Announcement

Collapse

Church History 201 Guidelines

Welcome to Church History 201.

Believe it or not, this is the exact place where Luther first posted the 94 thesis. We convinced him to add one.

This is the forum where the Church and its actions in history can be discussed. Since CH201, like the other fora in the History department, is not limited to participation along lines of theology, all may post here. This means that anything like Ecclesiology can be discussed without the restrictions of the Ecclesiology forum, and without the atmosphere of Ecclesiology 201 or the Apologetics-specific forum.

Please keep the Campus Decorum in mind when posting here--while 'belief' restrictions are not in place, common decency is and such is not the area to try disembowel anyone's faith.

If you need to refresh yourself on the decorm, now would be a good time.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Papias and the death of Judas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Edited by a Moderator

    Moderated By: Littlejoe

    Argument by weblink and/or attachment is not allowed. Please see the rules under "Board Etiquette" here: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette. You must make your point first, you can only use a website or attachment to augment your post.

    ***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
    Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

    Last edited by Littlejoe; 06-28-2014, 07:58 PM.
    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
    Scripture before Tradition:
    but that won't prevent others from
    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
    of the right to call yourself Christian.

    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Yes, I know you were merely entertaining the idea. It's nice to meet another catholic, by the way, but I do not think we are bound to accept this harmonization. That said, I could be wrong as I have not read much of the catechism of John Paul II or Benedict's scriptural musings (is that what your referring to?), but I have spent approximately 25 years in catholic education.
      ## As for Dei Verbum 11, which is often mentioned in this connection, ISTM that has to be interpreted by preceding Papal teaching, such as Providentissimus (1893). The Ratzinger Note of 1998 affirms total inerrancy, but without saying in what it consists; which is not that helpful.

      That said - what is a contradiction ? Interpretation affects claims of inerrancy: if Methuselah is regarded by 18 centuries of exegesis as having attained an age of 969 years, and the interpretation then becomes that M. is a tribe or deity or a myth or something other than an individual historical human being, one can still believe in total inerrancy - but it does not guarantee the fixity of the meaning of texts. Therefore it does not guarantee the content of the truth of a passage - when, that is, a passage can be called true or false: "Sing unto the Lord all the earth" is an exhortation, not a judgement that a statement is asserting a truth: & many passages are of this kind. "Save me, O Lord, for the waters have come up to my neck" is a plea for help, not an assertion that X is or is not the case: so it is not clear how it can be judged to be inerroneous, or erroneous.

      And, is inerrancy posited of each and every assertion, or in the theological meaning of the Bible as whole, or in the theology of the Biblical books ? Or is it posited of the Bible at all three levels ? That is just a handful of the problems that arise from positing the total inerrancy of the Bible. There is problem of the effect of variant readings, and the semantic effects of the absence of vowel points from the Hebrew text followed by the supplying of them.

      It is not at all clear that the notion of total Biblical inerrancy plays any useful theological function; for instance, as Christians, readers give priority to certain passages over others: the gospels trump the Torah & rest of the OT, which one reason the Books of Esther & Joshua are less central to the Church's understanding of Christ than the gospels. So in practice, the OT is in effect relative to the revelation of God in Christ; IOW, it is treated as less adequate than the NT witness to Christ. But that is tantamount to saying that the OT is not totally inerrant; that it needed correction.

      And of course there is the small matter of evolution - it is hard to believe it would have caused such a fuss, had it not been for the imagined need to square it with Genesis 1-11. Which need would in turn have been much less pressing, had the Bible not been considered "free from all error".

      Comment

      widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
      Working...
      X