Please enlighten me!

  • Thread starter Thread starter ocean321
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ocean321

Guest
How are Catholics supposed to interpret the parts of the Bible (mainly in the old testament) which call for crazy actions on the part of the believer. e.g Deut 22:28 seems to condone rape but of course this is not the reality. There are many other crazy stuff in it that i’m unable to quote but how are we suppose to read them? as a peoples interpretation of God in the times they lived in?

Would love feed back as this is really bugging me 🙂
 
NT is an improvement on OT.

The disciple of Christ is educated in Christ’s teachings.

By listening to and acting on these teachings, the disciple will bear fruit for God (do God’s will) by aligning the personal will with the will of God.
 
The use of a good commentary will solve about all your problems. A good commentary will usually make sense out of the hard to understand passages. Below is a link to the Aquinas Study Bible which has many great commentaries.
 
The OT is an expression of Jews and their traditions. It include aspects of their laws and custom, with has much localized context. Further, it’s a collection of books composed over centuries, with literary forms that includes novels, parables, allegories, and poems. It is not to be read as a strictly historical document nor to be always rigidly and literally interpreted.
 
NT is an improvement on OT.

The disciple of Christ is educated in Christ’s teachings.

By listening to and acting on these teachings, the disciple will bear fruit for God (do God’s will) by aligning the personal will with the will of God.
Scripture is the word of God, thus it is perfect in its message and its truth. Since that is the case, one Scripture cannot be “improved” upon since perfect is about as good as it gets.

Still, this inspired word was written by men at a time when morality was very different. Women, for example were not held in very high esteem because many of the near eastern cultures believed that the principal of human life came from the man alone. The woman was nothing more than a holding station until the baby was born. So when we see Lot’s wiilingness to have his daughter raped rather than the angels, it can be understood based on the primitive biological understanding.

Reading Scripture, it is important to look beyond the words at face value and try to understand the message and what it reveals about God, His relationship to his people and their response to him.
 
The OT is an expression of Jews and their traditions. It include aspects of their laws and custom, with has much localized context. Further, it’s a collection of books composed over centuries, with literary forms that includes novels, parables, allegories, and poems. It is not to be read as a strictly historical document nor to be always rigidly and literally interpreted.
I’m currently having this conversation with a group of atheists on a different forum, who point to the OT, mainly the harsher texts such as cruelty to women as proof to them that God is man made rather than real. I have explained to them that to literally interpret these texts as actual fact or as actually being God’s will is incorrect and we should instead study them in the context of their time.

Am i right in saying that they are a peoples perception of God before the coming of Christ and should be only treated as such?
 
Scripture is the word of God, thus it is perfect in its message and its truth. Since that is the case, one Scripture cannot be “improved” upon since perfect is about as good as it gets.

Still, this inspired word was written by men at a time when morality was very different. Women, for example were not held in very high esteem because many of the near eastern cultures believed that the principal of human life came from the man alone. The woman was nothing more than a holding station until the baby was born. So when we see Lot’s wiilingness to have his daughter raped rather than the angels, it can be understood based on the primitive biological understanding.

Reading Scripture, it is important to look beyond the words at face value and try to understand the message and what it reveals about God, His relationship to his people and their response to him.
Is the Sermon on Mount not an improvement on the OT? I think so. Is it all perfection? Yes. 144 square inches.
 
How are Catholics supposed to interpret the parts of the Bible (mainly in the old testament) which call for crazy actions on the part of the believer. e.g Deut 22:28 seems to condone rape but of course this is not the reality. There are many other crazy stuff in it that i’m unable to quote but how are we suppose to read them? as a peoples interpretation of God in the times they lived in?

Would love feed back as this is really bugging me 🙂
The Old Testament was God’s covenant with His people Israel.

The New Testament is God’s New Covenant with His people, US!

🙂

The OT is historical, but important for the Jews, as it is their context with God. The NT is important for all of us!
 
I’m currently having this conversation with a group of atheists on a different forum, who point to the OT, mainly the harsher texts such as cruelty to women as proof to them that God is man made rather than real. I have explained to them that to literally interpret these texts as actual fact or as actually being God’s will is incorrect and we should instead study them in the context of their time.

Am i right in saying that they are a peoples perception of God before the coming of Christ and should be only treated as such?
By and large, yes, but the OT does contain moral truths. In studying the bible, one can see the manifesting of nomadic tradition and law being guided into revelation. It is a chronicle of the path of salvation for all humanity, which is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus. Regardless, Christ is the heart of our faith, not OT written Jewish expressions. The the laws and acts were consistent with the conditions of the times, geared for cultural survival.

On a similar tract, there are two groups that tend to insist on/utilize biblical literalism; modern fundamentalists and new atheists.

Fundamentalists use the explicit and primary sense of words to form their conscience from the Bible. However, it is by no means an essential Christian tenet and is somewhat simplistic in approach. The historical-critical approach and literary form employed by biblical scholars have much to offer present day Christians.

New atheists use biblical literalism to exploit concepts that the modern mind and paradigm finds offensive. Generally, it is an intellectually disingenuous debating tactic intended to appeal to emotion rather than scholarly reason. It would be expected they would adopt a literal position as it suits their purpose.
 
How are Catholics supposed to interpret the parts of the Bible (mainly in the old testament) which call for crazy actions on the part of the believer. e.g Deut 22:28 seems to condone rape but of course this is not the reality. There are many other crazy stuff in it that i’m unable to quote but how are we suppose to read them? as a peoples interpretation of God in the times they lived in?

Would love feed back as this is really bugging me 🙂
Those parts of the OT were meant as laws for the Jewish people. Now that Jesus has come, those laws have been fulfilled, therefore making the old laws obsolete. To answer your questions, don’t take those parts as the Bible literally, but with a open mind to what Jesus has already said.
 
Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).
Shalom
God bless
 
How are Catholics supposed to interpret the parts of the Bible (mainly in the old testament) which call for crazy actions on the part of the believer. e.g Deut 22:28 seems to condone rape but of course this is not the reality. There are many other crazy stuff in it that i’m unable to quote but how are we suppose to read them? as a peoples interpretation of God in the times they lived in?

Would love feed back as this is really bugging me 🙂
The problem is that non-Jews read the Jewish scriptures with no knowledge and understanding of Jewish law concerning marriage, divorce, women rights including financial rights in marriage, obligations of the husband toward his wife in Jewish law, and come to conclusions and interpretations that can only lead the Jewish reader to pause in wonderment.🤷

Think about what his obligations are toward her in Jewish law, what it means that she has no obligations toward him but full rights, understand that this obligation is for a lifetime, understand what her status would be without this law, compare the situation of this woman under Catholic Church law and Catholic society, and then I believe you will come to an opposite conclusion.

Many of the things that are thought to be “harsh” are merely misunderstandings of the Jewish scriptures

some examples:

A Christian reads Judges and believes that a man turned his daughter into a human sacrifice

Of course, she could not be sacrificed, but she also could not work in any capacity, or marry, or be “used for breeding”, for the rest of her life. She lived the rest of her life in seclusion, devoted herself to prayer, never married or had children and never knew a man.

Similarly, an “eye for an eye” in Judaism is not mutilation of a person who has blinded another (nor impunity to the offender if he happens to be blind) but monetary compensation

The Christian reads of a “death penalty” for a particular sin, but has no knowledge of the almost impossible conditions (committing the act in front of at least two witnesses, being warned and continuing to commit the act despite the warning) which made a conviction in a Jewish court virtually impossible. Nor do they have knowledge of the Jewish Sages attitudes against the death penalty (quite rightly you have never heard of a convicted terrorist, no matter how many people he killed, ever being sentenced to death and executed by the Jewish State of Israel). Often they do not differentiate between a “Divine punishment” from God and one to be carried out here on earth.
 
NT is an improvement on OT.

The disciple of Christ is educated in Christ’s teachings.

By listening to and acting on these teachings, the disciple will bear fruit for God (do God’s will) by aligning the personal will with the will of God.
If the NT is an “improvement” to the OT, what makes you believe that God will not “improve” things again?

The question is, why would God provide for such teachings? Could it possibly be that there is an educative component to God’s revelation that “evolves” with the requirements of the age in which it is given?

Kam
 
The use of a good commentary will solve about all your problems. A good commentary will usually make sense out of the hard to understand passages. Below is a link to the Aquinas Study Bible which has many great commentaries.
A good commentary is no more valid than anyone else giving commentary. Offering a “good” commentary to Sacred Scripture is fraught with “man-made” imitations and devalues the Word of God to having less worth than what paper it was written on. By what system do you attribute a “good” commentary to a “bad” one.

Only God Himself can provide a valid commentary, don’t you think?

Kam
 
The OT is an expression of Jews and their traditions. It include aspects of their laws and custom, with has much localized context. Further, it’s a collection of books composed over centuries, with literary forms that includes novels, parables, allegories, and poems. It is not to be read as a strictly historical document nor to be always rigidly and literally interpreted.
My friend Soldier of God 🙂

Why do you believe that the NT must therefore be read literally. God adapted His revelation to meet the requirements of the NT era.

Kam
 
Reading Scripture, it is important to look beyond the words at face value and try to understand the message and what it reveals about God, His relationship to his people and their response to him.
cargau, my dear friend 🙂

What therefore is the spiritual significance of Jesus’ resurrection? and what is your response to it?

Kam
 
How are Catholics supposed to interpret the parts of the Bible (mainly in the old testament) which call for crazy actions on the part of the believer. e.g Deut 22:28 seems to condone rape but of course this is not the reality. There are many other crazy stuff in it that i’m unable to quote but how are we suppose to read them? as a peoples interpretation of God in the times they lived in?

Would love feed back as this is really bugging me 🙂
When I was a young boy my Godmother told me that I shouldn’t read the bible since it would only confuse me. True Story. :o
 
Its a grandness for me to enlighten… So we have to seen there activates to description and write a immense line about … :rolleyes:
 
Is the Sermon on Mount not an improvement on the OT? I think so. Is it all perfection? Yes. 144 square inches.
The Sermon on the Mount is not an improvement, it is a different way of explaining the prophetic messages. Again, one doesn’t improve perfection. The New testament writers never thought they had to rewrite scripture, just show how Christ fulfilled it.
 
cargau, my dear friend 🙂

What therefore is the spiritual significance of Jesus’ resurrection? and what is your response to it?

Kam
The Resurrection was the greatest single event in human history. It has enormous spiritual significance for all of humanity.

The fact that the Resurrection took place after the Hebrew Scriptures were written does not mean that the Old Testament was in need of improvement…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top