Must Catholics believe the N.T. is historical?

[polonius]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (1893)

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

Gospel of Matthew: Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 B.C.
Gospel of Luke: Jesus was born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So Jesus was born twice,

1 Corinthians 15 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

Note: This was written to a town 800 miles from were the evident took place by Paul a non witness. None of the witnesses nor the hundreds more they would have told left any writing confirming the story. The event is not reported I any of the Gospels.

Matt 27:52 “…tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised .53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Note: None of the “many� left any written records and the four authors of the Gospels say nothing about this.

[marco]

Who needs Fairy Tales and Star Wars. Our own little earth seems to have much more to marvel at. Java the Hut has nothing on the hippopotamus. It’s very odd to me that anyone would think a beast with tails and horns is too fantastical to be taken seriously. They might need to expand their worldview a little.

You are simply demonstrating how humans can create wonder when they want to. Apparently more people are killed by hippopotami than any other animal; of the white and black rhino, one is placid the other savage; beside the brilliant butterfly there is the malaria-carrying mosquito.

Many other poor humans looking at the pictures you present would see a mess of colour: imagination lends beauty. And there are those who see magnificent art in a dish of flies or an unmade bed. The tales of Tolkien or any other imaginative author are tributes to the writer's imagination; if Revelation was nothing more than imagined beasts and symbolic stories, who would care? The wickedness in the book is its intention to misguide; it has spawned horrible accusations because of its nebulous imagery, under the curtain of religion. Reality has beauty, for those who want to see it - I do not dispute this; it also has ugliness.

The poetry in man is that he can take the sifaka or the antelope and read grace; or he can borrow a white rabbit and cast a spell on children introduced to a wonderland. That ability for me is a million times more praiseworthy than some wretch writing witchcraft, talking dragons and beasts in a world that is yet to be, not for entertainment, but to frighten and pretend wisdom where there is stupidity. Do not please confuse the beauty of reality with the ugliness in Revelation.

[polonius]

Quote:

RESPONSE: I've read this argument before. I concluded that it is nonsense.


RightReason posted:

Ha, ha, ha . . . I’m sure you do. And yet as the author pointed out this is one of several reasonable explanations. Soooooo . . . . instead of narrowly thinking there couldn’t possibly be anything to explain this supposed contradiction, I have demonstrated that in fact there are several explanations. And it perhaps isn’t even any of those, rather a different explanation that we haven’t even considered.

Wright then explains how this can relate to the enrollment of Quirinius:

"I suggest, therefore, that actually the most natural reading of the verse is: “This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria.�

RESPONSE:

Not according to the plain meaning of words. Most people understand the plain meaning of words.
There’s no “before� in the passage.

Strong’s Lexicon: [fn]This was the first G4413 census taken while [fn]Quirinius was governor of Syria.

New American Standard Bible
This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

International Standard Version
This was the first registration taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
Reality check; There is a major difference between “before� and “while.�


But lets move on and examine your other errors.

Right Reason then asks:

This solves an otherwise odd problem: why should Luke say that Quirinius’ census was the first? Which later ones was he thinking of?

RESPONSE: Because it was the first Roman census of Judea that was taken when Quirinius became the Roman governor in 6 AD. Before that Herod’s son and inheritor Archalaus was the ruler, not the Romans,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
The Census of Quirinius was a census of Judea taken by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, Roman governor of Syria, upon the imposition of direct Roman rule in 6 CE.

Quirinius spent the next decade leading military campaigns from Syria against and eventually defeating the Homonadenses, and was “governing Syria� (Luke 2:2) during the time of the “census� (Luke 2:2).

(W)hile Luke’s gospel refers to this census with only one sentence, Josephus relates a detailed narrative of the events surrounding the census: Quirinius was sent into the region on the twofold mission to take the census and to secure the property of Archelaus at the time of his exile.

Second, Josephus asserts an explicit date for this census—in the 37th year from Caesar’s defeat of Antony at Actium in 31 bc, that is, in ad 6 (Ant. XVIII, 26–28)


What part of this don’t you understand?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 20 by marco]

You are simply demonstrating how humans can create wonder when they want to. Apparently more people are killed by hippopotami than any other animal; of the white and black rhino, one is placid the other savage; beside the brilliant butterfly there is the malaria-carrying mosquito.

That was my point. Who needs to invent poison apples when you real life gives you flesh eating bacteria and venomous rattlesnakes? You act like Revelation is too hard to believe. How so?

The tales of Tolkien or any other imaginative author are tributes to the writer's imagination; if Revelation was nothing more than imagined beasts and symbolic stories, who would care?

What do you mean? I would care. Because it would be indicating something. A truth is still being revealed, even if the means of revealing the truth is symbolic. But also, I actually never said we know for sure if the beast in Revelation is not real. It could very well be. Perhaps on the final judgment we shall look up in the sky and see a beast just like described in Revelation sweeping its tail knocking down the stars. I could totally see God being just that dramatic –can’t let Steven King and Spielberg have all the fun.

The wickedness in the book is its intention to misguide; it has spawned horrible accusations because of its nebulous imagery, under the curtain of religion. Reality has beauty, for those who want to see it - I do not dispute this; it also has ugliness.

Huh? Might I suggest it is the warped reader whose intention it is to misguide? The world is full of those who miss the truth of something and turn something ugly into something “beautiful� and something beautiful in something “ugly�. Let’s not blame Revelation for one’s own shortcomings.

The poetry in man is that he can take the sifaka or the antelope and read grace; or he can borrow a white rabbit and cast a spell on children introduced to a wonderland. That ability for me is a million times more praiseworthy than some wretch writing witchcraft, talking dragons and beasts in a world that is yet to be, not for entertainment, but to frighten and pretend wisdom where there is stupidity.

If you admit there is ugliness/evil in the world why be so offended that Revelation warns us of such? I know It is often good to know one’s enemy – can certainly come in handy. And knowing one’s enemy does not detract from love and beauty. Quite the contrary. For those who get it, Revelation is not to frighten, rather is an awesome sign of vindication – final vindication for the righteous against the evil and ugliness you admit you want no part of. I’d call that a happy ending.

[polonius]

Unless it is admitted that God made such errors, then the Bible is not inspired by God.
QED

Do you discount the possibility that the Bible is inspired by God, but imperfect humans contaminated the pure, Divine inspiration with their own prmitive and cultural bias? So what we have is an amalgum of Divine perfection and human blunder, all in one book?

And as such it is up to we humans to sort it out. (As Jefferson did, for example) With our God-given gift of Reason. Speaking as a Deistic Christian here, and no longer an orthodox, unquestioning Catholic.

I guess what I am getting at is why does it have to be an "all or nothing" proposition? Seems to me that Fundamentalists and Atheists make the same mistake by engaging in categorical thinking, and the two are actually flip sides of the same dogmatic coin.

Also, what is "QED"?

"Which is (or was) demonstrated.

I don't consider the Bible to be inspired specifically because it contains so many contradictions and errors. And I am a questioning Catholic.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 23 by polonius]

And I am a questioning Catholic.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

By what is demonstrated, like the 80s TV show.

https://www.mathopenref.com/qed.html

[brianbbs67]

Unless it is admitted that God made such errors, then the Bible is not inspired by God.
QED

Do you discount the possibility that the Bible is inspired by God, but imperfect humans contaminated the pure, Divine inspiration with their own prmitive and cultural bias? So what we have is an amalgum of Divine perfection and human blunder, all in one book?

And as such it is up to we humans to sort it out. (As Jefferson did, for example) With our God-given gift of Reason. Speaking as a Deistic Christian here, and no longer an orthodox, unquestioning Catholic.

I guess what I am getting at is why does it have to be an "all or nothing" proposition? Seems to me that Fundamentalists and Atheists make the same mistake by engaging in categorical thinking, and the two are actually flip sides of the same dogmatic coin.

Also, what is "QED"?

"Which is (or was) demonstrated.

I don't consider the Bible to be inspired specifically because it contains so many contradictions and errors. And I am a questioning Catholic.

You are correct by scripture to test everything to the word of God.

https://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm

[RightReason]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

You are correct by scripture to test everything to the word of God.

https://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm

I agree. However, how exactly does one test Scripture when so many different individuals have so many different interpretations about what Scripture says/means? Words on a page need to be interpreted. Who has the authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture? What happens in two devout sincere intelligent individuals come to two very different understandings regarding Sacred Scripture?

Did Jesus not account for that very problem? Is there any man who thinks he is utterly immune from deception? Confusion? Misunderstanding? I like the words of G.K. Chesterton . . .

“I don’t want a church to be right when I am right. I want a church to be right when I am wrong.�

[polonius]

[Replying to brianbbs67]

You are correct by scripture to test everything to the word of God.

https://biblehub.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm

I agree. However, how exactly does one test Scripture when so many different individuals have so many different interpretations about what Scripture says/means? Words on a page need to be interpreted. Who has the authority when it comes to interpreting Scripture? What happens in two devout sincere intelligent individuals come to two very different understandings regarding Sacred Scripture?

RESPONSE: A simple answer. One is wrong.

[RightReason]

[Replying to polonius]

RESPONSE: A simple answer. One is wrong.

Or both are wrong. But exactly right that both can’t be right! Which unfortunately is the illogical conclusion of many religious denominations. It’s the fallacy of indifferentism (it doesn’t really matter what faith you are as long as you believe.) But if truth exists – that doesn’t make sense.

Also, why would Jesus establish a church and then say, but any church will do. He actually warned against us following false teaching. So, how can we be sure we aren’t following false teaching? The only way this could be accomplished would be to have One, Visible, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, and Authoritative Church. First – there needs to be an actual place to go for answers – not just an esoteric “body of believers�. Second, there needs to be One/United/Universal (Catholic) place. If Sue & Joe belong to the local Christian church down the road and they move to a different state, the new local church down the road is not united with their old one. It isn’t the same church. However, as a Catholic, I could go to any Catholic Church on the planet, even one in a different language and still be receiving the same Catholic faith. Now, that makes sense. It’s also pretty miraculous when one thinks about it. That the Catholic Church (started by a few Apostles prior to the printing press or any form of technology) is in every country on every continent on the globe. Only the Catholic Church makes sense and meets the four marks of the True Church. Historical records support this proving once again that religion is about faith and reason.