"Who believes it to be real?"

[scaron]

I have a friend who is an ordained deacon, and who just finished up a degree program in theology. He is an undoubtedly, palpably holy man, and teaches me things every time I talk with him.

He is much given to throwing out what i guess you’d call “rabbinic” or “Talmudic” questions. Often, I have trouble telling what he himself believes; mostly I think he is just trying to make me think, or to get my take on something.

What I find ironic (and i think is common in Catholic education today), is an unwillingness to believe in what I’d call “the small truths” of the Bible. There is no question in my mind he believes to the depths of his soul the big truths of Catholocism - the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence, the Pascal Mysteries, etc.

But he often challenges me with “smaller” truths. For instance, he has challenged me with if I believe Lazarus was really raised from the dead, or if Jonah really survived three days in the belly of a whale. His questioning here usually refers back to historo-critical thinking - Lazarus wasn’t raised, because, if he had been, it would have been a very big deal and we would have other reports of it from history. Jonah is allegorical, because no-one could survive three days in the belly of a whale, and science can “prove” that. These are just examples.

I struggle with this, because in general I am not a historical-critical fan, and have an outlook that is much more faith-based as the Holy Father describes in the extended prologue to his book Jesus of Nazareth.

What I am looking for from the forum is a good approach to take when discussing these type of questions.

In general, the framework of my thinking goes:

• We have a God who created everything from nothing
• Given that, I am willing, a priori, to believe He can do anything with something
• These discussions often center around the idea that something didn’t (or couldn’t have) happened
• It is a logical fallacy to say that something in the bible didn’t happen. No one can prove a negative
• We were not there, we cannot say it did not happen - and those who were there (or at least heard the story first hand) say it did happen
• If we start to say it couldn’t have happened (for scientific reasons, ala Jonah), we deny the power of God to perform miracles - I, for one, am not willing to go there

All this sounds like a recipe for Fundamentalism, right? We are not fundamentalists. We understand there is allegorical and metaphorical language in the Bible.

So I guess I am asking, what is the proper framework to address these kind of issues? What works for you?

 

[fhansen]

Jesus can be resurrected but God can’t sustain someone for three days in the belly of a whale-because science can “prove” the latter can’t happen? That doesn’t sound like a consistent or responsible application of any method of biblical criticism to me. Sometimes it seems as if scholars think they’ve proved a thesis simply because they’ve managed to come up with one, regardless of its strength-or lack of it.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Refusal to believe that the Bible is entirely inspired and entirely inerrant is at least material heresy. There may be some legitimate question as to which elements are figurative and which are historical. But the raising of Lazarus from the dead is not considered by any Father, or Saint, or Doctor of the Church to be merely a figure or parable. This type of claim shows a lack of faith.

faith is above reason and above all science, including the sciences of textual analysis of the Bible.

 

[scaron]

Jesus can be resurrected but God can’t sustain someone for three days in the belly of a whale-because science can “prove” the latter can’t happen? That doesn’t sound like a consistent or responsible application of any method of biblical criticism to me. Sometimes it seems as if scholars think they’ve proved a thesis simply because they’ve managed to come up with one, regardless of its strength-or lack of it.

well of course this is exactly the point. Why is it so difficult for people to believe in the possibility of God to perform miracles? And why is it the little miracles they balk at? As Paul says, if Christ is not raised we are the sorriest of men. Folks get behind that with all their heart. And then those same people say, “Christ didn’t really multiply loaves and fishes; His inspirational message caused people to share the food they had been hoarding”.

 

[rotlex]

well of course this is exactly the point. Why is it so difficult for people to believe in the possibility of God to perform miracles? And why is it the little miracles they balk at? As Paul says, if Christ is not raised we are the sorriest of men. Folks get behind that with all their heart. And then those same people say, “Christ didn’t really multiply loaves and fishes; His inspirational message caused people to share the food they had been hoarding”.

These types of things have been bothering me as well since beginning my dioceses lay ministry program. We discuss many things, including the belief that much of the bible, while inspired, was meant to teach us, to learn. (i.e. someone mentioned Jonah, Job, etc).

What really bothers me with this line of thinking, is how can someone, even priest or deacon, believe whole heartily that Christ rose from the dead, and that one day we will all be reunited with our bodies, have eternal life, and fly around with angels, all the while stating they believe much of the Bible to by myth\story?

I mean seriously. If dying, going to heaven, being resurrected and all that are believable, how can someone surviving for a few days in the belly of a big fish not be? And no, I’m really not trying to sound sceptical\sarcastic!

Sorry if I’m not coming across real clear here; it’s kind of hard for me to put my feelings and thoughts on this subject into text.

 

[rwoehmke]

These types of things have been bothering me as well since beginning my dioceses lay ministry program. We discuss many things, including the belief that much of the bible, while inspired, was meant to teach us, to learn. (i.e. someone mentioned Jonah, Job, etc).

It is important to realize that the historical-critical way of studying scripture is only one approach among several. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that people who study theology, as in a masters program, often come away with a limited view of that field of study. It is highly dependent on their instructor’s breadth of knowledge and the limits as to how much time can be devoted to study.

It seems common for these, what I will cal neophytes, to fall in love with what seems new and revolutionary. Then when they teach, instead of basics, they like to teach the newer speculative material.

 

[rotlex]

It is important to realize that the historical-critical way of studying scripture is only one approach among several. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that people who study theology, as in a masters program, often come away with a limited view of that field of study. It is highly dependent on their instructor’s breadth of knowledge and the limits as to how much time can be devoted to study.

It seems common for these, what I will cal neophytes, to fall in love with what seems new and revolutionary. Then when they teach, instead of basics, they like to teach the newer speculative material.

Thanks for that. This seems to be the case, in my case. I am not saying it is a bad or good thing, it’s just a bit difficult when it is the only way it is approached, or I should say, the preferred method of approach, as both views are indeed taught.

 

[Ruthie]

Scaron, I think your framework is really good. Use it!

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have a friend who is an ordained deacon, and who just finished up a degree program in theology. He is an undoubtedly, palpably holy man, and teaches me things every time I talk with him.

He is much given to throwing out what i guess you’d call “rabbinic” or “Talmudic” questions. Often, I have trouble telling what he himself believes; mostly I think he is just trying to make me think, or to get my take on something.

What I find ironic (and i think is common in Catholic education today), is an unwillingness to believe in what I’d call “the small truths” of the Bible. There is no question in my mind he believes to the depths of his soul the big truths of Catholocism - the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence, the Pascal Mysteries, etc.

But he often challenges me with “smaller” truths. For instance, he has challenged me with if I believe Lazarus was really raised from the dead, or if Jonah really survived three days in the belly of a whale. His questioning here usually refers back to historo-critical thinking - Lazarus wasn’t raised, because, if he had been, it would have been a very big deal and we would have other reports of it from history. Jonah is allegorical, because no-one could survive three days in the belly of a whale, and science can “prove” that. These are just examples.

I struggle with this, because in general I am not a historical-critical fan, and have an outlook that is much more faith-based as the Holy Father describes in the extended prologue to his book Jesus of Nazareth.

What I am looking for from the forum is a good approach to take when discussing these type of questions.

In general, the framework of my thinking goes:

• We have a God who created everything from nothing
• Given that, I am willing, a priori, to believe He can do anything with something
• These discussions often center around the idea that something didn’t (or couldn’t have) happened
• It is a logical fallacy to say that something in the bible didn’t happen. No one can prove a negative
• We were not there, we cannot say it did not happen - and those who were there (or at least heard the story first hand) say it did happen
• If we start to say it couldn’t have happened (for scientific reasons, ala Jonah), we deny the power of God to perform miracles - I, for one, am not willing to go there

All this sounds like a recipe for Fundamentalism, right? We are not fundamentalists. We understand there is allegorical and metaphorical language in the Bible.

So I guess I am asking, what is the proper framework to address these kind of issues? What works for you?

I understand your struggle here, but I believe in the reality of the miracles in the Bible. As for Jonah, Jesus took it literally by referring to Jonah as being in the belly of the whale (Matt. 12:40). As for people being raised from the dead, there are all kinds of Apocryphal accounts that have recorded similar things and recorded some of the Biblical events as well, but the same kind of scholarship that you mentioned likes to discount those too, so there really is no winning them over unless their open for it. There has been tons of miracles that have happened and still do but does it become earthshaking? No. Even when they happen in front of our eyes we can still wrestle with doubt or forget how it really opened our eyes. But even at that, keep in mind that the miracles of Jesus did shake the world up, He had followers who spread the news who were willing to die for it and most of them did, and the news is still spreading 2000 years later! With the Scripture records of Jesus’ miracles as well as the apocrypha, you also have to consdier that it was 2000 years ago, it is hard to say how many accounts have disappeared over that amount of time, I guarantee we only have a small fraction of what was recorded.

And trust me, this is not a Fundementalist thing, it is a Catholic thing to believe in the miracles of the Bible and the “small truths” that you are talking about. If you don’t believe me just read the first 800 years of the Early Church Fathers, they were the first Christians and were all Catholic!