Priest says OT is all "just stories"

[Marianna_Mills]

Am I the only one here who thinks picking and choosing what is true and what is not from the Bible is wrong?

 

[anne777]

Wow. So many of you are buying into the OT being “stories” and not being historical. I don’t mean that everything in each book, such as Genesis account of creation, happened literally the exact way it is phrased, such as creation taking a literal 7 days, but as far as the big events and people of the OT, yes we should believe they are true. Everywhere in the New Testament they are referred to and not as fictional characters, but true historical people. I understand that Job may not be a historical person, but to doubt the other historical people of the OT is tantamount to heresy as far as I know and I am a faithful, informed Catholic. So, please for the person who brought this question up, don’t listen to those who try to tell you that being Catholic means you shouldn’t believe in the historicity of the people and events of the OT. That is not true! These things actually happened! Yes, Moses did part the Red Sea (not the reed sea).

 

[driscll_books]

Jesus specifically refers to Jonah as a real person. I think that it is dangerous to call the Old Testament “stories.” That’s a road we don’t really want to or should travel. Although the Bible is not per se a history book, it is inerrant in all of its teachings.

 

[anne777]

Dontomas, you are right on!

 

[Publisher]

In regards to Job and Jonah…they are stories written most likely after the return from Exile…in reaction to Ezra’s “racial cleansing” taking place at the time…who was truly “Jewish” and who was not…who was acceptable and who was not…in this backdrop “Jonah” was written…as well as “Ruth” too…both were written to teach the universality of God’s love and mercy…Jonah got ticked because God didn’t destroy the people of Nineveh after their repentance…the story was more a “teaching tool” of some of the prophets than a “historical” document…to focus on the “great fish” instead of the story of forgiveness misses the point.

So too with the Book of Ruth…God used an “outsider”…a Moabitess to bring forth their greatest ruler, David…

Job was written to seek to answer the problem and questions of suffering and faithfulness…to a large extent it left the question “open ended”.

Moses didn’t write the “Five Books of Moses”…they were compliled during the time Jonah and Ruth were written as well…your priest most likely was seeking to share some of his own knowlege of historical development of the scripture he learned in seminary…modern scholarship which many “pew sitters” don’t know…nor want to know.

Was Moses real…most likely…but he could also have been a compilation of prophetic characters…same with Abraham…did Abraham exist…most likely…but as described in scripture, could have been a compilation of many historical characters which helped form Hebrew thought and belief.

If believing these stories are “actual facts and events” disturbs your faith…then by all means…accept them as “actual facts and events”…whether they are factual or fiction really makes no difference if they do not inspire you to “do good” and “show mercy” and “walk humbly with your God”…if one does not “walk the walk” but only “talks the talk”…it really doesn’t matter if they are facts or fiction…does it?

 

[razredge]

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-the-story-of-jonah-and-the-whale-a-myth

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or as didactic fiction

The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a ‘great fish’ is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view. . . .

 

[meltzerboy]

In regards to Job and Jonah…they are stories written most likely after the return from Exile…in reaction to Ezra’s “racial cleansing” taking place at the time…who was truly “Jewish” and who was not…who was acceptable and who was not…in this backdrop “Jonah” was written…as well as “Ruth” too…both were written to teach the universality of God’s love and mercy…Jonah got ticked because God didn’t destroy the people of Nineveh after their repentance…the story was more a “teaching tool” of some of the prophets than a “historical” document…to focus on the “great fish” instead of the story of forgiveness misses the point.

So too with the Book of Ruth…God used an “outsider”…a Moabitess to bring forth their greatest ruler, David…

Job was written to seek to answer the problem and questions of suffering and faithfulness…to a large extent it left the question “open ended”.

Moses didn’t write the “Five Books of Moses”…they were compliled during the time Jonah and Ruth were written as well…your priest most likely was seeking to share some of his own knowlege of historical development of the scripture he learned in seminary…modern scholarship which many “pew sitters” don’t know…nor want to know.

Was Moses real…most likely…but he could also have been a compilation of prophetic characters…same with Abraham…did Abraham exist…most likely…but as described in scripture, could have been a compilation of many historical characters which helped form Hebrew thought and belief.

If believing these stories are “actual facts and events” disturbs your faith…then by all means…accept them as “actual facts and events”…whether they are factual or fiction really makes no difference if they do not inspire you to “do good” and “show mercy” and “walk humbly with your God”…if one does not “walk the walk” but only “talks the talk”…it really doesn’t matter if they are facts or fiction…does it?

Although I’m sure what you’re saying is sincere, as always, Publisher; nonetheless, for Orthodox and even some less Orthodox Jews, much of what you state makes a great deal of difference. For example, to assert that Moses didn’t write the Five Books of Moses through divine inspiration is essentially denying the authenticity and authority of the Torah. Orthodox Jews believe in the authority of BOTH the Written Law (Torah), transmitted from G-d to Moses together with the Ten Commandments, and the Oral Law (Talmud and Midrash). And then to question the existence of Moses is for Judaism the equivalent to questioning the existence of Jesus for Christianity, which has also been done. I’m aware of modern scholarship which rejects many of the events found in the Torah, providing other explanations, and which points out inconsistencies in literary style and timing, indicating that Moses could not possibly have written all of it. But this so-called historical evidence does not fit well with the bedrock of one’s faith in the Law as the description of what G-d expects of us. As I mentioned in my previous post, many of the events themselves have several layers of interpretation and literary styles and may not be taken literally in some cases; but to deny the very existence of the prophets is quite another matter.

 

[Gorgias]

Wow. So many of you are buying into the OT being “stories” and not being historical. I don’t mean that everything in each book, such as Genesis account of creation, happened literally the exact way it is phrased, such as creation taking a literal 7 days, but as far as the big events and people of the OT, yes we should believe they are true. Everywhere in the New Testament they are referred to and not as fictional characters, but true historical people. I understand that Job may not be a historical person, but to doubt the other historical people of the OT is tantamount to heresy as far as I know and I am a faithful, informed Catholic. So, please for the person who brought this question up, don’t listen to those who try to tell you that being Catholic means you shouldn’t believe in the historicity of the people and events of the OT. That is not true! These things actually happened! Yes, Moses did part the Red Sea (not the reed sea).

Umm… who on this thread have said that all OT accounts are ahistorical? Who has said that “being Catholic means not believing that (any) OT people or events are historical”? Who said that Moses didn’t part the Red Sea?

I may be wrong here, but it sure seems like the assertion that not all OT accounts are historical has brought out emotional hysterics…

 

[Gorgias]

Am I the only one here who thinks picking and choosing what is true and what is not from the Bible is wrong?

Let’s try this again. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said that “the Bible isn’t true”; in fact, the exact opposite has been asserted – no matter whether certain accounts in the OT are historically accurate, the Bible is true – it expresses the truth of God’s revelation!

 

[Marianna_Mills]

Let’s try this again. To the best of my knowledge, no one here has said that “the Bible isn’t true”; in fact, the exact opposite has been asserted – no matter whether certain accounts in the OT are historically accurate, the Bible is true – it expresses the truth of God’s revelation!

I am not liking the attitude you are sending people (not just me). Can we all be respectful please. And if you actually read the thread. Most people here are saying the OT is false.

 

[Gorgias]

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or as didactic fiction

Apple, meet Orange.

Saying “Catholics are free to understand… as literal history or as didactic fiction” doesn’t address the question being asked here: whether, in actuality, they are history!

Let’s put it a different way: either astronauts walked on the moon, or they did not. If one is true, then the other is not. Now, people are free to understand the moon landings as either historic fact or as government-sponsored fiction. However, that belief doesn’t affect whether it was history or not, one little bit!

 

[Gorgias]

I am not liking the attitude you are sending people (not just me). Can we all be respectful please. And if you actually read the thread. Most people here are saying the OT is false.

I have been reading this thread; that’s why it’s so frustrating!

Please note the distinction I’m making: “historical accuracy” is not the same thing as “truth of Biblical teaching”. Can you see that distinction, or are you saying that, in order for the OT to be “true”, then all OT stories must be historically accurate?

If that’s the statement you’re making, then we can talk about that – and about how the Church herself doesn’t say this!

However, if you’re not saying this, then I respectfully ask you to show me where someone has said that the OT itself (not the historicity of its accounts, but the OT as God’s Revelation) is false…

blessings,

G.

 

[meltzerboy]

Apple, meet Orange.

Saying “Catholics are free to understand… as literal history or as didactic fiction” doesn’t address the question being asked here: whether, in actuality, they are history!

Let’s put it a different way: either astronauts walked on the moon, or they did not. If one is true, then the other is not. Now, people are free to understand the moon landings as either historic fact or as government-sponsored fiction. However, that belief doesn’t affect whether it was history or not, one little bit!

However, history itself is not fact unless one refers to very specific events and dates. There are usually different perspectives and interpretations of the causes, nature, and consequences of events in history, dependent on the perception and frame of reference of the observer as well as the nature and complexity of the event itself. Historians often disagree, and sometimes their observations and analyses complement one another’s. In both Catholicism and Judaism, biblical history which is not plainly literal can often be read according to several layers of interpretation.

 

[anne777]

Umm… who on this thread have said that all OT accounts are ahistorical? Who has said that “being Catholic means not believing that (any) OT people or events are historical”? Who said that Moses didn’t part the Red Sea?

I may be wrong here, but it sure seems like the assertion that not all OT accounts are historical has brought out emotional hysterics…

Gorgias, I am not being emotional or hysterical. I am simply voicing the concern that there are many posts here so far where people have questioned the existance of people as central to Salvation History as Moses and Abraham. Maybe you need to look back at some of the posts before you speak, huh? Maybe the ones who are saying that these historical figures of the OT may not have existed need to take Jeff Cavins biblical course, The Great Adventure, and then tell me if it matters whether they existed or not. It matters. Who ws Jesus talking to at the Transfiguration if Moses may not have existed? Was the Transfiguration not a historical event??? Sorry if I’m getting too emotional for you, Gorgias

 

[anne777]

Oh, also, Gorgias, you added the words “all” and “any” to my quote. If I didn’t say those words then it’s best not to add them. Thanks.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Well some of the old testament stories are a little… odd, but they are about the message.

The message you get out of it is the importance! I believe those men did exist. Now whether Jonah was really swallowed by a whale does not matter. What matters is that we take in the message and learn from this.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias, I am not being emotional or hysterical. I am simply voicing the concern that there are many posts here so far where people have questioned the existance of people as central to Salvation History as Moses and Abraham. Maybe you need to look back at some of the posts before you speak, huh?

Maybe you should. One person (one) mentiond Moses and Abraham, and in that case, he asserted that they “most likely” existed.

Maybe the ones who are saying that these historical figures of the OT may not have existed need to take Jeff Cavins biblical course, The Great Adventure, and then tell me if it matters whether they existed or not.

Again, not “ones”, “one”.

Oh – and I’ve led “The Great Adventure” at a parish before. (Awesome experience!0

Who ws Jesus talking to at the Transfiguration if Moses may not have existed? Was the Transfiguration not a historical event??? Sorry if I’m getting too emotional for you, Gorgias

LOL – no, on this point, I agree with you. Then again, lumping the one poster’s idea in with the rest of the assertions… well, it does have a certain emotional tenor, don’t you think?

Oh, also, Gorgias, you added the words “all” and “any” to my quote

fair enough. when you agreed with the statement another poster made, about it being a bad idea thinking about who was “real” and who was not, I forgot that your prior statement was that not all figures in the OT are historical. My bad… :imsorry:

 

[anne777]

But, Gorgias, even saying that Moses and Abraham “most likely” existed is a problem. They definitely did exist if you are any kind of true biblical scholar. Some people are just too educated for the truth. Also, I think you may have been looking at someone else’s post because the only person I said I thought may not have been historical in the OT is Job because of the type of literature it is.

 

[razredge]

Apple, meet Orange.

Saying “Catholics are free to understand… as literal history or as didactic fiction” doesn’t address the question being asked here: whether, in actuality, they are history!

Well the answer to that question is that they are didactic fiction of course

But, Gorgias, even saying that Moses and Abraham “most likely” existed is a problem. They definitely did exist if you are any kind of true biblical scholar. Some people are just too educated for the truth. .

Actually there is no way of showing they definitely existed - and if they did exist, how much of what is attributed to them actually happened or not.

 

[Publisher]

Although I’m sure what you’re saying is sincere, as always, Publisher; nonetheless, for Orthodox and even some less Orthodox Jews, much of what you state makes a great deal of difference. For example, to assert that Moses didn’t write the Five Books of Moses through divine inspiration is essentially denying the authenticity and authority of the Torah. Orthodox Jews believe in the authority of BOTH the Written Law (Torah), transmitted from G-d to Moses together with the Ten Commandments, and the Oral Law (Talmud and Midrash). And then to question the existence of Moses is for Judaism the equivalent to questioning the existence of Jesus for Christianity, which has also been done. I’m aware of modern scholarship which rejects many of the events found in the Torah, providing other explanations, and which points out inconsistencies in literary style and timing, indicating that Moses could not possibly have written all of it. But this so-called historical evidence does not fit well with the bedrock of one’s faith in the Law as the description of what G-d expects of us. As I mentioned in my previous post, many of the events themselves have several layers of interpretation and literary styles and may not be taken literally in some cases; but to deny the very existence of the prophets is quite another matter.

Do Conservative, Reformed and Reconstructionist sects of Judaism believe Moses wrote the Torah? (this is a rhetorical question…I have Jewish friends who would agree with me as do their rabbis…or perhaps it is I who agree with them) I attended a spiritual formation group at the Episcopal church…Episcopalians, Lutherans, Jews, Unitarians, Baptists and UCC members were in attendance…we had a rabbi that spoke concerning Bruce Feiler’s work “Abraham” and held a very similar view as friend Bruce.

I was not claiming YOU or other Orthodox Jews must accept this strain of modern scholarship…no more than conservative Catholics must…as the priest who stated the OT/Tanach was “just stories”.

There are other ways of reading and believing in scripture than the “conservative” strain is all I was seeking to convey.