Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neil_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neil_Anthony said:
According to this poll, more Catholics believe in that Jesus was born of a Virgin then believe Jesus rose from the dead. I sure wasn’t expecting that.
Click to expand...
That is not true at all - you didn’t ask what Catholics believed, you asked “Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?” Most Catholics have faith and faith allows one to believe in many things for which there is no formal historical or scientific basis. I can believe in the resurrection and at the same time know that there is absolutely no way to make a formal historical analysis which reasonably proves it occured.
Interesting that 40% take the creation accounts literally. I wonder how that compares to the what Catholics as a whole believe.
Click to expand...
I assume you know this is not a representative sample of the Church as a whole…
 
patg said:
That is not true at all - you didn’t ask what Catholics believed, you asked “Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?” Most Catholics have faith and faith allows one to believe in many things for which there is no formal historical or scientific basis. I can believe in the resurrection and at the same time know that there is absolutely no way to make a formal historical analysis which reasonably proves it occured.
Click to expand...
You know very well that in this context “historical” means that something actually happened. It’s not a technical term as used by historians, its a term used by the general public which means it is a true story.
patg said:
I assume you know this is not a representative sample of the Church as a whole…
Click to expand...
I’m not sure… I’ve met a range of Catholics in real life, and it’s hard to judge what the ‘average’ Catholic is like because people tend to surround themselves with similar people and be unaware of the other groups around them. I know conservative catholics who don’t accept evolution, and I know liberal catholics who mock the ‘old-fashioned pre-Vatican II notion’ that sex on the first date is wrong, and think Jesus probably slept with Mary Magdalene. Who knows which group is average.
 
SemperFidelis said:
“Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day he was taken up into heaven (cf. Acts 1:1–2)” Dei Verbum 19

It’s clear historical criticism contradicts the interpretation that has been taught for 2000 years. I find it interesting that we have just all of a sudden completely done away with that. More and more I see the reasons previous Popes wouldn’t allow the teaching of historical criticism. It is dangerous for the soul.
Click to expand...

It can be - so can salt, if given to a baby in large amounts. Are we to abolish salt ? What can’t be ? Who is more dangerous than Christ ?​

And I can’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would wan’t to prove that parts of the Bible are false, especially when they call themselves Christian.
Click to expand...

That is not being said - or, not in that over-simplified sense. Someone who says that knows nothing of what he’s criticising. 😦​

You aren’t allowing for the kinds of distinctions that need to be made. It is entirely understandable that some don’t have the patience or the ability or the cast of mind that inclines them to this type of theology; Christianity would be very dull if we had identical abilities - but that is no reason to forbid it to to those who have.

Those of who do find these things helpful are not stopping those who know nothing & care less for this perfectly Catholic & (according to a Pope) “indispensable” method of Biblical study pursue types of theologies they clear prefer - so why are they so keen to forbid us what the Popes now at least do not ? This is 2007, not 1907; a lot has happened in the Church & among scholars since the days of Pius X and the Popes are far more welcoming to this method - now over 200 years old - than they were. I wish some folk would stop implying we are not really Catholic for finding it helpful & indeed “indispensable” 😦

It’s impossible to explain what’s involved in Biblical scholarship, if it is reduced to questions of the “Have you stopped beating your wife ?” variety. It seems that we have not one Pope, but many: what the real one approves, is unimportant - CAF differs, & that is the end of the matter. What is that, if it is not “cafeteria catholicism” ?
There most certaintly is value in that tradition when it has been taught for almost 2000 years.
Click to expand...

Even so, that doesn’t make sufficient for the needs of the Church today. If we lived in a world with the geographical, historical, & Biblical knowledge of the Fathers or the Apostles, our using their knowledge, & nothing more recent, might be defensible - but we don’t. The commentators of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries didn’t rely on the Fathers alone: Maldonado, Bellarmine, Calmet, a Lapidé & the rest drew on what happened since as well. So why must we confine ourselves to the Fathers, as though nothing worthwhile had been said since the time of St. Bede (d. 735) & John of Damascus (d. 750) ? Such a method is not Catholic 😦​

As for Dei Verbum - nothing in the critical method is incompatible with that quotation. Calling the gospels “historical” does not explain anything. Historical in what sense ? Other Catholics are not required to reject (say) moral theology, even though it is full of rejected or condemned ideas. Why then are Catholics who find these methods helpful required to answer for all the decisions of the Biblical critics ?
 
rpp said:
That is so true! There are so many people running around suffering from this attitude of “scientificism” that everything must be proved scientifically or it is just a fairy tale we are free to believe or reject. It is the very way people have learned to think and it has little but disastrous effects on people and society.

While it certainly has it’s place, this point of view and manner of thinking cannot be applied to everything. It leads to nothing but arrogance, intolerance and apostasy. As we have seen in the Church and on this thread.
Click to expand...

Historical criticism is scientific - but not in the sense you give it; it’s a scientia, as is dogmatic or liturgical theology,or any other autonomous intellectual discipline.​

The word “science” does not always refer to those disciplines most commonly called sciences: i.e. biology & the rest. Scientia & gnosis both translate as knowledge - but nobody confuses what goes on in a lab with Gnosticism.
 
It seems clear that some here believe in a very narrow fundamentalist interpretation of scripture, dogma and tradition. I would suggest that those people not read historical-critical analysis of scripture because you find it dangerous.

The rest of us will continue to read scholarly commentaries on scripture knowing that the Church allows us to.

I thank everyone for their warnings. I think the Church is pretty much okay. It drifts a bit left and then a bit right, but by an large she steers an even keel. This is just a revival of the early 1960’s when so many rose up in arms and departed because they didn’t like Vatican II. It too shall pass, and the Rock will remain…
 
Jesus Christ actualy, literaly, and factually rose from the dead.

Anyone who chooses not to believe that will get to actualy, literally, and factually reside in Hell forever where Jesus says “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”!
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Jesus Christ actualy, literaly, and factually rose from the dead.

Anyone who chooses not to believe that will get to actualy, literally, and factually reside in Hell forever where Jesus says “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”!
Click to expand...
But there is no hell right? Because ah, the Bible contains error and is really just full of mythological stories and people like in Greek and Roman mythology right? I mean none of the stories are real right? :rolleyes:
 
SemperFidelis said:
Ah, so St. Pius X was a fundamentalist?
Click to expand...
Probably not. Fundamentalism as a Christian concept had its beginnings in the 1890’s I believe. He may have been aware of it but I’d think it more likely he did not.

How are your RCIA classes coming btw? 🙂
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Jesus Christ actualy, literaly, and factually rose from the dead.

Anyone who chooses not to believe that will get to actualy, literally, and factually reside in Hell forever where Jesus says “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”!
Click to expand...
I believe Paul made it quite clear that if one didn’t believe that Jesus in fact rose from the dead one would have no call to consider themselves a Christian. It would seem rather obvious. Utter final separation from God would indeed be Hell.
 
SemperFidelis said:
But there is no hell right? Because ah, the Bible contains error and is really just full of mythological stories and people like in Greek and Roman mythology right? I mean none of the stories are real right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Me thinks you have jumped a few hurdles ahead or missed a few gates to have arrived at such bizarre conclusions. You might back up about 30 steps and check the intervening steps required to arrive at your throw the baby out with the bathwater conclusion.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Probably not. Fundamentalism as a Christian concept had its beginnings in the 1890’s I believe. He may have been aware of it but I’d think it more likely he did not.
Click to expand...
You didn’t directly call me a fundamentalist, but I’m sure you implied it in my direction. If Pope St. Pius X is not a fundamentalist, then neither am I, so please refrain in the future.
How are your RCIA classes coming btw? 🙂
Click to expand...
Very well. Looks like I might get to be able to have first communion in January; four months early, because a Priest feels like I’m ready.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Me thinks you have jumped a few hurdles ahead or missed a few gates to have arrived at such bizarre conclusions. You might back up about 30 steps and check the intervening steps required to arrive at your throw the baby out with the bathwater conclusion.
Click to expand...
There’s a little truth in every bit of exaggeration.
 
Jerry-Jet said:
Jesus Christ actualy, literaly, and factually rose from the dead.

Anyone who chooses not to believe that will get to actualy, literally, and factually reside in Hell forever where Jesus says “there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”!
Click to expand...
First nobody is saying that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead,Second Do not condemn anybody to hell -only God can determine that- and God is a hell of lot more expansive in his mercy then we are. Third God regards the heart better then the mouth Deeds not words determine how true one is to what Christ has taught-Grace is most important but without the deeds of grace we are deceived in what the reality of grace truly is.😦
 
juliamajor said:
First nobody is saying that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead,Second Do not condemn anybody to hell -only God can determine that- and God is a hell of lot more expansive in his mercy then we are. Third God regards the heart better then the mouth Deeds not words determine how true one is to what Christ has taught-Grace is most important but without the deeds of grace we are deceived in what the reality of grace truly is.😦
Click to expand...
While only God can judge a man, I highly doubt any Catholic who denies the resurrection will obtain the beatific vision.
 
SemperFidelis said:
While only God can judge a man, I highly doubt any Catholic who denies the resurrection will obtain the beatific vision.
Click to expand...
Yes, only God can judge. But, I highly doubt that ANYONE (Catholic or otherwise) who denies the resurrection will obtain the beatific vision. Religion choice is not the issue. Accepting Christ is the issue/.
 
CindiA said:
Yes, only God can judge. But, I highly doubt that ANYONE (Catholic or otherwise) who denies the resurrection will obtain the beatific vision. Religion choice is not the issue. Accepting Christ is the issue/.
Click to expand...
Okay. I didn’t suggest otherwise.
 
SemperFidelis said:
You didn’t directly call me a fundamentalist, but I’m sure you implied it in my direction. If Pope St. Pius X is not a fundamentalist, then neither am I, so please refrain in the future.

**I think it interesting you feel you can compare yourself thusly. I will say what I believe is true. If some feel it defines themselves I cannot help that. As I said, I doubt Pius was aware of fundamentalism in the early 1900’s. The movement was exceedingly small at that time and of course the word did not mean then what it means now. **

Very well. Looks like I might get to be able to have first communion in January; four months early, because a Priest feels like I’m ready.
Click to expand...
**I am sure he does. **
 
CindiA said:
Yes, only God can judge. But, I highly doubt that ANYONE (Catholic or otherwise) who denies the resurrection will obtain the beatific vision. Religion choice is not the issue. Accepting Christ is the issue/.
Click to expand...
LOL…Two people who agree that “only God can judge” and then both go right back to judging…too funny.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top