Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

[Christian2]

That is a very provocative title, isn't it?

This subject was brought up by a Muslim on another forum. He was delighted to find it.

This is what he said:

Vatican says Bible corrutped!

They say that we cannot take it as 100 % God's words and they no longer swear by truth of the Bible!

He provided a link to the article that set him off:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 574768.ece

I tried to find the teaching document referred to in the article:

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

but couldn't find anything online.

The article does not say the "Bible is corrupted" as the Muslim claims and Christians never claim that the Bible does not include the words of men. We do claim it is all inspired though.

I would especially like for a Roman Catholic on this Forum to explain to me what is going on.

Thank you.

[Byblos]

The title and the article sound suspiciously familiar. If I'm not mistaken I've addressed this topic once before on this forum but I could be wrong.

In any case, take it from the horse's mouth so-to-speak (i.e. Vatican II, which reaffirmed both the Council of Trent as well as Vatican I, both of which dogmatically affirmed the inerrancy of scripture).

A quote from the above link (emphasis mine):

As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race. (7)

And another:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Unless another council comes along and tells me otherwise (which by the way is a virtual impossibility, considering the claim of infallibility by the church), this is what we believe.

Here's the link to the DEI VERBUM (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation).

[Christian2]

The title and the article sound suspiciously familiar. If I'm not mistaken I've addressed this topic once before on this forum but I could be wrong.

In any case, take it from the horse's mouth so-to-speak (i.e. Vatican II, which reaffirmed both the Council of Trent as well as Vatican I, both of which dogmatically affirmed the inerrancy of scripture).

A quote from the above link (emphasis mine):

As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Rom. 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race. (7)

And another:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

Unless another council comes along and tells me otherwise (which by the way is a virtual impossibility, considering the claim of infallibility by the church), this is what we believe.

Here's the link to the DEI VERBUM (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation).

Thanks Byblos. I was hoping you would see my topic.

The title of the article I cited sent up red flags. I cannot believe the RCC would say such a thing.

Thanks again. I will read the link.

[Byblos]

Thanks Byblos. I was hoping you would see my topic.

The title of the article I cited sent up red flags. I cannot believe the RCC would say such a thing.

Thanks again. I will read the link.

You're welcome. Sometimes I do miss certain posts so please feel free to PM me anytime.

[Christian2]

Thanks Byblos. I was hoping you would see my topic.

The title of the article I cited sent up red flags. I cannot believe the RCC would say such a thing.

Thanks again. I will read the link.

You're welcome. Sometimes I do miss certain posts so please feel free to PM me anytime.

Thanks. I searched for the topic where you thought you had already addressed this subject. It is the one where you had trouble accessing the link that someone else brought up. I found it by searching for the title of the article.

The Muslims will look for anything to try to discredit the Holy Bible.

This article is all over the net and Muslims are using it to their advantage.

However, I will use what you have presented, but I don't expect any positive results. Muslims will read the explanation -- as they do on many Christian issues -- and will drop the subject and then post their original allegation again. It's very frustrating!

I appreciate your help.

[Shulgin]

I was raised as a catholic and taught the bible is 'god-breathed' and infallible. I am curious, do you believe everything in the bible? Is it all true? I used to think that until I started reading it as a historical document rather than a religious tome and I feel quite differently now. It was obviously written by ancient men that were highly superstitious. I can not accept that a perfect, supreme being like god would leave, as his only physical evidence of his presence, a book like the bible. Why hasn't he seen fit to update it a bit rather than leave us to puzzle over much of it for 2000 years? Doesn't add up to me.

Shulgin
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes- Gene Roddenberry

[Byblos]

I was raised as a catholic and taught the bible is 'god-breathed' and infallible. I am curious, do you believe everything in the bible? Is it all true? I used to think that until I started reading it as a historical document rather than a religious tome and I feel quite differently now. It was obviously written by ancient men that were highly superstitious. I can not accept that a perfect, supreme being like god would leave, as his only physical evidence of his presence, a book like the bible. Why hasn't he seen fit to update it a bit rather than leave us to puzzle over much of it for 2000 years? Doesn't add up to me.

The Bible is not the only physical evidence we have of God but anyway, how much physical evidence do you think is enough to convince you of his existence? Please provide examples.

[FFC]

I was raised as a catholic and taught the bible is 'god-breathed' and infallible. I am curious, do you believe everything in the bible? Is it all true? I used to think that until I started reading it as a historical document rather than a religious tome and I feel quite differently now. It was obviously written by ancient men that were highly superstitious. I can not accept that a perfect, supreme being like god would leave, as his only physical evidence of his presence, a book like the bible. Why hasn't he seen fit to update it a bit rather than leave us to puzzle over much of it for 2000 years? Doesn't add up to me.

The Bible is not the only physical evidence we have of God but anyway, how much physical evidence do you think is enough to convince you of his existence? Please provide examples.

Byblos, do you think the books of the Apocrypha inspired and infallible?

[Byblos]

Byblos, do you think the books of the Apocrypha inspired and infallible?

Why of course; that's why we call them deuterocanons . But the other physical evidence I had in mind was actually Christ Himself. Ya just can't get any more physical than that .

[Shulgin]

Byblos,

Any shred of evidence would be nice. Perhaps a bible that was actually, truly, really written by god and not his fallible followers on earth. Real evidence for the divine nature of Jesus outside of the bible would be nice. C'mon now Byblos, use your imagination as to what kind of evidence one would like. How about a humongous structure out in the desert that is so amazing that it was obviously created by a supreme being? That would go a long way to convincing me. There are writings from that time of a man called Jesus, but again no proof of his miracles. The writers of this time were largely superstitious and used word of mouth as evidence. Did Flavius Josephus ever actually witness a miracle performed by this man named Jesus before he wrote about his great works? My point is that the bible is held up as proof, but we know that much of it is not to be believed, so how do we know what to take away from it and what to discard as the rantings of ancient religious fanatics? My opinion is that if there was a god, he would be smart enough to leave behind more than an unreliable document for folks to follow millenia later. I think there is no god and Jesus was a man like any other that might have been charismatic and had a zealous following.

Shulgin
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored- Aldous Huxley

[Byblos]

Byblos,

Any shred of evidence would be nice. Perhaps a bible that was actually, truly, really written by god and not his fallible followers on earth. Real evidence for the divine nature of Jesus outside of the bible would be nice. C'mon now Byblos, use your imagination as to what kind of evidence one would like. How about a humongous structure out in the desert that is so amazing that it was obviously created by a supreme being? That would go a long way to convincing me.

Would such a structure really convince you of his existence? Or would you be wondering what civilization built it and why? How about the desert itself that contains this structure? Who built that? Perhaps a natural phenomenon, like a sandstorm? Where did the sand come from? How about the continent it sits on? Earth itself? Is that a big enough structure to convince you? A galaxy with billions of stars perhaps? How about the Virgo cluster, a collection of billions of galaxies? Would a mind-boggling universe, with billions of clusters, that seems to have sprung out of nothing convince you? I truly doubt it.

There are writings from that time of a man called Jesus, but again no proof of his miracles. The writers of this time were largely superstitious and used word of mouth as evidence. Did Flavius Josephus ever actually witness a miracle performed by this man named Jesus before he wrote about his great works?

Do you know that he didn't? How do you know Hitler committed atrocities in WWII? How do you know Alexander the Great conquered half the world? How do you know Buddha existed or that the French revolution took place at all? You do because they were events recorded in history, first by eyewitnesses, then by historians. So were the events that transpired around Jesus' time. If you want to be historically ignorant then you owe it to yourself to be ignorant of history in general and believe nothing unless you witness it personally. Either that or intellectual honesty demands that you see both through the same prism.

My point is that the bible is held up as proof, but we know that much of it is not to be believed, so how do we know what to take away from it and what to discard as the rantings of ancient religious fanatics? My opinion is that if there was a god, he would be smart enough to leave behind more than an unreliable document for folks to follow millenia later. I think there is no god and Jesus was a man like any other that might have been charismatic and had a zealous following.

The Bible is not held as proof, what the Bible promises and what has actually occurred is what's held up as proof. Every religion claims to be the true religion. What differentiates the Bible and Christianity in particular from any of the other religions is the sheer number of prophecies fulfilled. If you go to a psychic and inquire about your future and she was right half the time, would you not be impressed? I sure would. How about if she was right 70, 80, or 90% of the time? I bet she'd be on your payroll in no time and you'd be consulting her on every matter in your life. Do you know what the percentage of fulfilled biblical prophecies is? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT my friend. ALL of them (those that are not concerned with the end times and even those are coming too). Look it up and be impressed. I dare ya. I'm sure you'll also find a lot of counter-arguments, come back here and I'll direct you to places where ALL these arguments have been soundly refuted.

Are you capable of looking at the facts objectively? I really doubt it but I've been wrong before. I will quote your own signature back at you: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".

[Shulgin]

Byblos,

Any shred of evidence would be nice. Perhaps a bible that was actually, truly, really written by god and not his fallible followers on earth. Real evidence for the divine nature of Jesus outside of the bible would be nice. C'mon now Byblos, use your imagination as to what kind of evidence one would like. How about a humongous structure out in the desert that is so amazing that it was obviously created by a supreme being? That would go a long way to convincing me.

Would such a structure really convince you of his existence? Or would you be wondering what civilization built it and why? How about the desert itself that contains this structure? Who built that? Perhaps a natural phenomenon, like a sandstorm? Where did the sand come from? How about the continent it sits on? Earth itself? Is that a big enough structure to convince you? A galaxy with billions of stars perhaps? How about the Virgo cluster, a collection of billions of galaxies? Would a mind-boggling universe, with billions of clusters, that seems to have sprung out of nothing convince you? I truly doubt it.

There are writings from that time of a man called Jesus, but again no proof of his miracles. The writers of this time were largely superstitious and used word of mouth as evidence. Did Flavius Josephus ever actually witness a miracle performed by this man named Jesus before he wrote about his great works?

Do you know that he didn't? How do you know Hitler committed atrocities in WWII? How do you know Alexander the Great conquered half the world? How do you know Buddha existed or that the French revolution took place at all? You do because they were events recorded in history, first by eyewitnesses, then by historians. So were the events that transpired around Jesus' time. If you want to be historically ignorant then you owe it to yourself to be ignorant of history in general and believe nothing unless you witness it personally. Either that or intellectual honesty demands that you see both through the same prism.

My point is that the bible is held up as proof, but we know that much of it is not to be believed, so how do we know what to take away from it and what to discard as the rantings of ancient religious fanatics? My opinion is that if there was a god, he would be smart enough to leave behind more than an unreliable document for folks to follow millenia later. I think there is no god and Jesus was a man like any other that might have been charismatic and had a zealous following.

The Bible is not held as proof, what the Bible promises and what has actually occurred is what's held up as proof. Every religion claims to be the true religion. What differentiates the Bible and Christianity in particular from any of the other religions is the sheer number of prophecies fulfilled. If you go to a psychic and inquire about your future and she was right half the time, would you not be impressed? I sure would. How about if she was right 70, 80, or 90% of the time? I bet she'd be on your payroll in no time and you'd be consulting her on every matter in your life. Do you know what the percentage of fulfilled biblical prophecies is? ONE HUNDRED PERCENT my friend. ALL of them (those that are not concerned with the end times and even those are coming too). Look it up and be impressed. I dare ya. I'm sure you'll also find a lot of counter-arguments, come back here and I'll direct you to places where ALL these arguments have been soundly refuted.

Are you capable of looking at the facts objectively? I really doubt it but I've been wrong before. I will quote your own signature back at you: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored".

Byblos,

I am interested in knowing more about the prophesies that have been fulfilled in the bible. But again, we do not know if the stories were made up as a self-fulfilling prophesies. That is the crux of my arguement. I think it is you my friend who is being historically ignorant. The evidence is that prophesies in the bible were fulfilled in the bible, but the bible is not true. The world insn't 6000 years old, there was no flood over the whole earth, etc. How do you, or anyone, know which stories that fulfill prophesy are true and which are made up? You don't. You have faith so you take them all to be true. Many of the ancient writings were (as far as we can tell) factually correct and didn't contain all the religious rhetoric as in the bible. As a historical document it sucks. There is so much controversy over who wrote what, why some books aren't in the bible, who changed what meaning down thru the centuries, stories that didn't happen, etc. If you take this as your source of historical validity, I would submit to you that there are far more accurate tellings of the history of that time. And yes, they mention Jesus, but that still doesn't prove he was the son of a god who was sacrificed to save us all from sin (a ridiculous and preposterous development in itself).

About the universe, well I am impressed by it and all the scientific things we have learned. No, we don't know how it formed and there is way more to discover. But my friend, just because it is mind boggleing to me doesn't prove that there is a wizened god sitting on a throne in heaven that created it all. My mind has a harder time getting around how there could be such a being that could be capable of creating all that there is in the cosmos and further, where this being might have come from.

As for Hitler comparisons etc. that is a ridiculous argument. I believe pictures and historical artifacts and war monuments and buildings that have were destroyed by the bombings and mountains of Jewish hair and fillings that were found, battlefields with real armor and bones, etc. Similar evidence for Jesus has not yet been forthcoming.

Shulgin
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support- John Buchan

[Byblos]

Shulgin, I copied the above post and sent it to the other thread (authenticity of the Bible) where it's more appropriate. Please go there to continue the discussion.

[Shulgin]

Shulgin, I copied the above post and sent it to the other thread (authenticity of the Bible) where it's more appropriate. Please go there to continue the discussion.

Thanks Byblos!

[eagleview]

I never have known the Catholic Church to swear by the entire truth of the Bible. for instance take water baptism and show me prior to the Nicean Councel in about 325 AD where anyone in the first church in which Christ came back upon the believers in the form of the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts, which is not the acts of the deciples but the acts of the Holy Spirit in the deciples, were ever baptized in the TITLES of Father Son and Holy Ghost? when peter came out preaching, filled with the Holy Ghost and the people asked him how can we receive he told them to repent and be baptized in the NAME of the Lord Jesus Christ, This is not contrary to the words in which Jesus had instructed them in baptising in the NAME of the Father and of The Son and of the Holy Spirit, for remember Jesus earlier in the scriptures had asked Peter who do you say that I am? and Peter answered him and said, the Christ, the Son of the living God at which time Jesus confirmed that it was not man but the Father who had revealed this to Peter and upon this Rock he built his church, Not upon Peter but upon Peter's Revelation, the Revelation of who Jesus was. Now Peter knew That Father Son and Holy Ghost were titles and the NAME of the Father Son and Holy Ghost Is " Lord Jesus Christ" search your church history and you will find this is the way everone in the Bible was baptized. So the catholic church when changing this and adopting Father Son and Holy Ghost and sprinkling in place of emersing refused the truth of the Bible right there for one. so they can only swear by the Churches Ideas adopted by the Church. However God's word never changes, he is the Same yesterday and today and forever no matter what man tries to say about it. We each have an absolute in which we go to when questions arise, a christian will always go back to the Word, not a Church. let every man's word be a lie, But God's be True.