Book X, Chapter Y, Verse Z...?

[William_Pitts]

The question is simple: take any verse from any chapter from any book in the bible… how does one find out if it is to be taken literally, or allegorically? The point is that using any verse as a substantiation of an argument which is disputed by the believers - the first (and mostly the only) so-called “argument” is: “you are not supposed to take that verse literally”. It is never followed by an explanation concerning that verse, namely why is that verse not supposed to be taken literally, and what is its “real” meaning when taken allegorically?

So I am asking: is there a general method to separate the literal and allegorical verses? Obviously, if the church would declare the “status” of each verse, it would be helpful. But there is no such “annotated” bible. So, where do you (the believers) go for help? I suspect you just use the “simple” method: “if an atheist says something - it is wrong”. Can you prove me wrong this time? Is there a general method to find out about any arbitrary verse in the bible if it must be taken literally or allegorically?

Cardinal Henery Neuman was a convert from Calvinism to the Anglican Church and finally to the Catholic Church. He stated “to be deep in the study of the History of the church is to cease to be Protestant”. Its Collary is also true, “to be deep in the study of the History of the church is to become Catholic”.
Rules for interpreting Scripture: Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”

Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote)
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

I will maintain that a anyone who will follow the last three rules will well over 90% of the time arrive at the same truths as the Catholic Church!! The true church must be that church which follows the teachings of those immediate successors of the Apostles. These are the Apostolic fathers who learned the faith at the foot of the Apostles. The Catholic church teaches the same things as those taught by the Apostolic fathers. It has not veered to the left or ritght but teaches the same today. If a Church comes a long 1,500 years later and teaches something different how can they have the truth. They claim truth based on their own authority yet teach things that are in contradiction to the Apostolic fathers. While they maintain a portion of the same teachings as the Apostolic teachings professing Christ as redeemer and savior and hence have portion of the Catholic heritage never the less they only have a portion of the loaf of bread. For since the Catholic Church teaches the same as the Apostolic Fathers only they have the complete loaf of bread.

 

[tonyrey]

100 percent literacy? And these disciples were so well-educated?

Then…my goodness!!!! Why, why, WHY, didn’t any of them think to write down what happened and copy Jesus’ quotes down word-for-word IMMEDIATELY???
Why did they wait decade upon decade, after the stories were passed along verbally over and over, to begin writing down what happened?

(Or, are we to assume they did do this, but it was all lost?)

Ya gotta wonder!
It sure woulda been GREAT if they took notes along the way…or wrote it all down right after he died…especially since they thought he was the son of God and everything.
I know that if I was following the son of God around and he was saying important things…and I could write…well…hand me the quill and a piece of parchment, please.

So many people would feel a lot more assured of the accuracy of the bible and his words had someone thought to write it all down ASAP.

Oy. Never mind the doctors and businessmen disciples. What they really needed was a journalist in the bunch.

Like one who worked for Rupert Murdoch?

 

[tonyrey]

Cardinal Henery Neuman was a convert from Calvinism to the Anglican Church and finally to the Catholic Church. He stated “to be deep in the study of the History of the church is to cease to be Protestant”. Its Collary is also true, “to be deep in the study of the History of the church is to become Catholic”.
Rules for interpreting Scripture: Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”

Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church

1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
3. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote)
4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable

I will maintain that a anyone who will follow the last three rules will well over 90% of the time arrive at the same truths as the Catholic Church!! The true church must be that church which follows the teachings of those immediate successors of the Apostles. These are the Apostolic fathers who learned the faith at the foot of the Apostles. The Catholic church teaches the same things as those taught by the Apostolic fathers. It has not veered to the left or ritght but teaches the same today. If a Church comes a long 1,500 years later and teaches something different how can they have the truth. They claim truth based on their own authority yet teach things that are in contradiction to the Apostolic fathers. While they maintain a portion of the same teachings as the Apostolic teachings professing Christ as redeemer and savior and hence have portion of the Catholic heritage never the less they only have a portion of the loaf of bread. For since the Catholic Church teaches the same as the Apostolic Fathers only they have the complete loaf of bread.

Thanks for that fascinating reference.

Of course it is nonsensical to demand one authoritative explanation of **every single text **in the Bible as if it affects the truth of Christianity and the legitimacy of the Catholic Church. That demand is certainly not motivated by a sincere desire to know the truth but by a more sinister intention…

 

[tonyrey]

• In a commentary on Genesis authored as Cardinal Ratzinger titled * In the Beginning…**

Why are you so keen to have an exhaustive, comprehensive list of statements by the Church when you reject its fundamental teaching? The devil is certainly in the details on this occasion!

I have pointed out that the New Testament is regarded as historical.

Ok, but is that supported by a formal statement such as the one above regarding Genesis, or is that your personal opinion? If the former then we are indeed starting to build a picture like the one Spock asked for. If it’s your personal opinion then I’m afraid that probably doesn’t hold much water with the world at large.

In other words you are both looking for excuses to justify your rejection of Christianity! Is your interpretation of reality based on the views of “the world at large” - or is it your personal opinion?

If any interpretation of biblical text conflicts with the teaching that “the invisible God, from the fullness of his *love, addresses men as his friends, and moves among them, in order to *invite and receive them into his own company” it must be false.

Ahhh I believe I understand now, thanks. But I don’t think that is necessarily very helpful, for example you could judge that the global genocide committed by God in the story of Noah, God was addressing humans as friends and moving among them to receive them into his company… by drowning them. And therefore the story may be historic.

OR you could judge that drowning virtually everyone alive is not compatible with being friendly… and therefore the story must be an allegory.

So I don’t think that this rule is terribly helpful in determining if elements of the bible are historical or allegorical.

Your remarks merely reveal the absurd lengths to which you will go to justify your rejection of Christianity for which you have produced no evidence whatsoever… Do you have any rules for determining whether your ideology is true or false?

Can you suggest a more important fundamental message from the Christian point of view?

I wouldn’t presume to judge one way or the other. But of course it being fundamental doesn’t make it the only one that matters, which was the question.

It is vastly superior to a point of view which contains no fundamental truths whatsoever!

 

[tonyrey]

Me, too!
So ya know that one little sentence that says women should not talk in church?
I’m going to interpret that to mean that women should not gossip in a holy place…and i’m not going to make that sentence mean women cannot be priests, as m evidencemp to any conclusion that that means, 2000 years later, that women cannot be priests or altar servers, etc, etc.
(Did Jesus actually say women cannot? Correct me if I’m wrong. Is he “quoted” saying such?)
I’m going to take that one quote Jesus said about race and gender not making any difference…and I’m going to use that quote as proof that women can and should be priests in the Catholic church!

Yes?

There is evidence that women had positions of authority in the early Church but that is beside the point. One statement by Jesus taken in isolation can be used to prove almost anything you like. That is why there are thousands of different Christian sects and thousands of different non-Christian ideologies…

 

[Candide_West]

Why are you so keen to have an exhaustive, comprehensive list of statements by the Church when you reject its fundamental teaching? The devil is certainly in the details on this occasion! *

Bit of a strange post from you all in all TR. For one thing the list doesn’t have to be complete or exhaustive. But obviously the more complete it is the more useful.

As to why I ask, well the specific reason is in fact that a question I raised on the immaculate misconception thread turned into a debate between two Catholics as to whether the story of Abraham and Isaac is historic or allegory. But in general it would just make for interesting reading.

*In other words you are both looking for excuses to justify your rejection of Christianity! Is your interpretation of reality based on the views of “the world at large” - or is it your personal opinion? **

Strange thing to say, you provided an authoritative source for what you said about genesis and I said thanks. I asked if you had a similar authoritative source for what you said about the new testament. And you come back with this.

I am not looking for “excuses” and nobody on this site has yet asked me to justify why I’m not Christian, and that would be wildly off topic for this thread too.*

If you have an authoritative source (presumably catholic) for saying that the new testament is historic. Then that’d be great, if you don’t and it’s your own opinion, then just say so. I’m not trying to shoot down your beliefs here.

*Your remarks merely reveal the absurd lengths to which you will go to justify your rejection of Christianity for which you have produced no evidence whatsoever…

? How? I pointed out that your rule is not terribly useful in determining if a story is historic or allegory. Again I have made no attempts to justify not being Christian and have not been asked for any evidence.*

*It is vastly superior to a point of view which contains no fundamental truths whatsoever!

??? Again this is a strange thing to write, and unrelated to the subject at hand. To remind you, you said…

“There is only one lesson that really matters: the Son was put to death to liberate us from evil with His love.”

So I asked…

“Again, is that an official position or a personal opinion? Again do you have a reference?”

And you quoted an an item from the CCC which did not support your statement. Am I to take it from this that your original statement was your personal opinion? If so then that’s fair enough.*

 

[tonyrey]

*There is evidence **that women had positions of authority in the early Church ***

but that is beside the point. One statement by Jesus taken in isolation can be used to prove almost anything you like. That is why there are thousands of different Christian sects and thousands of different non-Christian ideologies…
Oh, TR…do you know the references?
I’d be much obliged if you pass them along here if so!!!

best,
DG There are many, such as:

bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141

"women had positions of authority in the early church "

 

[levinas12]

“Formal” statements are nice, but not sufficient. The question still remains: “is this an infallible, official declaration of the church, or some personal opinion?”. You see, the problem is two-fold. The separation of literal-allegorical verses cannot just be a list of personal opinions, it needs to be infallible and dogmatic listing. Otherwise, it has no merit.

I understand your point.

It is important to know what the Church officially teaches regarding the “historicity” of narratives in the Bible (OT//NT).

And I agree that the Church has not promulgated an official and comprehensive list of “scriptural facts”.

On the rare occasions when the Pope or bishops speak to the issue of “historicity”, it is usually to affirm a central teaching, e.g., that the Resurrection was “factual”. And this is done only in response to a public

 

[levinas12]

“Formal” statements are nice, but not sufficient. The question still remains: “is this an infallible, official declaration of the church, or some personal opinion?”. You see, the problem is two-fold. The separation of literal-allegorical verses cannot just be a list of personal opinions, it needs to be infallible and dogmatic listing. Otherwise, it has no merit.

Speaking as a Catholic, let me just say that you are a great catechist. You get us Catholics to really think about the implications of our faith. Sometimes, I think you are really a secret believer.

Just with any caustic cleaning agent, there have to be cautions. I hope that this thread does not derail anyone. But questioning is necessary if faith is to become stronger and more effective. And the Holy Spirit is the Great Protector.

As usual, your thread goes right to the heart of the matter. How does the Church distinguish between the “factual” and the “allegorical” in scripture?

There is an office in the Vatican, and lower level activities in local dioceses and national episcopal conferences, that establish boundaries between what is OK and OK. For example, if a Catholic bible scholar were to hold a public position denying a “literal” Resurrection of Jesus, I am sure the Church would have to publicly respond that this is not the official Catholic teaching.

But such ecclesiastical actions are relatively rare.

There is a tradition (writings of Fathers and Doctors of the Church, other Church theologians and bible scholars, encyclicals, etc) that can be invokved in these cases.

As you yourself pointed out, however, the Church has not compiled a comprehensive list of what is “literal” and what is “allegorical” in scripture.

The reason for this “hermeneutic parsimony” is that, in some respects, the Church’s interpretation is evolving (yes, sometimes in response to science). For example, the ancient Hebrew cosmology and the later Ptolemaic astronomy have been dropped. And the Church has now publicly established a wide berth for evolution.

What makes this flexibility possible is the Church’s distinction between the original human author’s meaning and God’s “point”.

The big question is: how does one zero in on what God wants us to know. This involves not only “secular” disciplines (e.g., philology, archeology, cultural anthropology, historiography, and, yes, even the physical sciences) but also the Holy Spirit. And I know this is provocative.

And, as someone waiting for the subway once said about posting his proof of Fermat’s FLT, I don’t have enough time, the train is coming (the 20 minute time limit on posting) … I could continue in another posting … but I know you are going to say, “don’t bother” …

 

[levinas12]

But let me respond preemptively …

The Holy Spirit sounds like a deus ex machina …

But just look at the cultural situation today … the project of the Enlightenment is over … as Yeats put it, the center cannot “hold” …

I just can’t join you and Bertrand Russell in a steely stoicism …

It’s clear to me that humanity needs some outside help - and there’s some evidence that such help has been forthcoming in the past - e.g., the guidance of the Church over the past 2,000 years (despite the bad stuff).

 

[Spock]

Speaking as a Catholic, let me just say that you are a great catechist. You get us Catholics to really think about the implications of our faith. Sometimes, I think you are really a secret believer.

Thank you for your kind words. No, I am not a believer, but I have a logical mind (having been a mathematician and a computer programmer helps there), and I like to seek out problems.

As you yourself pointed out, however, the Church has not compiled a comprehensive list of what is “literal” and what is “allegorical” in scripture.

The reason for this “hermeneutic parsimony” is that, in some respects, the Church’s interpretation is evolving (yes, sometimes in response to science). For example, the ancient Hebrew cosmology and the later Ptolemaic astronomy have been dropped. And the Church has now publicly established a wide berth for evolution.

You are absolutely correct. If I wanted to use somewhat “uncharitable” words, I would say that the Church (which is the most “traditional entity” on Earth) must be dragged, kicking and screaming into the present. New scientific discoveries are resisted as long as they can, but eventually the Church must “give”, and change its position. As you correctly pointed out, the cosmology had to be changed - eventually. The age-old teaching of using a handful of dirt and creating humanity had to be changed.

As science keeps on making new discoveries, more and more of the originally-literal texts will become allegorical. Who would believe today that God stopped the Sun in the sky? The Sun does not revolve around the Earth, as those illiterate goat-herders believed… Epilepsy and other diseases are not caused by “demons”, and eventually the Church will drop its shameful practice of “exorcism”.

But there is something else to consider… with many texts it really does not matter. If you take the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God orders Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, it does not really matter if it is supposed to be taken literally or allegorically. It is one of the most horrifying and disgusting stories, ever, either way… Or take the story of Job, where God makes a “bet” with Satan… it does not matter if it is taken literally or not. The meaning is the same. Playing with Job as a pawn on the chessboard, and his family, which is being “sacrificed” as part of the “strategy”. It does not matter, it it is just “allegorical”.

Generally speaking, the whole OT is horrible, and it does not matter if it is just “allegorically horrible” or “literally horrible”.

 

[tonyrey]

Why are you so keen to have an exhaustive, comprehensive list of statements by the Church when you reject its fundamental teaching? The devil is certainly in the details on this occasion!

For what purpose?

As to why I ask, well the specific reason is in fact that a question I raised on the immaculate misconception *thread turned into a debate between two Catholics as to whether the story of Abraham and Isaac is historic or allegory. But in general it would just make for interesting reading.

With no significance?

In other words you are both looking for excuses to justify your rejection of Christianity! Is your interpretation of reality based on the views of “the world at large” - or is it your personal opinion?

Strange thing to say, you provided an authoritative source for what you said about genesis and I said thanks.

Adding sarcastically:

Ahhh I believe I understand now, thanks. But I don’t think that is necessarily very helpful, for example you could judge that the global genocide committed by God in the story of Noah, God was addressing humans as friends and moving among them to receive them into his company… by drowning them. And therefore the story may be historic.

OR you could judge that drowning virtually everyone alive is not compatible with being friendly… and therefore the story must be an allegory.

Which amounts to sheer nonsense…

I asked if you had a similar authoritative source for what you said about the new testament. And you come back with this.

I had already pointed out that it is regarded as historical.

If you have an authoritative source (presumably catholic) for saying that the new testament is historic. Then that’d be great, if you don’t and it’s your own opinion, then just say so. I’m not trying to shoot down your beliefs here.

Considering that the Christian creeds and the Catechism summarise the events in the life of Jesus described in the New Testament such a source is hardly necessary!

Your remarks merely reveal the absurd lengths to which you will go to justify your rejection of Christianity for which you have produced no evidence whatsoever…

? How? I pointed out that your rule is not terribly useful in determining if a story is historic or allegory. Again I have made no attempts to justify not being Christian and have not been asked for any evidence.

I had already pointed out that such a rule is unnecessary. All the more so if one rejects Christianity anyway!

It is vastly superior to a point of view which contains no fundamental truths whatsoever!

??? Again this is a strange thing to write, and unrelated to the subject at hand. To remind you, you said…

There is only one lesson that really matters: the Son was put to death to liberate us from evil with His love."

So I asked…

“Again, is that an official position or a personal opinion? Again do you have a reference?”

And you quoted an item from the CCC which did not support your statement. Am I to take it from this that your original statement was your personal opinion? If so then that’s fair enough.

I cited the following text:

CCC 616 It is **love **“to the end” that confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction. He knew and loved us all when he offered his life. Now “the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died.” No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all. The existence in Christ of the divine person of the Son, who at once surpasses and embraces all human persons, and constitutes himself as the Head of all mankind, makes possible his redemptive sacrifice for all.

Can you give an alternative explanation to "Christ liberated us from evil with His love?

 

[levinas12]

… If you take the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God orders Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, it does not really matter if it is supposed to be taken literally or allegorically. It is one of the most horrifying and disgusting stories, ever, either way…

Kierkegaard would agree with you … if you haven’t already, you should read his comments in Fear and Trembling, where he excoriates his fellow Christians for their “complacent” reaction to this story …

 

[levinas12]

Kierkegaard would agree with you … if you haven’t already, you should read his comments in Fear and Trembling, where he excoriates his fellow Christians for their “complacent” reaction to this story …

And what really compounds this is that at the very heart of Christianity is the teaching that the Father “handed” over the Son to be crucified. In this instance, there was no ram available.

What makes this “existential” is that we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, i.e., to submit ourselves as burnt offerings.

Kierkegaard doubted whether Christians were really aware of this “requirement”. Things may not have changed that much since then. Self-expenditure is always a hard sell.

 

[Spock]

And what really compounds this is that at the very heart of Christianity is the teaching that the Father “handed” over the Son to be crucified. In this instance, there was no ram available.

You know, you just brought up the number one nonsense of all. What a ridiculous idea is that to gain forgiveness, an even more heinous deed must be committed??? According to Christians the killing of Jesus was the worst possible crime ever… and that was needed to “mollify” God, so he could forgive us? Who would come up with an idiocy like that? First, any decent, reasonable person would offer forgiveness “free of charge”. Second the “blood-sacrifice” as an offering is ridiculous. The whole idea reeks of pagan roots, where people believed that one must sacrifice something valuable to “appease” somme god. Third, the forgiveness is not “free” at all. You only gain forgiveness if you totally submit to the deity. And if that is still necessary, then the sacrifice of Jesus was an illogical act. Fourth, of course, the so-called sacrifice was a 3-day minor inconveniece, not some real “death”. I have looked at the Christian teachings from all sorts of angles, but I could never find anything more irrational than this… and the number of irrational teachings are more than abundant.

However the point of this thread is still open. Having no official list of the biblical teachings, the apologists play the “hide-and-seek” game. No matter what nonsense one points out, their number one “argument” (which is not an argument at all) is that the particular segment of the Bible cannot be taken literally. Of course, most of the time, whether the passage is literal or not, it still depicts a moral atrocity either personally performed or commanded by God. The concept of commanding a father to slaughter his own son is so atrocious that it is almost unparalleled in cruelty. Just put yourself into the shoes of Isaac and imagine to see your own father tying you up an ready to plunge the knife into you… ever heard of child-abuse of this magnitude?

Now a funny “derail”. I used this story to ask a hypothetical question, which was: “IF God would order you to kill, maim, rape, murder children… what would yo do?”. there was no answer to the question itself… but people kept on saying that God would never do that… so the question is “invalid”. Now how could a hypothetical question be “invalid” is beyond me. I even gave them two possible answers to choose from.

One would be: “Of course I would obey God. I would have no reason to doubt that God would only order such actions if he deemed it necessary to obtain some greater good from this act. I would not know what that greater good would be, but it is not my place to question God. I must obey and trust God no matter what God orders”. Just think about this. Whenever the problem of “human evil” comes up, it is the number one “defense”. Just because we don’t know HOW a “Holocaust-like” events can bring forth some “greater good”, we must trust God that somehow it does. We are never in the position to question God… but when the question was posed in a personal manner… somehow the people did not feel so good about admitting that torturing and raping children is A-OK, when commanded by God. Maybe there is still a shred of logic and decency hidden deep down there? But if there is, it is too deep to come to the surface and be declared.

The other answer would be: “I would disobey. Such an order flies in the face of what God handed down to us. If God would order such a thing, it could only be a test for me, to see if I only have blind faith, or if I am willing to use my God-given rationality”.

But, even that did not help. No one was willing to give a direct answer. What does THAT tell you? To me it speaks loud and clear, and the answer does not speak well of the “non-answerers”.

 

[tonyrey]

If you take the story of Abraham and Isaac, where God orders Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, it does not really matter if it is supposed to be taken literally or allegorically. It is one of the most horrifying and disgusting stories, ever, either way…

It is one of the most sublime and inspiring texts in the Old Testament if it is interpreted as a mistake on the part of Abraham! He wrongly believed God had ordered him to sacrifice his son and was prepared to do so because his faith, trust and obedience were unconditional. He knew in his heart of hearts that the Holy One wouldn’t command him to do anything evil - or let any harm come to Isaac. He may even have suspected that he was being deceived by his senses or by a malevolent spirit. At all events he was an example to all those who have doubted the goodness and love of God…

Even more significant is the parallel of the story with the subsequent sacrifice made by Jesus who believed it was the Father’s Will that He should be killed for our sake. As He said, “No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for his friends.”

Generally speaking, the whole OT is horrible, and it does not matter if it is just “allegorically horrible” or “literally horrible”.

A generalisation which overlooks the fundamental teaching that we should love God and our neighbour as ourselves.

 

[tonyrey]

You know, you just brought up the number one nonsense of all. What a ridiculous idea is that to gain forgiveness, an even more heinous deed must be committed??? According to Christians the killing of Jesus was the worst possible crime ever… and that was needed to “mollify” God, so he could forgive us?

 

[tonyrey]

Of course, most of the time, whether the passage is literal or not, it still depicts a moral atrocity either personally performed or commanded by God.
The concept of commanding a father to slaughter his own son is so atrocious that it is almost unparalleled in cruelty. Just put yourself into the shoes of Isaac and imagine to see your own father tying you up an ready to plunge the knife into you… ever heard of child-abuse of this magnitude?

 

[Jesus_123]

:bible1:
For the word of the
Cross,
to them indeed that perish is foolishness;
but to them that are saved, that is,
to us it is **
the power of God.-1 Corinthians 1:18

. . . all for Jesus+
*. . . thank You Blessed Lord **Jesus *our Saviour+
. . . God the Son+
. . . thank You Gracious Heavenly Father+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+
. . . thank you Blessed Virgin Mary our Mother+
. . . thank you Blessed Holy Mother Church+
. . . for we are indeed sinners wonderfully SAVED+
. . . by Thy Holy Grace+
​

 

[levinas12]

And what really compounds this is that at the very heart of Christianity is the teaching that the Father “handed” over the Son to be crucified. In this instance, there was no ram available.

What makes this “existential” is that we are asked to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, i.e., to submit ourselves as burnt offerings.

Kierkegaard doubted whether Christians were really aware of this “requirement”. Things may not have changed that much since then. Self-expenditure is always a hard sell.

I’d like to clarify my earlier posting because I may have created the wrong impression.

God the Father is not bloodthirsty; His anger does not need to be mollified.

Jesus’ sacrifice is the giving of all to the Father, just as the Father gives all to the Son.

There is a further dimension to this notion. Jean-Luc Marion has pointed out that God already had a plan in place to spare Isaac. The “sacrifice” was to remind Abraham that Isaac was a “gift”, not his personal possession.

Thus, sacrifice is not destruction, or restitution, or a contractual quid pro quo. Its purpose is to acknowledge the “gift”.

At the moment of such acknowledgement, God manifests Himself (e.g.,God appeared to Abraham and directed him to substitute the ram).

For a Jean-Luc Marion video, see vimeo.com/5712520. This is 90 minutes long. You may want to watch just the last 10 minutes of the video.