RCIA said old testament just "stories"

[richardeekw]

sfo

Thanks for your write-up about “heretics” in the centuries.It is helpful; but I actually don’t care much about such labels except to move on. All of us strive to our heavenly home and to do the best we can with and for all Mankind created in the “image and likeness of God” .
j
There is a saying that “Whenever we point a finger at someone;3 fingers points back at you”

Fraternal correct is fine provided we have researched all the facts and benchmarked to the Official Church’s Teachings with Quotations etc… and done in a “brotherly” way.

Cheers

 

[sfp]

…there is a saying that “Whenever we point a finger at someone;3 fingers points back at you”

No one is “pointing the finger” at anyone here. Using proper terms for what they are, do not constitute “name-calling” or “pointing the finger,” brother. I’m just clarifying symantics.

I lived as a “heretic” for the first 30 years of my life. At least I can admit it.

Was I a bad person? No. Was I ignorant? Yes. Was I a heretic because I called myself “Catholic,” but believed there was absolutely nothing wrong with abortion, among other things? YES I was a heretic, by definition. It’s not namecalling or “pointing the finger,” it’s a term to describe a concept.

Why is it so hard for people to accept this? I’m not “judging” them, simply because I call it what it really is.

Geeeeez man.

 

[Sixtus]

RCIA classes a couple years ago. She told me that they told her that the old testament stories (i.e. noahs ark etc.) are just “stories” told for us as examples. I didn’t know that the church thought this way. Why is this?

The Old Testament is a collection of Books. It needs be seen in that light.

Some are authentic history, the Jews when re-settled in Palestine in 1948 used the Old Testament to establish where water holes were. So this proves there is historical truth in the Old Testament.

Other stories are parables while others still metaphorical and allegorical. There are for example two accounts of Creation in Genesis.

It is well known in Catholic circles that there was civilisation on earth before Adam and Eve, so they could not have been our first parents.

Similar to the New Testament, not all is true. Some is allegorical that is why it is dangerous for sects to get hold of a bible and just interpret it, as they do not now which bits are real and which are allegorical.

Of course the CC knows because she composed it. The original gospel was Mark, Luke and Matthew are based on Mark and both used Mark when compiling their gospel accounts. John is also attributed to the Apostle but not Revelation as is believed by some sects. In revelation he writes in the second person which he would not do if he were the first person

 

[jmcrae]

It is well known in Catholic circles that there was civilisation on earth before Adam and Eve, so they could not have been our first parents.

It is?

I thought we were required to believe that Adam and Eve (as we call them today) were the first man and first woman, and that all human beings now living or who have ever lived are descended from them?

 

[sfp]

It is well known in Catholic circles that there was civilisation on earth before Adam and Eve, so they could not have been our first parents.

John is also attributed to the Apostle but not Revelation as is believed by some sects. In revelation he writes in the second person which he would not do if he were the first person

Both of these statements are incorrect. Adam and Eve were are first parents, and the apostle John is the author of the book of revelation…

Catechism…
***"375 *The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”. This grace of original holiness was “to share in. . .divine life”."

Any “creation” of God’s BEFORE Adam and Eve did not contain an immortal soul. So, EVEN IF Darwinism could be proven, which it has never been, this would NOT negate the teachings of the Church, for the reason above.

“…the book of the Apocalypse (= Revelation), written by John toward the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian (A.D. 95), when he was in exile on the island of Patmos. John’s authorship is affirmed by Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and the Muratori fragment really by the entire tradition of the Church from the second century forward. The doctrine contained in this book and that in the fourth Gospel run parallel to each other, but naturally the two books differ in language and style because they belong to different genres. To give just one example: John is the only inspired New Testament writer to call our Lord the Logos, a description which we find both in the Apocalypse and in the fourth Gospel. Also both books have a pronounced preference for contrasts, such as light and darkness, truth and lies, life and death, the Lamb and the Beast, Jerusalem and Babylon, the archangel Michael and the Dragon…”

Entire article…
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9510ntg.asp

 

[richardeekw]

Please see discussion in my thread

**On the literal and historical sense of Genesis 1 to 3 **

I am convinced that with such lengthy discussions;, the IMPORTANCE of understanding Literary Styles in the Bible.

My recommendation
Books by Dr Margaret Nutting Ralph

• " And God Said What"…
• Discovering Old Testament Origins

 

[Wampa]

Do you mean that even though we have historical evidence of Jericho and that it was destroyed at a certain time that the story of its fall is just made up?

Do mean historical evidence that Jericho was destroyed in the manner described by the Bible in Joshua 6? Or just that it was destroyed at all? If the former, can you please provide a citation for this evidence?

I’d love to compare it to an article I’m reading. The article is “Did All This Really Happen? Archaeology, the Bible, and History” and it asserts that the archaeological evidence shows that the final destruction of Jericho took place more than 1000 years before the Isrealite tribes would have destroyed it. The author concludes that “Clearly evidence of the city’s destruction in the Early Bronze Age was visible for anyone to see and the author of Joshua simply assumed that the Isrealite militia under Joshua was responsible for it.”

Like I said, I’d love to compare that with your evidence. Thanks!

 

[Ysleta_indian]

If it’s got an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, then it’s as Catholic as it needs to be. That said, we are certainly free to disagree with the footnotes in our Bibles; they aren’t Holy Writ - and Catholic Bible scholars have a variety of perfectly acceptable opinions on a variety of things.

I’m sorry but I am not familiar with “Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat”. What is it?

 

[richardeekw]

I’m sorry but I am not familiar with “Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat”. What is it?

From
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprimatur

The term "imprimatur" is sometimes used in a broader sense to indicate official approval by whatever authorities are pertinent to the field in question (not necessarily the Catholic Church.) For example, a political work might be said to have the “imprimatur” of a certain politician or political party. This is typically meant in a symbolic sense, although sometimes such works are directly endorsed in a manner similar to the Catholic Church process with a replica signature of endorsement or something similar.This term is also often used in regular commercial printing process as an approval of customer’s authorised person to finally sent the job to the print house, for example after a test copy has been reviewed and approved.
**
Nihil obstat **is an official approval by a delegated censor of the Roman Catholic Church to publish a work dealing with faith or morals. It signifies that the publication is free from Catholic doctrinal or moral error.
The phrase is Latin, meaning, “nothing hinders” or “nothing stands in the way.”
The Nihil obstat, along with the Imprimi potest, forms part of the Catholic Imprimatur.

 

[Nazianzen]

I have a sister-in-law that has come into the faith and went thru RCIA classes a couple years ago. She told me that they told her that the old testament stories (i.e. noahs ark etc.) are just “stories” told for us as examples. I didn’t know that the church thought this way. Why is this?

Send me the address of the person heading that RCIA. I’m going to send them a howler.

 

[richardeekw]

Send me the address of the person heading that RCIA. I’m going to send them a howler.

I am sure that COMMUNICATION is the cause of all these problems. With a 1.5 hrour session an RCIA session speaker cannot teach the full understanding of the Old Testament (which is a Liabrary of books and yet a Book) and unfortunately when he/she said that OT are mereoly stories - it is an inappropriate choice of words, without reflecting that some participants in the RCIA audience will take him/her to mean literarlly that the OT are just stories…

I would have him/her explain that the OT books contain a variety of literary styles - which include folklore, myths, fictional stories, historical & scientific facts…but all presented and preserved, as inspired by God to revelal s “Religious Truths” to human beings. - It is man’s attempts to put in writing to help the generations comprehend the Incomprehensible God. To fully understand the writings of the OT, one have to understand LITERARY styles of writing and go to the the Catechism and Biblical commentaries with Imprimatur & Nihil Obstat endorsements by the Church to better understannd the OT .

He/she could have distributed a list of recommended references, such as

• An excellent source - The CCC with Scripture citations reference at the end of the bok
• Roman Catholic : approved bibles with commentaries" i.e. with Imprimatur & Nibil Obstat endorsements

Some good references

• • Understanding the Scriptures (Didache series ) by Dr Scott Hahn
• Books by Dr Margaret N. Ralph especially " And God said what" (An introduction to Biblical Literary Forms for Bible lovers)
  & Discovering the Old Testament Origins.
  etc…etc…etc

Websites
www.salvationhistory.com. - Biblical Theology and especially in understanding the COVENANT in understanding the Bible.
Vatican website

• To be aware that not all websites,are reliable, as there are too many misleading articles to confuse you. (Study the creditabibity of the author before wasting time on his/her interpretation and teaching).

The other cause of the problem as I see is not the RCIA per se. It is what hgappens after Baptism. Does the Christian continue to study the Bible, the Church and have a deeper understanding of Theology or thinks that after RCIA he/she knows everything about 2000 years of Christianity.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Do mean historical evidence that Jericho was destroyed in the manner described by the Bible in Joshua 6? Or just that it was destroyed at all? If the former, can you please provide a citation for this evidence?

I’d love to compare it to an article I’m reading. The article is “Did All This Really Happen? Archaeology, the Bible, and History” and it asserts that the archaeological evidence shows that the final destruction of Jericho took place more than 1000 years before the Isrealite tribes would have destroyed it. The author concludes that “Clearly evidence of the city’s destruction in the Early Bronze Age was visible for anyone to see and the author of Joshua simply assumed that the Isrealite militia under Joshua was responsible for it.”

Like I said, I’d love to compare that with your evidence. Thanks!

Hmm…

It’s been so long since I researched this I’ll have to take some time to rediscover. The last time I really looked at this was 32 years ago. I saw the city but right now I couldn’t answer your question.

Generally, I tend not to trust revisionists but sometimes they are right.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

This rather lengthy article places the Exodus and the battle of Jericho in the MB not the LB as many had earlier thought. The earlier dating also corresponds with Kathleen Kenyon’s conclusions that this battle did indeed take place and occurred sometime between 1580 and 1550.

“The Revised Model dates the Exodus to the MB era circa 1600 by several independent lines of secular data. The RC date of the Exodus agrees with the secular evidence of (1) the Middle Bronze archaeology of Tell el-Daba and Jericho, (2) the ceramic chronology at Jericho and (3) the carbon-14 results at Jericho. These results, in turn, are in total agreement with BIC. BIC is no longer just a theological chronology that agrees with secular evidences and chronology.”

This article can be found here.

ldolphin.org/alanm/chron1.html

This is fascinating to me and gets my juices flowing. It makes me hope again that I can return to Israel not just as a tour host but as a participant on a dig. (Eat your heart out Indy). Actually, I was never a professinal archaeologist but I did enjoy the dig my wife and I participated in during the summer of 1974. I certainly enjoyed the research surrounding that dig as well.

One more note. In the mid to late 1970’s an international group found a large cache of mostly economic clay tablets from SW Syria which seems to indicate that the age of the Patriarchs was probably 2400 BC.

CDL