Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Bible
icatholicism.net ^ | 1938 | Fathers Rumble & Carty

Posted on 05/06/2009 7:21:41 AM PDT by GonzoII

Inspiration of the Bible

108. I do not mind admitting that the Gospels are historical. But you claim much more than that. You wish us to accept those books as the inspired Word of God. And if we accept the Gospels, we must accept the whole Bible as being the Word of God, for the New Testament quotes the Old Testament again and again as having the authority of God.

All that you say is true. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. There may be difficulties in the interpretation of the Bible, but the fact of its inspiration is certain.

109. What proof is there that the Bible is the Word of God?  Is it any more true than the sacred books of other religions?

Various texts in the Bible say that they are spoken or written with the authority of God. But that is rather a vicious circle, arguing from the inspiration of the book to its authority, and from the authority back to its inspiration. However, a book that is the inspired Word of God would be expected to say so, and the Catholic Church supplies the further evidence required, as I shall show in a moment.

The fact that the Jews always accepted the Old Testament as inspired, and that Christians have also accepted both Old and New Testaments for so many centuries, also argues to the truth of their inspiration. Such a conviction indicates more than human influence. But still, men may point to a somewhat similar phenomenon among the Mahometans in regard to their Koran, and really sufficient proof is found only in the authority of the Catholic Church in our own times. Let us take the four Gospels first.

We ask you to consider them for the moment as if they were not inspired. We do not deny their inspiration, but for the moment we abstract from it, and make no use of it.

Let us subject the Gospels as books to all the laws of historical criticism--the same laws that we apply to other books. They prove to be reliable historical documents--indeed, there is no genuine historical document in existence, if these are not so. Now these historical documents tell us of a certain historical person who declared that He was God, justified that claim by works which no ordinary tnan could do, and said that He would establish an infallible church--a church still in this world.

Thus we prove Christ's life and works from historical documents. We prove His divinity from His life and works. We prove the infallible Church from the promise of this divine Person. But we do not yet say that Scripture is inspired, though of course we know that it is. But our rational grounds for that belief come from the fact that the infallible Church of Christ teaches with her authority that the Bible is inspired and the Word of God, and also tells us what books comprise the Bible.

That the Bible is infinitely superior to the sacred books of other religions becomes at once apparent. The most rigid criticism shows the strictly historical character of the Bible. Fabulous narratives cannot stand this test. The supernatural character of the Bible stands out in, vivid contrast when compared with the teaching of other religious documents. The Catholic Church, whose very existence in the world today cannot be explained by natural forces, guarantees the Bible as the Word of God.

110. We Protestants know that the Bible is inspired without having to accept the authority of the Catholic Church. We feel that it is the Word of God, and know from the lofty doctrines it contains.

Your belief is right, though many Protestants are rapidly giving up that belief. For the grounds you allege for your belief scarcely provide a sufficiently rational foundation. You may feel that it is inspired, but nothing can be proved from feelings, and in any case there are others who do not feel that it is inspired. Again, whilst many passages contain lofty doctrines, many other passages are not lofty, and this argument cannot justify the Bible as a whole.

111. I, for one, do not believe in the Bible. Your own proof is a vicious circle, the Church proving her own infallibility from Scripture, and the inspiration of Scripture from her infallibility.

It is not a vicious circle, but a lawful spiral argument of which the ends do not meet. Taking the Scriptures as historical documents only, the Church proves the historical fact that Christ endowed her with infallibility. Then using that infallibility she throws new light on the historical books by assuring me that they are inspired. I begin with merely historical books. I finish with inspired historical books. But I did not use inspiration as the basis of my first premise. So, too, I could prove that the present King is the rightful ruler from history only, and after that view him under the aspect of his authority, obeying his legitimate commands. Thus St. Augustine rightly said, even in the fourth century, "I would not accept the Gospels unless the authority of the Catholic Church impelled me."

112. You think the infallible authority of the Catholic Church grounds enough for your belief?

Yes. You have only your fallible human opinion as proof that Scripture is not inspired. I uphold the infallible and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church. Disprove her authority to decide which books are inspired and which are not inspired, and you will have made some headway. But until you have done so, your idea is nothing more than an opinion with a value proportionate only to your limited knowledge and mental capacity. That the Catholic Church has the authority I attribute to her I shall show on another occasion.

113. Ingersoll says that the moment we admit that a book is too sacred to be doubted, we are mental serfs.

So Ingersoll said that!  But the point is, what if he did say it? Is Ingersoll infallible? Has he any more authority than other men, that you should attach such talismanic value to his words? Or do you regard this as a solemn ex cathedra utterance binding all irrational men throughout the world?

114. If God is the Author of the Bible, why did He select words with several meanings, knowing this would ultimately cause confusion and scepticism?

The progress and mutation of an essentially variable human language is unavoidable. And God did know that the changing mentalities of subsequent generations would lead to confusion. To obviate the danger He could do one of two things. He could stabilize human reason and prevent each human being from mistaking the original sense, or else He could establish certain men to teach in His Name, and finally, if necessary, an infallible tribunal which men could consult in matters of religion. He chose the latter course, and thus never intended Scripture to be the ultimate guide in religious belief. Men who will not accept the Catholic Church, but insist on puzzling out the sense for themselves, have only themselves to blame if they end in scepticism. If the government establishes an inquiry office as a guide to the city and a complete stranger refuses to use its services, he is to blame if he gets lost.

115. Read the Bible, and you will soon admit that God could not possibly be the author of such a book.

I have read it many times. But nothing in the Bible disproves the fact of its inspiration. It may be difficult to secure the right interpretation of certain passages, or to grasp the principles involved, but our difficulty in comprehending everything, a difficulty to be expected, avails nothing against the known fact that the Bible is the Word of God.

Copyright © 2005-2006 iCatholicism.net. All Rights Reserved.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Theology
KEYWORDS: radiorepliesvolone

Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.

"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days.  My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."

Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:

"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."

"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."

"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."

Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour,  from St. Paul, Minnesota.

I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."

I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.  

It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.

The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.

To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.

Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.

"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."



Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.

Source: www.catholicauthors.com

1 posted on 05/06/2009 7:21:42 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fidelis; MHGinTN; Atomic Vomit; MI
 Radio Replies

Radio Replies Ping

FReep-mail me to get on or off

“The Radio Replies Ping-List”

ON / OFF


2 posted on 05/06/2009 7:22:20 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

The Radio Replies Series

Chapter One: God

Radio Replies Volume One: God’s Existence Known by Reason
Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of God
Radio Replies Volume One: Providence of God and Problem of Evil

Chapter Two: Man

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Man & Existence and Nature of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Immortality of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume One: Destiny of the Soul & Freewill of Man

Chapter Three: Religion

Radio Replies Volume One: Nature of Religion & Necessity of Religion

Chapter Four: The Religion of the Bible

Radio Replies Volume One: Natural Religion & Revealed Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Mysteries of Religion
Radio Replies Volume One: Miracles
Radio Replies Volume One: Value of the Gospels
Radio Replies Volume One: Inspiration of the Gospels

3 posted on 05/06/2009 7:23:28 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Your belief is right, though many Protestants are rapidly giving up that belief.

A lot of Catholics are joinig some Protestants in this.

4 posted on 05/06/2009 7:39:46 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Thank you for the ping.


5 posted on 05/06/2009 10:02:55 AM PDT by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA; GonzoII; Ethan Clive Osgoode
Your belief is right, though many Protestants are rapidly giving up that belief.

A lot of Catholics are joinig some Protestants in this.

The authors of "Radio Replies" were "theistic evolutionists".

This is why the Catholic Church is a wreck today, though you won't find very many Catholics who will admit this.

6 posted on 05/06/2009 5:30:26 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

***The authors of “Radio Replies” were “theistic evolutionists”.

This is why the Catholic Church is a wreck today, though you won’t find very many Catholics who will admit this.***

Really? Theistic evolutionists? Let us see what the site says.

“Creation is not a theory. It is a fact revealed by God. Evolution is a fact within certain restricted spheres, but a mere theory when made of universal application. We have to admit evolution in knowledge, or in growth from babyhood to manhood. As a universal theory, however, evolution from nothing is absurd. Yet granted that God created something, it is quite possible that God endowed His original creation with power to evolve. Did he create vegetables, and animals separately, or did He create a vast rotating nebula and give it the power to evolve into various forms of being and life? The latter idea has never been proved. It is a matter of speculation, with no certainty attached to it, save that science quite discredits spontaneous generation of life. Did man himself evolve from lower living beings? It is absolutely certain that his soul did not. The soul is an intelligent spirit, and an intelligent spirit cannot evolve from matter. Moreover, God has revealed that the soul is created immediately by Himself. Did man’s body evolve from lower animals, God creating the rational soul when some lower animal had sufficiently evolved towards manhood? Despite conjectures in favor of this notion, the evidence is against it.”

Yup, theistic evolutionists.


7 posted on 05/06/2009 5:39:27 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
You didn't go to the page I linked, did you? Why? What were you afraid of?

Did God, then, create and establish all things as they are within a period of six ordinary days? No. To arrest the attention and assist the memories of those for whom he wrote, Moses used the analogy of days, with mornings and evenings, as the people living at the time he wrote knew them. He used these days to typify the objective reality of God's creative work during long periods of time. This is a purely literary device quite compatible with inspiration, and above all, when we remember that the main purpose of the author was to show that God is the Author and Lord of all things. In its religious significance, the account makes use of the seven ordinary sections of the week, bidding men worship God and rest upon the seventh. Scientifically, each day applies to a long correlative objective period, required for the slow astronomical and geological formation. In other words, Moses dedicated seven consecutive days in honor of God's work, considered as having occurred in seven consecutive periods. And as, after the sixth day, God is described as having abstained from further labor, so after six days of labor man was to abstain on the seventh. Thus Moses impressed upon the people that the week must end in a day devoted to religious duties.

Exactly as I said. "Theistic" evolutionists.

8 posted on 05/06/2009 6:56:12 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All
For those interested.

Source: Catholic Dogma and Teaching on Creation
and the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis


Response of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Genesis -- June 30, 1909

English TranslationQuestion I: Whether the various exegetical systems which have been proposed to exclude the literal historical sense of the three first chapters of the Book of Genesis, and have been defended by the pretense of science, are sustained by a solid foundation? -- Reply: In the negative. Back

Original LatinDubium I.: Utrum varia systemata exegetica, quae ad excludendum sensum litteralem historicum trium priorum capitum libri Geneseos excogitata et scientiae fuco propugnata sunt, solido fundamento fulciantur? Resp.: Negative.

Question II: Whether, when the nature and historical form of the Book of Genesis does not oppose, because of the peculiar connections of the three first chapters with each other and with the following chapters, because of the manifold testimony of the Old and New Testaments; because of the almost unanimous opinion of the Holy Fathers, and because of the traditional sense which, transmitted from the Israelite people, the Church always held, it can be taught that the three aforesaid chapters of Genesis do not contain the stories of events which really happened, that is, which correspond with objective reality and historical truth; but are either accounts celebrated in fable drawn from the mythologies and cosmogonies of ancient peoples and adapted by a holy writer to monotheistic doctrine, after expurgating any error of polytheism; or allegories and symbols, devoid of a basis of objective reality, set forth under the guise of history to inculcate religious and philosophical truths; or, finally, legends, historical in part and fictitious in part, composed freely for the instruction and edification of souls? -- Reply: In the negative to both parts. Back Dubium II.: Utrum, non obstantibus indole et forma historica libri Geneseos, peculiari trium priorum capitum inter se et cum sequentibus capitibus nexu, multiplici testimonio Scripturarum tum Veteris tum Novi Testamenti, unanimi fere sanctorum Patrum sententia ac traditionali sensu, quem, ab Israelitico etiam populo transmissum, semper tenuit Ecclesia, doceri possit: praedicta tria capita Geneseos continere non rerum vere gestarum narrationes, quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant; sed vel fabulosa ex veterum populorum mythologiis et cosmogoniis deprompta et ab auctore sacro, expurgato quovis polytheismi errore, doctrinae monotheisticae accomodata; vel allegorias et symbola, fundamento obiectivae realitatis destituta, sub historiae specie ad religiosas et philosophicas veritates inculcandas proposita, vel tandem legendas ex parte historicas et ex parte fictitias ad animorum instructionem et aedificationem libere compositas? Resp.: Negative ad utramque partem.
Question III: Whether in particular the literal and historical sense can be called into question, where it is a matter of facts related in the same chapters, which pertain to the foundation of the Christian religion; for example, among others, the creation of all things wrought by God in the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from the first man; the oneness of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the command given to man by God to prove his obedience; the transgression of the divine command through the devil's persuasion under the guise of a serpent; the casting of our first parents out of that first state of innocence; and also the promise of a future restorer? -- Reply: In the negative. Back Dubium III.: Utrum speciatim sensus litteralis historicus vocari in dubium possit, ubi agitur de factis in eisdem capitibus enarratis, quae christianae religionis fundamenta attingunt: uti sunt, inter cetera, rerum universarum creatio a Deo facta in initio temporis; peculiaris creatio hominis ; formatio primae mulieris ex primo homine; generis humani unitas, originalis protoparentum felicitas in statu iustitiae, integritatis et immortalitatis, praeceptum a Deo homini datum ad eius obedientiam probandam; divini praecepti, diabolo sub serpentis specie suasore, transgressio; protoparentum deiectio ab illo primaevo innocentiae statu; nec non Reparatoris futuri promissio? Resp.: Negative.
Question IV: Whether in interpreting those passages of these chapters, which the Fathers and Doctors have understood differently, but concerning which they have not taught anything certain and definite, it is permitted, while preserving the judgment of the Church and keeping the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which everyone has wisely approved? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back Dubium IV.: Utrum in interpretandis illis horum capitum locis, quos Patres et Doctores diverso modo intellexerunt, quin certi quippiam definitique tradiderint, liceat salvo Ecclesiae iudicio servataque fidei analogia, eam, quam quisque prudenter probaverit, sequi tuerique sententiam? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question V: Whether all and everything, namely, words and phrases which occur in the aforementioned chapters, are always and necessarily to be accepted in a special sense, so that there may be no deviation from this, even when the expressions themselves manifestly appear to have been taken improperly, or metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and either reason prohibits holding the proper sense, or necessity forces its abandonment? -- Reply: In the negative. Back Dubium V.: Utrum omnia et singula, verba videlicet et phrases, quae in praedictis capitibus occurrunt, semper et necessario accipienda sint sensu proprio, ita ut ab eo discedere numquam liceat, etiam cum locutiones ipsae manifesto appareant improprie, seu metaphorice vel anthropomorphice usurpatae, et sensum proprium vel ratio tenere prohibeat vel necessitas cogat dimittere? Resp.: Negative.
Question VI: Whether, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some passages of the same chapters, with the example of the Holy Fathers and the Church herself showing the way, can be wisely and profitably applied? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back Dubium VI.: Utrum, praesupposito litterali et historico sensu, nonnullorum locorum eorundem capitum interpretatio allegorica et prophetica, praefulgente sanctorum Patrum et Ecclesiae ipsius exemplo, adhiberi sapienter et utiliter possit? Resp.: Affirmative.
Question VII: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: In the negative. Back Dubium VII.: Utrum, cum in conscribendo primo Geneseos capite non fuerit sacri auctoris mens intimam adspectabilium rerum constitutionem ordinemque creationis completum scientifico more docere, sed potius suae genti tradere notitiam popularem, prout communis sermo per ea ferebat tempora, sensibus et captui hominum accommodatam, sit in horum interpretatione adamussim semperque investiganda scientifici sermonis proprietas? Resp.: Negative.
Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? -- Reply: In the affirmative. Back Dubium VIII.: Utrum in illa sex dierum denominatione atque distinctione, de quibus in Geneseos capite primo, sumi possit vox Yôm (dies) sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat? Resp.: Affirmative.

9 posted on 05/06/2009 10:02:03 PM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

My faith is strong enough (thanks God) that I don’t have to reject out of hand scientific theories that seem to contradict my CURRENT understanding of Bible teachings. I know that any APPARENT contradiction is due to my sinful nature coming between me and the TRUTH and it will all be made clear eventually.


10 posted on 05/07/2009 6:17:19 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DManA
My faith is strong enough (thanks God) that I don’t have to reject out of hand scientific theories that seem to contradict my CURRENT understanding of Bible teachings. I know that any APPARENT contradiction is due to my sinful nature coming between me and the TRUTH and it will all be made clear eventually.

Bully for you.

The authors of the passage I quoted don't simply refuse to "reject out of hand scientific theories." They plainly state that "Moses" used an allegory of seven days to represent millions of years.

Catholicism has been soft on evolution from day one and even "conservative" Catholics refuse to disassociate themselves from it. This is why the Catholic Church is in such a mess, but no Catholic, no matter how "conservative," will admit this, it seems. After all, we simply can't agree with "those awful people" about anything.

11 posted on 05/07/2009 7:11:15 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

It seems the sole purpose of the “magisterium” is to permit belief in zillions of years of evolution.


12 posted on 05/07/2009 7:13:01 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Please see my post #8—a quote from the page I linked to earlier.


13 posted on 05/07/2009 7:14:26 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

That’s one way to interpret it.

This whole topic is nothing but a distraction. And a divisive one at that. It has nothing to do with what God’s plan for us and how we put that plan into action.


14 posted on 05/07/2009 7:59:03 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DManA
That’s one way to interpret it.

It certainly is.

This whole topic is nothing but a distraction.

And that's one way to avoid admitting defeat.

Do you regard the arguments over homosexuality and women priestesses to be "distractions" as well?

And a divisive one at that. It has nothing to do with what God’s plan for us and how we put that plan into action.

Sure. The Holy Torah is nothing but verbiage without a point, isn't it? I guess it can be ignored then.

15 posted on 05/07/2009 8:05:23 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I admit no such thing. I stand by my statement of faith in the divinely inspired Word of God. And I am in no way intimidated by your vain and foolish rhetorical feints.

Sure. The Holy Torah is nothing but verbiage without a point, isn't it? I guess it can be ignored then.

16 posted on 05/07/2009 8:10:30 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DManA
I admit no such thing. I stand by my statement of faith in the divinely inspired Word of God.

You are the one who claimed the issue of whether the days of Berei'shit are real days or long eons of time is a "distraction."

Now answer my question: are the arguments over "the historic J*sus" a distraction?

17 posted on 05/07/2009 8:13:29 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Obviously not. The Trinity is the core and cannot be disputed. How you interpret the Genesis story is not core and Christian can disagree without dividing over it.


18 posted on 05/07/2009 8:21:05 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Obviously not. The Trinity is the core and cannot be disputed. How you interpret the Genesis story is not core and Christian can disagree without dividing over it.

I observe again that the loyalty of my fellow "rednecks" to chr*stianity is illogical and ironic.

I suppose it's also not important whether or not the Red Sea parted?

19 posted on 05/07/2009 9:50:05 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

***You didn’t go to the page I linked, did you? Why? What were you afraid of? ***

I hate to break this to you, but I could not have quoted off the web page if I didn’t go there.

I don’t believe that there were 6 literal 24 hour days; let’s face it, as we go back in time, we apparently had slower rotation of the earth so that it was closer to 25 hours per day. That is why our circadian rhythm does not exactly match our current day.

There is the Biblical metaphor and the Biblical literal; it is the Church which has decided which is which.


20 posted on 05/07/2009 5:03:54 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
There is the Biblical metaphor and the Biblical literal; it is the Church which has decided which is which.

I am proud to be a heretic.

21 posted on 05/07/2009 5:07:19 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

***I am proud to be a heretic.***

So? Boy George is proud to be a cross dressing homosexual. Pol Pot was proud to be a mass murderer. Michelle Obama is finally proud to be an American. And Madeleine Murray O’Hair was proud to be an atheist.


22 posted on 05/07/2009 5:17:29 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
So? Boy George is proud to be a cross dressing homosexual. Pol Pot was proud to be a mass murderer. Michelle Obama is finally proud to be an American. And Madeleine Murray O’Hair was proud to be an atheist.

And every one of them interprets/ed the Hexameron just as Catholics do. I'll pass.

23 posted on 05/07/2009 5:33:14 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator (Vaydabber Mosheh 'et-mo`adei HaShem 'el-Benei Yisra'el.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

***So? Boy George is proud to be a cross dressing homosexual. Pol Pot was proud to be a mass murderer. Michelle Obama is finally proud to be an American. And Madeleine Murray O’Hair was proud to be an atheist.

And every one of them interprets/ed the Hexameron just as Catholics do. I’ll pass.***

How about you provide proof before passing?


24 posted on 05/07/2009 5:42:23 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson