G
goout
Guest
Yes, Scripture is not inspired because people say it is so, the Church recognizes it as such because it objectively is inspired.
Just like:
Jesus is not the Living Son of God because the Church says so, He simply is.
Bible is inspired – what does this mean?
- Thread starter NoelFitz
- Start date
- Status
Just like:
Jesus is not the Living Son of God because the Church says so, He simply is.
K
Kei
Guest
Inspired has a variety of meanings.
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
It clearly does not mean free from contradiction.
G
goout
Guest
This is very true.goout:
It clearly does not mean free from contradiction.
Since Inspiration is given to human beings, and human beings are contradictory creatures, the expression of Inspiration is necessarily full of the human element.
And at the same time…God accomplishes everything he wills through the contradictions.
To be Catholic means an acceptance of the “both/and”.
J
jas84173
Guest
It depends on the tradition. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox all have different Canons which can range from the 66 books of the Protestants to the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
B
Benadam
Guest
Protestants didn’t recognize inspiration imho…they think they recognized what was not
S
stupidisasstupiddoes
Guest
It’s refreshing to see someone acknowlegde this. None of the contradictions are particualy important or detracting from the overall message. But they are present enough to remind us the various books were written by humans who made the kind of inconsistencies one would expect in a pre mobile phone / internet age.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Actually, John doesn’t “consider” anything of the sort, it is those who read John and misunderstand the meaning of the word Passover in his Gospel that draw such errant conclusions. We could walk through the details in another thread, but you can be assured you are incorrect on this.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Perhaps the contradictions are only imagined (due to chronological snobbery?) as a product of the assumed technological prowess of those who do abide in the post mobile phone / internet age but who may nonetheless lack a few other personal qualities which were more commonly practiced by those who did live back then?
If these alleged “contradictions” are not “particularly important or detracting” they seem to be mentioned or brought up in passing at a frequency not warranted by some who keep reminding us how innocuous they are supposed to be.
I am certainly up for starting a thread to dismantle a few of these alleged contradictions. Have you one that might at least possess a whiff of significance?
HS, many thanks.
I am disappointed that Pope B XVI misunderstands the meaning of the word Passover.
I thought he would have had a better understanding of the gospel and am pleased you have pointed out his error.
I see in the www
The facts are these. In the synoptics the last supper is a Passover meal eaten after sunset, when the Jewish day starts, on 15th Nisan. Everything that follows – Jesus’s arrest, his trial and sentencing to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high court, his transfer to Pilate on the different charge of sedition, and the Roman proceedings leading to the crucifixion – occurs on the Passover festival. Yet the chief priests, sticklers for legal minutiae, spend the whole night and day engaged in forbidden activities on a feast day.
John, by contrast, antedates everything by 24 hours. The last supper is not a Passover dinner. There is no Jewish blasphemy trial; Jesus is simply interrogated by the former high priest Annas. In the morning, without the accused being present, the chief priests convene and decide to deliver the revolutionary Jesus to Pilate early on 14th Nisan. They refuse to enter the palace so as not to be defiled and barred from eating the Passover meal that evening.
Any historian familiar with Judaism must realise that the synoptic timetable is impossible: Jesus’s two trials and crucifixion could not have taken place on Passover day. Obliged to make a critical choice, the pope judges the synoptic chronology erroneous and opts correctly for that of the fourth gospel.
I also see:
He (B XVI) is interested in chronology only when it is important for
the meaning of the event, as in the case of the question whether the Last Supper was a Passover
supper as in the Synoptics or a pre-Passover supper as in John. In relation to that he argues
extensively the view that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal, and indeed that even the
_Synoptic accounts of the Supper “recount as little of the Passover as John.” Rather, as John _
63
Meier proposes, Jesus, anticipating his death, knew he would not eat the Passover on the
following evening, and so invited his disciples to a final meal in which he gave them something
new: his Passover, with himself as the Passover Lamb, (113) which he would become when
condemned to death at noon “on the day of Preparation of the Passover.” (John 19:14)
G
goout
Guest
It is not clear who you are quoting, and if you posted a link that might help.HarryStotle:
HS, many thanks.
I am disappointed that Pope B XVI misunderstands the meaning of the word Passover.
I thought he would have had a better understanding of the gospel and am pleased you have pointed out his error.
I see in the www
The facts are these. In the synoptics the last supper is a Passover meal eaten after sunset, when the Jewish day starts, on 15th Nisan. Everything that follows – Jesus’s arrest, his trial and sentencing to death for blasphemy by the Jewish high court, his transfer to Pilate on the different charge of sedition, and the Roman proceedings leading to the crucifixion – occurs on the Passover festival. Yet the chief priests, sticklers for legal minutiae, spend the whole night and day engaged in forbidden activities on a feast day.
John, by contrast, antedates everything by 24 hours. The last supper is not a Passover dinner. There is no Jewish blasphemy trial; Jesus is simply interrogated by the former high priest Annas. In the morning, without the accused being present, the chief priests convene and decide to deliver the revolutionary Jesus to Pilate early on 14th Nisan. They refuse to enter the palace so as not to be defiled and barred from eating the Passover meal that evening.
Any historian familiar with Judaism must realise that the synoptic timetable is impossible: Jesus’s two trials and crucifixion could not have taken place on Passover day. Obliged to make a critical choice, the pope judges the synoptic chronology erroneous and opts correctly for that of the fourth gospel.
I also see:
He (B XVI) is interested in chronology only when it is important for
the meaning of the event, as in the case of the question whether the Last Supper was a Passover
supper as in the Synoptics or a pre-Passover supper as in John. In relation to that he argues
extensively the view that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal, and indeed that even the
_Synoptic accounts of the Supper “recount as little of the Passover as John.” Rather, as John _
63
Meier proposes, Jesus, anticipating his death, knew he would not eat the Passover on the
following evening, and so invited his disciples to a final meal in which he gave them something
new: his Passover, with himself as the Passover Lamb, (113) which he would become when
condemned to death at noon “on the day of Preparation of the Passover.” (John 19:14)
Are these P Benedict’s words, or is this paraphrase?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Good catch!
They don’t appear to be Pope Benedict’s words at all. They come from a review of Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth in The Guardian by Geza Vermes.
Jesus of Nazareth, Part 2: Holy Week by Pope Benedict XVI – review
The pope's account of the Easter story suffers from selective interpretation. By Geza Vermes
www.theguardian.com
There were only two sites on the Internet that come up with the exact quotation of what @NoelFitz posted. One is the review, the other is a blog quoting the review.
It would appear that @NoelFitz either knew that and posted the quote as Benedict’s or he read the blog and mistook the blogger’s post as quoting Benedict.
Here is the blogger’s post.
Geza Vermes on the Pope's book, Jesus of Nazareth Part 2
Geza Vermes reviews Jesus of Nazareth part 2 by Pope Benedict in yesterday's Guardian. He thinks the book continues the tone of the first v...
notbeingasausage.blogspot.com
By the way, Timothy McGrew demonstrates that John and Mark fully agree on the time sequence of the Passion narrative. (I’ll add the citation when I locate it.)
The confusion comes from misreading the “day of preparation” which occurred weekly in preparation for every Sabbath and the day of preparation for Passover which is in preparation for the seven day Passover festival.
It also revolves around the chief priests not wanting to be defiled when they entered Pilate’s dwelling. The assumption on the part of skeptics is that the Seder meal was the ritual meal in question. McGrew demonstrates that it could not have been the Seder because the Seder happens after sunset, and the chief priests could have washed at sunset and been ritually clean for the Seder. So it couldn’t have been the Seder (the Last Supper that Jesus ate the night before) that they were concerned about. McGrew suggests it was the Chagiga, another ritual meal traditionally eaten at midday the day after the Seder.
HS wrote ‘It would appear that @NoelFitz either knew that and posted the quote as Benedict’s or he read the blog and mistook the blogger’s post as quoting Benedict.’
The above is not correct.
I wrote:
‘I see in the www
…
I also see:
…’
I did not claim to be quoting B XVI.
It is simple to find out where in the www the quotes came from, just put the appropriate words in a Google search.
The quotes are from
https://www.google.ie/search?q=when+the+Jewish+day+starts%2C+on+15th+Nisan.+Everything+that+follows+–+Jesus’s+arrest%2C+his+trial+and+sentencing+to+death+for+blasphemy+by+the+Jewish+high+court&oq=when+the+Jewish+day+starts%2C+on+15th+Nisan.+Everything+that+follows+–+Jesus’s+arrest%2C+his+trial+and+sentencing+to+death+for+blasphemy+by+the+Jewish+high+court&aqs=chrome..69i57.1516j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
and
file:///C:/Users/noelf/Downloads/3444-1-13241-1-10-20110613%20(1).pdf
In my post I wanted to express surprise that an infallible person and one of the foremost theologians, who at Vat II was one of the most significant periti, needed to be corrected by HS. (please do not explain when the pope is infallible).
We are fortunate here that the errors of B XVI can be corrected.
Here is a quote from B XVI himself, who wrote in ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (book 1, page xxiv) ‘Everyone is free then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding’.
The above is not correct.
I wrote:
‘I see in the www
…
I also see:
…’
I did not claim to be quoting B XVI.
It is simple to find out where in the www the quotes came from, just put the appropriate words in a Google search.
The quotes are from
https://www.google.ie/search?q=when+the+Jewish+day+starts%2C+on+15th+Nisan.+Everything+that+follows+–+Jesus’s+arrest%2C+his+trial+and+sentencing+to+death+for+blasphemy+by+the+Jewish+high+court&oq=when+the+Jewish+day+starts%2C+on+15th+Nisan.+Everything+that+follows+–+Jesus’s+arrest%2C+his+trial+and+sentencing+to+death+for+blasphemy+by+the+Jewish+high+court&aqs=chrome..69i57.1516j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
and
file:///C:/Users/noelf/Downloads/3444-1-13241-1-10-20110613%20(1).pdf
In my post I wanted to express surprise that an infallible person and one of the foremost theologians, who at Vat II was one of the most significant periti, needed to be corrected by HS. (please do not explain when the pope is infallible).
We are fortunate here that the errors of B XVI can be corrected.
Here is a quote from B XVI himself, who wrote in ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (book 1, page xxiv) ‘Everyone is free then, to contradict me. I would only ask my readers for that initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding’.
po18guy
Well-known member
I will not live long enough to read all replies, but the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit to the original author in his native language.
Scripture is inspired, but translations are not necessarily so. Thus, the Church approves of some and rejects other translations. As to inspiration, from the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia:
https://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/inspiration_of_bible.html
Scripture is inspired, but translations are not necessarily so. Thus, the Church approves of some and rejects other translations. As to inspiration, from the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia:
https://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/inspiration_of_bible.html
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Me personally, I don’t know about anyone else here…have no idea who and what you are referencing.
You are making a strong claim about P Benedict making errors. It first appeared that you were directly quoting him but apparently you were not.
What you might do is specifically reference an author, or a specific web page.
The google link brings up a search page full of results. Which article are you referencing?
G
goout
Guest
Unfortunately we have to.
The Pope is not an “infallible person”. You probably know the rest.
HS wrote the above and it is implicitly a criticism of B XVI who considered that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. Hence the discussion in this thread.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Where, precisely, does B XVI consider (and conclude) that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal?HarryStotle:
HS wrote the above and it is implicitly a criticism of B XVI who considered that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. Hence the discussion in this thread.
Citation please.
It is not sufficient to show that someone, somewhere, alleges that. Where does B XVI state that as his conclusion, not that he merely “considers” it as an aspect of his treatment on the subject.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The reason I am objecting to this is because you have depicted my comment as “implicitly a criticism of B XVI” when it is, in fact, no such thing.HarryStotle:
HS wrote the above and it is implicitly a criticism of B XVI who considered that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. Hence the discussion in this thread.
It could only be taken as such if B XVI actually claimed that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal.
I just did a search of my Kindle copy of Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth, the book which was reviewed in your citations and there are 13 references to Passover, none of which make the claim that the Last Supper was not the Passover meal.
Now what is interesting is that on the original Passover before leaving Egypt, the lamb was offered and had to be eaten standing up on the evening before the Israelites left Egypt.
However, when the Feast of Passover was “appointed” by the Lord to Moses in Leviticus, the Passover “offering” of the lamb was to take place after sunset, but between the two evenings of the first month on the fourteenth day.
So, the Passover offering of the lamb, following the injunction by God to Moses needed to take place between sunset on the fourteenth day of the first month and sunset of the following day, the fifteenth, when seven days of unleavened bread were designated. The time sequence of Jesus’ Passion, therefore fits the prescription of Passover as directed by God from the book of Leviticus.
Last edited:
- Status