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

[PeterClatworthy]

Hey Peter C.

I believe the last line of the above quote is a very poor excuse… you simply have no idea what you are saying, you’re just stuck. What do you really know of the RCC, and why have you left it?
I’m sure it wasn’t because the women in the U.S. stopped wearing Veils!
That’s would be a sin… the worst excuse is…because you do this one thing I will no longer attend the Church Jesus Christ established? which is guided by the Holy Spirit til His return!!

Let’s see

1. you have denied the history of the Bible as fable, myth, folklore where do you draw the line?
   have answered #2 and # 3 read previous posts, #4 No, I have no experience with it!, do you actually mean they are absolutely required to wear veils??
   #5 Not saints Maelruain; or Finnian, though I’ve heard of Finnians rainbow, the Canons of St Peter of York… never heard of 'em!!! Sue me, judge me as ignorant, send me directly to hell!!!
   Now con’t from last post:

Jesus did the most to liberate women from being under male totalitarian rules of society The reason and teaching of the time writes would not be the same as today.
forty fifty yrs ago women always wore hats, big Ester bonnets, heck there’s something over here called the ‘Red Hat Society’ these ole’ gals get together and go out to lunch twenty-twenty five at clip and hold socials at restaurants and whatever all wearing some form of a red and purple hat. But outside of that in american society, women stopped wearing hats, bonnets veils… does it make them sinful? NOT AT ALL!
Jesus knows our hearts… the Sacraments, Divine Liturgy, the Gospels are not hurt a persons salvation through Christ and His Church… maybe even more women show up to Church because it isn’t enforced…

Heck there are more women at church on the regular than men, they run prayer grps, raise money for the Church, and make sure their children are brought up with sound catchesis... you want to hang them and the RCC for not being veiled? Give it up already!

isn’t there more than ONE Celtic religion?
Now who why and when did some resurrect an ascetic Religion which was 450 yrs dissolved… Are you a Druid? Bard? Ovate? are not some nature based?
Isn’t Celtic religion polytheistic? I’ve been asking you? but like a protestant you don’t explain what you beleive or why you choose to join ‘Celi De’ over the RCC. Being of Irish Catholic descent going back to my great Grandfather I can vouch we were always RC.
have a nice day
John

John,

I cannot deal with the issues if you cherry pick.

Please take the trouble to find out about the entire list of saints, including Maelruain and Finnian. Add Saint Óengus of Tallaght to the list as well. I will believe that you are a true Irishman when you do.

I will also believe that you are a true Irishman when you find out for yourself, rather than uncritically listen to others, that St Patrick converted the Druids to Christianity at a time when the Church at Rome had not arrived in Ireland. He was himself a convert from Druidism, and converted the “Y Maen” (The Stone Religion, or the Stone Kingdom), to Johannine Celtic Christianity. That is a matter of Irish history. My family’s connections (Clatworthy/O’Brien) with the Abbey at Armagh are well documented too.

To suggest that the Synod of Whitby was a “dissolution” of the Celtic Christian Church is laughable. Convenient for Rome I grant you, but propaganda is never history. It does not even qualify as a myth.

I suggest that you concentate on researching the Canons Regular and what actually happened at Armagh, Iona, Glastonbury and elsewhere, particularly York, which is my concern.

Culdee Canons Regular continued in faith, and in secret, attached to churches taken over by Rome long after the Synod of Whitby. I still worship God in the York Minster, alongside my Fellows, but we are not Anglicans. Out of general interest, the property that is the York Minster is owned by the Roman Catholic Church, but it is held under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Archbishop of York by Royal Charter. We conduct our own services including the ordination of priests.

The Canon’s Regular at York were in possession of a similar Royal Charter from the King of England. This extant Charter has been ratified in Parliament on two occasions, the latest being by King Henry IV in 1442.

The Order of Harodim is still conferred, as it has been, uninterrupted since time immemorial.

The decision to comment on the Holy Order in the public arena, where necessary, was taken at a General Assembly of the Harodim, at York, on the 24th June 2009.

I cannot add any more.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

To assist you with the history of St Patrick:

“The Celtic Church in Ireland and in Scotland owed its origin not to Rome, but to Egypt and the East; its customs, traditions, methods, government came from Egypt through Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary, Martin of Tours, Ninian, and through that religious channel, more than a little independent of Rome. The religious ideas of Egypt came to Scotland and Ireland and were absorbed easily into the tribal life of these countries. There is no doubt that the Celtic Church owed its ritual, its architecture, its worship and its law to Syria, Egypt and Palestine, and that its allegiance to Rome was slight.” (SOURCE: Paper delivered to the Ecclesiastical Society, Church life in the time of St Blane by the Very Rev’d Dr James Hutchison Cockburn, ecclesiasical historian and Minister of Dunblane Cathedral: 1959)

St Martin of Tours’ sister, Conessa, was St Patrick’s mother.

And in terms of the Culdees at York Minster:

“From a Masonic document now in my possession, I can prove that no very long time ago the Culdees of York were Freemasons, that they constituted the Grand Lodge of England, and that they held their meetings in the Crypt under the great Cathedral of that city. The circular chapter-house did very well for ordinary business, but the Secret Mysteries were carried on in the crypts. The Lodge, which was the Grand Lodge of All England, had been held under the Cathedral in the Crypt at York.” (SOURCE: p.718, Anacalypsis Vol. 1, Godfrey Higgins: 1833-1836.)

And the Catholic approach to the Celtic Chrisitian religion?

"In England they occur nowhere but at St Peter’s, in York, as mentioned above. At York, Athelstane found them, and gave them his friendship and protection. It is said that he employed them in building churches, convents and castles. Archbishop Usher and others treat of this subject, but the old writers on the papal side of the question are said to have purposely avoided making mention of the Culdees. This sect was first spoken of in connection with the Masonic society by Ignatius Aurelius Fessler, a distinguished Masonic writer of Germany. (SOURCE: p.369, Masonic Eclectic or Gleanings from the Harvest Field of Masonic Literature Part 2, John W. Simons: 1860)

Nothing changes but it remains the same.

History.

 

[Pete_Holter]

1 Corinthians 11:5 “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

How inconvenient for you, but “anything goes” in Rome? “Feel happy” about it?

Here is Dr. Sungenis arguing in favor of head coverings: Should Today’s Women Wear Head Coverings? A Scriptural, Historical and Canonical Analysis.

Since St. Paul rests his conclusions on

• the hierarchical nature of the Trinity,
• the order of creation,
• the angels, and,
• in the case of lengths of hair, nature itself,

and since he doesn’t gather support from any provisional societal/cultural practices, I would love to see the return of head coverings! Come into the Catholic Church and help!

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

 

[John_oxios]

PeterClatworthy;6101768]John,

I cannot deal with the issues if you cherry pick

.

Hi PeterC,

No my friend you are the one 'Cherry Pickin'

ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking**
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases** or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

You point out 1/2 a verse in Scripture and have made it an Absolute,
1Cr 11:5 but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven.

[Shaving of a woman’s head is a Orthodox Jewish custom which is still practiced today]

a) , Paul writes a women ought to, (Ought: a duty or obligation) and you’ve made it against the almighty God not too?

I got to catch up on the posts, but so far you have ignored:

1Cr 11:13 Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Cr 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Cherry picking:

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the “fallacy of anecdotal evidence” tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available.

Thanks for the 'new term in my vocabulary!
God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

Here is Dr. Sungenis arguing in favor of head coverings: Should Today’s Women Wear Head Coverings? A Scriptural, Historical and Canonical Analysis.

Since St. Paul rests his conclusions on

• the hierarchical nature of the Trinity,
• the order of creation,
• the angels, and,
• in the case of lengths of hair, nature itself,

and since he doesn’t gather support from any provisional societal/cultural practices, I would love to see the return of head coverings! Come into the Catholic Church and help!

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

Helo Peterholter,
I din’t say ‘I’ was against women wearing veils or head coverings, personally I think it a venerable act in the presence of God, in His Church. I remember growing ,Mom and the other women taking out their scarfs and placing them over their heads as they entered the Church.

Thanks for the Article by R. Sugenis, yes I’ve heard of him and have one of his books in my library.
But one of his points:
although St. Paul does not actually refer to the word “veil” in 1 Corinthians 11. In essence, the veil is a symbol of authority, yet it is not a symbol of a woman’s authority, but of the husband’s authority over her, which is the reason the veil is placed on her head, to show that she is completely “under” his authority. This command is in line with other passages in the New Testament that the woman is to be subject to the man’s authority.

   He does put up a good argument for the veiled women.

But he also makes it a sin, for a woman to work outside the home? Here in the U.S over the yrs. Blue Laws have been lifted (i.e. all stores closed on Sunday) So people were required to work, I don’t know about Ireland but here in the States the middle class would not exist without the two person income…
He calls it “the right and privilege to curtail their responsibilities to rear children.”
Couples work to save for their Children’s future education and to afford health benefits and quality of life.
Yes he quotes men of the Church, from the 5th century, Again social, custom, tradition,have to be taken into account. We can’t beat every women over the head who shows up at church without a veil, even the term ‘Veil’ is vague.

Does she just wear it over the top of her head? or over her face also? The tradition seems to be over the top of her head, but who’s to say that’s morally right??

We do, So as Paul in his letter to the Corinthians says, “Judge for yourselves”

 

[PeterClatworthy]

John

Try as you may, you stated that the Holy Scriptures, being the Word of God, are straight forward factual history. You reject the great value to any academic historian of both myth and legend, although I accept that there is a difference of meaning in the word “myth” between England and America.

That is why I gave such a precise English definition and explanation in my original posting, which I believe you have either ignored or not understood. In fact you have not dealt with the issue of the English definition of “legend” at all.

Let’s stick to the topic now because our stances on women covering their heads, IMHO as they should do, is now clear. Those reading our contributions will make up their own minds, but what we have proven is that Holy Scripture is open to interpretation, it is not mathematical fact. It only becomes absolute in your eyes because you rely on the strict interpretation of one man.

The majority of the world’s religious people do not do so, including me. That chrystalises the difference between you and me. Not criticism, a summing up.

And, by the way I have never cast doubt upon the birth, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ and it would be dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

 

[John_oxios]

John

Try as you may, you stated that the Holy Scriptures, being the Word of God, are straight forward factual history. You reject the great value to any academic historian of both myth and legend, although I accept that there is a difference of meaning in the word “myth” between England and America.

And, by the way I have never cast doubt upon the birth, death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ and it would be dishonest of you to suggest otherwise.

Hello Peter C,
You haven’t replied to the scripture vss. I have used, how convenient.
Nice and quiet retreat? You got more than that!!! No comment on 1Cor 11:13, or vs 15, Woe to you pharisees…straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matt 23:23,24),
how about a comment on Matt 23:9, ?? Any Jehovah witness will try to bamboozle you with this verse.

                    I did not say the Bible is straight forward factual history, But it what God gives us to answer the origins of humanity, its plight in History, and God working in his life.  How can you dismiss that?  My point is once 'you give in' to an unbelieving historians reasoning.. or anyone else they can then shoot more holes in the rest of what we believe, simply because you opened the door to something (a) you may not full understood, or comprehended.

Let’ stop beating around the bush! Tell me what you can’t believe in the Bible?

The Church is the interpreter of the Bible, not historians…( we’d all be pagan if we listened to them) because it is given by God, let’s call it a record of man’s mistakes and how he overcome them. We wrote the book, its passed down from God’s Chosen people to the Apostles and His Church through Jesus Christ.
Now people outside the Church want to tell us what we ought to believe? There is some 28,000 thousand protestant Churches out there who say the holy Spirit says to me…
They all can’t be right, but within the 22 Catholic Church’s Our Divine Liturgy whether we got it from Paul, James, Peter or Johanian. We worship the same and have the same core beliefs, if the big difference in our Church’s is in that your women wear hats, and we do not enforce that, well? I guess we’ll have to take that up on Judgement day with the big guy. For me, I think God’s grace and mercy will cover a multitude of sin from the women who pray the Rosary, and attend Mass, religiously without the caps on. I guess your Church doesn’t see God that merciful?

Words do change over time, Look up some of C.K. Chestertons writings.
Four hundred yrs ago the word ‘worship’ meant something different then today, they’d call men of respect or reknown, 'Your worship; Your lordship; today the word only means Worship which is for God and God alone, So when a Catholic says, we worship Mary, out of honor and veneration, and place her above all men, A protestant will scream we worship Mary as a God. However, We both know in the Latin the Word** Lattria** translated Worship capital ‘W’ is the Word we use for** Worship for God and God alone.**

Then their is Dulia, which is worship small ‘w’ which when translated means honor and veneration for our fellow men.
then there is Hyper-dulia, Which translates 'worship also, however it is our term for Mary, whom we place above all men, but still beneath God.
In the english which is a limited language,(here are 3 words for love in the Greek, one in english) and to the Protestants its all ‘Worship’ which to them makes us idolaters. Is it so??
Yes meanings of words do change over time.

From the Catholic Study Bible (2nd Ed. Oxford press, pg 10) :

Donald Senior, (President and Professor of New Testament at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago) The accounts of Creation and the stories about the first human family, such as the tragic rivalry between Cain and Abel and the story of Noah and the flood, obviously do not have the same historical grounding that later tradittions could.These stories answer (emphasis mine) the question of the origin of humanity and its plight in history. Firm historical traditions begin with the forging of Israel into an identifiable people, an event that did not begin until about 1250 bc. Traditions about the earlier patriarchal period starting around 1850 bc. are much less certain historically, and events from the time of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and during the period of Exodus and early settlement in the land since there were few means of preserving hisoritical archives"

So according to the Catholic Interpretation before 1250 history is a little sketchy much less certain… but not unhistorical.

Irenaeous, [Against all heresies] attacks interpretive methods of his gnostic opponents, objecting that they ignore the context of passages, overlooking the clear and obvious in favor of the obscure, and reading into the text their fanciful theories. Significantly, Irenaeous not only argues on the basis of interpretation principles but also invokes what comes to be known as “the rule of faith.” As a defense against anarchy of interpretation, there is a standard of correct interpretation, which Irenaeous claims is that which has been preserved in those churches which stand in the apostolic succession. Interpretation which differs from that of the apostolic churches cannot be deemed true."

As you said before you don’t believe in apostolic succession, so your interpretation according to Irenaeous doesn’t ring true.

If you mean that the six days of Creation don’t have to be taken literally? Well than it doesn’t make non historical. Even St Augustine will give ya that.

God bless,
John

 

[o_mlly]

…

God’s plan, made present to the sacred editors’ minds through the Holy Spirit, moved them to select, write and re-write the stories of Israel in words and ways that revealed God’s plan for the people of their times. Our faith in God’s activity both in the history of Israel and in the divine inspiration of the telling of that history transfigures Israel’s history and gives the Bible its peculiar claim to sacredness. While infallibly divine in their inspirations, the authors remained imperfectly human in their interpretations. This fusion of infinite Truth into finite minds gives the sacred scriptures at once its Divine authority and its human ambiguity.

Alfred North Whitehead in *Religion in the Making *argues that “religion is world-loyalty.” The scribes put God’s inspiration into the reality known to them. Not to do so would make understanding God a completely otherworldly affair. Making God immanent as well as transcendent, the scribes wrote for a people at a time in which the scriptures explained Yahweh working in the world. The scribes’ message, though, was primarily theology and secondarily history. This important distinction separates the work of the sacred scribes from that of secular historians.

Secular history, one of the historiographical sciences, proposes theories that give meaning by organizing events in a manner that shows coherence. As a science, historiographers (paleontologists, geologists, historians, etc.) make observations and use inductive reasoning to put forth theories concerned with the origin and history of the cosmos and of living beings. Because phenomena of the distant past are not open to observation and experiment, historiographers must attempt to reconstruct the events of the past and appeal to the principle of uniformity. Secular historians often have more difficulty in defending their positions than their counterparts in the experimental sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.). Unlike the experimental scientists, secular historians may only refer to available recorded human testimony and artifact, while the experimental sciences can always refer to repeatable experiments. Despite their difficult position, historians succeed in giving well-rounded explanations for past events but their explanations or meanings are necessarily more contrived than derived, somewhat subjective, and always dependent on the discovery of additional artifact or ancient manuscript. For these reasons, secular historians (and exegetes) often disagree on their interpretations of the same evidence.

As historians, the ancients knew of no such “scientific” method in their time. When asked to explain causality, as in the origins of man and the world, the ancients asked not “how” but “who.” They believed that a purposeful will commanded all reality. As historians, the ancients attempted to explain natural phenomena not by analysis but by action which required they use story or myth. Myth was serious business; they did not intend these stories to be merely entertainment. They were recounting events upon which their very existence depended. Through myth, the ancient historians put order into apparent chaos. The myth or interpretation of reality followed the observation of the natural phenomena. In this respect the myths were a posteriori or induced from prior observations.

Ancient historians, like their modern counterparts, used inductive reasoning. They produced their myths after examining the natural phenomena. If the myth stood the test of coherence and gave meaning to the phenomena, it endured passing from generation to generation. But the sacred writers, unlike their contemporary and our modern historians, used deductive reasoning. Through divine inspiration, the sacred writers had definite knowledge of God’s plan. This knowledge was a priori and independent of Israel’s many traditions, oral or written. From this certainty, using their human faculties, the sacred writers enlisted the available stories, selecting and manipulating them to write the Truth for the people of their times.

Therefore, an important distinction between the secular and sacred historian is the primacy of events and the primacy of meaning. The secular historian, modern or ancient, gives primacy to events and derives from them his or her “truth.” No serious historian would invent or alter events, or ignore controverting facts to prop up a weak hypothesis. Our divinely inspired authors, giving primacy to God’s inspiration, may well have melded and manipulated the traditional histories of Israel to make their Truth tangible. They were theologians first, secular historians second.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

A superb analysis if I might say so o_mlly and I cannot add any more. Myth, legend, fact, interpretation and belief = the Holy Scriptures.

 

[John_oxios]

A superb analysis if I might say so o_mlly and I cannot add any more. Myth, legend, fact, interpretation and belief = the Holy Scriptures.

But historical!! Which is where we began

 

[o_mlly]

But historical!! Which is where we began

While the scribes were principally theologians, I do not believe we can dismiss them as being completely ahistorical. The inspired writers wrote at particular times in which contemporaries could and, presumably would, challenge historical errors in their writings about events occurring within living memory. Exegetes believe the Yahwist epic was compiled during the reign of Solomon or shortly thereafter (950-900 BC) and fixed in writing during the Babylonian Exile (586-539 BC). Scholars place the Elohists epic composition around 800 BC during the Divided Monarchies. Many years later, around 400 BC, scholars believe the priests and scribes brought these epics together in literary form that they call the Priestly tradition. So, there is reason, I believe, to attach a scale of historicity to the Old Testament. The scale would have its highest rating for factual accuracy during the period of the Babylonian Captivity and the reigns of David and Solomon and would descend in accuracy as events moved back in time. Scholars note that in the stories of the Kings of Israel and Judah we find accounts that are much more like histories written by the Romans and Greeks.

Fundamentalists disregard this sliding scale of historicity and dogmatically insist on constant and continuous “verbal inerrancy” in the entire text. The scribes, being more attentive to their own prophetic voice than to historicity, explained the meaning of events near at hand by writing into those events the Truth with which they were Divinely inspired. Forgetting that the scribes wrote for a particular people at a particular time, today’s fundamentalists attempt to extract the Truth from the form rather than the substance of the text. The fundamentalist’s error imputes God’s Word into every word the author wrote. By denying human ambiguity in the texts, the fundamentalist assumes that the wits of man can completely contain and express in words an Idea from the mind of God. Less pedantic interpreters realize that God, seeing all things at once, inspires from on high; men, seeing only a few things here and now, respond from down here. Catholics do not believe in “verbal inerrancy” because we do not believe God was directly and specially involved in the choice of every single word in the text’s original language or in every subsequent interpretation of that language to another.

The issues of sacred scripture are not historical fact but theological truth that can be extracted from the substance, not the form, of the text. For example, Genesis presents not the religious vision of the patriarchs (whose deeds it recounts) but the religious visions of the era of its final composition. Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically flawed. Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

When the sacred writers put the story together in ca. 450 BC, the issues were clear: How was the world made such that Israel “served God in a Temple that was destroyed and now rebuilt, in a land that was lost and now regained, in a holy way of life that was set down in Sinai, violated but then recovered and renewed”? The central theme for the Israelites in this story is the Exodus. Prior to the Exodus experience, the Hebrews as community lacked an organizing principle. If people are to be bound together, they do so not only by blood and soil, but also by shared experience. The Israelite community begins with Exodus, an experience that creates hope and establishes direction and purpose. In Exodus, God acted in Israel’s behalf and laid upon them lasting obligations to God and fellow human beings. Exodus provides “the model for how the people of God should seek justice in society as the only appropriate response to the liberation they had experienced.”

 

[geometer]

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

Look for things in scripture that you can verify in your own experience. This is the supreem value of the book.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

But historical!! Which is where we began

John,

PLEASE read what is actually posted, and not what you THINK was posted. Yes, history, But “history” is not a mathematical process. I hope that the opinions and explanations that you have been given will assist you to understand the Holy Scriptures even better than you have in the past.

God bless you.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

While the scribes were principally theologians, I do not believe we can dismiss them as being completely ahistorical. The inspired writers wrote at particular times in which contemporaries could and, presumably would, challenge historical errors in their writings about events occurring within living memory. Exegetes believe the Yahwist epic was compiled during the reign of Solomon or shortly thereafter (950-900 BC) and fixed in writing during the Babylonian Exile (586-539 BC). Scholars place the Elohists epic composition around 800 BC during the Divided Monarchies. Many years later, around 400 BC, scholars believe the priests and scribes brought these epics together in literary form that they call the Priestly tradition. So, there is reason, I believe, to attach a scale of historicity to the Old Testament. The scale would have its highest rating for factual accuracy during the period of the Babylonian Captivity and the reigns of David and Solomon and would descend in accuracy as events moved back in time. Scholars note that in the stories of the Kings of Israel and Judah we find accounts that are much more like histories written by the Romans and Greeks.

Fundamentalists disregard this sliding scale of historicity and dogmatically insist on constant and continuous “verbal inerrancy” in the entire text. The scribes, being more attentive to their own prophetic voice than to historicity, explained the meaning of events near at hand by writing into those events the Truth with which they were Divinely inspired. Forgetting that the scribes wrote for a particular people at a particular time, today’s fundamentalists attempt to extract the Truth from the form rather than the substance of the text. The fundamentalist’s error imputes God’s Word into every word the author wrote. By denying human ambiguity in the texts, the fundamentalist assumes that the wits of man can completely contain and express in words an Idea from the mind of God. Less pedantic interpreters realize that God, seeing all things at once, inspires from on high; men, seeing only a few things here and now, respond from down here. Catholics do not believe in “verbal inerrancy” because we do not believe God was directly and specially involved in the choice of every single word in the text’s original language or in every subsequent interpretation of that language to another.

The issues of sacred scripture are not historical fact but theological truth that can be extracted from the substance, not the form, of the text. For example, Genesis presents not the religious vision of the patriarchs (whose deeds it recounts) but the religious visions of the era of its final composition. Taking the accidents of time and place away, the creation story in Genesis tells us about the nature of time, reaching its climax in the Sabbath. The text tells us about the nature of the world, reaching its perfection in God’s pleasure with what God had created, God’s blessing and sanctifying creation. It also tells us about the character of humankind, man and women, perfect in God’s image, like God, but tragically flawed. Remembering that the substance of the text tells us about a timeless God, we may treat as peripheral incidentals that are peculiar to the time of composition if doing so unveils the central themes: the enduring attributes of God and His plan for humanity.

When the sacred writers put the story together in ca. 450 BC, the issues were clear: How was the world made such that Israel “served God in a Temple that was destroyed and now rebuilt, in a land that was lost and now regained, in a holy way of life that was set down in Sinai, violated but then recovered and renewed”? The central theme for the Israelites in this story is the Exodus. Prior to the Exodus experience, the Hebrews as community lacked an organizing principle. If people are to be bound together, they do so not only by blood and soil, but also by shared experience. The Israelite community begins with Exodus, an experience that creates hope and establishes direction and purpose. In Exodus, God acted in Israel’s behalf and laid upon them lasting obligations to God and fellow human beings. Exodus provides “the model for how the people of God should seek justice in society as the only appropriate response to the liberation they had experienced.”

Please allow me to put forward a hypothesis. The Gospels are being written today, 29 December 2009:

Gospel of St Matthew: all true believers will use coke daily, to the glory of God
Gospel of St Mark: all true believers will use coke every day to the glory of God
Gospel of St Luke: all true believers will use coke once in every 24 hours to God’s glory
Gospel of St John: all true believers will use coke each day to the glory of God

What did they each actually mean? Just a bit of fun to illustrate a point. Myth, legend, fact, interpretation, belief = Holy Scriptures.

 

[John_oxios]

A superb analysis if I might say so o_mlly and I cannot add any more. Myth, legend, fact, interpretation and belief = the Holy Scriptures.

Hello PeterC,

Therefore, an important distinction between the secular and sacred historian is the primacy of events and the primacy of meaning. The secular historian, modern or ancient, gives primacy to events and derives from them his or her “truth.” No serious historian would invent or alter events, or ignore controverting facts to prop up a weak hypothesis. Our divinely inspired authors, giving primacy to God’s inspiration, may well have melded and manipulated the traditional histories of Israel to make their Truth tangible. They were theologians first, secular historians second

You stated No serious historian worth his salt backs up the bible as historical facts?
correct?

 

[John_oxios]

Please allow me to put forward a hypothesis. The Gospels are being written today, 29 December 2009:

Gospel of St Matthew: all true believers will use coke daily, to the glory of God
Gospel of St Mark: all true believers will use coke every day to the glory of God
Gospel of St Luke: all true believers will use coke once in every 24 hours to God’s glory
Gospel of St John: all true believers will use coke each day to the glory of God

What did they each actually mean? Just a bit of fun to illustrate a point. Myth, legend, fact, interpretation, belief = Holy Scriptures.

Hello PeterC,

For a priest of forty yrs. that’s the best you can do? People will use coke for the glory of God…How the writers wrote the Gospel was by the eyewitness account, exception of Luke who investigated the eyewitness accounts. For instance, the city of Jericho was destroyed several times… they tended to rebuild next to the rubble, so where one Gospels says, “Jesus leaving Jericho…” the other states, Jesus entering Jericho…"** can both be correc**t depending on where one sees it from, being Jericho itself was rebuilt in several areas very close to each other. You want to poke fun at something People could actually enter/ come and go/ leave from Jericho at the same time!

There is a book titled, ‘Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties’

New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
By: Gleason L. Archer Jr.
Zondervan / 2001 / Hardcover
Description:
Did God approve of Rahab’s lie? Why are many of the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament not literal? Does the Bible class abortion with murder? Where did Adam and Eve’s sons get their wives? Does 1 Corinthians 7:1016 authorize divorce for desertion?

The New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties gives you informed answers and includes an eye-opening look at linguistic, cultural, numerical, relational, and other considerations. Referencing both the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible, this helpful resource makes scholarly insights accessible to everyone.

Have fun with that for Biblical understanding!

 

[PeterClatworthy]

John,

Why are you so defensive? Have some fun. What did they actually mean? Interpret it. I know what they meant. I wrote it.

 

[PeterClatworthy]

Jonah and the Whale. History?

George Washington and the cherry tree. History?

 

[John_oxios]

Jonah and the Whale. History?

George Washington and the cherry tree. History?

Hello PeterC,

I hope you know, George Washington and the Cherry tree, didn’t quite make it into the scriptures!

Is Scripture Sacred or Not? Did Jonah really exist? Nineveh? I guess it really comes down to whether or not You believe Jesus or not,
Doesn’t Christ affirm the story of Jonah in Matthew?

Mat 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

In Jewish thought, Leviathan, was created for one purpose! To swallow Jonah.

Leviathan is mentioned 2 times in the psalms, once in Isaiah, Job 41:1,

Mat 12:41 The men of Nin’eveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here
You’re float like a butterfly to no avail, how about a few replies instead of MORE questions

Did Adam and Eve really exist???
Jesus said so, at
19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,

Hsa 6:7 But at Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.
Luk 3:38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Cr 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Ti 2:13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Jud 1:14 It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied…"

C’mon give me a hard one, discussed these ten yrs ago, with Muslims, Jehovah witnesses, Baptists, Pentecostals… all who have tried to shake my faith… one thing protestants, atheists and agnostics don’t realize about Catholics, “When they persecute us, they strengthen us.” I’ll read 100 commentaries, and it always comes down to the same thing, The RCC was right all along.
God bless,
John

 

[John_oxios]

John,

Why are you so defensive? Have some fun. What did they actually mean? Interpret it. I know what they meant. I wrote it.

Hello PeterC.
This IS fun to me!!!
As iron sharpens Iron! Been in the trench’s defending my Faith, as a Catholic Deacon who introduced me to Apologetics once told me, You’re going to miss this, He’s was right. I’ve been doing this on line since 2001, try www.studylightforums.org, and a few other sites, having trouble logging on to the Studylight site since I got this Mac several weeks ago though.