Posted on 07/04/2012 7:48:08 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Vlad . . . we've known one another long enough that you don't have to insult me. Kindly respond to the immemorial Sinaitic Tradition that G-d Himself wrote the Torah and dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter. Please stop assuming that everyone believes Genesis evolved slowly and gradually via mythology, oral traditions, and redactions.
If Genesis is G-d-dictated, then all the events it describes as historical events must be historical events, or else G-d (chas vechalilah!) is the author of falsehood.
How can you continue to use the "Genesis was written centuries after the fact by others" with me, as long as you've known me?
I am disappointed.
Did all the events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis actually happen, exactly as described?
Thank you.
You wrote:
“Vlad . . . we’ve known one another long enough that you don’t have to insult me.”
I didn’t.
“Kindly respond to the immemorial Sinaitic Tradition that G-d Himself wrote the Torah and dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter.”
That changes nothing that I said. You are making a 1 to 1 equivalent on something that doesn’t work and I BELIEVE THE SAME THING YOU DO and know what you’re doing is not logically sound.
“Please stop assuming that everyone believes Genesis evolved slowly and gradually via mythology, oral traditions, and redactions.”
Did I say ANY of that? Now who is insulting whom?
“If Genesis is G-d-dictated, then all the events it describes as historical events must be historical events, or else G-d (chas vechalilah!) is the author of falsehood.”
The flaw in your thinking is that the “events it describes” are described as “historical events”. That is your assumption.
“How can you continue to use the “Genesis was written centuries after the fact by others” with me, as long as you’ve known me?”
Moses did not live centuries after Adam and Eve? Are you serious?
“I am disappointed.”
You should be disappointed. You just said - even if you didn’t mean to - that Moses was alive at the same time as Adam and Eve. It is these continuous lapses in logical thinking that hurt your arguments.
Vlad, Vlad, Vlad . . . What on earth is wrong with you? Why aren't you reading what I'm writing?
I never said Moses was contemporaneous with Adam and Eve because Moses is not the author of the Torah--G-d is. And G-d was contemporaneous with Adam and Eve. Moses was merely a stenographer.
As a matter of fact, the Torah pre-existed the universe, which is merely derivative of Torah. All of history is merely the working out of the Torah G-d wrote before Creation.
Now . . . are you going to tell me again that I claim that "Moses was contemporaneous with Adam and Eve?"
If you believe just as I do, why do you insist that the events described in Genesis 1-11 (we are not concerned merely with Chapters 1-3 here) are not "obviously historic?" Why should the events of Genesis 1-11 be any less historic than anything in your gospels? Or for that matter, than anything after those eleven chapters?
You aren't making any sense here.
Be careful there. That is a biblical miracle that every Evangelical I know would affirm. Where we disagree is with the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception, which teaches that Mary was preserved from original sin from "the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body."
Yes, but they have different ways of demarcating the Catholic from the Fundamentalist Protestant version of the nativity. They insist Mary's hymen never burst and that J*sus came out of her side.
You know, if Mary had claimed she had created the world in six days Catholics would probably accept it literally (and Fundamentalist Protestants wouldn't).
Catholic bashing: is this your way of life or just a hobby?
A religion that picks and chooses which "impossible" events it will believe in based on purely sociological concerns deserves to be bashed.
At least I'm not publishing magazine articles attacking the veracity of Genesis 1-11 as the Catholic Church does.
I think it much more likely that it was written down, over the years, especially during the Diaspora in Babylon, for the Jews to remember from whence they came, and teach the following generations, since they had been removed from their land.
It doesn't threaten my belief in God, or the truths that He has given to us, if it's possible that every single word of the Old Testament might not be the literal truth. Jesus told us Parables as a way to drive home the lessons he wanted us to learn. Quite possibly, some of the stories in the Old Testament are 'parables' in their own ways. Does it make their lessons any less true?
As I said, I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me any LESS Christian than you.
Any religion that declares that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are literal but denies the virgin birth or the Real Presence in the Eucharist is indeed suspect.
Peace be with you
You do understand that there's not "new testament" in my Bible and that your invoking it is no different than invoking the "book of mormon" . . . correct?
If G-d was not truthful (chas vechalilah!) about the events of Genesis 1-11, why do you Catholics trust Him on other matters? Aren't you rejecting Genesis 1-11 for purely sociological reasons?
Until the nineteenth century, the Torah was studied assiduously by Jews every single day and no one thought of multiple authors or multiple sources until liberal German Lutherans, whom you Catholics take as your authorities on the subject. Does Sacred Tradition mean nothing to you? I thought Catholics were all about Tradition? Whey then do you attack immemorial Tradition and believe the words of nineteenth century German Protestants? It seems to me that you don't mind Protestantism so much as you mind American rural religious culture.
I think it much more likely that it was written down, over the years, especially during the Diaspora in Babylon, for the Jews to remember from whence they came, and teach the following generations, since they had been removed from their land.
I don't doubt this is what you think. But do you accept the synoptic problem or the J*sus Seminar? Probably not. You carefully limit all your doubts to the Torah. Why would you do this other than because you don't want to be associated with "trailer trash?"
It doesn't threaten my belief in God, or the truths that He has given to us, if it's possible that every single word of the Old Testament might not be the literal truth.
Then I guess not every single word of the "new testament" has to be the literal truth either. Correct?
And this is not about your belief in G-d. This is about G-d's veracity, not whether or not He exists.
Jesus told us Parables as a way to drive home the lessons he wanted us to learn. Quite possibly, some of the stories in the Old Testament are 'parables' in their own ways. Does it make their lessons any less true?
Does the text or Oral Tradition say that the stories are parables? If not, then on what grounds do you propose such outlandish nonsense? So far as I know, the only Biblical story concerning which there is an authentic tradition that it may be a parable is the Book of Job. But certainly this doesn't apply to anything in the Torah.
How do you know the "words of institution" weren't a parable as well? Is it merely because people you don't like find it difficult to accept their literal truth?
As I said, I disagree with you, but that doesn't make me any LESS Christian than you.
When did I ever say you were less of a chr*stian than I am? I am not a chr*stian at all. So far as I am concerned, you are a perfect example of a chr*stian and why Fundamentalist Protestants should leave chr*stianity. And besides, isn't it the Catholic Church that calls into question the chr*stianity of Fundamentalist Protestants? Certainly the Catholic Church spends an inordinate amount of time attacking the historicity of the Torah and identifying evolution and higher criticism as Catholic positions. Why is it wrong for Fundamentalist Protestants to attack theistic evolution but perfectly all right for Catholics to attack creationism?
Why does the Catholic Church not spend a modicum of the amount of time attacking the Pelosi's in its own fold that it does in attacking creationism or Jonah's fish? What did Adam or Jonah's fish ever do to so earn Catholic hatred?
The Tanakh is not a Bible. However, it is fulfilled in my Bible."
Peace be with you
The TaNa"KH is the Bible. Period.
On what grounds do you claim that the TaNa"KH is "fulfilled" in your "bible?" Because the Catholic Church says so? That's no different from a Fundamentalist Protestant defending whatever he believes in because "the Bible says so."
Nat . . . I know what you believe. You and I have clashed many times. I am well aware that you regard the TaNa"KH as flawed and the "new testament" as perfect (while claiming to believe both). There is no need to continually hound me with posts badgering me with the illogical contradictions you hold do that I am already well aware of.
Genesis is mythology, the "new testament" actually happened. That is your position. Why do you have to continue to remind me of what I already know? Simple meanness?
Quite the contrary, within the pedagogy of revelation both the Old and New Testaments are perfect.
Peace be with you
This thread is about Catholics, Fendmentalists and the Eucharist.
Not getting drawn off the subject with your silly question.
LOL! What on earth gives you the idea that the Catholic Church hates Adam and Eve, or Jonah's whale? Has the Church ever denied that the writings of the Old Testament are anything other than the teachings of our God, written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit? As for the New Testament, again, there are accounts written by those who knew men who knew the Apostles, so they had a direct connection to Jesus, through His Apostles. No interpretation needed there; we have HIS word.
As for attacking the 'Pelosis in the fold' I'm guessing the Bishops have made the calculation that no good would be served by going personally after Pelosi, or any of the other alleged Catholics like her, because it would probably drive more people away from God than toward Him. Many who don't pay attention to either politics or religion would see any attack as simply the big, bad Catholic Church going after American politicians. That wouldn't serve any purpose at all.
So again, you and I will just disagree.
The fact that it spends so much time attacking them and people who believe in them. I was personally advised to leave the Catholic Church because it was "un-Catholic" to believe in them.
You yourself just said they aren't literally true. You said this in an earlier answer. How can they be the teachings of your "gxd" if they are false? Perhaps your "gxd" is prone to lying?
As for the New Testament, again, there are accounts written by those who knew men who knew the Apostles, so they had a direct connection to Jesus, through His Apostles. No interpretation needed there; we have HIS word.
The Torah was written by G-d. Why should such an account be less literal than your "new testament?"
As for attacking the 'Pelosis in the fold' I'm guessing the Bishops have made the calculation that no good would be served by going personally after Pelosi, or any of the other alleged Catholics like her, because it would probably drive more people away from God than toward Him. Many who don't pay attention to either politics or religion would see any attack as simply the big, bad Catholic Church going after American politicians. That wouldn't serve any purpose at all.
So instead Liguorian, US Catholic, Catholic Digest, and the orbit around Our Sunday Visitor choose to print article after article promoting evolution, the documentary hypothesis, and attacking those who don't bend the knee to these concepts.
So again, you and I will just disagree.
You must really think this is funny. I'm glad the torment of my personal experience with your "universal" Church amuses you.
I would think that you more than many contemporary Christians would have a deep understanding and appreciation for the literary genres and historicity of the Old Testament. You have to appreciate and recognize the midrash aggada and midrash halakha throughout the Old Testament.
In the many allegories, didactic narratives, epics, fables, parables and short stories rarely was modern standards of history important or more important than the underlying message or moral. In fact modern forensic based history was unheard in Old Testament times. Numbers, whether the number of people, the number of vices, horses, chariots, slaves, troops, those slain, etc. were more often descriptive and qualitative than quantitative. Historical sequence and geography were also secondary to the message.
I appreciate your unique perspectives in these areas, and you do have a lot to contribute to our understanding of the foundations of Christian beliefs, but the condescension associated with treatment of Christian doctrine wears thin.
Peace be with you.
I would think that you more than many contemporary Christians would have a deep understanding and appreciation for the literary genres and historicity of the Old Testament. You have to appreciate and recognize the midrash aggada and midrash halakha throughout the Old Testament.
The "fourfold sense of scripture" (called PARDES in Judaism) does not in any way imply the events of the Torah did not actually happen. Why would you assume it would?
Peshat is the "plain" meaning. Derash is the "exegetical" sense (the one I have most difficulty understanding). My personal favorite is Remez, hints or allusions found in the letters, shapes, unusual spellings, numeric values, etc. And Sod is the "secret" meaning. The fact that all four of these operate in the Bible in no way implies that the Red Sea was not split. I don't understand why you believe ancient Midrash reduces the TaNa"KH to mere didactic parables.
Do you believe the virgin birth or resurrection or real presence or ascension into heaven are fable, parable, myth, etc.? Why should a "literally true" scripture be built on a foundation of parable? How could it stand? How can J*sus be the "second Adam" if the "first Adam" was a fairy tale?
Midrash Halakhah is the elucidation of Law based on sriptural exegesis just as Midrash 'Aggadah is the the exegetical interpretation of the stories. It could perhaps be maintained that "the Torah is not interpreted literally" because "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" never meant that offenders had similar injuries inflicted on them but merely that they compensated their victims with the monetary value of the body part they damaged. However, the full elucidation of this interpretation actually attaches itself to the very words of the text, reading them very carefully. So is it literal or non-literal? If the interpretation is "he will give eye for eye" that "give" means money changing hands, is this not in fact super-literalism, because it doesn't skip over the word "give" but rather uses it to establish the true meaning?
Note that throughout all my arguments I have never said that a "plain reading" of the text could divulge the Halakhah. Only the Oral Torah and its decisors can do this based on traditional Halakhic principals. As I often state to Protestants (believe it or not), there is an Official Oral Interepretion of the Torah. You and I both know there has to be. But I don't use this as a springboard to attack the historicity or veracity of the events narrated in the Torah.
In the many allegories, didactic narratives, epics, fables, parables and short stories rarely was modern standards of history important or more important than the underlying message or moral. In fact modern forensic based history was unheard in Old Testament times. Numbers, whether the number of people, the number of vices, horses, chariots, slaves, troops, those slain, etc. were more often descriptive and qualitative than quantitative. Historical sequence and geography were also secondary to the message.
Does it matter how many generations between David and J*sus? Does it matter how many loaves and fishes? Does it matter how many days J*sus stayed in the tomb, how many days he fasted, or how many days from the "resurrection" to the "ascension?" Maybe three and forty are mere symbolic numbers. Maybe the "twelve disciples" is a mere didactic references to the months of the year? Who is to say there is allegory in the gospels . . . in the words of consecration, for example?
As to the narrative order in the Torah, it is well known that this is primarily topical than chronological because the Torah, like G-d, is above time.
I appreciate your unique perspectives in these areas, and you do have a lot to contribute to our understanding of the foundations of Christian beliefs, but the condescension associated with treatment of Christian doctrine wears thin.
I appreciate the kind words, but do you honestly not think that I've had it up to here with the condescension of Catholic FReepers who answer every disagreement with cries of "bigotry!" and whose theological reasoning consists of ethnic slurs such as "Cletus," "snake-handler," and "Billy Bob's Glory Barn?" Was it not enough to begin a search for the "one true church" in good faith and basically learn that every reason I had ever had for believing in chr*stianity at all was blown right out for under me? J*sus didn't take my place in hell when he died? I have to spend a lifetime walking a tightrope over hell and I'm still probably not going to make it (NB: this was before the Catholic Church started teaching that hell is empty)? All J*sus did was institute a new, post-Biblical law and ceremonial which took the place of the beautiful Biblical law and ceremonial that was pronounced by G-d's very own Mouth? All Paul is really saying is "don't observe the law of Moses," but he's not against observing a chr*stian ceremonial which didn't even yet exist in his lifetime and which was adapted from the pagan Roman calendar? The Bible is a mere "shadow" representing Medieval chr*stianity? Jerusalem is a "shadow" of Rome? My beloved Biblical world will never exist again because it has utterly served its purpose and any wish to see it restored is now heretical? And of course the clincher: when a church father teaches the real presence or confession he is authoritative and must be obeyed; when a church father interprets the Hexameron literally it is dismissed as a "peronal opinion" and he is a mere "man of his time" who "doesn't know what we know now?"
You don't see any condescension in all this at all? None?
I'm sorry. If all J*sus did by dying on the cross was to "open a door" I have to get through myself (by observing a post-Biblical ceremonial that has replaced the now forbidden Biblical one), then "salvation" is the most disappointing concept I have ever encountered in my life. We're all better off with that door slammed shut again.
Only one who has learned that chr*stianity is so alien from what he has known by that name that it isn't even approachable can understand how devastating an experience it is. And FReeper Catholics are so happy that they're probably going to fry in hell? And applying Paul's antinomianism to the post-Biblical chr*stian ceremonial as well as to the Torah is wrong? Biblcal ritual is ugly, chr*stian ritual is beautiful?
Why was I given a book of shadows? It would have been better had it never been written to fall in love with this world and them be told it was a mere shadow never to be seen again.
I'll never understand what makes FReeper Catholics so happy to be part of such a religion (apart from the stomach-churning modernism and the gang-bangings of traditinalist Catholics who actually come here and say the emperor as no clothes). What a "wonderful savior," who does not "save" but only "makes salvation possible" (which means the title of "savior" is false). Shouldn't you call him your salvation facilitator?
And before you Protestants start celebrating and clapping me on the back, don't. Protestantism is an illusion. This monstrous disappointment really is authentic, orthodox, historical chr*stianity. You cannot make chr*stianty true by reinventing it.
I am in love with the Biblical G-d, not the disappointing "gxd" of historial chr*stianity or the illusory "gxd" of "bible Protestantism." There is only one Biblcal G-d and one Biblical religion, and nothing else is necessary.
Thank you again for your respectful post. I apologize for my emotionalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.