writer delivered on the subject to mixed audiences. The lectures were afterwards expanded, and appeared in a series of articles in the Catholic press 1908-9, and are now with slight alterations reprinted. Their origin will sufficiently account for the colloquial style employed throughout. There is, therefore, no pretense either of profound scholarship or of eloquent language; all that is attempted is a popular and, as far as possible, accurate exposition along familiar lines of the Catholic claim historically in regard to the Bible. It is candidly controversial without, however, let us hope, being uncharitable or unfair. Friends had more than once suggested the reissue of the articles; and it appeared to the writer that at last the proper moment for it had come when the Protestant world is jubilating over the Tercentenary of the Authorized Version. Amidst the flood of literature on the subject of the Bible, it seemed but right that some statement, however plain and simple, should be set forth from the Catholic side, with the object of bringing home to the average mind the debt that Britain, in common with the rest of Christendom, owes to the Catholic Church in this connection. Probably the motive of the present publication will be best understood by a perusal of the following letter from the writer which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, 18th of March, 1911:
(Excerpt) Read more at tanbooks.com ...
“It’s on the Vatican website.”
I said that.
“If I go to Vatican.va, and I want to read the Bible, I click on “resources,” then “Bible,” then Introduction on Judith, and I get told that Judith isn’t true.”
Are Jesus’ parables true? Yes, they are, but they don’t necessarily describe historical events. Did the Rich Man in hell really see Lazarus talking to Abraham afar off? Is that story historically accurate or was it just a parable? Was there really a Good Samaritan? Is that story historically accurate?
“Did that already.”
No, you’re doing that now.
“The source included its information about its Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.”
Which in no way makes it an “official Catholic source.” It was not produced under the direction of the Catholic Church.
“Are Jesus’ parables true? Yes, they are, but they don’t necessarily describe historical events.”
Firstly, scripture can only be scripture if it has been written by a Prophet, or, at least, their close associates, as in Luke for the Gospel of Luke. That is why the Apostles believed themselves to be scripture-producers, referring to their own writings as scripture, or quoting the Gospels as scripture alongside Moses. Consequently, if Judith has any connection with any of the Prophets of the Old Testament, it should at least get the geography and history right, even if the story was made to be make-believe, which it doesn’t.
That’s the reason why the Papist concession is so significant, since they can no longer argue that Judith is actually inspired scripture.
Now would be my opportunity to point out as well that the Vatican website treats the entirety of the scripture in this manner, putting out anything that disagrees with their views of science or history as mere “parable.”
Observe:
The Bible, according to them, filled with “myths,” written by multiple authors (not actually Moses, etc), contradictions, stories are “imaginative” explanations, non-literal, or legends designed to excuse atrocity committed by Jews.
First, a suggested denial of the authorship of Moses for Genesis:
“This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4.HTM
“Mythology” placed into the text, as well as alleged error, according to the footnotes:
“[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.” [6:5- 8:22] The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.”
” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark ( Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood...
“Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM [1-32]
Scripture non-historical, based on “ancient traditions” instead:
“Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late “Priestly document,” it is based on very ancient traditions... its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam’s line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain’s line. The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P7.HTM
Myths created to justify atrocities, so claims the footnotes:
“[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PB.HTM
The tower of babel an “imaginitive” story:
“[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man’s increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name “Babylon.””
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PD.HTM
“Which in no way makes it an “official Catholic source.” It was not produced under the direction of the Catholic Church.”
It was published with the permission of your Bishops, who are members appointed by the Pope, all of whom are the authorities of the Catholic Church.
Have not seen that movie yet. Will have to watch it.
Do all of Jesus’ parables relate historic events?
Yes or No?
Now what was that you were asking?
Tell us instead; which ones do "official" Roman Catholic "magesterium" indicate do, and/or do not.
Take your time...and show us the source for the determinations.
Are you sure the the word "Revisionist" isn't in the wording somewhere? LOLOL!
You, having done more research than I is debatable. Having played a role in one or two modest historical projects myself, involving multiple universities with thousands of dollars on the line, not to mention the reputations of several large organizations, I know the importance of selecting researchers who are fair and unbiased. I'm not too sure anyone with your kind of blinders on would qualify.
Then again, this is nothing more than a distraction on your part in lieu of evidence proving your claim that the church played no part in the Inquisition. Those thousands put to horrific death will not be silenced and will be avenged one day and probably in the not too distant future as even your own Catholic seers have predicted.
I didn’t have time to reply today, but I will soon.
“You, having done more research than I is debatable.”
Historical research? Sorry, you can’t even come close.
“Having played a role in one or two modest historical projects myself, involving multiple universities with thousands of dollars on the line, not to mention the reputations of several large organizations, I know the importance of selecting researchers who are fair and unbiased. I’m not too sure anyone with your kind of blinders on would qualify.”
Again, in this lifetime I have done more historical research than you ever will.
“Then again, this is nothing more than a distraction on your part in lieu of evidence proving your claim that the church played no part in the Inquisition.”
And there we go. Show me where I ever claimed “the church played no part in the Inquisition.” I claimed no such thing. Now, you said I did claim that. I have asked you to show me where I did so. You will fail because I made no such claim. Why is it that anti-Catholic bigots so often simply make stuff up and claim someone said it, or that someone believes it, when that is not the case? Again, show me where I ever claimed “the church played no part in the Inquisition.” You will fail to do so.
“Those thousands put to horrific death will not be silenced and will be avenged one day and probably in the not too distant future as even your own Catholic seers have predicted.”
Oh, get a life. Again, show me where I ever claimed “the church played no part in the Inquisition.”
“I didn’t have time to reply today, but I will soon.”
I’m sure you’ll reply. You will, however, fail to provide evidence of what you claimed.
How ironic coming from someone attempting to defend those who took so many.
Historical research? Sorry, you can’t even come close.
Right...
Again, show me where I ever claimed “the church played no part in the Inquisition.”
Oh, so now you are admitting the church DID play a role in the Inquisition?
--- More Weasel Words From You go Here ---
Why is it that anti-Catholic bigots so often simply make stuff up...
I don't know, why don't you ask one when you find one. Since you seem incapable of posting without mentioning the word "bigot", perhaps you're just becoming delusional or maybe you need a mirror?
It's on their own web pages.
But they've never examined it.
Even though in the "history" of this particular ecclesiastical community..."glosses" themselves have a history all their own, which includes numbers of their own (the RCC) faithful having persecuted even unto death, those who had the wrong margin notes in their bibles, particularly when those same people had other materials in their possession at the same time -- like Lutheran "books". I can trot out an account of an auto de' fe of representatives of the RCC, in conjunction with past secular government having put to the torch, burned to death a "Lutheran bookbinder", if you'd like.
The King James translation was hated, and once widely suppressed by the RCC ...much due to what was written in it's notes of introduction, before that translation went on to have the significant impact on Western culture that it did. But Romanists were (and still are, many of them) against it -- while not having "officially" approved any other English translation??? WOW. After all these centuries. But then again, English is the language of those hated Anglicans, who though may be accepted when they surrender and convert, are still without access to officially (Vatican) supported scripture translation, in those persons native tongue. Too vulgar is it?
Wycliff that 'morning star of the Reformation' was right. Your own words, vladi, (in fact, your own overall approach, displayed consistently if not relentlessly on these pages) vindicate that man, to this day.
But it's all ok now since, in this instance, due to there not being any "official" English language scripture translations (after all these centuries, the "Vatican" hasn't gotten around to it yet) or if there is, it all hinges now upon whether or not there is "any" evidence that the Vatican has even examined the text, translation, or even the notes or introductions of the NAB.
Just wow. One has to produce evidence to you that the "Vatican" even reads what "it" put up on it's own web pages, with this including (or is it more limited to?) this being in regards to English language translation of scripture.
G_P_H, I think you have shown by now, that what is on the Vatican pages as to scripture itself in the English language, is about as close to "official" as any is going to "get".
After that could be assented to, perhaps then some conversation as to the use of parable, could proceed.
It's too bad that even if it could proceed, it would be only under condition of having had to accept a form of double-talk, even as the conversation itself transpires in English language.
I guess the Anglicans who convert, if they do not know Latin already, can learn it. I mean...we all know that was the original "holy language", of Christ and the Apostles...right?
According to you what part did they play? Though to be clear, that best answered after the phrase "the church" is defined, perhaps. After which, be specific, and inclusive enough to be honest; first--with yourself) concerning it, while not limiting this only to the Spanish Inquisition, perhaps.
Were they like hall monitors? One could only run to participate or celebrate in the killing of theological dissidents, if there had been official approval for such activities?
Llorente gave the world an overview (chapter 1, pages 1 thru 12, or so) which extended back to the first recorded uses of force (in context of the Christian Church) to compel persons to some level of compliance or another, on strictly theological grounds, with this force coming in conjunction with secular powers, which as Llorente further in his book outlined and gave example for, included how the Roman Catholic Church in particular, eventually turned towards more fully compelling secular powers to do "the dirty work", when they did not do so more directly using their own hands to strangle, or light a fire to burn the bodies (even at times --- those bodies still alive) of those whom dared openly oppose themselves. Dependent upon definition of "the church", of course.
Each and every time I see some Romanist say "but the church didn't do it" I have to check myself from slapping them for their speciousness, with this much tempered by realization that most of them either don't really themselves know, or have had the truth of the matter badly misrepresented to them by various RC ecclesiastical community apologists who at times (even on the pages of FR) can be seen to themselves specialize in those efforts.
Meanwhile, regardless of all the lawyer-ing, the word games (by which I mean --- the self-justification and seeking for escape valves to lead away from acceptance of culpability) the Lord Himself sees all, and is fooled by none of it, although He can forgive nonetheless.
Excellent posts.....
Though I must admit, conducted in the "vulgar" English language, which given it's own powers and scope of possibility for expression, can be among the most vulgar.
I suppose I should now brace myself for impact? Naah, the "virtual ignore" button has been pressed.
Excuses like a blanket, crudely worn to ward off the cold...and give one room to continue spewing on and on about "protestant bigots" as if doing so were as magic slippers to transport them back to some fantasy-Kansas, where their own (spiritual) relations are filled only with the warmest of loves, having never erred in the slightest, concerning even the love of God Himself.
Not that I'm pretending that I have not...but that's part of the point. I don't lay claim to personal perfection. A willingness to be honest must suffice.
Amen and thank God He does,He isn't and He does!
All things are open and naked before Him,He knows every thought and intent behind every single word posted here,even if we don't.Our own "desperately wicked and deceitfull above all things" heart is not fully knowable to us but it is to Him.Which goes a long way in explaining why He is so good at what He does.The fight is allowing God to reside in our heart and be Lord instead of our own wicked heart remaining lord over our minds.The result of which is sometimes all over the RF like a rash.
The flesh keeps rearing its ugly head and it’s easy to fall into operating out of it.
Thank God that He nailed it to the cross that it no longer has any power over us unless we grant it.
I wish I could be done with it forever, though. It would make my life much easier.
x
Excellent, as well as all of your posts; same for GPH.
A heartfelt Amen to that!
"But unto you who revere and worshipfully fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in His wings and His beams, and you shall go forth and gambol like calves [released] from the stall and leap for joy." (Malachi 4:2[amp])
One fine day,dear sister,we'll party like it's forever!
Like???
It WILL be forever.
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.