How would you rate your knowledge of scripture?

[Gorgias]

I trust theologians more than self-proclaimed experts. And myself of course.

I’m not sure that’s true. I betcha I can name a bushel full of theologians that are full of a bushel of manure.

Edited to add: anyway, you’re doing a good job of illustrating the “appeal to authority” fallacy. An argument should stand on its own merits, and not on the credentials of the person arguing it. So, “self-proclaimed” or “theologian”, the argument should be convincing on its own.

 

[goodcatholic]

So, “self-proclaimed” or “theologian”, the argument should be convincing on its own

You don’t respect qualifications? I see your point but I would tend to respect say Bishop Barron’s point of view on a catholic issue more than yours? Am I being rude?

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t respect qualifications?

Didn’t say that. Rather, I said that arguments deserve respect, not degrees.

I see your point but I would tend to respect say Bishop Barron’s point of view on a catholic issue more than yours? Am I being rude?

Nah. Just illogical.

(But, to be fair, Bishop Barron generally always makes good arguments. Respect the arguments. )

 

[goodcatholic]

I betcha I can name a bushel full of theologians that are full of a bushel of manure

Go ahead please.

 

[goodcatholic]

you’re doing a good job of illustrating the “appeal to authority” fallacy.

You don’t sound catholic to me.

 

[Gorgias]

You don’t sound catholic to me.

Look up the “appeal to authority” fallacy. It’s neither “Catholic” nor “non-Catholic”.

(Aside from the magisterium, there’s no one who’s an ‘authority’ whose argument should be accepted merely on those grounds.)

 

[goodcatholic]

Barron generally always makes good arguments. Respect the arguments .

So you respect arguments not people. mmm …hard not to respect both really

 

[Gorgias]

So you respect arguments not people. mmm …hard not to respect both really

Fair enough. But, if you accept an argument based on the individual, rather than the strength of the argument, you’re not being logical.

(This applies to arguments, not authoritative statements of Church doctrine, of course…)

 

[goodcatholic]

But, if you accept an argument based on the individual , rather than the strength of the argument , you’re not being logical.

and you’re being overly logical and ignoring commonsense and emotional intelligence. Which is starting to bore me. Bye.

 

[Gorgias]

and you’re being overly logical and ignoring commonsense and emotional intelligence. Which is starting to bore me. Bye.

LOL! Sorry that logic seems boring to you!

My prayer for you is that, when you’re challenged to think critically, you’re provided with many opportunities to be bored!

 

[jcrichton]

If Saint Peter

St. Peter never said he had trouble with St. Paul’s writings:

16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 St. Peter 3)

Note how what St. Peter state is that St. Paul’s Writings contain some things that are hard to understand; these hard to understand Writings the ignorant and unstable distort (as with other Scriptures)–sadly, people read into Scriptures the sense that since St. Peter was a fisherman and St. Paul a “learned scholar” St. Peter was surpassed by St. Paul… they fail to take into account that, in matters of Divine Revelation, man’s wisdom is but folly.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

number 3 for me, but certainly not excellent.

 

[jcrichton]

Fair enough. But, if you accept an argument based on individual, rather than the strength of the argument, you’re not being logical.

I think that the problem is when “credentials” make the argument rather than the context and content of the matter being presented/studied.

I’ve encounter situations where “scholars” would finalize their presentation/argument with their “certifications” (attributed “knowledge” because of some or other “degree”); these have often been held as “authorities” in their field/s and books and documentaries accredited to their license–people forget that man can argue/believe from a preconception and make pronouncements based on subjective understanding rather than on objective and uncompromised study/research.

So this takes us back to the magisterium, which is comprised of Apostolic Succession (Apostolic Teaching and Church history)–can a person have/express an opinion? Yes. Is the argument (opinion) the authority on a matter (specially a matter of Faith)?

I’m of the opinion that Life begins at conception because God has Revealed so and the Church Teaches it–some “experts” claim not to know and they attribute this to “ignorance;” as that catchy phrase coined, ‘as if!’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AugustTherese]

St. Peter never said he had trouble with St. Paul’s writings

In those exact words, no he did not. But for Saint Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to remark that there are some things that are hard to understand in St. Paul’s letter, what would induce him to state such a thing if he did not have perhaps some initial struggle with those ‘things that are hard to understand’? I personally believe every single apostle, saint, etc. had initial troubles with Saint Paul’s letters; and, it is the ignorant and unstable that distort these hard sayings, not Saint Peter et. al. Saint Augustine had the following to say about St. Paul and his writings:

“Most eagerly, then, did I seize that venerable writing of Thy Spirit, but more especially the Apostle Paul; and those difficulties vanished away, in which he at one time appeared to me to contradict himself, and the text of his discourse not to agree with the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets”.

Did Saint Augustine distort St. Paul’s letters? No. Did Saint Peter fail to understand the words of St. Paul? No. But they both acknowledged ‘things that are hard to understand’ and where St. Paul 'appeared to contradict himself…not to agree with the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets" in his letters. Thankfully, by the Holy Spirit and His grace, those hard things and seeming contradictions faded away; but, not without warning to others.

 

[jcrichton]

to remark that there are some things that are hard to understand in St. Paul’s letter, what would induce him to state such a thing if he did not have perhaps some initial struggle with those ‘things that are hard to understand’?

But that would be our interpretation of what St. Peter understood not what St. Peter understood, had problem understanding or failed to understand.

It would be as if we are able to determine for the Holy Spirit what He made known to the Apostles (as many seem to want to believe that they are able to do today).

What are these things that are hard to understand?

Why would the Holy Spirit Inspire a Writing that only St. Paul could be able to understand?

How would the Church Teach in the absence of St. Paul, would the Twelve not have to answer, ‘hey, we don’t fully get it either, let’s write to Brother Paul to see if he can come and explain it to us or in the least write an unabridged version so that we can read it to you?’

We have problems because we fail to yield to the Holy Spirit–like the Ethiopian and Philip.

Did Saint Augustine distort St. Paul’s letters? No. Did Saint Peter fail to understand the words of St. Paul? No

You’ve answer your own statement–the things that are hard to understand can be understood through the submission to the Holy Spirit’s Guidance; it is the reason why even when Apostolic Teaching seem conflicting we can know that it is not.

People who opt to go it their own way do get derailed and do end up distorting God’s Word.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AugustTherese]

not what St. Peter understood

For him to say what he said without any struggle to initially understand St Paul’s letters would be analogous to me exhorting you how hard the tax code is to understand, but it came to me very easily without difficulty.

How can anyone warn someone of something hard to understand if they did not initially struggle themselves?

 

[Pug]

How can anyone warn someone of something hard to understand if they did not initially struggle themselves?

For me that does not seem at all puzzling. Because they have watched many people attempt to assimilate the information and have seen that those people found it difficult to do so.

 

[AugustTherese]

AugustTherese:

How can anyone warn someone of something hard to understand if they did not initially struggle themselves?

For me that does not seem at all puzzling. Because they have watched many people attempt to assimilate the information and have seen that those people found it difficult to do so.

Like watching someone read Saint Paul’s letters?

 

[Pug]

Watching other people read is just so fun.

I meant it more from a teacher’s perspective, as they watch the student struggle and ask questions, they observe how the students respond and where they ask for clarification. Certain topics stand out for being harder to learn.

 

[jcrichton]

Again, the problem is believing that the Apostles lack the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Taxes… most people in the US are confounded by the intricacy of the Federal/Local/City taxes… experts have some trouble but manage to ride the tides… not the same with the spiritual; we lack understanding because we constantly rely on man’s understanding.

St. Peter did not have to have any problems with St. Paul’s Writings all had to have done is listen to the exchange (like the ones on this and other sites) where people form opinions and refuse to listen to the Word even and in spite of it’s “clear” and precise Command: do no kill; do not commit adultery; do not envy; do not covet… since we have problems understanding the Word of God (Revelation) we must see the same in others and jump at the chance to make the expression of the Word mean what we believe it means.

What took place during the encounter of the Ethiopian and Philip? The Ethiopian though well educated and learned could not fully understand the Word (Revelation) of God; it took Philip, a person under the unction of the Holy Spirit, to bring to bearing the Word of God–the second the Ethiopian caught up (intellectual knowledge into spiritual understanding) he eagerly sought to become part of the Body and be Baptized. Till his “knowledge” (man’s intellectual comprehension) became nourished by the Holy Spirit (the Revelation made clear by the Disciple) he could only but feel in the darkness (as St. Peter suggest–yes, this is my estimation of what he is stating).

Maran atha!

Angel