1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

JA: It is not for you or me to interpret Church teachings so as to bind each other. That is the role of the Church. Pius XII did not condemn "for the sake of our salvation". I don't agree.

RS3: Look at what you're doing, Jorge. You're basing your argument that "for the sake of our salvation" means that there are historical errors in Scripture. You don't know that, since Vatican II did not say that. And of course Pius XII didn't condemn "for the sake of our salvation," rather, he condemned the notion that inerrancy was limited to matters of faith and morals.

JA: In fact, it was Pius XII that was one of the biggest fans of historical-critical exegesis and who gave Catholic exegetes the freedom to do what they do.

RS3: Not so. It is one thing to allow historical-critical exegesis, but it is quite another to say that there are errors in Scripture. Actually, what you just did Jorge is admit to us that historical-critical exegesis concludes that there ARE errors in Scripture, and that you're just waiting for the Church to catch up to you and Fr. Brown. But it didn't happen at Vatican II, Jorge, and I think you know that it will never happen.

"RS2: Just the fact that you have to pose this as a question (ie., "Did Jesus cleanse the temple early in his ministry (as in John's Gospel) or late in his ministry (as in Matthew's)?" means you don't know the answer to the question, do you? Obviously, if you don't know the answer to your own question, then how can you say that either John or Matthew are in error? All you see is an apparent contradiction, and I will admit there is an apparent contradiction. But do you really think you have all the facts at your disposal about these two instances to firmly, resolutely, and forever conclude that one of the evangelists made an historical error? I don't think so, Jorge."

JA: Robert, the question was rhetorical. It is obvious that he didn't cleanse it twice or teach the Lord's prayer twice. It is equally obvious, once you read and study (the research and findings of Meier, Brown, Fitzmyer, etc.) that the evangelists placed the events where they did for theological reasons and not for historicity purposes. In that respect they are not historical errors because the writers didn't intend it to be read as an historical fact (i.e., where it occurred in the ministry, the precise words used, the people who were there, etc.). The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels makes this abundantly clear.

RS3: Jorge, I'm all for seeing the "theological" reasons why a particular narrative was placed in Scripture, but that doesn't mean that the historical event is not true. You simply do not have enough information to make such conclusions. And please, don't try to smooth it over by saying that "the writer didn't intend it to be read as an historical fact," since you simply do not know what was in the writer's mind, and neither does Fr. Brown. If you base things on intent, you are simply guessing, since intent is a subjective issue. We can't even be sure of someone's intent when we're talking to them face to face, let alone separated by 2000 years. The only thing I'm a little bit certain of regarding "intent" is that it seems your intent to find errors in Scripture to support the presupposition you have about Scripture. I suggest you take a cue from Augustine in his letter to Jerome (the very letter that Vatican II referenced in Footnote 5 when they cited Leo's citation of Augustine, by the way). He writes:

"For I confess to your charity that I have learned to regard those books of Scripture now called canonical - and them alone - with such awe and honor that I most firmly believe none of their authors erred in writing anything. And if I come across anything in those Writings which troubles me because it seems contrary to the truth, I will unhesitatingly lay the blame elsewhere: perhaps the copy is untrue to the original; or the translator may not have rendered the passage faithfully; or perhaps I just do not understand it"

RS2: I was in a very lengthy email debate with someone this past Spring on the assertion you made about "...historical contradictions (they really aren't when you realize that they were not intended by the writer to be understood as asserting the precise historical place and time that they occurred."

JA: Precisely, as I stated above. But, who is qualified to say what was intended by the author? You? Me? or the historical-critical exegetes who serve the Church. The Church Herself makes no such findings.

RS3: Jorge, the Church has never taught the idea that an historical narrative has errors, nor that the theological import of the narrative has precedence over the historicity of the narrative, nor that historical errors are not really errors if we understand the intent of the author. Only the historical-critical exegetes are saying that stuff. If the Church thought these were such cogent ideas they would have officially endorsed them, but she hasn't, and you know it. My goodness, you treat Fr. Brown almost as if he were a church in himself. But you simply have no proof or documentation for your claims.

RS2: "I will say this, Jorge. You have no way of knowing what the "intention" of the author is. You cannot read the mind of evangelist in the first century. All you know is what the text gives you, and almost everyone will agree that it doesn't give us very much. Unless you can prove what the "intention" of the biblical writer is, then you really have no basis for saying that he made a particular historical error."

JA: I am not qualified but people like Brown, et. al. are.

RS3: Oh? Can Fr. Brown read the minds of the first century evangelists? Can he be so certain of his conclusions that he can resolutely, without any doubt, say that there are definitely errors in Scripture? Fr. Brown is not omniscient, Jorge. He cannot prove what the "intent" of the author was, because he wasn't there. This stuff is precisely what the Protestants gave up on 100 years ago, and your now wallowing in their vomit. Believe me, Jorge, I was a Protestant for 18 years. None of this stuff is new to me. It's the same old arguments, just a different venue. I guarantee you this: it will not get you any closer to God. I've seen it happen over and over again. Those who retreat to biblical errancy eventually end up losing their faith.

RS2: "In fact, for all the allowance that the five last popes have given to higher criticism, not one of them has ever said that there are historical errors in the Bible. Isn't that a curious lacuna in your theory? END"

JA: Not in a Church teaching no. Don't you find it curious that VatII rejected 100% historical inerrancy?

RS3: I find it curious that you are really not that familiar with what went on at Vatican II, yet you seem bent on making definitive conclusions. Vatican II rejected Schemas 1-3 for reasons other than what you claim. In keeping with the positive slant the Father's wished for Vatican II, Schemas 1-2 were rejected because of the harsh, negative language, not because Vatican II suddenly believed there were errors in Scripture.

JA: The list of historical errors that were pointed out at VATII and the ones identified by other scholars make it clear that there are historical errors.

RS3: If Konig's "errors" are the best you can do, then you really don't have a case. You seem to think that you're the first person to have discovered these biblical discrepancies. I suggest you read Cornelius Lapide. He'll give you volumes of apparent discrepancies in Scripture seen by the Fathers and Medievals, yet not one of them concluded that there were errors in Scripture, not one.

JA: There are even "religious" errors. Which OT writer asserted that there is no afterlife? I forget who it is but it is there.

RS3: Religious errors? Jorge, I thought you believed that Scripture was inerrant in matters of salvation. Isn't the fact that there might not be an afterlife a significant, big error in a matter of salvation? And here you conclude that there ARE "religious" errors, yet you can't even tell us where Scripture makes such a claim! Jorge, your gun is cocked too tight. It seems you have an agenda, and it is not good.

JA: Biblical books, in and of themselves, are NOT the Bible. They are the Bible taken as a whole. They are canonical taken as a whole.

RS3: I suggest you read Pius X and Benedict XV, et al, who say that you can't do that with Scripture, Jorge. They say that "each and every part is without error." They're way ahead of you.

JA: The Babylonian archeological findings of the last few decades makes it clear that there are historical errors. How does this effect salvific truth? (or as they discussed at VatII, "those locating truths" that also are free from error)? It doesn't.

RS3: Jorge, I remember that last time archeologists claimed that the Bible was in error. It was when they said that there was no archeological evidence for the Hittites. For 50 years they claimed the Bible was in error. Lo and behold, they eventually found the remains of the Hittites, and the Bible was vindicated once again. So what "evidence" do you have this time that the Bible is in error?

"RS2: Here's the problem. How do you separate historical teaching from salvation teaching?"

JA: Does it matter whether their was star that guided the magi? What if there wasn't? Does this effect salvation? Not in the least.

RS3: The issue is not whether it effects salvation. That is YOUR issue, based on YOUR distorted interpretation of Vatican II. Salvation doesn't depend on Scripture, or Tradition, or even the Magisterium. If not, then Abel wouldn't have stood a chance. What matters is truth. If something or someone claims to be true, and yet we find error in it, then EVERYTHING it says is suspect of being untrue. That's what happens when you attack Scripture's veracity -- you open it up to attack from every angle. That is why many of your historical-critical exegetes reject the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the Eucharist, and many more traditional dogmas. You even did so yourself above when you posited that the Scripture contains "religious" errors, because you think there is a verse (although you don't know where) that says there is no afterlife. You are on a slipperly slope, Jorge.

RS2: "And who is to say that if the Bible is wrong on an historical detail that it is not wrong on a soteriological detail?"

JA: The Bible isn't, per se, a doctrinal, book. It is a love story, a collection of faith histories, a collection of books written by authors to help strengthen their belief and to help them cope with persecution, dissent, problems, etc.

RS3: I suggest you read Dei Verbum 11 again, for there they quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states: "16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."

JA: The NT is based upon tradition and it is the living Church that developed doctrine. There is no one soteriology in the Bible. There is no ONE view of the Eucharist in the NT.

RS3: Perhaps you can tell us where the Church has taught that there is "no one soteriology in the Bible" or "no ONE view of the Eucharist in the NT," or are they just the conclusions of Jorge Adams?

JA: How many heresies have developed because someone thought they could read the Bible by themselves and tell others what doctrine they should believe? Arius was a big time sola scriptura advocate. The Bible, by itself, is not a doctrinal statement.

RS3: How many heresies have developed because some Catholic thought that he could jump ahead of the Church and declare something to be true when in fact that Church had not declared it to be true? Yes, among many others, I'm talking about Fr. Brown's conclusion that there ARE errors in Scripture, as opposed to your admission that Vatican II did not teach that there ARE errors in Scripture.

"RS2: Perhaps, but answer the question anyway, just to humor me. Does Fr. Peter have all the facts to make such a conclusion or not? I think that's pretty simple."

JA: I don't know what facts he has so I can't answer it.

RS3: No, you can answer, because you already did. If you don't know what facts he has, then you've admitted that he can't have all the facts, since you would have to admit that in order for Fr. Peter to make such a conclusion he would have to know all the facts of the case. For if he doesn't know all the facts, then he should only be making guesses, not absolute conclusions. But you and Fr. Brown are not guessing. You have both made absolute conclusions (there ARE errors in Scripture) yet neither of you have all the facts, since it is impossible to have all the facts. Since it is impossible to know all the facts, then the only way we can be dogmatic about any errors in Scripture is if the infallible Magisterium tells us. So far, by your own admission, they have not told us. Therefore, we have no right to make such conclusions about Scripture. So you have overstepped your bounds, Jorge, and so has Fr. Brown. I implore you to retreat.

"RS2: I didn't say you were a heretic, Jorge, for, as you say, only the Church can make that determination, since it is based on the intent of the individual. I said your view of Scripture is heretical, as did all the Popes and Councils who spoke on this issue."

JA: Nope. You are providing "infallible" interpretations of what the Church has taught. I don't agree with your interpretations. My view isn't heretical and only the Church can say that it is. You can say, for instance, that you believe that it is heretical or in your opinion it is heretical. But, you shouldn't say, definitively, that it is. That is a usurpation of the role of the Church.

RS3: Fine, we'll let the Church judge you. Far be it from me. But since you've already admitted that the Church has not taught that there are errors in Scripture, but you say there ARE errors in Scripture, sounds like you and the Church are not on the same wavelength. And since we it seems that Vatican II, by itself, is not clear enough to settle the issue for you, could you perhaps provide documentation from previous popes and councils that will give some credibility to your interpretations of Vatcian II? Or do you believe that Vatican II operates in a vacuum or can contradict previous Church teaching?

RS2: "Pius IX in Syllabus of Errors, condemned the following notion: "The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions...""

JA: Oh goodie. Brown deals with this. I will provide you an excerpt from his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine (a book I highly recommend you get and read).

RS3: Please do.

RS2: "Pope Leo XIII, in Providentissiums Deus, "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.""

JA: Again, Mysterium Ecclesia addresses this.

RS3: Please share that one, too.

RS2: Pope Pius X, in Lamentabili Sani, condemned the notion: "Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

JA: No one is disputing inspiration.

RS3: Jorge, Pius is combining inspiration and inerrancy in that statement, as many of the Popes did.....note, "so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error."

RS2: "Pope Benedict XV, in Spiritus Paraclitus: "...the divine inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture without distinction, and that no error could occur in the inspired text.""

JA: There is not error with respect to salvific truth. Paraclitus doesn't even address the issue.

RS3: That's because it does not address issues that have never been an issue of inerrancy, i.e., "salvific truth." And as I said above, Paul VI specifically requested that "salvific truth" be taken out of Dei Verbum, and it was.

RS2: "Pope Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu, repeats Leo XIII decree: "It is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Sacred Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred.""

JA: Mysterium Ecclesia again.

RS3: How is that, exactly, when Vatican II put this quote in its footnotes, while Mysterium Ecclesia was only a gleam in the Pope's eye?

RS2: "In Humani Generis, Pius XII condemns the notion: "...immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters.""

JA: Likewise, VatII rejected inerrency as to only faith and morals. There is no conflict. "Salvific and locating Truth" is not the same thing as merely faith and morals.

RS3: Oh? So what is "salvific and locating truth" Jorge, and where did Vatican II say that "salvific and locating truth" was not "faith and morals"?

RS2: "Pontifical Biblical Commission, in 1964, states: "...that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error.""

JA: There is no conflict here.

RS3: No conflict? I suppose you are planning to say that it's not REALLY an historical error, because the writer didn't INTEND to write history? Is that it? Well, as I said above, before you rest on that position, you have to prove to us that you know the INTENT of the biblical writer. Perhaps you can call him up from the dead and ask him, because that's the only way you're going to know for sure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9