Sure this has been discussed before but

[patg]

Those who say they were imaginary are called “liberals”.

The Traditional Catholic approach is that those stories are for the most part entirely historically true, and each of those people were actual people who lived in Old Testament times.

This shows complete ignorance of what the Church teaches.

 

[scottm]

Some parts of the Bible were meant to convey history, but most were meant to describe man’s relationship with God. They weren’t written as history and shouldn’t be read as history, in my opinion.

So, you believe that Zeus and Apollo were real too? What you’re saying about the Bible can be said about Greek/Roman myths. Same. I can say the exact same thing, and make exactly the same argument for faith in Zeus’ lightening bolts that you can make about your mythological Jehovah/Yahweh. It won’t be any different.

Now throw in some NT myths: Jesus didn’t really go to the Temple at age 12. Someone made that up later on to make us feel good about our faith in Jesus. Someone made up some stories about Hercules too, to make us feel good about Greek gods. Jesus didn’t really turn water into wine at a real wedding. Someone made up that story to make us feel good about Jesus. Zeus and Hera didn’t do whatever-whatever either. Someone made up those stories to make us feel good about worshipping them. Jesus didn’t actually walk on water. Someone made up that story to make us feel good about worshipping him. Ditto ditto ditto the Greek/Roman myths about mythological gods. They didn’t actually do the things in those stories either. Someone made up legends to make us feel good about worshipping them.

Whatever you say about the Bible I can say about other myths. There won’t be any difference.

“The important thing is not whether Jesus or Yahweh did ____. The important thing is whether you have faith that he could.”

“The important thing is not whether Zeus or Hera or even Baal or Marduk (from the Old Testament) did ____. The important thing is whether you have faith that he or she could.”

Those statements are exactly the same. Not different.

Scott, to suggest that those who believe that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical must neccesarily believe that Jesus never lived simply makes no sense whatsoever.

On the contrary, it makes all the difference in the world. If the Bible stories did not happen then God (either Old Testament or New Testament) did not interact with real people in real time and place. He didn’t do it. But the entire religion of Christianity rests or falls on the truth of whether or not God interacted with real people in real time and place. We have a huge problem now when we say that people made up stories about God’s interactions with people.

If Adam and Eve really existed the story must have been written down thousands of years after it happened.

When Pope Peter said “all scripture is God-breathed” he was talking about Genesis.

More importantly, the central message of the Gospel is that God chose to give us His only Son, and that the Son became Man, lived with us, taught us, died for us, and rose in glory. So the story of Jesus’ incarnation, death, and resurrection is central to the Gospel story.

Indeed. So why claim that the foundation for this is a made-up legend? That’s my point.

Real faith has nothing to do with whether or not a person named Adam walked around Mesopotamia 6 or 7 thousand years ago. Real faith requires us to read the Bible for the purpose it was written, which is to provide guidance on living our life with God, and to apply those teachings to our daily lives. That takes real faith.

That’s what the priests of Baal and of Marduk in the OT said. What separates your faith from theirs? What makes your faith any more real than theirs? What makes your faith any more beneficial than theirs? I guess Elijah was on the wrong team when he denied that Baal was real, because hey, they had legends too. They had stories. Great stories. And their priests loved their stories and said exactly what you’re saying: “It doesn’t matter if these stories about Baal are real. What matters is that the Baal stories give you faith in Baal for today.”

 

[inthecloud]

I believe the problem is that fundies and some traditionals catholics confund biblical unerrancy with biblical literality.
And forget that in the case of the Catholic Church there is a Magisterium to sort out which part of the Bible are moral mesages that actually sound better taken symbolicaly and what should be taken literaly.

 

[TMC]

Scott,

I am trying to have a productive conversation on this topic, but its difficult when you do things like suggest my position on scripture, which is accepted by the Church as valid, is the same as believing in Zeus. Where the heck does that come from? I have read your post a couple of times and I can’t make sense of it.

If you are trying to be insulting by suggesting I am somehow like the pagans – 1) some pagans believed in the literal truth of their myths and some did not, so I guess we are both like pagans in that regard, 2) what does that have to do with what I DO profess to believe, which is codifed in our Profession of Faith (nothing about Zeus in there, I checked), and 3) I am a lot harder to insult than that

Nothing I have said has given any indication that I do not believe in the Word as professed by the Church. The fact that you and I have differing opinions on how the historical accuracy of the biblical texts, or the lack of same, should fit into our understanding of scripture does not change that one jot.

Also, why put words in my mouth? Its just impolite. I have never said that anything in the bible is “made up.” “Made up” implies a lack of genuiness, a fraud. To say that the purpose of the story of the Tower of Babel is to explain the danger of reaching for equality with God, and to warn against the hubris that inevitably accompanies human accomplishment, is not to say that the story is “made up.” It is a divinely inspired lesson that should guide our lives today. Whether or not there was such a tower is simply not important to me. I don’t deny it, I don’t affirm it, I really don’t care one way or the other. Obviously it does mean something to you. Fine. The Church says that viewpoint is OK. Mine is OK, too. What is wrong with that?

 

[adrift]

These quotes are from the Pontifical Biblical Commission 1994

Pontifical Biblical Commission
For those who would like to see this quote in context.

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that “no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people” (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, “Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are” (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

 

[SemperFidelis]

An even better question is what bearing the literal truth of the Flood or Babel or any of the other events in Genesis has on your faith. What does THAT accomplish for you?

No an even better question is what it does for you? You failed to answer that question. What it does for me is tell everyone (Catholics, protestants, atheists, etc.) that the Bible is secure from error (which has been the unaminious teaching of the Church since the very beginning), and that the Church established by Christ believes it so. When you start ripping apart certain parts of scripture, you open up a can of worms. The next generation rips apart a little more, until comes a day when the Bible just becomes entertaining reading and nothing else.

My faith is important to me in the here and now as a guide to living my life here and now. I do not concern myself with how the world began, or with how the world will end. I believe that the Catholic faith is focused on how to live our lives today.

I am not arguing about how the world began. I am arguing about stories in the Bible that some people regard as false simply because they lack the faith to believe in them. There is no way science or history can prove that Noah and the Ark never happened. Yet people seem to dismiss the story so easily, because they lack the faith to believe that that story is possible, which in reality is denying the fact that you think God has the ability to flood the world, or allow Jonah to survive in the belly of a whale if he wants to.

It was mentioned that the Church’s teaching on the interpretation of Scripture are a bar to conversion of some Protestants. That is because the Church does not believe what fundamentalist Protestants believe. Many Christian denominations obsess about the literal inerrency of Scripture and spend their days arguing about dinosaurs on the one end and millenilism and rapture on the other. I believe that Catholicism is, and should be, focused on living our lives out today.

How can we live our lives today, if we don’t know what our heritage and traditions are and where they came from? There was a reason the early Church Fathers believed what they did about Sacred Scripture. They were there, we certaintly weren’t. God provided the information he did to them so that they could teach the faithful what was correct, and that those teachings would be passed on. Many theologians today argue that they were wrong in many aspects, when they don’t even have to. Why would they deny the reality of a person named Noah and his story? What does it accomplish? I’ll tell you what it accomplishes. It accomplishes the undermining of the faith and the Bible.

On a side note: Catholic fundamentalism is really just called orthodoxy, protestant fundamentalism is way different. I know, I used to be one. I am not arguing that we interpret scripture the way protestant fundamentalists do, but that we read them in the light of what our Catholic Tradition dictates.

I repeat, belief in the historicaly inerrency of the bible has nothing to do with faith.

It most absolutely does, since the faith is based around it. You reject certain aspects of the Bible because “scholarly and educated” theologians say so, when there is no actual reason why you need to reject them in the first place. Why do you reject the story of Noah? Because it doesn’t pertain to your salvation? How do you know it does not?

 

[SemperFidelis]

This shows complete ignorance of what the Church teaches.

Can you prove him wrong on his accusation?

 

[SemperFidelis]

And I cannot understand why the funamentalist Catholic wants to insist that the Church is wrong and they are right.

For the same reason you come on here and try to prove that your right.

 

[patg]

Can you prove him wrong on his accusation?

There is so much wrong with it that I think he (and those agreeing with him) would be best served by reading something like “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald D. Witherup, S.S. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, of course) which directly addresses his fundamentalism. Another good practical source (which is used in many Catholic adult ed scripture classes) is “And God Said What?” by Margaret Ralph.

We have discussed this topic in dozens (if not hundreds) of threads here and none of us can be assumed to speak with any significant authority on the subject. It is too easy to keep throwing out endless quotations from church documents which seem to support our personal view when there are true authorities who have created excellent teaching resources on this subject.

I would also recommend the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, such as: **“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, **“Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, and J. Fitzmyer’s, “The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, all available online.

 

[turtle18]

Why do you accept all the miracles in the NT without any scientific proof or historical evidence yet question every single one in the OT? From a “scientific” standpoint what is more incredulous, a dead man being risen from the dead or the world being flooded? A dead man being risen from the dead or someone being able to survive in the belly of the whale for three days? A dead man being risen from the dead or humans building a tower up into the sky–or is that an achievement only “modern” man is capable of yet we still can’t figure out how the pyramids were built?

Why must you have scientific evidence or historical proof of how the first man was created if you need none of the Resurrection? I honestly do not see the difference. Everything up until the time of Jesus was a story to teach us His Grace and Truth and then all of a sudden God decided to start working miracles? That makes NO sense.

If you don’t believe the story of the Tower of Babel, why do you believe the story of the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. It is the exact same story, except in the NT, God’s reason for doing it is the exact opposite from the OT. So in the OT it is a story but in the NT it isn’t because there is a different purpose?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

There is so much wrong with it that I think he (and those agreeing with him) would be best served by reading something like “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald D. Witherup, S.S. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, of course) which directly addresses his fundamentalism. Another good practical source (which is used in many Catholic adult ed scripture classes) is “And God Said What?” by Margaret Ralph.

We have discussed this topic in dozens (if not hundreds) of threads here and none of us can be assumed to speak with any significant authority on the subject. It is too easy to keep throwing out endless quotations from church documents which seem to support our personal view when there are true authorities who have created excellent teaching resources on this subject.

I would also recommend the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, such as: **“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, **“Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, and J. Fitzmyer’s, “The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, all available online.

With the exception of Johan, if you turn Adam, Eve and Abraham into fictional characters that logically undermines key doctrines of the faith. If Abraham was a myth then “the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob” has some serious mental problems.

My only point is that there is a aggressive campaign to mythologize much of the Bible on the grounds that the people back then were too simple minded and unenlightened. I take the hard (traditional) line that everything should FIRST be taken as true in the truest sense, and then on a case by case basis determine what few spots were not to be literal history but merely a story with a moral lesson.

I dont condemn anyone for believing Jonah wasnt true history on the basis that that specific story doesnt lead to disastrous doctrinal ramifications as Adam, Abraham, Miracles, etc can. That being said you have no grounds to dismiss it as myth and I believe that is a slippery slope.

On the flip side there is clearly an intolerant streak from those who consider much of the Bible to by myth and look down upon traditional Catholics as simple minded folk and “behind the times”.

There are two extremes here, not one, this is not “Fundamentalism” vs “Rational Thinkers”.

As far as the “Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur” go, those dont mean anything anymore considering all the garbage that many so called “Catholics” put out (but that is going off topic).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why do you accept all the miracles in the NT without any scientific proof or historical evidence yet question every single one in the OT? From a “scientific” standpoint what is more incredulous, a dead man being risen from the dead or the world being flooded? A dead man being risen from the dead or someone being able to survive in the belly of the whale for three days? A dead man being risen from the dead or humans building a tower up into the sky–or is that an achievement only “modern” man is capable of yet we still can’t figure out how the pyramids were built?

Why must you have scientific evidence or historical proof of how the first man was created if you need none of the Resurrection? I honestly do not see the difference. Everything up until the time of Jesus was a story to teach us His Grace and Truth and then all of a sudden God decided to start working miracles? That makes NO sense.

If you don’t believe the story of the Tower of Babel, why do you believe the story of the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles. It is the exact same story, except in the NT, God’s reason for doing it is the exact opposite from the OT. So in the OT it is a story but in the NT it isn’t because there is a different purpose?

“Modern man” cant even get a 7-day forecast correct most of the time.

 

[SemperFidelis]

There is so much wrong with it that I think he (and those agreeing with him) would be best served by reading something like “Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know” by Ronald D. Witherup, S.S. (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, of course) which directly addresses his fundamentalism. Another good practical source (which is used in many Catholic adult ed scripture classes) is “And God Said What?” by Margaret Ralph.

We have discussed this topic in dozens (if not hundreds) of threads here and none of us can be assumed to speak with any significant authority on the subject. It is too easy to keep throwing out endless quotations from church documents which seem to support our personal view when there are true authorities who have created excellent teaching resources on this subject.

I would also recommend the documents of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, such as: **“The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, **“Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, and J. Fitzmyer’s, “The Biblical Commission’s Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, all available online.

You didn’t at all answer the question I posed to you. You quoted Catholic Dude who said this:

Those who say they were imaginary are called “liberals”.

The Traditional Catholic approach is that those stories are for the most part entirely historically true, and each of those people were actual people who lived in Old Testament times.

Now what in his quote is wrong? The Traditional approach to scripture is that stories such Noah and the Ark, Jonah and the Whale, etc. are completely true. Since those are the Traditional views, anyone who doesn’t hold to this approach is holding liberal views of scripture. Just because historical critical theologians say it is okay to interpret scripture a specific way doesn’t mean it is right, or that it is the Traditional approach to scripture. Put the authors of the PBC document back in time when Leo XIII was Pope and came out with his encyclical Providentissimus Deus and see if he would have been happy with their methods. I think not.

Also, an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is obviously not what it once was. Liberal Bishops today occasionely give these out to works that are not in line with Church teaching, so I would take many things you read in some books with a grain of salt.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Traditional Catholics see that denial of what’s written in the Bible is a very slippery slope. The next generation might go even further. Some protestants don’t join the Church because of this. They were raised that the Bible is free from error and don’t want to join a Church where some of the people and theologians argue that some stories were just made up. Traditional Catholics understand the Bible the way they do, because that is the way the Bible was understood for 1900 years. Things changed after Vatican II when the Church started to let theologians use the historical-critical method (which is a scam in itself), but just because some theologians argue something else doesn’t mean it is right. Examples of this can been seen in liberation theory, etc. That is why we have tradition to help us interpret the Bible, some however just ignore that and let their pride get in the way thinking that they know better than a Church that has stood for almost 2000 years. By the way, it is required that you believe there were two original people, ADAM AND EVE.

**Things changed a long time before Vatican II. Aquinas used Aristotilian logic in his works and many questioned that at the time. Interpretation has changed as more manuscripts became available and other scientific techniques inabled dating and other methods of investigation. When you suggest that we should stay put, you basically deny continuing revelation it seems to me. Aren’t we expected to gain deeper understanding over time? **

A better question to ask yourself is why is it important for you not to believe in Adam, Johah, or Noah? What does it accomplish for you? What does it solve? What point does it prove? What bearing does it have on your faith (in my opinion not a good one)? It takes faith to believe in the Catholic Church and her teachings, that is not any different than believing in a story about a man and his ark, or a man and a whale, even though the story might seem far-fetched to you. The story about Jesus’ miracles seemed far-fetched to some as well, but you wouldn’t deny those are real would you? You just have to remember that the stories are written in the Word of God and no one has ever been able to disprove them.

Why believe in something that has no effect upon my faith? Just to believe? When such belief causes the world to reject me as silly. The Church loses its Moral authority when we are regarded (which we clearly are not now)as too narrowminded to accept what science makes clear. Why do you think the Church finally retracted its statements about Galileo? Because people joked about it. It made the Church appear rediculous. The Church is not rediculous. It has NEVER said scripture was unerring, but to matters of faith and salvation.

Pontifical Biblical Commission
For those who would like to see this quote in context.

sorry, I didn’t realize that I had not entered the entire citation. It was to the “Interpretation of the Bible”. I should not have said just Pontifical Biblical Commission. I was not out of context…I was in a different statement completely. sorry.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Why believe in something that has no effect upon my faith?

The Assumption of St. Mary doesn’t have to do with your salvation or your faith either, but would you reject that too?

Things changed a long time before Vatican II. Aquinas used Aristotilian logic in his works and many questioned that at the time. Interpretation has changed as more manuscripts became available and other scientific techniques inabled dating and other methods of investigation. When you suggest that we should stay put, you basically deny continuing revelation it seems to me. Aren’t we expected to gain deeper understanding over time?

These things are changes in Church practices, these things can change over time. What you were talking about in your OP are changes in Church Dogma, which are unchanging, as are as the subjects of women priests, conctraception, etc.

When such belief causes the world to reject me as silly.

The world is materialistic and evil. If the world rejects you for belief in the unerring Word of God, then so be it.

The Church loses its Moral authority when we are regarded (which we clearly are not now)as too narrowminded to accept what science makes clear.

What does science make clear? Evolution? Hardly. Narrowmindedness is nothing more than knowing that their are absolute truths, and that you adhere to them. What if someone in the Church argued that Jesus was not divine, would you allow that, in the name of progress?

It has NEVER said scripture was unerring

Actually it has.

 

[LilyM]

The Assumption of St. Mary doesn’t have to do with your salvation or your faith either, but would you reject that too?

Of course the Assumption and all the Marian dogmas have to do with both salvation AND faith. That’s why they’re dogma, that’s why all Catholics are bound to hold to them on pain of possibly mortal sin.

They have to do with Mary being the mother of Christ (God-made-man) and all that His inseparable combination of complete divinity and complete humanity entails.

If we want a relationship with Christ we’d better have as complete an understanding of Him as we can. Through Mary we can attain to truths about Him that otherwise may not be clear to us.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Of course the Assumption and all the Marian dogmas have to do with both salvation AND faith. That’s why they’re dogma, that’s why all Catholics are bound to hold to them on pain of possibly mortal sin.

They have to do with Mary being the mother of Christ (God-made-man) and all that His inseparable combination of complete divinity and complete humanity entails.

If we want a relationship with Christ we’d better have as complete an understanding of Him as we can. Through Mary we can attain to truths about Him that otherwise may not be clear to us.

Yes, I know that belief in the Assumption is required and that the rejection of it is a mortal sin. I personally believe in it, hence why I want to be Catholic, and I expect other Catholics too as well. My point was that there are many Catholics who reject parts of the Bible, because they have nothing to do about salvation (Noah, etc.). Since the Assumption of Mary has nothing directly to do with salvation (other then the fact it is required by the Church), some might reject it even though the Church defines it necessary to believe in, on pain of mortal sin, like how they reject many teachings of the Church ie: contraception.

 

[patg]

…

I agree with most of what you say - or at least enough that its not worth arguing over. I’m not sure I define liberal as the opposite of traditionalist unless you define traditionalist as one who never changes their beliefs regardless of new evidence or insights (or revelations…). We wouldn’t need a PBC or a Dei Verbum, etc if there was no point in developing and enhancing our understanding of scripture.
I’m sorry if I over-reacted - after many years here I have seen the term liberal used a synonym for evil anti-Christ heretic so often that I lose a little control.

As for proof, Dei Verbum clearly states that many truths are expressed in non-literal text, such as myth and legend; that the literary from is essential to understanding the truth, and that the literary form is not necessarily literally historic. This is relatively new, and I guess non-traditional but it does not change the truth in any way - it only defines the form in which the truth is presented.

Also, an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is obviously not what it once was. Liberal Bishops today occasionely give these out to works that are not in line with Church teaching, so I would take many things you read in some books with a grain of salt.

I’ve read statements like this before and I sometimes find it odd that some people here are so adamant that they follow the magesterium completely in all things and yet they chose to belittle a formal statement by a member of that magesterium when it applies to something they disagree with. I do the same thing, but then I’ve never said I follow the magesterium in all things. I’m just speaking in general here, not criticizing you.

 

[TMC]

I assume Turtle18’s last was directed at me… so this is an attempt at responding to that post and to similar sentiments.

This is part of what makes conversations like this so frustrating. I never said that I rejected all the miracles of the OT, or that I rejected any of them. I didn’t say I needed or wanted scientific or historical evidence of anything in any part of the Bible. Also, I explained in an earlier post on this thread why I find a big difference between the Genesis account and the Gospel.

My whole point is that the Bible is to be read both in the context in which it was written, and with an eye toward the purpose for which it was written. This is one of the reasons that the NT is different than the OT. This is not some radical or liberal or new age way of looking at scripture. It is the way the catechism instructs us to read scripture:

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. “Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

So what did the authors of Genesis wish to affirm? What literary genre was utilized? Was it written as history?

I believe that the different parts of Genesis were written for different reasons, but that generally they were written to explain various aspects of Creation and of God’s relationship and first covenant with man. They were not written to record history. Some may be historically accurate. Most probably have some kernal of historical truth. But recording history was not the intention of the authors, and not what I get out of the Bible. And nothing in the Church’s teachings is inconsistent with that.

OK, I think I have repeated all of the above at least once. I guess I am getting nowhere. Mind you, I am not trying to “win” anybody over to “my side,” just defending my right to maintain this entirely Catholic belief.

 

[scottm]

I am trying to have a productive conversation on this topic, but its difficult when you do things like suggest my position on scripture, which is accepted by the Church as valid, is the same as believing in Zeus. Where the heck does that come from? I have read your post a couple of times and I can’t make sense of it.

Posts 30 & 31 raise the rational of this. Think of it this way: Why do believe that a dead man rose from the grave? You could say “faith.” I’ll point you to the Moslem and Hindus and Buddhists and ask, why are you not one of them? They also have faith that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, and God talks to them, and their faith is every bit as sincere as yours. They’re certain that they’re getting messages from the divine, and wow, they’re messages contradict your alleged messages. You and they can’t both be right.

If you’re going to tell them that they should be Catholic, the burden is on you to come up with a reason why your messages from God are more accurate than theirs, and why your faith is more genuine than theirs.

Eventually you’ll tell me that you’re a Catholic, or at least a Christian of some sort, because your mom or your grandma or some other person told you to believe in Jesus. Great. That’s how I got my start. Now trace that back. The root of this human trail are characters in the book of Acts – allegedly. I say “allegedly” because everyone knows that dead men don’t rise from the grave. The whole story is stupid. So why do we believe it? Why did our ancestors believe John? And Matthew? And the rest?

Supposedly they believed John and Matthew (I pick them because they wrote the gospels) because supposedly these guys actually saw Jesus before and after his supposed death. But these alleged witnesses also say that Jesus walked on water. Pffft. Is it a legend? It’s a legend if the gospel writers had nothing real to record about Jesus’ life. After 3 years with Jesus they couldn’t come up with a single true event that would get their point across, so to make their point they invented this legend. Right? They say also that he turned water into wine. Pffft. Legend? Did they actually have anything true to report about Jesus’ life, or were they forced to make this up to serve a point? Multiplying food – same. Was it invented to serve a point because they had no true stories to tell? And a cursed a fig tree? After three years with Jesus did they have any true stories to tell that would serve the writer’s purpose, or did they have to invent a fictional story?

If they’re legends then why believe in Jesus at? No historical foundation = no reason to believe = the entire human pathway from Peter and John and Matthew up to my grandmother is ruined. The Moslem faith has a better foundation in history because the Moslems deny this unfounded legend of a resurrection. We should be Moslems if we’re going to say that after 3 years with Jesus the NT writers had no true events to report that would get their points across. The claim of legends is an admission that Jesus didn’t do anything worth reporting.

Now continue working backwards through the Old Testament. We have no historical claim to our religion —> we have no claim to truth above that of other religions. We cannot say that the other religions are wrong, because we cannot say that our alleged God actually did anything in the past in the actual lives of actual human beings.