Was Moses infallible?

[NotWorthy]

So in your opinion, the Faithful may rely on 'what Moses wrote…as well as what he said, especially when prefaced with, “Thus saith the Lord…” '. So in this he is infallible?

What Moses wrote was infallible. Moses was NOT infallible.

When Moses spoke, “thus sayeth the Lord…” he was prophetic. I understand that God is rather harsh on people who claim to speak for the Lord when the actually are speaking for themselves. Since God only punished Moses for “Rock-striking-Gate”, then I would trust what he spoke of when he said, “Thus sayeth the Lord”.

Now, understand that the Covenantal promises and edicts no longer apply, but his words were still “revealing”.

In other words, the Pope interprets revelation?

The Pope and the Church Magisterium (in agreement with the Pope) can infallible interpret revelation. You and I can, but we are not promised to do it correctly.

 

[NotWorthy]

But in, say, Genesis or Exodus or any of his books, isn’t much of what was written ‘‘revealed’’ even though no prophecy is involved?

You mean like was the world created in 6 days or not? BTW, the Church still hasn’t definitively defined that.

But, back to your question, you mean was it revealed prior to the Catholic Church? I would say it was incompletely revealed, for the Jews did not read the Scripture in the Light of Christ. Take for instance Abraham, his un-named servant (the one that sought out Rebekah for Abe’s son), Isaac, and Rebekah. With all that the Jews knew about them, they didn’t read them in the light of Christ, or for that matter the Trinity.
The Church however, did. Therefore She sees them as Types of the Trinity.
Abraham is a Type for God the Father.
Isaac is a Type for Jesus, the Son of God.
Rebekah is a Type for the Church, the Bride of Christ.
The un-named servant, who retrieves the bride for the son, is a Type for the Holy Spirit (did you ever notice that the Holy Spirit is also unnamed?).

Is that infalible? In what way?

I’m not sure of what your getting at? The Jews certainly were not infallible.

So if the Pope believes he understands something, then he does?

If the Pope declares that He is speaking “Ex-Cathedra” or “from the chair of Peter”, then He is claiming to be absolutely sure of what he is saying, and only then. The Church teaches that the Holy Spirit will prevent the Pope from then speaking in error.

If the Holy Spirit reveals to the Pope whether he understands something, isn’t that also a type of revelation?

I’m not sure. I would doubt it though, because “revelation” means “unveiling” or something that was hidden.

How sure about this do you feel?

Regarding the unchanging truth? Why I’m positive of it. God is unchanging. And Jesus says He is “the way, the truth, and the light”. But let’s remember.
Dogmas do not change. Priests must always be men, never a woman. Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist. Priests can hear a confession and forgive our sins in the name of Christ.
But Disciplines can change. They are able to change with the times. For instance, the head coverings in Corinthians is a discipline that was local only to that Church. There were numerous prostitutes at Corinth, and they wore their hair down. To prevent scandal therefore, Paul demanded the women wear head coverings. This discipline was necessary for the time, but is no longer necessary, hence its been lifted.

Do you think the criteria about ‘‘infalibility’’ focuses more on the factual accuracy of the words written or on the Faithful’s ability to rely on those words without risk?

I don’t see how you can separate the two, or else I don’t understand the question.

 

[bnapgh]

When Jesus repeatedly says to Peter; “Feed My Sheep”, is He not saying: you are the protector of my flock?

When Jesus tells the flock to listen to what the Pharisees teach but not to emulate what they do, is He not distinguishing a role that ‘‘protects’’ the flock rather than ‘‘accepts’’ the teaching?

If you cannot trust revelation, then what can you trust?

If infallible means unfailing, might not the focus of that be on the souls of the Flock, rather than on the accuracy of the interpretation?

Did Jesus not ‘‘correct’’ the accuracy of Moses revelation on divorce, explaining that the earlier interpretation — though inaccurate — was what the people of Moses’ age needed? Is Jesus not saying that the focus on ‘‘feeding His sheep’’ in this instance trumped the inaccuracy of the conceptual interpretation?

Given this, might it be fair to say that it is only when our ‘‘infallible Pope’’ speaks on Faith and Morals — and not on the interpretation of any other ---- that the flock and the eternal salvation of their souls ***may rely surely ***that they will not be condemned for doing so?

Isn’t this enough of an interpretation of ‘‘infallibility’’ to satisfy us, so that we need not argue on the ‘‘accuracy’’ of the Pope’s rulings, we need only accept them to know we will rest safely in the bossom of Abraham?

Just asking!

 

[NotWorthy]

When Jesus repeatedly says to Peter; “Feed My Sheep”, is He not saying: you are the protector of my flock?

No, he is saying “Teach them the Truth”.

When Jesus tells the flock to listen to what the Pharisees teach but not to emulate what they do, is He not distinguishing a role that ‘‘protects’’ the flock rather than ‘‘accepts’’ the teaching?

No, he’s telling the flock to be obedient. Jesus tells them that they must obey the Pharisees, just don’t do all the silly things they do:
-Rush to the head of the table
-tithe parsley and coriander (?)
-Give so much money to the Temple that they have no money to care for their parents.

If you cannot trust revelation, then what can you trust?

I trust Revelation. I just can’t always trust my interpretation of it. Just look at Jesus’ little midnight discussion with Nicodemus for proof of that!

If infallible means unfailing, might not the focus of that be on the souls of the Flock, rather than on the accuracy of the interpretation?

No, I don’t see where you are getting this.

Did Jesus not ‘‘correct’’ the accuracy of Moses revelation on divorce, explaining that the earlier interpretation — though inaccurate — was what the people of Moses’ age needed? Is Jesus not saying that the focus on ‘‘feeding His sheep’’ in this instance trumped the inaccuracy of the conceptual interpretation?

No, Jesus did not “correct” the accuracy of Moses speech on divorce. Jesus said Moses HAD to do it because the Israelites were so hard-headed. He never said Moses was wrong in making his declaration on divorce.

Given this, might it be fair to say that it is only when our ‘‘infallible Pope’’ speaks on Faith and Morals — and not on the interpretation of any other ---- that the flock and the eternal salvation of their souls ***may rely surely ***that they will not be condemned for doing so?

I think it’s important that the Church teaches the Truth. The Bible instructs us on Faith and Morals, so the Pope and Magisterium MUST teach on the interpretation. The fruits of the Protestant religions is a prime example of the need for interpretive authority.

Isn’t this enough of an interpretation of ‘‘infallibility’’ to satisfy us, so that we need not argue on the ‘‘accuracy’’ of the Pope’s rulings, we need only accept them to know we will rest safely in the bossom of Abraham?

Just asking!

Jesus said, “I am the Truth…”. Jesus promised to guide the Church via the Holy Spirit in all Truths. If we trust Jesus and His promises, then we should trust the accuracy of the Church’s statements.

 

[bnapgh]

No, Jesus did not “correct” the accuracy of Moses speech on divorce. Jesus said Moses HAD to do it because the Israelites were so hard-headed. He never said Moses was wrong in making his declaration on divorce.

But wasn’t Moses ruling to permit divorce whereas Jesus ruling was to prohibit divorce? Which in your opinion is true?

Wasn’t it because Moses’ flock were so hard-headed that Jesus said it was OK that Moses’ interpretation was the wrong one or untrue one? Doesn’t this seem to mean that Jesus emphasis with the less enlightened members of the Flock is to keep their confidence in their temporal shepherd rather than in the truth of what the shepherd said?

No, he is saying “Teach them the Truth”.

How can you be sure? If, as was said earlier, this infallibility deals with unfailing certainty of interpretation not origination, how can we know what is true? Doesn’t it perhaps make as much or more sense that God wants Peter to ‘‘feed His sheep’’ giving them confidence in where the Pope is leading them?

No, he’s telling the flock to be obedient. Jesus tells them that they must obey the Pharisees, just don’t do all the silly things they do

Do you think Jesus is saying that everything these Pharisees say is the ‘‘truth’’? Really? Did not He, Himself, often take issue with the truth of the Pharisees’ interpretations?

Does he want them to be obedient to something that is not true or to challenge the truth of what they say?

I trust Revelation. I just can’t always trust my interpretation of it.

Is your emphasis here on the trust or the truth of the interpreation? Is it on your’s or the Pope’s or Moses’?

I think it’s important that the Church teaches the Truth. The Bible instructs us on Faith and Morals, so the Pope and Magisterium MUST teach on the interpretation. The fruits of the Protestant religions is a prime example of the need for interpretive authority.

Didn’t Jesus tell the rich man he could get to heaven by ‘‘merely’’ keeping the commandments, but that if he really wanted to be ‘‘perfect’’ he must do the acts of selling his goods and giving them to the poor?

 

[fhansen]

Wow! I’ve become a **senior member **now!

Congratulations! This is one of those defining moments you’ll always remember and cherish.

 

[NotWorthy]

But wasn’t Moses ruling to permit divorce whereas Jesus ruling was to prohibit divorce? Which in your opinion is true?

Yes, Moses’ ruling was to permit divorce, due to hard-headedness, and Jesus’ ruling was to prohibit divorce. The Old Covenant was imperfect, but it was the best they had (because they didn’t have the New Wine!). Jesus’ ruling is true, of course. We now have Grace to guide us.

Wasn’t it because Moses’ flock were so hard-headed that Jesus said it was OK that Moses’ interpretation was the wrong one or untrue one?

He didn’t say it was was wrong. He said it was the best Moses could do with the people he had in the Covenant. You can’t make good wine with bad grapes.

Doesn’t this seem to mean that Jesus emphasis with the less enlightened members of the Flock is to keep their confidence in their temporal shepherd rather than in the truth of what the shepherd said?

No, I simply don’t. God never promised that he would guide Moses in all his teachings, or the Pharisees after them. God promised the New Church that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth.

How can you be sure? If, as was said earlier, this infallibility deals with unfailing certainty of interpretation not origination, how can we know what is true? Doesn’t it perhaps make as much or more sense that God wants Peter to ‘‘feed His sheep’’ giving them confidence in where the Pope is leading them?

No, I simply don’t feel that way. I look to the “Farewell Discourse” to see that there is much more to Jesus’ promise.

Do you think Jesus is saying that everything these Pharisees say is the ‘‘truth’’? Really? Did not He, Himself, often take issue with the truth of the Pharisees’ interpretations?

He’s not talking about whether the Pharisees are speaking the truth or not. Jesus is just re-affirming that the Pharisees have the authority to make binding rules.

Jesus flat out tells the Pharisees that they are abusing this power, but He never tells the sheep to disregard these abusive rules.

Does he want them to be obedient to something that is not true or to challenge the truth of what they say?

He never tells them to disobey the Pharisees, not even hinting that they should. All while chastising the Pharisees for the rules they are imposing.

Is your emphasis here on the trust or the truth of the interpreation? Is it on your’s or the Pope’s or Moses’?

It all depends on the Covenant you are talking about. I think I’ve explained them earlier in this post, but if you need me to explain further, I’ll try to.

Didn’t Jesus tell the rich man he could get to heaven by ‘‘merely’’ keeping the commandments, but that if he really wanted to be ‘‘perfect’’ he must do the acts of selling his goods and giving them to the poor?

Jesus said “You are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven”. That, at least to me, sounds like the rich man “is close, but no cigar”.

Notice all the commandments Jesus goes through with the rich man deal with “love of neighbor”. By telling the rich man to sell off everything and follow Him, Jesus is teaching the rich man of “Love of God”. That was still lacking in the rich man’s soul, evidently.

 

[bnapgh]

Yes, Moses’ ruling was to permit divorce, due to hard-headedness, and Jesus’ ruling was to prohibit divorce. The Old Covenant was imperfect, but it was the best they had (because they didn’t have the New Wine!). Jesus’ ruling is true, of course. We now have Grace to guide us.

He didn’t say it was was wrong. He said it was the best Moses could do with the people he had in the Covenant. You can’t make good wine with bad grapes.

I am condused. Since what Jesus said about divorce — that there can be none — is the truth, and since Moses said the opposite, it seems to me that Moses teaching was not the truth. If one speaks an untruth and yet we consider it not to be ‘‘wrong’’, then the truth must be secondary to the explanation. In this case Jesus said that the explanation was that Moses’ flock were ‘‘hard-headed’’ people. So it seems we are saying that the shepherd of a flock should lead his flock in a way that protects the larger portion of them, even when it is not actually the truth. Is this correct?

God never promised that he would guide Moses in all his teachings, or the Pharisees after them. God promised the New Church that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth…He’s not talking about whether the Pharisees are speaking the truth or not. Jesus is just re-affirming that the Pharisees have the authority to make binding rules…He never tells them to disobey the Pharisees, not even hinting that they should.

I guess I do not understand divine revelation. Are we to exclude parts of the Bible as untruths?

If the flock were to do what the Pharisees taught, were these teachers being guided by the Holy Spirit?

I remember many citations in which Jesus promises the Spirit would guide the shepherds of HJis “New Church”, but please remind me when the specific promise of ‘‘truth’’ was made.

I look to the “Farewell Discourse” to see that there is much more to Jesus’ promise.

Please share the chapter & verse so I can know specifically what you mean.

Jesus said “You are not far from the Kingdom of Heaven”. That, at least to me, sounds like the rich man “is close, but no cigar”.

The way I read that phrase, the rich man is getting Jesus’ promise of a cigar reward in heaven. The man asks what he needs to do to be saved; Jesus lists some commandments; the man says he is already doing those. If he were to keep on keeping on, then give the man a cigar!

But the man says he wants to do more and Jesus says ‘‘if you would be perfect’’ you should sell all you have, give it to the poor and come follow Him.

To my mind it seems Jesus is stratifying his guidance. One level for the general flock — keep the commandments; another for the more enlightened.

Again, it seems to me that a priority for Jesus might be to protect the most of the flock (the least ones) first — even when they could be doing more, something quite different, for which only the more enlightened — those not so hard of heart? — were ready. It feels as if His first priority might be like the start of the Hypocratic oath — first, lose no sheep (or do no harm to their faith — with concepts that might not penetrate their noggins at this time).

Notice all the commandments Jesus goes through with the rich man deal with “love of neighbor”. By telling the rich man to sell off everything and follow Him, Jesus is teaching the rich man of “Love of God”. That was still lacking in the rich man’s soul, evidently.

Lacking in his soul and mine — I haven’t sold all my excess — at least yet. I, too, am hard-headed.

The commandments He — and you — chose to highlight are the ‘‘good works’’ part of the golden rule. This filters into another thread I am involved in regarding Mother Teresa and the reward of heaven.

 

[Mannyfit75]

if so, was his different than the Pope’s?

He didn’t have the charism of infallibility. However, God spoke to Moses as to a friend. Moses had an intimate relationship with God. He served as a intecessor between the Hebrew People and God. When the Jewish people sin, Moses serve as a mediator. He is the type of Christ. This is a form of Biblical typology.

Since Moses is the Law giver, many of the Commandments which he received from the Lord is infallible but there are those laws not infallible such as dietary laws concerning unclean foods. Moral and faith are infallible. This was more defined during the last days, when Word of God became incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ. With Jesus, he established an authoritiative Church.

The answer to the question is both yes and no.

 

[NotWorthy]

I am condused. Since what Jesus said about divorce — that there can be none — is the truth, and since Moses said the opposite, it seems to me that Moses teaching was not the truth. If one speaks an untruth and yet we consider it not to be ‘‘wrong’’, then the truth must be secondary to the explanation. In this case Jesus said that the explanation was that Moses’ flock were ‘‘hard-headed’’ people. So it seems we are saying that the shepherd of a flock should lead his flock in a way that protects the larger portion of them, even when it is not actually the truth. Is this correct?

I think you are confusing the truth with the guidelines of the Covenant. Take the prohibition of eating things unclean. Jesus lifted these prohibitions. Moses was forced to play with the cards he was dealt with. He was leading the Israelites to God, but he could only take small steps.

The Israelites were like 4th graders. You can’t teach Trigonometry to fourth graders. Jesus was (and is) dealing with high school students. We are ready for the Trig class.

I guess I do not understand divine revelation. Are we to exclude parts of the Bible as untruths?

No, but you are mistaken in thinking what Moses was teaching. The Israelites first needed to learn to trust God. To love Him. And to know that God will provide for them if they just trust him and no other gods. These are baby steps.

Every time the bible records that they failed to do this, they were punished. There is a lesson there for us, that we must learn. No, we don’t die when we commit adultery. But Spiritually, we do. No, we aren’t cut off from the community if we steal from a neighbor, but spiritually, we are cut off from the Body of Christ. That’s the lessons that we should get from the adventures of Israel.

If the flock were to do what the Pharisees taught, were these teachers being guided by the Holy Spirit?

No, they were not, or Jesus would have been incorrect to chastise them. The lesson learned from that is obedience.

Back in ancient Israel, there were numerous Pharisetical schools with competing rabbis. One would make a binding rule. The other would unbind it and make a conflcting binding rule. The Jews were basically obliged to follow whichever school they did. It got quite confusing, from what I understand.

I remember many citations in which Jesus promises the Spirit would guide the shepherds of HJis “New Church”, but please remind me when the specific promise of ‘‘truth’’ was made.

I believe its in John 13 and 14. The “Farewell Discourse” is where you’ll find it.

Please share the chapter & verse so I can know specifically what you mean.

Read all of John 13-15, but specifically John 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. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

The way I read that phrase, the rich man is getting Jesus’ promise of a cigar reward in heaven. The man asks what he needs to do to be saved; Jesus lists some commandments; the man says he is already doing those. If he were to keep on keeping on, then give the man a cigar!

But doesn’t Scripture say that one must be perfect to get to heaven.

I think Mark’s Gospel makes the point clearer:
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, "You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

But the man says he wants to do more and Jesus says ‘‘if you would be perfect’’ you should sell all you have, give it to the poor and come follow Him.

To my mind it seems Jesus is stratifying his guidance. One level for the general flock — keep the commandments; another for the more enlightened.

But the commandments the that the man admits to our all “love of neighbor”. None of them are “love of God”. Do you think we can get to heaven without loving God? Even the man asked, what do I still lack. Not, “what more can I do to gain bonus points”.

Again, it seems to me that a priority for Jesus might be to protect the most of the flock (the least ones) first — even when they could be doing more, something quite different, for which only the more enlightened — those not so hard of heart? — were ready. It feels as if His first priority might be like the start of the Hypocratic oath — first, lose no sheep (or do no harm to their faith — with concepts that might not penetrate their noggins at this time).

Preventing the loss of the sheep is Jesus’ number one priority. Remember, the more given, the more expected. I assume that is those who have to suffer in this world.

Lacking in his soul and mine — I haven’t sold all my excess — at least yet. I, too, am hard-headed.

Is your “excess” preventing you from loving Jesus (or getting to heaven). I think that was the man’s case. We should all give up that which prevents us from loving God - money in some cases, power in others, arrogance in still others (as in my case).

[qutoe]The commandments He — and you — chose to highlight are the ‘‘good works’’ part of the golden rule. This filters into another thread I am involved in regarding Mother Teresa and the reward of heaven.Let me know the thread - I’d like to see it.

We should do good works out of obedience to Jesus. I heard a good saying regarding this the other day that stuck with me.

All obedience should be based on Faith. All Faith should be based on obedience!.