How to Solve Apparent Contradictions of Faith and Reason with Fr. James Brent, O.P. (Aquinas 101)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лип 2024
- ⭐️ Donate $5 to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
Pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
As John Henry Newman said, ten thousand difficulties do not make for one doubt.
One way to understand the Summa theologiae is to say that Thomas Aquinas provides us not only a book, but an extensive curriculum into a variety of resolutions of a multitude of difficulties in Scripture and Tradition. And his resolutions, as well as the different ways he resolves questions and difficulties in faith, help us to understand some of the most fundamental truths of all. But despite the many questions and difficulties and complexities of theology, the point of it all remains simple. The point is to know the God revealed to us in Jesus Christ, and to know and love him more and more and enjoy him in eternity.
How to Solve Apparent Contradictions of Faith and Reason (Aquinas 101) - Fr. James Brent, O.P.
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
ua-cam.com/users/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each Tuesday morning.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic #ScienceAndFaith #ScienceAndReligion
This video was made possible through the support of grant #61944 from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.
This man is very intelligent in explaining very tough philosophical questions. Am glad to have found this channel.
We're glad you did as well! God bless you.
I watch these within the hour it comes out. I study monks to make myself a better teacher 💜
So do i!
We need more teachers like you! Thank you and God bless, through our Holy
Mother
Thank you for watching!
Fr. James Brent is on another level. Such an intellectual giant, and a great gift to the church
Truly!!
Really insightful talk condensed in 9 minutes! It's amazing that Fr. Jame Brent explained so many key points of nuances with crystal clarity within such a short time!
This priest is just awesome!!!
Great talk. Thank you Father
You're welcome! Thanks for watching.
Very clear
Thanks Father!
You're welcome! Thanks for watching.
Thank you for these terrific videos!
It's our joy! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Thank you Fr. Brent! I’ve watched many Islamic scholars point out inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and it was disheartening to see. I’m glad I found your channel and I hope to see more videos like this which strengthens my faith! Amen!
I also think it's important to understand that because the gospels fall into the genre of "bioi," or ancient lives, where authors would rearrange the details thematically or exclude certain details to better fit the narrative that they were telling. It's even more remarkable that the gospels were written within living memory of Jesus's earthly ministry, and it should be noted that they use their sources far more judiciously than is the norm for other ancient bioi.
Also, I enjoyed hearing Fr. Brent speak at the recent TI Conference in Greenville. His talk really illuminated a lot of St. Thomas' epistemology for me. :)
Thank you. More power to you
Beautiful!
Please intercede for my salvation! Thank you!
Be assured of our prayers. God bless you!
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you!
very beautifully done learned a lot!
Thank you! God bless you.
Interesting approach to studying these apparent contradictions.
Love these videos from the Thomistic Institute
Thank you! We're glad you're enjoying the videos.
This is so useful
Very good video. I think that it depends on the axioms which I consider as "basic beliefs." Science also has these "basic beliefs" so in some way we can imagine it relying on Faith. Theology, specifically Christian theology, also has a set of axioms that have to be considered in order to proceed with their methodology for example the axiom that scripture is divinely inspired therefore cannot contain contradiction. For a non-Christian, they do not hold some of the axioms held in Christian theology thus can find inconsistency with the scriptures. That is how I understand it.
What a find!
We're happy you found it! Thanks for watching.
Very nice.
So all understanding is preliminary and contradictions are just challenges?!
Great video, as always! I would find a video on what St. Thomas calls the "biggest sin" -- unbelief -- very interesting and helpful. I feel like it would tie in nicely with videos like this and with your videos on the theological virtue of Faith.
God bless!
Could you possibly get an episode in response to the book 'The Immortality Key' by Brian Muraresku? Or the podcast he did with Jordan Peterson because it shook up my faith
How did it shake up your faith?
@@cS-tk2qu The whole aspect of the everything being a psychedelic experience and that the Church could had some Greek pagan rituals
Learning by intelligence, this must be hard for many.
How can it be a "research program" if you already know the conclusion you want to prove?
I guess there is good research and that which it not so much. This was just a redacting of the Convoluted arguments of the Humanist theologians of early 19th Century. We’ve long moved on.
Also if I were to tell people living in Jesus' time how I travel using jet planes, how I can communicate with other people instantly using smart phones, etc. they will not believe unless they see these things for themselves.
Even then I say today, this stuff is more magical than "science"
I dont know how to ask this on the website but if we found an intelligent civilization which comprises of "rational animals" like us humans and in their world there is also their own version of the Bible(prophecies and Resurrection of Christ) which have same essence but with different details such as Christ taking the flesh of the life form there due to the difference in environment in their planet, how does will it impact the church and society in general?
This is like asking 'what if Christ was a woman' or 'what if Christ was Chinese'. Well, He wasn't, so that's that. If you would only believe that God made the heavens and the Earth on the first day, and only created the stars on the fourth day, and that Christ is His only-begotten son, then you would understand that the concepts of aliens and an 'alien Christ' are completely impossible. Now some humans or demons could try to pretend to be aliens.
@@jaspermay5813 This is nonsense. Medieval theologians speculated on the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and Aquinas himself considered that the Word might take on more than simply human nature.
I have an honest question for any interested Christian out there (two really) that concern two major biblical contradictions. The first concerns Jesus' birth: In Matthew 2:14, Mary, Joseph, and baby Jesus are instructed by God’s messenger to flee to Egypt because Herod ordered the death of every boy two years and younger. They remain in Egypt until Herod dies. In Luke 2:2 it claims that the census ordered by Caesar was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria. It is also said that Mary was pregnant with Jesus as they traveled to Bethlehem. This is the problem: Herod died in 4 BC, but Quirinius didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 AD. According to the Bible, however, Jesus had to have been born before 4 BC but after 6AD. How can this be resolved? Other issues include the fact that Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old (Mt. 2:13-16). Yet in Lk. 2:21-39, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No massacre is mentioned.
The second question is about Jesus' Genealogy: In Matthew (1:6), Jesus' lineage was traced through David's son Solomon, while in Luke (3:31) his lineage is traced through David's son Nathan. Later, Matthew (1:17) says that there were 28 generations from David to Jesus, while Luke (3:23) claims that there were 43 generations between David and Jesus.
@Æthelhard I hope you realize that you essentially validated criticism. These reports are not inerrant, but in fact err in just the ways we would expect them to as man-made documents without any divine inspiration. Joseph's father cannot be two different people, and Jesus cannot have been born in two different decades. I understand why it is hard to accept, but in the cases of both Matthew and Luke they were making up a backstory in order to validate their claim that Jesus was the messiah (although in most cases, the gospel authors misinterpreted the old testament, to the point where the references allegedly concerning the messiah are either not prophecies or not about the messiah at all. Just to respond to the claim that the bible is inerrant where it concerns the salvific message, did Jesus eat the Passover meal before he was crucified or was he crucified before the Passover meal was to be eaten? It depends on which gospel you read. Mark says the former, John says the latter. The fact that both of the gospels CANNOT be correct gives us good reason to doubt the story. These are not the kind of discrepancies you would expect in a divinely inspired book. Imagine how trivially easy it would've been for God to make sure that these books were actually written by eyewitnesses, for them to be concordant with one another, and to be free of error. And yet, knowing that this fact would be good evidence against biblical inerrancy, he decided to keep the discrepancies and factual inaccuracies in the final edition of the text.
@@vincenzoguandolo8641 It would seem that your understanding of "inerrancy" is deficient, not the biblical texts.
I’m
Can u help me understand thus contradiction? The bible states the universe is Geocentric, whereas Reason tells us the Solar System is Eliocentric!
As Cardinal Baronius remarked to Galileo, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
@@hilairebelloc3368 so we should interpret the Bible insofar religious matter are concerned, while leaving Science and Social aspect to their respective spheres?
@@frankiebortolussi7628 Reason and faith do not contradict. If science or history controverts a straightforward interpretation of a passage, then we have not properly interpreted its meaning.
So we can say that Science, Human Rights and Faith are both correct. If in contrast, se can solve it by adapting extrareligious aspects Faith to our evolving world!
@@frankiebortolussi7628 God is not another being in the universe; he is the transcendent Origin of being itself, distinct from his creation, which operates according to empirically-verifiable laws. There can be no contradiction, therefore, between the related realms of reason and revelation.
At what point do we admit the difficulty is irresolvable and that the Bible- or human reason- are at fault?
Edit: I realize this is probably a difficult question, but I dare you to answer it.
It’s a tough line to draw, but since humans have different types of ways to reconcile difficulties, we can’t be sure that something is a contradiction. Consider what St Peter says in John 6:68, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Effectively, if we leave the faith, we might as well leave theism altogether-which can be argued for without any apparent contradictions if one has firm arguments.
@@whoami8434
When you say, “In what case...” it makes it seem like you want a certain symmetry breaker, but I believe that there isn’t one. There are certain things the human mind cannot grasp fully and it even may seem contradictory. What I do personally when it comes to Bible difficulties is I go back to the basic philosophical, scientific, and mathematical arguments for God’s (just any deity or deities-not even trying to prove the Christian God) existence and weigh that in contrast to atheism. Basically, to me, it takes more faith to believe that the universe (or other universes/non-supernatural-beings) can pop into existence or exist eternally without a cause or reason (and yes I know there are other propositions by atheists, but by far these are the most common). The arguments I’m convinced by generally end up with a God consisting of classical theism divine attributes.
Consider Sirach 3:22 (D-R): “Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability”
So indeed, I think when we approach the Bible, it should be with humbleness like that of Socrates’ adage, “I know that I know nothing."
Once I’m fully convinced there’s a God of classical theism through natural revelation (that is, nature’s revelation outside the Bible), my finding of the right established religion is much less burdened, and apparent contradictions wouldn’t shake my faith one bit.
@@whoami8434 That is a very interesting question but one that affects every worldview, not just the religious person one. Our thinking aways has a background full of pressuppositions that we use to understand reality and the data we encounter. This means that we can't really approach any "pure" data, we aways will see things from a particular angle.
Taking the example of a aparent problem with sacred texts. The religious person will approach the data as someone who believes that a real error or contradiction is not possible, so even if there is no aparent way to solve the mystery the person might judge that the problem is with her, not the texts, especially if she is not a especialist. A non-believer, on the other hand, will see these texts as just a bunch of old writings from diferent eras and contexts, so he will expect
contradictions. Even seeing a aparent answer to it, the non-believer might judge that it is likely just a believer trick and that the texts do contradict in the end.
What to do them when your worldview says p and the data seems to say not-p? There is no 100% perfect method, but you can try looking at things like:
- why do i believe in p?
- how likely are my reasons to believe p looking like they are true but not being if not-p?
- giving p, how likely it is that something should suggest not-p?
- how viable it is to believe not-p giving my evidence of p?
- are there ways of seeing the data as being compatible with p?
- if i can't see a way, how likely i would be of knowing it if it did exist?
Thinking deeply about things like that might help but every case is a case. We aways approach data not only from a particular worldview but also from a particular context, history, emotional situation etc. So what the individual might do is hard to say.
In fact, that would probably be why i like to approach these questions of worldview on a more systematic level, looking more on said view consistence that on one or two arguments for or against it. On apologetics, that would be a more pressupositionalist approach that a classical one.
If i had to suggest a reading, maybe try looking up something like the "myth of the given".
@@whoami8434
I’m not sure if you misunderstood the definition of the God of Classical Theism or deity, but the God of Classical Theism is: omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, timeless, simple (in that God is noncomposite), immutable, impassible, incorporeal, transcendent, and unactualized.
So indeed, if the God of Classical Theism exists, it’s a Deity (I didn’t capitalize Deity earlier so you probably thought that this supposed God would be one of many polytheistic gods; my apologies).
If you want some mathematical proofs for the existence of God you might want to check out the Grim Reaper Paradox or Hilbert’s Hotel. If you want scientific proofs, you might want to check out what we have in regards to Big Bang cosmology and entropy and heat death.
First off, I don’t think there’s such a thing as reason vs faith (or biblical inerrancy as you seem to imply)-they harmonize, so that’s question begging. Vis-à-vis your Muslim example, there are many ways in which something can be contradictory but one example is a certain section of the Quran claiming A with certain conditions and time, and another section claiming B with the same conditions and time.
Overall, from reading your past replies and the recent ones, it seems to me like you really are looking a symmetry breaker, but like I’ve already said, there isn’t one knowledgeable to us.
If you want to fly then buy a plane ticket or a space cake.
Well, except you don’t seem to notice what is in the Sacred text. Eg, St Paul describes knowing Jesus by revelation and Jesus being a celestial being. The subsequent Gospels to reinforce the various messages by placing the story in a historical context. The inconsistency of the Gospels are not inconsistencies as they are reiterate St Paul’s thesis of redemption by atonement in different ways. The historical settings are just that: they did not occur. Jesus died and rose from the dead in a celestial sphere. Thus, the story can have Jesus saying, doing and other behaving in what way best makes clear the theological learning. There is no need to construct events in convoluted ways - neither Mark or Luke’s stories occurred on Earth. The story came to St Paul by revaluation. He says so. It is not complicated or mysterious
This is absurd. Historical-critical scholarship easily establishes that the Gospels intend to present Jesus' life as historical.
@@hilairebelloc3368 I appreciate that is a cherished belief of many devout folk. But a reading of the Epistles and Gospels readily show this is not correct. I assume you don’t believe that the Sun stood still or The righteous dead returned from their graves in Jerusalem and “the other disciple” (that is the name the gospel of John gives) became immortal. This is aside that the words attributed to Jesus are redacted from the Hebrew Bible.
But why does it matter if Jesus was a celestial angle. We trust in the Lord because of Our Faith. Not because of Evidence. Just as well as this is none.
@@russellmiles2861 Nope. The Jewish people had no concept of "spiritual resurrection" and could only have intended to say that Jesus was resurrected in the flesh. This gnostic notion that Our Lord was only spiritually resurrected is exegetically bankrupt. I don't particularly care what you think the Evangelists or St. Paul said.
I believe that the Bible must be interpreted in the light of the Church's faith and with reference to literary genre, and such as passage as Joshua's apostrophe to the sun by no means are to be taken historically. Further, given that the Epistle to St. John explicitly denies that Our Lord promised immortality to the Beloved Disciple, your exegesis is poor.
Faith is intertwined with evidence, and to assert that the central fact of Christianity is divorced from reason is to render Christianity incredible. If Christ did not rise historically, I'd rather be a Hindu, since if we're arguing about stories, theirs are better.
@@hilairebelloc3368, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic. I must apologise as I was expressing my views. I don’t want to denigrate anyone else faith. You are also correct in the Roman Catholic teaching is that the Bible contains myth, legends and historical accounts provide Truth. As you said “interpreted in the light of the Church's faith and with reference to literary genre”.
With regard Jewish people having no concept of "spiritual resurrection”; I’ll have to disagree on this. Firstly the Jewish people were a unitarian culture and contain varying groups with their ideals. For example, the Jewish Philosopher Philo of Alexandra refers to; “the firstborn son of God,” “the image of God,” “God’s agent of creation,” “high priest of God’s celestial temple,” ”the one assigned to be God’s prefect over the universe,” (Philo On the Confessions of Tongues). Philo also offers “there are two temples of God, and one is this Cosmos, wherein the High Priest is his Firstborn Son.” Philo repeatedly refers to the First created Adam is an image of God, further explaining this image is not the human body but the reason or intellect. The ideal of a Celestial Prince of Peace had long been in place and could plausibly have inspire the Gospel stories.
Faith is intertwined with evidence; again, I don’t see things that way - but I accept many of faith do. When my sweet middle son Nick died, I imagine as in the song Loch Lomond that the Wee people were taking care of him along the Low-way home, while I tread the longer Highway of my life. I have never me a Wee person, and I don’t care if folk tell me there is no Low Way. I know that Nick was safe with the Wee people.
My God Bless You
And again, thanks for taking the time to talk with me.
The gospels are, in my opinion, hardly the right place for the kind of teaching you suggested. They were supposedly a mean to deliver the most vital message ever, according to the church. Yet in them, Jesus is described as being a very poor teacher as judged by the actions of the apostles. And then upon that, the holy spirit did seemingly not bother the least to make sure the writers did not write stuff that would cause problems for future audiences. Nor did it make sure to also include a manual for understanding the text correctly. Oh how thoughtful... Not! This is why there has been a need to devote centuries upon centuries to plug the holes in the texts, to develop theology in other words. I'm dumber than a bag of rocks and I would never ever deliver a message of such vital importance in this manner. I would make sure the target audience fully understood the message. If not, what would be the point of deliver the message in the first place?
That is why Christ established a Church.
@@Lerian_V Which "christ" would that be? I mean according to your own mythology there has been a few.
@@michaelanderson4849 The resurrected Christ. The Christ of the early Christians.
@@Lerian_V Oh you mean Jebus.
"The christ of the early christians". Are you suggesting they dropped the other christs in your mythology and just kept one?
@@michaelanderson4849 I don't know any Jebus. This is my first time hearing that name. The early Christians believed in one Christ, the resurrected Christ who died for your sins and mine so that we may have a shot at everlasting life.
A very childish/silly theologically answer citing St. John Chrysostom who had no clue at all about hermeneutics. 1)Luke's account appears only in the manuscripts of 3rd cent and not in earlier ones! 2) Mk uses "lestas"/rebels,Lk-"kagouroi"/criminals. St.Thomas's S.Th. is also based on only literary reading of Scripture,i.e. the value of it is junk in proving some statements; St.Thomas did not know the modern logic and the definition of truth (A.Tarski) or proof or completeness and consistency of a system (K.Godel),I..e plenty of Summa is just a straw! Ps. there are some BS passages in the newest Catechism written by junk theologians ignoring the newest (divine) discoveries in hermeneutics and mentioned logic. Re-educate yourself at first
@ÆTHELSTONE ? If St. J.Chrisotem did not know what I cited he is excused but your idiocy is not excused. St.Thomas Aq.simply literally read Bible and use it as a toll in his proofs; his parts on Eucharist and "transubstantiation" or on Trinity is a logical joke, i.e.usless (and from Devil)- a typical vicious circle formal mistake; the same with the justification of Revelation - it is a joke now for any student of Bible! A lesser mistake: a punishment of heretics- as a "normal' in time "cuius regio, eius religio"; Pavel from Wlodkovic at Konstancja Council perfectly opposed it though U had still 30 years religious war after that in 17 century. Ab.discoveries in logic u've never heard! Uf: "on proof" and "on truth" by K.Godel and A.Tarski (also A.Turing or B.Russell on the definition of description" - what' the Hell with you and this dumb theologically website?
@ÆTHELSTONE An example of his logical and hermeneutical (in our view now) idiocy: "Q. 75, Art. 4. “Yet this change is not like natural changes, but is entirely supernatural, and effected by God’s power alone. . . . Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion: nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called transubstantiation.”" When one cannot explain something uses a tool/term of:"supernatural power" or typically "special grace ofGod"; I have an article at Ottawa Univ. about such idiocy on "the God of gaps"
@Æthelhard Sorry I have no time for an idiot who does not have a clue on logic:who failed, State,Church or Parents to produce like you? Here is no place to teach you basics (esp. on modern logic and plain Bible's hermeneutics.
Personally, i just think that we don't have to solve contradictions in the gospel. There are not just apparent contradictions, there are jenuine, unsolvable contradictions. Even Chrysostom's "solution" to the contradiction about the good thief is just absurd and unacceptable, it's totally ad hoc and antiscientific. What we have to ask is: why there are there contradictions? Why in the Genesis we have two account of the chronology of creation (in the first the man is the last living being created, in the second the first living being)? Why the books of samuel give more than one account about the origin of the saying "is Saul among the prophets?", when a saying can't have two contenporary origins? We just have to say that the redactors had more than one tradition to work with, and instead of choosing arbitrarly which one to save, they decided to save both of them, and now we know this. In the gospels, it's exactly the same: the evangelists were working with different traditions, that were the reflex of different theologies. There was Mary under the cross (as John says), or there wasn't (as in the synoptics)? We may say "she was under the cross, the other evangelists just don't speak about this", but I find this excuse just silly. We can't say what's the case from an historical Ppoint of view, we can just say "according to the theology of John, Jesus' mother was under the cross because she had to become the mother of humanity, but according to the theology of Luke she wasn't there, maybe because she already had faith in the resurrection of Jesus and didn't need to go there (maybe, as an example)". We can say that the gospels are fully inspired, AND they are full of contradictions: that's perfectly coherent. We don't need to solve contradictions, insisting in doing it is probably an influence from protestant apologetics and in the end it destroy the rationality of faith. The problem of contrsdictions is not solved, it just disappear when you put philology and the way the gospel were produced into the equation. This approach is today absolutely normal in an academic setting, it's accepted for example in the "jerusalem Bible" notes and introductions, and it's the standard in the intermational theological commision that assists the CDF. If you are not used to academic theology, it may seems strange for you, but this is really basic...
Sorry, youtube cut up my previous reply for some reason (i.e. not all of it was posted), so I deleted the cut up reply. I'm kind of bummed from that as I didn't copy it, so I'll just leave this thinner version here rather than rewriting it all:
There's nothing ad hoc about it, there are independent reasons to believe the gospels are inspired, namely, the Catholic Church teaches it is inspired (and we have yet other reasons to believe the Catholic Church's word is trustworthy on such matters; namely, what the Church calls the 'motives of credibility'), naturally, (and contrary to what you claim) if the bible is inspired by the God who can neither lie nor err, and truth cannot contradict truth (as the Church teaches), then there can be no contradictions in scripture; if there appear to be, these must be not real but illusory, and there must be resolutions.
Consequently, because the pursuit is well motivated, it is not ad hoc, but is rather a perfectly rational pursuit; identical to the scientist finding various paradoxes in the world and, having good reason to believe the world is rational, going on to try and make sense of things, rather than just throwing his hands up and giving up on making sense of the world.
As for your evangelist example, you're making an argument from silence fallacy. Just because Luke doesn't say Mary was there, doesn't mean he does say she wasn't.
@@LOZandKHfreak no, you are misunderstanding the idea of inspiration. Probably you have never read the great theologian Maurizio Flick (I dont think you'll find his works in English, sadly...), but he explains this perfectly in a note written for the congregation for the doctrine of faith. Using the Genesis as an example: the author thinks about a problem, e.g. the fact that he feels somewhat sinful or imperfect or weak even if he did nothing wrong personally. This reasoning is assisted by the holy spirit, that for example can provide key insights or experiences. The author so concludes that humanity must have lost grace since the beginning. He then decides to explain this using a mythological form of writing, i.e. using dramatic, interesting imagines (it's not "fake", he just doesn't want to teach the literal meaning). This is what the inspiration is, as it is explained by Maurizio Flick in a text commissioned by the Sant'Uffizio. The Bible is in no way dictated. The Bible doesn't even have a determinated form, the Bible is totally contingent! I know that, if you live in a protestant context, this may sounds strange, but it's really like this: the Bible exists because humans generally comunicate using writing, but they are not obliged to do that. The word of God is not a book, but an experience (e.g. listening to Jesus preaching), witnessed through history. People have these experiences. They can then convey them in a book, but maybe they want to just tell other peole about that, or make a drawing, or something else. That's why we have parts of the "word of god" that are not present in the Bible, but were transmitted orally, or through liturgy, etc. Moreover, the Bible is "without error" in matters of faith and morality, but not in other matters (e.g. You can't entail geocentrism from the Bible, even if it was indeed written from a geocentric perspective, without questioning that idea). So, for these reasons, the doctrine of inspiration doesn't entail that there are no contradictions. Yes, there are, but it's not just chaos, they are motivated by the way the writers worked. Sometimes, you'll even find objective grammatical errors (the first verse, "bereshit bara elohim", a singular verb with a plural subject, "the gods createS"), even if they are informative (maybe it tell us something about the trinity!), and certeinly you don't want to say "it's inspired so it can't have grammatical errors"... I can tell you about a lot of theologians who have recently written about this, like Walther Binni, Tanzella-Nitti, Facchini, Molari, Bianchi, the great Alszeghy, but it will be hard for you to find something in English, it's not the language of theology (as for philology and codicology, you'll probably find more in German or Italian).
As I have already said, to say that the synoptics just don't speak about Mary (but she was under the cross), is just silly, it really makes the faith a dumb thing, that's not an acceptable solution, and you'll never find a serious, rational biblical philologist who would say something like this.
@@Pienotto Read Providentissimus Deus
@@vitamind5475 try to say that to some contemporary biblical scholar, he will answer "lol". Providentissimus deus, as an encyclical, is not infallible. The dei verbum, as the product of a council, is infallible. And dei verbum accept the essence of "higher criticism". Moreover, I've already cited various theologians to support this. To think otherwise, to think that we shouldn't use rationalist approaches just because of the providentissimus deus, just means that you have never read an academic theology journal or a paper in biblical philology.
@@Pienotto UA-cam clipped my response again, one moment, I'll try to post it in parts instead.
Basically, the practice of “investigating” and “resolving” biblical contradictions is begging the question as it assumes the Bible is God’s divinely inspired word and therefore will not have any meaningful contradictions. No honest researcher would set out to prove something he already believed to be true. Whether or not these contradictions demonstrate anything about the gospels, this is possibly the most dishonest way to approach any question.
You can't beg the question outside of a debate setting, and naturally, one's private investigations isn't a debate setting.
"No honest researcher would set out to prove something he already believed to be true."
- Mathematicians often have independent proofs of a certain theorem, but will look for alternative proofs of the same theorem, for they see value simply in the 'proof' itself, independent of the conclusion, the same is true for logicians as well. The general rule here is that new proofs give greater insight into 'why' the conclusion is true, thus for those who have independent reason to hold a conclusion, it becomes rational to seek more arguments, precisely so as to gain greater insight into the truth; thus unless you can prove that we Christians never have independent reason to hold the bible to be inspired, you cannot say that we are not in the same position as the one seeking greater insight, and so cannot (without begging the question) claim that we and/or our approach to these questions are dishonest.
[edit: tried to make my point a bit less blunt.]
As a catholic, I totally agree with you, this is the worst way to address the problem.
@@VACatholic...i just don't understand what do you want to say.
@@VACatholic I'm not a native speaker, of course, so I just don't understand what the "satisfaction of acceptance of the world" means. Why it's a satisfaction, and why one shouldn't accept reality?
@@VACatholic I studied theology, do you think that i don't know the Bible?! Do you want to see my bookcase? Have you ever used an interlinear with an hebrew dictionary? I know what I'm talking about.