How the churches got around errors in scripture.

[polonius]

In 1893 we were still being told by the Pope that “ Inspiration (is)Incompatible with Error�

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCR IPTURE DECLARED THAT:

“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. “

This was essentially the Protestant teaching as well. But things changed in the 1900’s
The Protestant “Chicago Statement� declared that:

“Article X We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

That was a safe claim since autographic copies of scripture no longer existed.

But the CatholicChurch at Vatican II came up with still a better explanation.

“ Paragraph #11: “Since, therefore, all that the…sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.�

In short, if there is an error, than the matter must not be necessary for our salvation!

New Jerome Biblical Commentary, coauthored by the late Raymond Brown and Thomas Aquinas Collins:

..."Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purposes of God."

Elsewhere, Brown writes,
It is falsely claimed that there has been no change towards the Bible in Catholic Church thought because Pius XII and Vatican II paid homage to documents issued by Leo XIII, Pius X and Benedict XV and therefore clearly meant to reinforce the teaching of their predecessors. What really was going on was an attempt gracefully to retain what was salvageable from the past and to move in a new direction with as little friction as possible."

In sum, if you find an error in scripture, then that passage was not necessary for our salvation!

What a great solution!!!

[marco]

Peter's affection for truth was rewarded and it is this affection for truth that will bind or loose likewise anyone on earth.

Peter is a stone - affection of truth, but there is only one rock - Truth Itself and it is eternal Christ himself "upon this rock I will build my church".

The very purpose for which he came into the world.

I suppose this qualifies as an interpretaion, only just. Peter's affection for truth led to the cock crowing later, so we are hardly going to build on the rock of that affection. If you say rock means truth then sadly Christ's words are either meaningless or sarcastic.

The obvious interpretation: Your name is Peter, which means a rock, and on you, this rck, I will establish my church and I won't let hell overcome it, no matter what happens to it in future years. That seems to be what Christ said.


Now look at: You are Peter and although you're a liar, as I shall shortly predict, I'm going to ignore this and call you the fount of truth. How do you like that? And on your sort of truth, lies and deceit, I will build my church and I won't let any cock-crowing stop me. Yes, he was probably being sarcasstic if we take your meaning.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]


"The obvious interpretation: Your name is Peter, which means a rock, and on you, this rck, I will establish my church and I won't let hell overcome it, no matter what happens to it in future years. That seems to be what Christ said. "

This speaks of ignorance or wilful perversion of the Gospel.

But then free-will is God's gift to man.

[marco]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]


"The obvious interpretation: Your name is Peter, which means a rock, and on you, this rck, I will establish my church and I won't let hell overcome it, no matter what happens to it in future years. That seems to be what Christ said. "

This speaks of ignorance or wilful perversion of the Gospel.

But then free-will is God's gift to man.

I will be thrilled to discover the elements of my ignorance, so I will offer the opportunity for it to be highlighted. I will go slowly, step by step.

"THOU art Peter." A silly statement of identification? No, it is a lead-up to a clever pun that is going to be made.

AND A conjunction indicating the first clause is linked to the second. What comes next is a deduction from the first.

Upon THIS rock. What rock? None has been mentioned except PETRA, Peter, which funnily means a rock. So on Peter something is going to be built. I wonder what.

I will build MY Church. So Peter is going to be the foundation stone for a church. But what's an ecclesia? It is a body of people meeting and by metonymy it comes to mean the place they meet in or the whole organisation.

And A conjunction again, following up the previous thought

The gates of hell will not prevail against it. A promise that what he has founded with Peter will be immune to Satanic assaults. Individuals might fail, as Judas did, but the organisation will prevail.

And I will give thee the keys.... Final indication of transfer of authority.


Please indicate where ignorance has crept in. I am NOT giving some unrelated extrapolation; just giving the meaning of the words. Other interpretations are wrong or inferior.

I hope this has been persuasive.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by steveb1]

The word "consistent" ​ means "compatible or in agreement with something."

Genesis 6:
[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
[6] And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
[7] And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth (חַ מְ תִּ י; nchmthi; I-nregret) me that I have made them.

According to Genesis, GOD FAILED to achieve the results he intended and repented (regretted) His decision to create humans. Yet according to Revelation:

Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

How is it possible for an omnipotent Being to FAIL? Since these two concepts directly contradict each other, the Bible is NOT consistent. The Bible is NOT "in agreement" with itself.

[marco]

Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Many churches got round this by regarding it as undiluted drivel. Just reading it is an embarrassment; as if a vast collection of supernal entities would be using Gregorian chant and employing the word Alleluia. Perhaps they were playing guitars rather than harps.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Rev.19
[6] And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

Many churches got round this by regarding it as undiluted drivel. Just reading it is an embarrassment; as if a vast collection of supernal entities would be using Gregorian chant and employing the word Alleluia. Perhaps they were playing guitars rather than harps.

It has been my experience however, that the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are among the most necessary and irrefutable of God's characteristics. And yet the Bible specifically indicates that God is capable of failing. How do believers explain this contradiction? By denying that any contradiction exists, even when the contradiction is pointed out to them.

Believers: "The Bible conforms exactly to my expectations, just as I knew it would. Because that is what I prefer to believe, no matter what the Bible says."

[Monta]

[Replying to post 21 by marco]


"The obvious interpretation: Your name is Peter, which means a rock, and on you, this rck, I will establish my church and I won't let hell overcome it, no matter what happens to it in future years. That seems to be what Christ said. "

This speaks of ignorance or wilful perversion of the Gospel.

But then free-will is God's gift to man.

I will be thrilled to discover the elements of my ignorance, so I will offer the opportunity for it to be highlighted. I will go slowly, step by step.

"THOU art Peter." A silly statement of identification? No, it is a lead-up to a clever pun that is going to be made.

AND A conjunction indicating the first clause is linked to the second. What comes next is a deduction from the first.

Upon THIS rock. What rock? None has been mentioned except PETRA, Peter, which funnily means a rock. So on Peter something is going to be built. I wonder what.

I will build MY Church. So Peter is going to be the foundation stone for a church. But what's an ecclesia? It is a body of people meeting and by metonymy it comes to mean the place they meet in or the whole organisation.

And A conjunction again, following up the previous thought

The gates of hell will not prevail against it. A promise that what he has founded with Peter will be immune to Satanic assaults. Individuals might fail, as Judas did, but the organisation will prevail.

And I will give thee the keys.... Final indication of transfer of authority.


Please indicate where ignorance has crept in. I am NOT giving some unrelated extrapolation; just giving the meaning of the words. Other interpretations are wrong or inferior.

I hope this has been persuasive.

Not really:
You are Peter and tonight we are having chicken soup.

We go to great lenghts to prove 'our' truth.
Those seeking truth because it is true will often find that
it contradicts 'their' truth.

[marco]

Not really:
You are Peter and tonight we are having chicken soup.

We go to great lenghts to prove 'our' truth.
Those seeking truth because it is true will often find that
it contradicts 'their' truth.

It helps to read the arguments other people present, and then, once they are understood, disagree with them.

Your statement: "Thou art Peter and tonight we are having chicken soup" suggests to me that you haven't understood what was said.


In your sentence the word "and" is improperly used; the second clause has no relation to the first. It is useful to assume there is sense and meaning in a biblical sentence.

[dio9]

All any scripture can do is point at the truth, point us at it, aim at it. Scripture is only as infallible as the man who wrote it. I trust absolutely in God but have doubts about Man. Scriptures are no different than us and I dare say no two of us are the same in what we conceive God to be. The important thing is not the scripture but what it points directs moves us toward. In other words Scripture is not a lifeline from heaven but rather a tower of Babel, more or less depending whether it divides us or unites us. Dig it!

[marco]

All any scripture can do is point at the truth, point us at it, aim at it. Scripture is only as infallible as the man who wrote it. I trust absolutely in God but have doubts about Man. Scriptures are no different than us and I dare say no two of us are the same in what we conceive God to be. The important thing is not the scripture but what it points directs moves us toward. In other words Scripture is not a lifeline from heaven but rather a tower of Babel, more or less depending whether it divides us or unites us. Dig it!

Well that's a rather negative view. It would seem best, under these observations, to ignore the Babel that is the Bible. The status quo seems to be that churches have gone their own way and been directed by Biblical statements in many various ways. Hence the wonderful diversity in Christianity, with no right or wrong sign posts.