Where did paul get the information he had?

[COPLAND_3]

I don’t think we can assume automatically that factual matters like the names of those who opposed Moses are correct just because they are recorded in scripture. There are too many factual matters we know not to be correct (e.g. the claim that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in Mark 4:31). Perhaps a better approach would be to look at the message Paul is trying to get across, which I think has a greater claim to being inspired by the Holy Spirit than particular symbolic examples he cites from the culture of the day.

I differ here because too many times those so-called factual errors turn out to not be errors when it is either put into context or whether is it a textual error. Just like the mustard seed passage in Mark. The Greek has επι της γης which can be translated “on earth” or “upon the land.” γης does not have to be earth in general, and should not be in this passage since it has the definate article της. Jesus obviously was speaking about “the land” in which He was at and those whom He was teaching was at.

 

[NoelFitz]

Both Copland3 and Digitotonomy make excellent points. The bible is inspired, but factual errors may occur, e.g. the ages of characters in the OT.

However in Gal 1:11 Paul wrote:

11 For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; 12 for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Ga 1:11-12.

One is not too sure about what was revealed and what Paul learned from other Christians.

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

I’ll see if I can get that book you mentioned DS. I think you raise good points for me to consider. Thanks for the information!

I should point out that “more probable than not” may not be sufficient proof to justify the type of faith and conduct Christians adopt. This is why i think the Catholic perspective on the veracity of Tradition and its derivatives (i.e., the Bible) is crucial. It’s pretty well established that Washington never crossed the Delaware river, let alone in the manner depicted in the famous panting. It’s more probable than not that he never crossed it – but i don’t know that i’d invest the type of faith and conduct into that preponderance that Catholics have in the gospel. Conversely, if there were a demonstrated line of officials whose principal purpose was to preserve the account of Washington’s progress across PA, well, I’d be inclined to credit that account to a much higher degree.

I would also highly recommend Peter Kreeft’s work for an a priori, anything-could-could-be-possible, but-here-is-why-Catholics-have-it-right treatment of Religion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I should point out that “more probable than not” may not be sufficient proof to justify the type of faith and conduct Christians adopt. This is why i think the Catholic perspective on the veracity of Tradition and its derivatives (i.e., the Bible) is crucial. It’s pretty well established that Washington never crossed the Delaware river, let alone in the manner depicted in the famous panting. It’s more probable than not that he never crossed it – but i don’t know that i’d invest the type of faith and conduct into that preponderance that Catholics have in the gospel. Conversely, if there were a demonstrated line of officials whose principal purpose was to preserve the account of Washington’s progress across PA, well, I’d be inclined to credit that account to a much higher degree.

I would also highly recommend Peter Kreeft’s work for an a priori, anything-could-could-be-possible, but-here-is-why-Catholics-have-it-right treatment of Religion.

I think you know why I am doing the face!
Wow, it is like you knew what I was going to say before I said it!

 

[Dogface_Soldier]

I think you know why I am doing the face!
Wow, it is like you knew what I was going to say before I said it!

i’m going to reply to your PM here, so others may add to the discussion.

You are correct that Kreeft makes a priori presumptions, but they are necessary and fairly universally accepted (save, perhaps, David Hume a la problem of induction): our senses are reliable; it is reasonable to infer that the results of a causal chain at one point in time will be the same at future occurrences; and perhaps a few other “basics”. He does a pretty good job.

 

[Eucharisted]

On sheepskin? Really?

Yep. First on sheep skin, than on parchment, than on wood, than in books.