God killing in the OT

[t68ware]

When I was Protestant, I was taught that the stories of the conquest of the Promised Land, including the stories when God commanded that Joshua kill everyone, including livestock, in the cities that they took actually happened, and other stories in the OT where God commanded the killing of the pagans were true too. However, since becoming Catholic, I have heard priests say those stories didnt actually happen but were just that stories. My question is what is the Catholic understanding of those events? Either they are true or false.

 

[GEddie]

Depends who you ask, as some theologians allegorise the entire OT, while others take the events at face value.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Trident_H]

I was always comfortable with the idea they were based on a true story. That there was more than a bit of truth to the main idea. But they may have gotten a bit built up in the re-telling.

 

[Latinitas]

When I was Protestant, I was taught that the stories of the conquest of the Promised Land, including the stories when God commanded that Joshua kill everyone, including livestock, in the cities that they took actually happened, and other stories in the OT where God commanded the killing of the pagans were true too. However, since becoming Catholic, I have heard priests say those stories didnt actually happen but were just that stories. My question is what is the Catholic understanding of those events? Either they are true or false.

Allegorizing the whole OT is contrary to sound Catholic exegesis, and has been condemned by the Holy See in regards to the first three chapters of Genesis. A fortiori, the Church will not permit an interpretation of the these books which does not preserve their substantial historicity. However, Catholic exegets, with very few exceptions, have interpreted the Books of Joshua (conquest) and Judges as historical in both substance and detail. It would thus be temerarious to interpret the books in a manner contrary to it, as indeed a decree of the PBC in 1905 declared.

I hate to say it, but many priests are badly trained (bad seminaries etc.), so be careful listening to them. If you want a sound Catholic opinion, check out the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s articles on these books, or search for the decrees of the Pontifical Bliblical Commission before the 1970s (the PBC is no longer magisterial, and has a bit of a different function since then).

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Latinitas]

Depends who you ask, as some theologians allegorise the entire OT, while others take the events at face value.

ICXC NIKA

I was always comfortable with the idea they were based on a true story. That there was more than a bit of truth to the main idea. But they may have gotten a bit built up in the re-telling.

Allegorizing the whole OT is wrong and has been condemned by the Church (cf. 1909 decree of the PBC on Genesis 1-3, the 1905 decree of the PBC on historical books, the 1934 condemnation of a book denying the historicity of the patriarchs, the admonition of Pius XII in Humani generis and some others).

Similarly, the opinion that the stories are exaggerated also seems incompatible with the 1909 decree of the PBC. Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis it expressly prohibits holding that the accounts are legends partly historical and partly fictitious.

The purpose of the historical books is give us an account of how and when Divine Revelation was given, and what God did for his people, hence to deny them would be erroneous, even if not absolutely heretical.

Catholic exegesis is much more conservative than many people want to admit, and excepting those parts where Protestants and Catholics have differed in interpretation, the views you’ll find in evangelical Protestantism are often very similar to traditional and orthodox Catholic views on the matter. There are some exceptions (like the Song of Solomon), of course, but in regards to the historical books, they’re not much.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[jcrichton]

When I was Protestant, I was taught that the stories of the conquest of the Promised Land, including the stories when God commanded that Joshua kill everyone, including livestock, in the cities that they took actually happened, and other stories in the OT where God commanded the killing of the pagans were true too. However, since becoming Catholic, I have heard priests say those stories didnt actually happen but were just that stories. My question is what is the Catholic understanding of those events? Either they are true or false.

…yeah, quite a conundrum… if real, why? If not real, then what is?

I think part of the problem lies in “the bleeding hearts;” those who are so bent in explaining things away (must subscribe to a “good” God that would not do such things) so as to not offend the sensibilities… their theology demands that they use Chinese acrobatics in order to reconcile passages of Scriptures that seem harsh or unduly extreme.

Is God Omnipotent? If He is would He have a problem with how we moralize Him?

Is God exacting some sort of cleansing? Would this cleansing destroy the spirit?

Those who die a temporal death are not dead eternally. God summary Judgment may seem intense but only because man views His Judgment through his own understanding–it just so happens that man moralizes God because man seeks a reason not to obey; the gauge with which man moralizes God is rooted not in man’s righteousness but in man’s self-justification as he seeks to rebel against God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Allegorizing the whole OT is contrary to sound Catholic exegesis, and has been condemned by the Holy See in regards to the first three chapters of Genesis. A fortiori, the Church will not permit an interpretation of the these books which does not preserve their substantial historicity. However, Catholic exegets, with very few exceptions, have interpreted the Books of Joshua (conquest) and Judges as historical in both substance and detail. It would thus be temerarious to interpret the books in a manner contrary to it, as indeed a decree of the PBC in 1905 declared.

I hate to say it, but many priests are badly trained (bad seminaries etc.), so be careful listening to them. If you want a sound Catholic opinion, check out the old Catholic Encyclopedia’s articles on these books, or search for the decrees of the Pontifical Bliblical Commission before the 1970s (the PBC is no longer magisterial, and has a bit of a different function since then).

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Hi, Latinitas!
Excellent post! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

I would only add (though I have not read it my self) that much of this surfaced after Vatican II–all sorts, including the clergy and religious, took it upon themselves to define theology and doctrine to suit their fancy: free twisting of Doctrine did not end in the 16th century. :crying::crying::crying:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fred_conty]

When I was Protestant, I was taught that the stories of the conquest of the Promised Land, including the stories when God commanded that Joshua kill everyone, including livestock, in the cities that they took actually happened, and other stories in the OT where God commanded the killing of the pagans were true too. However, since becoming Catholic, I have heard priests say those stories didnt actually happen but were just that stories. My question is what is the Catholic understanding of those events? Either they are true or false.

Whether it is based on history or some other literary form the author has a primary point to make.

We are concerned with whether God actually ordered the complete killing of the Caananites. And some have said that this means God is unjust to kill innocents. And so the question, did this really happen? And then an answer is needed to justify the killing. But even if it was based only on mythology, an answer would still be needed to justify the teaching of the killing.

What is missing is the understanding that God lent us our life and someday he recalls the life he lent us to use, whether early or later. God as the author and lender of life, as such, has the right to recall life at any time, because we do not own our life.

Some seem to think that injustice is built upon innocense or age. All life belongs to God the owner no matter what the condition of that life is in or any other factor of that life. Or the argument that some receive more life than others. Or the argument that some have more talent than others … and so on. If this logic were true, we would all have to be identical twins living the same lives, and dying at the same time. Otherwise someone was treated unjustly since not everyone received the same.

God loans us each a unique life. He may recall it any given moment. That God is unjust in this matter is a huge misunderstanding of who God is and making God equal to us and accountable to us. He may give us a life with/without extrodinary talents and since it is a gift, he may give as much or as little as he choses. And of course it will be said that if God is God then he can figure it all out. But that is the point, he has figured it all out but just has no obligation to gift each person with the same, but is good to us to give us what he has.

Of course those who do not believe in God will try to convince those that do believe in God that they believe in an ignoramous being. That is their ambition. But the reality of it is, they have no grounds to even talk about God since they are talking about a phantasy they don’t believe in.
So naturally they will make remarks to tear down the true God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and claim they are only being logical. But their logic is anything but logical because logic is carried out which they fail to do.

 

[jcrichton]

Whether it is based on history or some other literary form the author has a primary point to make.

We are concerned with whether God actually ordered the complete killing of the Caananites. And some have said that this means God is unjust to kill innocents. And so the question, did this really happen? And then an answer is needed to justify the killing. But even if it was based only on mythology, an answer would still be needed to justify the teaching of the killing.

What is missing is the understanding that God lent us our life and someday he recalls the life he lent us to use, whether early or later. God as the author and lender of life, as such, has the right to recall life at any time, because we do not own our life.

Some seem to think that injustice is built upon innocense or age. All life belongs to God the owner no matter what the condition of that life is in or any other factor of that life. Or the argument that some receive more life than others. Or the argument that some have more talent than others … and so on. If this logic were true, we would all have to be identical twins living the same lives, and dying at the same time. Otherwise someone was treated unjustly since not everyone received the same.

God loans us each a unique life. He may recall it any given moment. That God is unjust in this matter is a huge misunderstanding of who God is and making God equal to us and accountable to us. He may give us a life with/without extrodinary talents and since it is a gift, he may give as much or as little as he choses. And of course it will be said that if God is God then he can figure it all out. But that is the point, he has figured it all out but just has no obligation to gift each person with the same, but is good to us to give us what he has.

Of course those who do not believe in God will try to convince those that do believe in God that they believe in an ignoramous being. That is their ambition. But the reality of it is, they have no grounds to even talk about God since they are talking about a phantasy they don’t believe in.
So naturally they will make remarks to tear down the true God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and claim they are only being logical. But their logic is anything but logical because logic is carried out which they fail to do.

Hi, Fred!

:extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:
I concur with you fully.

I believe that you’ve hit on the head with your final statement–I see all of these objections, agitations, and professed *concern *emanating from the refusal to accept God’s Authority. It is so basic. Yet, it is also much the final straw from which the cliffhangers are grasping: (see hollowood’s versions in the various movies and shows) ‘God is not Just, cause a Loving and Just God would not do…’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[GEddie]

If this logic were true, we would all have to be identical twins living the same lives, and dying at the same time.

Not necessarily.

The length of a life as well as its trajectory is governed to an extent by personality attributes that lead to particular choice patterns. Identical twins are distinctive in this regard only in sharing (a) the same genes, and (b) beginning life at the same place and time; which creates some personality similarities.

But not everything will be the same. Consider two ITs whose spouses or careers lead them to different locales, where one dies before the other due to physical conditions (e.g. winter storm, flooding, virus outbreak) that are an issue only in that locale. I doubt anybody would say that **injustice **is involved in the earlier death, whatever they may believe about the justice of death as such.

ICXC NIKA

 

[fred_conty]

Not necessarily.

The length of a life as well as its trajectory is governed to an extent by personality attributes that lead to particular choice patterns. Identical twins are distinctive in this regard only in sharing (a) the same genes, and (b) beginning life at the same place and time; which creates some personality similarities.

But not everything will be the same. Consider two ITs whose spouses or careers lead them to different locales, where one dies before the other due to physical conditions (e.g. winter storm, flooding, virus outbreak) that are an issue only in that locale. I doubt anybody would say that **injustice **is involved in the earlier death, whatever they may believe about the justice of death as such.

ICXC NIKA

But many do complain about taking the life of babies, which is an early death. That is their precise point. Your viewpoint may be a bit different from theirs. There have been plenty who are very dissatisfied with this idea. In fact their seems to be no end to this complaint in the OT. This thought says that God has no right to do what he is doing since they are so young and innocent. That they should live as reasonably as long as everyone else.

This just simple ignores the right of God to recall his gift of life based on length of days (or anything else for that matter).

What they, the godless, are trying to do is make us cringe about identifying with a horrible God they are painting. And they will not carry out their logic to it’s logical conclusion because then they know how illogical it all sounds…that everything about this world is unfair of God. And to show what the results of this would be … that everyone would have to be exactly born and die at the same time, and have equal body and intelligence, and the circumstances are all equal in which they live, and so on, to make everything and everyone equal … only then would God be perfectly fair.

So if they deny God has no right to recall the life of a person a few minutes old, then the above logic has to be drawn out for it all to be perfectly fair. Otherwise there would be inconsistencies in justice, even if only a tiny bit in some cases. And in those few cases a lone voice would come out of the woodwork screaming … God is unfair.

May God’s face shine on you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When I was Protestant, I was taught that the stories of the conquest of the Promised Land, including the stories when God commanded that Joshua kill everyone, including livestock, in the cities that they took actually happened, and other stories in the OT where God commanded the killing of the pagans were true too. However, since becoming Catholic, I have heard priests say those stories didnt actually happen but were just that stories. My question is what is the Catholic understanding of those events? Either they are true or false.

Probably true…though recorded with some hyperbole. This is a helpful resource:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[LethalMouse]

Allegorizing the whole OT is wrong and has been condemned by the Church (cf. 1909 decree of the PBC on Genesis 1-3, the 1905 decree of the PBC on historical books, the 1934 condemnation of a book denying the historicity of the patriarchs, the admonition of Pius XII in Humani generis and some others).

Similarly, the opinion that the stories are exaggerated also seems incompatible with the 1909 decree of the PBC. Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis it expressly prohibits holding that the accounts are legends partly historical and partly fictitious.

The purpose of the historical books is give us an account of how and when Divine Revelation was given, and what God did for his people, hence to deny them would be erroneous, even if not absolutely heretical.

Catholic exegesis is much more conservative than many people want to admit, and excepting those parts where Protestants and Catholics have differed in interpretation, the views you’ll find in evangelical Protestantism are often very similar to traditional and orthodox Catholic views on the matter. There are some exceptions (like the Song of Solomon), of course, but in regards to the historical books, they’re not much.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Curiosity what are the different interps for Song of Solomon?

 

[Latinitas]

Curiosity what are the different interps for Song of Solomon?

The Song of Solomon is not a historical book. The traditional interpretation of the Song of Solomon is entirely allegorical, that is, it was written by Solomon as an allegory representing the love of God for Israel. This book, it’s true, is allegorized, but never the whole Old Testament. The Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges etc., have always been considered historical. This shows the importance of tradition in exegesis, something you’d think Catholics would understand.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[LethalMouse]

The Song of Solomon is not a historical book. The traditional interpretation of the Song of Solomon is entirely allegorical, that is, it was written by Solomon as an allegory representing the love of God for Israel. This book, it’s true, is allegorized, but never the whole Old Testament. The Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges etc., have always been considered historical. This shows the importance of tradition in exegesis, something you’d think Catholics would understand.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

I took it rather metaphorically but given its literal description of sex thought it fairly based on something more than what it is sounding in this post…

You confuse me

 

[Latinitas]

I took it rather metaphorically but given its literal description of sex thought it fairly based on something more than what it is sounding in this post…

You confuse me

I’m not sure what literal description of sex you’re talking about. Frankly, I can’t find anything that is immodest in the Song.

It’s worth noting that the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that is, that the Song of Solomon is an erotic love poem was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[qui_est_ce]

Thank you every one for this thread. Your responses were simple enough that even I could understand them, and hopefully do a better jobs the next time somebody tells me how mean God is!

 

[LethalMouse]

I’m not sure what literal description of sex you’re talking about. Frankly, I can’t find anything that is immodest in the Song.

It’s worth noting that the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that is, that the Song of Solomon is an erotic love poem was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Hmm I will research that…

I know having had sex, the SoS is a pretty accrurate play by play…

Though no I see nothing immodest but I also don’t view sex as inherently immodest…

I would ask sort of if youhave partaken? In that to understand the play by play? It is quite accurate… I have experienced it quite a bit and it usually works out like that.

 

[LethalMouse]

usccb.org/bible/songofsongs/0

The US bishops apparently did not get the memo about it not being about sexuality

I am glad the internet exists, I would have lost some faith in the Church’s divine guidance if they were really claiming that there was no sex in the SoS… I have been there, it is what it is.

 

[LethalMouse]

I’m not sure what literal description of sex you’re talking about. Frankly, I can’t find anything that is immodest in the Song.

It’s worth noting that the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that is, that the Song of Solomon is an erotic love poem was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

Ah in my quick reading HE supposedly sort of most only attributed to what an enemy claimed he said wanted it removed as cannon for being impure.

First this may not have even been entirely true.

2 his calling it impure and being wrong does not mean it is not about sex persay. It means it is not impure!

Two very different things. Nothing in SoS contradicts the theology of the body nor catechism to my knowledge so it can not be impure