Replies

“Are Jesus’ parables true? Yes, they are, but they don’t necessarily describe historical events.”

Firstly, scripture can only be scripture if it has been written by a Prophet, or, at least, their close associates, as in Luke for the Gospel of Luke. That is why the Apostles believed themselves to be scripture-producers, referring to their own writings as scripture, or quoting the Gospels as scripture alongside Moses. Consequently, if Judith has any connection with any of the Prophets of the Old Testament, it should at least get the geography and history right, even if the story was made to be make-believe, which it doesn’t.

That’s the reason why the Papist concession is so significant, since they can no longer argue that Judith is actually inspired scripture.

Now would be my opportunity to point out as well that the Vatican website treats the entirety of the scripture in this manner, putting out anything that disagrees with their views of science or history as mere “parable.”

Observe:

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

“Which in no way makes it an “official Catholic source.” It was not produced under the direction of the Catholic Church.”

It was published with the permission of your Bishops, who are members appointed by the Pope, all of whom are the authorities of the Catholic Church.