P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Do geocentrists also believe that the earth does not rotate? Thanks!
- Status
P
patg
Guest
Thank God!
S
StAnastasia
Guest
It says that the seminary professors are educated not only in biblical hermeneutics, but also in geography, astronomy, and mathematics.
P
patg
Guest
It is possible to assume so, but then one must also decide whether the words attributed to Jesus in this one gospel were actually something he may have said. There is no corroborating evidence that he said this and based on the Instruction on the historical Truth of the Gospels, that is certainly not a given thing. Maybe these words were attributed to Jesus as part of the author’s teachings.
There is no paticular reason to treat this as historical. Jesus is just using a reference to a well known story as part of his teaching and there is certainly no reason whatsoever the reference has to be historical. I can tell my child that if he doesn’t build something strong enough, it will fall down in the wind just like the houses of the first 2 little pigs - that doesn’t mean I think the Three Little Pigs is historical.
If it is story used to illustrate a point, it doesn’t matter. I refer you to my previous post about this story.
I don’t see that at all.
And why could he not have been referencing a well-known story as part of his teaching? Again, I see no requirement whatsoever that it be historical or that it is abnormal to reference a fictional and non-fictional event as part of the same teaching. Please see my previous post about the story.
What? Even the church does not require an historical belief in the creation accounts or the couple in the garden, or Noah, or… If the historicity of ANY of these stories was significant, the church would mention it. Not to mention all the historians who would be sure to mention the stories in their textbooks.
And in fact, the church clearly states in the Dogmatic document Dei Verbum that scripture isn’t always historically based:
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.
I followed this guidance exactly in the post I made regarding the nature of the Jonah story.
Paul refers in very broad generalties to nonspecific events as a means of warning his readers to behave. To take this as a testament to any particular story’s historicity is really going overboard, I think.
What “things”? He doesn’t mention any specific story.
I would say that these things were reported to have happened. Paul has no more knowledge of the historical facts of any of these events than we do and he is not teaching history, he is teaching people that they had better behave.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Good evening, Pat. I don’t have time to address everything right now, but I have a couple of thoughts to share…
The LORD be with you!
Seeking corroborating evidence is not called for by the instruction. A single Biblical witness is sufficient.
In some cases, this line of reasoning would provide plausibility for the point you’re trying to make; but in the present case, it is a false analogy. In order for the analogy to hold, one would have to say that something real was going to happen in the future to the houses of the two little pigs. But since the Three Little Pigs is fiction, this can’t happen.
The LORD be with you!
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
That only proves the inroads satan has made into our institutions of higher learning. Those who promulgate these theories are spoken of in Matthew 23:
Unbelief in the miracles of God does not nullify the miracles. It is more an indicator that you and your contemporaries have surrendered to the spirit of this age and the rationalism condemned by the Teaching Office of the Church.
May God have mercy on the poor victims of such ‘teaching’.
M
mpartyka
Guest
I would recommend looking at geocentricity.com for the latest in “geocentric theory”.
And if what you find there isn’t stunning enough, check out theflatearthsociety.org/forum/ for the latest in “flat earth theory”. Their FAQ page is great.
–Mike
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Mike, thanks for the link. Powerful stuff. Fills you with awe when you think about the things science says it “knows” which are actually unproven/unprovable theories. The default position for Christians and Jews should always be Divine Revelation. Its the anvil that breaks every hammer.
M
mpartyka
Guest
Okay, here’s my 2 cents.
Somehow, some way, we have to accept that there are certain things the Bible teaches about nature and history that simply are not true. I’m not saying that we have to discount the miraculous, but when it comes to, say, the age of the earth and the development of life on earth (including human life), the Bible simply does not tell the literal truth.
Were the prophets and apostles aware of this? I think they were not, and I think arguing that they were is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to protect their reputations.
Was Jesus himself aware of this, in His humanity? I hesitate to propose that He was not, but one has to wonder if, when accepting to Himself the totality of the human condition, ignorance about the actual origin of the universe and of life might have been part of the package. After all, He does say in one gospel that not even He knew when the last day was to come. Perhaps ignorance of that final day’s coming was part of the human condition, and in the same way, perhaps a literal reliance upon the narratives of history in Scripture was also part of the deal. Rather than knowing all that can be known, perhaps he voluntarily limited himself to knowing all that had been given to be known, all that could have been known, up to that present point in time.
I’m sure nobody’s immediately thrilled with such a proposition as mine – I’m not all that thrilled with it myself – but the fact is that we’ve got corroboration from many kinds of testing which tells us that (1) the earth is at least 40,000 years old and probably a lot older (like the five billion years we often hear), and (2) humans evolved from a common ancestor or pool of common ancestors just like every other form of life on earth did – we may be a unique endproduct, but so far as biology is concerned, we are not “specially created”. Somehow we’ve got to deal with all that, because the scientific evidence for these things (and against the biblical literalist’s perspective) is already past the point of being unassailable.
Personally, I think the Catholic Church is probably in the best shape to handle coming to grips with science precisely because its conception of truth is so fluid. Protestantism is largely “Bible only” – without the authority of the Bible, it has nothing to give it credibility. Orthodox Christianity broadens its base by adding the interpretive framework of the Fathers into the mix, but the litmus test there remains “what has always and everywhere been believed” – it’s hard to find an Orthodox who can argue with a straight face that evolution could even remotely be cast as something “always and everywhere allowed for”, much less “always and everywhere believed.”
Catholicism, however, is much more flexible when it comes to truth because, though it teaches so much, it stands firm upon so very little. Absolutely everything in Catholicism is up for grabs except what’s in the Creed (which says very little about creation) and what’s in those two infallible declarations made by the pope (which both involve Mary only). That’s it! You can’t even take anything in the Catechism as “gospel truth” because only a small part of it – namely, all that I’ve listed above – is considered infallible. Not even the scriptures themselves are held in such regard, and that may very well be Catholicism’s “salvation” from the coming onslaughts of science.
What do the scriptures say? What did the Fathers believe? What does the catechism say? The answer to all three, under the Catholic paradigms of authority and infallibility, is properly, “Who cares?” The only things that matter are those few things the Church sees fit to have declared infallible. Everything else is up for grabs.
Now, why anyone would want to belong to a Christianity that displays such wretched apathy toward truth is entirely beyond me, but I do think the Catholic Church at minimum deserves a pat on the back for its preparedness to survive, perhaps even thrive, no matter what conditions (or contradictions) arise.
–Mike
Somehow, some way, we have to accept that there are certain things the Bible teaches about nature and history that simply are not true. I’m not saying that we have to discount the miraculous, but when it comes to, say, the age of the earth and the development of life on earth (including human life), the Bible simply does not tell the literal truth.
Were the prophets and apostles aware of this? I think they were not, and I think arguing that they were is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to protect their reputations.
Was Jesus himself aware of this, in His humanity? I hesitate to propose that He was not, but one has to wonder if, when accepting to Himself the totality of the human condition, ignorance about the actual origin of the universe and of life might have been part of the package. After all, He does say in one gospel that not even He knew when the last day was to come. Perhaps ignorance of that final day’s coming was part of the human condition, and in the same way, perhaps a literal reliance upon the narratives of history in Scripture was also part of the deal. Rather than knowing all that can be known, perhaps he voluntarily limited himself to knowing all that had been given to be known, all that could have been known, up to that present point in time.
I’m sure nobody’s immediately thrilled with such a proposition as mine – I’m not all that thrilled with it myself – but the fact is that we’ve got corroboration from many kinds of testing which tells us that (1) the earth is at least 40,000 years old and probably a lot older (like the five billion years we often hear), and (2) humans evolved from a common ancestor or pool of common ancestors just like every other form of life on earth did – we may be a unique endproduct, but so far as biology is concerned, we are not “specially created”. Somehow we’ve got to deal with all that, because the scientific evidence for these things (and against the biblical literalist’s perspective) is already past the point of being unassailable.
Personally, I think the Catholic Church is probably in the best shape to handle coming to grips with science precisely because its conception of truth is so fluid. Protestantism is largely “Bible only” – without the authority of the Bible, it has nothing to give it credibility. Orthodox Christianity broadens its base by adding the interpretive framework of the Fathers into the mix, but the litmus test there remains “what has always and everywhere been believed” – it’s hard to find an Orthodox who can argue with a straight face that evolution could even remotely be cast as something “always and everywhere allowed for”, much less “always and everywhere believed.”
Catholicism, however, is much more flexible when it comes to truth because, though it teaches so much, it stands firm upon so very little. Absolutely everything in Catholicism is up for grabs except what’s in the Creed (which says very little about creation) and what’s in those two infallible declarations made by the pope (which both involve Mary only). That’s it! You can’t even take anything in the Catechism as “gospel truth” because only a small part of it – namely, all that I’ve listed above – is considered infallible. Not even the scriptures themselves are held in such regard, and that may very well be Catholicism’s “salvation” from the coming onslaughts of science.
What do the scriptures say? What did the Fathers believe? What does the catechism say? The answer to all three, under the Catholic paradigms of authority and infallibility, is properly, “Who cares?” The only things that matter are those few things the Church sees fit to have declared infallible. Everything else is up for grabs.
Now, why anyone would want to belong to a Christianity that displays such wretched apathy toward truth is entirely beyond me, but I do think the Catholic Church at minimum deserves a pat on the back for its preparedness to survive, perhaps even thrive, no matter what conditions (or contradictions) arise.
–Mike
M
mpartyka
Guest
Actually, the first time I discovered that there were still proponents of geocentricity, I nearly threw up. I probably would have thrown up had I stumbled onto the flat earth sites immediately afterward.
If you want to read truly compelling stuff by somebody who really cares about truth above all else, I would suggest you peruse Glenn Morton’s web site at home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm. Glenn started out a young-earth creationist in college, but his years of geological work for the oil industry forced him to give up his YEC beliefs and accept an ancient earth, a local Noachic flood, and a novel explanation for synthesizing biblical creation with evolution that I don’t really agree with but still find honest in its intent. His website contains dozens of articles that I found extremely helpful.
Other books I recommend:
Endless Forms Most Beautiful by Sean Carroll
The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll
Relics of Eden by Daniel Fairbanks
Evolution: What the Fossils Say And Why It Matters by Donald Prothero
–Mike
R
RobbyS
Guest
Saint Paul did not attempt to put Original Sin in any particular historical setting. What both he and the author of Genesis say that is disobedience to God’s will explains the plight of man.
Evolutionism is false in its claim that man is but a clever beast, when all of history attests to his being far more than that but that his resistance to the proper ordering of things is the cause of all his woes. He both transcends nature and is the captive of it, and no way can he of his own accord finally ascend to the heights of his being.
C
Catholic_Johnny
Guest
Where in God’s Holy Name did you come up with that concept???
No wonder you believe in the theories of unbelieving scientists above the Word of God if that’s your estimation of the Church’s mission as transmitter of Divine Truth to all nations.
Are you not aware that Jesus says not one jot or tittle of the Law (Old Testament) shall pass away until all be fulfilled? That the scripture cannot be broken? That heaven and earth will pass away, “but my Words shall never pass away”?
I am in shock that so many Catholics flippantly dismiss the authority that Jesus gave the Church to bind and loose souls with the Keys to Kingdom of Heaven. Of course, Jesus was only speaking symbolically, right? What he really meant was that none of his words would fail until the 20th century when unbelieving scientists would finish God’s Divine Revelation to the world and correct His erring geocentric Church.
Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on us.
:nope:
S
StAnastasia
Guest
mpartyka, it is curious that there are still supporters of geocentrism and flat-earthism in 2008. I wonder if the proponents have flown in aeroplanes and seen the curvature of the earth. Perhaps as the geocentrists travel westward they fancy themselves as flying after Phoebus in his fiery, winged chariot!
P
patg
Guest
My point from the Instruction was that the gospels do not contain eyewitness quotes of the words of Jesus. If there were other references to this statement, there would be considerably more reason to believe Jesus actually said it exactly as reported in the gospel. This one brief statement from one gospel just doesn’t stand up against the literary analysis of the story.
That’s not the point. I was merely demonstrating that referencing a well-known story as part of a real life teaching event did not require the referenced story to be non-fiction.
T
TMC
Guest
No it does not. None of the passages cited there say anything about the historical accuracy of Scriputre. Here are the passages from that post:
Matthew 5:17-18
Jesus is not discussing Scriptural events here. He is talking about the Law - which is contained in Scripture but is not all of Scripture and has nothing to do with events.
John 10:34-35
The NAB says “scripture cannot be set aside” rather than “broken”. This is in context of Jesus answering charges of blasphemy. Jesus quotes Psalm 82, which compares judges to gods. He reminds them that Scripture supports the idea that a man can be in some ways like God, and then says “can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” Christ is calling them on their hypocrisy for using some parts of Scripture to condemn Him while ignoring that His message and His works are of God. The passage is interesting and somewhat difficult. It arguably stands for the proposition that the teachings of Scripture are immutable, but it says nothing about historical accuracy.
Mark 12:24
Here Jesus is rebuking those who ask Him about marriage in heaven. He says they don’t know the Scriptures, and quotes from what is now Exodus. Again, that says something about the value of the teachings of Scripture, but nothing about historical events.
Luke 21:22
This passage refers to what will happen during the destruction of Jerusalem. It could be said to say something about the accuracy of prophecies in Scripture (although I think that would be stretching the meaning). It says nothing about historical accuracy.
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Unless you are working on a project for the Jesus Seminar, it is enough to know that the Evangelist has indeed preserved the meaning or the sense of what Jesus said.
When the Gospels attribute a saying to Jesus, we believe that Jesus used words carrying that same meaning. Augustine’s approach to Sacred Scripture will keep us close to our Lord: “The Lord Himself testifies in this passage, so that no man can give another interpretation than that which the truth indicates concerning itself” (Gospel of John, Tractate 12).As this witness from our Lord is our only external intrabiblical control to the book of Jonah, it should be given considerable weight as we proceed to analyze the internal evidence.
This principle is generally true, but it does not help in the present scenario. The men of Nineveh are going to rise up at the judgment to condemn Jesus’ generation because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. This future event cannot happen if the basis for it is a fictional account. And again, if this statement from our Lord makes reference to the historicity of the preaching of Jonah – and it must – then the most reasonable interpretation of His immediately preceding reference to Jonah being in the belly of the sea creature is that He sees is as also having a historical basis in fact.
I hope to find time to discuss your previously posted literary analysis of the book of Jonah.
Until then, may the LORD bless you and keep you.
M
mpartyka
Guest
What about the story of Cain and Abel?
–Mike
P.S.: The historicity of Cain and Abel isn’t on its face that important, I admit, but the story does come in between two other stories (Creation and the Flood) that some on this forum wish to cast as alleghorical, so why not this one as well?
Does anybody wish to argue that the authors of these verses did not view the story of Cain and Abel as having actually occurred? I mean, I suppose if we exclude all context, that argument could be made regarding the author of Hebrews, but in Matthew and Luke’s gospels, can it really be argued that Jesus is threatening the Pharisees with the blood of a fictional character?
–Mike
P.S.: The historicity of Cain and Abel isn’t on its face that important, I admit, but the story does come in between two other stories (Creation and the Flood) that some on this forum wish to cast as alleghorical, so why not this one as well?
C
cassini
Guest
Some do, some dont. The Church however defined and declared it does NOT. That’s good enough for me.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
When did it do this? And why doesn’t the pope himself believe it?
- Status