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

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
  1. Are you acquainted with biblical scholarship?
  2. Are you acquainted with Catholic theology?
  3. What do you mean by “real”?
Click to expand...
Yes
Yes
As in they existed. No need to Bill Clinton the issue.

Are you familiar with anything but one school of Biblical scholarship?
 
juliamajor said:
Apparently what you know about biblical scholarship could fit on the head of a flea. I have a firm grasp of biblical scholarship- have been certified by my Archdiocese , my bishop my pastor. The Archdiocese of NY(EGAN) is not a crazy liberal diocese. I have been taught by my diocese in my local seminary.I learned what the priests learn (I guess everyone is inadequate in biblical scholarship except you-how profoundly arrogant, smug and self serving- one of the “loyal remnant”) .If you need some insight I refer you tho “Divino Spiritu Afflante”, “Dei Verbum” and the BenedictXVI book on Genesis-should be an eye opener for ya. Oh by the way , any biblical scholarship worth it’s salt refers to and acknowledges ECF. Modern scholarship doesn’t always throw the baby out with the bath water not matter what you believe.The outrageous is what makes headlines- but they are far from the majority.
Apparently you’ve read but not understood-the aim of Genesis was not to relate historical facts as we know them(polybius was the first true historian, unlike Herodotus ) History as we know it is a more modern invention. Writers of histories of the past did not go investigating all claims and stories that came their way.Much was plain old gossip( Suetonius, Tacitus, Cassius Dio, to name a few were of that ilk.Jewish History is primarily concerned with YHWH’s relationship to hHis people and God’s interaction with humanity. I direct you to Jewish scholar Nahum Sarna’s book on Genesis- for the Jewish view.
You make a totally absurd leap from Genesis to The Gospels.Gospels were written 60-100 ad. under Roman rule in a Hellenistic writing style. Much different-not quite modern history but we know that Josephus writes of many personal experiences that he was eyewitness to- he writes about Christ and there are other extrabiblical documents that cement the fact that Jesus did exist.Comparing Genesis and reading it like you would the Gospels is as silly as you can get.Each book in the Bible has a different style, point of view, uses different images, and has it’s own moral and lesson to be taught.So comparing OT to NT is like comparing apples and zebras.
Click to expand...
Frightening.

So much for the Holy Spirit inspiring all of scripture and God not being a God of confusion. You sure know a lot about what the OT is not really saying. I wonder if you can provide some exegesis on what it is saying if it is all really just smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but I am just not impressed with a few vague reference and diocese approved anything - as if the American Church has proven itself faithful in such areas. You may as well tell me you have a degree from Boston College and therefore must have the orhtodox Catholic perspective or that Cardinal Law, by virtue of his office did everything right. Sorry. Not impressed with what scripture doesn’t really mean or what those who have capitulated to a modern, liberal blip in scholarship have or have not allowed. They also allow Haas’s music in church. Again, not impressed. And I seriously don’t mean that to be offensive. But I have put in the time on all schools over many years (yours is not de fide, btw). Have you? Or do you just take the one you learned on faith with out testing it against the others and history itself?

Btw, this is not a spitting contest. You are likely smarter than me. But it does not mean you know more because you know alot about one school of biblical interpretation. Indeed your caricatures of the OT compared to the NT would likely get rebuke from your compatriots. St. Augustine had something say about the relationship between OT and NT. You should look it up. The church does not stand or fall on whoever is currently alive and their opinions. She is 2,000 years old and I highly recommend the great cloud of witnesses to you.
 
Melchior said:
Frightening.

So much for the Holy Spirit inspiring all of scripture and God not being a God of confusion. You sure know a lot about what the OT is not really saying. I wonder if you can provide some exegesis on what it is saying if it is all really just smoke and mirrors. Sorry, but I am just not impressed with a few vague reference and diocese approved anything - as if the American Church has proven itself faithful in such areas. You may as well tell me you have a degree from Boston College and therefore must have the orhtodox Catholic perspective or that Cardinal Law, by virtue of his office did everything right. Sorry. Not impressed with what scripture doesn’t really mean or what those who have capitulated to a modern, liberal blip in scholarship have or have not allowed. They also allow Haas’s music in church. Again, not impressed. And I seriously don’t mean that to be offensive. But I have put in the time on all schools over many years (yours is not de fide, btw). Have you? Or do you just take the one you learned on faith with out testing it against the others and history itself?

Btw, this is not a spitting contest. You are likely smarter than me. But it does not mean you know more because you know alot about one school of biblical interpretation. Indeed your caricatures of the OT compared to the NT would likely get rebuke from your compatriots. St. Augustine had something say about the relationship between OT and NT. You should look it up. The church does not stand or fall on whoever is currently alive and their opinions. She is 2,000 years old and I highly recommend the great cloud of witnesses to you.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. Your smarmy quips do little to prove your point. What did I say that makes you think I don’t believe in Divine Revelation. Do you really think that the books of the bible are like one big greek diner? Things may look different but everything tastes the same.Sorry- wrong. Psalms cannot be read same as Song of Songs,or Exodus, or Ruth or John or Matthew-that is basic biblical scholarship and has been for a very very long time.Books of the Bible are separate but that doesn’t mean that don’t point in the same direction- Salvation through Christ …
God is not is limited as you make Him out-He doesn’t think like you and neither does His church- though you’d like to believe otherwise. Read Benedict’s view of Genesis. He uses the same biblical standards of scholarship that I and my teachers have been taught. Unless otherwise is directed by the Pope I’ll continue as I have.
I pity you in your anger and hatred,I really do. Your distrust and disparagement of everyone that doesn’t live up to your standards is scary indeed.Your view of people and mankind is narrow indeed as narrow as your love for your fellow Catholic.Love of God and is Church is great indeed but without love of his creation- humanity it all falls apart. I see no loving kindness, no gentle Christian correction- I only see a very hurtful person. And yes- I have studied and continue to study on a daily basis all kinds of views .From reactionary, orthodox and liberal sources.You question my orthodoxy, my faith , my intelligence , my learning and finally my heart. “By their fruits you shall no them”. My fruits are my students and my students have done a great deal for God and His church-I hope that in some little part I have helped them in their journey toward God. Shalom
 
juliamajor said:
Read Benedict’s view of Genesis. He uses the same biblical standards of scholarship that I and my teachers have been taught. Unless otherwise is directed by the Pope I’ll continue as I have…". My fruits are my students and my students have done a great deal for God and His church-I hope that in some little part I have helped them in their journey toward God. Shalom
Click to expand...
Juliamajor, continue your bible teaching and ignore melchior’s attacks. I have occasionally met that anti-intellectual approach to scripture, even among my undergraduate students.😦 Fortunately I’ve never encountered it in the seminary, but I wouldn’t expect to, since priestly training follows rigorous standards.😉

StAnastasia
 
There you are, a Catholic forum and no consensus. How in God’s name could any potential convert take Catholic tradition seriously?
 
Haha I can ensure all the Modernists on this thread the way I view scripture is completly in line with the 2,000 year tradition of the Church.

You think your so clever in your View Points but its your lack of Faith in the Ways of God and your faith rather in the reason of Man that keeps you seperated from a deeper union with your creator.

Again somethings in Scriptures are Symbolic Lingo, But when did one single Founding father ever call the Noah account a Myth like you have stated? Do you not see your Faith doesnt rest upon God but upon a slippery slope of Human reasoning in this regard?
 
SoulRebel777 said:
The catholic church teaches the bible is not infalliable when it comes to History or science?

Is there any documentation that shows that?
Click to expand...
*This requires that exegetes take into consideration the reasonable demands of educated and cultured persons of our time, clearly distinguishing for their benefit what in the Bible is to be regarded as secondary detail conditioned by a particular age, what must be interpreted as the language of myth and what is to be regarded as the true historical and inspired meaning. The biblical writings were not composed in modern language nor in the style of the 20th century. The forms of expression and literary genres employed in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text must be made meaningful to men and women of today, who otherwise would be tempted to lose all interest in the Bible or else to interpret it in a simplistic way that is literalist or simply fanciful. (Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, III.C.4.c)

When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction. (IBC, II.B.1.b)*So what is conveyed is not untruth, but God is communicating something of Himself sometimes by means of “myth” or allegory (by myth is not just meant false stories about dragons and monsters like we know myth, but rather use of hyperbole, for instance, or terms like Jesus is “shepherd” although not literally…etc…). How much deeper a meaning such a literary form can take than a simple abstract statement. It is a far more dynamic means of communicating that which cannot be grasped in human language than an account of historical data.

C.S. Lewis believed myth had the capacity to be even more true than fact.
 
cassini said:
There you are, a Catholic forum and no consensus. How in God’s name could any potential convert take Catholic tradition seriously?
Click to expand...
Catholic Tradition (capital T) is definitive. Biblical exegesis for undefined passage allows for legitimate discussion. Not to mention, this forum is full of lay people. We’re not the Magisterium.
 
As Christians we read Holy Scripture with Christ.He is our guide all the way through.He indicates to us what an image is and where real,enduring content of biblical expression may be found.At the same time he is freedom from a false slavery to literalism and a guarantee of solid,realistic truth of the Bible, which does not dissipate into a cloud of pious pleasantries but remains the sure ground which we can stand…
Biblical Creation narratives represent another way of speaking about a reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biologyThey do not depict the process of becoming or the mathematical structure of matter;instead they say in different ways there is only one God and that the universe is not the scene of a struggle among dark forces but rather the creation of his Word.
 
Correct Marco, but there doesn’t even seem to be consensus on those passages that we have guidlines for, the creation narrative being one and the 1616 decree on geocentricism in particular. I recall also a martyrology that literally gave the 6,000 year history of the Church. It used to be sung by Irish monks but modern Catholics would laugh at it now (not me).

The fascinating question asked is ‘what is myth and what is history’. Well tradition, that is the opinions of the Fathers, held Genesis to be literal. It was the nineteenth century Churchmen who preferred the opinions of astronomers and philosophers who brpught about a modernist interpretation leaving the dogmas like Original Sin impossible to define anymore.

So, as a traditionalist I hold the world is as the Bible says, 6000 years old. I hold the world as geocentric. I hold Adam and Eve were the first two humans and they were created immediately by God from the dust of the earth. I believe they were tempted by the devil to sin the first sin, original sin. I believe it was the cause of our fallen nature and to save us God chose to send His Son etc. I believe Noah’s flood was global and that only 8 people were left alive. I believe the Ark did save man and land animals so that the Ark could be the symbol of salvation - one entrance through it’s side, just as Christ gave his last blood from his side.
 
We need more men like Cassini…God bless you sir for your simple and child like view on things.

Christ said I reveal these things to the Little one’s but my ways are hidden from the So called wise and prudent.
 
I think a child would grasp the mythological elements of Scripture quite well myself… 🤷
 
cassini said:
Correct Marco, but there doesn’t even seem to be consensus on those passages that we have guidlines for, the creation narrative being one and the 1616 decree on geocentricism in particular. I recall also a martyrology that literally gave the 6,000 year history of the Church. It used to be sung by Irish monks but modern Catholics would laugh at it now (not me).
Click to expand...
Since geocentrism is neither a matter of faith or morals, why are you criticizing the Catholic Church for having differing views? Or the literalism of Genesis or not. The Church has never claimed it would never change perspectives on such matters. It is dogmas of faith or morals that, once defined, go unchanged because they are in essence God.
 
juliamajor said:
As Christians we read Holy Scripture with Christ.He is our guide all the way through.He indicates to us what an image is and where real,enduring content of biblical expression may be found.At the same time he is freedom from a false slavery to literalism and a guarantee of solid,realistic truth of the Bible, which does not dissipate into a cloud of pious pleasantries but remains the sure ground which we can stand…
Biblical Creation narratives represent another way of speaking about a reality than that with which we are familiar from physics and biologyThey do not depict the process of becoming or the mathematical structure of matter;instead they say in different ways there is only one God and that the universe is not the scene of a struggle among dark forces but rather the creation of his Word.
Click to expand...
well- do you agreewith my statement?
 
Meaning of most parables is not obvious, nor should it.If we think we know what Jesus is saying, we probably not getting the point.If we’ve heard the story, and get too familiar with it we might not be thinking carefully enough about its real meaning.
Parables contain elements that are strange and unusual. It Should make you think because of these oddities.
Parables are not sharply defined but use comparisons to describe some aspect of how God acts or interacts with humans.‘One should be careful not to misinterpret or misapply parables’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top