Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[erbo]

Wow…just reading through this thread, and it got loooong!

JoyToBeCatholic,
Might I recommend something you might not have considered before? Have you done a bible study on the Covenants that God made with His people? Specifically, have you studied David, the Davidic Kingdom, and how it worked?

There are some interesting parallels between the Catholic Church and the Davidic Kingdom. Scott Hahn writes about this in his book “Reasons To Believe”. He does a good job of showing how the Davidic Kingdom is the “prototype” (my words, not his) of the Catholic Church.

Here’s a link on Amazon:
amazon.com/Reasons-Believe-Understand-Explain-Catholic/dp/0385509359/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207605130&sr=8-2

Some interesting points to consider:

1. When Jesus preached the coming of “the kingdom”, what do you think his Jewish audience interpreted that to mean? What kingdom did they belong to that was eventually conquered by foreign invaders?
2. How was David’s kingdom managed? What symbol of authority did the prime minister receive?
3. Which person in David’s family was the “queen” of the Davidic kingdom?

I’m not trying to be clever here, but in my personal opinion, this exegesis was some of the strongest evidence that supports the Catholic Church’s claim to authority and historical fidelity with the “Early Church”.

God Bless,
-erbo

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Wow…just reading through this thread, and it got loooong!

JoyToBeCatholic,
Might I recommend something you might not have considered before? Have you done a bible study on the Covenants that God made with His people? Specifically, have you studied David, the Davidic Kingdom, and how it worked?

There are some interesting parallels between the Catholic Church and the Davidic Kingdom. Scott Hahn writes about this in his book “Reasons To Believe”. He does a good job of showing how the Davidic Kingdom is the “prototype” (my words, not his) of the Catholic Church.

Here’s a link on Amazon:
amazon.com/Reasons-Believe-Understand-Explain-Catholic/dp/0385509359/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207605130&sr=8-2

Some interesting points to consider:

1. When Jesus preached the coming of “the kingdom”, what do you think his Jewish audience interpreted that to mean? What kingdom did they belong to that was eventually conquered by foreign invaders?
2. How was David’s kingdom managed? What symbol of authority did the prime minister receive?
3. Which person in David’s family was the “queen” of the Davidic kingdom?

I’m not trying to be clever here, but in my personal opinion, this exegesis was some of the strongest evidence that supports the Catholic Church’s claim to authority and historical fidelity with the “Early Church”.

God Bless,
-erbo

Thanks, Erbo. I have heard Dr. Hahn talk a bit about covenants in explaining the church, but not very in depth. In Rome Sweet Rome he mentions it but kind of left me wondering. I will definately look into that - thank you!

 

[PC_Master]

Some interesting points to consider:

1. When Jesus preached the coming of “the kingdom”, what do you think his Jewish audience interpreted that to mean? What kingdom did they belong to that was eventually conquered by foreign invaders?

Be careful when you make parallels – clearly (if you read through the gospels), the apostles and many others expected the “kingdom of heaven” to be much like the kingdom of David – most specifically, they seemingly expected Christ was here to rule and reign over his people. Clearly, Christ, the king, isn’t visibly on earth, as was the case with the Davidic kingdom, so if that’s changed, what else might have?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Be careful when you make parallels – clearly (if you read through the gospels), the apostles and many others expected the “kingdom of heaven” to be much like the kingdom of David – most specifically, they seemingly expected Christ was here to rule and reign over his people. Clearly, Christ, the king, isn’t visibly on earth, as was the case with the Davidic kingdom, so if that’s changed, what else might have?

The Kingdom of Heaven is here on Earth now.

Matthew:

Matthew 6:10
your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Matthew

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 11:12
From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent are taking it by force.

 

[D_M]

I’m wondering if it would be helpful if I told those interested here that the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ in the greek (Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ) does not carry the same meaning as it looks like it does in English.

In the Greek, in which the new testament was written, it would refer to not so much a specific polity (ie. a kingdom like the United Kingdom) as it does governance and rulership.

That is to say it is the ‘governance of heaven’ which is here on Earth in the form of the revelation given from heaven to which we follow. We entered this governance by baptism, which only occurred after the Lord’s passion and resurrection, and it is still being constructed (so to speak) upon the Earth.

It is therefore both here now, and is still yet to come, because it has not yet been finished (ie. God’s will is not yet completely done on the Earth), although it has begun (ie. the Messiah did come, and we call Him ‘Lord’).

In heaven where God reigns it is complete.

At least that’s what I think it is supposed to mean.

 

[Ignatius]

Ok. So I see the likelihood that there needs to be an earthly authority. Question is: How does one determine who has that authority? .

Jesus Christ establised His Church and gave it all Authority to ‘Bind and loose’. This is completely linear, not circular.

 

[erbo]

Just some quick comments:

The Kingdom of Heaven is here on Earth now.

The Kingdom of Heaven is both here on Earth, and in Heaven. It is the perfected Davidic kingdom.

And just like the Davidic kingdom, It’s King (Christ) rules from the New Jerusalem (Heaven). He appointed ministers to keep up the House (the Bishops of the Church), and to sort out disputes that might occur, He gave the keys of the kingdom to a Prime Minister (the Papal office).

JoyToBeCatholic,

Here’s a good link that gives a much more profound explanation on all this, and makes the case the the Catholic church is ultimately the perfected “Kingdom of Heaven”. They are some lengthy transcripts of Hahn’s talks on the subject. This links to module 1, but there are others in the left sidebar if you have (lots of) time.

zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/4mrko.html

Good luck and God bless!
-erbo

 

[PC_Master]

The Kingdom of Heaven is both here on Earth, and in Heaven. It is the perfected Davidic kingdom.

And just like the Davidic kingdom, It’s King (Christ) rules from the New Jerusalem (Heaven). He appointed ministers to keep up the House (the Bishops of the Church), and to sort out disputes that might occur, He gave the keys of the kingdom to a Prime Minister (the Papal office).

Why is it necessary to draw those particular conclusions, and not others? Why assume that we can draw the parallel that the king (Christ) rules from Jerusalem (Heaven)? Sure, it seems to fit when described that way, but why not other parallels? For instance, the king (David, Solomon, others) was visibly seen by the people, and most importantly, gave decrees on his own – he spoke directly and audibly. And yet God chooses not to do this? It seems that drawing parallels is more about looking for similarities that support your own desires than about finding the truth and then recognizing parallels therein.

 

[erbo]

Why is it necessary to draw those particular conclusions, and not others? Why assume that we can draw the parallel that the king (Christ) rules from Jerusalem (Heaven)? Sure, it seems to fit when described that way, but why not other parallels? For instance, the king (David, Solomon, others) was visibly seen by the people, and most importantly, gave decrees on his own – he spoke directly and audibly. And yet God chooses not to do this? It seems that drawing parallels is more about looking for similarities that support your own desires than about finding the truth and then recognizing parallels therein.

That is a very good point you bring up, and we need to be careful not to “twist the scriptures” for one’s own purpose. However, there are a peculiarly large amount of parallels between these two concepts.

I don’t have the scripture references handy for many of these, so please bear with me. Jesus can be seen as the perfect Moses (he was Exiled into Egypt, was in the desert for 40 days, paschal sacrifice, etc). We can see Baptism prefigured by Noah and the Flood. Here’s a good summary that explains it all much better than I could:
youtube.com/watch?v=Gejy0FohnE0

I’m not sure if you agree with the above examples I gave. But even if you agree partially, where does one draw the line? How does one determine certain “prefigure examples” to be more valid than others? I’m not asking rhetorically, but I’m just curious if there is some objective way to make that determination.

God bless,
erbo

 

[Brady_W]

I have a couple of questions

1.) If we are to interpret the bible ourselves, and that is our means of salvation, were all of the people of the first ~400 years not saved, because there was no accepted scripture. The canon wasn’t put together yet.

2.)I If we are to interpret the bible ourselves, that pretty much means we all have to be our own theologian right? This doesn’t seem like something a just God would do to me, because the average Christian throughout the past 2000 years couldn’t read, I rather think it’d be hard to interpret scripture when you can’t read.

3.) If the bible is the sole authority, one would think there would be a list of books in the bible telling us which ones belong in the bible, I haven’t found that in there yet.

4.)Relating to my last statement, where does the bible say that it is the sole authority, or for that matter even inspired. I realize there are a few lines in the new testament saying all scripture is inspired, but this obviously can only refer to the old testament since the cannon of the new testament wasn’t compiled when it was written.

5.) Where do you think the bible came from? Maybe God just kicked it over the clouds with a golden parachute attached?

6.) What is the difference between a Christian saying he knows the bible is inspired because the Holy Spirit tells him so, and when a Mormon says the same, because they use the same argument.

That should do for now.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why is it necessary to draw those particular conclusions, and not others? Why assume that we can draw the parallel that the king (Christ) rules from Jerusalem (Heaven)? Sure, it seems to fit when described that way, but why not other parallels? For instance, the king (David, Solomon, others) was visibly seen by the people, and most importantly, gave decrees on his own – he spoke directly and audibly. And yet God chooses not to do this? It seems that drawing parallels is more about looking for similarities that support your own desires than about finding the truth and then recognizing parallels therein.

Because it is Truth. The OT can only be fully understood in the context of the NT. The NT is full of references to the OT, full of "he said/did this (insert) in order that the Scripture (insert) can be fulfilled. Jesus himself quotes the OT. The most famous is probably his recitation of Psalm 22 on the cross. Or his discourse on the Eucharist in John. He is the lamb, whose blood must be shed to free us from death, just as the blood sprinkled on the lintels so the Angel of Death could passover their homes. He is the sacrificial lamb that had to be eaten as Passover meal.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I’m wondering if it would be helpful if I told those interested here that the phrase ‘Kingdom of God’ in the greek (Βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ) does not carry the same meaning as it looks like it does in English.

In the Greek, in which the new testament was written, it would refer to not so much a specific polity (ie. a kingdom like the United Kingdom) as it does governance and rulership.

That is to say it is the ‘governance of heaven’ which is here on Earth in the form of the revelation given from heaven to which we follow. We entered this governance by baptism, which only occurred after the Lord’s passion and resurrection, and it is still being constructed (so to speak) upon the Earth.
It is therefore both here now, and is still yet to come, because it has not yet been finished (ie. God’s will is not yet completely done on the Earth), although it has begun (ie. the Messiah did come, and we call Him ‘Lord’).

In heaven where God reigns it is complete.

At least that’s what I think it is supposed to mean.

Wonderful explanation. Thank you.

We entered this governance by baptism, which only occurred after the Lord’s passion and resurrection, and it is still being constructed (so to speak) upon the Earth.

Yes, when Jesus spoke the words, “It is finished”

 

[PC_Master]

That is a very good point you bring up, and we need to be careful not to “twist the scriptures” for one’s own purpose. However, there are a peculiarly large amount of parallels between these two concepts.

Well, I have no problem with recognizing parallels – I just have a problem with using assumed parallels as a means of proof. “We know X is true because Christianity is a perfected Davidic kingdom, and in that kingdom, Y happened, which we can clearly see prefigures X.”

Do you see what I’m getting at? The parallels, while in context can be evidence to support the validity of a position, should not be uses as the reason for a belief.

I don’t have the scripture references handy for many of these, so please bear with me. Jesus can be seen as the perfect Moses (he was Exiled into Egypt, was in the desert for 40 days, paschal sacrifice, etc).

Moses was in the desert a lot more than 40 days. Christ wasn’t exactly “exiled” into Egypt – rather, Joseph was told by God to go, as I recall. Still, Scott Hahn makes a good argument for some of the typology. Again, however, I’ll state that the typology, while bearing witness to and supporting the truth of Christ’s ministry, does not establish it. We already accept both Moses’ and Jesus’ lives and ministries as true, based on other evidence, before we see the parallel.

We can see Baptism prefigured by Noah and the Flood.

We do? I don’t see much of a similarity, except that there’s water involved. (Just FYI – baptism isn’t a uniquely Christian practice.)

I’m not sure if you agree with the above examples I gave. But even if you agree partially, where does one draw the line? How does one determine certain “prefigure examples” to be more valid than others? I’m not asking rhetorically, but I’m just curious if there is some objective way to make that determination.

That’s the exact same question I have – I’m not saying parallelism is completely invalid by any means. I’m simply saying that clearly, not all possible parallels are actual parallels, so we have to be careful in assuming something as true simply because a parallel can be drawn.

I have a couple of questions

Doesn’t everyone?

1.) If we are to interpret the bible ourselves, and that is our means of salvation, were all of the people of the first ~400 years not saved, because there was no accepted scripture. The canon wasn’t put together yet.

To be more accurate, scripture contains what is necessary for us to understand to have salvation. It is not scripture itself that we need.

As for the people of the first 400 years:

1. They had the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them, and so on – while this model will degrade over time, for the first century or two, it’ll be fine, I’d say.
2. Paul’s collected works are known to have been circulating by the end of the first century, and the muratorian fragment indicates that four gospels, 13 Pauline letters, and other works were regularly read in churches by around 170AD.

In short – scripture was fairly well established (sans 3 John, Peter’s letters, and Jude I think) by the end of the second century, and prior to that time, the people were within a very few generations of the gospel authors themselves, and only a scant 140 years from the actual time Christ’s death. Claiming that it was 400 years before scripture was defined is stretching the truth at best.

2.)I If we are to interpret the bible ourselves, that pretty much means we all have to be our own theologian right? This doesn’t seem like something a just God would do to me, because the average Christian throughout the past 2000 years couldn’t read, I rather think it’d be hard to interpret scripture when you can’t read.

First, back then, memorization of scripture was not uncommon (nor was it uncommon in Judaism).

Second, if by theologian, you mean that we have to study, learn, and investigate our own faith – yes, that’s exactly right – we should all do that.

3.) If the bible is the sole authority, one would think there would be a list of books in the bible telling us which ones belong in the bible, I haven’t found that in there yet.

No – this is a classic fallacy. You’re acting like someone here believes in SS, when I don’t think anyone here has claimed that.

4.)Relating to my last statement, where does the bible say that it is the sole authority, or for that matter even inspired.

It doesn’t. I don’t believe it is the sole authority. I believe it’s inspired based on the incredible divine preservation of the work, and based on the incredible coherence of its subject matter.

5.) Where do you think the bible came from?

Scripture came from authors who were themselves inspired by God to write. The collected scripture as a whole, as I’ve mentioned, was largely in place by 170AD, and to answer what you’re probably getting at – no, there isn’t a record of a council, or a specific group of people who made this decision. The muratorian fragment seems to be simply a record of the common practice of the day.

6.) What is the difference between a Christian saying he knows the bible is inspired because the Holy Spirit tells him so, and when a Mormon says the same, because they use the same argument.

The only difference is in which is the truth. That multiple people claim the inspiration of the holy spirit does not invalidate the holy spirit as an authority – it simply means that some people don’t understand the holy spirit correctly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Moses was in the desert a lot more than 40 days.

This is a little unfair, you know he meant 40 years.

We do? I don’t see much of a similarity, except that there’s water involved. (Just FYI – baptism isn’t a uniquely Christian practice.)

We know that because John was baptizing before Jesus was baptized.

That’s the exact same question I have – I’m not saying parallelism is completely invalid by any means. I’m simply saying that clearly, not all possible parallels are actual parallels, so we have to be careful in assuming something as true simply because a parallel can be drawn.

I don’t think most of the people on this thread are assuming. The parallels I’ve seen here are supported by many, though not all theologians. In addition, if they work for us on a private level, as long as they don’t contract CC, it’s not really a problem.

As for the people of the first 400 years:

1. They had the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them, and so on – while this model will degrade over time, for the first century or two, it’ll be fine, I’d say.
2. Paul’s collected works are known to have been circulating by the end of the first century, and the muratorian fragment indicates that four gospels, 13 Pauline letters, and other works were regularly read in churches by around 170AD

170 years is a long time. 2008=1838. Look at how radically the Constitution has been interpreted in that time. Slavery, no slavery, Prohibition, no Prohibition, Abortion rights, etc. Look at how many new religions have popped up in that time: Christian Science, 1875, Seventh Day Adventist, 1863, and now the Rapture guys.

In short – scripture was fairly well established (sans 3 John, Peter’s letters, and Jude I think) by the end of the second century, and prior to that time, the people were within a very few generations of the gospel authors themselves, and only a scant 140 years from the actual time Christ’s death. In short – scripture was fairly well established (sans 3 John, Peter’s letters, and Jude I think) by the end of the second century, and prior to that time, the people were within a very few generations of the gospel authors themselves, and only a scant 140 years from the actual time Christ’s death.

You are correct in that Scriptures were regularly read at mass since the time of the original 11 Apostles. Nevertheless, what was to be included as inspired-inerrant was controversial. RE: St. Jerome vs. Pope St. Damasus I in 385 regarding the Greek Septuagint of the OT.

Claiming that it was 400 years before scripture was defined is stretching the truth at best

I object to your characterization of Brady W as a misspeaker. Brady make no claim on the part of himself but is referring to the historical record of the Codex and it’s formal recognition by several Church Councils beginning in the late 4th century.

Second, if by theologian, you mean that we have to study, learn, and investigate our own faith – yes, that’s exactly right – we should all do that.

Yet one must study from a reliable source. Like not the NW Translation or the Book of Mormon!

It doesn’t. I don’t believe it is the sole authority. I believe it’s inspired based on the incredible divine preservation of the work, and based on the incredible coherence of its subject matter.

What about the the suppposedly rediscovered Gnostic writings in Egypt? New Agers and the DaVinci Code have jumped all over them. The National Geographic Channel has lost all credibility for me.

Scripture came from authors who were themselves inspired by God to write. The collected scripture as a whole, as I’ve mentioned, was largely in place by 170AD, and to answer what you’re probably getting at – no, there isn’t a record of a council, or a specific group of people who made this decision. The muratorian fragment seems to be simply a record of the common practice of the day.

Please explain. You don’t believe Pope St. Damasus I commissioned St Jerome to produce the Vulgate? You do not accept the historical veracity of the Councils of Hippo, etc.?

The only difference is in which is the truth. That multiple people claim the inspiration of the holy spirit does not invalidate the holy spirit as an authority – it simply means that some people don’t understand the holy spirit correctly.

By what measure would you judge correct and miscorrect understanding?

 

[clmowry]

By what measure would you judge correct and miscorrect understanding?

That’s rhetorical question right? I thought that was obvious by now.

Chuck

 

[guanophore]

We do? I don’t see much of a similarity, except that there’s water involved. (Just FYI – baptism isn’t a uniquely Christian practice.)

Do you not accept, a priori, the parallels drawn in the Scripture?

1 Peter 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21** Baptism**, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience,

The element of water is certainly common to both Noah and the Christian, but more importantly, the Apostle is saying that persons are “saved through water”.

As for the people of the first 400 years:

1. They had the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them, and so on – while this model will degrade over time, for the first century or two, it’ll be fine, I’d say.

I’ll be fine, you would say? On what basis do you assume tatht “this model will degrade over time”. Do you not believe that God is able to watch over His word to perform it? How, why, and when did the gospel “degrade”?

1. Paul’s collected works are known to have been circulating by the end of the first century, and the muratorian fragment indicates that four gospels, 13 Pauline letters, and other works were regularly read in churches by around 170AD.

Do you think these were relied upon to the exclusion of genuine apostolic preaching? Had it “degraded” by that time?

In short -- scripture was fairly well established (sans 3 John, Peter's letters, and Jude I think) by the end of the second century, and prior to that time, the people were within a very few generations of the gospel authors themselves, and only a scant 140 years from the actual time Christ's death. Claiming that it was 400 years before scripture was defined is stretching the truth at best.

Yes. It seems as preposterous as claiming that those same generations close to the Apostles had already “degraded” the gospel.

First, back then, memorization of scripture was not uncommon (nor was it uncommon in Judaism).

Second, if by theologian, you mean that we have to study, learn, and investigate our own faith – yes, that’s exactly right – we should all do that.

If the early post apostolic Christians did this, how did the gospel "degrade?

I believe it’s inspired based on the incredible divine preservation of the work, and based on the incredible coherence of its subject matter.

How is it that God is able to preserve the written word inerrantly, but not the preached word? If they come from the same source, are you saying God’s arm is too short?

Scripture came from authors who were themselves inspired by God to write. The collected scripture as a whole, as I’ve mentioned, was largely in place by 170AD, and to answer what you’re probably getting at – no, there isn’t a record of a council, or a specific group of people who made this decision. The muratorian fragment seems to be simply a record of the common practice of the day.

The only difference is in which is the truth. That multiple people claim the inspiration of the holy spirit does not invalidate the holy spirit as an authority – it simply means that some people don’t understand the holy spirit correctly.

 

[qui_est_ce]

1. They had the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them, and so on – while this model will degrade over time, for the first century or two, it’ll be fine, I’d say.In short – scripture was fairly well established (sans 3 John, Peter’s letters, and Jude I think) by the end of the second century, and prior to that time, the people were within a very few generations of the gospel authors themselves, and only a scant 140 years from the actual time Christ’s death. Claiming that it was 400 years before scripture was defined is stretching the truth at best.

First, back then, memorization of scripture was not uncommon (nor was it uncommon in Judaism).

How is it that God is able to preserve the written word inerrantly, but not the preached word? If they come from the same source, are you saying God’s arm is too short?

PC does seem to be contradicting himself here.

 

[qui_est_ce]

---

That’s rhetorical question right? I thought that was obvious by now.

Chuck

Well, I know which measuring rod I use, I want to know which one PC uses.

 

[Brady_W]

PC Master,
I don’t know how to do the quote thing, could you tell me how? For now I just copy and pasted what you said into my post I hope that’s allright. Sorry I’m not good with computers, just a stupid farm kid ha ha. Also, I did think you were Sola Scriptura, sorry bout that.

“1) They had the apostles themselves, and those who learned from them, and so on – while this model will degrade over time, for the first century or two, it’ll be fine, I’d say.”

You’re right! They did have the apostles, and those who learned from them, I.E. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Clement of Rome. But it didn’t stop there, it kept going in pristine fashion. Christ himself said so:

Matt. 28:18-19 “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore and make disciples of all nations…” Matt 28:20 “teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

How can He just be with the apostles till the end of the age, clearly they will die within 50-70 years of His death. This must refer to the church. He doesn’t say I’ll give you a book till the end of age, He says I will be with you until the end of age.

Jn 14:16-17 “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it.”

Pretty much the same as above

Matt 18:15-17 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”

Clearly, the final authority here is the church. He can’t be talking about some intangible church made of only spirit, because you can’t bring your brother in front of an intangible church to settle an argument. Where does the church receive this authority?

1 Tim 3:15 “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the Pillar and foundation of the truth.”

There we go again, the church, foundation of the truth.

1. “Paul’s collected works are known to have been circulating by the end of the first century, and the muratorian fragment indicates that four gospels, 13 Pauline letters, and other works were regularly read in churches by around 170AD.
   In short – scripture was fairly well established (sans 3 John, Peter’s letters, and Jude I think) by the end of the second century, and prior to that time, the people were within a very few generations of the gospel authors themselves, and only a scant 140 years from the actual time Christ’s death. Claiming that it was 400 years before scripture was defined is stretching the truth at best.”

There were many works floating around. The Gnostics, Acts of Peter, and so forth. Many didn’t agree on the Gospel of John, Revelation, James and others. It took the Authority of the Church to settle the matter.
There is no reasonable way to prove the inspiration of the Bible without the Catholic Church. Trying to prove inspiration of the Bible from the bible is a circular argument.(I know this refers to SS). I’d like to know what your method of proving inspiration of the bible is? Further, the bible says nothing of the effect that it is the only authority. The bible gets its authority from the Church.

“The only difference is in which is the truth. That multiple people claim the inspiration of the holy spirit does not invalidate the holy spirit as an authority – it simply means that some people don’t understand the holy spirit correctly.”

I firmly believe the Holy Spirit is THE authority, but He chooses to practice it through the Catholic Church, just as Jesus said he would as mentioned above. If it is up to each individual to interpret the bible, only two things are possible.

1. We are not open at all to that inspiration, because there are over 30,000 different Protestant denominations, all because of certain aspects of doctrine.
2. Or, the Holy Spirit is Schizophrenic. I find this one highly unlikely.

I think God would have foreseen all this division, and probably would have done something about it. Like give us an Inerrant guide in these matters. Sounds like the Church. And He did.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I just got a book out of our parish library this morning, it’s title is something like Catholic Humor. One of the jokes is about Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. Peter says, “hey wait a minute, do we need to write this down?” James, says, “Wait, I’m out of papyrus.” Judas say, “Are we going to be tested on this?” There’s more, but it’s pretty funny