Flip's Questions...

[luciana]

Sorry, I gave the wrong title for Mark Shea's Book. I meant his book [i]By What Authority[/i] .

[cmotherofpirl]

Holy Mother the Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held and continues to hold that the four Gospels . . . whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven. - Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, V, 19


various articles

The Inspiration of Scripture
Jeff Cavins




I remember growing up with a love for books. It wasn't unusual for me to
read a book through three or four times, each time finding intriguing
new bits of information about characters and plots that I didn't see
before. This happens each time I read the Bible.
After experiencing a deeper conversion to Christ, I started reading the
Bible with great enthusiasm. Under-standing that it was actually God's
Word made reading the Bible different than any other book. My zeal for
the Bible was bolstered by this understanding that the entire book was
inspired; God was the author. Without the assurance of its inspiration,
my love for Scripture could have easily slipped into skepticism, and my
Bible would have collected dust on the shelf.
Thank God for the Catholic Church, which not only assures us that God is
the Author of the entire Bible, but "forcefully and specifically exhorts
all the Christian faithful . . . to learn Ôthe surpassing knowledge of
Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures" (Catechism
of the Catholic Church 133).
The Catholic Church teaches that divine revelation comes to us through
three channels: the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium (the bishops
of the Church who are in communion with the Bishop of Rome). Vatican II
describes the relationship between these three channels, saying that
they "are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without
the others" (Dei Verbum 10 ).
While all three of these elements are infallible, that is to say
incapable of error, in a particular sense it can be said that only the
Bible is divinely inspired.
The term "inspired" comes from the Greek compound word theopneustos,
which means "God-breathed" (Theos, "God," pneo, "to breathe"). When the
Church speaks of the Bible as inspired, she means that the principal
author of Scripture is God. Dei Verbum declares: "For holy mother
Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (cf. John 20:31; 2 Tim.
3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old
and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts are sacred
and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the
Church herself" (no.11). The phrase "God is the author" is the classic
formula used by the Fathers and doctors of the Church to describe
inspiration, and it occurs repeatedly in most of the official Church
documents that deal with the subject of biblical inspiration.
St. Paul describes how the principal author of Scripture, the Holy
Spirit, made known the wisdom of God by communicating spiritual thoughts
with spiritual words. (1 Cor. 2:13). We marvel at how far God "has gone
in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human
nature" (DV 13). He has stooped down to us like a Father to His child
and has adapted His thoughts to both our words and ability to
understand.
An important term related to the subject of inspiration is divine
"accommodation" or "condescension." This refers to the "adaptation and
adjustment of the transcendent to the mundane" (Stephen D. Benin, The
Footprints of God [New York: State University of New York Press, 1993],
xvii). In other words, through Scripture, God discloses the wisdom of
the ages in "baby-talk," so that you and I can understand Him. The
Church trusts in the genius of the Holy Spirit as author to consign to
writing (baby-talk) everything and only those things which God wanted
written. This is what we mean when we speak of Scripture being inspired
by the Holy Spirit.
Keeping in mind that breath is what gives life to words, we can more
easily understand why the Bible is called God's "Word." It's God's own
breath that has filled the human words of Sacred Scripture with their
divine meaning - He is the
primary cause of every part of Scripture. Just as, in His Incarnation,
God the Son came to us as Christ, the Word of God in human flesh, so too
the Word of God comes to us clothed in human words. This is why St.
Jerome could say, "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ."
Pope Pius XII said in Divino Afflante Spiritu, "For as the substantial
Word of God became like to men in all things, Ôexcept sin,' so the words
of God, expressed
in human language, are made like to
human speech in every respect, except error" (no. 37).
And this is where the mystery of Scripture's inspiration becomes most
obvious. Somehow, and we don't know exactly how, God directly inspired
Scripture with His own words and at the same time the human authors (eg.
Moses, St. Matthew, St. Paul) were completely free in the process. How
did God do this?
It's easier to explain what God did not do when He inspired Scripture.
Here are some common misconceptions many people hold about the
inspiration of Scripture. Each of them is wrong.
First, inspiration does not mean that God merely assisted man in the
writing process. He actively caused and inspired those men to write what
He willed them to write. What was written in Scripture is there because
God wanted it there.
Second, God did not "approve" the work of the inspired writers of
Scripture after they were finished. In other words, God didn't review
what St. Paul had written and decide that He would approve it because it
was correct.
Third, the human authors of Scripture were not mere scribes, passive
recipients of revelation. They did not engage in "automatic
handwriting," merely writing out whatever God whispered in their ears.
No, the Lord "made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him
acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to
writing everything and only those things which He wanted" (DV 11).
In a mystical harmony man wrote what he wanted and God wrote what He
wanted. The human writer cooperated to write all that God willed,
without error, and retained his complete freedom. That's why we can
clearly see the human author's unique personality shine through - his
own literary style, sense of humor, and grammatical skill. And this
mysterious
synergy between the human authors and the Divine Author was not even
always apparent to the inspired men themselves as they wrote Scripture!
The Church concludes that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged
as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God
wanted put
into sacred writings for the sake of salvation" (DV 11).
At some point you may encounter skeptics (yes, I met one several years
ago) who challenge or confuse certain aspects of the Church's teaching
on Scripture's inspiration. Some question the inspiration of the Bible,
suggesting that individual books, such as the book of Jonah, are mere
fables or pious mythology, not fact. But the fact is quite to the
contrary. The Catholic Church teaches and has always taught that all 73
books of the Bible are inspired.
Some argue that certain stories of the Bible, like the creation story,
or Noah and the flood, taken from Genesis chapters 1-11, are not
inspired, but merely popular narrations borrowed from ancient cultures.
Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis, taught that the first
eleven chapters of Genesis are "truly a kind of history; and that the
same chapter, in simple and figurative speech suited to the mentality of
a people of little culture, both recount the principal truths on which
the attainment of our eternal salvation depends, and also the popular
description of the origin of the human race and of the chosen people."
The pope went on to say, "But if the ancient sacred writers draw
anything from popular narrations (which indeed can be conceded) it must
never be forgotten that they did so assisted by the impulse of divine
inspiration, by which in selecting and passing judgment on those
documents, they were preserved free from all error. Moreover, these
matters which have been received into Sacred Literature from popular
narrations are by no means to be identified with mythologies or other
things of this kind."
Some people will only affirm the Bible's inspiration in those parts of
the text that contain revealed doctrine or those parts that pertain only
to matters of faith and morals. Their false presupposition is that the
portions of the Bible that are absolutely true and free from error are
only the portions that deal directly with religion, and that all
non-religious material in the Bible is merely the clothing in which
Divine truth is presented. This approach is dangerous because it draws a
false distinction between so called "primary texts," that presumably
pertain to religion, and those "secondary texts," which presumably do
not. Following this line of approach leaves the reader of Scripture in a
precarious position of having to determine which portions of Scripture
are "religious" in nature, and therefore inspired.
In 1920, Pope Benedict XV dealt with this incorrect approach in Spiritus
Paraclitus: "The method of those who extricate themselves from
difficulties by allowing without hesitation that divine inspiration
extends to matters of faith and morals and to nothing more" can not be
tolerated. The Church "teaches that divine inspiration extends to every
part of the Bible without the slightest exception, and that no error can
occur in the inspired text" (Spiritus Paraclitus 21).
The Council Fathers at Vatican II explained that "the obedience of faith
is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his
whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and
will to God who reveals and freely assenting to the truth revealed by
Him" (DV 5). By our response, the world will know whether we believe
that God's word is inspired or expired.
For further study on the Church's official teachings on the inspiration
and inerrancy of Scripture, read Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus
(dealing with the study of Sacred Scripture), Pope Pius XII's Divino
Afflante Spiritu (dealing with the promotion of biblical studies); Dei
Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church 74-141.
I like to remind people that Catholic teaching on the inspiration of
Scripture should give us great confidence when dealing with skeptics who
deny the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. We can trust Scripture,
because God is its author. We can derive hope from Scripture because it
contains God's message of hope and salvation. St. Paul reminds us that,
"For whatever was written in former days was written for our
instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the
Scriptures we might have hope" (Rom. 15:4). Not only are the Scriptures
inspired, they were written to inspire you to love Christ more and to be
a more fervent apostle for Him.
Jeff Cavins is a contributing editor for Envoy. A convert to the
Catholic Church from Protestantism, he hosts the popular television
program "Life On the Rock" (EWTN). For information call 205-956-9537.

other articles:

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2revel.htm[/url]


[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/clibrary//document.asp?category_id=131&document_id=216"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/clibrary//...document_id=216[/url]


[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=164"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=164[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=166"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=166[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=221"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=221[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=351"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=351[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answers.asp?cat=47&quest=704"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/css/answer...at=47&quest=704[/url]

Edited April 14, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[flip]

mother of pearl,



great stuff, i thank you for giving it to me.
I think you might have misunderstood my question. I am not questioning validity of God inspired scripture, but I am merely questioning the points where the Gospels contradict each other.

In the last article you linked, it explained John as a Gospel to be read after the synoptics, becuase he proves theologically the significance of the risen Christ. Also, in the same article it explained that there are "minor" contradictions in the synoptics, how ever they did not eloborate on the historical problem this insues. I do understand the Gospels were written for specific audiences by specific writers, therfore the evangelists views were potrayed in thier writings.

I do not deny the theological significance and the God- Inspired scripture. I was basically asking, which events (like the infancy narratives) does the church calim as right? They cannot say both, for they contradict each other. So obviously, the Church must have a stand on the homeplace of mary and Joseph before Jesus - was it Bethlehem or Nazereth? Was there a Roman census or a Roman massacre? Flight to Egypt or no?

I think they are simple questions. can you help answer them?


THanks

flip

[luciana]

Hi Flip, like i mentioned before and Dust did too, Dr. Scott Hahn is a good Ctholic biblical scholar from modern times to discuss dates and historicity of the scriptures.

Also, today I just got my issue of This Rock magazine and the cover story is on this issue. I just skimmmed the article and it's going to be a 2part article by Dr. Frederick W. Marks, and I though of you. This Rock mag. is put out by Catholic Answers. Maybe you can find a link to it. If not e-amil me and I'l read it through and send you the info. from it, maybe scan it or something.

[point5]

SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO LEARN IS FROM A FRIEND...SO I SHALL TRY

this cleared up alot of the "Jesus had literal brothers" argument for me
(forgive this one for being centered towards baptists...for that is where it fell under the apologetics I found it in)

[url="http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary2.html"]http://members.aol.com/uticacw/baptist/mary2.html[/url]

(I got that form the apologetics forum which I cannot find myself leaving upon entering)


Some insight from the knowledgable Dr. Scott Hahn...who you now have a better appreciation for after we watched his conversion story is as follows.

[url="http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcgovern/gospelshistory.htm"]http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/mcg...pelshistory.htm[/url]

THIS IS SOOO GOOD answers your specifice question on the apparent contradictions in the Gospels and the Churches teachings....I had other links but edited them and just put this on because it is so good.!

peace brotha
Ill bring the video on saturday and then we can watch the KINGS crush the MAVS

-Kiel Werking

Edited April 15, 2004 by point5

[CatholicAndFanatical]

Flip! Whats up bro, great questions you have.


Dusts early post about the word 'brothers' should of cleared up alot of confusion on this. The word brother can mean alot of things. Even today that word is used in lots of fashions.

Take for example, I just called you bro, or brother. Because we are brothers in Christ. Brother can also be used for race. In the Old testament they refer to each other as a fellow brother if they were both jewish or of another race. And you can clearly see in the NT that the so called 'brothers' of Jesus was not the children of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, but of Mary, the Wife of Clopas. If you need me to I can run off the exact linkage between the Mary, wife of Clopas to the so called 'brothers' of Jesus.

As for the Historical contridiction of Scriptures. Im no scholar but I do read alot, plus I stayed at a Best Western last night..so I know my stuff. But, my humble opinion, I dont think merely leaving out accounts in a book in the Bible would be contridicting. Maybe Mark didnt write everything down that Matthew did is because he felt that he didnt want to recant everything Matthew had said already. If it was commen knowledge of those events, he would focus on other things of importance. If all the Books were suppose to be the same accounts, the Apostles, guided by the Holy Spirit, would of just wrote one book and said this is how it was. But each book has its own purpose, it stresses things the other Books might not. Dont ask me how, I just think it might.

And as for Mary having other children..I read somewhere that the Line of David was to end when the Messiah came. I will try to find this again because I found it interesting. If the Line of David, whom Jesus was born to, was to continue AFTER Jesus...then where is this line today? Such an important line of people would of been highly favored to God and would of kept them around..opinions here..but it makes sense to me, that when Jesus, the messiah, was born, the line of David would end with Him. In order for that to happen, Mary would not have had any more children.

And to end my thesis here I would like to quote St. Augustine, on the perpetual Virginity of Mary:

[quote]
It is written ([color=red]Ezech. 44:2[/color]): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it."

Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): [color=red]"What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this--'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'--except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this--'it shall be shut for evermore'--but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"[/color]
[/quote]


God Bless you flip. Keep up the awesome music you make in Gods name. I enjoy every bit of you and your group.

Edited April 15, 2004 by CatholicAndFanatical

[point5]

my second link was taken from scott hahn's website www.salvationhistory.com but I do not think it is his own personal commentary...but rather a link he put up there. I could be wrong.

-Kiel

[dUSt]

[quote name='point5' date='Apr 15 2004, 12:58 PM'] peace brotha
Ill bring the video on saturday and then we can watch the KINGS crush the MAVS [/quote]
You are out of your blond mind fool.

[flip]

well dope.


first of all, Dust... dont pollute by web string with your comments. jk.

All this stuff was great. Kiel, that last link was awesome. I hope you read it, but it argues that each Gospel was written in different themes, allowing metaphors and symbolism to flow through scripture. Thus, providing history in four distinct and seperate ways, allowing us to read the scripture from a certain point of view, or audience view.

also, Catholic and fanatical. Good theory, however the Gospels were written in this order:
Mark first.
Matt and Luke used Matt and Q - (Q is the common info between Matt and Luke)
and John last, after the second fall of the Jeruselem temple.

the line of David was an awesome arguement, and so was St. Augustine. I could buy the ever virginity of Mary. I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve in it, however I will say that I so not fully understand it.

and i defenitly want to check out more Scott Hahn.



ok, moving on to the next big question:

When I tell alot of protestants about Catholiscm, they start digging on it alot until I get the point of the Eucharist. I can explain the Eucharist and they do understand it, the thing is that they don't understand is :why it is not an open table? Christ in His life had open table fellowship with sinners, impure people, heathens. People that did not nessacily associate themselves as followers of Christ. He invited all to his table to eat - why do Catholics close off the table to others who are not Catholic? For instance, I believe in the Eucharist, however it is a sin for me to recieve the body of Christ. What up with that? And, when i talk to most prots, i can explain the Eucharist and they want to take it badly - but the I say "sorry, you have to go through training and process and convert before you can take it." It reminds me of Phillip and The Ethiopian Eunich - The Eunich is spontaneously taught by Phillip the meaning of Christ and Salvation, and the Eunich then immeadiately asks "What is preventing me from being baptized?" Phillip replies "Nothing" and the Eunich is baptized right then and there. In one conversation, this Ethopian is enveloped in the Catholic church. Why can't this happen now? Can people be spontanously baptized or recieve Christ like the times of the early church? if not, why not?

[p0lar_bear]

[quote]also, Catholic and fanatical. Good theory, however the Gospels were written in this order:
Mark first.
Matt and Luke used Matt and Q - (Q is the common info between Matt and Luke)
and John last, after the second fall of the Jeruselem temple.[/quote]

While that has been a popular theory, it was never more than a theory. A number of biblical scholars maintain different theories. If I remember correctly, the Q-source theory is actually falling out of favor (though many do still hold it). It may be true, but I personally do not hold that theory..too much left to speculation and no real evidence of the Q-source.

[point5]

This is a quote I took out of the following link...which I have read and find that it makes alot of sense as to why other Christians can not partake in the Eucharist at a Catholic mass.

[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ202.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ202.HTM[/url]


"Closed communion is not a denial of mercy at all, but simply a requirement for inclusion into the community, as Paul taught us. Jesus said "he who is not with us is against us," and "a house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus accepted the distinction between false traditions of men and the true tradition of God (Mk 7:8-13). This proves that He taught one true tradition, which could be ascertained.

If the critics of the Church are correct about this matter, Jesus should and would have stated in Matthew 28:20, "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you, except for the Eucharist; you must allow anyone with any eucharistic belief to partake of communion." Jesus "excluded" the rich young ruler from following Him fully because He required him to give up his riches (which were his idols) and the man would not. He didn't say, "sure, you can come follow Me whatever you think of your riches; that is no problem." It just doesn't work that way. Demands to receive the Catholic Eucharist without believing all that the Church teaches is an unreasonable and unbiblical demand."


Personally, as the author of this passage also feels, I do not see it as such a big deal for a non-Catholic to be excluded from the Eucharist. If someone sees the true presense of Christ in the Eucharist, and also sees that the Catholics have it right, the same as the early church fathers who held firm in the Traditions and writings of the Apostles, then they should also see that whatever they were practicing before has somehow gotten it WRONG, and is no longer practicing the FAITH, as defined in scripture by the link above, that Jesus taght the apostles to practice. Frankly, I don't see how someone can feel that they should be able to take part in the Eucharist, because it is true, and then go back to practicing other aspects of their denomination of preference that got the Eucharist wrong. Like the author of the link said, I would not feel that I should have a right to partake in a closed communion service of a protestant church if I did not believe in the church's teachings and doctrines, although I am a Christian as they are.

On a side note Flip, I see that you are finding many Truths in the Catholic church, but are stumbling in the areas of a few concerns and misunderstandings. That is ok... but I urge you to keep seeking as I know you will. Something that I just recently began to grasp is that if Rome says it is that way then I believe... this has not caused me to stumble either, because when Rome says something they back it up, as you can see, and scripture and tradition all leads to this as being the TRUE Church. I still seek what I do not fully understand...but I have come to grasp that they do understand it far better....and have been understanding it for 2000 years. I can strongly put my faith in that, and it has not let me down, but enhanced my spirituality and understanding exponentially.

I Love you bro

-Kiel

[CatholicAndFanatical]

[quote]
People that did not nessacily associate themselves as followers of Christ. He invited all to his table to eat - why do Catholics close off the table to others who are not Catholic? For instance, I believe in the Eucharist, however it is a sin for me to recieve the body of Christ. What up with that?
[/quote]

flip, Jesus associated with others and ate with them yes like you said. But he did this so that he may have the opportunity to teach to them. The Last Supper is something completly different. He only had the Apostles present and they are the only ones who were commissioned to 'do this in memory of me'.

The biggest doctrinal difference between our brothers and sisters in Christ and the Catholic belief is that we believe Christ is present - Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist and our brothers dont they only think its symbolic. The reality of this can truely be seen in John 6 when Christ said "If you dont eat my flesh and drink my blood you dont have life within you". Now mind you, this can be argued over and over again about whether He was talking about actually eating HIS FLESH, or it being symbolically...the kicker to this is the Jews that were among Him at the time quarrled saying exactly what our Protestant brothers say - "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?".
At this did Jesus rebuke them and say "I was only meaning symbolically you geniuses!"? Nope, instead he said three times to them "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood with have eternal life".

Now fast forward to the Last Supper - Christ holds up the bread and says "THIS IS My Body" - His focus was the bread in which he was holding up, not the body that was in front of the Apostles.

So in essence, Christ was answering those Jews back in John 6 when they asked 'How can this man give us His flesh to eat?'. The bread at the Last Supper was transformed into His Body. Thats how.

It all connects! Also St Paul tells us not to take the Body of Christ and His precious blood in vain. We must examine our Conscience first before receiving Him. We must not have sin, or deadly sin as scriptures calls it, on our souls when we go before Him.

The Catholic Church beliefs this 100%, and myself as a Catholic would die for the Eucharist. Im sure anybody here would tell you the same thing. This is why only Catholics shall recieve the true Body of Christ. Because we know who we're recieving.

Hope this answers your questions.

peace.