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.
It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
The quotation that you misleadingly and dishonestly abbreviate actually reads as follows, and the intent is quite clear and quite different from what you suggest:
Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origin of Christianity and its earliest developments are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures and various sub-Apostolic writings, the authenticity of which we must to a large extent take for granted here, as [on] much less grounds we take for granted the authenticity of "Cæsar" when dealing with early Gaul, and of "Tacitus" when studying growth of the Roman Empire. (Cf. Kenyon "Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the N.T."). We have this further warrant for doing so, that the most mature critical opinions amongst non-Catholics, deserting the wild theories of Baur, Strauss, and Renan, tend, in regard to dates and authorship, to coincide more closely with the Catholic position.
What the author is to a large extent taking for granted -- "here," in his article, which is a broad introductory overview of Christianity -- is the authenticity (dates and authorship) of the "various sub-Apostolic writings." The quotation has precisely nothing to do with the inspiration or reliability of the New Testament -- or, for that matter, of the various sub-Apostolic writings.
My guess would be that you picked up your abbreviated version of the quotation from one of the numerous atheist websites on which it appears. I don't know about you, but I just hate when I try to give the appearance of being cleverer than the average bear and end up making a complete fool of myself. But this stuff happens, so don't let it dissuade you from whatever curious little crusade you are on.
Seems to me the Church is acknowledging, in a sideways manner, that the bible may be inspired by god, but it is most definitely the work of error-prone man.
I agree with Bede's take. Indeed the context is that the "authority" must be taken for granted for the purposes of that specific literature, which won't go into detail about why they are authoritative.
The implication the Atheists got is quite fair though, and the Catholic encyclopedia excerpt should have been worded better, perhaps mentioning where to go to see the evidence/arguments for the authoritativeness of the scriptures.
Seems to me the Church is acknowledging, in a sideways manner, that the bible may be inspired by god, but it is most definitely the work of error-prone man.
This has been their stand for some time . . . but the predominance of the "Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God" view has relegated it to the back rooms of ecclesiastic understanding. It does no serious damage to the truth value of much of the faith story . . . but it does require considerable reevaluation of the narrative. Unfortunately, that has not been forthcoming and the fundamentalist polarization within the faith communities has not enhanced the prospects of it. Nevertheless atheists can take no real comfort from it and it in no way strengthens their position about the reality of God.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,166,733 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
Seems to me the Church is acknowledging, in a sideways manner, that the bible may be inspired by god, but it is most definitely the work of error-prone man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I agree with Bede's take. Indeed the context is that the "authority" must be taken for granted for the purposes of that specific literature, which won't go into detail about why they are authoritative.
The implication the Atheists got is quite fair though, and the Catholic encyclopedia excerpt should have been worded better, perhaps mentioning where to go to see the evidence/arguments for the authoritativeness of the scriptures.
See my post #8. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not official doctrine of the Church, and differs from it on several points. If I remember correctly, they stopped publication back in the '30s.
the elevation of mary to diety has little support from the bible. the great scholar ramond lull is to be credited with this great change in the teachings of the church. further discredit to the NT and the stories of jesus is not going to help this shift in opinion and direction.
The quotation that you misleadingly and dishonestly abbreviate actually reads as follows, and the intent is quite clear and quite different from what you suggest:
Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origin of Christianity and its earliest developments are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures and various sub-Apostolic writings, the authenticity of which we must to a large extent take for granted here, as [on] much less grounds we take for granted the authenticity of "Cæsar" when dealing with early Gaul, and of "Tacitus" when studying growth of the Roman Empire. (Cf. Kenyon "Handbook of the Textual Criticism of the N.T."). We have this further warrant for doing so, that the most mature critical opinions amongst non-Catholics, deserting the wild theories of Baur, Strauss, and Renan, tend, in regard to dates and authorship, to coincide more closely with the Catholic position.
What the author is to a large extent taking for granted -- "here," in his article, which is a broad introductory overview of Christianity -- is the authenticity (dates and authorship) of the "various sub-Apostolic writings." The quotation has precisely nothing to do with the inspiration or reliability of the New Testament -- or, for that matter, of the various sub-Apostolic writings.
My guess would be that you picked up your abbreviated version of the quotation from one of the numerous atheist websites on which it appears. I don't know about you, but I just hate when I try to give the appearance of being cleverer than the average bear and end up making a complete fool of myself. But this stuff happens, so don't let it dissuade you from whatever curious little crusade you are on.
Seems to me we have a case here of someone trying to "put lipstick on a pig".
Let's write the phrase out:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development..." or "what we have at our disposal, or more appropriately, the only thing we have at our disposal upon which to formulate our knowledge of the origins of Christianity and how it developed at its earliest beginnings..."
continuing
"...are chiefly the New Testament scriptures..." Pretty straightforward. By default they are also admitting "we have nothing else at our fingertips at the moment of any substance [the use of the word, "chiefly'] upon which to base our knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development."
Are we in agreement so far?
"...the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
Here's the definition of authentic out of wiki:
Quote:
Authenticity concerns the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.
In regards to "living history" wiki states: in a living history presentation, or in a historical reenactment, a measure of how close an item of material culture, or a person's action, is to the known records concerning what was used or done in the time period being depicted.
Sounds pretty straighforward to me. The Catholic Church is saying, "We have to question the truthfulness of the earliest documents we have at our fingertips."
Elsewhere the article states:
Quote:
It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. "The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine's efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called "Church Fathers" " (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).
Some descriptions of the "Church Fathers" who attended the Council of Nicea:
Quote:
They were "maddened", he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171
Quote:
The "peculiar type of oratory" expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5).
Quote:
Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:
"...the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses ... they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets ... they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables ... and still the less do they understand ... and they write nonsense on vellum ... and still be doing, never done."
(Contra Celsum ["Against Celsus"], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)
Clusters of presbyters had developed "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and "altar was set against altar" in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine's point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he [Constantine] set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilising religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine's problems. The smooth generalisation, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine "embraced the Christian religion" and subsequently granted "official toleration", is "contrary to historical fact" and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim).
This is the pedigree of scholarship out of which the Bible emerged. One has to wonder exactly how much of critical importance to the establishment of TRUE Christianity was deliberately left out by this motley crew of religious derelicts (as scholars describe them) simply because it clashed with their own personal pagan beliefs.
Don't shoot the messenger, folks. If you want to peruse the article:
The above link is not to an article. It takes you to a six year old forum post. A clear case of "if it is on the internet it must be true".
Yes, I had to do that because the link to the magazine article itself is not direct. If the poster provided a link to the magazine and the author's bio info at the bottom I trust the veracity of the article. Were you so inclined you could dig through the magazines and I'm certain you'd find it exactly as quoted. Meanwhile I think you can trust what the author says since there are references to the Catholic Encyclopedia right there in my OP.
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.
who attended the Council of Nicea:
