Does the Catholic Church recognize the story of Noah and the flood as being literally true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rwillenborg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
diggerdomer said:
But again, Jesus also taught in parables but that doesn’t mean we have to accept they were actual events.

Let’s see if I can stretch your metaphor without falling into heresy…ummm…we’re free to drink of the water or not (in this limited respect, i.e. the historicity of the Deluge) as long as we’re being led by the Church.
Click to expand...
Jesus taught in parables, but He also taught using historical facts. Noah was a real person and Lot was a real person (Luke 17:27-30) so anything Jesus says about them is historical fact since He knows them intimately, because He is God, Who searches and understands the intentions of every person’s heart (1 Chronicles 28:9). He has no reason to make up things about them. He has their real life experiences to talk about.

Ezekiel 14:13-14
“Son of man, when a land sins against Me by persistent unfaithfulness, I will stretch out My hand against it; I will cut off its supply of bread, send famine on it, and cut off man and beast from it. 14 Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness,” says the Lord GOD.

If He says their names, then they actually existed historically. Now, don’t tell me that Daniel and Job did not exist also. I won’t bother to reply. 😃
 
diggerdomer said:
But again, Jesus also taught in parables but that doesn’t mean we have to accept they were actual events.

Let’s see if I can stretch your metaphor without falling into heresy…ummm…we’re free to drink of the water or not (in this limited respect, i.e. the historicity of the Deluge) as long as we’re being led by the Church.
Click to expand...
There is no indication form the context the flood was a parable. After all, in parables, no one has names. You insistence on this is on very short step away from total non-belief, and the Bible just becomes a storybook. Whatever happened to taking things on faith?
 
CWBetts said:
There is no indication form the context the flood was a parable. After all, in parables, no one has names. You insistence on this is on very short step away from total non-belief, and the Bible just becomes a storybook. Whatever happened to taking things on faith?
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Some Catholics are harder to convince than non-Christians. 😃

Many people today are trying to tell Christians that their Bible is merely a book of myths, a terrible hoax promoted and perpetuated especially by the Catholic Church, in order to gain and keep power over the masses (pun intended).

Catholics should take the passages in the Bible literally unless there is sufficient reason not to. What should not be taken literally?

Examples of hyperbole (exaggeration):

Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.

Matthew 23:9
Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Common sense tells us that Jesus was exaggerating/embellishing in order to stress His points.
 
SHW said:
Jesus taught in parables, but He also taught using historical facts. Noah was a real person and Lot was a real person (Luke 17:27-30) so anything Jesus says about them is historical fact since He knows them intimately, because He is God, Who searches and understands the intentions of every person’s heart (1 Chronicles 28:9). He has no reason to make up things about them. He has their real life experiences to talk about.

Ezekiel 14:13-14
“Son of man, when a land sins against Me by persistent unfaithfulness, I will stretch out My hand against it; I will cut off its supply of bread, send famine on it, and cut off man and beast from it. 14 Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver only themselves by their righteousness,” says the Lord GOD.

If He says their names, then they actually existed historically. Now, don’t tell me that Daniel and Job did not exist also. I won’t bother to reply. 😃
Click to expand...
He used the name Lazarus in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. does that mean Catholics are required to accept that the Lazarus in this parable was historically real?
 
CWBetts said:
There is no indication form the context the flood was a parable. After all, in parables, no one has names. You insistence on this is on very short step away from total non-belief, and the Bible just becomes a storybook. Whatever happened to taking things on faith?
Click to expand...
So the story of Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable? Ok, maybe…but does that mean it was historically true?
 
CWBetts said:
There is no indication form the context the flood was a parable. After all, in parables, no one has names. You insistence on this is on very short step away from total non-belief, and the Bible just becomes a storybook. Whatever happened to taking things on faith?
Click to expand...
I would not say, either, that the Flood is a parable, though I would not insist that every detail of the story is historical. But mostly, where did you get the idea that “in parables, no one has names”?

You must have little experience with various literary forms and genres, parables included.
 
itinerant1 said:
I would not say, either, that the Flood is a parable, though I would not insist that every detail of the story is historical. But mostly, where did you get the idea that “in parables, no one has names”?

You must have little experience with various literary forms and genres, parables included.
Click to expand...
I agree the Flood is not a parable.
 
diggerdomer said:
So the story of Lazarus and the rich man was not a parable? Ok, maybe…but does that mean it was historically true?
Click to expand...
I think that Lazarus actually lived. Surely Jesus as God knew everything about the “real” people who were patiently waiting in Abraham’s bosom for Jesus to make His redeeming sacrifice on the cross so that they could then enter heaven. After all, 4000 years of human history already existed before Jesus was “born.” Surely He drew upon His own infinite knowledge as God in His teaching. And, why would He not use examples of real situations since He had 4000 years’ worth of examples of humans to draw upon? It does not matter whether people call them “parables” or not.
 
CWBetts said:
There is no indication form the context the flood was a parable. After all, in parables, no one has names.
Click to expand...
They also don’t have genealogies (Luke 3)
Adam >…> Lamech > Noah > Shem >…> David >…>Jesus
 
SHW said:
I think that Lazarus actually lived. Surely Jesus as God knew everything about the “real” people who were patiently waiting in Abraham’s bosom for Jesus to make His redeeming sacrifice on the cross so that they could then enter heaven. After all, 4000 years of human history already existed before Jesus was “born.” Surely He drew upon His own infinite knowledge as God in His teaching. And, why would He not use examples of real situations since He had 4000 years’ worth of examples of humans to draw upon? It does not matter whether people call them “parables” or not.
Click to expand...
That’s fine, I think Catholics are free to believe Lazarus in this parable (just like anyone in any parable Jesus used) existed…or not.
 
John7 said:
They also don’t have genealogies (Luke 3)
Adam >…> Lamech > Noah > Shem >…> David >…>Jesus
Click to expand...
Bringing in genealogies is not, I think, going to prove a point. Have you compared the genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke? Do you see the apparent contradictions there? They differ on who Jesus’ grandfather is, they share only a few common names, Luke’s is much longer than Matthew’s, etc.
 
diggerdomer said:
Bringing in genealogies is not, I think, going to prove a point. Have you compared the genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke? Do you see the apparent contradictions there? They differ on who Jesus’ grandfather is, they share only a few common names, Luke’s is much longer than Matthew’s, etc.
Click to expand...
just thought I’d mention it.

But
what if use Luke 3 from Adam >…> Noah >…> Abraham >…> David [stop Lk3]
[start Mt 1] …> Abraham >…> David >…> Christ

then there’s no contradictions
blend them ? :ehh:
 
buffalo said:
As you can see he traces it directly back to Adam through Mary. Adam is 1 Jesus is 77.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t explain why there are so many more generations in Luke vs. Matthew. And Luke traces it through, Joseph, right? Where is Mary mentioned in Luke’s genealogy?
 
Mathew restricts his genealogy to Christ’s Israelitic descent to stress that Jesus is connected to the leading recipients of the messianic promises. The scope of Luke’s genealogy is universal, and goes back to the head of the human race.

The two lists from David to Joseph only have two names in common. Mathew prefers dynastic or legal descent over physical descent.

Mathew’s list is contrived into three groups of 2 X 7 names. To arrive at the 3 groups of 14 he has to omit three kings between Joram and Azariah and include Jeconiah (Joiaqim, Joiakam) twice. The forced arrangement conveys an intended meaning symbolically.
 
itinerant1 said:
Mathew restricts his genealogy to Christ’s Israelitic descent to stress that Jesus is connected to the leading recipients of the messianic promises. The scope of Luke’s genealogy is universal, and goes back to the head of the human race.

The two lists from David to Joseph only have two names in common. Mathew prefers dynastic or legal descent over physical descent.

Mathew’s list is contrived into three groups of 2 X 7 names. To arrive at the 3 groups of 14 he has to omit three kings between Joram and Azariah and include Jeconiah (Joiaqim, Joiakam) twice. The forced arrangement conveys an intended meaning symbolically.
Click to expand...
Then you seem to say we need not treat the genealogies literally. I’m ok with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top