Old Testament Myths

[DebChris]

I would go with the idea of looking for another group.
No, the Catholic Church does not “lean left.”
It does look for the literary meaning of Scripture, not just the literal meaning.

Many of the events in the Old Testament foreshadow the New Testament.
As Catholics, we do read the Bible as a whole.
Our Lord uses the O.T. while teaching. He refers to Jonah to describe the time He will spend in the tomb before being resurrected.

Theology was a required subject for the Catholic college I attended. I never took it. I like what the monk who taught the class said during Freshman orientation. “Instead of looking for the answers when reading the Bible, look for the questions.” Amazing that that approach has led to more answers, especially from seeming contradictions.

 

[NonTimendum]

I believe those are your words, not mine. If you are referring to this quote,* “To the source culture a myth by definition is “true”, in that it embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world,”* then it is obvious you don’t even comprehend the subject.

You said (about my position that Genesis was literal truth)

by steadfastly holding on to a position that is not Catholic.

Well if the positive claim (Genesis is literal truth) is “not Catholic” then it logically follows that the negative claim (Genesis is not literal truth) is “Catholic”. Perhaps you meant that the Church has made no official statement on this issue? But then my position could not be described as “not Catholic” but only, at best, “not necessary for a Catholic in good standing”.

I’ll put it this way. Did Jesus Christ believe that Genesis was literal truth?

 

[Tim_D]

I’ll put it this way. Did Jesus Christ believe that Genesis was literal truth?

You can’t even get a grasp on the subject at hand; how in the world are going to presume to know what the human nature of Christ thought?

 

[Tim_D]

Well if the positive claim (Genesis is literal truth) is “not Catholic” then it logically follows that the negative claim (Genesis is not literal truth) is “Catholic”. Perhaps you meant that the Church has made no official statement on this issue? But then my position could not be described as “not Catholic” but only, at best, “not necessary for a Catholic in good standing”.

There are some very good posts above that posit the same position as mine. Perhaps your beef can be shared with them?

 

[grannymh]

There are no myths in the OT.

First they said there was no real Adam and Eve. Then it was Noah who was fake. Then they said Moses didn’t really write the Pentateuch. Then they said Abraham wasn’t a real person. Then it was Exodus that was entirely made up. Then they said it was all actually taken from Babylonian captivity.

It isn’t about Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham, or even the Old Testament. It is always about the same thing: Jesus was not the Christ. He was not God. He did not resurrect and ascend into Heaven. The only reason they don’t start with that is because when they start with that, people instinctively resist it, and the historical evidence of Christ’s existence is too strong to eliminate. So they got wiser and they started small. Poke little holes in it here and there. Create the illusion that it’s important because it’s a good story with an important message but not meant to be taken literally.

Once they’ve got you convinced it’s all about the message and the story and the narrative, then they don’t even have to attack Jesus as a historical person. They can twist his “narrative” to mean whatever they want. And why bother reading to find out if they’re wrong or right? It’s all just myths and legends anyway. If his life isn’t important, but his words, then maybe he didn’t really mean it that way? Or maybe something was lost in translation? Or maybe he only said that because those people needed to hear it that way? Who knows what he really said. It’s the message that’s important.

And who interprets the message? Well, of course everyone has to decide that for themselves. Or better yet, listen to the academics who have studied that sort of thing. A few soundbites will do. Better not to get too hung up on all the details here. Just take the whole idea in a few small, easily digestible bites and move along. There’s no actual facts in the Bible anyway, and isn’t it honestly more beautiful that way? It’s not this old, dry, history book with all those uncomfortable realities… no, it’s just another collection of myths from a silly, uninformed, desert people. Science has done away with all that outdated nonsense anyway. You don’t want to be regressive do you? You know how that looks, right?

You want people to think you’re intelligent and modern, don’t you?

This post is an excellent progression. The first three amazing chapters of Genesis becomes stealth (modern) Arianism.

 

[grannymh]

You said (about my position that Genesis was literal truth)

Well if the positive claim (Genesis is literal truth) is “not Catholic” then it logically follows that the negative claim (Genesis is not literal truth) is “Catholic”. Perhaps you meant that the Church has made no official statement on this issue? But then my position could not be described as “not Catholic” but only, at best, “not necessary for a Catholic in good standing”.

I’ll put it this way. Did Jesus Christ believe that Genesis was literal truth?

Question from post 42. I’ll put it this way. Did Jesus Christ believe that Genesis was literal truth?

There are 50 chapters in Genesis. It is more accurate to say that the presence of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is necessitated in the first three fascinating chapters of Genesis. John 3: 16-17.

 

[grannymh]

I believe those are your words, not mine. If you are referring to this quote,* “To the source culture a myth by definition is “true”, in that it embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world,”* then it is obvious you don’t even comprehend the subject.

Are the first three informative chapters of Genesis a myth according to the concept that a myth embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world. Please. What are the citations for Catholic beliefs, concepts, and ways of questioning?

You could start with Genesis 1: 1 or Genesis 1: 27 or any of your favorite literal quotes.

 

[Tim_D]

Are the first three informative chapters of Genesis a myth according to the concept that a myth embodies beliefs, concepts and ways of questioning to make sense of the world. Please. What are the citations for Catholic beliefs, concepts, and ways of questioning?

You could start with Genesis 1: 1 or Genesis 1: 27 or any of your favorite literal quotes.

You’ve been round and round with me and others on this forum on this topic. For an answer to your question, see what the Church says about the early chapters of Genesis (hint: the Church does not teach a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation).

It is sad that your faith in Jesus Christ is built on a house of cards that requires the Adam & Eve story to be “true,” that Noah must necessarily exist or that Jonah lived inside of a whale for 3 days in order for it all to be valid.

 

[grannymh]

You’ve been round and round with me and others on this forum on this topic. For an answer to your question, see what the Church says about the early chapters of Genesis (hint: the Church does not teach a fundamentalist, literalist interpretation).

It is sad that your faith in Jesus Christ is built on a house of cards that requires the Adam & Eve story to be “true,” that Noah must necessarily exist or that Jonah lived inside of a whale for 3 days in order for it all to be valid.

I do not do Noah, the whale, or Jonah.

I usually start with the simple verse Genesis 1: 27. Are you familiar with that verse?

Do you accept the Catholic teaching that God literally exists in Genesis 1: 27?
I do accept that Catholic teaching.

Here is what the Catholic Church says about the first three early chapters of Genesis.

Are you familiar with the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, *paragraph 355?
I am familiar with that paragraph. I understand it. What is your understanding of paragraph 355?

What is your understanding of modern Arianism? Are you familiar with the idea that denying the literal Original Sin, as expressed in the first three holy chapters of Genesis, is really a muddy step into stealth Arianism?

Our Faith in Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is based on the literal Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2: 15-17, Genesis 3: 11-12.
I do accept that Catholic teaching.

Various persons have interpreted Genesis 3: 15 as the Protoevangelium.
(CCC 410-411)

I do look forward to your comments on the above. Thank you.

 

[NonTimendum]

You can’t even get a grasp on the subject at hand; how in the world are going to presume to know what the human nature of Christ thought?

I guess I’m just not ready to say I know better than the human nature of Christ.

 

[grannymh]

I guess I’m just not ready to say I know better than the human nature of Christ.

May I jump in.
Jesus Christ is the Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity Who assumed human nature.

When we go to the depth of the literal Genesis 1: 27, we can understand how a human Adam can have a friendship relationship aka State of Original Holiness with his Creator God. When Adam freely shattered this relationship with his disobedience, the literal Genesis 2: 15-17 and literal Genesis 3: 11-12, he could not repair what Divinity had established. Please note that it is the disobedience which is literal and not necessarily the organic fruit of a tree with a funny name.

It is reasonable to say that the Divine Person Jesus knew what Adam had destroyed and what had to be done (Incarnation and Crucifixion) when He stepped into Adam’s sandals – that is, Jesus assumed human nature. John 3: 16-17.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Well thanks for all the debate, it has given me a lot to chew on. Since there is no real consensus here I decided to look at the extra-biblical / other than Catholic information out there to see if it would either confirm or deny what we are talking about.

I found nothing really about Job, but I really didn’t look to hard.

The Church’s anti-fundamentalist attitude can be well summed up by Pope Francis’s recent quote that the only thing we are allowed to be fundamentalist about is charity.

Many more pages could be written, and I am sure have been, about whether the Church is left or right leaning, I like to think it is the perfect balance of both but that is simply my opinion.

So we come to the great flood. I found a lot of non-Christian information about the flood. There are many experts who believe that the great flood did not cover the whole world but just mainly the Middle East (more exact geographic boundaries are mentioned but I forgot what they were, its about the Middle East) which would basically be the world to the writers.

There is a great deal of archeological evidence that a great flood happened and even some mass deaths found in the sediment which tell experts of a great flood.

There are multiple other religions and other texts which compliment the Bible’s account of God speaking to a man, telling him how to build a boat and cleansing the world.

My conclusion is that the flood happened, it may not have happened how we in 2017 envision it through the eyes of Hollywood, and the popular movies. It may have been global or it might have been just throughout the Middle East, but it happened.

I would like to point out one other thing that I saw while I was reading the posts above. Someone mentioned Jonah surviving in the “great fish” or what we think of as a whale. The Bible actually says that Jonah died in the belly of the fish and was brought back to life.

Thanks for all the comments so far, God Bless!!!

 

[reggieM]

Many more pages could be written, and I am sure have been, about whether the Church is left or right leaning, I like to think it is the perfect balance of both but that is simply my opinion.

I think your opinion is well-founded. In spite of what some people in a parish bible study may say.

 

[grannymh]

Well thanks for all the debate, it has given me a lot to chew on. Since there is no real consensus here I decided to look at the extra-biblical / other than Catholic information out there to see if it would either confirm or deny what we are talking about.

I found nothing really about Job, but I really didn’t look to hard.

The Church’s anti-fundamentalist attitude can be well summed up by Pope Francis’s recent quote that the only thing we are allowed to be fundamentalist about is charity.

Many more pages could be written, and I am sure have been, about whether the Church is left or right leaning, I like to think it is the perfect balance of both but that is simply my opinion.

So we come to the great flood. I found a lot of non-Christian information about the flood. There are many experts who believe that the great flood did not cover the whole world but just mainly the Middle East (more exact geographic boundaries are mentioned but I forgot what they were, its about the Middle East) which would basically be the world to the writers.

There is a great deal of archeological evidence that a great flood happened and even some mass deaths found in the sediment which tell experts of a great flood.

There are multiple other religions and other texts which compliment the Bible’s account of God speaking to a man, telling him how to build a boat and cleansing the world.

My conclusion is that the flood happened, it may not have happened how we in 2017 envision it through the eyes of Hollywood, and the popular movies. It may have been global or it might have been just throughout the Middle East, but it happened.

I would like to point out one other thing that I saw while I was reading the posts above. Someone mentioned Jonah surviving in the “great fish” or what we think of as a whale. The Bible actually says that Jonah died in the belly of the fish and was brought back to life.

Thanks for all the comments so far, God Bless!!!

I noticed that the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture were not specifically mentioned. Because of free speech on a public message board, there will never be a CAF consensus of the truths which appear or don’t appear in the first three fascinating chapters of Sacred Scripture.

It is common sense that the way to bring the Catholic Church down is to hack away at its foundation based on the first three Genesis historical chapters reporting the dawn of human history.

Modern Arianism is not fake news.

 

[Tim_D]

It is common sense that the way to bring the Catholic Church down is to hack away at its foundation based on the first three Genesis historical chapters reporting the dawn of human history.

Only if your faith in Christ and the Church is a house of cards.

 

[grannymh]

Only if your faith in Christ and the Church is a house of cards.

Faith in Christ is not the main issue of modern Arianism. However, thank you for trying.

 

[NonTimendum]

May I jump in.
Jesus Christ is the Divine Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity Who assumed human nature.

When we go to the depth of the literal Genesis 1: 27, we can understand how a human Adam can have a friendship relationship aka State of Original Holiness with his Creator God. When Adam freely shattered this relationship with his disobedience, the literal Genesis 2: 15-17 and literal Genesis 3: 11-12, he could not repair what Divinity had established. Please note that it is the disobedience which is literal and not necessarily the organic fruit of a tree with a funny name.

It is reasonable to say that the Divine Person Jesus knew what Adam had destroyed and what had to be done (Incarnation and Crucifixion) when He stepped into Adam’s sandals – that is, Jesus assumed human nature. John 3: 16-17.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Each human person is worthy of profound respect.

Exactly what was Adam’s sin of disobedience then? I’ve never really gotten a straight answer from evolutionists on this one. What is original sin and how did it come to be?

 

[grannymh]

Exactly what was Adam’s sin of disobedience then? I’ve never really gotten a straight answer from evolutionists on this one. What is original sin and how did it come to be?

The sin of disobedience begins with understanding paragraph 396, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
**396 **God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

One can use the old journalism mantra Who?, How?, What?, When?, Where?, and Why? as a way of better understanding Original Sin in the above difficult paragraph. At least it was difficult for me when I first read it.

As a teacher, I would appreciate knowing what you discover. Take your time.

 

[PJM]

I knew a priest years ago who always used humor in his conversations.
One of his jokes was about a man talking to God.
He begins by asking God about time.
God replies, “A million years is but a second.”
The man goes further and asks about money.
“A million dollars is but a penny.”
So the man asks God for a million dollars.
God answers, “Sure, wait a second.”

What is important when reading scripture is to understand the truth of the message, and not to quibble about details. Each book was written for a particular audience. God inspired a human to write for a particular audience at a particular time. As Chesterton rightly points out, Genesis does not say that the snake in the Garden of Eden is Satan. Still even the most fundamentalist and literal reader understands the symbolism.
I have always understood that Eve meant First Woman and Adam meant First Man. As you continue to read the Old Testament, you will find it written that a thousand years is but a day in God’s eyes. Is there a contradiction between the world being created in seven literal days, and what is written later? Can Catholics accept that God may have used evolutionary means to create the world without losing faith that He is in fact the Creator of the world? As we are reminded in Job, I was not there when God created the world.
Does it matter whether or not Jonah was literally swallowed by a whale? What is the message of the story? Ninevah repented of its sin. God in His mercy spared Ninevah.

I often think of the children’s story of the “Little Engine That Could.” A child does not need to believe that a train full of toys actually climbed a hill to understand the story. The child understands the lesson of not giving up.

Yes, God made man. Man sinned and that sin is a reality. We are incapable of our own salvation. Christ died on the cross that we might enjoy the original grace of original man and original woman.

Well done, THANKS

 

[NonTimendum]

The sin of disobedience begins with understanding paragraph 396, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.
**396 **God created man in His image and established him in His friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” spells this out: “for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.” The “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

One can use the old journalism mantra Who?, How?, What?, When?, Where?, and Why? as a way of better understanding Original Sin in the above difficult paragraph. At least it was difficult for me when I first read it.

As a teacher, I would appreciate knowing what you discover. Take your time.

Unfortunately that paragraph didn’t answer my question:

What, exactly, was the original sin?