Which biblical stories can a Catholic not accept as literal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Samuel1991
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grannymh said:
The Creator God is literal.
The original human person is literal.
Difference between the divine and human is literal.
Rejection of a divine God is literal.
Heaven, following literal death is literal.
😃
Click to expand...
The Creator God is spirit.
The paradise is spiritual.

This text is not literal,

Genesis 3:8 “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden”
 
PNEUMA said:
The Creator God is spirit.
The paradise is spiritual.

This text is not literal,

Genesis 3:8 “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden”
Click to expand...
How do you know that? Because you’ve decided the criteria by which each verse ought to be interpreted? And who gave you that authority? 🙂 No one, my friend, and the same applies to me, as well, so don’t think I’m picking on you or anyone else without such authority.

The Bible does not belong to you and me–it’s the Church’s book. Hence, the Church has the authority to decide what is literal and what isn’t, and even if it’s necessary to make such determinations or not. Indeed, the Church has only declared a few verses/passages as meaning only one thing–as a matter of doctrine.

Otherwise, it doesn’t matter one whit, so quibbling over the meaning of verses is an exercise in futility, and worse, it takes away from the real purpose in reading Scripture, which is to grow in holiness and charity–the layperson’s only real concern. 😉
 
Della said:
PNEUMA;14680058:
The Creator God is spirit.
The paradise is spiritual.

This text is not literal,

Genesis 3:8
Click to expand...
"And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden"How do you know that? Because you’ve decided the criteria by which each verse ought to be interpreted? And who gave you that authority? 🙂 …
Click to expand...
Jesus, when he said, God is spirit (John 4:24) You can’t hear the sound of a spirit walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Or do you think the Lord God was a man before he became a spirit ?
 
PNEUMA said:
Jesus, when he said, God is spirit (John 4:24) You can’t hear the sound of a spirit walking in the garden in the cool of the day.
Click to expand...
One has to first take the wax out of the ear and out of the mind.
😃
 
Samuel1991 said:
Which stories/things/events/decisions in the Bible can a Catholic not accept as literal?
I hope that you have understood this question i m not extremely good at English
Click to expand...
I SUSPECT there is at least one in every book of the bile, and in a great many chapters too.

Here’s a online Catholic Bible commentary that may help you?

haydock1859.tripod.com/

Thanks and God bless, and your Engglih was VERY good!👍

Patrick
 
PNEUMA said:
Jesus, when he said, God is spirit (John 4:24) You can’t hear the sound of a spirit walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Or do you think the Lord God was a man before he became a spirit ?
Click to expand...
Nothing is impossible with God.
 
PNEUMA said:
Jesus, when he said, God is spirit (John 4:24) You can’t hear the sound of a spirit walking in the garden in the cool of the day. Or do you think the Lord God was a man before he became a spirit ?
Click to expand...
I’m afraid you missed my point entirely, if you are still asking about literal interpretation here. 🙂 I must be at fault. Let me say it again, it doesn’t matter. It’s just that simple. Why doesn’t it matter? Because it doesn’t impact our faith one way or the other.

As to God walking in the garden, explain to me why the Spirit who created the universe cannot walk in a garden if he so chooses? It’s his garden. He can do whatever he pleases with it.

So, God cannot do what you decide he cannot do? 😉 Again, who are you to say when the authority to interpret Scripture, and indeed any matter dealing with the faith, isn’t yours or mine?
 
Della said:
I’m afraid you missed my point entirely, if you are still asking about literal interpretation here. 🙂 I must be at fault. Let me say it again, it doesn’t matter. It’s just that simple. Why doesn’t it matter? Because it doesn’t impact our faith one way or the other.

As to God walking in the garden, explain to me why the Spirit who created the universe cannot walk in a garden if he so chooses? It’s his garden. He can do whatever he pleases with it.

So, God cannot do what you decide he cannot do? 😉 Again, who are you to say when the authority to interpret Scripture, and indeed any matter dealing with the faith, isn’t yours or mine?
Click to expand...
I quote Jesus again “a spirit has not flesh and bones”

Luke 24.36 “As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you.”But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have”

To be in paradise = To be with God That’s all there is to it, both in Genesis and the Book of Revelation.
 
PNEUMA said:
I quote Jesus again “a spirit has not flesh and bones”

Luke 24.36 “As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you.”But they were startled and frightened, and supposed that they saw a spirit. And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questionings rise in your hearts?See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have”

To be in paradise = To be with God That’s all there is to it, both in Genesis and the Book of Revelation.
Click to expand...
Truly, I don’t understand why this is such an issue. God being God can walk or talk or spit if he wants to. What Jesus was referring to in the passage you cited, is that he wasn’t a human ghost–because that’s what the disciples feared they were seeing. Hence, he reassured them by saying that a ghost doesn’t have flesh and blood. He wasn’t discussing God as spirit or anything close to it. 😉
 
The books of Tobit…Judith… and Ruth…are not to be taken literally…although they may contain kernels of truth…they are stories that instruct people in the ways of God…and to primarily illustrate truths that transcend history …source for this…my Saint Joseph Catholic Family Edition Bible.
 
Peebo said:
The books of Tobit…Judith… and Ruth…are not to be taken literally…although they may contain kernels of truth…they are stories that instruct people in the ways of God…and to primarily illustrate truths that transcend history …source for this…my Saint Joseph Catholic Family Edition Bible.
Click to expand...
With all due respect to the commentary in your SJCFEB, that’s a gross over simplification. Those books wouldn’t be a part of our Bible, if they weren’t trustworthy in others ways besides telling us spiritual truths. Ancient history is not an exact science. We know so little about many ancient cultures/peoples that to dismiss these books with faint praise as to their value is to take on an authority that no commentary possesses. Not all Bible commentaries are good ones or accurate, after all.
 
Della said:
Truly, I don’t understand why this is such an issue. God being God can walk or talk or spit if he wants to. What Jesus was referring to in the passage you cited, is that he wasn’t a human ghost–because that’s what the disciples feared they were seeing. Hence, he reassured them by saying that a ghost doesn’t have flesh and blood. He wasn’t discussing God as spirit or anything close to it. 😉
Click to expand...
Jesus said spirit (pneuma) not ghost (phantasma). And the whole point of Jesus, is that he is not a spirit, he is a human with a spirit, the spirit of God. That most certainly wasn’t “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8)

Why is this an issue ? it’s important to know God ! God is spirit, the spirit of love, inside every human that love. Paradise is not literal.
 
PNEUMA said:
Jesus said spirit (pneuma) not ghost (phantasma). And the whole point of Jesus, is that he is not a spirit, he is a human with a spirit, the spirit of God. That most certainly wasn’t “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8)

Why is this an issue ? it’s important to know God ! God is spirit, the spirit of love, inside every human that love. Paradise is not literal.
Click to expand...
Ghost to us is spirit to them. And we believe Christ is true God and true Man.
 
PNEUMA said:
Jesus said spirit (pneuma) not ghost (phantasma). And the whole point of Jesus, is that he is not a spirit, he is a human with a spirit, the spirit of God.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not for you to interpret. Haydock’s Commentary says this:

Ver. 37. The apostles thought they saw a Spirit, either good or bad, that had taken the form of Jesus, and was come to deceive them. For that they did not doubt spirits appeared, we have abundant proofs throughout the whole New Testament: and our Saviour, instead of combating this opinion, seems rather to have confirmed it on more than one occasion.

Jesus was not discussing God being spirit instead of flesh and blood.
That most certainly wasn’t “walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Genesis 3:8)
Click to expand...
Nope. You cannot make that determination when speaking of God who can assume any form and do anything he wants–because he is God.
Why is this an issue ? it’s important to know God ! God is spirit, the spirit of love, inside every human that love. Paradise is not literal.
Click to expand...
Jesus seemed to think Paradise is literal–he promised the thief on the cross most specifically that “today you will be with me in paradise.” Certainly God is spirit, the spirit of love, etc., but he’s also a person, indeed, three persons, not some merely a ghostly presence that inhabits human hearts. What you are saying is not Church teaching. If you are not Catholic I can see why you want to believe this, but if you are Catholic, you need to talk to your priest about this ASAP.
 
Della said:
Jesus seemed to think Paradise is literal–he promised the thief on the cross most specifically that “today you will be with me in paradise.” Certainly God is spirit, the spirit of love, etc., but he’s also a person, indeed, three persons, not some merely a ghostly presence that inhabits human hearts. What you are saying is not Church teaching. If you are not Catholic I can see why you want to believe this, but if you are Catholic, you need to talk to your priest about this ASAP.
Click to expand...
No, Jesus did not think Paradise is literal, the thief did not go to a literal Paradise.

The tree of life and the river of life are just symbols.

Catechism 1137 "The book of Revelation of St. John, read in the Church’s liturgy, first reveals to us, “A throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne”: "the Lord God."1 It then shows the Lamb, “standing, as though it had been slain”: Christ crucified and risen, the one high priest of the true sanctuary, the same one "who offers and is offered, who gives and is given."Finally it presents “the river of the water of life . . . flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb,” one of most beautiful symbols of the Holy Spirit.

(“love personified” catholic) gives about 38,800 results on Google, so that’s Church teaching

google.ca/search?as_q=catholic&as_epq=love+personified&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=
 
PNEUMA said:
No, Jesus did not think Paradise is literal, the thief did not go to a literal Paradise.

(“love personified” catholic) gives about 38,800 results on Google, so that’s Church teaching

google.ca/search?as_q=catholic&as_epq=love+personified&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=
Click to expand...
Um, no. Google does not determine Church teachings. Talk to your priest about this. This is my last response to your posts on this issue. 🙂
 
Samuel1991 said:
Which stories/things/events/decisions in the Bible can a Catholic not accept as literal?
I hope that you have understood this question i m not extremely good at English
Click to expand...
We have to know what the Church means by literal or this discussion just goes in circles (these always seem to do that)

Literal does not mean merely historic or scientific. Very important.

When the CCC speaks of the literal sense of literal we are not using it as modern fundamentalist use it.
Literalism is what fundamentalism uses. It makes a unique ideology and theology out of the rigid scientific/historic interpretation of scripture. This interpretation is locked in the words on the page, as interpreted in modern English in modern contexts. In this way, scripture is robbed of it’s life.

This is not what the CCC means by “literal”. By literal we mean the words have meaning as they are written. The words are literature, they are inspired divine communication, and the words are not to be discarded or disregarded.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
Click to expand...
But that does not mean the words are rigidly historic or scientific.

You have to understand that literal is not the same thing as scientific or historic precision.

*The bible was never ever written as a science or history textbook, although it has rich elements of the natural world in it, and is certainly rooted in the history.
The bible is not merely a book of facts in a human sense. *
 
I recommend the book Hard Sayings by Trent Horn. It will answer a lot of your questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top