Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I have said, I'm not about to waste my time on this thread. I've simply given people the opportunity to listen to a highly trained pastor/teacher explain the apostle Paul's statement in Romans 3:7. There will be no further comments from me after this post.
You have been refuted by a pastor who actually knows what he is talking about as opposed to yourself who doesn't know straight up from straight down and has no idea at all what Paul was talking about. As I assumed, you didn't even bother to listen to the class. This is an hour long class on Romans 3:1-12 which is presented in both audio and video format.
Getting back to the question of inspiration in scripture, we find that inspiration is linked with inerrancy. If not, then we have to conclude that if we claim divine inspiration for scripture and yet find errors, we have to question if God made mistakes.
The former Catholic view (which is about the same as the biblical fundamentalists' view) is that all scripture is inspired and consequently cannot contain error.
"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,..." (Providentissimus deus, 1893)
However, since Vatican II (1964), some have modified this view by limiting inspiration to only "those things necessary for salvation."
But, of course, he question then becomes what is necessary for salvation, and if an error is found does that mean that section of scripture is not divinely inspired? Who's to judge?
Getting back to the question of inspiration in scripture, we find that inspiration is linked with inerrancy. If not, then we have to conclude that if we claim divine inspiration for scripture and yet find errors, we have to question if God made mistakes.
The former Catholic view (which is about the same as the biblical fundamentalists' view) is that all scripture is inspired and consequently cannot contain error.
"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,..." (Providentissimus deus, 1893)
However, since Vatican II (1964), some have modified this view by limiting inspiration to only "those things necessary for salvation."
But, of course, he question then becomes what is necessary for salvation, and if an error is found does that mean that section of scripture is not divinely inspired? Who's to judge?
The Catholic Church tells the members to take Genesis as allegoric. Privately, many priests will tell you the bible is not accurate.
"The whole subject of the Exodus is embarrassing to archaeologists. The Exodus is so fundamental to us and our Jewish sources that it is embarrassing that there is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it. So we prefer not to talk about it, and hate to be asked about it.
"For the account in the Torah is the basis of our people’s creation, it is the basis of our existence and it is the basis of our important Passover festival and the whole Haggada that we recite on the first evening of this festival of freedom. So that makes archaeologists reluctant to have to tell our brethren and ourselves that there is nothing in Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.
"Nothing at all. There are three Pharaohs who said they got rid of the hated foreigners, but nothing to say who the foreigners were, and no Pharaoh is named as having persecuted foreign slaves or suffered unspeakable plagues."
No Exodus and no Moses. But it made a great story and movie!
Can Catholics take the alleged Virgin Birth of Jesus and the physical Resurrection as allegorical too?
No. Those are dogma and essential to the Catholic theological structure. The only parts of Genesis that are essential are that the one and only God created the world, details unspecified, and that there was a first man who committed some unknown sin that was passed on. All humans are descended from him. This is required to support the doctrine of Original Sin. The man's body might have been the product of evolution but his soul and that of his mate and all their descendants resulted from acts of special creation.
The Church does not require either allegorical or literal readings of any of Genesis as long as the above are satisfied.
No. Those are dogma and essential to the Catholic theological structure. The only parts of Genesis that are essential are that the one and only God created the world, details unspecified, and that there was a first man who committed some unknown sin that was passed on. All humans are descended from him. This is required to support the doctrine of Original Sin. The man's body might have been the product of evolution but his soul and that of his mate and all their descendants resulted from acts of special creation.
The Church does not require either allegorical or literal readings of any of Genesis as long as the above are satisfied.
Isn't the existence of Moses essential to the teaching on the Transfiguration in the New Testament?
And I think you will find the Adam's sin of which we are all somehow guilty resulted from Augustine's
using an Old Latin mistranslation of Paul's Romans; the "in quo" blunder has since been removed.
The Easter Church including the Roman Church's Eastern Catholic Rite reject this teaching on the heredity sin and consequently reject the Immaculate Conception dogma since Mary could not have been preserved from the "stain of original sin" if original sin doesn't exist.
Can Catholics take the alleged Virgin Birth of Jesus and the physical Resurrection as allegorical too?
Not as official dogma, but privately some priests tell you a different story. Surprisingly whether all the mythology is true or not does not change anything for me and other Catholics. This is our cultural heritage and as such may be filled with exaggerations and myths.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to judge?
