Fact and Fiction in Scripture

[LittleLes]

Back to the historicity of scripture. (Wow! This has become a hot topic! I'm off today, and if I walk way from the computer for even a little while, when I return I'm at least a page behind! ).

Matt 16:15 -20: "He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah."

Mark 8: 29-30 "And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah." Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him." (Only)

Luke 9:20-21 "Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God." He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. " (Only)

John 1:40 - 42 "Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter)." (Nothing about Peter's confession of faith, building a Church, or Peterine primacy).

Questions:

(1) Which passsages are historical (ie they really happened)?

(2) Is it possible any were embellished by the writer or some subsequent copyist? Which one(s)?

LittleLes

[Technicoid]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:03 PM']Having, as per good conscience, considered the litteral possibilty creation as depicted in the bible, is it possible and/or permissible to accept a conclusion that these are not historical events and thus and allegory, while retaining in good faith the teachings of the Catholic church?
[/quote]

No, I don't think you can; you would be dismissing the explicit teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The term "allegory" suggests that the fall didn't really happen or that a common ancestor to whom we refer as Adam didn't exist. What you can conclude is that the details concerning the fall and the identity of Adam are not scientifically precise. See paras 360-401 to understand how we should read these passages.

The question is, do we expect the phrase "historical" to be synonymous with "scientifically precise in detail"? They are not. In fact, most of our history prior to modern times is relayed in nonscientific, nonobjective language. Traditional historians don't discount it as being non-historical or necessarily untrue. In fact, to do so to the Bible is to hold the Bible to a higher standard than historians hold other texts.

For an excellent discussion on this point, you might want to pick up a copy of [i]Handbook of Christian Apologetics[/i] by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. It provides some guidelines on how to interpret scripture and what constitutes historical material.

Something else to consider is the whole literal vs. symbolic argument, which is actually a false dichotomy. Something can be both real and symbolic at the same time. For example, when Vietnamese Buddhist monks immolated themselves, they were commiting a real and a symbolic act. They're not mutually exclusive.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:21 PM']Back to the historicity of scripture. (Wow! This has become a hot topic! I'm off today, and if I walk way from the computer for even a little while, when I return I'm at least a page behind! ).

Matt 16:15 -20:  "He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood  has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah."

Mark 8: 29-30  "And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah." Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him." (Only)

Luke 9:20-21  "Then he said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God." He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone. " (Only)

John 1:40 - 42  "Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus. He first found his own brother Simon and told him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed). Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John;  you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter)." (Nothing about Peter's confession of faith, building a Church, or Peterine primacy).

Questions:

(1) Which passsages are historical (ie they really happened)?

(2) Is it possible any were embellished by the writer or some subsequent copyist? Which one(s)?

LittleLes
[right][snapback]613742[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



I see no reason they could not all b historical, and True. There is no reason that these are all necessarly the same event.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:31 PM']I don't need a sky daddy to tell me whats right or wrong. Your doctrine of infalliblity only allows you to be a mindless robot and do as you are told. You basicly dont have to ever ponder issues of morality and right/wrong. You just do what you infallable church tells you to do. The truth is that the mind is capable of abstracting issues like this.  The very reason you dont plunge a dagger into your leg because it causes harm to you, is the same reason we can understand the concepts of right and wrong.  Absolute morality, is arbritrary at best.
[right][snapback]613687[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Now we resort to simple name calling. Yes this is the "higher morallity" you are speaking of.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 11:27 AM']You constantly make these claims when you cannot disprove the facts. But you don't present any evidence to the contrary. Only the claim that its been "refuted." But, of course, it hasn't.
[right][snapback]613313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


That's a hoot coming from you.....twisty noodle....






















Has anyone noticed that this thread is a re-hash of older threads....should we start cutting and pasting our responses from two months ago.




















Did someone say something about bringing up old arguments when one is thoroughly defeated??????

[Technicoid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 03:40 PM']Response:

It says exactly  what we are bound to accept and what we may not call into doubt.

Use the plain meaning of words. And Pius X says Catholics are bound in conscience to accept all PBC decisions.

Again, "  In particular MAY THE LITERAL HISTORICAL SENSE BE CALLED IN DOUBT in the case of facts narrated... THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE DEVIL  UNDER TO FORM OF A SERPENT.
Answer: IN THE NEGATIVE.

Literal = adhering to fact or to the ordinary or usual meaning (as of a word).
Historical = a chronological record of actual events.

Unless someone wants to engage in a little "lets pretend," that simply is what is said. [/quote]

Do you mean let's pretend I didn't just post the rest of that document to counter what you wrote? Did you read the rest of the section from which you took paragraph III? Before you dismiss what I've written, please address the rest of the section and explain paragraph III in light of it.

Paragraph III is saying that you cannot call the literal meaning [b]in doubt[/b]. It does not say that the form of the language used is scientifically precise. In fact, paragraph VII says that the language is appropriate for the audience for which it was intended. That means that it would use images, tropes, idioms and what not common to that audience. Its truth is not in doubt. What might be in doubt is how the events would be presented in scientifically precise langauge. Since we don't and most likely never will have the ability to step back in time, we can't describe the events with that kind of scientific precision.

Also, please read up on what types of documentary evidence count as historical. Your assumption is that a "chronological record of actual events" is always presented in scientifically precise language. I assure you that this is not the case. If it were, then much of what historians consider legitimate history would have to be thrown out.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:20 PM']

. the Y chromosome is completly differant and also of fairly recent research. Of course there is some new positions that mitochondrial DNA may nto all come from the Mother but that is a very controversial idea with little support, that doesn't mean it's wrong but it does make it not really worthy of making judgments on. The Y chromosome is not in debate at all, it is largly excepted to be correct dating-- if you have a contrary source please site it, I am not being condecending here, I would really like to see it.

Response:

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

January 21, 2003


"The fact that one man apparently gave rise to the y-chromosome genes of all moderns does not mean he was our only male ancestor," said Stringer. "What it means is that his male progeny were more prolific breeders or luckier, and their Y genes survived while those of his contemporaries didn't. But those contemporaries could have passed on many other genes to present-day peoples."

and

"While the most recent male common ancestor identified through the y-chromosome lived 60,000 years ago, the most recent female common ancestor traced through mitochondrial DNA lived around 150,000 years ago. Whether an individual can be identified as our single common ancestor is open to debate. "

That do, Don John?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:35 PM']really please explain how anything is moral or immoral in a state of Nature, where there is no God.
[right][snapback]613692[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That which harms = bad. That which brings happiness and does not harm = good.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:24 PM']
The question is, do we expect the phrase "historical" to be synonymous with "scientifically precise in detail"? [/quote]

Response,

Not at all. "Historical" means it actually happened and is history. "Non-historical" means it didn't happen and consequently is not history.

Quite simple distinctions actually. Scientific precision is not involved.

It either happened or it didn't happen.

Littleles

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 16 2005, 04:40 PM']Melchisedec, you claim you have rights.

Where do these rights come from?
[right][snapback]613698[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A combination of natural law and social law. I think its also part of our human nature to want to be free.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:58 PM']
[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:20 PM']

. the Y chromosome is completly differant and also of fairly recent research. Of course there is some new positions that mitochondrial DNA may nto all come from the Mother but that is a very controversial idea with little support, that doesn't mean it's wrong but it does make it not really worthy of making judgments on. The Y chromosome is not in debate at all, it is largly excepted to be correct dating-- if you have a contrary source please site it, I am not being condecending here, I would really like to see it.

Response:

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

January 21, 2003
"The fact that one man apparently gave rise to the y-chromosome genes of all moderns does not mean he was our only male ancestor," said Stringer. "What it means is that his male progeny were more prolific breeders or luckier, and their Y genes survived while those of his contemporaries didn't. But those contemporaries could have passed on many other genes to present-day peoples."

and

"While the most recent male common ancestor identified through the y-chromosome lived 60,000 years ago, the most recent female common ancestor traced through mitochondrial DNA lived around 150,000 years ago. Whether an individual can be identified as our single common ancestor is open to debate. "

That do, Don John?
[right][snapback]613804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Not really that is exactly what I said in my origional post, I don't see how it in anyway disputs any of what I said. And the Fact is that if ALL men come from the same Man 60,000 years ago that has no bearing on whether there where other men, I don't dispute thatthere where other men, thats where the wemon came from however it fits well with the story of Noah that all Y chomosomes come from the same man 60,000 years ago and that this is divergent from the fact that female mitocondria is much older that is exactly what one might expect from the scriptures--- Exactly. I don't see any repudiation of my Post at all, you sightthe exact same figures. It seems to me that you just don't want to admit that they supportthe general pattern set out inthe Scripture.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:45 PM']Do you mean let's pretend I didn't just post the rest of that document to counter what you wrote? Did you read the rest of the section from which you took paragraph III? Before you dismiss what I've written, please address the rest of the section and explain paragraph III in light of it.

Paragraph III is saying that you cannot call the literal meaning [b]in doubt[/b]. It does not say that the form of the language used is scientifically precise. In fact, paragraph VII says that the language is appropriate for the audience for which it was intended. That means that it would use images, tropes, idioms and what not common to that audience. Its truth is not in doubt. What might be in doubt is how the events would be presented in scientifically precise langauge. Since we don't and most likely never will have the ability to step back in time, we can't describe the events with that kind of scientific precision.

Also, please read up on what types of documentary evidence count as historical. Your assumption is that a "chronological record of actual events" is always presented in scientifically precise language. I assure you that this is not the case. If it were, then much of what historians consider legitimate history would have to be thrown out.
[right][snapback]613782[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Response,

I quoted the key paragraphs of the two documents. If you claim some other portion of these documents refutes these key paragraphs, please quote precisely which paragraph.

Not a "Did you read....etc. Just succinctly state your evidence (if any).

And there's no provision for "doubt." The PBC document forbids doubt rather specifically.

"In particular may the literal historical sense be called in doubt in the case of facts narrated in the same chapters...? Answer: In the negative. "

LittleLes

[Technicoid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:03 PM']Response,

Not at all. "Historical" means it actually happened and is history. "Non-historical" means it didn't happen and consequently is not history.

Quite simple distinctions actually. Scientific precision is not involved.

It either happened or it didn't happen.[/quote]

So by this definition, something that happened metaphorically happened historically. Is that really what you meant?

How about something that happened and is decribed using idiom? Did that happen historcially? If I say that some dirty rat lied to me, and someone actually had lied to me, wouldn't that constitute a historically accurate statement?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:58 PM']
[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jun 16 2005, 05:20 PM']

. the Y chromosome is completly differant and also of fairly recent research. Of course there is some new positions that mitochondrial DNA may nto all come from the Mother but that is a very controversial idea with little support, that doesn't mean it's wrong but it does make it not really worthy of making judgments on. The Y chromosome is not in debate at all, it is largly excepted to be correct dating-- if you have a contrary source please site it, I am not being condecending here, I would really like to see it.

Response:

Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News

January 21, 2003
"The fact that one man apparently gave rise to the y-chromosome genes of all moderns does not mean he was our only male ancestor," said Stringer. "What it means is that his male progeny were more prolific breeders or luckier, and their Y genes survived while those of his contemporaries didn't. But those contemporaries could have passed on many other genes to present-day peoples."

and

"While the most recent male common ancestor identified through the y-chromosome lived 60,000 years ago, the most recent female common ancestor traced through mitochondrial DNA lived around 150,000 years ago. Whether an individual can be identified as our single common ancestor is open to debate. "

That do, Don John?
[right][snapback]613804[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is all well and good but what about the midicholorians?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 16 2005, 06:19 PM']That is all well and good but what about the midicholorians?
[right][snapback]613836[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


please leave Star Wars stuff ( especially stuff which would best be forgotten since Lucas was foolish enough to put it in) out of ithis Cam. We don't need to be accused of believeing in micocellular lifeforms which tell us the Will of God.