Is The Old Testement Really Gods Word ?

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1317197950' post='2311532']
Public revelation ended with the last Apostle.
[/quote]

The abridged version! Thanks Max

[stevil]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1317197209' post='2311520']
guides us through the teachings of the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Sorry, I'm not understanding the subtleties.

But with regards to the Church, it bases its teachings on the bible and its long held traditions, so it is not teaching anything new. There is no guidance towards new knowledge since 2000+ years ago, is that right?

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1317200897' post='2311556']

Sorry, I'm not understanding the subtleties.

But with regards to the Church, it bases its teachings on the bible and its long held traditions, so it is not teaching anything new. There is no guidance towards new knowledge since 2000+ years ago, is that right?
[/quote]


Nothing subtle about it stevil.... the Church teaches us through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think quite a lot has been revealed over the past 2000 years, but the main message stays the same, which is that God loves us and sent Jesus to atone for our sins and lead us to eternal life with Him. How much more could you possibly want to be revealed???

[stevil]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1317201251' post='2311558']


Nothing subtle about it stevil.... the Church teaches us through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. I think quite a lot has been revealed over the past 2000 years, but the main message stays the same, which is that God loves us and sent Jesus to atone for our sins and lead us to eternal life with Him. How much more could you possibly want to be revealed???
[/quote]
Evidence of god would be nice, evidence of heaven, evidence of hell. Clarity on many things e.g. why women aren't to be ordained, why it is wrong for people to have homosexual sex, why there are so many opposing religions, all with the requirement of belief, why there are religios wars when if evidence were provided then everyone would be on the same page.
Surely, hypothetically speaking, if you did get to meet god in person on earth, there must be some questions that you would have that you wish to have clarity on.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1317203507' post='2311563']
Evidence of god would be nice, evidence of heaven, evidence of hell. Clarity on many things e.g. why women aren't to be ordained, why it is wrong for people to have homosexual sex, why there are so many opposing religions, all with the requirement of belief, why there are religios wars when if evidence were provided then everyone would be on the same page.
Surely, hypothetically speaking, if you did get to meet god in person on earth, there must be some questions that you would have that you wish to have clarity on.
[/quote]


Your questions are good stevil - but I'm not sure there are going to be proofs that satisfy them. When St Thomas doubted and Jesus showed Him his wounds, Thomas believed, but Jesus told Him he only believed because He had seen, but more blessed were those who believed, not having seen.

Yes, God was in human form with us for awhile, and blessed were those who were there when He was. But even many of them didn't understand what He was saying or didn't believe Him. The ability to suspend cynicism and believe that we could be loved as much as we are by our creator, is a gift called 'faith'. I believe that a sincere heart will be granted this gift in time, but it is god's gift alone to give. Asking questions and actually thinking about the answers implies to me that one is sincere in their seeking after Truth.

Would I hae questions for Jesus if I met Him in person? Well, maybe once upon a time I would have, but now there are no questions left for me except one that I would like to ask Him, "How can I love youmore?" But that has come after years of experiencing His love for me, and that didn't come easy. I was raised an agnostic, tried to become a Buddhist, and then became a 'cafeteria Catholic' 9picking and choosing what I liked) only because I admired Mother Teresa. Somehow, over time, it all came together for me, and I 'met Jesus' in my heart and have never been the same since.

He is a personal God, not an impersonal one, and He loves you more that you (or I) could ever possibly comprehend. Studying Him and His Church is good - Pope Benedict says we can marry faith with reason (and so have many theologians) but 'falling in love with Him' is a whole different experience. The most important thing ever said to me by anyone was when my spiritual director told me that I needed to develop a 'personal relationship' with Jesus (sounds very Protestant I know, but he was a hermit monk/priest). I didn't know how so I took it directly to Jesus in prayer and asked Him to do it for me.

If you truly want to understand more deeply about God, and are not just arguing for the sake of arguing, then I can only recommend that you try using the tools that God gave us to do this.... prayer and sacraments. But for now... start with prayer (alone with Him) and ask Him your questions. See where that gets you first.

[stevil]

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to understand you (the collective of Catholic people) and your beliefs, more than I am trying to understand your god. I have no belief in any god and struggle to understand what pulls a person towards one god more than any of the other gods given that there is no evidence for any of them.
I will not pray to any god, sorry, this is not out of defiance or spite, but simply because I have no belief in any god, I have no belief that prayer is any more than a person being introspective and imagining a relationship with a myth. But I thank you for your time and the charity of your advice with regards to a path that has lead you to happiness.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1317205500' post='2311578']
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to understand you (the collective of Catholic people) and your beliefs, more than I am trying to understand your god. I have no belief in any god and struggle to understand what pulls a person towards one god more than any of the other gods given that there is no evidence for any of them.
I will not pray to any god, sorry, this is not out of defiance or spite, but simply because I have no belief in any god, I have no belief that prayer is any more than a person being introspective and imagining a relationship with a myth. But I thank you for your time and the charity of your advice with regards to a path that has lead you to happiness.
[/quote]


You have been very civil during our discussion. It has been nice chatting with you. Best wishes.

[BigJon16]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1317200897' post='2311556']

Sorry, I'm not understanding the subtleties.

But with regards to the Church, it bases its teachings on the bible and its long held traditions, so it is not teaching anything new. There is no guidance towards new knowledge since 2000+ years ago, is that right?
[/quote]

I can read a section of scripture three times, and get a different message each time. Though the bible may be "old" doesnt mean that it doesnt teach us anything new. The Holy Spirit uses scripture to speak to us. Just because a man is old, does not mean that he cant teach someone something new.

The teachings are a mix of both guidance from the Holy Spirit through scripture and "old age wisdom". The Church is 2000 years old, that's 2000 years of "trial and error", 2000 years of spiritual growth. Think about it, all the spiritual growth that one person can achieve in a lifetime, now multiply it by 1,000,000,000(average world population of Catholics)x2000(years). That's 2,000,000,000,000 lifetimes worth of spiritual growth all massed into one church. And through that church, it is all easily availible to anyone who seeks it.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1317205500' post='2311578']
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing, I am trying to understand you (the collective of Catholic people) and your beliefs, more than I am trying to understand your god. I have no belief in any god and struggle to understand what pulls a person towards one god more than any of the other gods given that there is no evidence for any of them.
I will not pray to any god, sorry, this is not out of defiance or spite, but simply because I have no belief in any god, I have no belief that prayer is any more than a person being introspective and imagining a relationship with a myth. But I thank you for your time and the charity of your advice with regards to a path that has lead you to happiness.
[/quote]

Just wondering, if you dont believe in any God, then what do you care? In order to understand something, it has to exist first, right? One must believe in the first place, and then, I think, is when one can truly understand those who believe. Its like trying to understand math if you believe that numbers have a different value than to what is actually thought. If you think that 2+2=7, than it would be very hard to understand someone who thinks that 2+2=4.



And I agree with nunsense, it is always pleasant descussing things with Stevil. He's good at making me think. hahahaha

Edited September 28, 2011 by BigJon16

[stevil]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1317237925' post='2311799']
I can read a section of scripture three times, and get a different message each time. Though the bible may be "old" doesnt mean that it doesnt teach us anything new. The Holy Spirit uses scripture to speak to us. Just because a man is old, does not mean that he cant teach someone something new.
[/quote]
New for you, because you didn't read it or understand it fully before, but not new information, the book is static.

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1317237925' post='2311799']
Think about it, all the spiritual growth that one person can achieve in a lifetime, now multiply it by 1,000,000,000(average world population of Catholics)x2000(years). That's 2,000,000,000,000 lifetimes worth of spiritual growth all massed into one church.
[/quote]
Just a minor point, but there weren't 6 billon people around 2,000 years ago, we are multiplying over time.
Also the church is a top down organisation, not bottom up. Teachings are not derived from the followers or public opinion, the chuch's stance is sometimes contrary to public opinion.

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1317237925' post='2311799']
Just wondering, if you dont believe in any God, then what do you care? In order to understand something, it has to exist first, right?
[/quote]
In my job I deal with conceptual view points all the time. As an IT Architect I develop conceptual models of computer systems.
By your logic, to understand you I need to understand your god, by my logic, to understand your god I would need to be a Christian, so extrapolating this then to understand Muslims, Bhuddists, Jewish, Hindu's etc I would need to be a Bhuddist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim etc..
I am also keen to understand cultural divides e.g. Chinese, Indian, American, British, Arab...

Really, I can only do as best as I can. If I talk to people within these groups, get involved in discussions that are important to them, ask for clarity on things I don't understand, then at least I can come someway to having a better understanding of these people. I am wanting to break down the barriers and demystify my own perceptions. In this way I can be more compassionate, and understanding and hence be comfortable having discussions with these people and be more tolerant of their quirks, e.g. all male priesthood etc.
I find that often the problems of the world are with regards to a lack of understanding, simply people look over the fence at other niche groups and make judgements rather than getting in there amongst them and start to get a personal understanding of the realities of that group. Of course a true understanding for an outsider is impossible, but I am trying to understand more than I do already.

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1317237925' post='2311799']
And I agree with nunsense, it is always pleasant descussing things with Stevil. He's good at making me think. hahahaha
[/quote]
Thanks guys and gals, you are too kind.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1317055241' post='2310466']
Some people previously have posted some good stuff. My biblical studies professor once told my class that a while ago some archaeologists went out to find the "real" ruins of the places in the Old Testament, like the walls of Jericho and Noah's ark and the Exodus. Know what they found? Nothing. There's virtually no evidence for anything before the kings (Saul, David, Solomon, etc), and even then what there is is so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Does this mean that the Old Testament isn't true or divinely inspired? No, of course not. If anything, its even more amazing what God can do with so very little. Whether or not Abraham was a real person who did all the things attributed to him or if he was fictional, the point of the story is for us to ask ourselves "what does this tell us about the truth about God and ourselves, our relationship with Him?" If anything, the Old Testament overall shows us that no matter how corrupt and fallible humanity is, God is always faithful, unconditionally. And that love is why He sent His son, Jesus.
[/quote]
Archaeological discoveries have also repeatedly confirmed the existence of many places, persons, and peoples once dismissed by "rationalist" Biblical scholars to be fictional, and thus proof that the events of the Bible were not real. I can't remember my source for this off hand, but there's actually quite a list.

And just because we don't currently have archaeological relics of something from ancient history does not mean it never existed.


And actually it makes all the difference in the world whether important historical figures in salvation history such as Abraham and Moses were real or only fictional characters. It has been the constant teaching tradition of the Church and the Jews that such persons were indeed real historical persons. If the salvation history of God's Chosen People and the events leading up to the coming of the Messiah were only fiction, then the whole context of Christ's coming becomes meaningless, and He came only to fulfill fanciful yarns and fairy tales. That has never been the orthodox Christian understanding of salvation history.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1317092773' post='2310763']

I think people's problem with the OT, though, isn't that innocent people were raped and killed, but that God supposedly ordered them to be raped and killed.




Is it possible that God did not literally order horrible things to happen to those people? I've thought about this a lot recently. It just doesn't match up.
[/quote]
There is such a thing as a just war, and, yes, God ordered them to preserve His Chosen People and enable His promises to them to be fulfilled. The Almighty Living God was not and is not some sensitive tolerant pc 21st century guy.

And, no, God did not order rape. Read the Bible for yourselves, rather than letting ignorant anti-Christian atheistic propagandists try to tell you what it says.

[Basilisa Marie]

True, just because we don't have evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I agree with you there.

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317251579' post='2311922']
And actually it makes all the difference in the world whether important historical figures in salvation history such as Abraham and Moses were real or only fictional characters. It has been the constant teaching tradition of the Church and the Jews that such persons were indeed real historical persons. If the salvation history of God's Chosen People and the events leading up to the coming of the Messiah were only fiction, then the whole context of Christ's coming becomes meaningless, and He came only to fulfill fanciful yarns and fairy tales. That has never been the orthodox Christian understanding of salvation history.
[/quote]

I won't speak for anyone else, but for myself my faith isn't dependent on whether or not Abraham and Moses actually existed exactly as they did in the way the Bible presents them in a historical capacity.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Abraham, 1907 ed:

[quote]Hermann Gunkel, in the Introduction to his Commentary on Genesis (3) writes: [i]"There is no denying that there are legends in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm"]Old Testament[/url], consider for instance the stories of Samson and Jonah. Accordingly it is not a matter of [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm"]belief[/url] or skepticism, but merely a matter of obtaining better [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm"]knowledge[/url], to examine whether the narratives of Genesis are history or legend."[/i] And again: [i]"In a people with such a highly developed poetical faculty as [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm"]Israel[/url] there must have been a place for saga too. The senseless confusion of 'legend' with 'lying' has [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03459a.htm"]caused[/url] good people to hesitate to concede that there are legends in the [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm"]Old Testament[/url]. [b]But legends are not lies; on the contrary, they are a particular form of poetry[/b]."[/i] These passages give a very good [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm"]idea[/url] of the present position of the Higher Criticism relative to the legends of Genesis, and of Abraham in particular.[/quote]

Yes, that isn't an official Church document, but I highly doubt that the Church's teaching has constantly been that Abraham (et al) were real, historical persons and that the stories of them in the Bible are real historical accounts. In my opinion, to say so comes awfully close to the heresy of biblical literalism. And also in my opinion, as Catholics we are completely free to believe in the historical truth of the Bible (so I guess I'm saying that I personally believe its "valid" to come close to the heresy of literalism). But I also believe that as a Catholic we can engage in and with modern biblical research and scholarship and have that inform how we interpret the Bible for our lives today, combined with the light of Tradition. Did Abraham exist? I'm currently inclined to say probably not, but to me it doesn't matter. What matters more is the significance of the story itself in the life of Judaism and Christianity, and what that story tells us about God and our relationship with Him. That story tells us that God made a covenant with His people and no matter how hard we try to screw it up, God will still be faithful. That, I believe, is the divinely-inspired truth of the story.

And as for fanciful fairy tales?


[quote]"Fairy Tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."[/quote]

I'm inclined to agree with G.K. Chesterton.

Edited September 28, 2011 by Basilisa Marie

[BigJon16]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1317247790' post='2311899']

In my job I deal with conceptual view points all the time. As an IT Architect I develop conceptual models of computer systems.
By your logic, to understand you I need to understand your god, by my logic, to understand your god I would need to be a Christian, so extrapolating this then to understand Muslims, Bhuddists, Jewish, Hindu's etc I would need to be a Bhuddist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim etc..
I am also keen to understand cultural divides e.g. Chinese, Indian, American, British, Arab...

Really, I can only do as best as I can. If I talk to people within these groups, get involved in discussions that are important to them, ask for clarity on things I don't understand, then at least I can come someway to having a better understanding of these people. I am wanting to break down the barriers and demystify my own perceptions. In this way I can be more compassionate, and understanding and hence be comfortable having discussions with these people and be more tolerant of their quirks, e.g. all male priesthood etc.
I find that often the problems of the world are with regards to a lack of understanding, simply people look over the fence at other niche groups and make judgements rather than getting in there amongst them and start to get a personal understanding of the realities of that group. Of course a true understanding for an outsider is impossible, but I am trying to understand more than I do already.


[/quote]

Kinda like a modern day Max Weber. razzle dazzle.

Edited September 28, 2011 by BigJon16

[Socrates]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1317253247' post='2311934']
True, just because we don't have evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen. I agree with you there.



I won't speak for anyone else, but for myself my faith isn't dependent on whether or not Abraham and Moses actually existed exactly as they did in the way the Bible presents them in a historical capacity.

From the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry on Abraham, 1907 ed:



Yes, that isn't an official Church document, but I highly doubt that the Church's teaching has constantly been that Abraham (et al) were real, historical persons and that the stories of them in the Bible are real historical accounts. In my opinion, to say so comes awfully close to the heresy of biblical literalism. And also in my opinion, as Catholics we are completely free to believe in the historical truth of the Bible (so I guess I'm saying that I personally believe its "valid" to come close to the heresy of literalism). But I also believe that as a Catholic we can engage in and with modern biblical research and scholarship and have that inform how we interpret the Bible for our lives today, combined with the light of Tradition. Did Abraham exist? I'm currently inclined to say probably not, but to me it doesn't matter. What matters more is the significance of the story itself in the life of Judaism and Christianity, and what that story tells us about God and our relationship with Him. That story tells us that God made a covenant with His people and no matter how hard we try to screw it up, God will still be faithful. That, I believe, is the divinely-inspired truth of the story.[/quote]
Perhaps you can show me where the Church condemns "literalism" as heresy. (Hint: don't waste your time, because it's not there.)
(I'm not claiming every single item in the Bible must be read as literal history, but claiming as fiction what has always been regarded by the Church as historical truth is verging on modernism, which was in fact formally condemned by the Church as heresy. See Pius X's[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm"] Syllabus of Errors[/url].)

You should also read Leo XIII's encyclical[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html"] [/url][i][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html"]Providentissimus Deus[/url] [/i]concerning Biblical criticism and modernism, which says that Catholics should always give priority to the interpretation of Scripture given by the Church fathers, which has never regarded figures such as Abraham and Moses as fictional.
[quote]15. But he must not on that account consider that it is forbidden, when just cause exists, to push inquiry and exposition beyond what the Fathers have done; provided he carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine-[b]not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires[/b];(40) a rule to which it is the more necessary to adhere strictly in these times, when the thirst for novelty and unrestrained freedom of thought make the danger of error most real and proximate. [/quote]
In other words, it is better to err on the side of Scripture being literally true than to assume otherwise.

And if God in fact did make a covenant with His people, it would be foolish to assume that the events of this covenant and the persons He made it with never actually existed.

[quote]And as for fanciful fairy tales?





I'm inclined to agree with G.K. Chesterton.[/quote]
I'm inclined to believe that Chesterton would agree with me that the historical events of the Old Testament were not mere fairy tales in the sense of "Hansel & Gretel" or "Snow White."

[Basilisa Marie]

All right, I spoke too harshly when I called biblical literalism a heresy. I'll give you that.

But as far as I know, something can be heretical without being officially proclaimed to be so. And today's Catholic biblical criticism isn't heresy, either. The literalism I called heretical was the kind you say you don't subscribe to - and I recognized that - and said that I believe you're perfectly in your rights as a Catholic to subscribe to interpreting the Bible as historical fact. Scholars haven't found any evidence outside the Bible for many of the events in the Old Testament prior to the united kingdom of Israel. You can take that as they just haven't found anything yet, or that it's still true even though they never will. I can take that to mean that perhaps we can re-evaluate what we consider to be historical fact in the Old Testament and search for what deeper and other kinds of truths (other than historical record) the scriptures are trying to tell us, combined, like I said before, [i]w[/i][i]ith the light of Tradition. [/i] I never said I advocated throwing out what the Church Fathers said about scripture. Quite the opposite, actually. What I'm saying is in this case, the fact that something may or not be historically true doesn't change what the Fathers say it means.

I am well aware of the heresy of Modernism, as well as its more current children secularism and relativism. But as I always asserted that the Bible should be interpreted with the Church Fathers in mind, I don't see how I'm falling into biblical rationalism. Paragraph 12 of Dei Verbum even advocates the scholarly pursuit of what the scriptural authors intended.

[quote]To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms."For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.[/quote]

Using modern scholarship along with the interpretation of the Early Fathers - that's what I just said.

You argue that its illogical to hold anything other than these events are literal historical fact. I argue that historical fact doesn't matter as much as the message, a message I assume we both agree is true. I suspect that this argument will probably devolve into a "Nuh-uh!" "Yes-huh!" spitting match, so can we agree to disagree? Or we can keep calling each other heretics. That'd be fun too.