Evangelicals believe that Jonah was in the belly of a whale, but don’t believe God is present in the Eucharist.
Go figure.
“Evangelicals believe that Jonah was in the belly of a whale, but don’t believe God is present in the Eucharist.
Go figure.”
Catholics don’t believe in the Bible, but believe they’re eating Christ’s kidney during mass. Go figure:
From the Vatican website commentary on just the first few chapters of Genesis. The Bible, according to them, filled with “myths,” written by multiple authors (not actually Moses, etc), contradictions, stories are “imaginative” explanations, non-literal, or legends designed to excuse atrocity committed by Jews.
First, a suggested denial of the authorship of Moses for Genesis:
“This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P4.HTM
“Mythology” placed into the text, as well as alleged error, according to the footnotes:
“[1-4] This is apparently a fragment of an old legend that had borrowed much from ancient mythology. The sacred author incorporates it here, not only in order to account for the prehistoric giants of Palestine, whom the Israelites called the Nephilim, but also to introduce the story of the flood with a moral orientation - the constantly increasing wickedness of mankind.” [6:5- 8:22] The story of the great flood here recorded is a composite narrative based on two separate sources interwoven into an intricate patchwork. To the Yahwist source, with some later editorial additions, are usually assigned Genesis 6:5-8; 7:1-5, 7-10, 12, 16b, 17b, 22-23; 8:2b-3a, 6-12, 13b, 20-22. The other sections come from the “Priestly document.”
” The combination of the two sources produced certain duplications (e.g., Genesis 6:13-22 of the Yahwist source, beside Genesis 7:1-5 of the Priestly source); also certain inconsistencies, such as the number of the various animals taken into the ark ( Genesis 6:19-20; 7:14-15 of the Priestly source, beside Genesis 7:2-3 of the Yahwist source), and the timetable of the flood...
“Both biblical sources go back ultimately to an ancient Mesopotamian story of a great flood, preserved in the eleventh tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic. The latter account, in some respects remarkably similar to the biblical account, is in others very different from it.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P8.HTM [1-32]
Scripture non-historical, based on “ancient traditions” instead:
“Although this chapter, with its highly schematic form, belongs to the relatively late “Priestly document,” it is based on very ancient traditions... its primary purpose is to bridge the genealogical gap between Adam and Abraham. Adam’s line is traced through Seth, but several names in the series are the same as, or similar to, certain names in Cain’s line. The long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value. Babylonian tradition also recorded ten kings with fantastically high ages who reigned successively before the flood.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_P7.HTM
Myths created to justify atrocities, so claims the footnotes:
“[18-27] This story seems to be a composite of two earlier accounts; in the one, Ham was guilty, whereas, in the other, it was Canaan. One purpose of the story is to justify the Israelites’ enslavement of the Canaanites because of certain indecent sexual practices in the Canaanite religion. Obviously the story offers no justification for enslaving African Negroes, even though Canaan is presented as a “son” of Ham because the land of Canaan belonged to Hamitic Egypt at the time of the Israelite invasion.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PB.HTM
The tower of babel an “imaginitive” story:
“[1-9] This story, based on traditions about the temple towers or ziggurats of Babylonia, is used by the sacred writer primarily to illustrate man’s increasing wickedness, shown here in his presumptuous effort to create an urban culture apart from God. The secondary motive in the story is to present an imaginative origin of the diversity of the languages among the various peoples inhabiting the earth, as well as an artificial explanation of the name “Babylon.””
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/_PD.HTM
Fish, not whale, while sanctioned RC scholarship believes that Jonah being in the belly of the fish before preaching to pagans was a fable, but that consuming human flesh and blood, which pagans did, was sanctioned.
It figures.
That's because we know that men landed on the moon while we also know that 3 bears did not cook oatmeal for a girl lost in the woods...
For exactly 3 days and 3 nights, not a second more. Just like Jesus in the tomb.
It is simply not explanable that if John 6 is Jesus teaching of the true nature of the eucharist, that John does not mention the Lords Table in the Upper Room Discourse. The only gospel that does not mention the Lords Table is John.
Catholics have never had an even remotely cogent explanation for this contradiction; but they merely hand wave it away with a simple "the other gospels covered that already, John didnt need to."