total inerrancy is Catholic dogma

[Pete_Holter]

The early Christians, together with the rest of the ancient world, rejected pseudonymous writings. Paul guarded his readers against the practice by helping them discern his authentic letters: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the sign of genuineness in every letter of mine; it is the way I write” (2 Thess. 3:17). Again: “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand” (Galatians 6:11). He also encouraged them to reject letters that seemed to come from his hand and yet contradicted his teaching: do not be “quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way” (2 Thess. 2:2-3).

John warned against anyone making alterations to what had come from him: “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev 22:18-19).

Justin Martyr relates to us his concern that there be no fraudulent works produced by the Church on behalf of the Christian faith, as this would provide an occasion for slander:

That the books relating to our religion are to this day preserved among the Jews, has been a work of Divine Providence on our behalf; for lest, by producing them out of the Church, we should give occasion to those who wish to slander us to charge us with fraud, we demand that they be produced from the synagogue of the Jews, that from the very books still preserved among them it might clearly and evidently appear, that the laws which were written by holy men for instruction pertain to us (, Ch. 13Hortatory Address to the Greeks).

The Muratorian Canon had it that “There is current also [an epistle] to the Laodiceans, [and] another to the Alexandrians, [both] forged in Paul’s name to [further] the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church— for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey” (The Muratorian Fragment).

Tertullian tells us what happened when a certain presbyter was discovered writing pseudepigrapha: “the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing;] let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing, as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed from his office” (, Ch. 17On Baptism).

Saint Serapion, Bishop of Antioch from A.D. 190-211, writes that “we, brethren, receive both Peter and the other apostles as Christ; but we reject intelligently the writings falsely ascribed to them, knowing that such were not handed down to us” (quoted in Eusebius, , Bk. 6, Ch. 12Church History).

Origen says that he “paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest [he] might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community” (Letter to Africanus, No. 5).

Eusebius shows the concern of the Church for authentic authorship as a criterion for canonicity: “Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine and acknowledged by the ancient elders” (Eusebius, , Bk. 3, Ch. 3Church History).

Augustine spoke generally about the impossibility of forgeries made in the apostles’ names being subsequently mistaken as canonical:

“At the same time, there are not wanting some who maintain that Cyprian never held the view ascribed to him, but that this was an unwarrantable forgery passed off by liars under his name. For it was impossible for the integrity and authenticity of the writings of any one bishop, however illustrious, to be secured and preserved as the canonical Scriptures are through translation into so many languages, and through the regular and continuous manner in which the Church has used them in public worship. Even in the face of this, some have been found forging many things under the names of the apostles. It is true, indeed, that they made such attempts in vain, because the text of canonical Scripture was so well attested, and so generally used and known; but this effort of an unholy boldness, which has not forborne to assail writings which are defended by the strength of such notoriety, has proved what it is capable of essaying against writings which are not established upon canonical authority” (Letter 93, Ch 10, 38).

If Paul’s letters were not written by the Apostle Paul, then this would be a fundamental change in the Church’s understanding of inerrancy and we would have exactly what Saint Augustine said we must never accept concerning Sacred Scripture: “it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive: nay, it is not another question — it is no question at all” (Letter 28, 3, 3).

I hope this information helps you form your decision on this point.

With the love of Christ,
Pete

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM
Hello JP Marat … and all others –
I place below points in your posting. Following that I’d like to respond to each.
///////////////////////////////
JP Marat, your posting –

1. Yes. Up until about 1950 the Church taught that all scripture was inspired by God and therefore contained no error.
2. Since Vatican II, however, the Church has adopted the limited or partial inspiration explanation perhaps to avoid recognizing the many obvious contradictions and error scripture contains.
3. The problem with this approach, however, is deciding what is inspired scripture and what is uninspired (merely human) stories.
4. I know. It’s whatever Father tells you is inspired, right? But this changes over time as did the “all inspired and error free” teaching.
   ////////////// My responses to these 4 items >>>
5. This is the kernel of what we’ve been striving to clarify more precisely. So I skip this.
6. The Church HAS grown in her understanding … as any living thing must. But I disagree that her purpose (“perhaps”) was/is to escape contradictions.
7. Here you have a valid and important question. Yes, it must be decided what parts of Scripture are inspired (pertaining to our salvation) and which parts are not. Yes, it is the Church … including all the faithful … that should decide what are and what are not. BUT … AND THIS IS IMPORTANT >>> This is not a matter of magic, of some easy and automatic exercise of power. The living and growing Church does have this assistance of the Holy Spirit … but it takes place over the centuries, step by step, with many clarifications, some helpful and some not, with a growth in understanding that continually reveals more and more clarifications. All this decree and final solution stuff has to be put aside as the “law” has been put aside to be livingly augmented by grace. (I suppose if I were writing these words in the MIddle Ages … circumstances in my life might not be the most pleasant.) It is only because I have faith that God is guiding the Church Jesus founded in a Divine AND HUMAN MANNER … that I have some clarity here. I will be travelling for a while. I’ll try to keep abreast of what’s being posted here on these “inerrancy” considerations.
   Blessing on all! Me too! John (JohnJFarren)

 

[Roman_Army]

I will have to retract my previous statement in which I supported Ron Conte’s interpretation of Pope Leo XIII’s statement in Providentissimus Deus. It cannot be said to be an Ex Cathedra pronouncement in the strict sense. He was not defining a doctrine that was not explicitly taught before which seems to be the meaning behind the word “define.” This doctrine that the Scriptures are free from every error including historical, scientific, and literary errors, etc., is the ancient teaching of the Church as taught by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium (the bishops teaching unanimously in different times and places while maintaining the bonds of unity), re-affirmed solemnly in Ecumenical Councils, and held by the sensus fidelium (the infallible common sense of the faithful in union with the Bishops and the Pope). The teaching of Pope Leo XIII was not Ex Cathedra and not solemn in itself, it was merely a re-affirmation of a doctrine that has already been solemnly defined and already infallibly assumed as part of the deposit of faith. Such teachings are so obvious that they need not a solemn Ex Cathedra pronouncement, but merely a re-affirmation.

Now, in regards to the so-called “contradictions” that many people try to use. Many of these supposed “contradictions” have been addressed by many of the Early Church Fathers and theologians. They have gone through great pains to harmonize those parts of scripture which at a first glance many would consider contradictory, but upon a more thorough study and contemplation one could see how they are not contradictory at all. Whenever one sees error in scripture, it is not the scripture that is in error, but one’s own fallible private interpretation that is in error and in need of correction or a re-interpretation. Also, in regards to certain numbers, names, or words, at times there can be what Pope Leo XIII called “copyist errors.” That is that those scribes who have been tasked with copying the original infallible manuscript have committed errors in their copying of it. This can happen because in Hebrew there can be similar sounding words that are different in meaning and therefore when translated into English or some other modern language, that similarity in spelling or sound is lost in translation and seen as an error in Sacred Scripture itself, which actually is merely a copyist error. In regards to dates and numbers they are sometimes coppied wrongly because at that time there was no printing press and sometimes the scribes can make mistakes. Unfortunately, we do not have the original Scriptures, we have to deal with fallible copies of copies. Then there can be the issue of different names appearing in geneaologies. These differences have been explained by the Early Church Fathers and others as due to the Levirate marriage custom in which when a husband dies without offspring his brother or next of kin must marry the widow and then the first son is legally that of the deceased brother or kin. Then the other issue was that polygamy has been practiced by many of the Patriarchs which further complicates geneaological records. In regards to certain “scientific errors,” as Pope Leo XIII said Scripture cannot be charged with scientific error because it is a subject that is alien to the original meaning of the texts. God did not intend to reveal scientific information to us in the Scriptures, but only faith, morals, and the history of how he has revealed himself to man. All these so-called “errors” or “contradictions” are usually called “difficulties,” because they are difficult to understand or interpret properly at a first reading of the text. They usually need further study and contemplation to show the harmony in them.

Now, one previous poster said that there is a contradiction where Saul is said to have committed suicide in one scripture and in the other said to have been fatally wounded by the Philistines in a homicide. Well, this has been already efficiently addressed by another poster in saying that the Philistines wounded Saul and then Saul committed to suicide after receiving the wound. Now, there is no problem with calling this a “homicide.” The word homicide is not used exclusively for murder, the word simply literally means “human killed.” Whenever a person dies artificially or through human involvement (either suicide or murder) the medical examiners usually label them “homicide” regardless of whether it is suicide, first degree murder, manslaughter, etc. All these difficulties if interpreted properly would not be errors or contradictions.

 

[JP_Marat]

I will have to retract my previous statement in which I supported Ron Conte’s interpretation of Pope Leo XIII’s statement in Providentissimus Deus. It cannot be said to be an Ex Cathedra pronouncement in the strict sense. He was not defining a doctrine that was not explicitly taught before which seems to be the meaning behind the word “define.” This doctrine that the Scriptures are free from every error including historical, scientific, and literary errors, etc., is the ancient teaching of the Church as taught by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium (the bishops teaching unanimously in different times and places while maintaining the bonds of unity), re-affirmed solemnly in Ecumenical Councils, and held by the sensus fidelium (the infallible common sense of the faithful in union with the Bishops and the Pope). The teaching of Pope Leo XIII was not Ex Cathedra and not solemn in itself, it was merely a re-affirmation of a doctrine that has already been solemnly defined and already infallibly assumed as part of the deposit of faith. Such teachings are so obvious that they need not a solemn Ex Cathedra pronouncement, but merely a re-affirmation.

Now, in regards to the so-called “contradictions” that many people try to use. Many of these supposed “contradictions” have been addressed by many of the Early Church Fathers and theologians. They have gone through great pains to harmonize those parts of scripture which at a first glance many would consider contradictory, but upon a more thorough study and contemplation one could see how they are not contradictory at all. Whenever one sees error in scripture, it is not the scripture that is in error, but one’s own fallible private interpretation that is in error and in need of correction or a re-interpretation. Also, in regards to certain numbers, names, or words, at times there can be what Pope Leo XIII called “copyist errors.” That is that those scribes who have been tasked with copying the original infallible manuscript have committed errors in their copying of it. This can happen because in Hebrew there can be similar sounding words that are different in meaning and therefore when translated into English or some other modern language, that similarity in spelling or sound is lost in translation and seen as an error in Sacred Scripture itself, which actually is merely a copyist error. In regards to dates and numbers they are sometimes coppied wrongly because at that time there was no printing press and sometimes the scribes can make mistakes. Unfortunately, we do not have the original Scriptures, we have to deal with fallible copies of copies. Then there can be the issue of different names appearing in geneaologies. These differences have been explained by the Early Church Fathers and others as due to the Levirate marriage custom in which when a husband dies without offspring his brother or next of kin must marry the widow and then the first son is legally that of the deceased brother or kin. Then the other issue was that polygamy has been practiced by many of the Patriarchs which further complicates geneaological records. In regards to certain “scientific errors,” as Pope Leo XIII said Scripture cannot be charged with scientific error because it is a subject that is alien to the original meaning of the texts. God did not intend to reveal scientific information to us in the Scriptures, but only faith, morals, and the history of how he has revealed himself to man. All these so-called “errors” or “contradictions” are usually called “difficulties,” because they are difficult to understand or interpret properly at a first reading of the text. They usually need further study and contemplation to show the harmony in them.

Now, one previous poster said that there is a contradiction where Saul is said to have committed suicide in one scripture and in the other said to have been fatally wounded by the Philistines in a homicide. Well, this has been already efficiently addressed by another poster in saying that the Philistines wounded Saul and then Saul committed to suicide after receiving the wound. Now, there is no problem with calling this a “homicide.” The word homicide is not used exclusively for murder, the word simply literally means “human killed.” Whenever a person dies artificially or through human involvement (either suicide or murder) the medical examiners usually label them “homicide” regardless of whether it is suicide, first degree murder, manslaughter, etc. All these difficulties if interpreted properly would not be errors or contradictions.

RESPONSE:

I agree that the inerrancy of scripture is infallible by way of the universal ordinary magisterium, asuming that one buys into that concept. Since it cannot be made infallible twice, Providentissimus would be merely a restatement.

However, although apologists have bent over backwards to try to harmonize differences, contradictions (and therefore errors) in scripture remain.

1. I disagree with your claim that there is **no difference **between Saul killing himself (objectively a serious sin) and being killed by another (in war, not necessarily a sin).
2. I also disagree with the claim that Jesus riding one animal into Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, John) is really the same as Jesus riding two animals (of different sizes) into Jerusalem so he can fulfill the putative prophecy of Zec 9:9.
3. I also disagree that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (died 4 BC) and born again during the census in 6 AD.

Etc, etc, etc.

Therefore, any “dogma” claiming that scripture is inerrant, is itself in error.

 

[Roman_Army]

RESPONSE:

I agree that the inerrancy of scripture is infallible by way of the universal ordinary magisterium, asuming that one buys into that concept. Since it cannot be made infallible twice, Providentissimus would be merely a restatement.

However, although apologists have bent over backwards to try to harmonize differences, contradictions (and therefore errors) in scripture remain.

1. I disagree with your claim that there is **no difference **between Saul killing himself (objectively a serious sin) and being killed by another (in war, not necessarily a sin).
2. I also disagree with the claim that Jesus riding one animal into Jerusalem (Mark, Luke, John) is really the same as Jesus riding two animals (of different sizes) into Jerusalem so he can fulfill the putative prophecy of Zec 9:9.
3. I also disagree that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (died 4 BC) and born again during the census in 6 AD.

Etc, etc, etc.

Therefore, any “dogma” claiming that scripture is inerrant, is itself in error.

Reply to objection 1: I did not say that committing suicide and being killed in combat are morally the same. I was simply addressing your distortion of Scripture suggesting that there is a contradiction in the passages in question. The suicide in 1 Sam. 31:4 is not to be understood as if the Scripture approves of it, it’s merely explaining what happened and is neutral on the topic. Saul committed suicide after the fact of being fatally wounded so that he would not suffer the dishonor or humiliation of having been slain by uncircumcised men. It still does not change the fact that the Philistines slayed him. He would have died from the fatal wound even if he had not committed suicide.

Reply to objection 2: Jesus rode on a young male donkey into Jerusalem which would fulfill the definition of the word colt.

Reply to objection 3: Just because historians cannot currently find hard evidence of a census prior to 6 AD does not automatically mean that there wasn’t such a census. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains this difficulty effectively. (cf. Gospel of St. Luke, Section “The Census of Quirinius”). It could also be possible that the Census started under the Governor Sentius Saturninus (as asserted by Tertullian), was suspended after Herod’s death, then completed under Governor Quirinius in 6 AD, in which logically the Census would then be named after Governor Quirinius even though he did not initiate it but completed it.

Reply to the Etc. Etc. Etc. All other such difficulties can be explained. But, I guess you simply do not want to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt and want to sow the seeds of doubt. The idea that the Scriptures cannot be in perfect harmony with each other is just an erroneous assumption.

Now, there is no such thing as a dogma in error. But, anyway, it seems you reject Church teaching, claim that Scripture is in error, and reject Christ and God in the process. I hope you recant your obstinate heresy sometime in the future.

 

[Pete_Holter]

JMJ / MMM 091008 Thursday
Hello All You Fellow Sons and Daughters of the Church –
I want to add something that has not appeared anywhere in this particular topic.

The documents of Vatican II in an official footnote in the Constitution on Divine Revelation quotes St Thomas Aquinas, “Any knowledge which is profitable to salvation may be the object of prophetic inspiration. But things which cannot affect our salvation do not belong to inspiration.” The quoting in the footnote continues, “Augustine says that although the sacred writers may have known astronomy, nevertheless the Holy Spirit did not intend to utter through them any truths apart from that which is profitable to salvation. He adds that this may concern either teachings to be believed or morals to be practiced.”

I am aware of references and quotations from Dei Verbum 11 and Providentissimus Deus 20. Neither Aquinas nor Augustine say anything contrary to either document.

The point is clear, that matters in the Bible that do not have to do with our salvation are not matters of inspiration. It’s not a question of correct or incorrect natural science, or of three people or two people, or of early morning or 3 in the afternoon – it simply means that the accuracy of those matters are not inspired and were not meant to be inspired.

Keep in mind that the Church … in an official footnote … deliberately and explicitly placed that appended to the document. Why bother unless the Church wanted to make that a serious point?

The Holy Spirit be with us all. Blessing! John (JohnJFarren)

Here is what Augustine actually says in his first referenced work:

“It is also frequently asked what our belief must be about the form and shape of heaven according to Sacred Scripture. Many scholars engage in lengthy discussions on these matters, but the sacred writers with their deeper wisdom have omitted them. Such subjects are of no profit for those who seek beatitude, and what is worse, they take up very precious time that ought to be given to what is spiritually beneficial. What concern is it of mine whether heaven is like a sphere and the earth is enclosed by it and suspended in the middle of the universe, or whether heaven like a disk above the earth covers it over on one side? But the credibility of Scripture is at stake, and as I have indicated more than once, there is danger that a man uninstructed in divine revelation, discovering something in Scripture or hearing from it something that seems to be at variance with the knowledge he has acquired, may resolutely withhold his assent in other matters where Scripture presents useful admonitions, narratives, or declarations. Hence, I must say briefly that in the matter of the shape of heaven the sacred writers knew the truth, but that the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men these facts that would be of no avail for their salvation” (, Bk. 2, 9:20On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

In other words, the sacred authors included in the Bible only those things that are in some way profitable to salvation, and they passed over the irrelevant details of science, etc., in silence. So the Scriptures have already been parsed for us, in a sense, through anticipation, and any extraneous material was already excised prior to composition. Since the authors “did not wish to teach men these facts,” they, “with their deeper wisdom have omitted them.”

 

[Pete_Holter]

Before we come to Aquinas, we should appreciate that this passage from Augustine is the very one that Aquinas draws from in order to explain the meaning of the sentence that you quoted above: “Therefore, all those things the knowledge of which can be useful for salvation are the matters of prophecy, whether they are past, or future, or even eternal, or necessary, or contingent. But those things which cannot pertain to salvation are outside the matter of prophecy.” Consequently, if we’ve properly understood Augustine, then we’ve understood Aquinas. In listening to what Thomas is saying here, we may discern a corollary, which is that everything found in Scripture pertains to salvation. This is the view of Augustine, Thomas, Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and, most importantly, the Apostle Paul (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Also found in the section from Aquinas that is cited by Dei Verbum are the following assertions:

[W]e have to give belief to those things written in the books of the prophets even though they treat of conclusions of scientific knowledge, as in Psalms (135:6): “Who established the earth above the waters,” and whatever else there is of this sort. Therefore, the spirit of prophecy inspires the prophets even about conclusions of the sciences.

[T]hrough the gift of prophecy one can know not only those things to which natural knowledge does not extend, but also things to which natural knowledge does extend, and conclusions of the sciences are among these latter. (, Q. 12, A. 2De Veritate)

Augustine also wrote:

I have arrived at a nourishing in that I have learnt that a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith which he ought to make to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. When they are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture. But when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture, and therefore contrary to the Catholic faith, either we shall have some ability to demonstrate [to them] that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it [to be false] without any shadow of a doubt. And we will so cling to our Mediator, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (, Bk. 1, 21:41On the Literal Meaning of Genesis).

This same disposition may be inferred from Thomas where he writes (also in the article cited by Dei Verbum): “Although the conclusions of sciences can be known in another way than through prophecy, it is not superfluous for them to be shown by prophetic light, for through faith we cling more firmly to what the prophets say than we do to the demonstrations of the sciences. And in this, too, the grace of God is praised and His perfect knowledge is shown forth” (, Q. 12, A. 2De Veritate).

The other citation to Augustine found in the Dei Verbum footnote is to the classic formulation of the doctrine of inerrancy, found in his letter to Jerome:

“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it …] I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error” (, 1, 3Letter 82).

Further down in this same letter, Augustine says that “it is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place” (, 3, 24Letter 82).

I hope this information helps you understand the citations connected to the disputed sentence of Dei Verbum.

With love in the LORD for you and your family,
Pete

 

[iamanea]

Dear Pete:

Obviously you have given the problem of psuedo-authorship a lot more thought than I have. Based on the quotes you gave, I obviously need to take the problem more seriously.

In my original post I was mainly refering to the letters issued in Paul’s name. I am by no means an expert on Pauline exegesis. None of my scripture courses were SPECIFICALLY on Paul’s letters. They were covered in passing and I know that the vast majority of scholars now hold some were not originally written by him but by disciples. It may very well be that, as you say, they were written at Paul’s expressed command. Since I do not know, I will bow to your judgement.

As I said earlier, I tend to favor the traditional authorship of the Gospels, Acts, Revelation and the “Catholic” letters - (those of Peter, Jude, and John). I would argue that Hebrews is a special case as it does not claim to be written by Paul - (it could thus be argued that it is not really an example of psuedo-authorship in the sense you and I are using).

The reason is that there are many scholars who accept the traditional authorship. In addition, the weight of ancient testimony is greater than the personal opinions of modern scholars who variously argue otherwise. Thus I see St. John Mark (mentioned in Acts) as the author of Mark, St Matthew the Apostle of Mathew, St. Luke (also mentioned in Acts) as the author of Luke and Acts, St. John the Apostle the author of John’s Gospel and of Revelatin and his letters, St. Peter his letters and St. Jude the Apostle his letter.

Another question of course that has NOT been addressed so far in the course of this thread is HOW a biblical book comes to take its present form and how it came to be viewed as canonical.

These are subjects beyond my capabilities of the moment. # 1. my class notes are not available to me so I can not check my memory. #2. I am currently researching what I hope to be my Master’s thesis, on the contribution the Dead Sea Scrolls make to understanding the development of variant texts and canonical works.

The question of development of the canon CAN effect the discussion of psuedo-authorship as it MAY answer how books using the technique came to be viewed as canonical.

I think this question relates specifically to Genesis - how the text we have today took form as it is clearly written by many different authors/schools, and the Book of Psalms - also a edition collected over many years by different authors.

Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful information. Just the sort of discussion I was hoping to engage in when I joined this site.

God Bless in His Love,

Corry

 

[iamanea]

Roman Army:

Good summary. Thanks for the clarification.

God Bless

Corry

 

[JP_Marat]

Roman Army posted:

Reply to objection 1: I did not say that committing suicide and being killed in combat are morally the same. I was simply addressing your distortion of Scripture suggesting that there is a contradiction in the passages in question. The suicide in 1 Sam. 31:4 is not to be understood as if the Scripture approves of it, it’s merely explaining what happened and is neutral on the topic. Saul committed suicide after the fact of being fatally wounded so that he would not suffer the dishonor or humiliation of having been slain by uncircumcised men. It still does not change the fact that the Philistines slayed him. He would have died from the fatal wound even if he had not committed suicide.<<<

RESPONSE

There’s no “distortion” of scripture. There is a contradiction and therefore an error between several scriptural passages. Either Saul killed himself or he was killed by another. The fact that he may have been dying does not change this contradiction between passages.

Reply to objection 2: Jesus rode on a young male donkey into Jerusalem which would fulfill the definition of the word colt.<<

RESPONSE:

No. According to Matthew, Jesus sent for and rode **TWO different animals **when entering Jerusalem.

"And when they drew nigh to Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto mount Olivet, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 Saying to them: Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall **find an *** tied, and a colt **with her: loose them and bring them to me. 3 And if any man shall say anything to you, say ye, that the Lord hath need of them: and forthwith he will let them go. 4 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: 5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion: Behold thy king cometh to thee, meek, and sitting **upon an *, and a colt the foal of her that is used to the yoke.

6 And the disciples going, did as Jesus commanded them. 7 And they brought the *** and the colt, and laid their garments upon them, and made him sit thereon. (DR)

Reply to objection 3: Just because historians cannot currently find hard evidence of a census prior to 6 AD does not automatically mean that there wasn’t such a census. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains this difficulty effectively. (cf. Gospel of St. Luke, Section “The Census of Quirinius”). It could also be possible that the Census started under the Governor Sentius Saturninus (as asserted by Tertullian), was suspended after Herod’s death, then completed under Governor Quirinius in 6 AD, in which logically the Census would then be named after Governor Quirinius even though he did not initiate it but completed it.<<

RESPONSE:

There is proof of the 6 AD census conducted ten years after the death of King Herod the Great. The facts of history are stated both in Luke’s gospel and Josephus. When Herod’s son was removed as ruler of Judea in 6 A.D. and Judea came under the control of the governor of Syria, a census was run for tax purposes. It really doesn’t matter who the Roman governor was. It’s the year 6 AD that is the issue, since Herod had died in 4 BC and Luke’s gospel therefore makes Matthew’s Gospel chronologically impossible. Alternately, we could argue that Matthew’s Gospel makes Luke’s chronologically impossible.

Josephus, Antiquities 17.342-344, 355
“In the tenth year of Archelaus’ rule the leading men among the Jews and Samaritans, finding his cruelty and tyranny intolerable, brought charges against him before Caesar the moment they learned that Archelaus had disobeyed his instructions to show moderation in dealing with them. Accordingly, when Caesar heard the charges, he became angry, and summoning the man who looked after Archelaus’ affairs at Rome. . ., he said to him, “Go, sail at once and bring him here to us without delay.” . . . And when Archelaus arrived, Caesar gave a hearing to some of his accusers, and also let him speak, and then sent him into exile. . .Now the territory subject to Archelaus was added to (the province of) Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of property in Syria and to sell the estate of Archelaus.”

Reply to the Etc. Etc. Etc. All other such difficulties can be explained. But, I guess you simply do not want to give Scripture the benefit of the doubt and want to sow the seeds of doubt. The idea that the Scriptures cannot be in perfect harmony with each other is just an erroneous assumption.

Now, there is no such thing as a dogma in error. But, anyway, it seems you reject Church teaching, claim that Scripture is in error, and reject Christ and God in the process. I hope you recant your obstinate heresy sometime in the future. <<

RESPONSE:

On the contrary, as has been shown,** the contradictions have NOT been explained.** There is no moral obligation to believe error, and, in fact, one is quite gullible if he does so.

 

[Roman_Army]

JP Marat:

There’s no “distortion” of scripture. There is a contradiction and therefore an error between several scriptural passages. Either Saul killed himself or he was killed by another. The fact that he may have been dying does not change this contradiction between passages.

It is typical, out of your inflated ego you cannot accept that it is your personal interpretation that is in error and not Scripture itself. So, then you do not give God himself and his messenger the benefit of the doubt. The fact is that Saul was in fact going to die by the wound inflicted by the Philistines, the fact that he committed suicide does not change that he was indeed slain by them.
JP Marat:

No. According to Matthew, Jesus sent for and rode TWO different animals when entering Jerusalem.

And your point is? So, Mark, Luke, and John put more emphasis on the colt because of it symbolizing the Gentiles which was Mark, Luke, and John’s audience and Matthew emphasized on both the colt and its mother donkey which symbolizes the Jews because he was speaking to Jewish Christians. The mother donkey would’ve followed behind the colt in which Jesus sat to show that the blindness of the Jews would open the way for the mass conversion of the Gentiles in which they would be dominant in the Church. Where in lies the contradiction? It’s merely different points of emphasis. Mark, Luke, and John’s omission of the fact of the mother donkey is not to be understood as an exclusion.

** From the Haydock Commentary:**

(Haydock) — An *** tied,[1] and a colt with her. This colt, which never yet had been rid upon, represented the people of the Gentiles, to whom God had not given a written law, as he had done to the Jews. Here was manifestly fulfilled the prophecy of Zacharias. (Chap. ix.) It was now the first day of the week, in which Christ suffered; he was pleased to enter into Jerusalem in a kind of triumph, the people making acclamations to him, as to their king and Messias. (Witham) — Both Jews and Gentiles, figured by the *** and the colt, are to be loosed and conducted by the hands of the apostles of Christ to their Redeemer. The Gentiles, represented by the colt, though heretofore unclean, no sooner receive Jesus resting upon them, than they are freed from every stain and rendered perfectly clean. The zeal of the Gentiles stirred up the emulation of the Jews; therefore did the *** follow after its colt. This approach of the Jews to the true faith, after the vocation of the Gentiles, is spoken of by St. Paul, Romans xi. 25. Blindness in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles should come in. And so all Israel should be saved. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxvi.) — As it is written, “there shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. And this is to them my covenant;” when I shall take away their sins. This prophecy of Isaias (lix. 20.) St. Paul applies to the conversion of the Jews; (ibid. [Romans xi. 25]) and thus both Jew and Gentile are to take up our Saviour’s yoke, which is certainly sweet, and his burden light.

JP Marat:

There is proof of the 6 AD census conducted ten years after the death of King Herod the Great. The facts of history are stated both in Luke’s gospel and Josephus. When Herod’s son was removed as ruler of Judea in 6 A.D. and Judea came under the control of the governor of Syria, a census was run for tax purposes. It really doesn’t matter who the Roman governor was. It’s the year 6 AD that is the issue, since Herod had died in 4 BC and Luke’s gospel therefore makes Matthew’s Gospel chronologically impossible. Alternately, we could argue that Matthew’s Gospel makes Luke’s chronologically impossible.

Oh? And Josephus is infallible and not the Gospels? I had already explained that just because historians had not found hard evidence of the census starting prior to 4 BC does not automatically mean there was not one. But, then I guess you would give more authority to fallible human historians than God himself.

 

[ccolley2]

The absolute “inerrancy” teaching regarding scripture was maintained by Catholicism until about 1950.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) writing to St. Jerome stated that he believed “most firmly that none of their (scripture’s) writers has fallen into any error.”

Vatican I (1869-1870) taught that scriptures “contain revelation without errors…baving been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author.”

But since Vatican II, things have evidently changed.

Then why does the CCC #107 state: “The inspired books teach the truth…”? Then the very next quote is from Dei Verbum…a Vatican II document on Sacred Scripture.
CC

 

[JP_Marat]

It is typical, out of your inflated ego you cannot accept that it is your personal interpretation that is in error and not Scripture itself. So, then you do not give God himself and his messenger the benefit of the doubt. The fact is that Saul was in fact going to die by the wound inflicted by the Philistines, the fact that he committed suicide does not change that he was indeed slain by them.

And your point is? So, Mark, Luke, and John put more emphasis on the colt because of it symbolizing the Gentiles which was Mark, Luke, and John’s audience and Matthew emphasized on both the colt and its mother donkey which symbolizes the Jews because he was speaking to Jewish Christians. The mother donkey would’ve followed behind the colt in which Jesus sat to show that the blindness of the Jews would open the way for the mass conversion of the Gentiles in which they would be dominant in the Church. Where in lies the contradiction? It’s merely different points of emphasis. Mark, Luke, and John’s omission of the fact of the mother donkey is not to be understood as an exclusion.

Oh? And Josephus is infallible and not the Gospels? I had already explained that just because historians had not found hard evidence of the census starting prior to 4 BC does not automatically mean there was not one. But, then I guess you would give more authority to fallible human historians than God himself.

RESPONSE:

Matthew attempted to invent a “prophecy fulfillment” by having Jesus ride of two animals when entering Jerusale just like the King in Zec 9.9. But the king in Zec didn’t really ride on two animals either. Matthew misunderstood the translation. If Jesus had really ridden on two animals of different sizes, it would have ben memorable stunt riding. Neither Mark, Luke, nor John reported any such thing. Matthew goofed, as he did elsewhere in his gospel.

Both Josephus and Luke reported the 6 AD census during which Jesus was supposed to have been born. I belive there are other historians as well who report this census including the Roman Gauius.

“Herod Archelaus ruled so badly that the Jews and Samarians unitedly appealed to Rome to request that he should be deposed. In 6 CE, Archelaus was banished to Vienna in Gaul and after a bloody revolt led by Judas the Galilean, **Judaea became a province of the Roman Empire.” **

Common sense tells us that if Heord’s son inherited Judea upon Heord’s death, Herod was already dead.

You can dream of any other census you want. But the census Luke and Josephus refered to is clearly that of Quirinius, governor of Syria, in 6 AD, or are you trying to pretend that none of that ever happened?

“Now the territory subject to Archelaus was added to (the province of) Syria, and Quirinius, a man of consular rank, was sent by Caesar to take a census of property in Syria and to sell the estate of Archelaus.” [Josephus, Antiquities 17, 355 ]

 

[JP_Marat]

Then why does the CCC #107 state: “The inspired books teach the truth…”? Then the very next quote is from Dei Verbum…a Vatican II document on Sacred Scripture.
CC

RESPONSE:

Because that was the Catholic Church’s party line up until about 1950, until Dei Verbum created the loophole. DV 11 “…**without error that truth **which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”

Thus this ambiguous passage allows for “uninspired” scripture. Apologists liked this because they didn’t have to go on trying to harmonized contradictory passages by pretending that they really said the same thing even when this was contrary to the plain meaning of words.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JP Marat:

You can dream of any other census you want. But the census Luke and Josephus refered to is clearly that of Quirinius, governor of Syria, in 6 AD, or are you trying to pretend that none of that ever happened?

Luke is referring to the Augustan census of 6-8 BC not the one of Quirinus.

 

[JP_Marat]

Luke is referring to the Augustan census of 6-8 BC not the one of Quirinus.

RESPONSE:

Luke is referring to the census when Quirinius was made governor of Syria in 6 A.D.
Gaius Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria in 8 BC followed by Publius Quinctilius Varus from 6 BC until 4 BC.

Publius Quinctilius Varus was governor from 6 to 12 AD. It is his census referred to by Luke.

Luke 2.2 “This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.” (NAB)

Luke is very specific as to whom the governor was.

So lets stop playing “let’s pretend” to avoid admitting the contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

 

[Roman_Army]

RESPONSE:

Because that was the Catholic Church’s party line up until about 1950, until Dei Verbum created the loophole. DV 11 “…**without error that truth **which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”

Thus this ambiguous passage allows for “uninspired” scripture. Apologists liked this because they didn’t have to go on trying to harmonized contradictory passages by pretending that they really said the same thing even when this was contrary to the plain meaning of words.

There’s no such “loophole” if you bothered referring to the footnotes to guide in your interpretation of Dei Verbum as well as interpret the Council in light of Tradition.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

RESPONSE:

Luke is referring to the census when Quirinius was made governor of Syria in 6 A.D.
Gaius Sentius Saturninus was governor of Syria in 8 BC followed by Publius Quinctilius Varus from 6 BC until 4 BC.

Publius Quinctilius Varus was governor from 6 to 12 AD. It is his census referred to by Luke.

Luke 2.2 “This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. So all went to be enrolled, each to his own town.” (NAB)

Luke is very specific as to whom the governor was.

So lets stop playing “let’s pretend” to avoid admitting the contradiction between Matthew and Luke.

Your entire argument hinges on a superficial reading of the passage and the word “THIS” Let’s hear the commentary by Msgr. Ronald Knox:

“There would have been some colour for this view, if Luke had written ‘this register was the one made’ under Quirinius. BUT LUKE DID NOT WRITE THAT; he wrote ‘this register was the first one made,’ in the sense that the register was made for the first time under Quirinius; the Greek does not bear that [former] sense. The use of the word “first” necessarily implies: ‘We all know that there was a census under Quirinius in A.D. 6; I am not talking of that, I am talking of an earlier census.’ Whether Luke was right or wrong, he did not just get his dates mixed up; his words show beyond doubt that he believed in the existence of a census anterior to the census of A.D. 6.”

The good Msgr. goes on to elaborate deeper on the difficulties of this passage, most especially with the error of supposing Luke is referring to the census of Quirinius. That is akin to supposing that Jesus had brothers and sisters, because the Scripture uses those words. This is something best left to the experts, and the best authorities maintain (as Verse 1 in Luke says; “Now it came to pass in those days, that a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus that a census of the whole world should be taken.” We know through alternate sources, beyond any doubt that this decree was made between 6-8 B.C. and that THIS is the census Luke is referring to. We also know through Tertullian, that a census was made in exactly the period we are discussing by Sentius Saturninus in Syria. “Saturninus may have ordered a Census in the province of Syria, and Herod may have followed suit by ordering a census in his own kingdom of Judaea which was still being conducted at a time shortly before his, Herod’s, death.” --Knox

Ultimately, your entire motive for espousing the false and erroneous reading is to undermine the Scriptures with your pretended “contradiction.” Everyone that is familiar with your posts should know this by now.

To the Faithful, the Scriptures will always be in harmony, to the skeptical, they will always be a stumbling block.

 

[JP_Marat]

Your entire argument hinges on a superficial reading of the passage and the word “THIS” Let’s hear the commentary by Msgr. Ronald Knox:

“There would have been some colour for this view, if Luke had written ‘this register was the one made’ under Quirinius. BUT LUKE DID NOT WRITE THAT; he wrote ‘this register was the first one made,’ in the sense that the register was made for the first time under Quirinius; the Greek does not bear that [former] sense. The use of the word “first” necessarily implies: ‘We all know that there was a census under Quirinius in A.D. 6; I am not talking of that, I am talking of an earlier census.’ Whether Luke was right or wrong, he did not just get his dates mixed up; his words show beyond doubt that he believed in the existence of a census anterior to the census of A.D. 6.”

The good Msgr. goes on to elaborate deeper on the difficulties of this passage, most especially with the error of supposing Luke is referring to the census of Quirinius. That is akin to supposing that Jesus had brothers and sisters, because the Scripture uses those words. This is something best left to the experts, and the best authorities maintain (as Verse 1 in Luke says; “Now it came to pass in those days, that a decree went forth from Caesar Augustus that a census of the whole world should be taken.” We know through alternate sources, beyond any doubt that this decree was made between 6-8 B.C. and that THIS is the census Luke is referring to. We also know through Tertullian, that a census was made in exactly the period we are discussing by Sentius Saturninus in Syria. “Saturninus may have ordered a Census in the province of Syria, and Herod may have followed suit by ordering a census in his own kingdom of Judaea which was still being conducted at a time shortly before his, Herod’s, death.” --Knox

Ultimately, your entire motive for espousing the false and erroneous reading is to undermine the Scriptures with your pretended “contradiction.” Everyone that is familiar with your posts should know this by now.

To the Faithful, the Scriptures will always be in harmony, to the skeptical, they will always be a stumbling block.

RESPONSE:

With all respects to the “good” Msgr. Ronald Knox, he evidently is counting on the gullibility of his Cahtolic readeres not to check out what he is claiming. Perhaps you can cite any evidence that any other cesnsis was conducted by Quirinius when he was Governor of Syria.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4
“Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the
consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, **arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor **of the nation and to make an assessment of theirproperty. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jewswith full authority. Quirinius also visited **Judaea, which had been annexed **to Syria, in order to **make an assessment **of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus.”

That is akin to supposing that Jesus had brothers and sisters, because the Scripture uses those words.<<

According to scripture and the wrtings of Josephus, Jesus in fact did have brothers and sisters. Does the good monseignor claim that there was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic so “brother” was used, but fail to tell you that the New Testament was written in Greek that has specific words of brother, siste, and cousin? While the term “brother” might have been used for cousin on a few occasions to indicate closeness, the fact remains that none of Jesus’ siblings are ever referred to as his cousins in the Greek texts.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

RESPONSE:

With all respects to the “good” Msgr. Ronald Knox, he evidently is counting on the gullibility of his Cahtolic readeres not to check out what he is claiming. Perhaps you can cite any evidence that any other cesnsis was conducted by Quirinius when he was Governor of Syria.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.1-4
“Quirinius, a Roman senator who had proceeded through all the magistracies to the
consulship and a man who was extremely distinguished in other respects, **arrived in Syria, dispatched by Caesar to be governor **of the nation and to make an assessment of theirproperty. Coponius, a man of equestrian rank, was sent along with him to rule over the Jewswith full authority. Quirinius also visited **Judaea, which had been annexed **to Syria, in order to **make an assessment **of the property of the Jews and to liquidate the estate of Archelaus.”

That is akin to supposing that Jesus had brothers and sisters, because the Scripture uses those words.<<

Your argument is meaningless, as no one disputes the census of Quirinius, least of all Ronald Knox. Your insistence on Jesus having brothers and sisters by Mary, therefore denying the ever-virgin Mary Doctrine of the Catholic Church belies your claim to Catholicity.