Anyone who teaches teenagers, or anyone for that matter, who asks “if it feels so good, how can it be wrong?” should become familiar with the research discussed in the book HOOKED by Joe McIlhaney and Freda Bush,MD. The back of the book says “Parents and others who care about young people now have the facts to steer them away from making life-changing mistakes, and lead them toward reaching their full potential.”

Where on earth is this Lilith stuff coming from all of a sudden? This is the second time in as many months I’ve run into a Catholic catechist having to field odd questions about her. (That is, admittedly, a pretty small sample size.) I mean, Lewis thought her sufficiently mythological to name her as Adam’s first wife and Jadis’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmother in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I doubt he would have done so if he thought there might be any real confusion.

Archbishop Sheen had written that the devil tries to confuse us into sin by mixing evil in with good.  Sexuality is a good thing/gift from God in the correct relationship.  But the devil changes the formula slightly in order to confuse us.

Seriously, if sin didn’t feel good, who would be tempted to commit sin?

I give an overly summarized account of his writings, but you can get the basic understanding.

“The basis of the Church’s view that the Bible is inspired is, quite simply, the authority of Jesus Chritst.  However, during Jesus’s lifetime there was no New Testament, only the Hebrew Bible. Same goes for Paul, who proclaimed every word of the Bible to be true.  The gospels were not written during Paul’s lifetime. No one sat down and said ‘hey guys I can’t play cards tonight, I’ve got to sit and write the Bible’. At the end of the second century there might have been 50 gospels. The four canons were selected for political rationales. To state that the gospels are anything more than a human instrument defies reason.

The story of Lilith is not a legend.  It is a myth. Some might believe this an unimportant distinction to make.  The Five Books of Moses fall under the theological category of myth, not legend.  Lilith IS part of that ancient tradition, even if the redactors chose to leave that story and many others out.  (And please, no one jump on me for using the word myth.  It has a particular meaning in theology which does NOT mean a story isn’t true.)

I agree to the substance of your remarks, I just wish for the correct terminology.

Lilith is also associated with a goddess who ate children. There seems to be a great deal of interest re. the mythological to-day and while there are some negative aspects to same, I believe it shows a hunger for a deeper level of story/explanation-for-what-is than is currently provided (esp. to the young)by variuos media. This wondering and questionning is inscribed in our very mind/soul, nor will it ever be eliminated by the most advanced of future genetic researchers since it not within the scope of scientific investigation. We adults need to protect our children from being exploited and more importantly provide them with the many more exciting and profound mysteries than are/have been part of the Catholic faith since day one! It reminds of a news item (read some years ago) about a child trapped in the rubble of his school in a middle eastern country. His father and family dug and dug through the debris even after others had given up. When finally unearthed the child cried out “Abba(daddy), I knew you would come for me!” We must remove the “debris” so that Abba can find those who are now being blocked from Him.

The primary intent for sexual intercourse is for procreation. Would men and women have sexual intercourse together if each time they did so the response was one of pain OUCH! OUCH! OUCH! Procreation is not simply for giving life to another human being(s) but to give to GOD a vessel for the HOLY SPIRIT. ST.Paul asks,“Do you not know that your body IS a Temple of the HOLY SPIRIT”. In tne contemporary culture of mankind, particularly the sex minded “sex sells” West the human body, especially a physically attractive/very attractive one (“ie:sexy”)is definitely,at first thought by most people, not viewed as a Temple of the HOLY SPIRIT.Before Adam & Eve sinned and were banished from Paradise they were in a state of Grace (and lived in a much higher state of existence than what we are presently accustomed to on Earth which is infected with centuries of sin and its consequences of war, famine, pestilence, etc.)  with God and had they, through their use of their own free will, not sinned but remained in a state of Grace human conception would have,subsequently, occurred in a state of Grace. Human conception, owing to Adam & Eve’s fall from Grace,now occurs in a state of physical lust and the consequence of this spiritual imperfection is original sin upon the soul. Therefore the Sacrament of Baptism, preferably as an infant not too long after birth, becomes necessary to cleanse the innocent soul(innocent by not being guilty of having willfully comitted any sin mortal or venial)of original sin.

error in earlier comment. “...profound mysteries than…” should read “...that…”

In Jewish lore, Lilith is a dibbuk, a minor demon, a she-devil, if you will.  I don’t know if we should call that equal opportunity or chauvinism.  She derives from Babylonian mythology not from religious Judaism.  Question: would God have Adam, the first man, created pure from His Hand consorting with a minor demon?  Is such a concept appropriate for the Bible which is Sacred Scripture not a book of ancient folk tales?  What other “Books” have been suppressed by the “evil, high-handed Catholic Church?”  Who really deleted books from Sacred Scripture, why?  How were the books for inclusion chosen?  We could go on and on.  Kids love things, and they quickly see your point.  Adult classes are the same.  Usually there is a “light dawns” moment.

Unfortunaltely these last few decades Lilith has become somewhat the para-biblical spokeperson of femminists.

Since Lilith dumped Adam (to go mate with demons in the desert and produce a demonic spawn, according to some legends, nice role model for girls isn’t she?) she is often seen as the symbol of the ‘indipendent woman who needs no man’ by some foolish femminists.

On the other hans the Bible has its share of strong and courageous female characters: Ruth, Susanna and Ester, for example.

The four canons were selected for political rationales. To state that the gospels are anything more than a human instrument defies reason.

What a spectacularly ignorant thing to say.

@ Jesuitical

“
The four canons were selected for political rationales. To state that the gospels are anything more than a human instrument defies reason.
“

That is quite untrue what you are stating, hence your comment defies reason.

The synoptic Gospels were written between 60 and 80 dC, so they might have been written when Paul was still alive or just shortly after his death. All gospels with no doubt were written before the end of the 1st century, as almost all scholars agree (even non Christian ones).

Regarding the alleged ‘50 gospels by the end of the II century’... that is highly speculative if they were that many (actually they were not probably).

In ANY CASE the apocryphal gospels were written at about 80-100 years after the synoptic gospels or even later. Even the so-called gospel of Thomas, one of the earlier apocrypha (if not the earliest) is dated 170-180 dC.

The claim that “The four canons were selected for political rationales.” is also completely false and unhistorical as the Canon was not formed for political reason and the status of the 4 canonical gospels was already very strong and dominating well before politics entered the picture with Constantine.

Hence, dear sir, you are ‘talking out of your ass’, to use a colorful metaphor and MOST SCHOLARS AGREE (even non Christian ones) that the 4 canonical gospels (or in any case the three synoptic gospels - Matthew, Mark and Luke) are the most historically reliable of all gospels, while all the other gospels are not even close to them regarding reliability (Ok Crossan and the Jesus Seminar considered the Gospel of Thomas… and most serious biblical scholars laughed at Crossan and the Jesus Seminar for this idiotic choice).

So get your facts checked properly.

@Jesuitical:  Could you please explain what you mean by the Gospels being selected for ‘political rationale.’

The Lilith Fair (started by Sarah McLaughlin) is named after her.  She is an icon of feminism.

Teach children the truth first.  If they start out challenging, they may never find the key to salvation.

Pardon my chuckle, but I’m just now getting why Frazier Crane’s wife was called Lilith…

To ToddC, since you asked:  We do not know who wrote the gospels considered canon.  The four names assigned to them were 100 years after written.  Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 are St. Paul.  Of those 13, at least, 5 are considered forgery.  Forgery was rampant through the ages lacking in today’s technology to determine authorship. None of the apostles were literate, as they spoke only Aramaic. We do know that no one named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote them. At the time few were able to read, even less write. The upper class, about ten per cent of them were literate and some of their slaves.  The slaves were often involved with teaching the children and doing other business. The rest of the population might well be as few as one per cent literate.  These towns inwhich the apostles lived had no libraries. Books were of animal hide, parchment, codices and other scraps.  It is highly unlikely that any of this was written in entirety. The ancients related by anecdote and by piece meal events were scribed. In the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible.  The earliest of those Bibles were twenty inches high and nearly as wide.  Variance in Xtian thinking might even have been more diverse then than today. The first pope who can be recognized as a pope would be today was Leo the Great, 440 CE. Prior to him orthodoxy was debated amongst the patriarchates;  Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome.  None had more authority than any other…though they all competed and viewed and claimed contrary opinions were heresy…one excommunicated the other. It eventually becomes a case of history is written by the victors not the vanquished.  Kindly review the politics following the councils of Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus I 431, and II 449, and finally Chalcedon 451. Note that even after decisions were made bickering never ceased and more Xtians killed other Xtians than the Romans ever did. Even a cursory reading of this period determines the political nature, of whom sided with whom, bribes, threats, killings etc.
So, for many centuries there was no Bible.  And when there was, who could read it, let alone find one. In the mid fifteenth century, at the time of movable print there was a movement to determine accuracy, find and weed out forgery. This intellectual group were known as ‘humanist’, not the derogatory term noted today.  Now we have computers available to do much of this. In the study of history it is paramount to seek the truth where the truth lies; not where we wish to place it.  Unfortunately from reading pejorative responses on this blog; to some ‘truthfulness is a distraction’. For the search of truth requires study examining not for affirmation of opinion already held, but to decipher, utilize peer review, honesty, differentiate what is and can be known from theory and what can be postulated. It is never wrong to admit to saying ‘we just don’t know’, nor ought there be any condemnation for expressing doubt.

If it feels good, it must be OK is the easiest to dispel logically, but very difficult to dispel in practice because…. People who use this line of ‘reasoning’ are often not seeking truth, but seeking justification. 

First, before you give the reason as to why this is false, you must sincerely ask the person “will you abide by what is true, even if you don’t like it?”  If they answer that they won’t, then you will know you are dealing with someone who tends towards narcissism, and therefore will be very difficult to reason with. 

Fact: many actions which are considered universally wrong by cultures and religions throughout the world, are engaged in by small numbers of persons because they derive pleasure from these acts.  Serial killers derive pleasure from their acts of homicide.  Many rapists derive great pleasure from their acts of violent sexual attack.  No one in their right mind would state that, since these people derive pleasure and enjoy these acts, it makes them not wrong.  If they retort saying those acts lack consent from one of the parties, you can bring up the issue of driving while intoxicated.  All individuals in a car may consent to get in the car while all are intoxicated, and may even enjoy driving recklessly while intoxicated.  If that car crashes, and kills people in the car, a wrong was committed, regardless of the fact that all in the car consented to the reckless behavior.

Then lay down the principle that many acts are made by God to be pleasurable, but only to be enjoyed in the correct context.  Gluttonously eating and purging (vomiting) may be pleasurable because our tasted buds are made by God to derive pleasure from food, but to do so gluttonously is a deformed use of our taste buds, and our digestive systems.  Look at both the problems associated with bulimia and obesity.  There are a multitude of examples of how human emotions, pleasures and abilities can be abused when use out of context or injustly.  This is what to focus on to dispel the vacuous thinking “if it feels good, it must be OK”.

Lilith. The Lilith Fair. I attend that concert to impress a woman I was dating. Painful scene. I ended up marrying her. She-devil indeed!  : )

What ever happened to teaching the truth, and when kids come up with nonsense like Lilith, tell them frankly it is not part of God’s truth revealed in Holy Scripture.  Period.  No, just because they are “bright” does not mean they are entitled to challenge and question and try to obfuscate every doctrine and principle of Catholicism. 

Here we see more evidence of the many, many problems with Life Teen.  We don’t need to get kids fired up over error, but calmed down by the truth and set them on a course for rational, moral behavior.  There should not be 5 minutes spent on this Lilith topic in the group, it if is, it’s the devil talking.  Get back to religious formation and dump this dangerous Life Teen, which is increasingly condemned for these problems of moral and theological ambiguity.

Hi Mark,
That ending:.... “That’s why we need the Church, the community that gave us the Bible. About the worst way in the world to read Scripture is to divorce it from the community that created and compiled it.”
Presents the presupposition the “Church” includes Emperor Constantine( a kind of foreshadow of the Pope), as the authority, at the council of Nicaea, which is where the books were compiled. The council didn’t “create”, or write any scripture.  Foxes book of Martyrs records the Roman Emperors “Church’s” position on “giving us the Bible”, though historically that didn’t always include our actually owning or reading one for ourselves. 
If we ask then who is the “church community” that provided the text that was compiled into the Bible? The answer is quite Jewish, so if we acknowledge that, the ending might have read:
“That’s why we need the Jewish understanding of the Church, the community that gave us the Bible’s text. About the worst way in the world to read Scripture is to divorce it from the community that created it, and get that confused with the community that compiled it.”
What were these Jewish fables, idol worship, and “many gods”, scripture condemns? Would Lilith qualify?

Presents the presupposition the “Church” includes Emperor Constantine( a kind of foreshadow of the Pope), as the authority, at the council of Nicaea, which is where the books were compiled.

Documentation please?  In fact, neither Nicaea nor Constantine had anything to do with compiling the books of the Bible.  The canon was largely a settled matter by Nicaea.  All Constantine ever did was make 50 copies of the Bible as a gift in 320, five years before the Council.  The text of MSS before Constantine looks just like the texts he had copied. So he neither added nor subtracted anything.  Likewise, Nicaea had nothing to say about the canon of Scripture.  They were too busy arguing with Arius.  You need to stop believing urban legends and learn some history.  The canon of Scripture is defined for the Church about 70 years after Nicaea by Pope Damasus I.  And even Damasus is just putting the rubber stamp on a canon of scripture that had long been the consensus of the Church.  Finally, Constantine is not a foreshadow of popes, since the Church had had popes since Peter.  You can even find a list of the popes chronicled by Irenaeus, about a century before Constantine’s birth.  Try getting your information from actual historical sources and not from regurgitations of rubbish from people who think the Da Vinci Code is reliable scholarship.

Here we see more evidence of the many, many problems with Life Teen.

We do?  I would have thought that what we see is that a Life Teen teacher is diligently attempting to give the truth of the faith to a confused teenager.  But I guess if you are already bent on condemning Lifeteen, any non sequitur will do for an accusation.

Sometimes questions like these are just asked to bait the teacher.  We did that all the time in our religion classes in Catholic schools (back in the 50’s and early 60’s).  I went to a co-ed Catholic high school and when religion classes came up, the boys and girls were separated.

I think one reason for this is that the boys also liked to show off in front of the girls.  Wonder if something like that is occurring in your class.  Teenagers don’t change that much and I could see someone asking that question about sex or better yet “how far can you go before it’s a sin”.

It’s up to the teacher to keep them on the subject.  Lilith should have dismissed and instead defended the Bible as the word of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit.  And that would be that.

It is puzzling though that Lillith would even been brought up, unless some of these things are either being promoted by the Hollywood bunch, or in one of their movies.

And yes, please stick to the basics.  Because a lot of these weren’t emphasized or left out is one reason there are many fallen away Catholics who never learned the truth about their faith.

>Of those 13, at least, 5 are considered forgery.
As John Galt would say, “considered” by whom? Blank-out.
>  Forgery was rampant through the
Meaningless blanket assertion… logic which is never applied to any OTHER ancient works.
> lacking in today’s technology to determine authorship.
What technology do you refer to? Computer analysis.
> None of the apostles were literate, as they spoke only Aramaic.
Non sequitur derived from bald assertion. Do you claim there are some sort of biographies of the apostles verifying this?
>  We do know that no one named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote them
How do we “know” this?

Proof by assertion piled on assertion. No wonder you call yourself “Jesuitical”, paying attention only to the pejorative.
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/was-lilith-edited-out-of-the-bible/#ixzz1jfLe1IT3

“What ever happened to teaching the truth, and when kids come up with nonsense like Lilith, tell them frankly it is not part of God’s truth revealed in Holy Scripture.  Period.”

“Lilith should have dismissed and instead defended the Bible as the word of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit.  And that would be that.”

Yes.  That would be that.  A teenager would learn that Catholic teachers have nothing to say about their subject except “Shut up.  I’m changing the subject.” Soon after that, such teenagers will no longer have any faith. And why should they if it’s defended that badly? Thank God that this teacher does not indulge in such authoritarian rubbish but actually tries to engage his student’s questions with the conviction that the Church actually has something true to offer and not merely “Because I say so. Now shut up.”

Mark, thanks for coming to the rescue of that faithful, loving and hardworking teacher. As a public high school teacher, I can definitely relate to the amount of patience and savvy required to engage young people in a respectful and meaningful way—- AND to see through the baiting when it occurs. On the Lilith thing, I suppose my first question back to the person who brought it up would be, “Would you please share with me where you got this information?” Since the session was almost over, I probably would have added, “Let’s come back to this next time, and in the meantime, I’d like to check into this Lilith material for myself.” I’d also by trying to understand why this young person (or persons) were being so profoundly influenced by this material (and pray for them, of course!).

I feel sorry for Jesuitical, and this person has my prayers also. Such a mishmash of factoids and distortion of history! If he geniunely cared about a logical discussion, he would stick to topic here (“How to Handle a Left-Field Question About Lilith”), and take his discussion about the historic value of the Gospels to a site like Catholic Answers. He or she seems more interested in spouting than communicating.

Sorry Mark, I have to disagree with you, because that’s exactly what the nuns and priests did when you brought something like that up.  No they didn’t tell you to shut up but they did let you know to stick to what subject they were teaching you.

Now, if Lilith was brought up, seriously, then you might just get an assignment to learn all you could about it, bring it back to class and then discuss it.  That’s what we were told and we learned.

It’s a lot different then telling them to shut up.  But guess what.  Many of our pre boomer generation know more about the Bible and Church teachings from the way we were taught, even through memorization, then some of the kids do now.  lecMy oh my, we even learned Bible History and were taught about the Saints.  We even had retreats when we were teenagers and had to “shut up” for 3 days while the retreat master lectured us on the sixth commandment, and even the boldest of us wouldn’t have thought to challenge him.  Why?  Because we knew instinctively that he or she was right.

I think there is a compromise to be seen here.  Telling kids the truth should ALWAYS be the first priority.  As a high school teacher, I will vouch for the best lesson plan - respectful attention to their questions by way of TRUTH FIRST, supported by an obviously strong faith and well-documented research.  I have never found this method to fail.

@Jesuitical:  To quote Father Groeschel’s elderly Jewish neighbor, “So, you were there?”

Hey Jesuitical, you display a really amazing ignorance of logic, history, the Bible, languages, and just about every other subject. Almost too much ignorance for one person.

People in Jesus’ time didn’t have books? Those who spoke only Aramaic were illiterate? Ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Several thousand manuscripts, mostly papyrus, were discovered in the Judean desert near Jerusalem in 1947. They included copies of the Hebrew Bible, and a vast amount of other Jewish literature, including texts written in Aramaic. They were written between the 2nd cent. B.C, and the middle of the 1st century A.D, in other words, around the time of Jesus.

We have bits of a papyrus ms (once a whole ms) of St. John’s Gospel, dating from 120-125 A.D., perhaps 30 years or so after we know the Gospel at latest was written. In other words, the Gospels existed as written texts from the very beginning. No one who has studied this period can seriously think otherwise.

Similarly, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that because some of the first apostles were fishermen that they were illiterate. Many fishermen would have carried on a big business with the Romans in the flourishing towns of Galilee like Sepphoris. They couldn’t have done it without knowing how to keep accounts and write to their customers and converse in Greek. And if they couldn’t actually write in Greek themselves, they could hire secretaries - which may have been how the Gospels came to be written in Greek.

The rest of your diatribe is equally ludicrous, but I don’t have time to go into it all.

As someone who actually was taught by the Jesuits, I think any Jesuit would give you an F. Go and learn something before you try to impress us hoi polloi again, OK?

things like this lilith stuff? ho hum. the best way to handle this sort of thing is to bring it up with your kids BEFORE they encounter it in social discourse. Point out logical fallacies, add a bit of wonder at the people who believe such stuff, and they will easily remember that the Faith isn’t so stupid when someone lays a DaVinci Code trip on them.

‘how can something I like and that feels good really be sinful’

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/was-lilith-edited-out-of-the-bible#ixzz1jincNPYN

I had almost exactly that question as an “open question” in my own life that was never answered to my satisfaction for over 30 years.

Recently (aha) I realized it was answered by the philosophical idea of the “marriage of goodness and truth”.  Although it would be hard to disagree with the fact that sex is pleasurable and pleasure is a natural “good”.  The sex act outside of marriage is not in any sense “true”.  Even in marriage the sex act in disobedience to the Church’s teaching (e.g. on contracteption, or perversions) is not “true”. We must insist that our actions be both good AND true.

Which is why the Saint Paul teaches us to “gird our loins with Truth” at Ephesians 6:14

It is interesting to note that the character of Lilith emerged from the BABYLONIAN Talmud (rabbinic commentary on scripture).  We should consider that the Jews were in exile in Babylonia and were vulnerable to all the attendant influences of a pagan culture.

Gina Nakagawa, “were you there”...No Gina I was not there. But neither were the authors of the four canons. Not only were they not there they were never witnesses to Jesus. The four gospels were written in fluent Greek.  The apostles spoke Aramaic and were illiterate. We can say thusly, that the gospels of Peter and Thomas were also written by some other…as were the many others found. Also, none of your teachers were there either.  So, how do we know what we know.  This is the test of scholarship and for those inclined to objectively research all writings of the era free from preconceived beliefs and magical thinking. Truth is not a simple affirmation of ones beliefs, it is independent of our wishes and must be scrutinized by standard not imposition of faith. Such study involves art as well as whatever science is available to us. All must be read and studied. Unfortunately, during the centuries preceding the Irish monks who diligently scribed the writings, there were considerable copying errors. As stated earlier, all the patriarchs competed, and jealousy was rampant, writings of contrary opinions were burned, theologians condemned and branded and excommunicated. The early councils were called by the emperor not the pope. These councils were conducted in Greek, not Latin. During the council of Nicea the pope was not even invited. Pope Leo as brilliant as he was, did not speak any Greek. It is incumbent upon all who wish to honestly set mind to these issues to explore the cultural, social, mores available to us as well. Luckily we have found concealed writings which open windows to us. How then, if one were living in that period, avail themselve of such writing. Since few could read, there had to be readers, and a social place to gather and listen. Alexandria had the noted famous library, but that was demolished by fire…thusly information was passed by word of mouth and embellished.  The scrolls of the ancients; written on parchment, animal hides etc. were eventually replaced by the codices e.g. Jerome’s Vulgate…that of course was 20 inches high and wide.  Heretofore only bits and pieces were available.  No one sat and wrote thinking it was the Bible being written.

Thanks, Mark Shea, for your well-reasoned approach to this. As a former Life Teen core member, I can tell you that ANSWERING the question rather than strong-arming with “the Church says so” will make these kids better Catholics.

Our Life Teen folded because of lack of support from the clergy. It STILL is showing fruit with the lives it affected, even though it’s been shut down for over a year. Sadly, the teens coming up in our town since the closure have had little to bring them to Christ’s truth.

We do have an emerging group being started for the teens, but it’s not under Life Teen. Please pray for us.

@Jesuitical,
While the authors of the Gospels may not have been eye witnesses, the case is hardly strong enough to assert that with the sort of certainty you do.  It might be more accurate to say that you and modern scholarship doesn’t believe it to be true.  Further, we do not know for a fact that the Apostles spoke only Aramaic (If there is a passage anywhere in the Bible that says this, please point it out).  We know that Israel, during the time of Jesus and the Apostles was part of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.  We also know that Greek was to the Roman Empire of the time like English is to the modern day.  Further we know that prior to the Empire and the Hasmonean Dynasty, that Israel was part of a Greek speaking empire. 
—
Further, St. Matthew was a tax collector.  As a tax collector, he would have needed to not only speak Greek, he would have needed to write it in order to keep his accounts straight for the Romans.  St. Luke (though not one of the Apostles) is generally believed to have been a physician and would likely have learned to read in order to study the classical greek medical texts.  Likewise St. Mark was known to have knowledge of Greek.
—
I also think you discount the notion that even if the Evangelists had been illiterate (and I think it is clear I have shown that some of them were not), it is possible they were dictated by the traditionally ascribed authors.  My own personal belief is that the Gospel of John was written by one of John’s disciples, otherwise, the references of John as the Disciple whom Jesus loved comes off as too self-serving.
—
To my mond, modern Biblical Scholarship is based on a system of circular skepticism.  If in a Gospel, Jesus makes a prophetic prediction to a known historical event, then clearly the Gospel was written after that event.  That dating is then used to prove that Jesus never actually made any prophetic predictions.  If a statement is inconvenient for a Bible Scholar’s theory, and it could be edited out and the text still make sense, then clearly it must be an interpolation.  The Evangelists couldn’t possibly have been amongst the earliest followers of Jesus, because we “know” that they were a bunch of illiterate bumpkins (of course, ignoring the fact that if they were inspired by God, even an illiterate could have written the Gospels)... even if the evidence suggests they were not.
—
In closing, all of this reminds me of the people who try to claim that Shakespeare couldn’t possibly have written the works of Shakespeare—why not?  Because they were too good to come from someone with his background.

“Sorry Mark, I have to disagree with you, because that’s exactly what the nuns and priests did when you brought something like that up.  No they didn’t tell you to shut up but they did let you know to stick to what subject they were teaching.”

With all due respect, ma’am, that tactic may have worked in 1950 but this is 2012. Within 3 seconds I can have extensive information- and opinions all over the spectrum- on Lillith or whatever in my own home and at my own convenience. If you ignore the queries of today’s children or dismiss them as irrelevant you are going to have them get that information elsewhere. It should be preferable to all involved that our children are getting their informantion and guidance on controversial topics from their parents or other trusted adult sources, like a teacher of a teen-centric class at church. That doesnt mean the enitre class had to stop to address this topic, but the teacher in question would not be doing these kids a favor by failing to address this claim at some point. Dismiss the queries of children at your own risk.

Nothing personal “Jesuitical” but the errors you are espousing are ones condemned by Saint Pope Pius the Tenth over a hundred years ago in LAMENTABILI SANE (Pius X July 3, 1907) the Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists.  Your disputations are already settled why do you try to disturb the faith of the little ones in Christ????

Pleez, Jesuitical, read Lamentabili Sane ... especially numbers 9 to 13, 18 and 31.  I believe you are no longer a Roman Catholic if you in ful conscience reject the teachings of the pope that are solemnly declared on matters of faith and morals.  If you still have some sort of faith in Christ, pray for me and I will for you.

But neither were the authors of the four canons.

The term is “canonical gospels” Mr. Bible Expert.

Not only were they not there they were never witnesses to Jesus. The four gospels were written in fluent Greek.  The apostles spoke Aramaic and were illiterate.

That which is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.  You have no evidence at all the apostles were illiterate.  Meanwhile the gospels are littered with clues that the authors are either eyewitnesses or (in Luke’s case) very close to eyewitnesses of the events described.

We can say thusly, that the gospels of Peter and Thomas were also written by some other…as were the many others found. Also, none of your teachers were there either.  So, how do we know what we know.

There’s this entire science called “textual analysis”.  You should learn about it rather than listening to Art Bell.

This is the test of scholarship and for those inclined to objectively research all writings of the era free from preconceived beliefs and magical thinking.

Textual analysis is not magical thinking.  Seriously: go here and learn a little.

Truth is not a simple affirmation of ones beliefs, it is independent of our wishes and must be scrutinized by standard not imposition of faith. Such study involves art as well as whatever science is available to us. All must be read and studied.

Thank you for being the very first person to ever point out that biblical study interlocks with other disciplines.  Till you appeared, nobody ever considered that.

Unfortunately, during the centuries preceding the Irish monks who diligently scribed the writings, there were considerable copying errors.

Irish monks aren’t the only people who copied Scripture.  We have manuscripts that predate them by centuries.  There is a remarkable unanimity of witness among the large collection of New Testaments from various sources.

As stated earlier, all the patriarchs competed, and jealousy was rampant, writings of contrary opinions were burned, theologians condemned and branded and excommunicated.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with how the canon of Scripture was settled on, in a peaceful way, by consensus.

The early councils were called by the emperor not the pope.

I believe you mean *an* early council, Nicaea, which had absolutely nothing to do with determining the canon of Scripture, was called by Constantine.

These councils were conducted in Greek, not Latin. During the council of Nicea the pope was not even invited. Pope Leo as brilliant as he was, did not speak any Greek.

And the pope’s Legate, Hosius, was there acting with his authority.  Oh, and the Pope’s name was Sylvester I.  Leo was Pope at the Council of Ephesus.  The Council held in Asia Minor because both Arius (the heretic) and Constantine, and the huge controversy were there, not in Rome.  That the bishop of Rome did not have the resources or time to make the journey is not a shock.  That he sent a Legate to act in his name makes it clear that the Pope was indeed invited.

It is incumbent upon all who wish to honestly set mind to these issues to explore the cultural, social, mores available to us as well. Luckily we have found concealed writings which open windows to us.

Yes.  The Nag Hammadi library, which preserves a lot of gnostic texts, demonstrates how extremely accurate and fair Irenaeus was in describing the beliefs of the various gnostic sects of his day in Adversus Haereses.  Till it was discovered, some critics accused him of distorting what they believed for polemical purposes.  Now we know he was scrupulously accurate.  Unlike your baseless and historically illiterate claims about early Christians.

How then, if one were living in that period, avail themselve of such writing. Since few could read, there had to be readers, and a social place to gather and listen. Alexandria had the noted famous library, but that was demolished by fire…thusly information was passed by word of mouth and embellished.

So you are saying that in order for gnostics or Christians to practice their religion, they had to go to the Alexandria Barnes and Noble coffee shop and this was impossible after it was burned down?  You need to stop watching cartoons.  As to the library at Alexandria, you need to learn some actual history and not get it from the movies.  The New Testament is, quite simply, the best attested book in antiquity.  Gnostic scrolls wind up squirreled away in some library, not because there is some imperial persecution of gnostics (gnosticism was largely dead well before the Faith gets imperial approval and the Church acquires the mechanism of the state to suppress heresy), but for the same reason that you got rid of all those Hardy Boy novels you had as a kid.  People didn’t want them any more and, copying being costly and time-consuming,they stopped being copied and wound up in the Egyptian equivalent of the attic, like your bell bottoms, Carter election memorabilia, and disco collection.

The scrolls of the ancients; written on parchment, animal hides etc. were eventually replaced by the codices e.g. Jerome’s Vulgate…that of course was 20 inches high and wide.  Heretofore only bits and pieces were available.

This doesn’t even make sense.  Are you seriously proposing that Jerome only had bits and pieces of MSS to work with because all *you* have are bits and pieces?  Both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus predate the Vulgate.  And the Dead Sea Scrolls (some of them complete copies of OT books) are 2000 years old. But we’re supposed to believe that Jerome pieced together some bits and piece and then filled in the rest from imagination?  And all the Christians who had been quoting the New Testament for centuries before him didn’t notice?  What a remarkably childlike faith you have in the narrative you have received from your Da Vinci Code fan club.

No one sat and wrote thinking it was the Bible being written.

The author of Torah seems to have been under a rather strong impression that he was relaying the word of God to Israel.  So do the prophets.  Likewise, small textual hints such as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” or “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” do suggest that the authors think they are relaying a message that has a certain amout of divine weight behind it, particularly when they record sayings like “He who listens to you listens to me.  And he who listens to me listens to him who sent me.”  Similarly, Paul tells the Thessalonians they are to be commended for receiving his word, not as the word of men but as it truly is, the word of God.  You may disagree with that.  But the point is that at least some of the biblical writers do in fact think they are writing under the anointing of God.

I suppose any conversation that encourages people to research and read is not entirely bad. All text is subject to short or long scrutiny depending on the need of the reader.  No one is 100% right or wrong. This is impossible. Anyone who is vain enough to think they have all the answers is still searching for perfection in an imperfect world. We are blessed with free will and all people who strive to be Christian will grow in their belief over time. As will your students. Answer their questions and move on.  How can children growing up these days not get sidelined by a racy story? It only catches fire if we fuel it. Living in Christ ultimately feels right in our soul but children, especially teens, are not gifted with the wisdom of years and living examples of Christ in our lives. That’s why parents and the Church exist. Academics need not separate themselves from the faithful unless they place themselves apart or above and the reverse is true. Live well, live kind and love thy neighbor…this is the only example and lesson that matters.

Mr. Shea, I like your wit.

Hi Mark,
Umm.. Sorry, I should have said foreshadow of the All Powerful word of God style Pope, as Emperor’s were won’t to declare themselves gods, have temples erected in their honors, and insisted on being worshiped, which is one reason so many Christians were martyred, for refusing to worship the Emperor as God. It wasn’t until this “power union” took place with Constantine and Christianity, You know, if you can’t beat em join em, that Emperors quit killing “Popes”, and Rome became the head of the new and improved, “Holy” Roman Empire. 
I guess I get my definition of the word “church” from the Bible, not the dictionary, tradition, or threats of death(see Foxes book of Martyrs) by the State/Church, Church/State(same thing). (I have a similar disfunction with the word “rational” as mathematical precedence in terminology, when arguing with Atheists also.)
In scripture, Christ is declared to be God’s word in the flesh, with a heavenly Father, and earthly mother. Jesus said “not my will, but my Fathers will”, He kept God’s commandments, He obeyed “both” His parents(not easy, even if they are both earthly). He said on several occasions in the gospels, that “All that do the will of my Father, and keep His commandments, they are my brothers,...”, and things like “call no man father, you have one Father in heaven”. Jesus doesn’t sound like “His” church has any hierarchy, other than obeying God’s commandments, the holy spirit fell on the uncircumcised that believed in obeying this “one true God”. This is how God’s children, the “church”, is defined(for me): We do the will of our Father, in heaven. How do we know “our Father’s will? Jesus told us: “Moses and the prophets they testify of me”, in other words, we read scripture(circular thinking?).
When scripture seems to be in such great conflict with the doctrines and traditions of men: #The Sabbath has been moved to Sunday, or #Just because everyone there along with Jesus who claimed a “great desire in keeping”, was there to keep Passover, and Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me”, never mind that, lets do it weekly, or monthly, or “any day but Passover”, and besides #Herod was the one that correctly observed Easter Sunday, even though he also was planning Peters? death, and #I want one holiday in my empire celebrated(for unity, and peace), not one on Passover(which could fall any day of the week), and another on “Easter Sunday”(maybe a month, or week apart), we will hold a council of men at Nicaea and decide this ourselves(the primary purpose for the council). Constantine, oh maybe we can work on this standardizing the canon problem, for unity of course.(paraphrase obviously mine).
When Jesus said “Narrow is the way and few be that find it”, I wonder, could the narrow way be a rejecting traditions and doctrines of men, and following scripture instead?
Why do You think Mark, that although Enoch is referred to and quoted from in the Bible, it never made it in(would it of exposed all these Lilith kind of heresies)? When Jesus said: “As in the days of Noah”, without the book of Enoch, carried over the flood by Noah, it’s all hearsay, “what happened before the flood”. All Moses tells us of other than the Ark flood story, is Noah got drunk after, and damned Ham’s offspring Cannan. umm.. since Jesus pointed us to look at the days when Enoch wrote his book….
We most likely agree completely on the veracity of Hollywood screen plays though, like the Da Vinci code, as I have still to see any so called “based on scripture” movie yet, that doesn’t do a complete rewrite.

Jesuitical: Forgive for saying so, but you don’t have a clue about the Scriptures. Almighty God confirmed that:
The Gospel of Mathew was written in Hebrew in Judea in 42 A.D.
The Gospel of Mark was written in Hebrew in Palestine in 46 A.D.
The Gospel of Luke was written in Greek in Achaia in 48 A.D.
The Gospel of John was written in Greek in Asia Minor.
The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to each before they began to write to ensure that nothing about her was included except what was needed to confirm the virgin birth of her Son.  She allowed the most leeway to Luke.
I have to wonder about the validity of your entire blog.

Sorry, John was written In Asia Minor in 58 A.D.

@ Theophile,
I don’t really have enough time to puzzle out an actual argument in most of what you have written (You seem rather contradictory, since it appears you argue that the Bible was assembled quite late by the organized Church, but at the same time believe that Christians should believe in scripture and not the teachings of said Church).
—
I do, however, want to ask you one thing.  You said it doesn’t sound like Jesus’s church had any hierarchy, yet how do you explain that of all of Jesus disciples (120 I believe), he picked 12 apostles?  And when Jesus returned to heaven, one of the first things the apostles did was appoint a new apostle to replace Judas?  And of course Acts, and the epistles makes numerous references to elders and overseers in the local churches that are referenced.  Finally of course Acts describes the Council at Jerusalem, where the question of what to do about Christian Gentiles, for the whole Church, was decided.  In other words, if Jesus’s Church did not have a hierarchy, then his Church did not survive long past his Ascension.

“Almighty God confirmed that….”

No.  He didn’t.

@MarylandBill
Hi MarylandBill,
There is no argument over scripture, as existing in the mind of all those living in the time of the disciples and Paul, consisted basically of the books of Moses, the prophets, Job, and the Psalms of David, etc. The words of Christ and His disciples, are now also considered scripture, particularly John’s Gospel and recording of the Revelation given to him by Christ.
Yes, the council to replace Judas opens a new can of worms, doesn’t it? Didn’t they enumerate the required qualifications of “Apostleship”? If so, did Paul(who claimed apostleship) meet even one of the requirements? (Personally I believe this Mattias, named last, was the author of the first book of the gospels Matthew.) This question of Paul’s Apostleship, on the merits and qualifications of the “Judas replacement” councils requirements, then questions his authority to make rules for the church, in his letters.

QUOTE “Almighty God confirmed that:
The Gospel of Mathew was written in Hebrew in Judea in 42 A.D.
The Gospel of Mark was written in Hebrew in Palestine in 46 A.D.
The Gospel of Luke was written in Greek in Achaia in 48 A.D.
The Gospel of John was written in Greek in Asia Minor.
The Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to each before they began to write to ensure that nothing about her was included except what was needed to confirm the virgin birth of her Son.  She allowed the most leeway to Luke.”

@ Bob Rowland

ehm… as Mark said… no.

There might be some private revelations that state that, but they have no weight in a biblical scholar assessment, that has to be scientific and not ‘revealed’.

Now SOME scholars push the synoptic gosples back beteen 50 and 60 d.C. although that is debated… most put them between 60 and 80 d.C.

John is thought to be by most to be written between 90 and 105 d.C.

Naturally the more ‘lefty’ scholars like to push the gospels in the early II century… but that is higly unprobable.

The gospels are quite reliable historical documents, at least for most scholar, even if they refute the reality of the miracles described in there.

I may have been raised in the late 50’s and early sixties, but I think the difference now and the difference then was respect.  We never questioned our teachers.

And as far as information goes, our generation actually almost lived at the library—-there always were Catholic encyclopedias there as well other sources of information.

We were encouraged to research these things on our own, and then if there were questions, we did ask them.  I don’t recall any one of them telling us to shut up either.  I guess that some modernists feel that we may have been taught wrong, but take a look at your parishes.  How many “older folks” do you see there compared with young couples OR teenagers.  At ours, once Confirmation is instilled, than no more CCD, which is a shame.

And no, I never said that the teachers (priests and nuns) said thats what the Church teaches.  They encouraged questions especially in high school.  And no, this was NOT 1950 but in the late fifties and early sixties.  We actually knew how to read and look up things.  We were guided by some pretty good books too.  Social justice was instilled in all of us from the first grade up.  But we were taught the prayers, and more importantly dogma and Church history.  When Father Pro, a Mexican martyr was beatified recently, I remember reading about him in the fifth grade.

I still say the Church as a long way to go in catechizing the youth of today.  And I certainly hope that the teenagers this teacher teaches appreciates what is being taught.

This may not compare with the internet, but the internet information can sometimes be wrong.

@ Jesuitical

“So, for many centuries there was no Bible.  And when there was, who could read it, let alone find one. In the mid fifteenth century, at the time of movable print there was a movement to determine accuracy, find and weed out forgery. This intellectual group were known as ‘humanist’, not the derogatory term noted today. “

FALSE. Also you can forge documents now with the printing press ;)

MAny scholars viewed over 10.000 different New Testament Documents from different ages and 99% of the differences are but irrelevant spelling mistakes or change of ‘dialect’... the restant 1% is irrelevant theologically (ie if we scrapped it it would make no differenc)

“We do not know who wrote the gospels considered canon.  The four names assigned to them were 100 years after written.  Of the 27 books in the New Testament, 13 are St. Paul.  Of those 13, at least, 5 are considered forgery.”

FALSE too. There are significant evidences for the authoriship of the gospels… only a few fringe scholars reject that.

Regarding the ‘5 forgeries’ that is also false. They are nof forgeries but ‘their authorship is disputed’... and the Church never denied such disputes, actually many in the Church debated them.

Theologically, however those 5 books are clearly Pauline in matters of morals, ideas and theology so they were most probably written by someone very close to him.

“Kindly review the politics following the councils of Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus I 431, and II 449, and finally Chalcedon 451. Note that even after decisions were made bickering never ceased and more Xtians killed other Xtians than the Romans ever did. Even a cursory reading of this period determines the political nature, of whom sided with whom, bribes, threats, killings etc.”

Also false, or at least inaccurate.

Sure there was bickering and disagreements ,etc… obviously even if a Council settles the matter there would be people who would not accept it… duh!

A CLOSE examination of the matter proves you rightly wrong, and politics had often far less to do with the counciles than you wish to think, I am sorry.
If they were to follow politically as you claim very different decisions would have been taken, including letting Arius point win, for example.

“to some ‘truthfulness is a distraction’. For the search of truth requires study examining not for affirmation of opinion already held, but to decipher, utilize peer review, honesty, differentiate what is and can be known from theory and what can be postulated. It is never wrong to admit to saying ‘we just don’t know’, nor ought there be any condemnation for expressing doubt. “

So WHY aren’t YOU doing that? :P
Stop reading fiction :D

Somewhere I have come across a statement that scrolls or “books” to be included in the Christian canon were those from which readings regularly were given at the liturgies (“Masses”) in Christian communities.  Thus the “Shepherd of Hermas” which has some nice concepts of virtues and advice was excluded from the NT canon, not because it wasn’t old; but a/c no particular verses in that were being read at liturgies.
And First and Second Maccabees were included a/c some excerpts WERE regularly included in liturgies in the Christian communities in the Fourth Century A.D.
The Jewish canon was based on the scrolls selected by Jewish (Hebrew?) scholars for inclusion at the library at Alexandria.  Numerous copies of those scrolls were distributed wherever synagogues existed; thus those writing survived the destruction of the Alexandria library.
TeaPot562

Yes he did, Mark.  Almighty God is quoted in the Mystical City of God by Ven. Mary of Agreda that has numerous approbations: “I do not intend that thy descriptions and declarations pf the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary shall be mere opinions or contemplations, but reliable truth.” The information on the Scriptures is taken from this source.  Believe it or not – that is up to you.  I believe it.  Anyone who wants to understand the exalted nature of the Holy Family and Blessed Virgin Mary must read this publication.

Rave on jesuitical. I accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church Jesus built, Who do you accept and believe?

For once I agree—the Bible is a “family photo album” in which the Church has decided who belongs and who does not. Can you acknowledge that there are different families? Some families are Jewish, Hindu, Shinto, Pagans, and (gasp!) Atheists. Stop telling us how we “should” be Catholic.

By the way, Adam had THREE wives.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.slack/BcJBqDAatEg

@Jones
“...start to consider the possiblity that other people [you TOO!] are not infallible…why [yes, WHY?] should there be any truth at all? [every opinion being relative]...completely circular….completely self-serving…[completely useless, completely meaningless]...Hilarious!”

I still don’t fully understand it but it does appear to muddy the waters between good and evil. Lilith was once see as a the mother of all demons in many different cultures, recently particularly in the feminist movement and with gay men, she has gained sympathy, and is seen as an icon of strength.

The blue aliens in the movie Avatar, and Dr Manhattan in The Watchmen, are represents of the spawn of Lilith, the esoteric common factor with both movies was deception.
Avatar = (Climate change deception) The Watchmen = (Greater good deception)

Lilith is the main attraction at Bohemian Grove where the most powerful men in the world meet to take part in Occult ritual. A Manhattan project planning meeting at the grove lead to the conception of the atomic bomb.

I’ve been researching Lilith from all perspectives:
Check out videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/jinnmonkey/videos

I still don’t fully understand it but it does appear to muddy the waters between good and evil. Lilith was once see as a the mother of all demons in many different cultures, recently particularly in the feminist movement and with gay men, she has gained sympathy, and is seen as an icon of strength.

The blue aliens in the movie Avatar, and Dr Manhattan in The Watchmen, are representations of the spawn of Lilith, the esoteric common factor with both movies was deception.
Avatar = (Climate change deception) The Watchmen = (Greater good deception)

Lilith is the main attraction at Bohemian Grove where the most powerful men in the world meet to take part in Occult ritual. A Manhattan project planning meeting at the grove lead to the conception of the atomic bomb.

I’ve been researching Lilith from all perspectives:
Check out videos here:
youtube /user/jinnmonkey/videos

The History Channel has aired a show several times which says exactly what this teenager brought up.  It claims that Lilith was Adam’s first wife and that she left him and he subsequently mated with Eve.  It shows her as a sort of early Paris Hilton-type sylph flitting through the Garden of Eden and the whole presentation of her, as being “deleted” from the Bible is just the stuff to appeal to pre-teen and teenaged girls.  This station frequently has presentations, with so-called experts, that give out false information on Catholicism and church history presented as fact.

I find the comment “By what right do you get to decide what goes in your family photo album?” interesting. I think that it is an interesting analogy but a bit off. I think it would be more a family than a photo album of the family. There are people who belong to your family and there are people who don’t. You don’t get to choose who belongs to your family and who doesn’t. In the same way, there are writings that are scripture and there are writings that are not scripture (i.e. writings inspired by God). It doesn’t matter if you dis-include Uncle Frank from your family photo album, he’s still your family. In the same way, if there is something that is not in the Bible that is scripture, it is still scripture whether or not it is included in your book. And the reverse is true as well. There’s that best friend that you had, that always came to your holiday gatherings and was always in pictures. They’re not part of your family, even if you include them in your album. And if there is something that you include with your scripture, if it is not inspired by God, it itself is not scripture even if it is a very good work. Just something this article made me think.

Adam had THREE wives:

http://everything2.com/title/Adam’s+Wives

I agree to a large degree that it is unproductive to take every conceivable question that an impressionable and undisciplined mind can imagine (or read from an anti-Catholic troll on the internet) and spend a lot of time answering. It’s a trolling infection that could “take out” the entire class’s time and attention. It’s better to nip these in the bud fast and dismiss them. If the questioner persists - put THEM to the labor of doing the research and an essay. Then have critique that essay in all its many fallacies, factual errors and half-truths. If you don’t this you will be pushed down ever new tangential rabbit-hole that this sort of nonsense will take you. Whoever came up with the bright-idea that every question imaginable should be entertained with rigor and deep-analysis? The focus should be on the Orthodox Teachings - not on the heretical or nonsensical. I’d only take the time to say something like: “Lilith came out of pure pagan inspired mythology during the time of the Jewish captivity in Babylon - the very thing God punished he Jews for - embracing false gods and customs.” Any further questioning after than is to put them to the task of doing their own research and writing to defend their own suspicions. And here I agree with the person who said that is an unhealthy suspicion and is not of God since they are already rejecting authorized teaching and orthodoxy.

A general comment to no one in particular - in this very topic question we see the same exact “Trolling” going on among a few here that I consider sophist oriented participants. See this “talking-down” for what it it is - narcissism, hubris, arrogance - the hallmarks of Satan - the father of confusion.

I am very impressed with the depth of scholarship, history and dialectics given as apologetic rebuttal to the trolls here (who’s writing style and vocabulary I recognize as anti-Catholics from other sites). Don’t waste too much of your time on these since its all intended to bring attention to themselves and to feed into their egos rather than serve God.

PAX

One other fact I would just toss into the dialog here is that Lilith is NOT mentioned by any Church Father nor by any apostle or by Jesus. If “Lilith” had any significant mainline Jewish following it would have been hard to “exclude” a valid book/text without leaving some suspicious and glaring artifact or conceptual theological hole in the texts. I mention as an aside that after the crucifixion the Jews DID TRY to strike Jesus Himself from their own texts as “unmentionable” to quash the new Jewish sect of Christians who practiced “The Way” (Ats 22:4); what Saul of Tarsis was originally all about before he became Paul.

However, it DOES APPEAR that “Lilith” DOES find its way into the Hebrew lexicon in the word “lilit’ - in a severely negative way. See The Book of Isaiah 34:13–1 where it describes the desolation of Edom. Lilit (or lilith) appears in a list of eight unclean animals with demonic associations not unlike the swine that Jesus cast the Gerasene demonic (“Legion”) into (Mrk 5:1-20 etc.). But this is to be expected since the human languages always embody the significant historical experiences of the people who must use their own lexicon (or borrow same from other dominant foreign cultures) to capture the essence and concepts of their own histories. So yes the notion of Lilith appears in Hebrew history and language just as the notion of SPAM is viewed as a delicacy in some foreign places but is taken as unsavory in the American English lexicon. Forensics can be found by wading through any current or ancient societies garbage dump. But that does not mean we should go into the bowels of Gehenna to examine the trash that God threw out to burn as useless and unfit for human consumption. In that sense perhaps it could be said that “God” removed edited out Lilith or lumped her into the term “evil”.

Lilith is an interesting cultural insight - but she, or it, is mostly theologically irrelevant except in describing evil in “yet another way”; not the least is the evil of cultural assimilation by dominant pagan/hedonistic cultures or the secularization of Christian thinking…

I might add here my own personal observations. What I see in the Bible is a pattern of self-ratification though a principal of redundancy. Verses from the Old Testament cannon are routinely mentioned in the NT, either in the literal sense or the spiritual sense (through types and anti-types). This is all expected since Jesus came to fulfill prophecy - there is a point-counterpoint nature to scripture that begins from Genesis and echoes through eons of sacred texts in much the same way that a style of music progresses from the first note (even ebbing and flowing like the spirit over the waters of Genesis).

The best critical analysis as a devil’s advocate I can give to even a remote plausibility of the “Lilith conspiracy” leads me to St. Paul. It is indeed “curious” that St. Paul in his epistles makes the direct reference to Christ as the New Adam but remains silent and does not complete the obvious connection to Mary as New Eve and “The Woman” or “the Virgin” of Genesis. If there were a hole in scripture as evidence for an edit-out of Lilith - it might be deliberate by the apostle himself rather than by any malicious action of those who are suspicious of the Catholic Church. Did this pharisee convert know something that he didn’t want to introduced into the new Christian religion?

Given Paul’s scholarly credentials and steeped Jewish tradition - its apparent that he self-restrains NOT to complete this Adam-Eve theme. Could it have nothing but simple respect to Mary if she were still alive? I don’t know. But what I do know is that Christ Himself certainly gives plenty of hints in his calling Mary “Woman” (but not as a diminutive as many Protestants teach) as a honorary role title at Cana and again at the foot of the cross (ref. John 2:24; John 19:26); and again how many times in the unrecorded traditions ( John 21:25)?  Contrary to this whole thesis is the fact that Christ referred to Himself as “Son of Man” - no allusion here to fallen angles (demons) in the lineage of man through the lineage of Adam.

Further worthy of consideration is the fact that we have many preserved manuscripts from the Early Church Fathers containing 6,000 quotations and several thousand Lectionaries. These when combined can REPRODUCE the entirety of the NT scriptures independent of the CODEXes. Thus in the sacred Catholic Tradition itself we essentially have the complete NT Canon with no scrivener errors nor wild neo-Christian theories on what they beleived was the universal (Catholic) faith of Christ.

At the bottom (and I apologize for being verbose) we have:
Lex orandi, lex credendi - “the law of prayer is the law of belief”. As the church prays so she believes. No mention of Lilith in any ancient prayers or liturgy either; unless one wants to count her in the verse of the oldest prayer we have from the NT era - The Lord’s prayer that reads: “Protect us from evil”.

Pax

Lilith is mentioned in the Bible in Isaiah 34. She is a demoness in Jewish traditions and the killer of babies. She is associated with Saturn(Shabtai)and is the feminine side of the Satan. She represents the fallen side of the feminine who tries to dominant over man. She is the fallen fruit eaten by Adam. She mocks the true Dark Lady or Black Madonna who is called Lilah (Night). In Mel Gibson’s Passion you see a good example of this when the Satan appears as a mock Madonna with demon child shadowing the movements of Our Lady. This battle between the Dark Lady called Lilah and Miriam and the the Lilith is hidden in the text of Genesis I when read at the mystical or anagogical level. The Dark Lady is like the Moon she has no light of her own but reflects perfectly the Divine Light. “She walks in beauty like the Night”

Aharon - enjoyed reading your comments here. In particular this line:

“The Dark Lady is like the Moon she has no light of her own but reflects perfectly the Divine Light. “She walks in beauty like the Night”

It plays well into the introductory verse of Mary’s Canticle (aka The Magnificat) in Luke 1:46-55 as well as Solomon’s Canticle of Canticles 6:9.

“My soul magnifies the Lord” (Luke 1:46)

Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array? (Song of Songs 6:9)

The extremely popular Japanese animated sci-fi TV series called Neon Genesis Evangelion (available on DVD for the last 10 years) features Lilith and angel like creatures humanity has to fight against. This may be a reason why Lilith has gained some mainstream popularity lately.

Lilith and other esoteric stuff is often used in fictional anime, books, etc. so people may be picking up on it. But that’s all most of it is, just devices to serve fiction and to have fancy ancient esoteric names. The chief reason I think Lilith is growing mainstream is because of rampant anti-Christian feminism trying to insert itself into Christian doctrines in order to gain more exposure and overthrow Christianity, seen as a patriarchal religion and therefore a threat to feminists who want to promote divorce, abortion, gender disorder etc. This is likely why.

Whatever the reason many may be looking more at stories such as Lilith, its being left out of the Bible as a legend is a subject of immense complication and significance.  George Washington and the cherry tree and certain manifestations of the story of Babe Ruth and the kid are regularly touted, but not necessarily wholly true, if true at all.  Bunker Hill was really Breed’s Jill, San Juan Hill was actually Kettle Hill.  And Paul Revere wasn’t alone warning the Colonists of the approach of the English.  It’s very obvious that much of history has been edited, and the question can be put about the book that’s supposed to be more honorable than any history, the Bible.  Bunker Hill was taught for generations, not because it was true but because it was there!  Lilith was not tuaght, because it wasn’t there.  In a novel, a protagonist can receive a letter and rush out to confront the letter writer.  It’s not necessarily the case whether the protagonist bandaged a paper cut before doing so.  As it is often described, it “doesn’t advance the action”.  Much is the same with sanitized or altered history, certain facts don’t promote the propaganda the history is there to maintain.  The Civil War was because the North wanted to artificially impede Southern states from cobbling their own trade pacts with other nations, and many of the complaints Germany had with their treatment after World War I, which led to the rise in popularity of the Nazis, were valid!  The events not mentioned in a novel didn’t necessarily exist, the real causes of the Crusades did!  Certainly, there isn’t anything in the story of Lilth that promotes the overall import of the Bible, but, by the same token, there isn’t anything about the Apostle Mark tripping over a stone that would do that, either.  It is asserted that Lilith didn’t exist, but did the Apostle Mark never trip over a stone?  Did something never exist simply because, for other reasons, it was never included in a book?  Mark Shea’s answer is more in line with Lilith not being included simply because what those who decided what the Bible should say decided not to include it.  A family album might not contain a picture of someone’s weight gain or bad haircut, but does that mean they didn’t exist?  Isn’t truth more valuable in the Bible than providing a united front?  After this statement, that the Bible is concocted only to reflect positive aspects and not note what may be negative characteristics of its tradition, how can anyone trust it every again?

An old Jewish folktale tells of Adams THREE wives:
After the Lilith debarcle, Adam wanted another helpmeet so God allegedy tried again. God let Adam watch while he built up a woman’s anatomy. Using bones, tissues, muscles, blood and glandular secretions, then covering the whole with skin and adding tufts of hair in places, he formed a second ‘wife’. Watching her creation caused Adam such disgust that even when this woman stood there in her full beauty, he felt repugnance. This second wife (whos name was Naamah) was taken away to “heaven” and was never mentioned again.

Then came Eve who was formed, allegedly from Adam’s rib whilst he slept…the rest is…“supposedly”...history..

Other stories say that Adam had only one wife—this is also true.