You wrote:
“I was not aware that Augustine was that up on the epic of Gilgamesh. Wow. Learn something new every day.”
He was up on Genesis which is what bdeaner cited him for.
“Oh. The Bible says in one place that the earth was created in six days (and gives a very detailed chronology of when) and in another (your bible, that is) it says that the bread and wine turn into flesh and blood. One is literal and one isn’t.”
No. Everything in the Bible has a literal meaning, but that doesn’t mean they are to be taken ONLY literally. Also, Genesis offers no time specific chronology of creation. It offers a sequence of events. If there was a time specific chronology then there would be specific time references and yet we only get “In the beginning...”
“You think insisting they must both be literal is “conflating issues no one else does?” I wish my old friend wideawake were still here.”
No, I think you conflate all sorts of issues. You always do. You assume one thing is another. You are, right now, conflating the idea that every verse has a literal meaning with the idea that every verse’s literal meaning was meant to be taken as plain explanation. St. Paul talks about allegories for a reason.
“Bdeaner and the other Catholics on this thread are not singling out the days of creation but the entire first eleven chapters of the book which includes Cain and Abel, the Flood, and the Tower of Babel.”
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I’m not wasting my time to check because I already know that you simply can’t talk about this issue with any clarity. Again, you’ll conflate one thing with another.
“Furthermore he invoked Gilgamesh, an ancient Babylonian myth seized on by German atheists in the late nineteenth century, to justify this. He used quotes from ancient church authorities to defend transubstantiation but he obviously rejects the church fathers as “men of their time” when it comes to Genesis because he invokes Gilgamesh.”
No. In post #19 bdeaner posted this: “St. Augustine (A.D> 354-430) wrote on this topic in his book, The Literal Meaning of Genesis. This quote comes from a translation by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.”
Do you see it? LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.
So there you are conflating two DIFFERENT things again as if they were the same. Transsubstantiation is not the same thing as LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.
“Listen to me, Vlad. You have in the past accused me of slandering the Catholic Church and Catholics, yet you have admitted that even to you, who believe in the events related in Genesis, it just isn’t that important.”
No. Again you’re saying one thing is the same as another. I said:
“You want everything to be neat and tidy and plainly black and white and have everyone agree with YOU and YOUR interpretation of scripture. That ain’t gonna happen. I take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realize God can create in anyway He chooses. bdeaner doesn’t take Genesis 1 and 2 quite literally, but realizes God can create anyway He chooses. So, while you’re losing sleep over this, and worrying that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of it, I, in my bed, and bdeaner in his, will be sleeping just fine.”
That is WAY DIFFERENT than, “it just isn’t that important.”
Again, you are making it look like one thing is the same as another.
“You have just confirmed everything I have ever said (or thought) about Catholics and their hypocritical vendetta against the Hebrew Bible.”
Oh, here we go. So, you invent something I never said and claim it proves what you always said? ROFLOL! Neat trick. And we’re back, once again, to it always being about your interpretation and your conflating of things.
“Every chr*stmas eve the priest chants out the chronology of creation until the birth of J*sus—but no one actually believes it.”
I believe it and so does my priest.
“It’s a pantomime! Ditto for the prayers in the mass that invoke the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedeq. If Genesis doesn’t matter—if it is just as likely to be myth or parable as actual history—then all these prayers are reduced to a pantomime recited by a play actor, somewhat on the level of the “Hiram Abiff” legend during a Masonic initiation. What kind of church is this? What kind of church says that these events invoked in its holiest prayer may have happened, but they didn’t necessarily actually happen? I’ve got news for you: the prayers in the `Amidah and Birkat HaMazon that invoke the events of Purim and Chanukkah could not be uttered if the events they thank G-d for didn’t actually happen; that would be a sin!”
Uh, when you’re done with your rant, let me know.
“You’re right about Raymond Brown. He couldn’t possibly have been Catholic. He was too consistent and too honest.”
Actually he was neither, but why let a fact get in the way of your post, right?
“Only someone who holds—or who defends the right of others to hold—that the Jewish part of the Bible is didactic mythology while the chr*stian part of it is “real history” is not only a hypocrite but a theological anti-Semite.”
Oh, please. So, someone who doesn’t believe in the most literal understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 is not an anti-Semite? Like I’ve told you before: you are obsessive on this issue. Obsessive to the point that you’ve lost touch with reason if you’re going to hurl around bogus charges of anti-semitism.
He invoked Augustine after observing that Genesis "reads like Gilgamesh." Thus it isn't Augustine's authority alone he was invoking but nineteenth century comparative mythology.
No. Everything in the Bible has a literal meaning, but that doesn’t mean they are to be taken ONLY literally.
In just over ten years on this forum I have never said that the Bible is to be taken "only" literally. Now who is conflating? Biblical literalism and sola scriptura are two completely separate things, though some Catholics apparently can't help confusing the two--hence the hostility to any insistence on the literal historical truth of Genesis. Just because every verse in the Torah has four (or even seventy, or even more) interpretations doesn't mean that it didn't also happen literally as written!
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I’m not wasting my time to check because
Because it's not important in Catholicism. After all, we don't want to sound like "those people." Let's bend over backwards for the "gays" but if someone has trouble accepting modern Biblical criticism, well then, he isn't intellectual enough for the Catholic Church. I wonder how Catholic theologians would react if science ever discovered a "literalist gene?"
So there you are conflating two DIFFERENT things again as if they were the same. Transsubstantiation is not the same thing as LITERAL MEANING OF GENESIS.
Both are totally contrary to "natural law" but are asserted by the Catholic bible. Yet only one actually happened--or it's only really important whether one of them actually happened.
No. Again you’re saying one thing is the same as another.
If they're both part of the authentic Bible they are the same thing. If one of them isn't, then its part is not the Word of G-d. I can admit this with my rejection of the nt, but liturgical chr*stians can't let the "old testament" go. They've based their entire religion on it, even if they've since branded it mythology!
And I reiterate again--you (and others) have in the past (not in your last post) accused me of making stuff up. Believe me, you can't make stuff like this up!
I believe it and so does my priest.
And yet here you are, arguing with me, because even though you believe it to be true, it's not that important whether all Catholics believe it! So there are priests who recite prayers citing events they believe happened, and other priests who recite prayers that cite what they believe is mythology, but apparently it doesn't matter. All Catholics must agree on the literal interpretation of John 6, but when it comes to Genesis and the events that allegedly made chr*stianity necessary . . . well, that's up to you!
Also, Genesis offers no time specific chronology of creation. It offers a sequence of events. If there was a time specific chronology then there would be specific time references and yet we only get “In the beginning...”
Here, my friend, you are very, very wrong! The ancient Sages constructed the chronology of Genesis long ago and it may be found as an appendix in almost any printed Rabbinic Bible. They did this from the birth and death dates of the first 26 generations (ten from Adam to Noach, ten from Noach to Abraham, and six from Abraham to Moses)--the equivalent of the numerical value of G-d's Name. And from this we have the current year number 5769 which the Lubavitcher Rebbe claimed is not merely a claim of truth but a Halakhah. For that matter, I could direct you to a traditional Jewish chronology online if you were interested.
And you're arranging for a Creation seminar with the Kolbe Center? Why, if it's not that important? Why don't you tell Hugh Owen that while you interpret Genesis literally you don't think it's really that important? Maybe if it's not that important you should just forget about the whole thing. In fact, if it's not that important, why are you trying to arrange a seminar with the Kolbe Center at all? You seem somewhat conflicted.
Face it--the Catholic/Orthodox antipathy to the historicity of the Hebrew Bible is a form of theological anti-Semitism, exactly on a par with the alleged supersession of the Biblical rituals with chr*stian ones and of the Holy Temple by the church. What other explanation is there?