Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604485 Oct 31, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
I am unable to get Topix to accept Hebrew and Cyrillic characters.
The Roman alphabet is quite limiting.
Yeah, I edited out the characters in a previous post and the unicode still showed up in error.

I should have put it into an editor and converted it to plain text first.

hahaa...

Or did you mean the limitation that the language/textual/translation limitations it presents at times?

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#604486 Oct 31, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
So you'll believe the Catholics...
We'll see if you stick by that statement.
The information below carries the - Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur - official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book or information supplied by them, is "free of doctrinal or moral error".
....
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
It appears that "the Jesus!" is propped up by a fabricated genealogy, and, a fabricated "immaculate conception".
Are you still gonna believe what the Catholic Church says?
Is it waffle time?
Excellent point.

Much of what 'we' have been bashed for is supported by Christian theologians, Biblical Scholars and even the Vatican.
They seem to prefer the rumors spread by ignorant preachers, popular fiction literature (Dante, Milton, Et Al) and "Old Maids' Tales" to the 2000 years of documented history of their alleged religion.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#604487 Oct 31, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I edited out the characters in a previous post and the unicode still showed up in error.
I should have put it into an editor and converted it to plain text first.
hahaa...
Or did you mean the limitation that the language/textual/translation limitations it presents at times?
Both.

Case in point; "Ben'Adam". Literally "Son of Adam" , Figuratively "decent person". Best translated into Modern English using the Yiddish phrase "Mensch".

Despite the insane Christian doctrine that Ben'Adam means "I am God".

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604488 Oct 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorance is bliss.
-Jack Daniels
Back in my U.S. Army days, that's what we used to say about Ft. Bliss, Texas, too.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#604489 Oct 31, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point. Maybe introvert is too harsh a word, one thing I'm not (or have ever been) is shy.
Maybe hermit is a more descriptive word for me.
Mrs RR calls our property "Alcatraz" and she loves it that the damn JW's can't come over n bug us lol.
"alcatraz" LOL!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604490 Oct 31, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
So you'll believe the Catholics...
We'll see if you stick by that statement.
The information below carries the - Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur - official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book or information supplied by them, is "free of doctrinal or moral error".

Brown goes even further, calling into question the reliability of large sections of the New Testament. He encourages his readers to face the possibility that portions of Matthew and Luke "may represent non-historical dramatizations:
"Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical.
Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem).
Luke's reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong, as is his understanding of the Jewish customs of the presentation of the child and the purification of the mother in 2:22-24. Some of these events, which are quite implausible as history, have now been understood as rewritings of Old Testament scenes or themes"
Brown mentions that "early Christians" might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from "pagan or [other] world religions," but never intended that that mythology be taken literally.
"Virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins," explains Brown, citing such stories in Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman and ancient Egyptian theologies."
It is crucial to remember that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
It appears that "the Jesus!" is propped up by a fabricated genealogy, and, a fabricated "immaculate conception".
Are you still gonna believe what the Catholic Church says?
Is it waffle time?
"Brown explains that Matthew probably..."
"He encourages his readers to face the possibility..."
"may represent..."
"might have imported..."
"makes it unlikely..."

There is an awful lot of maybe in his statements

And outside of the fact this is one person's opinion, I have always found it interesting how quickly critics of the Bible are to dismiss the writings from authors of the Bible yet many seem to take the guesswork of a critic as undisputed fact. In fairness, you only said "it appears". And you have a right to your presumptive conclusions obviously. But appearing to be and actually being are two very different things. There are verses on a surface level that would seem to contradict if someone didn't know of other verses that go into further detail or if they don't look at the full context.

I was going to provide a rebuttal to the specific information but don't feel like investing the time it would take to do it properly. And its not like I mind challenges anyway. Truth never needs to shelter itself from scrutiny. And it is generally a good thing to see different perspectives.

But the Bible has been around for a long time. And many, many people have dedicated large portions of their life trying to disprove it or questions certain aspects of it. And to this day, I have yet to see anything that from a critic that rises above the mere possibility that it is wrong. When considering the totality of the information available, that is something that should not be overlooked

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604491 Oct 31, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
"Indeed, close analysis of the infancy narratives makes it unlikely that either account is completely historical.
Matthew's account contains a number of extraordinary or miraculous public events that, were they factual, should have left some traces in Jewish records or elsewhere in the New Testament (the king and all Jerusalem upset over the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem; a star which moved from Jerusalem south to Bethlehem and came to rest over a house; the massacre of all the male children in Bethlehem).
Luke's reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong, as is his understanding of the Jewish customs of the presentation of the child and the purification of the mother in 2:22-24. Some of these events, which are quite implausible as history, have now been understood as rewritings of Old Testament scenes or themes"
Brown mentions that "early Christians" might have imported a mythology about virginal conception from "pagan or [other] world religions," but never intended that that mythology be taken literally.
"Virginal conception was a well-known religious symbol for divine origins," explains Brown, citing such stories in Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Greco-Roman and ancient Egyptian theologies."
It is crucial to remember that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation. For many less sophisticated believers, illegitimacy would be an offense that would challenge the plausibility of the Christian mystery.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
It appears that "the Jesus!" is propped up by a fabricated genealogy, and, a fabricated "immaculate conception".
Are you still gonna believe what the Catholic Church says?
Is it waffle time?
"Brown explains that Matthew probably..."
"He encourages his readers to face the possibility..."
"may represent..."
"might have imported..."
"makes it unlikely..."

There is an awful lot of maybe in his statements

And outside of the fact this is one person's opinion, I have always found it interesting how quickly critics of the Bible are to dismiss the writings from authors of the Bible yet many seem to take the guesswork of a critic as undisputed fact. In fairness, you only said "it appears". And you have a right to your presumptive conclusions obviously. But appearing to be and actually being are two very different things. There are verses on a surface level that would seem to contradict if someone didn't know of other verses that go into further detail or if they don't look at the full context.

I was going to provide a rebuttal to the specific information but don't feel like investing the time it would take to do it properly. And since it is only an opinion I don't find the need particularly pressing. But its not like I mind challenges of the Bible. Truth never needs to shelter itself from scrutiny. And it is generally a good thing to see different perspectives.

But the Bible has been around for a long time. And many, many people have dedicated large portions of their life trying to disprove it or questions certain aspects of it. And to this day, I have yet to see anything that from a critic that rises above the mere possibility that it is wrong. When considering the totality of the information available, that is something that should not be overlooked

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604492 Oct 31, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Excellent point.
Much of what 'we' have been bashed for is supported by Christian theologians, Biblical Scholars and even the Vatican.
They seem to prefer the rumors spread by ignorant preachers, popular fiction literature (Dante, Milton, Et Al) and "Old Maids' Tales" to the 2000 years of documented history of their alleged religion.
I certainly agree.

Atheists, et al, are often accused of making these things up, and it's most often from religious(Abrahamic) theologians that have decided to put accuracy and integrity first, meaning they make conclusions after discovering where the evidence leads.

Actual scholars utilizing the *a posteriori* methodology.

*a posteriori* conclusions are subservient to the data; data is not subservient to conclusions. The conclusion is reached after the data or facts have been observed. Only data or fact that can be verified are utilized in the conclusion.

Traditionally,*a priori* methodology was utilized by biblical scholars.

*a priori* conclusions are subservient to the conclusion; data is subservient to the conclusion. The conclusion is made, then the data or facts are observed. The facts or data are rejected or accepted based on the conclusion.

The new breed of biblical scholars, archaeologists etc.. will bring legitimacy to the endeavor.

"Bible & Spade" methodology is a thing of the past.

But you know this. I merely point it out for any who read along and understand the implications.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604493 Oct 31, 2013
Although I would add for those that are interested in researching it further, there are two areas of focus:

1) Historic Jewish customs when listing genealogy. When it is done for a women, it would be presented through her husbands name even though her genealogy would be different.

2) Look into the genealogy of Mary and the genealogy of Joseph.

Mary would be the biological genealogy and would be consistent with prophesy

Jesus being the adopted son of Joseph would be the legal genealogy

There is a LOT of information about this and more than one theory. Although this would be the more widely accepted one and the one that would have historical precedent to back it up. The genealogies meet at King David.

Also it is Luke's version that would be the genealogy of Mary. He mentions her 11 times in his writings and it is widely believed that Luke met Mary directly and would have most likely used her for a source in some of his writings

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604494 Oct 31, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
"Brown explains that Matthew probably..."
"He encourages his readers to face the possibility..."
"may represent..."
"might have imported..."
"makes it unlikely..."
There is an awful lot of maybe in his statements
And outside of the fact this is one person's opinion, I have always found it interesting how quickly critics of the Bible are to dismiss the writings from authors of the Bible yet many seem to take the guesswork of a critic as undisputed fact. In fairness, you only said "it appears". And you have a right to your presumptive conclusions obviously. But appearing to be and actually being are two very different things. There are verses on a surface level that would seem to contradict if someone didn't know of other verses that go into further detail or if they don't look at the full context.
I was going to provide a rebuttal to the specific information but don't feel like investing the time it would take to do it properly. And since it is only an opinion I don't find the need particularly pressing. But its not like I mind challenges of the Bible. Truth never needs to shelter itself from scrutiny. And it is generally a good thing to see different perspectives.
But the Bible has been around for a long time. And many, many people have dedicated large portions of their life trying to disprove it or questions certain aspects of it. And to this day, I have yet to see anything that from a critic that rises above the mere possibility that it is wrong. When considering the totality of the information available, that is something that should not be overlooked
It was directed and approved by Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II responded and under his direction.

Quoting:

"The Pope's Assessor, Monsignor L. Sandri, responded in the Pope's name. Monsignor Sandri declined to answer our questions, but informed us that the members of the French Dominican Fathers' Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem would probably provide satisfactory explanations.

Through facsimile communications, we forwarded our questions to the Ecole Biblique. In a facsimile transmission dated 11 January 1996, Marcel Sigrist, the institute's director, also declined to answer our questions, but suggested that answers could be found in the world of Raymond E. Brown, a well-known Catholic theologian currently on the staff of Saint Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California[at the time]. The information was given by Brown."
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...

The correspondence and replies etc.. and carried the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church. It is referenced and recorded properly.

You may want to take it up with the Catholic Church.

All I've done is supply the results of that interaction.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604495 Nov 1, 2013
Edit two

I know Dr Brown is not a critic in the traditional sense given his affiliations, anybody calling into question large portions of the NT would have to be considered a critic. And while he was respected for his knowledge, his views were not widely accepted among Catholic scholars:

Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown's Theories

"While Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, Bishop Donald W. Trautman of Erie, Pa., and others were effusive in their praise of the late modernist Scripture scholar Fr. Raymond E. Brown, S.S., for pre-eminence in his field, it's a matter of record that traditional Catholic biblical scholars have always presented a far different perspective on him."

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/librar...

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604496 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It was directed and approved by Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II responded and under his direction.
Quoting:
"The Pope's Assessor, Monsignor L. Sandri, responded in the Pope's name. Monsignor Sandri declined to answer our questions, but informed us that the members of the French Dominican Fathers' Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem would probably provide satisfactory explanations.
Through facsimile communications, we forwarded our questions to the Ecole Biblique. In a facsimile transmission dated 11 January 1996, Marcel Sigrist, the institute's director, also declined to answer our questions, but suggested that answers could be found in the world of Raymond E. Brown, a well-known Catholic theologian currently on the staff of Saint Patrick Seminary in Menlo Park, California[at the time]. The information was given by Brown."
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
The correspondence and replies etc.. and carried the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur of the Catholic Church. It is referenced and recorded properly.
You may want to take it up with the Catholic Church.
All I've done is supply the results of that interaction.
Where do you get it was approved by the pope?

They first sent questions to the pope. Then Sandri. Instead of answering directly, they directed them to ask Brown of any questions they had and he "would probably provide satisfactory explanations."

At no point did he claim to be speaking for the pope nor did the pope claim Brown was speaking for him. They were asked questions and in response directed them to a well-known scholar saying he could probably answer their questions

There is nothing to even indicate they knew what answers he would provide

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604497 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get it was approved by the pope?
They first sent questions to the pope. Then Sandri. Instead of answering directly, they directed them to ask Brown of any questions they had and he "would probably provide satisfactory explanations."
At no point did he claim to be speaking for the pope nor did the pope claim Brown was speaking for him. They were asked questions and in response directed them to a well-known scholar saying he could probably answer their questions
There is nothing to even indicate they knew what answers he would provide
Correction

The pope's advisor Sandri directed then to Ecole. Ecole directed them to Brown

Sandri never directed them to Brown

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604498 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do you get it was approved by the pope?
They first sent questions to the pope. Then Sandri. Instead of answering directly, they directed them to ask Brown of any questions they had and he "would probably provide satisfactory explanations."
At no point did he claim to be speaking for the pope nor did the pope claim Brown was speaking for him. They were asked questions and in response directed them to a well-known scholar saying he could probably answer their questions
There is nothing to even indicate they knew what answers he would provide
It was under the direction and approval of Pope John Paul II.

Don't forget, and quoting:

"In the same essay, Brown observes that "the lists of Jesus' ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible."[5] Brown takes the surprising position that "because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which 'Son of David' was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide."[6] In another essay, also carrying the Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur(...)

It is crucial to remember (a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation; (b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and (c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities."
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...

Here are the scanned copies of the letters, and correspondence from the Catholic Church and the direction given by the Pope et al.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...

An appropriate response or adequate rebuttal would be to supply any correspondence, statements by the Pope in retrospect etc.., in which Pope John Paul II rescinded or withdrew his support or stated that he did not agree with what he approved of initially, did not still retain his authority, direction and approval.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604499 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction
The pope's advisor Sandri directed then to Ecole. Ecole directed them to Brown
Sandri never directed them to Brown
The Ecole Biblique had the authority to do so. Certainly, else it would not have been done.

The efforts, channels and resources of all involved, directed the information to be answered by who was deemed to be the most qualified within the Catholic institution to best answer the questions etc...

Brown was in the employ of the Catholic Church.

All of it carried the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur declarations.

Nihil obstat (Latin for "nothing hinders" or "nothing stands in the way") is a declaration of no objection to an initiative or an appointment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihil_obstat
An imprimatur (from Latin, "let it be printed") is, in the proper sense, a declaration authorizing publication of a book. The term is also applied loosely to any mark of approval or endorsement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

Also:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nih...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imp...

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604500 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction
The pope's advisor Sandri directed then to Ecole. Ecole directed them to Brown
Sandri never directed them to Brown
Right, and the Ecole Biblique, then directed the response to be be given or supplied by Brown, which the Ecole Biblique felt could best supply what was requested, who(Brown) was in the employ or had authority within the Catholic Church too.

All contained and dispensed within the overarching Catholic institution.

Think; "Chain of Command"

That's the way or method in which large institutions work.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604501 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
It was under the direction and approval of Pope John Paul II.
Don't forget, and quoting:
"In the same essay, Brown observes that "the lists of Jesus' ancestors that they [the Gospels] give are very different, and neither one is plausible."[5] Brown takes the surprising position that "because the early Christians confessed Jesus as Messiah, for which 'Son of David' was an alternative title, they historicized their faith by creating for him Davidic genealogies and by claiming that Joseph was a Davidide."[6] In another essay, also carrying the Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur(...)
It is crucial to remember (a) that these words appear in an essay carrying the Church's approbation; (b) that they were written by a scholar whose works were endorsed by the Ecole Biblique; and (c) that Ecole Biblique is the institution that we were referred to by Vatican authorities."
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
Here are the scanned copies of the letters, and correspondence from the Catholic Church and the direction given by the Pope et al.
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christ...
An appropriate response or adequate rebuttal would be to supply any correspondence, statements by the Pope in retrospect etc.., in which Pope John Paul II rescinded or withdrew his support or stated that he did not agree with what he approved of initially, did not still retain his authority, direction and approval.
It absolutely was not under the direction and approval of the Pope. Directing someone to try asking their questions to someone else is not even close to the same thing as the answers given being directed and approved by the Pope

Did they really think the Pope was going to sit down and answer questions and provide long, historical answers to any critic that has a question?

They contacted the Pope and got no reply. They then contacted his Assessor who is allowed to act in the Pope's name. The Assessor, Sandri, simply suggested that they contact Ecole Biblique and he "could probably answer their questions"

Even if that was where it ended, it was nothing more than them not answering themselves but telling them try someone else that could probably help them. But now the link from the Pope is completely severed when the guy the Pope's assessor directed them too didn't answer either. Instead Ecole, acting under no direction or authority of the Pope, decided on his own to pass the buck and tell them try Raymond Brown

Many people were employed by the RCC. That doesn't mean they are the spokesperson for the Church's official position. Most of the people under the employ of the Church strongly disagreed with Brown. And the Pope nor his Assessor directed anybody to Brown

Even directing someone to try talking with Ecole doesn't mean they are saying Ecole speaks for them. And certainly if that guy unilaterally directs them to yet another person how can you possibly claim that person's answers were "directed and approved" by the Pope?

They had questions. They were told try someone else. That person told them try yet another person. In no possible sense of the words were Brown's answers "under the direction and approval of Pope John Paul II."

One person had authority to speak for the Pope and that was Sandri. Not Ecole. And certainly not Brown

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#604502 Nov 1, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
It absolutely was not under the direction and approval of the Pope. Directing someone to try asking their questions to someone else is not even close to the same thing as the answers given being directed and approved by the Pope
Did they really think the Pope was going to sit down and answer questions and provide long, historical answers to any critic that has a question?
They contacted the Pope and got no reply. They then contacted his Assessor who is allowed to act in the Pope's name. The Assessor, Sandri, simply suggested that they contact Ecole Biblique and he "could probably answer their questions"
Even if that was where it ended, it was nothing more than them not answering themselves but telling them try someone else that could probably help them. But now the link from the Pope is completely severed when the guy the Pope's assessor directed them too didn't answer either. Instead Ecole, acting under no direction or authority of the Pope, decided on his own to pass the buck and tell them try Raymond Brown
Many people were employed by the RCC. That doesn't mean they are the spokesperson for the Church's official position. Most of the people under the employ of the Church strongly disagreed with Brown. And the Pope nor his Assessor directed anybody to Brown
Even directing someone to try talking with Ecole doesn't mean they are saying Ecole speaks for them. And certainly if that guy unilaterally directs them to yet another person how can you possibly claim that person's answers were "directed and approved" by the Pope?
They had questions. They were told try someone else. That person told them try yet another person. In no possible sense of the words were Brown's answers "under the direction and approval of Pope John Paul II."
One person had authority to speak for the Pope and that was Sandri. Not Ecole. And certainly not Brown
And yet, all of the information supplied by Brown had the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, something that is granted by the Catholic Church.

More about that.

http://wordsmith.org/words/nihil_obstat.html

Also:

In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published; it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective.
The grant of imprimatur is normally preceded by a favourable declaration (known as a nihil obstat) by a person who has the knowledge, orthodoxy and prudence necessary for passing a judgement about the absence from the publication of anything that would "harm correct faith or good morals"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

It's clear to me, and has been.

The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur has a very definitive meaning and intent. It has been approved.

It means the Catholic Church has no problem with what is contained within those works etc..., that carry that approbation.

Else it would not be granted.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604503 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ecole Biblique had the authority to do so. Certainly, else it would not have been done.
Since when would Ecole need permission from the Pope or his Assessor to give a referral to someone asking questions?

Here is a similar scenario

I call up the POTUS and ask him what his interpretation is of part of the Constitution. Of course he isn't going to answer me direct. So I call his Chief of Staff who has the authority to speak for the office. He doesn't answer me either but tells me try John Doe, a constitutional expert employed by the government and me can probably help me. So I call him up and he doesn't answer my questions either. But he tells me try John Smith

Is the answer John Smith gives me one that has been directed and approved by the POTUS? Does it even mean that is how the POTUS would interpret it? Does that mean that is the official interpretation of the United States?

Of course not to all of the above

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#604504 Nov 1, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, all of the information supplied by Brown had the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur, something that is granted by the Catholic Church.
More about that.
http://wordsmith.org/words/nihil_obstat.html
Also:
In the Catholic Church an imprimatur is an official declaration by a Church authority that a book or other printed work may be published; it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective.
The grant of imprimatur is normally preceded by a favourable declaration (known as a nihil obstat) by a person who has the knowledge, orthodoxy and prudence necessary for passing a judgement about the absence from the publication of anything that would "harm correct faith or good morals"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur
It's clear to me, and has been.
The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur has a very definitive meaning and intent. It has been approved.
It means the Catholic Church has no problem with what is contained within those works etc..., that carry that approbation.
Else it would not be granted.
Fist of all, Wikipedia is not official Church policy

Second of all, there is nothing in there that even remotely suggests the information is representative of official church interpretation or synonymous with the Pope's views.

All it means is:

"that a book or other printed work may be published; it is usually only applied for and granted to books on religious topics from a Catholic perspective."

The book is on a religious topic and it is from the perspective of a Catholic scholar

Do you know how many scholars have different views? They are still allowed to get approval to write about them. Anybody employed by the Church needs to get permission to publish.

"Issue: What are the nihil obstat and imprimatur? Do they guarantee that a work will authentically present the teachings of the Church?

Response: In the Catholic Church, certain types of writings need a bishop’s authorization to be published for use in Catholic instruction. The nihil obstat and imprimatur indicate that a writing has received that authorization. They signify that, in the judgment of the bishop who grants the imprimatur, the work contains nothing contrary to faith and morals. However, the nihil obstat and imprimatur are not an endorsement and do not guarantee that the entire contents of a work are true."

http://www.cuf.org/2006/03/nihil-obstat-and-i...

It simply shows a Bishop has given permission for someone to publish something

"The nihil obstat and imprimatur show that a bishop has given authorization for a work to be published"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Travesty 53,076
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 4 min Holy Pipek 446,005
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Tellthetruth 992,311
Last Post Wins !!! [ game time :) ] (Jan '11) 13 min Hatti_Hollerand 2,481
Calling off our engagement. Telling her parents? 19 min matthew8 1
Is God a "Bully" sometimes? 20 min Peter Ross 23
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 50 min Michael 693,481
More from around the web