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

[Catholic_Johnny]

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.

Let us help you, dear brother:

A Periscope on Teilhard de Chardin
Rev. Fr. John W. Flanagan, S. T. L. , D.C.L.

A decree of the Holy Office dated 30th June, 1962 under the authority of Pope John XX III warned that “. . . it is obvious that in philosophical and theological matters, the said works (de Chardin’s) are replete with ambiguities or rather with serious errors which offend Catholic doctrine. That is why … the Rev. Fathers of the Holy Office urge all Ordinaries, Superiors, and Rectors … to effectively protect, especially the minds of the young, against the dangers of the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and his followers”. (AAS, 6 Aug 1962).

In 1963, the Vicariate of Rome (a diocese ruled in the name of Pope Paul VI by his Cardinal Vicar) in a decree dated 30th September, required that Catholic booksellers in Rome, should withdraw from circulation the works of de Chardin, together with those books which favour his erroneous doctrines. The text of this document was published in daily *L’Aurore *of Paris, dated 2 Oct 1963, and was reproduced in Nouvelles de Chretiente, l0 Oct 1963, p.35.

Popes Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI, endeavoured to prevent the spread of the modernistic errors of this pseudo-scholar, who, as he himself confessed in a letter to a priest friend, has apostatized but deliberately remained within the Church to more easily spread his errors. (See The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, by Henri Rambaud.)

**Conclusion. **
The Faithful have no option but to consider de Chardin’s works as dangerous to their Faith and hence have a moral duty to avoid them. Priests and clerical students can only study them as to be armed against false doctrine. No clerical student is justified in considering de Chardin as a second St. Thomas Aquinas — he is a false prophet. The several ecclesiastical warnings (monita) of the Holy See still continue and there is a moral duty to respect and obey them. Teilhard tried to found a new religion. He wrote to a friend — “His dominant interest and pre-occupation was to establish and diffuse a new religion — call it a better Christianity if you will, in which the personal God ceased to be the great Neolithic proprietor of former days and becomes the soul of the world that our religion and cultural age calls for” (private letter, 26 January 1936).

Teilhard was a “MONIST”, that is, there is only ONE BEING, and that being is in MOTION (Evolution).

Teilhard was a “PANTHEIST”, that is, God and Creation are identical. Teilhard was proud of his “pantheistic” outlook and boasted so.

Teilhard was a “COLLECTIVIST”, that is, man existed for society, not vice versa. No wonder his works were always welcomed by Communists.

Teilhard was a “SECULARIST”, that is, he identifies science with religion, there is no supernatural. God is a “cosmic force”, ever evolving, and He is depending on man, more than man upon Him.

Oh yes. Gnostic. But worse. The gnostics did not have 2000 years of magisterial teaching to correct them.

 

[adriancombe]

I just found this gem which I posted on another thread. It may be useful here:

*On Narratives Historical only in Appearance in Books of Holy Scripture Historical in Form\I]

By the Pontifical Biblical Commission - June 23, 1905

"Is it possible to admit as a principle of sound exegesis that books of sacred Scripture which are regarded as historical, at times do not relate, either wholly or in part, history properly so-called and objectively true, but present only the appearance of history with the purpose of expressing some meaning differing from the strictly literal or historical sense of the words?

Answer: In the negative, except in a case neither easily nor rashly to be admitted, in which the mind of the Church not being contrary and without prejudice to its judgement, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred Writer intended not to recount true history, properly so-called, but under the guise and form of history to set forth a parable, an allegory, or some meaning distinct from the strictly literal or historical signification of the words."

English translation: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/bible/pbc.htm

Original Latin:*
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19050623_narrationibus_lt.html**

 

[juliamajor]

For all documents including most up to date from the Pontifical Biblical commission-not just selectionshttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_doc_index.htm

 

[juliamajor]

Benedict XVI praises the cosmic liturgy of
Teilhard de Chardin

On July 24, 2009, during his vacation in northern Italy, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a homily in the Cathedral of Aosta before Vespers. He commented on a passage of a Epistle of St. Paul (Rom 8:1-2). At the end of his commentary, he praised the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as a model for priests, attributing to him the idea of a cosmic liturgy, which he said was something they should aim to achieve.

At right, a picture of the L’Osservatore Romano English edition online (July 29, 2009), where the full text of the homily is reproduced. For the original text, click here and scroll to the second title. Below left, we transcribe the last paragraphs for the convenience of our readers.

So our address to God becomes an address to ourselves: God invites us to join with him, to leave behind the ocean of evil, hatred, violence and selfishness and to make ourselves known, to enter into the river of his love.

This is precisely the content of the first part of the prayer that follows: “Let Your Church offer herself to You as a living and holy sacrifice.” This request, addressed to God, is made also to ourselves. It is a reference to two passages from the Letter to the Romans. We ourselves, with our whole being, must be adoration and sacrifice and, by transforming our world, give it back to God.

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God.

(Benedict XVI, Homily at the Vespers July 24, 2009, in the Cathedral of Aosta, L’Osservatore Romano, English online edition, July 29

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Benedict XVI praises the cosmic liturgy of
Teilhard de Chardin

On July 24, 2009, during his vacation in northern Italy, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a homily in the Cathedral of Aosta before Vespers. He commented on a passage of a Epistle of St. Paul (Rom 8:1-2). At the end of his commentary, he praised the French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin as a model for priests, attributing to him the idea of a cosmic liturgy, which he said was something they should aim to achieve.

*The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. *

*And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God. *

(Benedict XVI, Homily at the Vespers July 24, 2009, in the Cathedral of Aosta, L’Osservatore Romano, English online edition, July 29

Popes may say what they will in homilies, ruminations, reflections, opinions, etc… they are not protected from error unless speaking ex cathedra. This signally and deeply disturbing reference to Teilhard whose works are still under the monitum departs from th eofficial Church Teaching of other Popes. Pope Benedict would contradict many Supreme Pontiffs should he ever venture to promulgate such ideas in a Papal Encyclical.

There is no commandment given in the New Testament to “aid in the transformation of the world” which abides under the wrath of God and is under the power of the evil one (1 John 5:19). The world can only be transformed by the final judgment and the return of Christ. “Transformation of the world” is not a Gospel objective. We are called to be salt and light and to witness of the truth. Teilhard’s idolatry of evolutionism seems to be suggested here by Benedict XVI’s comments.

The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world? Where is this to be found in the Law, the Gospel or the Magisterium? Priests consecrate the Eucharist through whom Christ consecrates the Church. The Church is salt and light among a fallen world’s inhabitants and we call them to repentance. The very Greek NT word for Church, ekklesia, means “those who are called out from the world.” If we do aid in transforming the world it is by preaching the Gospel which transforms human lives.

I pray daily for the Holy Father, but I cannnot imagine Pius XII or Pius X making such remarks. I am deeply disturbed by this as I am sure are many sincere Christians.

Shalom,
cj

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Myth, Legend and Fact:

Myth, legend and the proper interpretation of fact form essential conceptual tools for understanding the fundamental and characteristic role of the Holy Bible. Failure to utilise these tools weakens the relevance of Holy scripture and aids those who desire and work towards its irrelevance.

Myth represents the use of a real or fictional story in which a recurring theme embodies in a consistent manner cultural ideals or emotions. Consistency is essential, and realised as the situation then, and now. The reality or fictional status of the material is not crucial, or even material.

I subscribe to the view expressed by Childs that at one level, “The reality of the mythical, timeless event enters into the present moment of time.”

Legend differs from myth in that here one is concerned with an unverified or unverifiable story or event handed down from an earlier time.

The story or event may well be vital in a particular context. It may be desired, it may be consistent with some known fact or facts, or even acted upon, but it cannot in its entirety, as with Noah’s Flood, be established. Indeed a legend does not need to be verified for it to have relevance or potency, because it is to some extent connected with a reality.

Both King Alfred and Robert the Bruce were in their own time, and particular situations, preoccupied with war and matters of state. The elements of the cakes and the spider, central to each of the well-known legendary stories, need not be verified for the instructional value or context of the supposed events to be recognised.

A legendary event may be connected with the recurring theme found in a myth, or be considered along with and in the context of a factual assertion. The possible nexus in which these conceptual devices operate is itself worthy of study.

Fact, refers to something which is asserted to be true. It is not credible to maintain that a historical or evidential fact can ever be put forward in the same manner as a mathematical fact. The former are clearly subject to interpretation and it is perfectly reasonable for a fact to be disputed.

The mere recitation of a number of facts does not in itself guarantee truth although it may lead to the acceptance of a proposition.

Truth is attainable, but facts currently in our possession may not secure truth. We are mindful of Francis Bacon’s observation contained in his essay “Of Truth”, “What is truth”, said jesting Pilate, “and would not stay for an answer.” In terms of Myth, the answer was present in the story itself.

Human beings are impelled to believe, but firm belief is often the companion to irrationality. Russell highlights our dilemma by paraphrasing David Hume’s empirical philosophy, although drawing a conclusion not actually reached by Hume, “We cannot help believing, but no belief can be grounded in reason. Nor can one line of action be more rational than another, since all alike are based upon irrational convictions.”

Given the nature and extent of the surviving evidential material available to us with regard to the Holy Bible, the contribution of philosophers such as William James can assist us in our search for truth.

James counsels us that, “We cannot reject any hypothesis if consequences useful to life flow from it.”

Although recognizing inadequacies in James’s view, one can see the relevance of that view in the context of the Holy Bible. Why should the Holy Bible, uniquely founded upon strict moral imperatives not be the tradition best placed to serve the needs of the peoples of the world?

 

[John_oxios]

PeterClatworthy;6079386]Myth, Legend and Fact:
Myth represents the use of a real or fictional story in which a recurring theme embodies in a consistent manner cultural ideals or emotions. Consistency is essential, and realised as the situation then, and now. The reality or fictional status of the material is not crucial, or even material.

Hi PeterC,
Actually words change over time, You barely scratched the surface; today a myth is

(Dictinary.com a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature…
a General sense of “untrue story, rumor” is from 1840. Mythical first attested 1678.
Synonyms:

1. See legend. 3. fiction, fantasy, talltale.

But in ancient times,

a Myth is a truth revealed (William Barclay)

He stated, " the story is the Husk, the kernal the truth revealed"

ttp://www.dl.ket.org/latin1/mythology/whatisa.htm

A simple definition of a myth is 'a story handed down through history, often through oral tradition, that explains or gives value to the unknown

'.

library.thinkquest.org/C005854/text/types.htm

Although origin myths are usually assigned to the province of religion, they contain one element of science: explanation. While moral lessons may be scattered here and there throughout them, origin myths are basically ways of accounting for things as they are. Explanation, then, is not unique to nor did it begin with science. Science shares explanation with mythology. What distinguishes science from mythology is verification. Not only does science propose answers, it proceeds to test these answers, and if the answers prove incorrect, they must be rejected or modified. Mythology differs from this. An origin myth offers an explanation that is to be believed. Acceptance, not verification, is what is called for. Ancient Norsemen believed the aurora borealis (Northern Lights) were reflections of light off the shields of the warrior maidens the Valkyrie; modern astronomers tell us they are caused by solar winds interacting with the earth’s magnetic field and atmospheric gases. Both are explanations

, but only one of these explanations can be verified"

allsands.com/History/oraltraditionc_wpw_gn.htm

The passage of lessons by word of mouth leaves them vulnerable to different interpretations and vanishing forever. The story can cease to exist if it is forgotten; because there are no backup copies (i.e. modern day disks, books, and notes), the people’s memories are the keepers of the script

s.

I subscribe to the view expressed by Childs that at one level, “The reality of the mythical, timeless event enters into the present moment of time.”

moral Myths, Like the Parables Jesus spoke, is essentially a sword to stab men’s minds awake.
Take for instance The story Prophet Nathan told David of one poor mans one ewe lamb:
2Sa 12:1 And the LORD sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, "There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor.2Sa 12:5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die;
2Sa 12:7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul”

PeterC.Truth is attainable, but facts currently in our possession may not secure truth. We are mindful of Francis Bacon’s observation contained in his essay “Of Truth”

, “What is truth”, said jesting Pilate, “and would not stay for an answer.” ** In terms of Myth, the answer was present in the story itself.**

Kinda agrees with W. Barclay’s quote

I’m Catholic by reason…

God Bless,

john

 

[John_oxios]

PeterClatworthy;6079386]**Myth, Legend and Fact:
Human beings are impelled to believe, but firm belief is often the companion to irrationality. Russell highlights our dilemma by paraphrasing David Hume’s empirical philosophy, although drawing a conclusion not actually reached by Hume, *“We cannot help believing, but no belief can be grounded in reason. Nor can one line of action be more rational than another, since all alike are based upon irrational convictions.”/***I]
Hi PeterC,
Part two;

Human beings are impelled to believe, but firm belief is often the companion to irrationality. Russell highlights our dilemma by paraphrasing David Hume’s empirical philosophy, although drawing a conclusion not actually reached by Hume, "We cannot help believing, but no belief can be grounded in reason.

Nor can one line of action be more rational than another, since all alike are based upon irrational convictions."

Belief without reason?? Doesn’t that kind of leave out the Holy Spirit, how does one grow in faith without reason?
This statement would directly conflict with Catholic teaching, CCC#

#35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." 11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”. 12

#50 **By natural reason man can know God with certainty, **on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation. 1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit

#154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. **Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. **…

#274 "Nothing is more apt to confirm our faith and hope than holding it fixed in our minds that nothing is impossible with God. **Once our reason has grasped the idea of God's almighty power,** ...

#1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.” 9 Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person

St. Augustine,

1. The roles of reason and will in philosophical inquiry: four conceptions
   Enlightenment (or Modern): The ideal is to proceed on the basis of “pure” or “cool” reason alone and to make inquiry as free from affection and authority as possible. This is initially accompanied by a robust optimism about the reliability of reason and its ability to lead us to true wisdom on its own [Descartes, Cleanthes, Mill]; but it can easily be turned to skepticism and even pragmatic indifference to the search for wisdom when this optimism proves unwarranted [Philo in his more cheerful and superficial moments].

Post-Enlightenment (or Post-Modern): It is a delusion to think of the search for wisdom as anything but a movement of will or instinct, with reason serving only to rationalize what one already accepts without reasonable grounds. Characterized by both (i) a seriousness with regard to ultimate metaphysical and moral questions and (ii) a suspicion regarding any claim to intellectual authority, including the so-called [sneer stage left] authority of reason [Nietzsche, Philo in his darker and more profound moments].

Classical: At its best, philosophical inquiry is an act of reason, presupposing moral rectitude, by which we are able to discover–within severe limitations–metaphysical and moral truth. [Socrates]

Christian: At its best, philosophical inquiry is an act of reason enlightened by a voluntary act of faith in divine revelation as a source of truth and informed by supernatural moral rectitude (charity); beyond this there are disagreements among (i) the pessimists, who hold that reason in its fallen state is at best very unreliable with respect to metaphysical and moral truth [Demea]

Thomistic Philosophy is inspired by the philosophical methods and principles used by Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-1274), …, in his explanation of the Catholic faith. Aquinas, who is most renowned for his Five Ways of Proving the Existence of God, believed that both faith and reason discover truth, a conflict between them being impossible since they both originate in God.**** Believing that reason can, in principle, lead the mind to God, Aquinas defended reason’s legitimacy, especially in the works of Aristotle. …

I’m Catholic by reason!! Spent too many yrs. away seeking God, a true religion, only to realize in 10 to 12 yrs. of Protestant bible Study that the Church established by Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church.
Faith without reason?
God Bless,

John

 

[peary1]

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

The Bible can be approached in three significant ways - as literature, as history, as humankind’s developing relationship to God through our redemption.

The Bible is ancient literature. You have stories and poetry and prose contained within it. Some are beautifully written; others are simply there. Stories can be fiction; but they also relate to the Chosen People and their relationship to others and to God. The same may be said of poetry. There is always some element of relationship to others and to God contained within the contents.

The Bible is history. The Old Testament tells of people and wars, of hardships, of nations within the Middle East and how things were back then. It is up to archaeology and anthropology to determine how ‘accurate’ the historical telling is.

The Bible is religious and spiritual as it reveals the nature and power of God in His creation and in His relationship to each and every one of us.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

The whole point is that the Holy Bible is clearly NOT a history text book, and it is folly to try to rationalise it in this way.

It is a complicated amalgam of myths, legends and facts. No historian worth his salt would discount the value of myths and legends, or try to claim them as facts, whilst even “facts” themselves are either modified or changed by revelation.

The message of God is surely far more important than microscopic examination.

 

[John_oxios]

The whole point is that the Holy Bible is clearly NOT a history text book, and it is folly to try to rationalise it in this way.

It is a complicated amalgam of myths, legends and facts. No historian worth his salt would discount the value of myths and legends, or try to claim them as facts, whilst even “facts” themselves are either modified or changed by revelation.

The message of God is surely far more important than microscopic examination .

Hello Peter C,

No, The whole point is the Bible Is the inerrant Word of God, Archeology, history, science has backed up many truths in the Bible. Do you know that Science agrees with the order of Creation presented in Genesis? and that the odds of Moses picking that Order correctly is like something like 4000 to 1? Or that hydrostatic Cycle not proven by science til 19th century can be found in Job 36:27; that Columbus used vss in Isa 40:21, 22 to convince the Queen of Spain to lend him the ships to sail around the world?

No historian worth his salt… would try to claim them as facts???

Isa 40:21 Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?

:22 It** is He who sits above the circle of the earth**, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

In the Latin Vulgate the word translated circle is Sphere.

I guess Columbus was a fool? Archeology has yet to disprove Biblical history, matter of fact it affirms it.

God Bless,
Merry Christmas,
John

 

[John_oxios]

The whole point is that the Holy Bible is clearly NOT a history text book, and it is folly to try to rationalise it in this way.

It is a complicated amalgam of myths, legends and facts. No historian worth his salt would discount the value of myths and legends, or try to claim them as facts, whilst even “facts” themselves are either modified or changed by revelation.

The message of God is surely far more important than microscopic examination.

Hey PeterC,

You need Faith, without faith the Bible is one big collection of life’s lessons from the past.

Deaf and blind to Truth – or hearing and seeing?

But** they refused to heed, **shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears so that they could not hear. Yes, they made their hearts like flint, refusing to hear the law and the words which the Lord of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets. Thus great wrath came from the Lord of hosts." Zechariah 7:11-12

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear!” Matthew 11:12; Mark 4:9

“Hear this now, O foolish people, without understanding,
Who have eyes and see not, and who have ears and hear not:
Do you not fear Me?’ says the Lord. ‘Will you not tremble at My presence,
Who have placed the sand as the bound of the sea,
By a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass beyond it?
And though its waves toss to and fro, yet they cannot prevail;
Though they roar, yet they cannot pass over it.
But this people has a defiant and rebellious heart;
They have revolted and departed.
They do not say in their heart,
“Let us now fear the Lord our God…” Jeremiah 5:21-24

“God has given them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see and ears that they should not hear…” Romans 11:8

crossroad.to/HisWord/verses/topics/hear-understand.htm

In My opinion an historian who reads the Bible on comments upon it (telling us what it isn’t) without faith isn’t worth the salt God made him with!!

God Bless,
John

 

[PeterClatworthy]

As I said, our faith is the most important thing, and if you believe that the Holy Bible is a statement of your history, then I am happy for you.

May God Bless you, and all of our contributors on Christmas Day. May the new year bring peace and happiness to all who are in pain or in distress.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

It is not only accurate history, it is history told in advance through the holy Prophets. It is the anvil that has broken every hammer. As John pointed out in post 508, the problem isn’t with the tuth, but with your dullness of heart to reject it.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

It is not only accurate history, it is history told in advance through the holy Prophets. It is the anvil that has broken every hammer. As John pointed out in post 508, the problem isn’t with the tuth, but with your dullness of heart to reject it.

I am a Christian Priest in Holy Orders my friend, and I have been for over 40 years. Please read what is posted and not what you THINK was posted. If you have read it, then please read it again, and try your very best to understand it.

May the blessings of Jesus Christ our Saviour be with you on this Holy Feast of Christmas.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

The whole point is that the Holy Bible is clearly NOT a history text book, and it is folly to try to rationalise it in this way.

It is a complicated amalgam of myths, legends and facts. No historian worth his salt would discount the value of myths and legends, or try to claim them as facts, whilst even “facts” themselves are either modified or changed by revelation.

The message of God is surely far more important than microscopic examination.

Oh, I read you loud and clearly, sir. Your views were rejected long ago by Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus.

The message of God is incarnate in His prophets and His divine Son and cannot be separated from the accidents of history. God spake by Moses. There are no myths or legends in Sacred Scripture. You must needs oppose Jesus our Blessed Redeemer to arrive at such conclusions.

Merry Christmas,
cj

 

[John_oxios]

As I said, our faith is the most important thing, and if you believe that the Holy Bible is a statement of your history, then I am happy for you.

May God Bless you, and all of our contributors on Christmas Day. May the new year bring peace and happiness to all who are in pain or in distress.

Hello PeterC,
Seems to me we have a doubting Thomas on hand…
If you believe in Jesus as God, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, If you believe in the Gospels… Which by the way ate the Most accurate religious book ever written, Why?because they were being written less than forty yrs after Jesus Death… which means witnesses to that time period were still alive and falsehoods they could have been disputed. Remember, the Apostle and thousands of others were EYE Witnesses to Jesus Life, Death and Resurrection… those are bona fide FACTS.

Even some of the Apostles had trouble accepting Jesus’ Resurrection:

They still did not believe for joy, and marveled (Luke 24:41)

Commentary by David Guzik (a Protestant):
The disciples were completely convinced that Jesus rose from the dead, but they had a hard time accepting it because it seemed too good to be true. But it was their confirmed belief in the resurrected Jesus that give them power enough to change the world and courage enough to die for their conviction

These are after the Resurrection alone:

Luk 24:31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.Luk 24:33 "… and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them,

Luk 24:34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”
1Cr 15:6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
1Cr 15:7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

1Cr 15:8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.
The Gospels are for ever trying to be disproved by unbelievers, without any actual proof of counter falsehood.

[The Koran was ‘put’ was ‘held’ by five separate people and then held by one person and weren’t seen again til 125 yrs after Mohammed’s death… which left no witnesses to its truth.]

God Bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

I am a Christian Priest in Holy Orders my friend, and I have been for over 40 years. Please read what is posted and not what you THINK was posted. If you have read it, then please read it again, and try your very best to understand it.

May the blessings of Jesus Christ our Saviour be with you on this Holy Feast of Christmas.

A Christian Priest of Holy Orders (Celi Dei) who doesn’t believe in the Gospels as factual?
Historical? Christianity early beginnings are written and told through Christ’s Church, the apostles, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that we may all become witnesses to Christ’s life death and resurection…if you don’t believe that, Might as well be pagan, a Jew, a Jehovah witness… anything But Christian oh that’s right there are groups who call themselves Christian because they believe in Christ teachings not his Resurrection or His Church.
I gotta ask?
Is Celi Dei one of those feel good religions? where anything goes, everything is okay?

God bless,
John

 

[PeterClatworthy]

John,

First of all, where did I say in any of my postings that I did not believe in the birth death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Secondly, what do you mean exactly by a “feel good” religion please, so that I might give you a sensible answer? Do you not feel good about your religion?

For instance, do your female parishioners still cover their heads when worshipping Our Lord, as required by the Word of God in the Holy Bible, or have you changed the rules to make them feel good? That is what I call “anything goes”.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

John,

First of all, where did I say in any of my postings that I did not believe in the birth death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ?

Secondly, what do you mean exactly by a “feel good” religion please, so that I might give you a sensible answer? Do you not feel good about your religion?

For instance, do your female parishioners still cover their heads when worshipping Our Lord, as required by the Word of God in the Holy Bible, or have you changed the rules to make them feel good? Now that is a prime example of what I would call “anything goes”.