Typology

[Annunciata]

Atreyu:

This is a question for Biblereader in particular. In another thread we were talking about typology a little bit, but I can’t find the thread now and I think it may have been removed. Anyways, I made a post requesting some information on typology, as I find it a pretty fascinating subject. Do you have any resources that I can check out? Thanks and God bless,

Stu.

I find that this would be a very interesting topic and would be very interested in a study of it as BibleReader sugests… BTW, there is already another thread on this same subject:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=63372&highlight=typology

 

[RyanL]

Here’s a link to BR’s class…

BibleReader’s Typology Class

God bless,
RyanL

 

[twiztedseraph]

BibleReader:

I’m sorry that I have not answered this until now.

Non-Protestant resources on typology are few and far between. Bible typology is not well-developed in the Catholic Church. In the Proterstant writings, Bible typology is disordered: The language and comprehension is confused, and it “sabotages” itself by carefully avoiding Catholic theology even when the Bible demands a Catholic conclusion.

I’m probably the prime Catholic writer on typology, per se. The Cardinal of Vienna who drafted one version of the Divine Office also worked on Bible typology, and came close to the same conclusions about it I did. He merged his results into portions of the Divine Office. My book is about 75% completed. I’m still writing articles on typology for Fr. Stravinskas’ The Catholic Response Magazine.

I’m about to start a Bible typology class here, in the Sacred Scripture Forum.

Pardon me sir, but two questions:

1. Can anyone join in?
2. How are you going to work it on the forums? It might get a tad…messy.

 

[BibleReader]

ByzCath:

If you do start such a thing I would be interested in following a long to learn a bit more about this but I would first request that you post a sort of bio about yourself to allay any fears/suspicion that this topic or that you are not fully Catholic.

I don’t say that accusing you of anything, I just say that if you are going to put yourself forward as an expert I would expect some proof that you are an expert.

I hope I didn’t offend you.

I went to Catholic grade school and Catholic high school in the Philadelphia Archdiocesan system.

I went to St. Joseph’s College, now St. Joseph’s University, in Philadelphia. I majored in Political Science, to load-up my schedule with pre-law classes. I actually “minored” in nuclear physics (because I was playing around with the idea of going into nuclear technology). I secured my Juris Doctor from Temple University in Philadelphia.

I worked in the court system in Philadelphia, and then the Philadelphia DA’s Office, and then went into private practice in New Jersey.

I married a gorgeous, earthy, wonderful Jewish lady. (She knows more about Catholicism than most Catholics.) She gave me three really neat sons. They are being raised Catholic.

All during this time, I was a loyal parishioner at St. Martin of Tours Parish, then St. Joachim’s Parish, in Philadelphia, and then a Catholic parish in New Jersey, where I have functioned as a lector and sometimes as a Bible study moderator for about 25 years. I became an avid Bible reader. I actually read the Bible twice, cover-to-cover, and felt that I was missing something. Then, remembering what I was taught in high school by a priest about Bible types, I started teaching myself typology.

About five years ago, I began writing articles on Bible typology, for The Catholic Answer magazine, put out by the Our Sunday Visitor organization.

At a particular point, Father Peter Stravinskas, editor of the magazine, was told that he was too severe in his advice, and that his magazine was boring. My articles on the Bible were cited as the prime example of “boring.” Father Stravinskas refused to liberalize his answers to Catholic’s questions, and refused to stop publishing my articles. He felt that the analysis is valid, and interesting. (The Our Sunday Visitor organization’s publisher actually once called me and told me that I was the organization’s most popular writer, and that the organization received more letters about my articles than any other writer. Figure that.)

In any event, when he refused to change his style or stop publishing my articles, Fr. Stravinskas was terminated. He began a new magazine, The Catholic Response. I have committed to writing 20 articles on Bible typology for that magazine.

 

[RyanL]

BibleReader:

I majored in Political Science, to load-up my schedule with pre-law classes. I actually “minored” in nuclear physics (because I was playing around with the idea of going into nuclear technology). I secured my Juris Doctor from Temple University in Philadelphia…
I married a gorgeous, earthy, wonderful Jewish lady. (She knows more about Catholicism than most Catholics.)

That’s funny…I majored in Computer Science, did post-graduate work in applied nuclear physics (roughly 6 years), and am currently working on my JD from a Catholic university. I, too, married a gorgeous, earthy, wonderful woman - Baptist, however, but that doesn’t stop her from knowing more about Catholicism than most Catholics!

Odd the way things work!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BibleReader]

twiztedseraph:

Pardon me sir, but two questions:

1. Can anyone join in?
2. How are you going to work it on the forums? It might get a tad…messy.

Anyone can join in. Skepticism is welcome. I just advise observers and participants to not be TOO skeptical, until they have learned the Bible typology system. No Pope has ever said, “BIBLEREADER’S TYPOLOGY IS DOGMA!!!” But, a lot of Catholics think at that level…if the Pope hasn’t said it, it ain’t true! Well, then Bible study is not for them, because as my aunt, who used to teach theology to seminarians, used to say, “If you’re only going to study the parts of the Bible the Church has authoritatively interpreted, you’re so lucky! It will only take about an hour!”

 

[BibleReader]

RyanL:

That’s funny…I majored in Computer Science, did post-graduate work in applied nuclear physics (roughly 6 years), and am currently working on my JD from a Catholic university. I, too, married a gorgeous, earthy, wonderful woman - Baptist, however, but that doesn’t stop her from knowing more about Catholicism than most Catholics!

Odd the way things work!

God Bless,
RyanL

Hi, Ryan.

The really cool thing about relativistic physics and quantum mechanics is how much you feel like God is just on the other side of the math, agreed?

 

[RyanL]

For those who think might typology is either new or novel…

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
128 The Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God’s works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine plan when “God [will] be everything to everyone.” Nor do the calling of the patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God’s plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.

Dei Verbum:

         15. The principal purpose to which the plan of the old covenant was directed was to prepare for the coming of Christ, the redeemer of all and of the messianic kingdom, to announce this coming by prophecy (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Peter 1:10), and to indicate its meaning through various types (see 1 Cor. 10:12).

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

BibleReader:

Hi, Ryan.

The really cool thing about relativistic physics and quantum mechanics is how much you feel like God is just on the other side of the math, agreed?

What I like is how, like conventional logic in the Bible (see: Beatitudes), God takes what we would expect and stands it on its head, specifically at the sub-atomic level. Wonderful! How could you not see God there?!?

RyanL

 

[DianJo]

NotWorthy:

How about Abraham’s son, Jacob?
Jacob went up to the mountain carrying the wood for his Sacrifice (like Jesus’ cross).
Jacob stretched out his hands to be tied, how else could a 90+ year old man tie up his son who was probably in his teens (like Jesus stretched out his hands to be nailed to the cross).
Jacob was willing to be sacrificed (just as Jesus did).
The mountain that the Sacrifice was part of the same range that Calvary was a part of.
Abraham was willing to give up his only son, just as God did.
Abraham named the mountain, “God will provide”, regarding the lamb for the sacrifice, in answer to Jacob’s question, “Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?”. In Calvary, “God provided” the lamb for the sacrifice. Notice, Abraham said God will provide the Lamb. They found a Ram in the thistle, not a lamb. So God had not yet provided the lamb, Jesus.

NotWorthy

I’m not expert in typology or geography but you cite the mountain “range,” that Calvary was part of that mountain range which is probably accurate but I understood that the mountain that Issac was to be sacrificed on was Mt. Moriah - the mountain that Jerusalem was eventually built on.

If that’s accurate - cool, huh?

 

[BibleReader]

NotWorthy:

How about Abraham’s son, Jacob?
Jacob went up to the mountain carrying the wood for his Sacrifice (like Jesus’ cross).
Jacob stretched out his hands to be tied, how else could a 90+ year old man tie up his son who was probably in his teens (like Jesus stretched out his hands to be nailed to the cross).
Jacob was willing to be sacrificed (just as Jesus did).
The mountain that the Sacrifice was part of the same range that Calvary was a part of.
Abraham was willing to give up his only son, just as God did.
Abraham named the mountain, “God will provide”, regarding the lamb for the sacrifice, in answer to Jacob’s question, “Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?”. In Calvary, “God provided” the lamb for the sacrifice. Notice, Abraham said God will provide the Lamb. They found a Ram in the thistle, not a lamb. So God had not yet provided the lamb, Jesus.

NotWorthy

Hi, NotWorthy.

You mean Abraha’s son Isaac.

Yes, in the story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac, Isaac is clearly a Jesus picture.

Note that the hedge tangled around the ram’s horns = a crown of thorns. Not bad, huh?

 

[BibleReader]

RyanL:

What I like is how, like conventional logic in the Bible (see: Beatitudes), God takes what we would expect and stands it on its head, specifically at the sub-atomic level. Wonderful! How could you not see God there?!?

RyanL

I know what you mean.

Other things that caught my attention were the disappearing/re-appearing particles, apparently wafting in-and-out of other dimensions created by God; and how particles at the quantum level appear to “think,” because of the illusions generated by mystical probability fields.

 

[BibleReader]

DianJo:

I’m not expert in typology or geography but you cite the mountain “range,” that Calvary was part of that mountain range which is probably accurate but I understood that the mountain that Issac was to be sacrificed on was Mt. Moriah - the mountain that Jerusalem was eventually built on.

If that’s accurate - cool, huh?

Hi, DianJo. You are correct.

 

[Atreyu]

Yay go physics! I wonder if there’s a connection between a love of physics and a curiosity about typology? I’m a few years behind you guys, but I’m studying physics now Oh, and thanks to the moderator who moved my post; my bad for not doing my homework…

 

[BibleReader]

Atreyu:

Yay go physics! I wonder if there’s a connection between a love of physics and a curiosity about typology? I’m a few years behind you guys, but I’m studying physics now Oh, and thanks to the moderator who moved my post; my bad for not doing my homework…

Hi, Atreyu. The thing that caught my attention in high school was an alcohol cloud chamber on a huge block of dry ice, with a chip of radium in a corner. We filtered-out most of the conventional particles in a persistant state with a wall of lead blocks with a slot in it. A few of the particles escaping through the slot apparently vanished from our four dimensional reality and then reappeared.

See if your physics teacher knows about the cloud chamber.

 

[twiztedseraph]

BibleReader:

Anyone can join in. Skepticism is welcome. I just advise observers and participants to not be TOO skeptical, until they have learned the Bible typology system. No Pope has ever said, “BIBLEREADER’S TYPOLOGY IS DOGMA!!!” But, a lot of Catholics think at that level…if the Pope hasn’t said it, it ain’t true! Well, then Bible study is not for them, because as my aunt, who used to teach theology to seminarians, used to say, “If you’re only going to study the parts of the Bible the Church has authoritatively interpreted, you’re so lucky! It will only take about an hour!”

I’m fine with learning anything thats not disapproved of. You might remember me from a previous thread, my “skepticism” there was only because I had not encountered Typology before and I wished to make sure it was sanctioned by Our Holy Mother the Church.

 

[RyanL]

twiztedseraph:

…my “skepticism” there was only because I had not encountered Typology before and I wished to make sure it was sanctioned by Our Holy Mother the Church.

See post #28. Unfortunately, that’s about all the guideline or instruction that we get outside of explicit Bible statements, so it’s definitely possible to go off on a bad tangent… Just keep your eyes open and your chin down.

God Bless,
RyanL