Must Catholics believe the N.T. is historical?

[polonius]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (1893)

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

Gospel of Matthew: Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 B.C.
Gospel of Luke: Jesus was born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So Jesus was born twice,

1 Corinthians 15 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

Note: This was written to a town 800 miles from were the evident took place by Paul a non witness. None of the witnesses nor the hundreds more they would have told left any writing confirming the story. The event is not reported I any of the Gospels.

Matt 27:52 “…tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised .53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Note: None of the “many� left any written records and the four authors of the Gospels say nothing about this.

[marco]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (1893)

So Jesus was born twice,

I think the Latin superlative, providentissimus, would frighten most Catholics. Jesus was the first born-again Christian if we take the nativity accounts seriously. I think the Catholic notion is that somewhere in the depth of time there came a Messiah; the story attached is as fictional as his 25th December birthday and the three superstars who visited him.

I think recent research has found some chronological error in the Younger Pliny's date for the eruption of Vesuvius - just a few months out. It doesn't matter. We have wonderful excavations at the fascinating site of Pompeii. The tale of angels and of forefathers going back to the old fictional longevities in the Bible is really no more than the red tinge on holy pages. Probably the only two things we are sure of is Christ's crucifixion and his baptism in the Jordan. The rest is covered by the exciting Latin word: "Credo."

If you're a Catholic Jesuit, belief is elastic.

[showme]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (1893)

So Jesus was born twice,

I think the Latin superlative, providentissimus, would frighten most Catholics. Jesus was the first born-again Christian if we take the nativity accounts seriously. I think the Catholic notion is that somewhere in the depth of time there came a Messiah; the story attached is as fictional as his 25th December birthday and the three superstars who visited him.

I think recent research has found some chronological error in the Younger Pliny's date for the eruption of Vesuvius - just a few months out. It doesn't matter. We have wonderful excavations at the fascinating site of Pompeii. The tale of angels and of forefathers going back to the old fictional longevities in the Bible is really no more than the red tinge on holy pages. Probably the only two things we are sure of is Christ's crucifixion and his baptism in the Jordan. The rest is covered by the exciting Latin word: "Credo."

If you're a Catholic Jesuit, belief is elastic.

As Yeshua prayed that this "cup pass from me", and later a naked man was seen leaving the scene, there is no such thing as "we are sure of... Christ's crucifixion" (Matthew 26:39) As for the "baptism in the Jordan", it takes two witnesses to establish any matter. From the best I can tell, you have apparently 1 first person witness (Matthew 3), which is undermined by (Matthew 18:16) & (Dt 19:15).

I would venture to say that there is no creed of the Roman church with any virtue. Now if you want to know something for fact, turn on the news. Judah, the Jews are still hated and persecuted (Revelation 17:16) (Hosea 5), and Judah, the Jews, have been restored to Judea (Joel 3:1), and Jerusalem has been restored (Joel 3:1). Now all we have to wait for are the nations to gather against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-3) & Joel 3:2) in the valley of judgment (Har-Magedon) (Revelation 16:16). The restoration of Jerusalem to Judah precedes the "capture" of "Jerusalem" (Zechariah 14:1-3).

[polonius]

Show me posted:

As Yeshua prayed that this "cup pass from me", and later a naked man was seen leaving the scene, there is no such thing as "we are sure of... Christ's crucifixion" (Matthew 26:39) As for the "baptism in the Jordan", it takes two witnesses to establish any matter. From the best I can tell, you have apparently 1 first person witness (Matthew 3), which is undermined by (Matthew 18:16) & (Dt 19:15).

I would venture to say that there is no creed of the Roman church with any virtue. Now if you want to know something for fact, turn on the news. Judah, the Jews are still hated and persecuted (Revelation 17:16) (Hosea 5), and Judah, the Jews, have been restored to Judea (Joel 3:1), and Jerusalem has been restored (Joel 3:1). Now all we have to wait for are the nations to gather against Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:1-3) & Joel 3:2) in the valley of judgment (Har-Magedon) (Revelation 16:16). The restoration of Jerusalem to Judah precedes the "capture" of "Jerusalem" (Zechariah 14:1-3).

RESPONSE: The story of Mark's youth who ran off naked is further described in the "Secret Mark Gospel." Perhaps you'd want to look it up on the web. If true, we know who the beloved disciple really was!

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html

[Elijah John]

PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII ON THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE (1893)

"For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican."

Gospel of Matthew: Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 B.C.
Gospel of Luke: Jesus was born during the 6 AD census of Judea.

So Jesus was born twice,

1 Corinthians 15 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died.

Note: This was written to a town 800 miles from were the evident took place by Paul a non witness. None of the witnesses nor the hundreds more they would have told left any writing confirming the story. The event is not reported I any of the Gospels.

Matt 27:52 “…tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised .53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Note: None of the “many� left any written records and the four authors of the Gospels say nothing about this.

"Dictation" eh? I wonder if the RCC has updated the proclmation of this document since the 19th century. All it would take to shatter the myth of Bible perfection and infallibility and historical accuracy is to demonstrate one error. You have provided several. And there are many many more. Things just don't add up if the Bible is taken as historically accurate and infallible. Far from "dictated".

So I certainly hope Catholics are not required to believe the NT is perfect and historical anymore.

[RightReason]

[Replying to polonius]

<sigh>

Yet more examples of supposed contradictions where there is none. The following is a very thorough explanation. Oh, yee of little faith . . .

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... s-was-born

I wonder if the RCC has updated the proclmation of this document since the 19th century. All it would take to shatter the myth of Bible perfection and infallibility and historical accuracy is to demonstrate one error. You have provided several.

LOL! And it is the skeptics who are surprised at what some are willing to accept!

Things just don't add up if the Bible is taken as historically accurate and infallible.

Hmmm . . . yes arguments from silence are fun. Too bad we can't just go back and look at some old microfiche. If we could only get our hands on those old copies of The Capernaum Chronicles, The Tigres Times, or The Bethlehem Post.

Sooo funny to pick and choose that which from the Bible one is willing to accept and that which he isn't. Why accept/listen to any of it? It is either the Word of God or it is not. If it is not, then it is simply an old book which we certainly need not reference or look to. To be so arrogant and or ill-informed as to assume one has full command of the language used, cultural references, and accurate historical records to claim to interpret Sacred Scripture in order to accurately point out inconsistencies or contradiction is actually kind of funny.

Yet one more reason Christ left us His Church! Whom He left in charge of safeguarding and interpreting Sacred Scripture. Otherwise we are left with every Tom, Dick, Polonius, and Elijah who think they know better.

So I certainly hope Catholics are not required to believe the NT is perfect and historical anymore.

Your comment proves you do not understand the teachings of my faith. First, it's telling you leave out the OT -- as if the Church does not teach inerrancy of the OT as well. It is no wonder when some insist they reject the Catholic faith.
they continually prove what they are actually rejecting is what they think the Catholic faith teaches.

The Bible contains exactly what God wants it to. It is error free (infallible) in all matters of faith and morals. As St. Jerome said, "Ignorance of Scripture, is ignorance of Christ." It is what has been publicly revealed to us, love letters to us from Our Lord.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 6 by RightReason]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Things like people walking on deep unfrozen water just do not happen in the real world. Just because an ancient author said it happened is not proof, and certainly not extraordinary proof. But it is an extraordinary claim.

Or is there an exemption for the land of "once upon a time"?

[otseng]

Yet one more reason Christ left us His Church! Whom He left in charge of safeguarding and interpreting Sacred Scripture. Otherwise we are left with every Tom, Dick, Polonius, and Elijah who think they know better.

Moderator Warning


Please debate without making negative comments about others.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[polonius]

Right Reason posted:

Sooo funny to pick and choose that which from the Bible one is willing to accept and that which he isn't. Why accept/listen to any of it? It is either the Word of God or it is not. If it is not, then it is simply an old book which we certainly need not reference or look to....

RESPONSE: It can be easily demonstrated that the Bible contains contradictions and errors. Unless it is admitted that God made such errors, then the Bible is not inspired by God.

Actually, it is the work of man which began to be written around the time of the Babylonian captivity.

We now know that the Jews were not in Egypt, there was no Exodus, and Jesus wasn't born both during the reign of King Herod the Great who died in 4 BC (according to Matthew) and for a second time during the 6 AD census of Judea (according to Luke).

QED

[Elijah John]

Unless it is admitted that God made such errors, then the Bible is not inspired by God.
QED

Do you discount the possibility that the Bible is inspired by God, but imperfect humans contaminated the pure, Divine inspiration with their own prmitive and cultural bias? So what we have is an amalgum of Divine perfection and human blunder, all in one book?

And as such it is up to we humans to sort it out. (As Jefferson did, for example) With our God-given gift of Reason. Speaking as a Deistic Christian here, and no longer an orthodox, unquestioning Catholic.

I guess what I am getting at is why does it have to be an "all or nothing" proposition? Seems to me that Fundamentalists and Atheists make the same mistake by engaging in categorical thinking, and the two are actually flip sides of the same dogmatic coin.

Also, what is "QED"?