The Chain of Infallibility

[Milton Platt]

For most religions, catholic as well the fallibility is in the follower. The follower may know the truth but decide it is to hard to follow, or interpret the truth for their own means or even deny the truth. Of course this only works for a God that allows free will, which most Abrahamic religions do.

So is there an uninterpreted truth and if so where is it to be found?

 

[bobhikes]

So is there an uninterpreted truth and if so where is it to be found?

Yes but it is from a Being that has always been and always will be, is part of everything ever been and ever will be, understands all creatures, will an individual ever be able to understand uninterpreted.

 

[Milton Platt]

Yes but it is from a Being that has always been and always will be, is part of everything ever been and ever will be, understands all creatures, will an individual ever be able to understand uninterpreted.

So we do not actually know the truth. Just an individual interpretation of it. That is meaningless.

If you do not actually know the truth of something, then you cannot interpret it. You cannot interpret that which you have no knowledge of.

How do you come by the knowledge of this beings existance abd his atributes/ what he thinks and does?

 

[bobhikes]

So we do not actually know the truth. Just an individual interpretation of it. That is meaningless.

If you do not actually know the truth of something, then you cannot interpret it. You cannot interpret that which you have no knowledge of.

How do you come by the knowledge of this beings existance abd his atributes/ what he thinks and does?

I would find the truth the same way I find meaning in life. You must take in all the sources openly. The more sources, the closer you will get. Most people find it uncomfortable to look at all sources openly. Once they find one they like the stop. In my experience it is the open search that is valuable the truth is simply that a truth.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I am afraid you will never know if you have examined all sources. The only source that matters is that which God reveals to us and He does not reveal it to everyone. Yes, some people will never see the truth because God has not revealed it to them.

 

[bobhikes]

I am afraid you will never know if you have examined all sources. The only source that matters is that which God reveals to us and He does not reveal it to everyone. Yes, some people will never see the truth because God has not revealed it to them.

I disagree, God allows for choice. To do so he can not reveal the truth because then you would have no choice. You must interpret his message. To find the truth you must openly seek all sources. Each reveal will create a clearer image.

 

[Milton Platt]

I would find the truth the same way I find meaning in life. You must take in all the sources openly. The more sources, the closer you will get. Most people find it uncomfortable to look at all sources openly. Once they find one they like the stop. In my experience it is the open search that is valuable the truth is simply that a truth.

But you said in the previous post we cannot know the truth, only an interpretation of it. Let's resolve that question before making more assertions about what you claim to know. How do you know this? How do you distinguish actual truth from interpreted truth? Whar are the rules and standards to make the distinction? If you cannot know this real truth, then you cannot claim that there are interpretations of it because you have no way to distinguish one from the other.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I can certainly understand your theory of slavish mimicry or copying of prophecies. But there is way too much historical fact underpinning both testaments, and way too much gematria. For example, the Matthew geneaology contains the most extraordinary gematria making it a worthy heir of Penteteuch gematria, and all those names weren't plagiarized, they were the real names. Magnificent that Jesus's immediate (post-exilic) antecedents fit the gematria!

Or for another example, elsewhere I explain how the manner of Jesus's life and death fulfilled prophecies. How come all the Jewish people back THEN didn't shout to the rooftops "these things never occurred!" Paul tells one leader, "you know all these things happened in Jerusalem and weren't done in some quiet corner". No, our Jewish people would have clamped the lid on the NT if it wasn't all truth.

You say, "The Jewish people would have clamped the lid on the NT if it wasn't all truth." I repeat, "if it wasn't all truth." Are you implying that the claim that Jesus was born of God with an earthly woman was true? (Mat. 1:18) If yes, that's
the worst slander to say about a Jew. This is akin to speak of his Faith as if it was a sect of Greek Mythology, because that text is the best as the definition of the Greek demigod is concerned. As you know, the demigod was the son of a god with an earthly woman. To pick up a member of another religion and to claim that he was a demigod just because you need to enhance your own faith is akin to vandalism of Judaism with the things of Christianity.

 

[bobhikes]

But you said in the previous post we cannot know the truth, only an interpretation of it. Let's resolve that question before making more assertions about what you claim to know. How do you know this? How do you distinguish actual truth from interpreted truth? Whar are the rules and standards to make the distinction? If you cannot know this real truth, then you cannot claim that there are interpretations of it because you have no way to distinguish one from the other.

You can't it will always be an interpretation but you can satisfy your doubt. You will eventually achieve an either or decision, you will run out of sources to distinguish the truth and you will have to decide. Because of the journey you will not doubt your choice and be able to defended with the most ardent debaters.

Red is a color but what is the color Red? Some will say a specific wave length range but not all people or species actually see that range. Because we can see it means Red exists. What about the range if I am 1 wave length longer or 1 wave length shorter is it no longer Red. Why is Red a color is rojo the same color. You will never find the truth if you are honest an open. You will understand Red completely but you will understand that the Truth is an interpretation yet Red is still real.

 

[omega2xx]

For followers of revealed, faith-based religions (on the world stage, this generally refers to the Abrahamic religions) how do you handle the issue of infallibility?

What I mean is this: if your god was indeed perfect, and intended for his followers to correctly understand his perfect message, then he must have preserved a chain of infallibility which extends from god himself to the follower.

There is no chain of infallibility in Christianity. It is all in God's inspired, inerrant and infallible word.

e.g. A "perfect" god must ensure that his chosen prophet is infallible; the prophet's writings (the holy books) must also be infallible; those who preserve those books must also be infallible; those who translates those books must also be infallible; those who expound the content of those books must also be infallible; those who read the books or the translations (the disciple) must also be infallible.

No man is infallible. God inspired what the prophets and disciples should write.

If there is any failure in that chain, does it not inherently prove that the imagined originator (the deity) is imperfect and fallible?

I don't know where you got that idea, but there is no chain.

(It seems the Roman Catholic Church understood this problem from early on, and determined that infallibility proceeds through the Church, the Popes and Councils, the Bishops and their Priests - the authorized preservers, translators, and expounders of the "Message", etc.)

How can anyone say the pope is infallible knowing some of the non-Biblical doctrines they invented. The RCC says, and has been reinforced by the current pope, that Protestant churches are not eal churches?

 

[metis]

How can anyone say the pope is infallible knowing some of the non-Biblical doctrines they invented. The RCC says, and has been reinforced by the current pope, that Protestant churches are not eal churches?

The RCC belief is that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and he must do it in conjunction with the bishops and cardinals. It has only been done several times in almost 2000 years, and they deal with beliefs that go way back to the early church.

Also, the RCC does not say that the Protestant churches are not "real churches", as evident by the fact that this pope had a conference with Lutherans ("Evangelical Church") just a couple of weeks ago.

BTW, just so you know where I'm coming from, I was raised in a fundamentalist Lutheran church, I attend mass as a non-participant with my Catholic wife, but I'm neither Catholic nor Christian.

 

[buddhist]

There is no chain of infallibility in Christianity. It is all in God's inspired, inerrant and infallible word.

No man is infallible. God inspired what the prophets and disciples should write.

I don't know where you got that idea, but there is no chain.

If there is no chain, then how do you know that your Bible is infallible? What infallible prophet has confirmed that for you? How have you infallibly confirmed it for yourself?

How can anyone say the pope is infallible knowing some of the non-Biblical doctrines they invented. The RCC says, and has been reinforced by the current pope, that Protestant churches are not eal churches?

I'm not saying that the RCC is infallible; I'm simply giving an example of how the RCC allegedly solved it, by claiming that they're infallible.

 

[omega2xx]

The RCC belief is that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and he must do it in conjunction with the bishops and cardinals. It has only been done several times in almost 2000 years, and they deal with beliefs that go way back to the early church.

Irrelevant. The RCC has decided some things as coming from God that contradict the Bible. Both can't be right.

Also, the RCC does not say that the Protestant churches are not "real churches", as evident by the fact that this pope had a conference with Lutherans ("Evangelical Church") just a couple of weeks ago.

They certainly do and it was reinforced soon after the current pope took office. He met with the Lutherans in the hope of convincing them they need to come back to the RCC.

]BTW, just so you know where I'm coming from, I was raised in a fundamentalist Lutheran church, I attend mass as a non-participant with my Catholic wife, but I'm neither Catholic nor Christian.

I commend you for showing your wife, that you do not dislike her religion.

In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem, in Christianity we find the poem itself. C;S. Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

Who is "Christ", your "Lord", "Habakkuk", "Jeremiah", etc? Since I cannot verify any of these things for myself, you might as well be quoting from the Books of Harry Potter.

What can you verify for yourself that Buddhist taught?

In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem, in Christianity we find the poem itself. C;S. Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

My belief is that Christ was a Manifestation from God Who came to bring people back to God. By drawing close to Christ and accepting His Teachings we become closer to the Divine.

But I believe that about all the Great Educators as well not just Jesus. Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna all taught truth.

If the "great educators" teach something that rejects or contradicts what Jesus taught, are they really a great educator? If one of them contradicts what Jesus taught, which one do you believe?

In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem, in Christianity we find the poem itself. C;S. Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

This is the essence of early Buddhism.

Is loving your enemies an essence of Buddhism?

I agree, and Christ himself is also a presumption.

How do you know that? How do you know Buddha is not the presumption?

In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem, in Christianity we find the poem itself. C;S. Lewis

 

[omega2xx]

The teachings of Jesus were according to his gospel aka the Tanach. The NT he never even dreamed would ever rise. I think the man you must go for was Paul and not Jesus.

You simply do not understand conservative Christianity. We believe the gospel, the good news starts in Gen 3:15---Jesus wins.

Are you serious? Do you really think Jesus did not KNOW the NT would rise and become the standard for true Christianity. How could He not know? Where di you ever get that Idea?

WE do not go to Paul, we go to the words God inspired Paul to write.

In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem, in Christianity we find the poem itself. C;S. Lewis

 

[savagewind]

Are you serious? Do you really think Jesus did not KNOW the NT would rise and become the standard for true Christianity. How could He not know? Where di you ever get that Idea?

Matthew 7:15 Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
Matthew 24:11
and many false prophets will arise and mislead many.
Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.
Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.
John 10:12
The hired hand is not the shepherd, and the sheep are not his own. When he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf pounces on them and scatters the flock.

Most people say, if they were wolves God would let us know. But, if that was true, then they wouldn't look like sheep like it is written they would.

 

[omega2xx]

Matthew 7:15 Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing.
Matthew 24:11
and many false prophets will arise and mislead many.
Matthew 24:24
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.
Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.
John 10:12
The hired hand is not the shepherd, and the sheep are not his own. When he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf pounces on them and scatters the flock.

Most people say, if they were wolves God would let us know. But, if that was true, then they wouldn't look like sheep like it is written they would.

God has let us know. We know by how they treat the sheep. Do they take care of the sheep or try to devour them with theology that will benefit them. Do the point to themselves or to God? Does Ps 23 describe them?

 

[Sonofason]

For followers of revealed, faith-based religions (on the world stage, this generally refers to the Abrahamic religions) how do you handle the issue of infallibility?

What I mean is this: if your god was indeed perfect, and intended for his followers to correctly understand his perfect message, then he must have preserved a chain of infallibility which extends from god himself to the follower.

E.g. A "perfect" god must ensure that his chosen prophet is infallible; the prophet's writings (the holy books) must also be infallible; those who preserve those books must also be infallible; those who translates those books must also be infallible; those who expound the content of those books must also be infallible; those who read the books or the translations (the disciple) must also be infallible.

If there is any failure in that chain, does it not inherently prove that the imagined originator (the deity) is imperfect and fallible?

(It seems the Roman Catholic Church understood this problem from early on, and determined that infallibility proceeds through the Church, the Popes and Councils, the Bishops and their Priests - the authorized preservers, translators, and expounders of the "Message", etc.)

The chain breaks at me. It doesn't matter how fallible or infallible all previous events might have been up to the point at which I believe something is true. We believe by faith.