Replies

Then what do you hold in your hands? It is either the infallible word of God exactly as Matthew, et alt wrote it to be or it's trash.

Neither. Examination of the best sources that we have do not permit it to be called infallible. However, it is close enough to be interpreted through the Church infallibly.

So? I'm a computer analyst who deals with a great deal in statistical data. I to am interested in facts where facts matters. So let's look at the facts. You state that you believe in the infallible word of God. Then you state that we don't really have the word of God as it exist. Then you state that the Nicene Council agree on the word of God. Then you state that you appreciate kosta's view on how scripture develop even though he doesn't agree on the infallibility or inerrancy of scripture. Those are the facts. So for someone to tell me they're interested in facts, don't these facts seem a bit inconsistent?

Big deal. You can manipulate anything with statistics. The facts as we know them are that there were the original writings of whomever wrote them in Greek. Then they were manipulated over the first three centuries in Greek. Then they were chosen by the Church at Nicea. Then they were translated into Latin. Then they were translated into various languages including English. If you have ever dealt with translations from foreign languages, you will appreciate that they are approximate and not the real thing.

We don't have the Ten Commandments written by God's finger from Mount Sinai. Yet we know what the Ten Commandments are. The Nicene Council was formed in 325AD. They knew they had the infallible word of God otherwise they wouldn't have said so, isn't that correct? The Church can't be wrong, can it?

Who's we? If you look at a Protestant Bible, the 10 Commandments are written slightly differently from the Catholic one. The Church is not wrong and it is disingenuous to pick and choose the points where you consider the Church to be correct and to gainsay it on other points. What gives you the authority to do so? Are you being your own Pope in declaring doctrine?

Neither. Examination of the best sources that we have do not permit it to be called infallible.

And there you go. Thanks for admitting that you don't REALLY believe in the infallibility of scripture. Few Catholics will make such an admission. It puts them at odds with early Church teaching (and teaching as late as the 1600s). But then it's not the first major doctrine the Church has changed from what was taught by the fathers. The Church has left its first love a long time ago.

The early Nicene fathers never taught that the interpretation was infallible through Church teachings. They knew what was inspired and what wasn't. Jerome, Chrysostom and others must be turning over in their crypts.

John Chrysostom, who lived between 347-407 AD, wrote: "Listen carefully to me..Procure books [of the Bible] that will be medicines for the soul. At least get a copy of the New Testament, the Apostle's epistles, the Acts, the Gospels, for your constant teachers. If you encounter grief, dive into them as into a chest of medicines; take from them comfort for your trouble, whether it be loss, or death, or bereavement over the loss of relations. Don't simply dive into them. Swim in them. Keep them constantly in your mind. The cause of all evils is the failure to know the Scriptures well."

What gives you the authority to do so? Are you being your own Pope in declaring doctrine?

I don't have to be a Pope to read what the early church fathers wrote on the inspiration of scripture and declared at council after council. The Church plainly no longer follows the teachings of the fathers. This is a case in point. It is disingenuous for Catholics to pretend that they do.