Present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves

  • Thread starter Thread starter paarsurrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SpiritMeadow said:
I think really what you are saying is that you regard the bible as inerrent in every word and are not Catholic but a fundamentalist. we do not follow that practice in the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Catholics are allowed to believe that the bible is innerrant. Of all the nerve.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Catholics are allowed to believe that the bible is innerrant. Of all the nerve.
Click to expand...
Sir, again we can do without the pejorative. Pope Benedict has spoken quite clearly of the dangers of a fundamentalist approach to scripture. I would assume you would be aware of it. He calls fundamentalism “intellectual suicide”. Next time, be a bit more sure of your opinion before you start asking me how I have the nerve to state the truth!
 
Mousey said:
You do realize that he has been a member longer than you have;)
Click to expand...
See this is what I find so telling…picking at somebody just for the pure sake of picking. I guess I was wrong, I guess he may not be new. It’s the first time I’ve seen him here. Is there I sword you have handy that I can throw myself on? Good grief,
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Sir, again we can do without the pejorative. Pope Benedict has spoken quite clearly of the dangers of a fundamentalist approach to scripture. I would assume you would be aware of it. He calls fundamentalism “intellectual suicide”. Next time, be a bit more sure of your opinion before you start asking me how I have the nerve to state the truth!
Click to expand...
Innerrancy is a catholic teaching. You are the one falsely equating church teaching with fundamentalism. No Pope has ever said that scripture contains error.

You accuse me of being perjorative, but you are the one who accused a fellow catholic, expressing an accepted catholic opinion, of being un-catholic. We have to stand up for ourselves and for church teaching.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
See this is what I find so telling…picking at somebody just for the pure sake of picking. I guess I was wrong, I guess he may not be new. It’s the first time I’ve seen him here. Is there I sword you have handy that I can throw myself on? Good grief,
Click to expand...
I am sorry I didn’t meant to be picking at you. It was just funny to me considering all of the post I have read of his. I didn’t mean to be mean to you please forgive me. 😊

btw he is a Ahmadi Muslim and is very happy to discuss his faith.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Innerrancy is a catholic teaching. You are the one falsely equating church teaching with fundamentalism. No Pope has ever said that scripture contains error.

You accuse me of being perjorative, but you are the one who accused a fellow catholic, expressing an accepted catholic opinion, of being un-catholic. We have to stand up for ourselves and for church teaching.
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrent as to faith and morals. It makes no such claim as to it being inerrent as to history, science or a whole host of other things. Like a mustard seed is patently not the smallest seed though the Gospels claim it is I believe. The Church recognizes that the the creation stories need not be taken literally, that there are two different ones, that they were written by two different people or groups and that they were written at very different times.

Of course no Pope claims there is error, but of course there is, there are literaly dozens of omissions, copying twice, adding new words because the scribe thought they were missed or implied. I thought you a couple of weeks ago were nearly convinced in evolution…that surely means Genesis is not a literally true story. Who are you trying to kid here?

The last thing I am doing is equating Church teaching with fundamentalism. It is most assuredly not. Non errency in all respects is a fumdamentalist protestant interpretation to which we do not adher.
 
Mousey said:
I am sorry I didn’t meant to be picking at you. It was just funny to me considering all of the post I have read of his. I didn’t mean to be mean to you please forgive me. 😊

btw he is a Ahmadi Muslim and is very happy to discuss his faith.
Click to expand...
You are quite right he has been here a very long time…LOL…but I had not seen him before. Perhaps he stays mostly in the forum secitions on nonCatholics…I dont usually like to spend much time arguing with non-Catholics, so I don’t go there, assuming that is what mostly occurs there.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrent as to faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Pope Pius XII, 1943, **Divino Afflante Spiritu **
When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
Click to expand...
Inerrency of scripture is not limited to just faith and morals.

This is not to disagree that careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. Genre, modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and church tradition are all factors that must be considered by Catholics when examining scripture.

But, there is no error in scripture.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Of course no Pope claims there is error, but of course there is, there are literaly dozens of omissions, copying twice, adding new words because the scribe thought they were missed or implied. I thought you a couple of weeks ago were nearly convinced in evolution…that surely means Genesis is not a literally true story. Who are you trying to kid here?
Click to expand...
Genesis is not in error. Evolution and Genesis do not have to contradict. You are using the word ‘error’ more loosely than I am, maybe that’s the only difference. I’d suggest that if you want to help people understand Genesis as the pope does, you not say that it is ‘in error’.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Pope Pius XII, 1943, **Divino Afflante Spiritu **

Inerrency of scripture is not limited to just faith and morals.

This is not to disagree that careful attention must be paid to the actual meaning intended by the authors, in order to render a correct interpretation. Genre, modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and church tradition are all factors that must be considered by Catholics when examining scripture.

But, there is no error in scripture.
Click to expand...
that is because we call it: modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and a whole host of other things. It means its not correct as to its literal sense.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
that is because we call it: modes of expression, historical circumstances, poetic liberty, and a whole host of other things. It means its not correct as to its literal sense.
Click to expand...
I think the point is that it is correct in its literal sense, that it, the sense that the author intended. It may not be correct when taken as something other than the author intended. For example, interpreting genesis as science. But then the error is on the part of the reader, not the text.

But I think we agree for the most part. Except I still feel a need to understand how something can be “not an error” when I look at new interpretations. Maybe it really is just a word game, I don’t know…
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Genesis is not in error. Evolution and Genesis do not have to contradict. You are using the word ‘error’ more loosely than I am, maybe that’s the only difference. I’d suggest that if you want to help people understand Genesis as the pope does, you not say that it is ‘in error’.
Click to expand...
okay, I’ll use some other synonym. We Catholics I think need to be a bit more thick skinned wouldn’t you say? See when we go around saying “there is no error” people who know the bible may justifiably disagree, then we have to explain that we use error in a special way…perhaps we should let others use error, and we should use another term for what we mean. Do you think that would work better? I’m actually coming to the conclusion that much of man’s disagreements are caused by inexact language. We know what we mean, but others don’t and vice versa…Too bad we don’t have standardized language like medicine does. It might prevent a whole lot of misunderstanding.
 
puzzleannie said:
by titles do you mean the bold face headings for chapter sections such as “Sermon on the Mount” or “Last Supper”? Yes those are later additions, as is the practice of breaking the text into numbered chapters and verses.
Click to expand...
I Googled this phrase and indeed it was talking about the chapter headings. I think our friend must be laughing his head off at the tangents in this thread.

First thing to find out for a discussion is exactly what is being discussed. I remember one looooong conversation I had. Lasted about three hours of each of us defending our position only to find out that we were using different words but it meant the same thing.:rolleyes:
To answer the OP I have to guess a little because of your inability in the English language what you are asking and you haven’t cleared it up much. Signify is not a good word. It actually signifies nothing that is it means nothing other than it was a way to make reading the bible easier. So if there is a meaning that is it.
Only as the springs of common recollection began to dwindle, and marked differences to appear between the well-informed and accurateGospels and the untrustworthy . . . did it become worth while for the Christian teacher or apologist to specify whether the given representation of the current tradition was ‘according to’ this or that special compiler, and to state his qualifications". It thus appears that the present titles of theGospels are not traceable to the Evangelists themselves.
Click to expand...
Link
 
SpiritMeadow said:
okay, I’ll use some other synonym. We Catholics I think need to be a bit more thick skinned wouldn’t you say? See when we go around saying “there is no error” people who know the bible may justifiably disagree, then we have to explain that we use error in a special way…perhaps we should let others use error, and we should use another term for what we mean. Do you think that would work better? I’m actually coming to the conclusion that much of man’s disagreements are caused by inexact language. We know what we mean, but others don’t and vice versa…Too bad we don’t have standardized language like medicine does. It might prevent a whole lot of misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
I think it’s important to consider the audience. When speaking to an athiest, I wouldn’t be as upset about the term error. But when talking to a traditionalist, or someone from another faith, I think that word is a bad choice. I guess it depends who you are talking to.

Also I think its more than just about picking the right synonym. I really believe that the bible is the Word of God and God doesn’t make mistakes. So when something looks like a mistake or an error, its because I misunderstand what it’s trying to say.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
😊 how embarassing!

:rotfl:
Click to expand...
reminds me of that corny old joke
Mommy where did I come from?
After a complete explanation of where babies come from the child says well Johnny comes from Ohio. So where do I come from.
The trouble we get in when we assume:shrug:
 
Mousey said:
reminds me of that corny old joke
Mommy where did I come from?
After a complete explanation of where babies come from the child says well Johnny comes from Ohio. So where do I come from.
The trouble we get in when we assume:shrug:
Click to expand...
Hi

Is it not about the titles of the four Gosples ; “Gosple of Mattew”, “Gosple of Marks”, “Gosple of Luke” and “Gosple of John”?

Thanks
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I think it’s important to consider the audience. When speaking to an athiest, I wouldn’t be as upset about the term error. But when talking to a traditionalist, or someone from another faith, I think that word is a bad choice. I guess it depends who you are talking to.

**I think you are right about this. Words definitely can mean different things to different people. And its counter productive to frighten someone off because of the wrong choice of words. **

Also I think its more than just about picking the right synonym. I really believe that the bible is the Word of God and God doesn’t make mistakes. So when something looks like a mistake or an error, its because I misunderstand what it’s trying to say.
Click to expand...
**As I understand it, the Church teaches that God inspired the various writers to write truthfully about those things God wished us to understand about Him and salvation. The rest is the work of the writer, and depends on his understanding of the world around him. There are rather glaring problems in some of the historical books that are I presume simply the lack of knowledge of the writer about who was King at a given time, etc.

I guess one can simply assume that what we think of as mistakes are simply lack of understanding on our part. But upon investigation, many it appears are explained quite easily. **
 
paarsurrey;:
when I pondered I realized that the words tell history of civilization.
Click to expand...
Vocabulary both defines and demarcates a civilization.

Unfortunately, the languages that have the most to offer about how civilizations evolve, are also the languages that are in the greatest threat of being exterminated forever. 😦
I am just a layman but I got to know that their was a history concealed in every word.
Click to expand...
A history that can cross time and distance. (How many people would think that there was a connection between the sacred texts of Buddhism, and modern medical tools: “Sutta” and “suture”. )
Maybe it is boring for some people.
Click to expand...
Most people start yawning when I start talking about the subject.

xan

jonathon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top