Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Times (UK) ^ | October 05, 2005 | Ruth Gledhill

[MeanWestTexan]

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. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

[conservonator]

I will certainly defer to an internet deacon in such matters.

*Snicker*

[Antoninus]

"The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland..."

This is why Popes are infallible, but bishops' conferences are not...

[FourtySeven]

Actually, I thought you made a good point about the "day" issue, even though you were slightly skewed in your description.

Before the sun was created, there MUST have been a different definition of "day" applied to those "days", because by no definition of the word "day" can there NOT be light from the sun. (excuse the double negative)

Thanks, you've given me something to think about.

[blowfish]

Which part don't you believe? I guess your god isn't able to do miracles, and wondrous works. Mine can.

Fine. When you have evidence for the violation of newtonian physics (or contemporary biological study) do let me know. I'd be glad to hear about it.

Until then, I'll be content with a god that isn't a micromanager.

[etlib]

 First you have to provide a definition for what it is to “exist.”

In order to respond to this post I will need an definition of: "First", "you", "have", "to", "provide", "a", "definition", "for", "what", "it", and "is".  And I will also need a complete description of the syntax and semantics being used in the post.  Of course I will need a complete description of the language used to provide this information along with a definition of all terms used therein.

What nonsense!

[fish hawk]

I guess they don't like the part where it says to keep their hands off of little boys.

[Labyrinthos]

There seem to be plenty of people here who still believe every word is literally true. It's a bit scary...

You mean the Red Sea didn't part as in the movie?

[RinaseaofDs]

Bible doesn't say the world was created in six 24-hour days. It says it was created in six days.

[hosepipe]

[ Amen. ]

LoL.. you're a bad man...

[pageonetoo]

Until then, I'll be content with a god that isn't a micromanager.

Until then, I'll be content with a God able to create the Universe...

[conserv13]

The Bible is literally true from cover to cover.

Are you serious?? How can you believe that?

[dsutah]

I think what "ex-snook" might've been trying to say, was that the Christian church (which was considered "catholic" by the second century, by the way!)was in place before the "Bible" as we now know it, was compiled. Is this what you are trying to say, ex-snook? I don't know, but the "Bible" as we now know it, was compiled after the church was formed. At least the "New Testament" was! Because otherwise, where did we get the "New Testament"?

Parts of the "Bible" were in existence before the church was formed.("Old Testament", or source of it)But there were the "Epistles", or the letters to individuals, and communities written by Paul, Peter, John, etc., addressed to the Christian communities they visited!

Also, there were the "Gospels", the "Acts", and the "Revelations", which were written after Christ's death and resurection. All of those referred to Christ's life, and the communities of followers in his time, and after. Later on by the 2ond century, the Christian community was considered to be 'catholic', or 'universal'. Because they were in a lot of places after that!

So, I believe that the "Roman Catholic" name referring to the Roman church, may have come about as a way of telling it apart from other rites that came from it. Those being the "Syrian rite", "Mozarabic right", "Chaldean rite", "Nestorian rite", "Byzantine rite", "Coptic rite", etc., also, the various Orthodox churches(Greek, Russian, etc.)later on, (also, don't forget the "Anglican Communion"!) Now, I could be wrong on some of this, and if I am, (proof please!)I stand corrected. However, I think I'm mostly right!

[mel]

I am kind of going thru my own questions. Not doubts per se, but understanding. For example, look at how often Christ says give everything you own to the poor, and I don't see a lot of people doing that. Also, it talks about women shouldn't cut their hair, wear makeup and a lot of people don't follow that. So to me, there are things in the Bible that are really quite confusing and it seems people just pick and choose what they like.

[SampleMan]

You people don't get out of mass much do you? The term "Bible" did not originate in the Roman Church - and there are a lot of places selling Bibles that do not contain 'New Testaments' - so they might be surprised by your claim. People like you spout this line every time, and when challenged you make some noise about "Oh, I meant the WHOLE Bible" - meanwhile discounting the fact that 3/4 of your Bible was what your supposed first pope (Kefa, Peter) called SCRIPTURE - and it was the only Bible HE HAD.

Wow, you must be a special treat at parties. Here are some pointers though. I'm not "you people". Who exactly "you people" refers to I'm not sure, but keep the tone, it allows people to make a quick decision in regard to your character.

If you consider yourself part of the Christian Church, then you can't refer to Peter as "your supposed first Pope", for the same logical reason you cannot refer to "The United States" during the 1600's.

I doubt Peter had any Bible at all. He wrote and received letters. He would have also had knowledge if not possession (not likely) of the Jewish histories and laws. For the first 300 years or so, the Church used a collection of different works, but did not settle on which ones were authentic, redundant or trivial. This is why that although many Latin texts from this period exist, no "Bible" from this period exists. Unless you are simply saying that "biblyos" is Greek for book, which really meant a volume, which really applies to any scrap of paper. The Old Testament is not inclusive of all Jewish histories, but it could be a bible. It just couldn't be "The Christian Bible", as that would require Christ.

Christ never gave instructions for the creation of the Bible, but then he didn't have to answer to evangelicals.

Curiously, I wonder where you make the cut off between early Church and evil Catholics? Which one wrote your Bible?

[TXBubba]

The answers to your questions are contained in the same post from which you copied my words.

[safisoft]

I doubt Peter had any Bible at all. He wrote and received letters. He would have also had knowledge if not possession (not likely) of the Jewish histories and laws.

Clearly, you are not very aware of history. In fact Peter did have a 'Bible'. He quotes extensively from the LXX (Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible). He refers to it as SCRIPTURE. And yes, if you want to get technical it was in biblio format. A bound codex is not the definition of "Bible", friend - but neither was that binding an invention of the Catholic Church. Apparently you are unaware of 2Timothy 4:13 where Paul says,

"Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come and the books, especially the parchments..."

Now you can believe what you like about what is a 'Christian Bible' but Paul would look at you like you had lost your mind. He asked Timothy to bring his biblios. Heresy! Without a Catholic Church to sancition it? Musta been books of Plato.

For the first 300 years or so, the Church used a collection of different works, but did not settle on which ones were authentic, redundant or trivial.

Again, your information is false. The fact is that approved lists that ADDED 'New Testament' books to the sacred Scriptures were present very early in the Second Century (and earlier. Paul called Peter's writings Scripture and Peter said the same thing of Paul's writings). The first canonical councils assumed their precedence. Have you even READ Clement I? That is First Century. He is even claimed by Catholics as their own, but apparently your dogma did not give you his name in your talking points.

Curiously, I wonder where you make the cut off between early Church and evil Catholics? Which one wrote your Bible?

Roman Catholicism has its orgin in the middle Second Century, although not exclusive in leadership. By the early Third Century it began to have more exclusive sway. By the late Third and early Fourth Century, Roman Catholicism was dominate.

As for the earliet believers, they were mostly Jewish, and used the Jewish Scriptures in addition to writings of the Apostles. After the first generation died out, at the end of the First Century, the majority of leadership was from Greek and Roman background - and disavowed all ties to Jews.

That's history, but you will likely and blindly reject it. But is there to read if you dare.

It just couldn't be "The Christian Bible", as that would require Christ.

How sad that some people not only know little of the front 3/4ths of their Bible, but the 'New Testament' as well. Yeshua [Jesus] and Paul taught that the entire 'Old Testament' speaks of Messiah.

For the first 30 years, the early believers did quite well with only what you call the 'Old Testament'. They would laugh at what you say about their Bible.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

How can you define the “existence” of something infinite in this universe to the exclusion of all others? This is why there can be no image made of a thing that is infinite. (Partly the reason for the First Commandment.)

Does “God” exist? No, not even by your own standards... Yahweh is spirit, according to the Judaic and Christian Bibles.

[MeanWestTexan]

Don't know if you are right as to any given specific denomination, but you are correct.

[Rutles4Ever]

Wow - I can't believe I missed this thread.

Anyhow, why is this news? We'd all be called fundamentalists if we all believed every story in the Bible was a historical fact.

Geez, pick up some of the writings of St. Augustine, who argues very forcefully that God didn't create the world in seven days literally, but figuratively.

It's irrelevant whether or not Jonah was really swallowed by a whale or if he even existed in the first place. The point is, the writing is inspired by God, who willed that we would come to understand how the world should work through scripture and tradition.

I take issue with the "Believe it or not" list on the website. I don't think these are excerpts ruled upon by the Church, but their way of inciting controversy by presenting scenarios that could be looked at in different ways.

Whatever. God rules. The Church will not fall.

[A CA Guy]

I don't think there was any link back to the Vatican on this story, so it could easily be bunk anyway.