Pope Francis - what do you think?

[metis]

I do have a concern that Francis refers to the creation narrative as mythic and speaks openly of evolution, and says, quote, "The biblical story of creation is a mythical form of expression." saying so on 60 minutes and CBS news. That does not appear a view shared by Jesus or apostle or consistent with His (God's) word.

Again, the Church recognizes the reality of what we know about how our universe and Earth came to be, and they do thoroughly believe God was behind it all, and they also well know that the Bible contains much allegory, metaphor, parable, and other forms of Jewish symbolism that used throughout "God's word". IOW, it's "interpretation", and anyone who's been involved in Bible study should well know that interpretations can vary.

BTW, a survey I saw some years ago had it that roughly 70% of Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Again, the Church recognizes the reality of what we know about how our universe and Earth came to be, and they do thoroughly believe God was behind it all, and they also well know that the Bible contains much allegory, metaphor, parable, and other forms of Jewish symbolism that used throughout "God's word". IOW, it's "interpretation", and anyone who's been involved in Bible study should well know that interpretations can vary.

BTW, a survey I saw some years ago had it that roughly 70% of Christian theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

Unfortunately the phrase 'mythic expression" is a theological train wreck. It undermines and sidesteps the original language. Jesus and the apostles didn't do that. Genesis is true form the very first verse.

Jesus quoted the narration portion of Genesis when he spoke of marriage and referred even to the narration as "God said", not God mythically and ambiguously expressed

 

[Estro Felino]

And have to I agree with you that it's most likely something lost in translation because he undoubtedly over the years made many thousands of statements on Jesus, so if he had said anything like that before he certainly would never have been chosen bishop or pope.

Yes...btw...since I speak and understand Spanish, I have to say he really is much more rational and clear when he speaks in his own language.


But I still dislike certain things he said...like

 

[whirlingmerc]

Yes...btw...since I speak and understand Spanish, I have to say he really is much more rational and clear when he speaks in his own language.


But I still dislike certain things he said...like

Some of his points are a concern:
- atheists may be saved by grace
- we need a super united nations, effective one world government
- we need more diversity in worship, meaning other faiths
- people holding to the fundamentals of their faith is a disease
- a pediphile on his list of advisors yet promised 0 tolerance,

Take your pick, they are all propblematic
and frankly hard to reconcile with a Christian world view
Most of the recent media push for Francis is coming from the far left who don't really agree with Catholic pro life positions perhaps showing that they see him as a way of getting their liberal agenda

 

[metis]

Unfortunately the phrase 'mythic expression" is a theological train wreck. It undermines and sidesteps the original language. Jesus and the apostles didn't do that. Genesis is true form the very first verse.

Many Christian theologians believe it's more likely that the creation accounts were taken from a much lengthier Babylonian epic but then reworked to reflect Jewish morals and values. Every society does this, btw.

Jesus quoted the narration portion of Genesis when he spoke of marriage and referred even to the narration as "God said", not God mythically and ambiguously expressed

The scriptures treat such narratives as if they were real, which is commonplace in traditional Jewish literature. One even reads such use of symbolism in Revelation, for example.

The early church (2nd century) debated whether parables, like that of the Good Samaritan, were based on real events or were myths designed to reflect teachings of morals and values? The majority concluded that there was no need to believe that the "Good Samaritan" was actually a real person because it's the moral of the story that's important.

Same is true with the creation accounts: it's the moral of the story that's important.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Many Christian theologians believe it's more likely that the creation accounts were taken from a much lengthier Babylonian epic but then reworked to reflect Jewish morals and values. Every society does this, btw.

The scriptures treat such narratives as if they were real, which is commonplace in traditional Jewish literature. One even reads such use of symbolism in Revelation, for example.

The early church (2nd century) debated whether parables, like that of the Good Samaritan, were based on real events or were myths designed to reflect teachings of morals and values? The majority concluded that there was no need to believe that the "Good Samaritan" was actually a real person because it's the moral of the story that's important.

Same is true with the creation accounts: it's the moral of the story that's important.

Parables are parables which are more like allegorical illustrations. History is history.
We start timelines in the Bible with Adam and end with Jesus. That's history

 

[metis]

Yes...btw...since I speak and understand Spanish, I have to say he really is much more rational and clear when he speaks in his own language.


But I still dislike certain things he said...like

Maybe play that again as he was rather clearly joking, which is why they were laughing, because he said the opposite just before that.

 

[metis]

Its confused since parables are parables which are more like allegorical illustrations. History is history.
We start timelines in the Bible with Adam and end with Jesus. That's history

The word "parable" does not mean that the event cited did or did not happen-- it means there's a parallel narrative that's involved.

Secondly, one needs to take the timelines with a large grain of salt because they differ somewhat in the Torah. The purpose of these was undoubtedly to try and show the relevancy of the more recent figures back then, so there again is a symbolic value, much like we could say that "Jesus was the new Adam".

Either way, viewing the creation accounts as if it is scientifically accurate is terribly wrong to the point of being nonsensical.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Many Christian theologians believe it's more likely that the creation accounts were taken from a much lengthier Babylonian epic but then reworked to reflect Jewish morals and values. Every society does this, btw.

The scriptures treat such narratives as if they were real, which is commonplace in traditional Jewish literature. One even reads such use of symbolism in Revelation, for example.

The early church (2nd century) debated whether parables, like that of the Good Samaritan, were based on real events or were myths designed to reflect teachings of morals and values? The majority concluded that there was no need to believe that the "Good Samaritan" was actually a real person because it's the moral of the story that's important.

Same is true with the creation accounts: it's the moral of the story that's important.

While many claim "Many Christian theologians believe it's more likely that the creation accounts were taken from a much lengthier Babylonian epic" that makes no sense.

God didn't fight sea monsters to make the world, he created the sea creatures
Noah had a boat that appeared sea worthy and had ratios of construction like a real boat. In contrast the Ark of Gilgamesh was a cube shape and would roll all over the ocean like a volleyball

 

[whirlingmerc]

Many Christian theologians believe it's more likely that the creation accounts were taken from a much lengthier Babylonian epic but then reworked to reflect Jewish morals and values. Every society does this, btw.

The scriptures treat such narratives as if they were real, which is commonplace in traditional Jewish literature. One even reads such use of symbolism in Revelation, for example.

The early church (2nd century) debated whether parables, like that of the Good Samaritan, were based on real events or were myths designed to reflect teachings of morals and values? The majority concluded that there was no need to believe that the "Good Samaritan" was actually a real person because it's the moral of the story that's important.

Same is true with the creation accounts: it's the moral of the story that's important.

The New Testament draws more than morals. "by faith we know the world was made by the word of God' Hebrews 11:3

 

[whirlingmerc]

The word "parable" does not mean that the event cited did or did not happen-- it means there's a parallel narrative that's involved.

Secondly, one needs to take the timelines with a large grain of salt because they differ somewhat in the Torah. The purpose of these was undoubtedly to try and show the relevancy of the more recent figures back then, so there again is a symbolic value, much like we could say that "Jesus was the new Adam".

Either way, viewing the creation accounts as if it is scientifically accurate is terribly wrong to the point of being nonsensical.

A parable may be crafted with a historical situation as part of a context the audience would understand but in themselves they are not history.

 

[metis]

Some of his points are a concern:
- atheists may be saved by grace

Notice the word "may", and notice that he is obeying what Jesus said about "judge ye not...", whereas you do and have judged others.

- protecting a convicted pediphile on his list of advisors

The Chilian bishop is being investigated but he was not the one indicted for being a pedophile.

- we need a super united nations, effective one world government

His claim is that nations need to work together for the common good and that the U.N. does have much they could contribute.

- we need more diversity in worship, meaning other faiths

What's wrong with "diversity in worship"? Does everyone have to believe and worship in the same manner that you do in order to please God? Again, he's not judging others-- you are.

- people holding to the fundamentals of their faith is a disease

His criticism of fundamentalists is that so many of them tend to become terribly narrow minded, thus all too often taking the "my way or the highway" approach that has caused so much harm in world history. How many people have been killed or murdered in the name of "God"?

 

[metis]

The New Testament draws more than morals. "by faith we know the world was made by the word of God' Hebrews 11:3

Of course it includes the issue of "faith". Do you really think I implied anything different? "Morals" and "values" have to be based on something, and within both Christianity and Judaism they are based on having faith in God.

 

[metis]

A parable may be crafted with a historical situation as part of a context the audience would understand but in themselves they are not history.

That's besides the point because when "X" occurred has little bearing on what is being taught as far as morals and values are concerned, which is why a series of books written almost 2000 years ago, called the "Bible", is still relevant today.

 

[whirlingmerc]

That's besides the point because when "X" occurred has little bearing on what is being taught as far as morals and values are concerned, which is why a series of books written almost 2000 years ago, called the "Bible", is still relevant today.

Part of the relevance of the Bible is that it's rooted in history. A historic creation, fall, flood, call of Abraham, Exodus, a history, a historic incarnation, death, resurrection and assertion... It matters.

Now there are many other religious views where their teaching can quite easily be separated completely from the historicity.... just not Christianity or really not Judaism either

 

[metis]

Part of the relevance of the Bible is that it's rooted in history. A historic creation, fall, flood, call of Abraham, Exodus, a history, a historic incarnation, death, resurrection and assertion... It matters.

It's main relevance is not history-- it's Jewish and Christian spirituality. Whether or not the creation accounts are actual history or allegory makes literally not one speck of difference today because it's what is taught in these accounts that deal with basic Jewish & Christian teachings and morals that is far more important because we can use those today.

History deals with what has passed, so it's far better to deal with what we can learn from these narratives and see what may apply to us today and tomorrow. Therefore, it makes not one iota of difference today whether these narratives actually took place, maybe in part took place, or are allegorical.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It's main relevance is not history-- it's Jewish and Christian spirituality. Whether or not the creation accounts are actual history or allegory makes literally not one speck of difference today because it's what is taught in these accounts that deal with basic Jewish & Christian teachings and morals that is far more important because we can use those today.

History deals with what has passed, so it's far better to deal with what we can learn from these narratives and see what may apply to us today and tomorrow. Therefore, it makes not one iota of difference today whether these narratives actually took place, maybe in part took place, or are allegorical.

Jesus incarnation, life, death and resurrection cannot really be divorced from real history
but neither could the Exodus, it would make it not a real deliverance

 

[metis]

Jesus incarnation, life, death and resurrection cannot really be divorced from real history
but neither could the Exodus, it would make it not a real deliverance

The Bible is a book of faith, not of science nor history. Yes, some things found in the Bible may qualify as "history", and some may qualify as "science", but it's neither history nor science as its main reason for being composed and used today by billions is for the teaching of faith.

And all scriptures in all religions are highly subjective, not objective, especially since their word-view 2000+ years ago was very parochial.

 

[exchemist]

I do have a concern that Francis refers to the creation narrative as mythic and speaks openly of evolution, and says, quote, "The biblical story of creation is a mythical form of expression." saying so on 60 minutes and CBS news. That does not appear a view shared by Jesus or apostle or consistent with His (God's) word.

Oh really? It is exactly how some of the early fathers of the church, notably Origen, in about 200AD, treated Genesis:

QUOTE
" ...when he read the bible, he shared Greek or Hellenistic Jewish scepticism that some parts of it bore much significant literal meaning. Looking at the Genesis account of creation, "who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?" Origen might be saddened to find that seventeen hundred years later, millions of Christians are that silly. He would try to tell them that such things were true because all parts of the scriptures were divinely inspired truth, but they should not be read as historical events, like the rise and fall of Persian dynasties. He insisted that this rule should even be applied within the text of the gospels.

In viewing the biblical text in this way, Origen followed Clement [his predecessor in the Christian school in Alexandria, in 190AD ] in relishing the use of an allegorical method of understanding the meaning of literary texts, which by then had a long history in Greek scholarship. This is how the Greeks had read Homer and how learned Alexandrian Jews like Philo had read the Tanakh.
UNQUOTE

From "The History of Christianity", McCulloch, Prof. of the History of the Church, University of Oxford, 2009.

 

[metis]

Oh really? It is exactly how some of the early fathers of the church, notably Origen, in about 200AD, treated Genesis:

QUOTE
" ...when he read the bible, he shared Greek or Hellenistic Jewish scepticism that some parts of it bore much significant literal meaning. Looking at the Genesis account of creation, "who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, planted a paradise eastward in Eden, and set in it a visible and palpable tree of life, of such a sort that anyone its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life?" Origen might be saddened to find that seventeen hundred years later, millions of Christians are that silly. He would try to tell them that such things were true because all parts of the scriptures were divinely inspired truth, but they should not be read as historical events, like the rise and fall of Persian dynasties. He insisted that this rule should even be applied within the text of the gospels.

In viewing the biblical text in this way, Origen followed Clement [his predecessor in the Christian school in Alexandria, in 190AD ] in relishing the use of an allegorical method of understanding the meaning of literary texts, which by then had a long history in Greek scholarship. This is how the Greeks had read Homer and how learned Alexandrian Jews like Philo had read the Tanakh.
UNQUOTE

From "The History of Christianity", McCulloch, Prof. of the History of the Church, University of Oxford, 2009.

And, btw, the Jewish sage Maimonides said much the same when he wrote several centuries ago that much that is found in the first 12 chapters of Genesis appears to be allegorical.