• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Does catholicism recognize Biblical contradictions?

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by kern, Nov 20, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    To Br Max:

    We find the same problem with explaining the misconceptions of Catholicism to people who just KNOW Catholics worship Mary/believe in works-based Salvation/added books to the Bible/think the Pope is God/pray to statues/make up stuff and call it "Sacred Tradition."

    /me sighs...

    Suddenly, I'm very, very tired.



    Peace,
    ~VOW
     
  2. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    I'll give some examples of the kind of criticism that I am talking about. These all come from the St. Joseph edition of the NAB (which seems to be a popular edition among Catholics. Right?)

    1. The footnote to Luke 11:37-54 (Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees) says this: "This denunciation of the Pharisees and the scholars of the law is set by Luke in the context of Jesus' dining at the home of a Pharisee. Controversies with or reprimands of Pharisees are regularly set by Luke within the context of Jesus' easting with Pharisees. A different compliation of similar sayings is found in Matthew 23."

    Note the bold words. "set by Luke" implies that Jesus did not actually say these words at a Pharisee's house, and "compilation" means that Matthew was bringing together sayings from a number of instances and presenting them as if Jesus had said them all at once.

    2. Here is the footnote to the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount: "The careful topical arrangement of the sermon is probably not due only to Matthew's editing; he seems to have had a structured discourse of Jesus as one of his sources." In other words, Jesus did not actually make the speech on the mount.

    3. Finally, the footnote to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew: "Matthew's form of the 'Our Father' follows the liturgical tradition of his church. Luke's less developed form also represents the liturgical tradition known to him, but it is probably closer than Matthew's to the original words of Jesus.". IOW, neither Matthew's nor Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer are what Jesus actually said.


    As I said, the St. Joseph edition is a popular one among Catholics, so it's not like these textual criticisms are a bunch of atheists trying to discredit the Bible. The introduction contains an explanation of "The speech as a literary device" which suggests that whether or not the speech is verbatim makes no difference.

    Anyway, I'm rambling again. More comments?

    -Chris
     
  3. dignitized

    dignitized Well-Known Member

    +724
    kern:

    No worse. They are often people who claim to be Christians yet they deny the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the scriptures, the reality of the Eucharist . . . . the worst enemies of the church are not those atheists on the outside trying to tear it down, its those from within tearing it dow.

    Any time you have people who are witness to an event, they will each have their own take on what happened. No two people will have seen the events the same way. Does that make their testimony false? On the contrary, if the testimony of two people agrees to closely that is a sure sign that something is wrong. :)
     
  4. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    The New Oxford Anotated Bible, which kern mentioned, is the prefered study Bible of the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul) Theology Department. It isn't a something written to make people disbelieve Scripture.
     
  5. Christopher Paul

    Christopher Paul New Member

    77
    +0
    The really bad thing is that some Catholics believe these things as well, or at least, give off the impression of it.

     
     
  6. Hoonbaba

    Hoonbaba Catholic Preterist

    +39
    Catholic
    But the NOAB comments aren't the most encouraging either.  The book is very critical.

    -Jason
     
  7. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    It depends on what you mean by "encouraging". If you're looking for every single word of the Bible to be literally true then it's not very encouraging. To me, it makes the Bible seem more "real" and thus more convincing to see the steps behind it. For instance, I have a hard time understanding Matthew as a literal sequential account of Jesus' life where every event and word is exactly what happened. It's much easier to see it as a theological tool which was not intended to be a biography of Jesus, but was compiled from traditions and sources that had come down to the author (though not far through time -- only 30 or 40 years, maybe a bit more). YMMV, but I like the criticism -- it doesn't weaken my faith or my view of the Bible.

    Also not that "criticism" when used in the context of "textual criticism" does not have the same negative connotation as criticizing a person. The intent of criticism is not to destroy the Bible, but to figure out the method, purpose, and nature of its composition.

    -Chris
     
  8. dignitized

    dignitized Well-Known Member

    +724
    fragments: Is that a conservative seminary or a liberal one? Most liberal seminaries of both prot and catholic ilks are in their heart anti scripture, and anti Christian even while wearing Christian clothes. Its a "LORD LORD" kinda thing . . . .
     
  9. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    That seems a bit harsh. Someone is not a true Christian because they do Biblical scholarship?

    -Chris
     
  10. fragmentsofdreams

    fragmentsofdreams Critical loyalist

    +410
    Catholic
    While it is open to people of differing views, St. Thomas definitely leans conservative and its major and minor seminaries (St. Paul and St. John Vianney respectively) are definitely not liberal.
     
  11. isshinwhat

    isshinwhat Pro Deo et Patria

    +605
    Eastern Orthodox
    Here's an interesting passage from Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John, concerning the Gospel of Mark.

     
  12. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    A lot of modern Biblical criticism has its roots in the early church. For instance, the idea that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century; it, too, is not some modern liberal theory designed to discredit scripture or anything like that.

    -Chris
     
  13. isshinwhat

    isshinwhat Pro Deo et Patria

    +605
    Eastern Orthodox
    Do you have a source for that statement, Chris? Every Father I have read, including several who either knew John personally, or were 2nd generation disciples of his, are in agreement that he wrote the Gospel which bears his name.

    God Bless,

    Neal
     
  14. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    I know the source I got it from (Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible), but I do not have the book so I can't quote it. It's in the "authorship" section of John. The idea did not gain much "popular" support until recent years, but it seems that there have always been people who considered the gospel to be written by multiple people, or in any case not by John.

    -Chris
     
  15. dignitized

    dignitized Well-Known Member

    +724
    Historically speaking, most of modern biblical criticism finds its roots in the secular humanist enlightenment and anti-scholasticism of the 19th century.
     
  16. dignitized

    dignitized Well-Known Member

    +724
    I have no problem with better understand the scriptures or their origins and sources, what I do have a problem with is picking them apart and in anyway saying they are erroneous or false. If you make any such claims concerning scriptures, I must question if you truly are a Christian. It is a central tenant of the Christian faith - what more, of the Hebrew faith before and alongside that the scriptures are Divinely inspired and with out error. If the scriptures have error, then we have no foundations. With out scripture, what do we have to verify that what we believe is real??
     
  17. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    Sacred Tradition? That's what was used to determine what was scripture in the first place.

    -Chris
     
  18. dignitized

    dignitized Well-Known Member

    +724
    kern: tradition helps us to know what Texts are to be called scripture, but it is God and not tradition that inspires the scriptures.

    Even the first Christians had the OT to reply on through the Septuigent translation.
     
  19. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    I'm a bit confused. Could you show an example of something where you feel that Scripture Alone contains a contradiction, and show how Sacred Tradition resolves it?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...