Yeah, especially the messianic prophecies.
The days in Genesis, for instance, probably represent individual phases of creation rather than literal 24 hour periods.
And we know this because "science" tells us that the formation of the world came about purely naturally, and thus took zillions and zillions of years. Therefore, since Genesis contradicts "science," it doesn't mean what it says. However, if a scientist very logically concludes that the "consecrated host" isn't literally the flesh and blood of J*sus, Catholics have tantrum. Why is it "science" may sit in judgment on Jewish scriptures but not chr*stian ones?
You do a lot of crowing about how that somehow means the Catholic Church rejects portions of the Old Testament.
And it has decided that Darwin and Wellhausen are authoritative on these matters and chosen to follow them.
Yet I’m pretty sure you reject ALL of the New Testament.
The irony is creamy and delicious, like a fine mousse au chocolat.
Not really, since I don't claim to honor the "new testament" as scripture. You claim to recognize Genesis as scripture, yet allow "science" to sit in judgment on it. Yet you refuse to let science sit in judgment on your "new testament!" Seems to me the irony is all on your part.
I like seeing posters such as yourself post often and in close order.
That's when the true heart shows itself.
However, if a scientist very logically concludes that the "consecrated host" isn't literally the flesh and blood of Jesus, Catholics have tantrum.
When was that? Got a link?