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

[StAnastasia]

This is my last post to this topic after having left upteen documents (beginning on page 19) from the Vatican:Holy See (a great source for truth), which I hope everyone will take the time to read.

Wildleafblower, could you please articulate your own views, instead of merely pasting reams of quotations of other people into the thread? For example, can you express in your own words what you don’t like about the theology of Teilhard, or Rahner, or Haught. or Delio? What aspects of their thought strike you as irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine? What aspects do you like? I know this is a different context, but I don’t let my graduate students (in seminary or elsewhere) get away with merely repeating what someone else has said or told them to say. You may like a certain Father or saint or pope, or strongly agree with a particular encyclical, but the argument from authority alone is a fallacy!

Happy and holy Christmas Eve!

StAnastsia

 

[StAnastasia]

IThe task of theologians is accomplished in cooperating with the Holy Spirit and His charisms for discovering afresh the Eternal Truths once delivered to the saints and developing contemporary applications of the Truth that serve in the mission of building up believers and extending the frontiers of the Rein of God on earth./QUOTE]

Do you perhaps mean “rain” or “reign”?

StAnastasia

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What does an atheist’s opinion have to do with it? Jesus the man was not omniscient, that’s all. That would be the wrong way to think about the Incarnation.

StAnastasia

Jesus’ human nature was not omniscient, but Jesus the person had access to God’s ominscience at times. For example he knew things about people that a regular human being wouldn’t know. He could see into people’s hearts. But that was a case of the divine nature of Christ revealing something to his human nature.

 

[Pete_Holter]

What needs reconsidering ?​

Hey Gottle of Geer!

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope” (Rom 15:13).

If an atheist tells you it’s midnight, does that mean the time cannot be midnight ?​

No. But we already believe, together with the atheist, that assigning a particular time to midnight is a possible conclusion that can be reached through evidence and reason.

Who says something true, is unimportant to whether it is true - for whether something is true is not defined by sex, age, race, occupation, beliefs. Aristotle was not a Christian of any description - by Christian standards, he would count as rather immoral; yet this non-Christian was not beyond the pale for two men who are now Doctors of the Church. They didn’t consider who spoke, & disqualify them from consideration if they were not orthodox Catholics - they considered what was said. If an objection is a solid one, who made it first is entirely beside the point; what Christians have somehow to do, is give it proper consideration.

In this case, however, all Christians reject the conclusion of the atheist, i.e., that God does not exist. The atheist’s argument runs, “God cannot be all loving, all knowing, and all powerful in light of our present experience and the history of the world as being full of suffering and tragedy. Therefore God does not exist.”

So when a Christian says that Jesus cannot be all loving and all knowing at the same time because He did not disclose to us all the remedies for all diseases for all times to come, we should immediately apprehend that the failure of this argument to overcome the reality of the existence of God renders it a moot argument when employed in the case of Jesus’ scope of knowledge, Jesus Who is Himself God. To say that Jesus didn’t disclose these things because He did not know them from His humanity is also moot because He is not mere man… in other words, it doesn’t get Him off the hook. Other questions that could be asked would be

Why didn’t Jesus share this knowledge with us before He became man?
Why would He have to become man in order to do this?
Why doesn’t Jesus share this knowledge and technology now, from heaven?

I think we should be looking for a different and better explanation, such as, Jesus didn’t come to earth to bring us these things for the here and now.

Again, the line of reasoning presented in StAnastasia’s post is an understandable line of reasoning to adopt in the case of an atheist. And the conclusion is reasonable from the perspective of an atheist. But I’m not sure how a believer could apply this line of reasoning with consistency. And so perhaps it is better to not use it at all, especially since other solutions present themselves as more likely.

And so I agree with you in principle. But I don’t think it is a convincing application in this particular case, do you?

God bless you!

 

[StAnastasia]

Jesus’ human nature was not omniscient, but Jesus the person had access to God’s ominscience at times. For example he knew things about people that a regular human being wouldn’t know. He could see into people’s hearts. But that was a case of the divine nature of Christ revealing something to his human nature.

Quite true!

 

[StAnastasia]

Again, the line of reasoning presented in StAnastasia’s post is an understandable line of reasoning to adopt in the case of an atheist. And the conclusion is reasonable from the perspective of an atheist. But I’m not sure how a believer could apply this line of reasoning with consistency. And so perhaps it is better to not use it at all, especially since other solutions present themselves as more likely.

Pete Holter, I appreciate your distinguishing between contexts. But can you say a little more about why this line of reasoning might be difficult to apply with consistency?

StAnastasia

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So are you saying that if a pope has a bad day and condemns heliocentrism or biblical interpretation this is not binding on us all?

No I’m saying that they have different functions in the Church. The weight of a particular utterance has its own criteria.​

 

[Axion]

I strongly distrust all attempts to chip away at the bible, and peel off layers like an onion. This seems to be one of the techniques of Liberal-rationalists in an attempt to discredit faith.

For some people, if they can find ANY historical source that seems to contradict the bible, that source is presented as factual and the Bible is accused of being in error. The german Liberal-critical bible scolars of the 19th Century are still parroted by thousands with their unsubstantiated and frequently exploded theories that the Bible was written centuries after the events concerned - and largely by a pack of liars and con-men. But these theories are still often presented and believed as facts.

As far as Creation goes, we must remember that Moses wrote the pentateuch. So how did he get his knowledge of the creation? Perhaps in a vision? If so, that explains a lot. The “days”, or episodes of creation - as seen by the visionary. The fact that light appeared before the sun. (in a vision of the earth at an early stage, the sun would not be visible from the surface, since for hundreds of millions of years, a permanent primeval cloud cover is believed by scientists to have existed.) In fact the creation sequence of life in Genesis is remarkably consistent with the sequence in the paleontological record.

 

[mpartyka]

…after 1854, what Aquinas taught on the Conception of the BVM would have counted as materially heretical (unless he & the Bull of Dec. 8 1854 were looking at the CotBVM from different angles; which may be the case).

Do you happen to have links to either of these (Aquinas and the bull)? I might find them useful for my “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception” thread. Thanks.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

I’m presently reading Book 4 of the Dialogues of Pope Gregory the Great, and I found this pertinent little bit:

PETER. Shall those, I pray you, which be condemned to [hell], burn always, and never have any end of their torments?

GREGORY. Certain it is, and without all doubt most true, that as the good shall have no end of their joys, so the wicked never any release of their torments: for our Saviour himself saith: The wicked shall go into everlasting punishment, and the just into everlasting life. Seeing, then, true it is, that which he hath promised to his friends: out of all question false it cannot be, that which he hath threatened to his enemies.

PETER. What if it be said that he did threaten eternal pain to wicked livers, that he might thereby restrain them from committing of sins?

GREGORY. If that which he did threaten be false, because his intent was by that means to keep men from wicked life: then likewise must we say that those things are false which he did promise: and that his mind was thereby to provoke us to virtue. But what man, though mad, dare presume so to say? For if he threatened that which he meant not to put into execution: whiles we are desirous to make him merciful, enforced we are likewise (which is horrible to speak) to affirm him to be deceitful.

One of the ideas I’ve been wrestling with is the idea that perhaps Genesis 1-11 isn’t literally true but is simply a monotheistic retelling of common polytheistic legends already known to the Jews. In other words, perhaps Genesis 1-11 is a collection of pagan myths that were “retooled” by Moses (or whomever) to deliver a purely monotheistic message which would steer the mindset of the Jews onto the right track (i.e., away from the polytheism they knew previously and toward pure monotheism). The stories might not be literally true, then, but in being monotheistic they would at least point the Jews in the direction of the one true God by erasing from their minds the polytheistic backdrop of history in which they’d been brought up and replacing it with a monotheistic backdrop.

Unfortunately, I think it’s obvious that Pope Gregory would have the same difficulty with this explanation of Genesis that he had with Peter’s idea that God might have threatened “eternal punishment” to get sinners to repent but not meant “eternal punishment” in actual fact. Even for God, it appears, the end does not justify the means.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Do you happen to have links to either of these (Aquinas and the bull)? I might find them useful for my “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception” thread. Thanks.

Never mind the bull (says Campbell Brown ). I didn’t realize this was “Ineffabilis Deus”.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Never mind the bull (says Campbell Brown ). I didn’t realize this was “Ineffabilis Deus”.

Annnnnnnd, I found the link to Aquinas, too:

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article1

(I don’t think I’ll bother posting it to the other thread, though, because Aquinas was not even a near-contemporary of Pope Leo the Great. Interesting read, though.)

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

Annnnnnnd, I found the link to Aquinas, too:

newadvent.org/summa/4027.htm#article1

(I don’t think I’ll bother posting it to the other thread, though, because Aquinas was not even a near-contemporary of Pope Leo the Great. Interesting read, though.)

Actually, I did post a couple of excerpts to the other thread because Aquinas quotes Augustine a couple of times, and Augustine was a near-contemporary of Pope Leo.

–Mike

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Do you happen to have links to either of these (Aquinas and the bull)? I might find them useful for my “Pope Leo the Great on the Immaculate Conception” thread. Thanks.

–Mike

I’ll look them up ​

Happy Christmas BTW

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus:

Finally, We admonish with paternal love all students and ministers of the Church always to approach the Sacred Writings with reverence and piety; for it is impossible to attain to the profitable understanding thereof unless the arrogance of “earthly” science be laid aside, and there be excited in the heart the holy desire for that wisdom "which is from above." In this way the intelligence which is once admitted to these sacred studies, and thereby illuminated and strengthened, will acquire a marvellous facility in detecting and avoiding the fallacies of human science, and in gathering and using for eternal salvation all that is valuable and precious; whilst at the same time the heart will grow warm, and will strive with ardent longing to advance in virtue and in divine love.

The spirit in which one enters about to perform exegesis is determinant of the usefulness of the research.

Merry Christmas,
CJ

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

One of the ideas I’ve been wrestling with is the idea that perhaps Genesis 1-11 isn’t literally true but is simply a monotheistic retelling of common polytheistic legends already known to the Jews. --Mike

Mike, before you leap over that cliff, please consider this and this.

Merry Christmas,
Johnny

 

[Pete_Holter]

Pete Holter, I appreciate your distinguishing between contexts. But can you say a little more about why this line of reasoning might be difficult to apply with consistency?

StAnastasia

My immediate reaction to reading your original post was to think, Why doesn’t StAnastasia think that God is a misanthrope and a sadist?

Your post also reminded me of Benedict’s thoughts in Jesus of Nazareth:

Is there anything more tragic, is there anything more opposed to belief in the existence of a good God and a Redeemer of mankind, than world hunger? Shouldn’t it be the first test of the Redeemer, before the world’s gaze and on the world’s behalf, to give it bread and to end all hunger? During their wandering through the desert, God fed the people of Israel with bread from heaven, with manna. This seemed to offer a privileged glimpse into how things would look when the Messiah came: Did not, and does not, the Redeemer of the world have to prove his credentials by feeding everyone? Isn’t the problem of feeding the world – and, more generally, are not social problems – the primary, true yardstick by which redemption has to be measured? Does someone who fails to measure up to this standard have any right to be called a redeemer? Marxism – quite understandably – made this very point the core of its promise of salvation: It would see to it that no one went hungry anymore and that the “desert would become bread.”

…]

Jesus is not indifferent toward men’s hunger, their bodily needs, but he places these things in the proper context and the proper order.

…]

Now, it is true that this leads to the great question that will be with us throughout this entire book: What did Jesus actually bring, if not world peace, universal prosperity, and a better world? What has he brought?

The answer is very simple: God. He has brought God. (pp 31, 32, 44)

And so I wonder… In the process of using your line of reasoning to get Jesus as man off the humanist-philanthropist hook, don’t we necessarily end up with God right back on that same hook?

Merry Christmas!

And you and anyone else can feel free to call me just Pete or stupidhead, etc., depending on your mood.

And I just include this next quote because it’s one of the most inspiring thoughts I’ve ever read from a pope and I like to share it:

“If only we encase ourselves in the armor of salvation against such a conflict, once we begin to refrain from sinning, we shall little by little blunt the edge of the enemy’s attack and sap his strength; until at length we shall wing our flight to that place of repose, where triumph and boundless joy will be ours. The credit of the victory is to be ascribed solely to the grace of God, which within us gives light to the mind and strength to the will, when we rise superior to so many hindrances and contests. It is the grace of God, We say. For as He created us, so is He able, through the treasures of His wisdom and power, to set aflame and fill our hearts wholly with His love” (Pius XI, Ad Salutem Humani).

 

[wildleafblower]

What makes Teilhard especially important for theology is that he placed evolution in cosmological context, and then interpreted the whole of evolving cosmology through a christological lens, the christology of the cosmic
Christ. StAnastasia

I don’t agree with what you stated. That is a Gnostic point of view which the Church is against. I agree with the Pope
: and thank you dear BENEDICT XVI - -
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Paul VI Audience Hall
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Continuing our catechesis on Saint Paul, we turn to the “twin” letters: Colossians and Ephesians. Similar in language, they are unique in developing the theme of Christ as “head” – kephalé – not only of the Church, but also of the entire universe. These letters assure us that Christ is above any hostile earthly power. Christ alone “loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph 5:2), so that if we remain close to him, we need not fear any adversity. It was God’s plan to “recapitulate” all things in Jesus “through whom all things were created”, so that “by the blood of his Cross” we might be reconciled to the Father. Christ’s headship also implies that, in a certain sense, he is greater than the Church in that his dominion extends beyond her boundaries, and that the Church, rather than the entire cosmos, is referred to as the Body of Christ. These letters are also notable for the spousal image they use to describe how Christ has “won” his bride – the Church – by giving his life for her (cf. Eph 5:25). What greater sign of love could there be than this? Christ thus desires that we grow more beautiful each day through irreproachable moral conduct, “without wrinkle or defect” (Eph 5:27). By living uprightly and justly, may we bear witness to the nuptial union which has already taken place in Christ as we await its fulfilment in the wedding feast to come.

---

I extend a warm welcome to all the English-speaking pilgrims present at today’s audience. May your time in Rome strengthen you to imitate Saint Paul in “giving thanks always and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father” (Eph 5:20)!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090114_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090114_en.html

 

[wildleafblower]

What makes Teilhard especially important for theology is that he placed evolution in cosmological context, and then interpreted the whole of evolving cosmology through a christological lens, the christology of the cosmic
Christ. StAnastasia

I don’t agree with what you stated. That is a Gnostic point of view which is a myth. The Church is against it. I agree with the Pope
: and thank you dear BENEDICT XVI - -
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Paul VI Audience Hall
Wednesday, 14 January 2009
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Continuing our catechesis on Saint Paul, we turn to the “twin” letters: Colossians and Ephesians. Similar in language, they are unique in developing the theme of Christ as “head” – kephalé – not only of the Church, but also of the entire universe. These letters assure us that Christ is above any hostile earthly power. Christ alone “loved us and gave himself up for us” (Eph 5:2), so that if we remain close to him, we need not fear any adversity. It was God’s plan to “recapitulate” all things in Jesus “through whom all things were created”, so that “by the blood of his Cross” we might be reconciled to the Father. Christ’s headship also implies that, in a certain sense, he is greater than the Church in that his dominion extends beyond her boundaries, and that the Church, rather than the entire cosmos, is referred to as the Body of Christ. These letters are also notable for the spousal image they use to describe how Christ has “won” his bride – the Church – by giving his life for her (cf. Eph 5:25). What greater sign of love could there be than this? Christ thus desires that we grow more beautiful each day through irreproachable moral conduct, “without wrinkle or defect” (Eph 5:27). By living uprightly and justly, may we bear witness to the nuptial union which has already taken place in Christ as we await its fulfilment in the wedding feast to come.

---

I extend a warm welcome to all the English-speaking pilgrims present at today’s audience. May your time in Rome strengthen you to imitate Saint Paul in “giving thanks always and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father” (Eph 5:20)!
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090114_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20090114_en.html

 

[TMC]

Teilhard was not the first Catholic theologian to endorse evolution; one might look to Holy Cross Father John Zahm as an early figure in this regard (1898). What makes Teilhard especially important for theology is that he placed evolution in cosmological context, and then interpreted the whole of evolving cosmology through a christological lens, the christology of the cosmic Christ. As important to the twentieth century as Aquinas was to the thirteenth, Teilhard became one of the most influential Catholic theologians of the century, and his fundamental insights have been widely incorporated into theological thought.

StAnastasia

I don’t agree with what you stated. That is a Gnostic point of view which is a myth. The Church is against it. I agree with the Pope

I am not a theologian, and I am only somewhat familiar with Teilhard, but I don’t view his work as Gnostic - at least as I understand the term. I thought Teilhard’s work was condemned as denying original sin, not as Gnostic? I think that since Teilhard’s time theologians (including Ratzinger) have taken a new look at how original sin fits into an evolutionary framework. I think that today Teihard would have more trouble fitting into the Church’s views on end times then on beginning times.