B
buffalo
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
Does this apply when he writes about other miracles?
- Status
Does this apply when he writes about other miracles?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## I’ve changed my text significantly - sorry
I keep reconsidering ##
Perhaps the Resurrection was just poetic. Even if we found Jesus’ bones it shouldn’t be the death knell of Christianity
That’s not my beleif but I’ve heard it. Beware of a faith that demythologises!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Does which part of what I said in that post apply ?
What is true of all events, is that God is in charge. The posts being written all over the world is of as much interst to God as the earthly life of His Son; God’s loving Providence encompasses the events at Fatima in 1917- whatever they were - as truly as it encompasses the battle of Hastings, the conversion of St. Paul, or the building of the great wall of China.No events in our life as a race are outside God’s Providence, whether one is Christopher Columbus, Stalin, King David, or an Iraqi orphan in Fallujah.
The point being, that there is no “sacred history” that can be tidily sliced off from “non-sacred history”. One of the reasons for this, is that many characters in the Bible are characters outside it too: they inhabit the “Biblical world”, and the “non-Biblical” world. Cyrius II of Persia, for example. He belongs to the Jewish experience of liberation from the Exile, and is mentioned in 2 Chronicles and Ezra. He is a “Bible character”.
He also belongs to the history of the last days of the independent Babylonian Empire - so he is of interest to the historian of sixth-century Babylonia.
For Herodotus, Cyrus is the man who destroyed the kingdom of Croesus king of Lydia in 546. Jerusalem and the Jews are not mentioned there in Herodotus’ Histories, Book 1.
And because these different histories share much in common - people, events, institutions, and anything else one can think of that is of historical interest at all - the specialists overlap too. Because what they study, overlaps. So what affects one discipline, affects others. Which is why scholars contribute to more than one of these disciplines.
So the Bible world, and those who study it, cannot be cut off neatly from other histories and other disciplines. Historians of the first-century Roman Empire have an interest in the NT, because Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Nero, all belong to both worlds. The study of the Gospels is common ground for the students of Roman history, Second Temple Judaism, Scripture scholars, and many more students ansd specialists.
This does not mean that the student of the Greek wars with Persia who read Herodotus will be interested in the OT or in Old Persian or in the earliest days of Greek culture; but it sdoes mean, that the dividing line between the Biblical world and other worlds - Greek, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, Elamite, Canaanite, Phoenician, Assyrian, Sumerian, Arabian, Edomite, etc. - cannot be drawn neatly; these worlds all coincide at various points in the Bible, as do others. They interpenetrate, because they share common ground.
Countries & histories not in the Bible, don’t have this same relation to the Bible world. Britain is not important to the Bible, it is related to the NT only because Rome unites both. Yet Britain is as important to God as any other countrey - because they all matter to Him; the Philistines as much as the Israelites. The experience of the human race which we call history is essentially indivisible, in time and space. “Bible history” is a privileged segment of it, which is indivisible from it.
So one can say of one lot of history, “This is not Bible history”; of another, “Parts of this coincide with the Bible”; of a third, “this is fully Biblical history”. Britain, Rome, Judah, are exemples of each. But the distinction is not a hard and fast one - history is not a branch of geometry.
And neither is the action of God in His world. This has many consequences. That action, is one and simple - it seems multiple only because we are not metaphysically simple. In a sense, nothing is supernatural or natural - these categories are there to help us focus our thinking on the simplicity of the Divine Act, and of the diversity of the beings acted on.
And neither is the study of the Bible a branch of geometry. This too has many consequences. ##
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
John of Woking:
The OT (and the NT) is full of demythologisation.
Some examples:
plague
sun
moon
wine
sea
death
dawn
the morning star
as proper names are, respectively, the Divine beings
This was just one way in which Israel reduced gods, to non-gods. The malakhim, “messengers/angels”, in Genesis 18 would have been at home in Canaanite religion, and are comparable figures to the two beings who go down to the underworld with the goddess Inanna in lines 217-225 of the poem telling of her descent thither.
Another way, was to parody or distort their names:
The value of this is, that it helps one to see how Israel was both influenced by its neighbours, and how it made use of ideas that threatened its faith by demythologising or otherwise transforming those ideas. There are very many examples of both the influences, and, of its creativity in dealing with them.
And this ability to deal with an unwelcoming environment, continued in the Church. So it is of considerable interest for apolgetics to see how Israel coped with its culture. We are not talking about mere dead antiquarianism: to see how the ideas of Israel’s neighbour affected Israel, helps us to see, in considerable detail, how the OT was affected by its environment; and how these OT ideas influenced the NT and its presentation of the Church’s faith in Christ.
There may not seem to be much in common between a seraph as painted by Fra Angelico; the Four living creatures and the 24 elders of Revelation 4; Isaiah 6.3. Numbers 21; and the twin serpent-goddesses who protected the Pharaoh in battle, or the messenger-gods of Canaanite religion - but the connection is there all right.
Angelology in the Church is only one of a host of things in our experience as Christians today which can be greatly illuminated by knowing something about how the contents of the Bible came to develop into the Bible as we have it today. And a great deal of what can be known today, was simply not available even 200 years ago.
This great wealth of information is not only riveting in itself, it is also very helpful in helping appreciation of the detail in which God works; as St. Irenaeus says, “Nothing is without significance for God” - even if it is outside the Bible, and among the neighbours of the Chosen People. Everything should be a means to help us grow nearer to God - not least, the study of the remote past. ##
Perhaps the Resurrection was just poetic. Even if we found Jesus’ bones it shouldn’t be the death knell of Christianity
What is wrong with demythologisation ?
The Life of Christ is the Supreme Myth, in many ways. I think there is a point at which the distinction between history & myth becomes artificial. Both words have several meanings.The OT (and the NT) is full of demythologisation.
Some examples:
plague
sun
moon
wine
sea
death
dawn
the morning star
as proper names are, respectively, the Divine beings
- Reshep
- Shemesh
- Yareah
- Tirosh
- Yamm
- Mot
- Shachar
- Helel
This was just one way in which Israel reduced gods, to non-gods. The malakhim, “messengers/angels”, in Genesis 18 would have been at home in Canaanite religion, and are comparable figures to the two beings who go down to the underworld with the goddess Inanna in lines 217-225 of the poem telling of her descent thither.
Another way, was to parody or distort their names:
- Ramman “Thunderer” becomes rimmon the pomegranate
- Baal-zebul = Baal the Prince = Baal-zebub = “Lord” of flies
- Jerub-ba’al =(Gideon) contends with Ba’al] becomes Jerub-bosheth; bosheth = shame
- Ishbaal’s name = “man/servant of Ba’al” becomes Ishbosheth
The value of this is, that it helps one to see how Israel was both influenced by its neighbours, and how it made use of ideas that threatened its faith by demythologising or otherwise transforming those ideas. There are very many examples of both the influences, and, of its creativity in dealing with them.
And this ability to deal with an unwelcoming environment, continued in the Church. So it is of considerable interest for apolgetics to see how Israel coped with its culture. We are not talking about mere dead antiquarianism: to see how the ideas of Israel’s neighbour affected Israel, helps us to see, in considerable detail, how the OT was affected by its environment; and how these OT ideas influenced the NT and its presentation of the Church’s faith in Christ.
There may not seem to be much in common between a seraph as painted by Fra Angelico; the Four living creatures and the 24 elders of Revelation 4; Isaiah 6.3. Numbers 21; and the twin serpent-goddesses who protected the Pharaoh in battle, or the messenger-gods of Canaanite religion - but the connection is there all right.
Angelology in the Church is only one of a host of things in our experience as Christians today which can be greatly illuminated by knowing something about how the contents of the Bible came to develop into the Bible as we have it today. And a great deal of what can be known today, was simply not available even 200 years ago.
This great wealth of information is not only riveting in itself, it is also very helpful in helping appreciation of the detail in which God works; as St. Irenaeus says, “Nothing is without significance for God” - even if it is outside the Bible, and among the neighbours of the Chosen People. Everything should be a means to help us grow nearer to God - not least, the study of the remote past. ##
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
Was the Resurrection mythical. What about the Ascenscion. A word of advice…Strive to be scholarly
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
So far in the lead…Evolution is a hoax…Interesting I am agnostic when it comes to evolution. I must admit In my heart of hearts I wouldn’t be surprised If when I died I found out it was one big lie.
P
patg
Guest
John of Woking:
Pat
Yeah, its been a pretty good discussion topic even though only about 50 people bothered to vote, which seems a little stange. Not something most care about I guess. Historical analysis is a pretty serious hobby of mine so I jump in whenever I see an appropriate topic.
Pat
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
There’s a lot of well-intentioned discussion, somewhat heated at times, to be sure.
Our Catholic Church accepted the account of scripture as literally true for many centuries. Some trace the beginnings of doubt to the Enlightenment, wherein begins the scientific investigation of scripture.
**I feel that our basic beliefs and attitudes are to be based on scripture as it is written. As John Paul II said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, people have little or no faith because they reject the way in which God has revealed Himself. And, Jesus said that no one comes to Him unless the Father calls a person. There is nothing we have but the hope that more would believe and the command of Jesus to preach the Gospel.
Jesus said to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe all that He has commanded. I think it would be more Christian to study this and act on it.**
Our Catholic Church accepted the account of scripture as literally true for many centuries. Some trace the beginnings of doubt to the Enlightenment, wherein begins the scientific investigation of scripture.
**I feel that our basic beliefs and attitudes are to be based on scripture as it is written. As John Paul II said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, people have little or no faith because they reject the way in which God has revealed Himself. And, Jesus said that no one comes to Him unless the Father calls a person. There is nothing we have but the hope that more would believe and the command of Jesus to preach the Gospel.
Jesus said to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe all that He has commanded. I think it would be more Christian to study this and act on it.**
M
miguel
Guest
John of Woking:
I don’t really have a dog in this race either. I don’t think Genesis rules evolution out as a process that God could have used in the creation. But it certainly rules out any notion that matter created itself or inanimate matter formed itself into life. These notions are absurd anyway. My concern with macroevolution (i.e., the notion that over time one species can evolve into another species) is scientific. Darwin proposed his theory before anything was known about genes. “Like begets like” was (and still is in my opinion) one of the strongest scientific objections to macroevolution. We don’t see any evidence of species becoming other species in nature. (What I mean by that is that all species today beget the same species.) Darwin’s answer was that evolution proceeds at a pace too slow to measure. But if you can’t measure it, you can’t prove it. Reputable scientists have also pointed out that genetic mutations, whenever they are observed in nature, are always a detrement never a benefit to an organism. This seems to contradict Darwin’s idea that more complex species evolved from less complex species. The required mutations would have had to have been a benefit, something we don’t observe in nature. And we now know from Genetics why “like begets like”. The genetic code doesn’t allow anything else. If it did, we’d see it. This is why in my mind macroevolution is still unproven. But I do keep an open mind. The resolution of these apparent contradictions between different branches of science is where I tend to tune in. Microevolution (i.e., changes within species as they adapt to their environment) is proven.
Hey Sir Jon,So far in the lead…Evolution is a hoax…Interesting I am agnostic when it comes to evolution. I must admit In my heart of hearts I wouldn’t be surprised If when I died I found out it was one big lie.
I don’t really have a dog in this race either. I don’t think Genesis rules evolution out as a process that God could have used in the creation. But it certainly rules out any notion that matter created itself or inanimate matter formed itself into life. These notions are absurd anyway. My concern with macroevolution (i.e., the notion that over time one species can evolve into another species) is scientific. Darwin proposed his theory before anything was known about genes. “Like begets like” was (and still is in my opinion) one of the strongest scientific objections to macroevolution. We don’t see any evidence of species becoming other species in nature. (What I mean by that is that all species today beget the same species.) Darwin’s answer was that evolution proceeds at a pace too slow to measure. But if you can’t measure it, you can’t prove it. Reputable scientists have also pointed out that genetic mutations, whenever they are observed in nature, are always a detrement never a benefit to an organism. This seems to contradict Darwin’s idea that more complex species evolved from less complex species. The required mutations would have had to have been a benefit, something we don’t observe in nature. And we now know from Genetics why “like begets like”. The genetic code doesn’t allow anything else. If it did, we’d see it. This is why in my mind macroevolution is still unproven. But I do keep an open mind. The resolution of these apparent contradictions between different branches of science is where I tend to tune in. Microevolution (i.e., changes within species as they adapt to their environment) is proven.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Getting back - not before time ! - to the topic of the thread: believing in a world-wide flood is easy if one has no idea about the rotation of the earth or the weight of water, say. A worldwide flood is physically impossible - and it is far from clear that the sacred writer meant to be understood as asserting that there was a worldwide flood. Even if he was understood as meaning that.
It’s one thing to be pre-critical and pre-scientific in thios or that respect, as European Christians were for many centuries. But we can’t be expected - surely ? - to hold the same view of the world as they did, who lived in a world of which far less was known: we can’t ignore gravity as the Fathers might be able to - they did not reject Newton, because Newton was after their time. But if we have to believe as they did, we are implicitly being required to reject the physics, astronomy, biology, mathematics, chemistry, geography, history, and so on, that they did not know, so did not take into account, and either reject or accept. 
##It predates then - Frederick II of Sicily was reputed to an unbeliever (perhaps because he was very tolerant of different religions)
****
It depends what you mean
**Jesus said to make disciples of all nations and teach them to observe all that He has commanded. I think it would be more Christian to study this and act on it.**
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Hi Miguel,
Hope you are keeping well.
It seems a lot of people dismiss all the arguments of creationists without actually answering their specific questions. I subsribe to a pro-evolution Catholic magazine here in the UK which is strictly orthodox yet I also have read a lot of the anti-evolution books published by Tan books and I have to say I am constantly swinging one way and then the other. What I find irritating is that creationists are dismissed as stupid without a valid hearing. At least that is the case here in the UK.
M
miguel
Guest
John of Woking:
I am irritated by the same attitude here. As a non-expert in these matters, it’s difficult to form an opinion. The arguements get very technical. And without the proper training, it’s difficult to detect fallacies, etc. And that’s what really bugs me. We have all these secularist journalists and politicians, most non-experts themselves, willing to take the side that they think supports their agenda so that they can call their opponents “anti-scientific”, etc. The don’t want to give a fair hearing to reasonable objections, especially in the schools. The whole situation raises red flags for me. But my basic philosophy is that the Church has nothing to fear from the legitimate findings of science. Bad science, as well as bad religion, is another matter. They will never convince me of the absurd notion that inanimate matter formed itself into life.
I am keeping well and I hope you are too. Actually my daughter was in a car accident so I’ve been a bit pre-occupied. She’ll be fine, thank God.
I am irritated by the same attitude here. As a non-expert in these matters, it’s difficult to form an opinion. The arguements get very technical. And without the proper training, it’s difficult to detect fallacies, etc. And that’s what really bugs me. We have all these secularist journalists and politicians, most non-experts themselves, willing to take the side that they think supports their agenda so that they can call their opponents “anti-scientific”, etc. The don’t want to give a fair hearing to reasonable objections, especially in the schools. The whole situation raises red flags for me. But my basic philosophy is that the Church has nothing to fear from the legitimate findings of science. Bad science, as well as bad religion, is another matter. They will never convince me of the absurd notion that inanimate matter formed itself into life.
M
miguel
Guest
Hey John,
I read a couple articles yesterday pertaining to the current state of biblical scholarship. Thought you might be interested…
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp
crisismagazine.com/november2004/wiker.htm
Mike
I read a couple articles yesterday pertaining to the current state of biblical scholarship. Thought you might be interested…
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9609fea1.asp
crisismagazine.com/november2004/wiker.htm
Mike
M
MichaelTDoyle
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
For you a star means a glowing ball of hot gas and fusion reactions that are really hot.
For me, it’s a light in the sky at night when I look skyward.
Both are stars in a literary and a historical sense. Both can describe an actual event with the word star. By jamming a scientific meaning of the word star rather than a phenomological one I think you are forcing yourself to read the bible in errancy :b
Historians are wrong
Theologians are wrong
Scientists are wrong
Literary buffs are wrong.
Physicists are wrong
…sometimes…
All these things get reworked in every generation. It’s good to strive to understand, but really important to do it prayerfully.
N
New_Heart
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
Well then explain why first of all the Bible does not contradict itself. God does not lie, cannot lie and the devil is the father of lies. Hmmm. Secondly if anyone knows anything about language and analogies, there is a vast difference between history and analogy. Jesus used parables to teach a historical truth and/or God-given commandments. He also used metaphors and similes to get across spiritual truths that were most times missed by the people who should have understood them, namely the Pharisees and Sadduccees, and others in teaching roles.
I firmly believe that when God called us to be discerning of so-called science he was referring to all those who hold to erroneous fables and myths. I also believe and as some knowledgeable teachers of Scripture believe that our current history is catching up with what the Bible said all those years ago. God only gives us so much light at a time; as His day approaches more and more of the what were then far future prophesies are becoming clearer every passing day. That is why Jesus said to “watch and be ready for you know not what day or hour the Son of Man will appear”.
B
Brad
Guest
Sure. And the Noah story was written with the historical genre.
It is important not to miss the teachings by trying to prove that the some books are not historical - such as trying to refute the concept of original sin by saying Genesis is a myth.
B
Brad
Guest
John of Woking:
No. It means that it is all true within its literary genre.
B
Brad
Guest
Nonsense. Simply because we cannot prove the flood, it is not history? Can you prove that any great historical figure that lived prior to 1500 existed outside of written material or “history” regarding them?
Supernatural events cannot be history? Preposterous. Science says that supernatural events cannot be science because they are outside the scientific method. You cannot extend this to history. History is not science. History is what happened. The Gospels and what Jesus did recorded events of history. Josephus even recorded his miracles as having occurred and their were no refutations of them actually happening - the Jews simply attributed them to evil spirits - but did not discount them occuring.
You cannot define hisory to be what you want it to be. What happened is what happened.
B
Brad
Guest
Ok. Blah Blah Blah.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? If He did, it was a miracle and all His other miracles were certainly possible. Was He God? If He was then he certainly could perform miracles.
If He did not perform miracles and if He was not really God, you are following a liar or a man who was insane.
- Status