 |
Well, this is my third time trying to ask a question. The first two times, my question was deleted and I have no idea why.
When posters here quote the Bible as a proof source for the Bible, how do they reconcile the non-logical and non-rational business of proving the Bible from the Bible?
For example, if I claim an absolute truth from the XYZ book, and prove what I claim from that same XYZ book, is that not a false claim?
Answers appreciated, unless I get deleted again.
I guess it's only a false claim to the one asking if they've already made up their mind that it's a false book. So, no matter how much "proof" is presented from that book the one asking will never take it as fact. In saying that, there are some who will give quotes as proof according to their own interpretations and not according to how it was originally intended to be understood. That's when the fun starts.
Essentially, its circular logic. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that the Word of God is contained in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The Catholic Church also does not deny that truth exists in non religious otherwise known as secular sources like history, archaeology and other sciences.
Sincerely,
De Maria
That is the major problem with many religions today. They are relying on a book or books written by some human being to tell them what the Bible actually says or means in a passage. Depending on how that person is interpreting the scriptures it may be OK to down right cultism. Look to the book of Mormon as a classic example. Unless you truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it is up to us to verify and prove or disprove what is being taught in our churches. If what your pastor/priest/rabbi is teaching is not in accordance with your understanding of the Bible it is up to you to confront them and try and get understanding. Remember what God says about the leaders in the church. They are going to be held to a higher standard than us laymen. And as such if they have led their flock astray they will be held accountable on Judgment day. But if we have not held them accountable here on earth I think we also will be held accountable on Judgment day. I for one do not want that burden to fall on my head. So I will and have confronted the church leaders on issues that I feel are being taught not according to scriptures.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Athos -
I agree that using the bible as a proof of truth when making claims about the bible is fundamentally circular in reasoning. So yes, you are detecting an irrational approach to truth from those people you are citing in your example.
If your starting point is that the bible is not true, then I wonder whether you'd agree that your end point will most likely be that the bible remains untrue. It is possible for our human subjectivity to hinder us from going in a certain direction, perhaps even when all of the evidence points that way.
Now I'm not trying to be snide and hint that you are already in the wrong... I don't know what you believe or why you believe it. But what I am saying is that all of us have a set of preconceptions about reality and what is true but our preconceptions need to be scrutinized and tested... every worldview is attempting to answer life's major questions: whether it's atheism, evolution, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and every conceivable faith-based philosophy.
The bible, as I personally hold to it, is a book which I believe answers 4 major questions that almost every worldview attempts to answer:
1) Where did I come from?
2) What is the meaning of life?
3) How should I live (morality)?
4) Where am I going when I die (my destiny)?
I believe that what makes the bible so compelling is that not only does it provide answers to the above questions but it makes the claim to have authority over every human being... I think because it claims to have that authority, it is compelling enough to investigate its claims and determine whether they are true.
That is how I see it anyway... not that it really matters but you are asking for an opinion so in that case it matters to you (or at least it should).
Your message gives the impression we should distrust in the Church. But that isn't from Scripture:Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Apparently God wants us to have confidence in the Church.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Nope, NEVER said or implied that. You are reading into my comments what you want to see again. I was simply saying that we as Christians must test everything we are taught against the word of God. And if it does not stand up to that test, it is our duty to call our leaders on it. A classic example of doctrine going horribly wrong is that church that Mr Obama attended for 20 years. That wright character is spewing hatred and bigotry from the pulpit and no one in that church is or has called him on it. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
You have a basic mis-understanding in what the Bible is. It is not a single book. It is a collection of 66 books which were penned by many different people over a period of thousands of years, all of whom were inspired by the Holy Spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Athos, jokester, et al:Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos…[To] quote the Bible as a proof source for the Bible, how do they reconcile the non-logical and non-rational business of proving the Bible from the Bible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakester
My experience has been that there are two schools of thought among Christians in regard to the validity of Scripture and what weight they should have. The first holds that the bible was written by men inspired by God. As such it is a Holy book witnessing God's revelation to man. The other group holds that it was “written by the hand of God” and as such the sole authoritative source for God's revelation to man. These differences are small, but the seeming small distinctions creates a vast theological divide.
It seems to me that Jokester makes a leap to the assumption that the validity of the entire works of Holy Scriptures is being question; I don't. I read the question put to us as; how are we to discern whether the bible is THE “proof source” for God's revelation to man? Is it in fact the only “proof source” and if not what other would qualify? I would add one other question, are the scriptures the “only source” of God's revelation to man? You might think that this isn't really important because we can rely on our faith to guide us. But, remember that faith is part of the intellect, it requires objective proof, and objective proof requires an objective authority. Catholics hold 'faith' in God to be those truths revealed by God in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Church (an objective faith). Faith can also be those things we hold true that are beyond our understanding, but within the natural light of reason (subjective faith). This latter type of faith requires a supernatural strengthening of natural light. "Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith but belief without seeing?). In either event intellectual reasoning is an element of faith. On the other hand, at least from my perspective, non-Catholics seem to have a standing around waiting for those predestined lightning strikes of faith. There are many Protestant denominations that have this type of faith. (Sorry - this isn't intended to be combative; I just can't figure a better way to say it.)
It's true; we look to the Scriptures for an authoritative view of our creation, the purpose of understanding our creation, our moral obligations to that creator and to our fellow man, and our final destiny. But, who authenticates the Holy Scriptures? It's my opinion that non-Catholics exhibit a hubristic ideology that an individual has an unconditional right to absolute independence, a self asserted authority, to a private understanding of Scripture. This "truth" is free of the restraint formed principles or ethics, to determine what is God's will. After all there are no respected authorities, so why should they be constrained.
I would agree that the desire to privately interpret the bible is found in the human nature, at least on the surface. However, what is even more prevalent in the human nature is conformity. For example, take a physics lab student who finishes an experiment. Before he even writes out his findings, what's the very first thing he does? I've observed, (and I've even done it myself), the first thing these students do is asks his lab partner what result he got, then he'll go to other class mates, he may even poll the entire room. When the lab student's findings don't conform, he'll dismiss his findings and re-run the experiment until he comes into conformity with his mates (whether or not the mates got the right answer.) Thus, if just one of these lab mates interjects a serious error, all of them will repeat it (with confidence). I think St. Thomas addresses a strong human desire to conform in several of his responses. I'd say our human nature is stronger to conform rather than to be independent. Thus, our human nature looks to an authority.
Without an authority we tend to apply rationalism along with relativism and naturalism to Church doctrine. This in turn synthesizes its own traditional morals for autonomous pre-determined conclusions based on the premises desired. Inductive reasoning founded on Christian faith weighing actions on traditional Catholic morals becomes slow, regressive, and narrow-minded. The fault seems to be that conclusions drawn on private interpretation of Scripture become autonomous intellectual exercises; judgments become subjective reasoning not founded on absolute moral truths that only Catholicism brings.
Consequently, all Christianity looks to an authority. Non-Catholics, to maintain private interpretation, will assert that “the Bible claims its own authority.” It doesn't. There is not a single line, a single verse, a single chapter, that asserts that the bible is and of itself an “authority.”
So, what is the authority of Scripture? As a Catholic I can answer this question with the words of St. Augustine, “But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustin, AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL.(1)[CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397. Chp 5 Furthermore, of whose authority I rely that I'm getting, as it were, the “right stuff.” I would respond again in the words of St. Augustine, “I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers and of similitudes.” FIFTEEN BOOKS OF AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS BISHOP OF HIPPO, ON THE TRINITY
JoeT
Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
Very good. Do adhere to the belief that the Word of God is only in Scripture? Or do you admit that we also have the Word of God in Tradition? And do you admit that the Church teaches the Word of God?Quote:
You are reading into my comments what you want to see again. I was simply saying that we as Christians must test everything we are taught against the word of God.
Very good. Sorry if I misunderstood your first post.Quote:
And if it does not stand up to that test, it is our duty to call our leaders on it. A classic example of doctrine going horribly wrong is that church that Mr Obama attended for 20 years. That wright character is spewing hatred and bigotry from the pulpit and no one in that church is or has called him on it. Why is that?
Sincerely,
De Maria
And I, being a child of God, walk to follow Christ. Doing all that the Father Wills by power and authority in the Name of Jesus. Christ told us His sheep hear His voice and follow. (John 10:27)Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
We also have Christ telling us that all power and authority was given to Him for both heaven and earth. And His disciples were to teach this to all nation to observe. Christ is the way, The Word made Flesh. (John 1:12) In communion we eat of both the body and blood. Christ tells us we will thirst no more when we drink of His Water. (John 4:14)
Matthew 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Matthew 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen
When baptized in the manner that was commanded, we receive the Holy Spirit who will comfort and guide us.
~child of God
But, how do you know? Who or what validates? Augustine was addressing that issue, that validating authority is the Catholic Church. How do I discern that your Holy Spirit is the real McCoy? I can't look inside you and make that discernment. So, how do I authenticate your words? Who or what is the authority, your will? Your interpretation of Scripture? That's my point, without the Catholic Church we are without an authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
I might point out, without the Catholic Church you wouldn't have a bibile.
JoeT
When I hear Catholics argue for guidance by church tradition, I am reminded of how Fr. Charles Chiniquy responded when it was demanded of him that he agree with the traditions of the Fathers. He said that it was impossible for him to do so, as the Fathers did not agree among themselves. He then proceeded to cite several contridictioins between the holy fathers.
(See Fr. Chiniquy's book Fifty years in the Church of Rome)
We’re not discussing Mr. Chiniquy. But if we were, I'd consider his views untrustworthy. He's broken solemn vows made to God, so how little effort would it be to mislead me? How much trust do you place in him? Or is it that you just like what he says because of his anti-Catholic view?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
JoeT
Notice that the Fathers submitted themselves to the authority of the Church. Notice also that they defended the authority of bishops against the Gnostics and the authority of Rome against Gnostics, Donatists, Arians, and Monophysites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
They appear to me to set a wonderful example.
Several errors in that statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
First, the Church doesn't argue for guidance by Church Tradition. But for guidance by Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.
Second, the Catholic Church doesn't agree with all the teachings of the Fathers. Some of which held heretic beliefs.
Third, the Catholic Church holds only the orthodox teachings of the Fathers, which were judged orthodox by the ecumenical Church in the Councils.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria, thanks for the reddie, I was getting sick of the colour green anyway. From my understanding circular logic is the same as logical fallacies. Fallacies being false claims. I do not see any part of the bible as false although many others do. :)
As well at least one "infallible(?)" pope who taught heretical doctrine according to your denomination, and was excommunicated for it!Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Your denominational councils.Quote:
Third, the Catholic Church holds only the orthodox teachings of the Fathers, which were judged orthodox by the ecumenical Church in the Councils.
Circular logic is supporting the premise with the premise rather than other supporting evidence. The premise need not be false, but the proof of the argument is flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moparbyfar
JoeT
And the claim that using the Bible to interpret the or substantiate the Bible is circular reasoning is based upon false logic because the Bible is not a single document. It would only be circular reasoning if the Bible were a single document, written by one person.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
The Bible:
1) Is made up of 66 books
2) Penned through inspiration of the Holy Spirit by many different people, of many different cultures, of many different layers of society, over thousands of years of time.
The only thing which is singular about the Bible is that the entire Bible is inspired by God and thus has a singular credibility that no other document in the world has or ever has had.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 AM. |