OT cannot be mere allegory, countering SEVERE liberal error

[spauline]

Some Catholics are so liberal, they say, does it really matter in ANY sense whether there ever was a Flood, or Babel and Abraham, or the Exodus, or the Exile. What matters only is the lessons from the stories.

This is PRACTICALLY false teaching.

Part of the reason for the serious flaw in this liberal, over-skeptical theology is that whereas full allegory is a possible genre in some cases, it is a seriously grave theological error to believe that even the major stages of OT history could be nothing but fictitious myths simply meant to teach us moral lessons.

Why?

Because, God had to PREPARE the way for the Coming of the Messiah, which necessarily involves both Divine Revelation and Intervention.

Put it another way, we could ask, why didn’t the Eternal Son become Incarnate immediately after the Fall?

Let us take advice from Jack Nicholson, whom Jeff Cavins coined in his Bible study: “You can’t HANDLE the truth!”

The truths of Catholicism are so utterly beyond the mere condition of natural reason, that if God is to make the coming of Messiah efficacious for humanity, He cannot send Him and bring the fullness of truth immediately, because humanity is not ready for Him.

Look at this way, if they didn’t listen to Noah, would they listen to Jesus? Could humanity, which must first reap the consequences of the fall that are paganism, the natural fruit of a grossly immature and undeveloped humanity intellectually and scientifically, comprehend and handle the Trinity and Incarnation? For if even after all the Jews were given with basic monotheism, THEY rejected the Trinity and Incarnation, how could the whole of humanity handle it?

IMPOSSIBLE.

Hence, certain minimal ages are necessary to prepare the way for the Coming of Messiah. For this reason, eventually, the Catholic Church shall have to sort out, DOGMATICALLY, the minimal history of the OT that MUST be historical in some sense to prepare for Messiah, as well the history of the Church that God wished to reveal.

This, in fact, is really what the apocalypse is about. Hence, the apocalypse is not very much about the very end of the world. It is much more about the ultimate stages of OT and NT history that are essential to understand the Divine Plan.

This is why the supreme layer of meaning for the apocalypse, the most applicable to the questions that ultimately concern the Church, is not preterism or futurism, or even idealism, but rather, SPIRITUAL HISTORICISM.

I will post more later.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I also take issue with liberalism. The idea that Jonah is just a cute little didactic story with no historic value, or that the book of Daniel was written after those prophesies were fulfilled, and that most of the books of the Bible are forgeries and that people put the other authors names on there to make it look more attractive, etc etc is extremely unorthodox and dangerous.

 

[notsmart]

problems with Jonah:
1:15 does not agree with 2:3
Which is it?
Problems with days of the flood- 40 or much more than that?
Genesis 7:17 &:24 and 8:3 disagree.

I think its best to ignore the Old testament.

 

[spauline]

I also take issue with liberalism. The idea that Jonah is just a cute little didactic story with no historic value, or that the book of Daniel was written after those prophesies were fulfilled, and that most of the books of the Bible are forgeries and that people put the other authors names on there to make it look more attractive, etc etc is extremely unorthodox and dangerous.

Jonah, Tobias, and Job, could definitely be mere fiction, because they are not essential components of the overall Jewish history., What i mean is, the bigger events. The greater ages.

Daniel I think is authentic prophecy that is practically essential to the times of Messiah, precisely because, how could the Jews go on for some 4 to 500 years with no indication of the pagan rule that would persist until Messiah, nor when to expect Him?

 

[spauline]

problems with Jonah:
1:15 does not agree with 2:3
Which is it?
Problems with days of the flood- 40 or much more than that?
Genesis 7:17 &:24 and 8:3 disagree.

I think its best to ignore the Old testament.

Are you even a Christian, much less Catholic?

Accounts can vary because different allegorical meanings are intended.

take when man is created. IN the first Creation story of Genesis, man is created on the sixth day, after almost everthing else.

In the second one, he is present more or less from the beginning, and then everything else follows.

This is not ignorant contradiction. It is drawing forth different meanings from the essence of Creation.

One layer of meaning is how the Fathers see the Creation as indicative of the Recreation of Man. so that the days are ages. From this meaning, the “creation of man” on the sixth day prefigures how, in the sixth age of salvation history, Catholic Christendom, man (a great component of the Gentiles) were REcreated in God’s images by once again knowing the truths of God and His grace dwelling in their hearts, which was the kingdom of Catholic Christendom, the Age of Faith.

And, yet, looking at the other creation story, God was recreating man in His Image, that is, redeeming him, even from the beginning with the Flood, and the stages of OT history, which already impart truth and grace to those who earnestly the God of the heavens.

hence, as in the second story, where man is created before anything else, it points to how God is redeeming man even in the ages of the OT, prior to the sixth day.

Similarly, you can find all sorts of seemingly conflicting data in Scripture, but you need to remember the OT is literature not science. It is Fundamentalists who treat it like science. It is literature that is deep and profound. So then, when you see details not fully gelling in different accounts of the same events, it is many times to draw forth other spiritual implications from a common event, just as multiple layers of meaning are possible with many Scriptures.

These observations alone can clear up so much skepticism.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Jonah, Tobias, and Job, could definitely be mere fiction, because they are not essential components of the overall Jewish history., What i mean is, the bigger events. The greater ages.

Well, this is where I disagree and also think that the problem begins at. James validates Job in James 5:11. The Lord Himself validates Jonah many times, such as in Matt. 12:40. Tobit has always been considered historic by the Church until recent times. As for Daniel, the Lord also validates it in Mt. 24:15. This in my opinion is very important to how we view the bigger events.

 

[garysibio]

I think its best to ignore the Old testament.

Jesus didn’t think so. The NT authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit didn’t think so. I think I’ll ignore you instead.

Gary

 

[notsmart]

Jesus didn’t think so. The NT authors, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit didn’t think so. I think I’ll ignore you instead.

Gary

Firstly, I am not here trying to be mean to anyone.

Just tell me if its really so offensive to wish to discard the OT?

Here are a few reasons to do so now:

Deut 21:18
Exodus 21:15 21:17

Eat a child:
Deut 28:53

These are just a few.

However, this thread is trying to connect taking the OT literally in instances where there is really no reason to.

Jonah- there is no reason why anyone has to believe this to be literal to get the end time meaning out of the scriptures.

Noah, same thing.

Doesn’t help add or take away from the end times prophecy if taken literally.

I would agree that the book of Daniel is very important to understanding end time events. But, the OT is loaded with killing.

Senseless killing.

 

[spauline]

Firstly, I am not here trying to be mean to anyone.

Just tell me if its really so offensive to wish to discard the OT?

Here are a few reasons to do so now:

Deut 21:18
Exodus 21:15 21:17

Eat a child:
Deut 28:53

These are just a few.

However, this thread is trying to connect taking the OT literally in instances where there is really no reason to.

Jonah- there is no reason why anyone has to believe this to be literal to get the end time meaning out of the scriptures.

Noah, same thing.

Doesn’t help add or take away from the end times prophecy if taken literally.

I would agree that the book of Daniel is very important to understanding end time events. But, the OT is loaded with killing.

Senseless killing.

I already indicated I don’t think Jonah is literal history or even partially allegorical history.

what has truly happened in history has definite bearing on why the world ends. The end of the world depends on all history before it. Therefore, your assertion that it doesn’t matter about any history before the end of the world is absurd and misses the very point i’m trying to make. To understand how humanity becomes irrevocably hardened to the fullness of truth about God necessarily depends on what degrees of truth humanity has known at various stages and how God has dealt with them in the past.

History and God’s Plan is part of Divine Revelation and itself a process moving toward completion.

Your assertion would like saying science or math could understand the end of a process but not have any clue about what the other phases of the process were that led to the end of it.

that’s absurd.

 

[spauline]

Well, this is where I disagree and also think that the problem begins at. James validates Job in James 5:11. The Lord Himself validates Jonah many times, such as in Matt. 12:40. Tobit has always been considered historic by the Church until recent times. As for Daniel, the Lord also validates it in Mt. 24:15. This in my opinion is very important to how we view the bigger events.

Catholicism in general would take the opposite attitude you have: bigger stuff is more important than little stuff. If the fudging of little stuff could undo the bigger picture, then we would be like Fundies pulling our hair out trying to reconcile minor inconsistencies of passages that don’t matter for salvation.

Study Ott: he points the Scriptures are not infallible with regards to matters not pertaining to salvation. hence, there is a lot of fudge room in little details that aren’t necessarily going to undo the whole big picture.

hence, the CC can sweat small stuff in the scriptures that isn’t going to undo the bigger picture. It is when great epochs are reduced to fiction that we get in trouble.

 

[notsmart]

Well you are right, understanding the history will help you figure out one thing. God obviously decided to launch his plan too early.

 

[Robbinson]

Catholicism in general would take the opposite attitude you have: bigger stuff is more important than little stuff. If the fudging of little stuff could undo the bigger picture, then we would be like Fundies pulling our hair out trying to reconcile minor inconsistencies of passages that don’t matter for salvation.

Study Ott: he points the Scriptures are not infallible with regards to matters not pertaining to salvation. hence, there is a lot of fudge room in little details that aren’t necessarily going to undo the whole big picture.

hence, the CC can sweat small stuff in the scriptures that isn’t going to undo the bigger picture. It is when great epochs are reduced to fiction that we get in trouble.

I agree with copeland3 - Jesus himself specifically cites the story of Jonah. In fact, he relied upon it by reference to predicting his own resurrection. Unless you think the Lord was misleading us - its clear Jesus took the story of Jonah to be a real story (unless you think Jesus’ resurrection is equally allegorical - which would be a fundamental problem from a Christian or Catholic theological perspective).

That being said, there is room for interpretation within scripture where the context is unclear. For example, on whether the 7 days in creation are literal 24 hour days or ages, etc. The Church expressly leaves interpretation on that issue open subject to guidlines regarding consistency with God’s role in creation, etc.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Chancellor]

I agree with copeland3 - Jesus himself specifically cites the story of Jonah. In fact, he relied upon it by reference to predicting his own resurrection. Unless you think the Lord was misleading us - its clear Jesus took the story of Jonah to be a real story (unless you think Jesus’ resurrection is equally allegorical - which would be a fundamental problem from a Christian or Catholic theological perspective).

That being said, there is room for interpretation within scripture where the context is unclear. For example, on whether the 7 days in creation are literal 24 hour days or ages, etc. The Church expressly leaves interpretation on that issue open subject to guidlines regarding consistency with God’s role in creation, etc.

Brian,

With regret I must reject your argument. The historical fact that Jesus refers to the story of Jonah as an example of “three days” was by definition an allegorical usage. A story is used to help understand another situation. The story of Jonah was a good allegory for what was about to happen to Jesus because it refers to someone who was bekow for three days then re-emerged. That is an allegory.

The gospels refer to Jesus as a teacher by use of parables, that is, by use of allegory, at least thirteen times. Jesus said that those who understand the allegories/parables are the disciples and that those who do not understand the allegories/parables will die in their ignorance. Jesus was very direct on this point. Jesus did not use Johah as history, He used a story that everybody knew to illustrate a point.

Because I saw how fair you were trying to be I will simply ask you: Do you really think that someone who accepts the book of Jonah as an important teaching story rather than as an unlikely historical book is denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ??

There are millions of people who accept the historical truth and central importance of the life, death and resurrection of Christ who view many parts of the OT as parable.

The Chancellor

 

[Veritas41]

Some Catholics are so liberal, they say, does it really matter in ANY sense whether there ever was a Flood, or Babel and Abraham, or the Exodus, or the Exile. What matters only is the lessons from the stories.

This is PRACTICALLY false teaching.

Part of the reason for the serious flaw in this liberal, over-skeptical theology is that whereas full allegory is a possible genre in some cases, it is a seriously grave theological error to believe that even the major stages of OT history could be nothing but fictitious myths simply meant to teach us moral lessons.

Why?

Because, God had to PREPARE the way for the Coming of the Messiah, which necessarily involves both Divine Revelation and Intervention.

Put it another way, we could ask, why didn’t the Eternal Son become Incarnate immediately after the Fall?

Let us take advice from Jack Nicholson, whom Jeff Cavins coined in his Bible study: “You can’t HANDLE the truth!”

The truths of Catholicism are so utterly beyond the mere condition of natural reason, that if God is to make the coming of Messiah efficacious for humanity, He cannot send Him and bring the fullness of truth immediately, because humanity is not ready for Him.

Look at this way, if they didn’t listen to Noah, would they listen to Jesus? Could humanity, which must first reap the consequences of the fall that are paganism, the natural fruit of a grossly immature and undeveloped humanity intellectually and scientifically, comprehend and handle the Trinity and Incarnation? For if even after all the Jews were given with basic monotheism, THEY rejected the Trinity and Incarnation, how could the whole of humanity handle it?

IMPOSSIBLE.

Hence, certain minimal ages are necessary to prepare the way for the Coming of Messiah. For this reason, eventually, the Catholic Church shall have to sort out, DOGMATICALLY, the minimal history of the OT that MUST be historical in some sense to prepare for Messiah, as well the history of the Church that God wished to reveal.

This, in fact, is really what the apocalypse is about. Hence, the apocalypse is not very much about the very end of the world. It is much more about the ultimate stages of OT and NT history that are essential to understand the Divine Plan.

This is why the supreme layer of meaning for the apocalypse, the most applicable to the questions that ultimately concern the Church, is not preterism or futurism, or even idealism, but rather, SPIRITUAL HISTORICISM.

I will post more later.

There are four senses of Scripture (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogical) with the literal being the primary. Liberals seem to ignore that way of understanding of Scripture that goes back to the beginning of the Church. When Jesus or the apostles talk about OT events like Noah, Adam, Jonah, etc. – ones that are usually called “symbolic” by liberals, they refer to them as if they were literal, so I’ll take their word for it

 

[COPLAND_3]

Well, my concern is that the misguidance that we get from modern theologians on the “bigger” issues started with the “smaller” stuff. Once that line got crossed there was the next generation who took it further and so on. Rome was not built over night and neither was modern day liberalism.

If the fudging of little stuff could undo the bigger picture, then we would be like Fundies pulling our hair out trying to reconcile minor inconsistencies of passages that don’t matter for salvation.

I understand where you are coming from. But the difference is, is that we have that richness of 2000 years of disecting the Bible while the Fundies are always re-inventing the wheel. The Church has pretty well split hairs and worked out the details in a satisfactory manner as far as I see it, since we have had 2000 years of the greatest spiritual minds who have built and developed upon one another. I like to see it as having the completeness of the Faith to where we don’t have to bypass even those things that are not concerning our salvation directly. I am afraid that when we compromise on the little stuff then it makes it easier to do so on the bigger things as well.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Chancellor

If you go on in that passage you will find that Jesus said, The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonah. And behold a greater than Jonah here. Greater than someone who did not exist? Hardly sounds like a parable.

Jonah is also mentioned in the OT, **2 Kings 14:25 **He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gathhepher.

Jon 1:1 Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,

 

[Robbinson]

Robbinson;4107592:

I agree with copeland3 - Jesus himself specifically cites the story of Jonah. In fact, he relied upon it by reference to predicting his own resurrection. Unless you think the Lord was misleading us - its clear Jesus took the story of Jonah to be a real story (unless you think Jesus’ resurrection is equally allegorical - which would be a fundamental problem from a Christian or Catholic theological perspective).

That being said, there is room for interpretation within scripture where the context is unclear. For example, on whether the 7 days in creation are literal 24 hour days or ages, etc. The Church expressly leaves interpretation on that issue open subject to guidlines regarding consistency with God’s role in creation, etc.

Brian,

With regret I must reject your argument. The historical fact that Jesus refers to the story of Jonah as an example of “three days” was by definition an allegorical usage. A story is used to help understand another situation. The story of Jonah was a good allegory for what was about to happen to Jesus because it refers to someone who was bekow for three days then re-emerged. That is an allegory.

The gospels refer to Jesus as a teacher by use of parables, that is, by use of allegory, at least thirteen times. Jesus said that those who understand the allegories/parables are the disciples and that those who do not understand the allegories/parables will die in their ignorance. Jesus was very direct on this point. Jesus did not use Johah as history, He used a story that everybody knew to illustrate a point.

Because I saw how fair you were trying to be I will simply ask you: Do you really think that someone who accepts the book of Jonah as an important teaching story rather than as an unlikely historical book is denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ??

There are millions of people who accept the historical truth and central importance of the life, death and resurrection of Christ who view many parts of the OT as parable.

The Chancellor

Thanks The Chancellor. I respect your opinion - though we disagree. To your question, no I don’t think that someone who accepts the book of Jonah as a “story” necessarily is denying the resurrection of Christ. However, I do have concern over those who choose to interpret all or significant portions of scripture as merely allegorical as that is a slippery slope. Does one with this viewpoint believe in the flood as a historical flood? how about the parting of the red sea? how about the exodus from Egypt and the plagues? How about Jesus’ miracles - are they real or fictional to tell a story - and then how about the resurrection and promise of literal return? I think this is a dangerous form of theology.

Church teaching is that scripture is the infallible word of God. While that leaves room, of course, for allegorical interpretation - we must study out and pray about distinghishing betweeen clear allegory and analogy (e.g., Jesus is not literally a “door”) with those passages intended as fact (I believe Sodom was destroyed by God and the walls of Jericho fell down and the flood ocurred, and, most importantly, that Jesus Christ was and is the only begotton son of God who appeared in the flesh and performed the miracles described in scripture had a literal resurrection and will return some day, in fact, as set forth in scripture, to judge the living and the dead and that heaven and hell are real places.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[notsmart]

The flood could not have been real. You can not get an olive branch after only week or so of total devestation!

Wake up!

 

[Robbinson]

The flood could not have been real. You can not get an olive branch after only week or so of total devestation!

Wake up!

Oh my friend - not offended by the “wake up” - but one can accept the story on several levels. First, God can do anything and Second, you can believe the story but not necessarily the literal application of days as recited as being literal days.

Interestingly, the flood, of all miracles, is the one most supported by references in historical documents of numerous cultures and religions, not to mention by geological evidence.

Jesus said it is wonderful that one believes when they see, but blessed are those who believe without seeing. Its something to think about.

Would I be crushed if, when I meet Jesus (God willing) I found out these stories were allegorical? Not at all - Do I believe in my heart that that are true and trust in the power of God to have caused this to happen? Absolutely? Do I judge those who hold different views but hold to core Christian doctrines? Not at all - that’s not my job - but I perceive a danger in the writing off of God’s word and these reported historical events as nothing but myth or parable.

In love and with blessings,

Brian

 

[notsmart]

I appriciate your comments Brian, because you are kind.

But, we can’t sit here and pontificate if things are literal (and we insist at times they are) and on the other hand, say - hey- its up to the individual.

Catholics claim to have the three legged stool.

you would think by now, good hearted people like spauline would have a clue here as to what Jesus’ church needs to teach us here.