Scripture: What's myth and what's history?

[Catholic_Johnny]

Now let me ask you theistic evolutionists a question:
What is the origin of the seven day week?

In the Judaic-Christian Tradition, the Sabbath day occupies an enormous revelatory significance. The Shabbat is the 7th day on which Elohim rested from His works; it is the sign of the Covenant between God and Israel; it is in encoded in the 3rd Commandment; Israel observed a complex statutory guideline for keeping the Sabbaths; Israel was commanded to let the land lie fallow on the Sabbath year(s); they were exiles 70 years to remind them of their disobedience to the commandment to observe the Sabbath years; they celebrated the Year of Jubilee on the Sabbath of Sabbath years (every 50 years); Isaiah prophesies about the correct observance of the Sabbath; the Prophet Daniel prophesies about the coming of Meshiach in bundles of ‘sevens’ (literally ‘weeks’); Jesus proclaims that He is Lord of Sabbath and that the Sabbath was ‘made for man, and not man for the Sabbath’.

Your syncretism of pagan monism with Divine Revelation is fraught with many difficult problems not the least of which is the Sabbath Day. A gradually evolving material universe cannot be satisfactorily harmonized with Genesis without doing violence to the text. Evolution dismisses the Sabbath and either consigns it to pre-historic pagan mythology or denies that it has any real meaning at all, a view that our Hebrew brethren would take umbridge with.

You cannot trace the origin of the 7-day week back any further than Genesis. There is no evidence of the 7 day week coming from any other source. The Hebrew people were given these revelations and Covenants by Almighty God. Adam was the first recipient of the 7 day week. And the Hebrew people have complex and intact genealogies dating back to creation week. They were also given a lunar calendar while the pagans observed cycles of the sun. There is a reason Hebrew people observe this as the year 5768. And no other calendar predates it - look high and low, gaze into your carbon dating theories and apemen and missing links - but this is the oldest extant calender on the earth.

God staked His own credibility on the enduring integrity of the Hebrew nation:

35 Thus says the LORD, He who gives the sun to light the day, moon and stars to light the night; Who stirs up the sea till its waves roar, whose name is LORD of hosts:
36 If ever these natural laws give way in spite of me, says the LORD, Then shall the race of Israel cease as a nation before me forever.
37 Thus says the LORD: If the heavens on high can be measured, or the foundations below the earth be sounded, Then will I cast off the whole race of Israel because of all they have done, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31

To do away with the Sabbath, you must do away with Israel, which God says can never happen. Conversely, to attempt to say you have “measured the heavens” or “sounded the foundations below the earth” (claims evolutionists routinely make) one must destroy the system established by Adonai (vs 35 is grounded in Genesis 1).

This is one of the most pernicious threats of so-called theistic evolution: in order for Christians to swallow it, they musn’t look very carefully at Genesis at all. The entire fabric of revelation is woven around God’s orderly establishment of the material universe. The Sabbath is the eternal reminder that man is a creature, and that he was created to worship his Creator. Cardinal Ratzinger treats this at length in Christianity, Islam, Relativism and the West.

If anyone can harmonize evolution with the 7 day week and the Sabbath Day, I’d like to hear it in the Fathers, the Doctors, and the Scriptures as well as contemporary (unproven) theories reliant on disputed methods of dating and antisupernaturalist syllogisms.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If anyone can harmonize evolution with the 7 day week and the Sabbath Day, I’d like to hear it in the Fathers, the Doctors, and the Scriptures as well as contemporary (unproven) theories reliant on disputed methods of dating and antisupernaturalist syllogisms.

I’ll give it a shot

God created the universe from outside of space and time. So, it didn’t take him 6 days. God doesn’t have to work within time. The 6 days taken literally by modern men is an insult to God. It is a simplification of something we cannot understand.

God somehow rested after creation. He created a law that Israel set aside one day per week in recognition and in imitation of God’s rest.

Then Christianity came along and stopped observing the sabbath and instituted a similar Lord’s Day on the first day of the week. This new day also imitates God’s rest after creation, and also recognizes the day of Christ’s resurrection, when “all things were made new”. The new creation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Lamentabilli Sane is also known as the Syllabus of Errors.

A quote for you (not shaking it in your face):

Thank you for the quotation from *Lamentab**ili ***(with which I am familiar - I’m also familiar with the other, older, Syllabus of 1864); but what is the relevance of those parts of it to anything in my posts ?​

Catholic Biblical scholarship today is not in the same position as then - whatever the value of Lamentabili may have been then, what it says cannot be applied without further ado to what is said now: if only because of Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), the Letter to Cardinal Suhard (1948), Dei Verbum, the 1964 Instruction on the Historicity of the Gospels, the 1993 Instruction on the Bible in the Church. Providentissimus (1893), Vigilantiae (1902), & Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) aren’t the last word on Biblical exegesis or on theology either.

How are we to relate the past documents to the present ones ? Do the older interpret the later, or the later the older ? IMVHO, the second alternative is the one to take: simply because the Church then could not take account of what is said by Church authority now, whereas the Church now can consider past & present documents together. This alternative allows the Church at large to profit from both, without being shackled to past pronouncements that with the passing of time & the changes in the world & the Church may have lost the relevance they had: the Church & the world in 2008 are not as they were in 1914 or before - if the Church does not live in the present, it is in serious danger of becoming irrelevant to the world of the present. It has, we have, to “speak to the condition” of people as they are: not as they were a thousand, or 500, or 100, or 90 or 50 years ago; nor as they may be in the future. There is a difference between being faithful to past Tradition, & becoming fossilised.

 

[StAnastasia]

As I asked earlier, please cite one syllable of official Church Teaching that asserts evolution is a Catholic truth, a scientific fact, or binding upon any Catholic Chrstian.

You won’t find that, Catholic Johnny, any more than you will find official church teaching that the theory of gravity is a Catholic truth, a scientific fact, or binding upon any Catholic Christian. Pronouncing on science is not the Church’s mission.

StAnastasia

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Thank you for the quotation from *Lamentab**ili ***(with which I am familiar - I’m also familiar with the other, older, Syllabus of 1864); but what is the relevance of those parts of it to anything in my posts ?​

Catholic Biblical scholarship today is not in the same position as then - whatever the value of Lamentabili may have been then, what it says cannot be applied without further ado to what is said now: if only because of Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), the Letter to Cardinal Suhard (1948), Dei Verbum, the 1964 Instruction on the Historicity of the Gospels, the 1993 Instruction on the Bible in the Church. Providentissimus (1893), Vigilantiae (1902), & Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) aren’t the last word on Biblical exegesis or on theology either.

How are we to relate the past documents to the present ones ? Do the older interpret the later, or the later the older ? IMVHO, the second alternative is the one to take: simply because the Church then could not take account of what is said by Church authority now, whereas the Church now can consider past & present documents together. This alternative allows the Church at large to profit from both, without being shackled to past pronouncements that with the passing of time & the changes in the world & the Church may have lost the relevance they had: the Church & the world in 2008 are not as they were in 1914 or before - if the Church does not live in the present, it is in serious danger of becoming irrelevant to the world of the present. It has, we have, to “speak to the condition” of people as they are: not as they were a thousand, or 500, or 100, or 90 or 50 years ago; nor as they may be in the future. There is a difference between being faithful to past Tradition, & becoming fossilised.

So let me get this straight: the Church’s unchanging proclamation is subject to changing, unproven, and vigorously debated forms of so-called science and should modify its proclamation to accomdate contemporary novelties and conventions?

Please cite the portions of Lamentabili Sane that are superseded by the 1964 and 1993 documents?

Papal Encyclicals cannot contradict each other. The latter documents are clearly at fault should such a contradiction occur.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

You are not being honest now. StAnastasia did say we should start our own Church and that Catholicism accepts evolution.

For the OP to say:​

• Start your own religion, if you wish, but Catholicism has no problem accepting evolution.
  is hardly as vehement as the sort of baiting mentioned in my post: you aren’t being told to leave the Church, nor that you are a disgrace to it. Still, maybe we’ve picked up the same words in different ways - I don’t want to argue about something so uncertain. So you’re welcome to your point.
  As for Catholicism accepting evolution - JP2 seems to have been not unfriendly to the notion. It would be better to be related to apes than to sinners. What is so objectionable in being related to apes - or in being evolved from them ? I think it shows something about the Incarnation & about the Power & Providence of God.

Resurrection not dependent on Jesus’ teaching about Jonah?

for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Mt. 12:40

An illustration of a real event (in this case, the Resurrection) need not itself be a real event.​

• What makes the tall tale in Jonah about a prophet mentioned in 2 Kings incapable of illustrating the Resurrection ?
• Do the Donkey, the Boy & his Father have to be really existent in order to illustrate the folly of trying to please everyone ?
• Does the moral character of George Washington depend for its reality on the historical reality of the “little mashie” story ?
• Must the Good Samaritan have been a really existing person, for the lesson of the parable to be of any value ?
• Is the Book of Revelation rendered useless if the devil is not a great red dragon
  The Bible is full of fictions, in various literary genres - whyever not ? How does that make it any less valuable, any less inspired ? Is Jesus Christ nothing but a Divine edition of Dickens’ Mr. Gradgrind, uttering “facts, nothing but facts” ? If so, why can the - supposedly - omniscient Jesus not get a simple detail such as the size of a seed right ? If He can make a point effectively without being absolutely accurate in one place, He can do the same in others. He was a first-century Palestinian, not a twentieth-century Catholic apologist. And what He was not, He did not speak as.

I tremble at the levity and audacity with which you flippantly change the meanings of Jesus’ preaching.

I have not changed any of them. He speaks of Jonah as a “sign” - & where do I deny that he was ? I don’t - on the contrary.​

 

[mpartyka]

Papal Encyclicals cannot contradict each other.

Since when? I was under the impression that not all encyclicals were promulgated ex cathedra.

The latter documents are clearly at fault should such a contradiction occur.

But doesn’t that mean, then, that the ex cathedra status of a document depends upon its consistency with prior ex cathedra documents in addition to the Pope’s explicitly saying, “I am now speaking ex cathedra”? I have a feeling that’s not what Vatican I meant when it defined papal infallibility.

–Mike

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So let me get this straight: the Church’s unchanging proclamation is subject to changing, unproven, and vigorously debated forms of so-called science and should modify its proclamation to accomdate contemporary novelties and conventions?

Please cite the portions of Lamentabili Sane that are superseded by the 1964 and 1993 documents?

Papal Encyclicals cannot contradict each other. The latter documents are clearly at fault should such a contradiction occur.

If I had written that last sentence, you would have been all over me for my arrogance, presumption, daring to correct Catholic teaching on my own authority alone, etcetera, etcetera.​

I will not defend myself against someone who sets himself up as the standard for what is orthodox - I don’t need to. When you become a priest, a censor or a bishop, maybe: but not until then. You name a few people, including some Saints - I have the whole episcopate on my side of the argument, & the millions of Catholics who heed their teaching. They do not agree with your notion of the relation between past & present; it’s wrong, because it ignores the present. I don’t ignore the past; I merely insist that it cannot be used to muzzle or fossilise the present. The Church did not come to a halt in 1914 - & neither did the rest of the human race, nor time either. Jesus, in the days of His life on earth, did not live in the past of His People: what possible right to do so has the Church ? No right at all.

I may be wrong, but at least I try to put forward a suggestion as to how both past & present can be heard. It is no heretical theory, but a fact, that we are not in 1910, & neither is the world at large - the problems, challenges, opportunities are not the same now as then. For one thing, Pius X did not say anything about the Pill - not unreasonably, since it was not invented until the '60s. The Church today has to be aware of it, even though he did not. This mutilation of the present as an offering to the past has nothing Catholic about it, & it’s anything but orthodox.

What did Popes living before 1900 know about the immense increase in information about, & understanding of, the Biblical world that has taken place since that date ? Nothing. How could they ? But people today do - so, have to take it into account. There is no place for pretending such things don’t exist or never happened. Popes may know nothing of such matters - does that mean nobody in the world does ? To ignore what happens around us is not a choice we can take - for sooner or later, it affects the Church. Which will look pretty silly, if it brings to the world of 2008 nothing better than the theological ideas of 1914.

Why bother with Pius X ? Surely he’s far too modern; if not from our POV, then from that of 1905. Why not go back to the very beginning, & avoid those ghastly modernists who were present at Nicea 1, & introduced that completely untraditional (& heretical) word homoousion ? For 300 years the Church had got by quite happily without it. Who wants a “contemporary novelty” like that in the Church ?

I’ve defended myself after all.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Since when? I was under the impression that not all encyclicals were promulgated ex cathedra.

But doesn’t that mean, then, that the ex cathedra status of a document depends upon its consistency with prior ex cathedra documents in addition to the Pope’s explicitly saying, “I am now speaking ex cathedra”? I have a feeling that’s not what Vatican I meant when it defined papal infallibility.

–Mike

What it also means is that the latest definition only becomes a definition when it is no longer the latest. As long as it remains the latest, it is a nasty modern innovation, which is trumped by any preceding document that cannot easily be reconciled with it. When OTOH it is old - it becomes true doctrine. But not before. ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Indeed, if the universe and all it contains does not lie within the divine reality, then that divine reality (God) must be contained within or part of the universe. This is the folly of atheism: assuming that what is not contained within the universe does not exist. God is bigger than the universe, so all things exist within God.

StAnastasia

That, or we have:​

• God & the universe as two ultimate irreducible principles
• Aristotle’s self-contemplating Deity who is not a creator
• God and the universe being identical
  Have you read Cicero’s Nature of the Gods ? Fascinating stuff

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Erroneous Premises
Some proponents of this method, motivated by rationalistic prejudices, refuse to recognize the existence of a supernatural order. They deny the intervention of a personal God in the world by means of Revelation in the strict sense, and reject the possibility or actual occurrence of miracles and prophecies. Some start out with an erroneous concept of faith, regarding faith as indifferent to, or even incompatible with, historical truth. Some deny, a priori as it were, the historical nature and historical value of the documents of Revelation. And finally, some minimize the authority of the Apostles as witnesses to Christ. Belittling their office and their influence in the primitive community, these people exaggerate the creative power of the community itself. All these opinions are not only contrary to Catholic doctrine, but also devoid of scholarly foundation and inconsistent with the sound principles of the historical method.

However, he should always be prepared to obey the Magisterium of the Church. And he should never forget that the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit when they preached the good news; that the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who preserved their authors from every error. Para II.3

They should scrupulously avoid departing, at any time or in any way, from the common doctrine and tradition of the Church. They should, however, take advantage of the solid advances made in biblical research and the contributions of modern scholars, while avoiding altogether the rash opinions of innovators. They are strictly forbidden to indulge in the pernicious craving for novelty by indiscriminately spreading makeshift solutions to problems, solutions which are not the product of prudent judgment and serious deliberation, and which can, therefore, upset the faith of many. para IV

1. The above quotes are from the 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Bible Commissionsuggested by Gottle of Geer as a refutation to or supercession of *Lamentabili Sane *or other preceeding Papal Encyclicals. It is crystal clear that while exegesis is required in all ages, no one is free to distort, revise or change the meaning of the sacred texts in any way. The type of redaction crticism advocated by my opponents in this discussion enters in but to savage the Sacred Scriptures, promulgate a pernicious doubt in their inspired value, add spurious theories and rationalist conjectures to established interpretations, and overthrow the Fathers and the Doctors, many who sealed their testimonies in their blood.
2. The 1993 Instruction to the PBC is nothing more than an explanation of [then] current methodologies and some examples of their application that are acceptable in the pastoral guidance of JP II. The Holy Father does come perilously close to endorsing documentary theory (unknown in the Fathers) and other rationalist innovations, and it is easy to see how neo-rationalists like to distort ‘permission’ into ‘license’ when concluding that texts are not what the Fathers and Doctors have described them to be since the beginning of the Christian era.
3. Neither instruction rises to the level of an Encyclical, and both rely heavily on the previous work of Blessed Pius XII, especially Divino Afflante Spiritu, which my opponents seem oblivious to, clinging only to contemporary theories and the private speculations of Pontiffs and scholars that do not rise to the level of guidance issued through previous Encyclicals.
4. Most redaction criticism results in a wholesale deconstruction of the Bible and a produces wastleland of malicious clutter such as the disastrous Jerome Biblical Commentary. It adds nothing of any lasting spiritual value to any believer anywhere and promotes doubt, mistrust and suspicion of the veracity of the Sacred Scriptures. It gives great occasion for the enemy to exploit the innocent (scandal* is* a sin) and to fell souls. It finally takes aim at our Blessed Lord Himself and assails his humanity, divinity and integrity.
5. Clever construction of arguments that posit the Instruction to the PBC against Papal Encyclicals may dazzle the neophyte and those predisposed to modernism, but you are not fooling those imbued with a spirit of reverence and awe for the Kerygma. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of the Scriptures as our Church teaches, and deep communion with the Holy Spirit is neccessary for anyone attempting to promulgate a teaching resulting from personal exegesis. The Holy Spirit left no witness to the Fathers and Doctors supporting the claims of redaction critics. Either He forgot in earlier times or neo-rationalists have departed from the unction neccessary to reverently and carefully study and expound upon the Eternal Gospel. Saint John the Evangelist warned against changing the Words of Revelation (Rev 22:18-19) and the faithful, far from deconstructing the meaning of the sacred texts will tremble at the Word of God (Isaiah 66:2).

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13:8

 

[StAnastasia]

1. Most redaction criticism results in a wholesale deconstruction of the Bible and a produces wastleland of malicious clutter such as the disastrous Jerome Biblical Commentary. It adds nothing of any lasting spiritual value to any believer anywhere and promotes doubt, mistrust and suspicion of the veracity of the Sacred Scriptures. It gives great occasion for the enemy to exploit the innocent (scandal* is* a sin) and to fell souls. It finally takes aim at our Blessed Lord Himself and assails his humanity, divinity and integrity.

On the contrary, the Jerome Biblical commentary is a very useful piece of work.

 

[Crumpy]

The Bible conveys theological truths — not scientific or historical facts. I do know that.

The preceding is the original post. I’ve read into this thread about 30 posts, and this thread is the usual dog-chasing-its-tail sort of discussion.

I suggest that the OP read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially the paragraphs dealing with Sacred Scripture.

Then, as suggested in the 1993 document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (check the document library at EWTN.com) get a Catholic commentary for assistance in understanding scripture.

These are not trivial recommendations. Any Catholic and anyone else desiring to understand Catholic teaching should read these, and they will not be fully informed until they do read these.

 

[mpartyka]

I’ve read into this thread about 30 posts, and this thread is the usual dog-chasing-its-tail sort of discussion.

You should read the whole thing. It’s quite entertaining.

I suggest that the OP read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially the paragraphs dealing with Sacred Scripture.

Maybe you could list or quote the relevant paragraphs for us? I don’t think any of us is much inclined to read thousands of pages just to get at a few relevant paragraphs.

Then, as suggested in the 1993 document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” (check the document library at EWTN.com) get a Catholic commentary for assistance in understanding scripture.

Kinda hard to put this suggestion in the “useful and helpful” category unless you also recommend a good commentary for us. Different commentaries, even different Catholic commentaries, are not all going to say the same things on all passages of scripture.

These are not trivial recommendations.

Yes, actually, they are, because – at least where the CCC is concerned – we’ve been there, done that, didn’t get a whole heck of a lot out of it.

So, thanks for contributing practically nothing to the discussion (though I would still welcome your recommendation of a good commentary if you have one to give).

–Mike

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. The above quotes are from the 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Bible Commission suggested by Gottle of Geer as a refutation to or supercession of *Lamentabili Sane *or other preceeding Papal Encyclicals. It is crystal clear that while exegesis is required in all ages, no one is free to distort, revise or change the meaning of the sacred texts in any way. The type of redaction crticism advocated by my opponents in this discussion enters in but to savage the Sacred Scriptures, promulgate a pernicious doubt in their inspired value, add spurious theories and rationalist conjectures to established interpretations, and overthrow the Fathers and the Doctors, many who sealed their testimonies in their blood.
2. The 1993 Instruction to the PBC is nothing more than an explanation of [then] current methodologies and some examples of their application that are acceptable in the pastoral guidance of JP II. The Holy Father does come perilously close to endorsing documentary theory (unknown in the Fathers) and other rationalist innovations, and it is easy to see how neo-rationalists like to distort ‘permission’ into ‘license’ when concluding that texts are not what the Fathers and Doctors have described them to be since the beginning of the Christian era.
3. Neither instruction rises to the level of an Encyclical, and both rely heavily on the previous work of Blessed Pius XII, especially Divino Afflante Spiritu, which my opponents seem oblivious to, clinging only to contemporary theories and the private speculations of Pontiffs and scholars that do not rise to the level of guidance issued through previous Encyclicals.
4. Most redaction criticism results in a wholesale deconstruction of the Bible and a produces wastleland of malicious clutter such as the disastrous Jerome Biblical Commentary. It adds nothing of any lasting spiritual value to any believer anywhere and promotes doubt, mistrust and suspicion of the veracity of the Sacred Scriptures. It gives great occasion for the enemy to exploit the innocent (scandal* is* a sin) and to fell souls. It finally takes aim at our Blessed Lord Himself and assails his humanity, divinity and integrity.
5. Clever construction of arguments that posit the Instruction to the PBC against Papal Encyclicals may dazzle the neophyte and those predisposed to modernism, but you are not fooling those imbued with a spirit of reverence and awe for the Kerygma. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of the Scriptures as our Church teaches, and deep communion with the Holy Spirit is neccessary for anyone attempting to promulgate a teaching resulting from personal exegesis. The Holy Spirit left no witness to the Fathers and Doctors supporting the claims of redaction critics. Either He forgot in earlier times or neo-rationalists have departed from the unction neccessary to reverently and carefully study and expound upon the Eternal Gospel. Saint John the Evangelist warned against changing the Words of Revelation (Rev 22:18-19) and the faithful, far from deconstructing the meaning of the sacred texts will tremble at the Word of God (Isaiah 66:2).

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13:8

I’ve tried to meet you half-way. You don’t seem to want that - you seem instead to want the Fathers alone to be heard, merely because they were earlier than the modern scholars. A poster capable of saying that than OP is “oblivious” to an Encyclical which that OP has both named in full and dated, is not reading what the OP wrote. Any more time spent on such illogical, ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous obscurantism & Fundamentalism would be a waste of time. So you can keep your false accusations to yourself. ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The preceding is the original post. I’ve read into this thread about 30 posts, and this thread is the usual dog-chasing-its-tail sort of discussion.

…

Maybe it suffers from being defensive The difficulty some of us are in, is that we seem to be iconoclasts & Bible-attackers. This is compounded by lack of understanding of what Biblical criticism is for, & of why it is “indispensable” (so the 1993 document).​

For these & other reasons, maybe it’s necessary to spell out in some detail why it is legitimate, good, a source of great strength for the Church & its mission, & no more wicked than (say) the use of Aristotle in Catholic theology or the homoousion in the Nicene Creed. The myths need to be exploded - such as that which associates Biblical criticism with rejection of the authority & value & inspiration of the Bible as though the latter were necessarily incompatible with the life of faith.

It shouldn’t require the I.Q. of a genius for people to see that if the Biblical world is rediscovered by archaeology only in the last 200 or so years, the Fathers (for example) were not in a position to take its discoveries into account when interpreting the Bible. They can be useful, without being final.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

On the contrary, the Jerome Biblical commentary is a very useful piece of work.

Agreed. Satan and his apostles are milking it for all its worth.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

I’ve tried to meet you half-way. You don’t seem to want that - you seem instead to want the Fathers alone to be heard, merely because they were earlier than the modern scholars. A poster capable of saying that than OP is “oblivious” to an Encyclical which that OP has both named in full and dated, is not reading what the OP wrote. Any more time spent on such illogical, ignorant, arrogant, self-righteous obscurantism & Fundamentalism would be a waste of time. So you can keep your false accusations to yourself. ​

When ‘modern scholars’ contribute something, anything, that edifies believers, increases faith, inspires love for Christ, motivates Christians to reach out to the lost with the infallible truth of Almighty God, and conforms to the love of Christ, I am all for them.

What we actually see is a relentless litany of doubt, conjecture, unfounded theories, bald speculation, syncretism with rationalism and monism, blasphemy, bald assertions, citations of profane scientists, promiscuous deconstruction of the Sacred Scriptures that would make Bultmann blush, and caveats, asterisks, and qualifiers.

If that builds faith, inspires love for Jesus and Mary, and extends the frontiers of the Reign of God, then it is the work of God. Its just telling that in the countries where your version of ‘modern scholarship’ has taken root, the churches are empty and the populations are in free fall decline.

 

[StAnastasia]

Agreed. Satan and his apostles are milking it for all its worth.

No, not Satan. It’s valued by biblical theologians in the seminary in which I’ve taught. It’s represents good scholarship.

 

[StAnastasia]

What we actually see is a relentless litany of doubt, conjecture, unfounded theories, bald speculation, syncretism with rationalism and monism, blasphemy, bald assertions, citations of profane scientists, promiscuous deconstruction of the Sacred Scriptures that would make Bultmann blush, and caveats, asterisks, and qualifiers.

Have you ever actually studied theology? Are these talking points sent to you by EWTN that you feel you need to post for the sake of argument?