There are no contradictions to accept. Any apparent contradictions are just that, apparent. They usually result from ignoring the intent and meaning of the author at the time they were written.
No I do not. And I’d kindly ask you to not accuse me of that again.
Again, all of it is directly related to the topic.
Once again, if the Church infallibly teaches that Judith is a parable, what is the parable? And of all the parables in Scripture (that is, Scriptures we agree are Scripture), how many give historical names or specific historical information (like “It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh”)?
Of course, Sola Scriptura is not the topic. I am asking for an explanation of the contradictions found between Judith and other Scriptures (I would like an official explanation as given by the Church since they are the “authority” that declared Judith to be Scripture).
OK, so what is the explanation for the contradiction found in Judith with other Scriptures?
That’s fine, but it still doesn’t explain the contradictions.
I am trying to find out what explanation the Church offers for the contradictions found in what they have dogmatically declared is Scripture. If the Church doesn’t offer an explanation, then how can it be trusted in anything it says?
I do not believe that Scripture contradicts itself. I have argued the historical errors found in Judith on another thread, but all I get is “It’s like a parable, not historical”. I rephrased the question in an effort to (hopefully) show that Judith is not God-breathed Scripture, or to get an explanation from the Church for these discrepancies. If Judith is not Scripture, then the “infallible” Church made an error by declaring it to be so, thereby proving it is not infallible. If the Catholic Church is truly granted the charism of infallibility in it’s teaching authority, then it should have an explanation for these discrepancies (I would add that, since this occurred in 1545, the explanation should come from that Council as well, but that discussion can wait).
I keep hearing this, but have yet to be given any explanation from the Catholic Church as to how these are “apparent errors”.
I won’t bring it up again.
I’ll read this and see how it relates to the topic.
There are explanations, even though you won’t find “official” ones. You are looking for something that doesn’t exist, and that has already been pointed out to you by others.
The Church teaches that Scripture teaches “without error”. What else do you want us to say on that? The next part of your question has also been answered. You ask “If not, then please give the explanation offered by the Catholic Church for the discrepancies found with Judith and other Scriptures?” Here is the answer: The Church has not offered an explanation regarding these so-called contradictions. Nor has the Church offered an explanation of the 194 alleged contradictions of the New Testament.
Are there any “preferred” explanations? For example, I keep hearing that Judith was not meant to be taken historically (even though it mentions specific historical figures, places and times, and many of these also contradict what we both agree are Scriptures), but is more “like” a parable (even though no other parable I know of in Scripture ever uses historical figures, places and times), but I haven’t heard any explanation of the parable (I will admit, this could be my fault, so I would welcome any such explanation).
I have actually done as davidv suggested, and read Dei Verbum, but I am left with more questions than answers. For example, in Chapter 3 (Sacred Scripture, its Inspiration and Divine Interpretation), it says, “In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4)” I agree with this, but I do not understand why God would contradict His own written word (much less history). It goes on to say “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.” Again, I agree with this, but what has the Catholic Church actually taught about the book of Judith (other than “it’s Scripture”)? Let’s forget about an “official” explanation (since there is none), what has the Catholic Church ever taught about Judith? If this is necessary for our salvation, I would hope that a Church that truly follows after God’s truth would tell people about it (unless they know it’s not true, or just aren’t concerned about salvation, and I don’t believe the Catholic Church would admit to either possibility).
So how are Catholics supposed to give a clear, consistent and reliable answer when confronted with this question? It sounds to me like the Catholic Church is leaving it up to the individual to interpret this for themselves, and hopefully give an answer that doesn’t conflict with Church teachings.
As I mentioned in my last post (while going over some things I found in Dei Verbum), the Catholic Church has declared that it alone has the authority to interpret Scripture, yet it tells you that to properly interpret Scripture, you must do certain things (see the previous post for details). How can you properly interpret Scripture when only the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has that authority? Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense to me (and is one of the ways God used to deliver me out of the Roman Catholic Church over 20 years ago).
This is a big deal. Consider the following -
From the Catholic perspective, the Church has delivered to us the whole Truth of the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. We read Scripture within the light of the Church. Sort of like reading the Old Testament in the light of the New… the OT just takes on a different meaning when you read it in the Light of Christ. Certain passages are tough to interpret, but we have the guideline of the Church to go by. You simply do not believe the guideline is correct. I do. However, it is tough to argue that self-interpretation hasn’t destroyed the protestant church that Martin Luther envisioned. It has been broken into thousands of disagreeing pieces. Yet, as John 21:11 foretells, the net of Peter remains untorn (greek word used in this passage is the root of the word “schism”)
I’m curious, how do you deal with the many apparent contradictions of the New Testament? Here is a link. Many of them are just ridiculous, in my view, but some are more difficult to explain. You are convinced, are you not, of the canonicity of the NT?
Of course, this is not a discussion on the many different denominations (most of which do not PRACTICE Sola Scriptura, but that should be saved for another thread). I could also argue that the Church that Jesus founded is made up of His people, but that would be off topic as well.
Again, this is not the topic (though I would argue that God is most certainly guiding His people, regardless of what church they attend).
I just glanced at a few of them, and I find explanations for everything I’ve seen (again, I just glanced through it, I have not gone through every single “contradiction”). I have mentioned before about the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, and pointed out that Jesus had 2 parents (Joseph and Mary), and that I found a 3rd or 4th century commentary that mentioned the genealogy found in Matthew was that of Mary. Obviously the genealogy of two different people should be different. The angel told Mary about Jesus before she became pregnant, and told Joseph after she became pregnant. There is no contradiction there. The different fathers of Joseph, again, points to the 2 different genealogies. Since God made the two (husband and wife) into one, it was normal for the husband to be named, even when giving the wife’s genealogy.
Do you realize how mean that interpretation makes Our Lord look? Makes Him guilty of gossip.
And yet many people in the Church, including some Bishops, Cardinasl and Popes, believed as Jerome did (even up to the Reformation), that the deuterocanonicals were ok for edification, but not to be used as autortative in establishing doctrine. In any case, the canon was not “infallibly” closed until the Council of Trent. However, this topic is concerned with Scripture contradicting itself, and is focusing on the book of Judith as compared to other Scriptures, so I’m not going to bother getting into the history of the canon in this thread.
I guess you think Jesus was “mean” when he openly and publicly called people hypocrites, snakes, and even children of Satan to their face. Also, Jesus wasn’t talking about the rich man, but was relating a true story of the afterlife, so it’s not gossip.
I agree. So why would Judith, which gives specific, historical names, places and times, be considered a parable?
I would say it comes down to this - is the author of Scripture man or God? If it’s God-breathed Scripture, God is the author. God doesn’t just speak to a single generation, but to all generations. Why, then, would He contradict His own word? Dei Verbum doesn’t explain this. What it does do is convince me even more that I was correct in leaving the Catholic Church.
Not exactly. My “confusion” was how the Church can claim to exclusively have “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God” while at the same time telling its people how they should interpret the Scriptures. If the Church has the exclusive ability to authentically interpret the word of God (both Scripture and Tradition), then why are there so few verses of Scripture “infallibly” interpreted? Doesn’t the Church care about the people? About passing on God’s truth? Why, after nearly 2,000 years, are most (if not all) of the Scriptures that have been “infallibly” interpreted the same ones the Church uses to support it’s own claims for authority? But this is straying off topic, so treat these as rhetorical questions.
Dei Verbum does a very nice dance around the problem, but does not address it at all. I would suggest that if anyone asks if you believe in the Bible, to be completely honest, you should answer, “I believe without question what the Roman Catholic Church tells me to believe about the Bible!” To just say “Yes.” would be a misrepresentation.