OT cannot be mere allegory, countering SEVERE liberal error

  • Thread starter Thread starter spauline
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Because it’s the word of God and you don’t get to put yourself above God which is what you do when you try to censor Him. Have you ever considered the possibility might be in your own understanding of the OT? No one here is trying to be mean to you either. We are just trying to wake you up to the severity and danger of what you are saying.

Gary
 
Sorry to go off topic, friends. NotSmart is a new Christian, raised in an atheist family, seeking to enter the Church. She is brand new to the Bible.

And, in contrast to her username, she is smart enough for me!

Monica,

Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater! The OT is harsh in many places, but there is good in it. It just takes a lot of digging…

I know that one of the midwestern dioceses is giving the Denver Catholic Biblical School. It’s an intensive, four-year course, one night a week. I’ve taken the first two years and they were fantastic!

The first year is on salvation history in the OT, and might help you a lot. You might have heard me say that my teacher actually made Leviticus interesting!

If you can’t do that, Jeff Cavin’s Great Adventure Bible Study is available and also great! Cheaper than the Biblical School, too. A great way to start studying the OT.

If you’re curious about the four senses of Scripture that somebody mentioned, this is a good article. I re-read it frequently!

Ruthie
 
I would like to now elaborate on the “necessary ages” of the OT that are absolutely in need of being historical in order to pave the way for the coming of Messiah.

Again, as I have pointed out, both St. Augustine and St. Methodious of Olympus speak of five ages of the Old Law. St. Augustine actually delineates what partitions them. Also, five kings of the beast are referenced as fallen in Revelation 17:9-11. St. Hypollytus suggests the kings of the beast are ages.

From this data, I am arguing that the five ages as outlined by St. Augustine are a primary key to unlocking what the Church would, of necessity, admit must be history in the OT as essential stages to prepare for Christ.

And, basing myself on the self same passage from Augustine, I wish to expand on known Catholic theology according to Augustine’s further classificaiton of the ages into the preeminent stages (the first two), and the remaining three that the Jews traversed, which Augustine calls a prophecy of the Gospel, hence implying that the three kings of the beast for the NT era are precisely the spiritual fulfillment of the three ages of the Jews.

Clearly, even apart from this data, the Old Testament Covenant given to the Jews is obviously an absolute necessity to prepare for Messiah. Why? Because, as the NT Cov is so utterly intricate and beyond reason, God would need to set up a great “foreshadowing” of the Laws and Doctrines of the NT in order for the NT Cov to be able to be accepted when it is given.

Also, remember, humanity progresses in stages. Hence, God cannot give the fullness of truth all at once. (Jack Nicholson: “You can’t HANDLE the truth!”) Therefore, the OT covenant with Abraham and Moses is an essential warm up preparation for the fullness.

For one, basic monotheism must be first driven in before the incomprehensibility of the Trinity is to be shewn, as well as the Incarnation.

All these reasons demand that the OT Cov with the type of Abraham and Moses be traversed and given prior to the NT.

Now, let us use logic: If God gave the OT to the whole of humanity, it would not work. Why?

Because of the law of the stubbornness of the fallen nature. Most of the Jews rejected the NT, and I would say this is because of the stubbornness of the human will to take things too literally, to take things that that are merely preparatory to be the end themselves, instead of only pointing to the final end.

For this reason, had God not given the OT to only a remnant nation, and rather to the whole world, then by the principle of the stubborness, when the fullness would come, the near whole world would reject, like the Jews. Which would therefore backfire.

Remember, God is guiding history and responding to the fallen nature in such a manner that He can, in the end, bring about the greatest possible spiritual good, which is the conversion to the fullness of truth of as many persons as possible.

Hence, the OT is given only to a small portion of humanity, so that when the fullness comes, even though most of the small porition shall reject it, nevertheless, the remainder of humanity that has wandered in darkness and not been able to find what it is looking for (like the Greeks’ myriads of philosophies), will be so hungry for the answer, they will rejoice when the full bug is thrown before them.

Note also, my theory from before, that once the cov with the type of Abraham is given, it necessarily follows the three stage path of the saint, and this is precisely why the ages of the Jews and Church are three.

Hence, we have seen the necessity of at least the three Jewish stages for the OT.

What about the first two?

Well, let us reason further: why didn’t God then immediately give the OT cov in the times of Noah, and wait until after Babel?

here is where i conjecture the necessity for God to let the preeminent stages come first, because remember, God must evolve the salvation and revelation only in so far as man is ready.

I argue that it would not make sense for God to have man initially divided in language and nations from the beginning without a just reason. After all, God desires peace for the world in so far as it possible.

Hence, the preservation of the oneness of human language must be permitted until the division of humanity can be brought into history in a mannner that is revelationally efficacious.

Now, before I present the main argument for the preeminent stages, remember that I associate them with the two horns of the false prophet, that, in effect, in as much as Solomon declared that there is nothing new under the sun, and that hence, all iniquity has already occurred in the times prior to Abraham, so then, the supreme forms of iniquity are aptly summarized in the first two preeminent ages, and that these ages are precisely tied to the antithesis of the two sacraments remaining in heresy, Baptism and Marriage, which also relates to how God responds or heals these forms of iniquity, both in these sacraments, and in the Divine Interventions that attended the preeminent stages.

Therefore, I am arguing this: because the lies that summarize all iniquity are two in number, so then, God had to first ALLOW humanity to fall for these two lies in succession, and respond in the historical sacramental sense to heal them, BEFORE bringing the Prefiguring Covenant.

Hence, I am arguing that the preeminent stages are NECESSARY to prepare the way for the prefiguring covenant that is to be traversed according to the three stages of the saint, and therefore of any People of a Primary Revelatory Covenant (Judaism/Catholicism).

The first two ages, then, come according to the supreme lies of iniquity, first, anti-Baptism, and then anti-Marriage.

The essence of the first stage is anti-Baptism, the negation of the Divine Truth and Will (wickedness), which was Noah’s day. And the Divine Response, or Redemption, is a HISTORICAL Baptism, the Flood.

The essence of the second stage is anti-Marriage, man’s spiritual fornication with the Creation at Babel, where the Creation and man’s selfish and arrogantly passionate ambition is exalted above the Creator, that is, just as man’s true end is to marry God, to be given and receieved in total self-donating love, so the counter part is the Whore, where man, turning from His calling to God, joins himself superficially with the world, that is the Creation, and makes it its final end, or utopia, that is, materialism.

And the Divine Response to this stage of iniquity is a spiritual, HISTORICAL Marriage, his betrothal to the Jewish People.

and note that allowing the human oneness of language and nation initially, in its self ambition, driving it towards the deception of a global cooperation towards utopia (but one divorced from God, and hence, inevitably futile because of the fallen nature that will eventually rip it asunder, man destorying himself), the response at Babel becomes the appropriate time for God to initially reveal to humanity the futility of attempting a materialistic utopia apart from a relationship and submitting to God, without which a lasting peace cannot be attained.

Hence, at Babel, God must forcefully (that is, through a positive Divine Intervention), divide humanity so as to firstly, afford Him the ability to choose a special nation to betroth Himself to (Abraham, the Jews), as well as postpone humanity’s tendency to attempt materialistic dominion in selfish ambition.

hence the spiriutal marraige after Babel to the Hebrew people is manifesting the solution: man does not NEED to be at war and divided, but only a COVENANT with God, His Truth Grace and Love, can form the true glue that is able to bring humanity together in love and peace that is to be lasting, that is, to last as long as humanity loves and God and neighbor.

Note, then, also, these two same lies, as Solomon alludes to, are the same lies that exist in any subsequent age of sin beyond the preeminent stages: Egypts pyramids harken back to the selfish ambition at Babel, as do the world empires of Babylon, Persia, and Greece, and finally Rome. The same wickedness of Noah’s day is practiced by the Greeks and Romans, the sin of turning from God’s truth in paganism and polytheism, the sins of flesh, murder, idolatry, materialism. The same selfish ambition that drove Bable is the same arrogant ambition that drives the lust for power and glory that feed the leaders of the ancient pagan kingdoms of antiqiuty.

hence, the two horns of the false prophet harken these two supreme lies, the summary of all iniquity: anti-Baptism, and anti-Marriage.

This is all I can share for now.
 
Here are the quotes from Augustine and St. Methodious:
St. Methodius of Olympus, Ecclesiastical Writer (+300 AD):
Writing on the eight ages of the world: “Five are the ages of the old law, the sixth age is designated to the Church, the seventh is the millennium of rest [when Christ will reign over the earth], and the eighth designates the eternity of heaven” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Ibid., Vol. IX, p. 742)Now leaving the book on the Millennium by Father Iannuzzi above, the following quote I discovered by St. Augustine concerning the “six ages of the world” to correspond essentially exactly as I had attempted to partition the “five kings who have fallen” (Rev. 17:9) and the “five ages of the old law” of St. Methodius and St. Hypollytus above:
CHAP. 17.–THE SPECIMEN OF CATECHETICAL DISCOURSE CONTINUED, IN REFERENCE SPECIALLY TO THE REPROVAL OF FALSE AIMS ON THE CATECHUMEN’S PART
CHAP. 22.–OF THE SIX AGES OF THE WORLD. 39. "Five ages of the world, accordingly, having been now completed (there has entered the sixth). Of these ages the first is from the beginning of the human race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood. Then the second extends from that period on to Abraham, who was called the father indeed of all nations which should follow the example of his faith, but who at the same time in the way of natural descent from his own flesh was the father of the destined people of the Jews; which people, previous to the entrance of the Gentiles into the Christian faith, was the one people among all the nations of all lands that worshipped the one true God: from which people also Christ the Saviour was decreed to come according to the flesh. For these turning-points of those two ages occupy an eminent place in the ancient books. On the other hand, those of the other three ages are also declared in the Gospel, where the descent of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh is likewise mentioned. For the third age extends from Abraham on to David the king; the fourthfrom David on to that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia; and the fifth from that transmigration down to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ. With His coming the sixth age has entered on its process; so that now the spiritual grace, which in previous times was known to a few patriarchs and prophets, may be made manifest to all nations; to the intent that no man should worship God but freely, fondly desiring of Him not the visible rewards of His services and the happiness of this present life, but that eternal life alone in which he is to enjoy God Himself: in order that in this sixth age the mind of man may be renewed after the image of God, even as on the sixth day man was made after the image of God.
 
Chancellor;4107862:
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
Not infallible-inerrant:thumbsup:
 
Because it’s the word of God and you don’t get to put yourself above God which is what you do when you try to censor Him. Have you ever considered the possibility might be in your own understanding of the OT? No one here is trying to be mean to you either. We are just trying to wake you up to the severity and danger of what you are saying.

Gary
Trouble is has any one read the documents on Biblical study? Divino Spiritu Afflante? Or Dei verbum? That is what guides biblical scholars, anyone’s opinion-is just that- their Opinion.And yes, there is allegory and poetry, and didactic fiction,prose,prophecy, parable,apocalyptic , gospel, Epistles and other types of literary forms in each book of the Bible…You cannot read Genesis like Matthew or Psalms like Romans.It won;t work and is not meant to be read in the same manner.therefore it is ludicrous to compare Genesis to the Gospels.Two absolutely different ways of writing separated by hundreds of years
 
Trouble is has any one read the documents on Biblical study? Divino Spiritu Afflante? Or Dei verbum? That is what guides biblical scholars, anyone’s opinion-is just that- their Opinion.And yes, there is allegory and poetry, and didactic fiction,prose,prophecy, parable,apocalyptic , gospel, Epistles and other types of literary forms in each book of the Bible…You cannot read Genesis like Matthew or Psalms like Romans.It won;t work and is not meant to be read in the same manner.therefore it is ludicrous to compare Genesis to the Gospels.Two absolutely different ways of writing separated by hundreds of years
I realize full well the multiplicity of genres. I am not, therefore, advocating Fundamentalism and literalisticism.

I am however, making a case for the reality that certain greater stages of OT history needed to prepare the way for the Coming of Messiah, and from the CCC itself, it appears that Augustine’s model is valid.

The CCC cites the covenants that must be admitted:

The Flood and Cov with Noah
The division of humanity into nations and calling of Abraham
The Covenant with Moses and the Jews
The Age of the Prophets.

These things, therefore, at least according to the CCC (even though they be not dogma) are minimal components according to ordinary teaching. Hence, even if allegory can be seen, the allegory must be referring to some essential stage of salvation history, and cannot be merely a fictitious story meant to illustrate moral points, as in [POSSIBLY!] Jonah, Job, or Tobias.
 
Ah, Covenant Theology is of great importance and necessary to understanding the whole of Salvation History.Yes that is essential but there is much allegory particularly in Genesis .To think one thing is allegorical is not to assume the Bible in it’s entirety is allegorical. that thinking is just as flawed as assuming nothing is allegorical.👍
 
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,
Copland3

This is a fair argument that can be used to support the historic position. Many Catholic theologians disagree, however.

Here is the opening comment about the Book of Jonah from the New American Bible, “Written in the post-exilic era, probably the fifth century B.C., this book is a didactic story with an important theological message.”

I quote this not to demand that it be true but only to note that it is the mainstream Catholic position. There is an honest disagreement on the issue among Catholics between those who have followed Catholic scholarship and those who have chosen to follow a fundamentalist protestant position. The problem with the fundies for me is not that they are not entitled to their opinion but that they keep trying to force it on others.

The Chancellor
 
Ah, Covenant Theology is of great importance and necessary to understanding the whole of Salvation History.Yes that is essential but there is much allegory particularly in Genesis .To think one thing is allegorical is not to assume the Bible in it’s entirety is allegorical. that thinking is just as flawed as assuming nothing is allegorical.👍
Of course, there is allegory in Genesis, particularly the first 11 chapters.

What I’m doing is drawing distinction between two different manner of allegory. One is that the allegory is truly representing an actual historical development, but in symbolic form. The other type, amongst others, is NOT representing anything that happened historically in any conceivable sense, but is only a completely fictitious story that illustrates a moral point.

I’m saying, it is one thing to say that the second form applies to Jonah, Job, and Tobias, but it is something different to ascribe the same full allegory to Genesis 1 -11.

Hence, what I’m saying is, orthodox Catholicism, while not doing so dogmatically yet (except for Genesis 1-3), is saying Genesis 4-11 is not the same type as the second form of allegory in its primary intended sense, but is allegory of the first type.

IOW, in SOME conceivable sense, humanity fell into near total wickedness after the Fall, and God positively intervened, in SOME sense, with a Flood and made a covenant with the remnant righteous, whom He spared, and that, in SOME sense, man attempted a selfishly ambititous materialistic utopia, which prompted, in SOME sense, the division of humanity into various languages and nations by a POSITIVE Divine Intervention, so as to wound human pride and make a space to begin the prefiguring covenant with one nation, the Jews.
 
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.

That does not make the books or episodes in question allegorical. 🙂

These ideas may be offensive to some - that does not make them heretical, or false teaching, or any such thing. Each must be weighed on its merits. Scepticism has nothing to do with the matter. As for that word “liberal”, it’s almost useless. All of these are tenable intellectually, at least to a degree; none are beyond dispute; none are forbidden to Catholics.

There is more than one set of Exodus traditions in the OT - it is the OT itself that gives rise to the solutions people seem to find so objectionable.

There is nothing unsual in this kind of work - as would be much clearer, if only peopole could get used to seeing the OT as what - under one very important aspect; not the only one - it is; a body of ancient near eastern texts, from an identifiable culture. Other texts, ANE or otherwise, are not regarded as beyond question simply because they contain words that attribute a divine origin to them; & Genesis nowhere claims to be Divine anyway.

Faith is useless as an instrument for academic work, whether on the literature known as the Bible, in the sciences, or in anything else. To learn Biblical Greek, one goes to a grammar - not a prayer-book. To study Ancient Iraq, one reads the native sources, not just the Prophets & their attacks on the gods & their cult. Piety & orthodoxy are all very well, but they are no substitute for academic ability or equipment: prayer is indispensable for our life in Christ, but it is not the proper method for studying bacteria, Egyptian verbs, or Hebrew texts. The fundamental problem with the objection seems to be that it is ultra-supernaturalist. To heal a sickness, one goes to a doctor - not to a Saint who can’t tell a stethoscope from a diaphragm. The doctor may have a mistress or two - but his (or her) moral failings do not mean he (or she) knows nothing of medicine.
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.

Myth =///= allegory.​

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.

No: the Apocalypse is - apocalyptic. That is type of literature to which it belongs. Unless “spiritual historicism” is another name for apocalyptic, it is not going to be an appropriate means of understanding the book of Revelation. The book is not an account of salvation history.​

 
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 🙂
Harkening back to the original post which said “OT cannot be merely allegory”, I am not aware of much in this thread that would call the Ot “merely” anything. It would be as easy to say that the OT cannot be merely literalism, countering a SEVERE protestant fundamentalist dumming- down of scripture. The hole in the current argument is the notion that the NT figures spoke “as if” the OT stories were literal that this somehow makes them perfect historical accounts. not so. The very words “as if” indicate a metaphorical reading of the text.

Case in point: If we characterize someone as Ebenezer Scrooge, most everyone would understand the analogy. Speaking of Scrooge “as if” he were a real person doesn’t really suggest that we are lying or intending to deceive. It is a rhetorical device to describe someones personality through a literary character.

Those who love to play dumb by saying “well, if Jesus said it it has to be true” are actually ignoring Jesus who said repeatedly that we had to dig into the parables to get to the spiritual truth which could not be gleaned from a literal reading alone.

The critical value of a literal reading is that we must take the time to understand what is actually being said before we can expect to find deeper meanings that are true to the text.

We must go deeper. In mentioning Jonah, jesus is not acting as a history teacher, he is using the story as an allegory for what he is to suffer and overcome. Go deeper. Ask what God is really trying to teach us. This takes prayer and work. There is no way to avoid moving out of our simplistic trivial unexamined faith statements. Dig until you find when God is hiding, which of course is in plain sight.

The Chancellor
 
This is a fair argument that can be used to support the historic position. Many Catholic theologians disagree, however.
Here is the opening comment about the Book of Jonah from the New American Bible, “Written in the post-exilic era, probably the fifth century B.C., this book is a didactic story with an important theological message.”
I quote this not to demand that it be true but only to note that it is the mainstream Catholic position. There is an honest disagreement on the issue among Catholics between those who have followed Catholic scholarship and those who have chosen to follow a fundamentalist protestant position. The problem with the fundies for me is not that they are not entitled to their opinion but that they keep trying to force it on others.
The Chancellor
The NAB comments is not a sound orthodox Catholic thought. When you look at Jonah or any other book of the Bible that is related to this topic, you will find that the tradition of the Church for the last 2000 years is contrary to the school of thought that is found among some scholars today. Jewish tradition that goes back before Christ even holds the same position. The unorthodox steps that some modern scholars have taken, such as the NAB editors did, are steps that have broken away from what have always been understood about the authorship of the Bible. They have come up with these theories that would make you think that the Bible is a bunch of compiled fairy tales written by some people with a good imagination who deceptively forged the names of famous religious characters on their writings, and then somehow we are to believe that it is inspired by God.

He have the Early Church Fathers that verify that the NT authors were who they said they were, and we have the NT authors and Christ Himself that verify some of the OT authors were who they said they were. I think that I trust that more than some of the scholars who have broke away from what the Church has always believed.

And this position that I take is not a Protestant position by any means, it is the most Catholic position of all because the Church has believed it for 2000 years. It was actually a Protestant that came up with those modern theories of higher criticism. They started to bring doubt on the authorship of the Bible and then the miracles and so on. Fundamentalists battled this years ago as well as orthodox minded Catholics. Fundamentalists had a good heart but made mistakes along the way by fearing higher education, but they did eventually correct some of their errors, but lack Apostolic authority. The problems that we have in the Catholic Church is that the Church has had a lot of seminaries hijacked by liberals.
 
Chancellor;4107862:
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
Thanks Brian;

After the intertestamental period, when we get into the Gospels, it is a fundamental historical truth that Jesus lived in the flesh, died a human death, and was resurrected on the third day. If we are Cathholic, and I am, the complete factual historicity of Jesus is non-negotiable. You describe those who would use myth and allegory to explain away Crist. At that point you and I are solidly on the same side. World history and archeology have also revealed many wonderful things that support the Catholic belief. We would believe even without this support but it does tend to strengthen the faith knowing that there is so much collateral evidence. We still will disagree on some of the O.T. stuff.

Dominus tecum

The Chancellor
 
Robbinson;4108208:
Thanks Brian;

After the intertestamental period, when we get into the Gospels, it is a fundamental historical truth that Jesus lived in the flesh, died a human death, and was resurrected on the third day. If we are Cathholic, and I am, the complete factual historicity of Jesus is non-negotiable. You describe those who would use myth and allegory to explain away Crist. At that point you and I are solidly on the same side. World history and archeology have also revealed many wonderful things that support the Catholic belief. We would believe even without this support but it does tend to strengthen the faith knowing that there is so much collateral evidence. We still will disagree on some of the O.T. stuff.

Dominus tecum

The Chancellor
🙂 Thank you for this reply - and I’m delighted to celebrate what we have in common as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Blessings,

Brian
 
Chancellor;4117657:
🙂 Thank you for this reply - and I’m delighted to celebrate what we have in common as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Blessings,

Brian
Blessings back at you Brian;

One of the miracles of the Catholic faith is that we can have discussions on issues of history and interpretation then celebrate, pray, serve, repent, worship and share the peace together as a family connected and bonded together in the Real Presence of Christ. A loving family has discussions, even loud discussions. I like to see these threads as family discussions that reveal just how important we know this life is and just how hard we work over the course of a lifetime move closer to truth.

Dominus tecum

The Chancellor
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top