Is the Bible Infallible or Inerrant

  • Thread starter Thread starter hamburglar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.” (E.H. 5:24:17)
That quote establishes that Polycarp is a bishop or priest who is respected, according to Irenaeus (and leaving that part out, causing the misquote was my mistake, and I do apologize for any confusion). It does not follow that Polycarp has any kind of universal authority. If Irenaus is a correct witness to Polycarp and his practices, the Catch-22 comes up again–unless you want to toss Irenaeus completely and declare the church from Irenaeus onwards to be apostate–in which case the Gnostics win. (And remember, we have no first-person sources on Polycarp aside from his Epsitle to the Corinthians.)
This is interesting. So you are saying that the bishop of Rome has the authority to override apostolic teaching. That explains a lot about why Catholics believe doctrines that cannot be traced to the apostles. Thanks for the insight.
The Pope doesn’t override apostolic teaching. He (along with the college of bishops) decides what teachings are apostolic, and which are not. For example, Justin Martyr was a premillenialist (not a pretribulation rapturist). Did that teaching come from the apostles? No; he was a lone holdout (like Polycarp with the Quartodeciman observance) and the teaching was later repudiated by the Church. Justin Martyr, for his part, explicitly subordinated his opinion to the teaching authority of the Church, as did Polycarp (again–according to Irenaeus).

What doctrines do you think cannot be traced back to the Apostles? Is the Church allowed to legitimately develop teachings that came from the Apostles?
 
I mean if I take the time to provide a list, your response is going to be I am not of the spirit and don’t/couldn’t understand.
If you are not here to be serious, and if you don’t want to make claims with evidence, why are you posting? Nearly everything you’ve said thus far is irrelevant regarding whether or not the Bible is true.

If you think Scripture is contradictory, there should be a reason why you think this. If you wish to discuss this reason, or these reasons, then post them. If you don’t wish to discuss, or if you are simply going to make unsubstantiated claims, then stop wasting your as well as everybody else’s time.
 
CORRECT:)

The bible forms include stories, parabels, [fiction] as well as literal truths. It also includes historial accounts [as they recall them] and prophesy which become true when fulfilled.

The key to understanding is knowing which form is being applied. The Bible is NOT a science book.
Thus far, PJM, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The stories of creation, fall, and flood, to name just three, were theological expressions of how the world came to be how it was, and cannot be taken as literal or even time referenced. All three of those stories exist in very similar form in other cultures not associated with the Hebrews, and a translation of the Masoretic text of Genesis 1:1 should say “in A beginning” as the definite article is absent. However, there are places where the scriptures do purport to be historical records in the sense that we know, such as the genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, which give different names to the father of Joseph.
1 Tim. 3:15
KING JAMES BIBLE
**1st Timothy 3:15 **But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,[SINGULAR] which is the church of the living God,[SINGULAR] the pillar [SINGULAR] and ground of the truth.[SINGULAR]

Translated properly this means that ONLY the CC has the God given power to properly understand and explain the Bible, which is a Catholic Book.
Isn’t “the house of God” the people who believe in Him? Claiming that description for the Roman church is both arrogant and offensive to all other Christians.
WHY is the Bible a Catholic Book?
Sorry PJM, but we’re diametrically opposed here. In most cases I just cry when I read how the Roman church makes claims which are unreasonable, unfounded, and often abusive of those whose interpretations of scripture (and that’s what ALL churches base their faith and dogmas on) differ from those of the Roman church. However, this is one of those things which really gets me angry.

There was no Catholic (capital c) church when the canon of scripture generally accepted by Christians was agreed upon. The Christian church of the time was catholic (lower case c) meaning universal - ie for ALL people.

The vast majority of the New Testament was written by JEWS. Some never left their Jewish faith but proclaimed Christ within that faith.

I would hardly describe the schisms in the early church as insignificant. Many of the ideas put forward then abound now in all parts of the Christian church, some more obvious than others.

There are many churches which hold the scriptures (both Hebrew and Christian) in very high esteem, and which use them for effective Christian teaching. The Roman Catholic Church is far from THEE Bible Church. The Roman Church has SOME of the truth, not an exclusive claim on it, and the others have some of the truth too. Together we can be Christian, which requires us love each other, not denegrate anyone who doesn’t agree with us.
  1. There are in excess of 100 verses in the NT that SPECIFY and testify to ONLY One Church as founed by Jesus, only One New Covenant, Only One Faith:
I can agree with you here, but the one church is the Christian Church. Please don’t equate “Christian” with “Roman Catholic”
 
That quote establishes that Polycarp is a bishop or priest who is respected, according to Irenaeus (and leaving that part out, causing the misquote was my mistake, and I do apologize for any confusion). It does not follow that Polycarp has any kind of universal authority. If Irenaus is a correct witness to Polycarp and his practices, the Catch-22 comes up again–unless you want to toss Irenaeus completely and declare the church from Irenaeus onwards to be apostate–in which case the Gnostics win. (And remember, we have no first-person sources on Polycarp aside from his Epsitle to the Corinthians.)
Oops. Scratch Corinthians-- it was written to the Phillipians
You are attempting to refocus the discussion away from the fact that Polycarp received from the apostles a tradition that the church later overruled.
The Pope doesn’t override apostolic teaching. He (along with the college of bishops) decides what teachings are apostolic, and which are not.
But Polycarp’s tradition is apostolic and all the church new it. So they did override apostolic teaching. Why can’t you see that? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
For example, Justin Martyr was a premillenialist (not a pretribulation rapturist). Did that teaching come from the apostles? No; he was a lone holdout (like Polycarp with the Quartodeciman observance) and the teaching was later repudiated by the Church.
Where are you getting your information? Neither of them were “lone holdouts.” All the churches in Asia Minor held the same traditions as Polycarp, and Justin Martyr was not alone in his pre-millenniumism. Papias and Irenaeus also held pre-millennium views.
Justin Martyr, for his part, explicitly subordinated his opinion to the teaching authority of the Church, as did Polycarp (again–according to Irenaeus).
Really? I think you are confused. Where are you getting that from?
 
But Polycarp’s tradition is apostolic and all the church new it. So they did override apostolic teaching. Why can’t you see that? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
How do you know that Polycarp’s tradition was apostolic or even that he had such a tradition? From Irenaeus? Then why did Irenaeus say that Polycarp and everyone else (even the churches of Asia Minor) submitted to Rome?

Why do you have a selective acceptance of the Church Fathers? By what authority?
 
There was no Catholic (capital c) church when the canon of scripture generally accepted by Christians was agreed upon.
Yes, there certainly was. POPE Innocent I defined, declared, and promulgated to the Universal Church (aka the Catholic Church) the canon of the New Testament that was given by the BISHOPS of Hippo and Carthage.
The Christian church of the time was catholic (lower case c) meaning universal - ie for ALL people.
There were no Protestants or schismatic groups around at that time, but that doesn’t make the Pope and his Bishops any less Catholic.
 
So you think that Anicetus, the eleventh bishop of Rome overruled Polycarp the disciple of the Apostle John?
Brian, They did not come to a conclusion at that time. to offer an observation, it should be made clear that the question of when to celebrate Easter came up before the pope requested the meeting with Polycarp to discuss whether it should remain celebrated according to the Calendar, or according to the day of resurrection, Sunday closest to the date. Just as the entire celebration of the mass is not formed totally upon a specific rule as set forth in scripture but is set forth as best determined to bring the message of the Gospel to the faithful as affectively as possible in a given era, neither was the celebration of Easter set by date as such.

What has been handed down through Apostolic Succession from the apostle to his successor (and so on) is also “understood” by the receiving successor, one to the next, in how the issue or teaching has been delivered. That is, by what committed terms if any it is to be continued on. Do not confuse Sacred Apostolic Tradition with tradition that is theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions (see below). Tradition which is Sacred and Apostolic is always designated by a capital ‘T’ where as the rest are lower case ‘t’, so designated so a reasonably educated reader will recognize the distinction. With that (especially in regard to practices such you are speaking of) is the authority of the teaching body, the Church, to decide what may be open to consideration according to it’s remaining in accord with scripture. Polycarp favored celebrating Easter by the date, (Roman Calendar) where as the pope agreed with some others who favored celebration on Sunday, the Lords day of resurrection closest to the date.

It was a valid issue raised by two sides, each having their own reasonable opinion and it is the very purpose of the authority of the Chair of Peter to see attendance to such issues and bring forth resolution as they did. Aside from any others, three very important factors were involved; one, they wanted it to be clear Christians were celebrating the resurrection of Christ, the Messiah; two, they did not hold the roman Calendar as a system to govern the decision of when the resurrection of Christ should be celebrated in the more formally growing Church and three; Sunday, as is shown through the Gospel was the day most salvific events in the ministry of Christ occurred. Lets not forget that the apostles for the most part of their ministry were practicing the majority of their worship in hiding, not in an open forum or public place as came to be later during the growth of the Church. Neither Polycarp nor the pope ended their meeting on less than respectful terms and the college of Bishops were as much a part in the final choice. That was and remains the general practice.

CCC
80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42
"And [Holy] *Tradition *transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
 
What’s the Church’s position on Scripture? I know there was controversy on Dei Verbum during Vatican II about this issue and I’m looking for clarification.
Depends on the Bible you have in your hands, but the true Scriptures are both inerrant and infallible.

As far as your church’s position on the subject i would have to review and research, but for God’s view on it, then see below.

The Bible Is Infallible and Inerrant

**The Bible, in its entirety, has no mistakes. It is flawless because God wrote it–and He is flawless. It is not only infallible in total, but also inerrant in its parts. Proverbs 30:5-6 says, “Every word of God is tested. . . . Do not add to His words or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.” Every word of God is pure and true. The Bible is the only book that never makes a mistake–everything it says is the truth. **Source:
 
TWB: My misguided friend, Christ has the absolute and claimed victory, not I. Christ founded His Church on His teachings, not I, and He did not speak double talk or offer two sets of opposing teachings.
Chase: *Response, wrong, Christ never did any such thing, Jesus never published and the only remnants you have are hearsay seconded hand claims (third or fourth hand really).
And if this is the principle you live by, you very sadly have virtually no authentic history or heritage my friend. Regardless of the top. Because What you refuse to accept is “recorded History” in general regardless the subject and what you disregard as invalid is the principles of historic research. There is your double standard.
TWB: only misinterpretation of scripture would leave one to believe they “can level verses that contradict every verse you posted”.
Chase: *Response, and visa-versa, so who is right then…. Like I said earlier, this paradox is yours and you are welcome to it.
Lets see how far your position can be supported. Present your discrepancies in scripture and either you or we may learn from the discussion.
TWB: To proclaim as you have here that you can use scripture against scripture appears to be foolish pride without consideration to the fact Scripture is the Inspired Word of God and your claim insinuates God contradicted himself throughout scripture. Reflect on your own position. Scripture does not conflict with itself, all scripture serves to teach in unison and the teachings are relative, not divided.
Chase: *Response, what YOU proclaim here is that you can use scripture against scripture appears to be foolish pride without consideration to the fact Scripture is the Inspired Word of God and your claim insinuates God contradicted himself throughout scripture…… if not then why post otherwise?
… that was a rather poor and failed attempt to avoid response.
TWB: When one verse contradicts another, it is not the verse that contradicts, but the interpretation the person is applying to it.
Chase: *Response, let the apologies commence……
So you know nothing truthfully about the Catholic Faith other than prejudice you picked up from others but have been involved with other Christian faiths and became disillusioned by there progressively growing number and changes in there doctrines?
TWB: The fact you believe you can produce scriptural verses to contradict other scriptural verses is proof of distorted or misguided interpretation, probably self determined.
Chase: *Response, how in the Hell did you come up with this deceit? Only a deceitful misguided heart makes such a claim without hearing what I can produce ……
Did I touch a nerve? Sorry… but true.
TWB: Find the unison between scriptural verses and you will find they all work together in one teaching and you will then find the truth in the teachings of Christ. Otherwise, you are misleading yourself.
Chase: Response, after 2000 years of the worst and greatest atrocities caused by the Christian hand, history defeats your/this nonsense.
Interesting accusation. You see, you could not hold this position validly if you abided by the same principle here as you do with scripture and Christianity. Both would fail under the same conditions as far as historicity is concerned according to your position, yet you choose to accept that which supports your anti-Catholic/Christian opinions while rejecting the opposite, hence your invalid opinion based on double standards. But please, by all means provide your evidence of 2000 years of the worst and greatest atrocities caused by the Christian hand… And history defeated nothing of what I sad, but you defeated your self.
 
TWB: Scripture can not be used against scripture as it is the Inspired Word of God and that should make it clear to you in itself.
Chase: *Response, then this is proven by the unity and conformity of identical Christian doctrine including all of Catholicism, right……?
The lineage of the teachings of Scripture in the Catholic Faith are well supported as is what is revealed through time which must never be in opposition to the Teachings of Christ in Scripture. I speak to the faith that the Bible was established within, not any that were born in indifference. One knowledgeable in the history of scripture and Christianity comprehends “sift like Wheat”.
TWB: If one verse does not fit with another verse you are using to prove your point, your interpretation is wrong as is your point.
Chase: *Response, right, sure because there is only one interpretation and you have it…. Right?
The author knows what he writes and what he intends in his meaning. Who has the audacity to tell him or his messengers he means other that what he intends, you? Me? Anyone else? No one.
Chase: *Pride goeth before destruction ehh? Funny that you dispel what hasn’t yet been stated, your pride and sin is the profession of speaking for all of Christendom, and when I do support my claim, your next more will be to dispel the rest of Christendom as not really being Christian…. You are so transparent I can warn you openly of your next move and you will still fall prey to it.
Ah, there it is again… What have I dispelled that is not supported in scripture… or do you even know? And now you are a judge of sin? Perhaps I could take you more seriously if you would loose the school yard ego and discuss with a more mature disposition.
 
How do you know that Polycarp’s tradition was apostolic or even that he had such a tradition? From Irenaeus? Then why did Irenaeus say that Polycarp and everyone else (even the churches of Asia Minor) submitted to Rome?
I know exactly what you are referring to and Irenaeus never said that, nor did the churches of Asia Minor submit to Rome. Someone is feeding you misinformation.

We know about the difference in traditions from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.
Why do you have a selective acceptance of the Church Fathers? By what authority?
I don’t know what you mean.
 
I lost count of your personal attacks a long time ago.

Response, my thoughts of you as well……

The two times you cited a Bible verse, you did not cite other Bible verses and say, “see, a contradiction.” Instead you brought out a bunch of questionable extrascriptural scholarship which I then proceeded to rebut.

Response, and like I said, at this point I am calling you a liar, this is ‘your straw man’ and I already know your fallacies/avoidance in reasoning. Now if this is what you think a citation is (in this case a simple quote/claim you said I made) any answer given by me is going to be too strenuous an endeavor for you…. Try again?

Instead you brought out a bunch of questionable extrascriptural scholarship which I then proceeded to rebut.

Response, and once again, LIAR. The texts and research contained in that wall of summaries would take months if not years for you to ingest properly and you have rebutted nothing. To date all you have done is try and push this into a denominational doctrine squabble because this is all anyone in here seems to know.

Plenty of archaeologists and anthropologists have done just that. The historicity of the Exodus is solid, we know where King David’s tomb is, etc.

Response, wrong! Christians using pseudo sciences and methods have tried to lay claim to this, they were dismissed and harshly rebuked because this so called temple was damaged during Israel independence war and subflooring under this fake temple showed that it was built in the 12th century…. You believe in all Christian fairytales do you? In short, Christians lied and faked this temple, they were either a desperate people, or their god was monetary. I suppose you are going to tell me Hitler wasn’t a Christian, that WWII wasn’t his holy war, and that Christianity founded Modern Science and Medicine, that Christianity wasn’t at fault for the genocide of the Jews, 500 Nations in the Americas…… If we are going to continue we are going to have to set some rules here. There first rule is you must learn what a credible source is. If you already know, then perhaps you can post it and confirm it for me because having faith you know isn’t going to cut it for me or anyone else that’s concerned with the truth.
 
The lineage of the teachings of Scripture in the Catholic Faith are well supported as is what is revealed through time which must never be in opposition to the Teachings of Christ in Scripture.

I will not get pushed into useless denominational squabbling here!!!LOL, OK, maybe this one time: )

“must never be in opposition to the Teachings of Christ in Scripture”

Response, you mean like the book of Revelation does, or would this be like the man Jesus or god Jesus, the Jesus that tells you to kill or the Jesus that tells you to love thy enemy…. The confines of this thread will not allow me to post it all and even if I did, I would be wasting my time because you would claim superior knowledge (that you have no proof of) and make the claim my spirit doesn’t allow me this understanding, despite that my education more than likely exceeds yours. I make this statement found in the latter through this simple observation. An educated Christian doesn’t enter into these kinds of debates or discussion having learned there is nothing academically supporting his/her position and a matter of faith must remain just that…… are you sure you wish to continue on this tangent, the OP is “Is the Bible Infallible or Inerrant” and it’s not too late to confine this conversation to it.

I speak to the faith that the Bible was established within, not any that were born in indifference. One knowledgeable in the history of scripture and Christianity comprehends “sift like Wheat”.

The author knows what he writes and what he intends in his meaning.

Response, and you are but the reader and not as established as even the translator whose opinion you merely reflect.

Who has the audacity to tell him or his messengers he means other that what he intends, you? Me? Anyone else? No one.

Response, I agree, the trouble you have here is that all Christian have done this and this paradox is inherently yours and I have no ownership in its troubles and no part in its creation, so you are telling this to the wrong person.

Ah, there it is again… What have I dispelled that is not supported in scripture… or do you even know? And now you are a judge of sin? Perhaps I could take you more seriously if you would loose the school yard ego and discuss with a more mature disposition.
Non sequitur:
 
If you are not here to be serious, and if you don’t want to make claims with evidence, why are you posting? Nearly everything you’ve said thus far is irrelevant regarding whether or not the Bible is true.

If you think Scripture is contradictory, there should be a reason why you think this. If you wish to discuss this reason, or these reasons, then post them. If you don’t wish to discuss, or if you are simply going to make unsubstantiated claims, then stop wasting your as well as everybody else’s time.
To what end? I make my case and you will accept this, my claim as truth? Of course not, you’re a Christian; you will make apologies and excuses. Therefore, only until AFTER this foolishness is first laid to rest, will I post. Actually, when asked nicely and in a non-condemning tone I usually oblige, this doesn’t mean I am not immediately met with the very fallacies in reasoning I just described, it means I don’t march to the beat of your drumming/droning. Fair enough?
 
[Response, you mean like the book of Revelation does, or would this be like the man Jesus or god Jesus, the Jesus that tells you to kill or the Jesus that tells you to love thy enemy….
Finally!

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell anyone to kill anyone else?

If you’re going to bring up the Old Testament, do you understand that Christ died to drink the cup of wrath?
[/quote]
 
Finally!

Where in the Bible does Jesus tell anyone to kill anyone else?
Response, read it and see….
If you’re going to bring up the Old Testament, do you understand that Christ died to drink the cup of wrath?

Response, no, I am going to wait for you to address what’s already put before you and thus not allow you to skirt around it…… : ) What? I responded to someone else and you thing it lets you off the hook? TO WHAT END!!!
 
I know exactly what you are referring to and Irenaeus never said that, nor did the churches of Asia Minor submit to Rome. … We know about the difference in traditions from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History.
"Eusebius:
“A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

“Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches” (ibid., 24:18).
In Eusebius, I see… the churches of Asia submitting to the Bishop of Rome.
Someone is feeding you misinformation.
newsinhealth.nih.gov/images/How-You-See-Yourself.gif
 
Non sequitur:
You see, as proven by your posts here, you foolishly judge scripture and God as you seem to do everything and everyone else, carelessly and by double standards. My background, experience and resources go well beyond your comprehension in my own field, you have no idea of who I may be or anything about me but you have judged me categorically none the less. The following is just a small sample of those far, far more educated than you who have been verified as non-biased credible experts in their individual fields of study. Many who you may say are biased because they are Catholic did not become Catholic until after passing far into the advanced stages of their education and research. Your opinions are sadly ignorant to reality and have no credibility what-so-ever. Let go of the ego long enough to learn something of which you intend to speak and from it may come useful discourse.

Recent Scholars
#JOSEPH D. FESSIO, S.J. Ph.D Background experience 1966-present
Gary Anderson, Professor of Theology, specialized in studies and research in the religion and literature of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, biblical narrative, canonical exegesis, biblical theology, Jewish culture and religion and Jewish-Christian relations.
David E. Aune, Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, specialized in the study of the New Testament and early Christian literature in the context of Greco-Roman society and culture. 
John C. Cavadini, Associate Professor of Theology, scholar of patristic and early medieval theology, with special interests in the theology of Augustine and in the history of biblical exegesis, both Eastern and Western, as well as in the reception and interpretation of patristic thought
Rev. Louis Bouyer, PH.D, researcher, lecturer and author specializing in the history of Christian spirituality Former Lutheran minister who entered the Catholic Church in 1939.
Fr. Thomas Dubay, S.M., PH.D. Author, Professor of theology and morality in Christianity and specialized in the teachings and writings of the Doctors of the Church.
Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR. Doctorate in psychology and professor of pastoral psychology, adjunct professor at the Institute for Psychological Sciences. He has taught at Fordham University, Iona College, and Maryknoll Seminary.
Thomas Howard, PH.D English professor taught at Gordon College and then at St. John’s Seminary. He is a highly acclaimed writer and scholar, noted for his studies and authorships especially noteworthy for their emphasis on the sacramental, incarnational and ‘transcendent’ aspects of Christianity." Formerly raised evangelical who became Episcopalian in his mid-twenties until pursuing theological education and converting to Catholicism.
 
Peter Kreeft, Professor and author of Greek Philosophy, Medieval Philosophy, Modern Philosophy, Contemporary Philosophy, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Marcel, Teilhard de Chardin, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, Augustine’s Confessions , Aquinas’ Summa , Plato’s Republic , Lost in the Cosmos, Christian Existentialism, Thinking About Religion, The Meaning of Life, Philosophy of Happiness, Philosophy of Love, Peacemaking, Abortion as a Philosophical Problem, Socrates and Jesus, The Three Greatest Men in the World, World Religions, Catholicism: A Philosophical Inquiry; Angels, Devils, Ghosts and Miracles; Three Philosophies of Life; Philosophy in the Bible…
Joseph Blenkinsopp, Virgilio Elizondo, Paul Bradshaw, David Burrell, early interpretations and transitions of ancient Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages.
Henri de Lubac, S.J., PH.D, doctorate in theology specialized and teaching in the history of religions, studies on atheism, Buddhism, medieval biblical exegesis, ecclesiology, and the sacramental nature of Catholicism.
Josef Pieper Professor, author and lecturer in philosophy with emphasis in the study of law and sociology. Researcher of the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Brian E. Daley, S.J., Professor, and historical theologian, specializing in the study of the early Church, particularly the development of Christian doctrine from the fourth to the eighth centuries. Researcher of the works of the sixth-century Greek theologian Leontius of Byzantium, and authored a number of articles for scholarly journals on ancient Christology, Trinitarian theology and eschatology. 
Mary Rose D’Angelo, Associate Professor of Theology, scholar and researcher of the origins of Christianity, Judaism in Roman antiquity and Greek and Roman religion.
Lawrence S. Cunningham, Professor of Theology (John A. O’Brien) Historical and theological investigative researcher, systematic theology and culture, Christian spirituality, and the history of Christian spirituality.
Blake Leyerle, C.S.C., Associate Professor of Theology (John Cardinal O’Hara) specialization lies in the social and cultural history of early Christianity.
Robert A. Krieg, Professor of Theology specializing in historical-systematic theology, especially in Christology and German Catholic theology.
Robert M. Gimello, Research Professor of Theology,historian of Buddhism with special interests also in the Theology of Religions and in Comparative Mysticism.
 
You see, as proven by your posts here, you foolishly judge scripture and God as you seem to do everything and everyone else, carelessly and by double standards.

Response, I see…… wait a minute, no I don’t because you didn’t include where you claim I did this……

My background, experience and resources go well beyond your comprehension in my own field, you have no idea of who I may be or anything about me but you have judged me categorically none the less.

Response, wow, it seems to me if this were true you wouldn’t be making empty unsupported claims and would have already posted a rebuttal cited and supported and in this fashion I would NOT still be here in the dark and still guessing what you are talking about…… well?
The following is just a small sample of those far, far more educated than you who have been verified as non-biased credible experts in their individual fields of study.

Response, far more educated in what, and how are you more qualified to understand what they claim than I?

Many who you may say are biased because they are Catholic did not become Catholic until after passing far into the advanced stages of their education and research.

Response; Non sequitur, red hearing and straw man, I’ve never claimed to be many and am not affiliated with anyone here…… forget our meds did we?

Your opinions are sadly ignorant to reality and have no credibility what-so-ever.
Response, which were?

Let go of the ego long enough to learn something of which you intend to speak and from it may come useful discourse.

Response, I agree, I think it very foolish of you to keep professing that you can do something because of education instead of just doing it…. Why the delay?
PS, and this list of names means what to me or more importantly my claim that has yet to be posted?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top