Scott Hahn says that Ham (Cham) can be interpreted as having had sex with .....

[rcjones]

[quote=NotWorthy;3826051]But the shadows of the OT represent the true form that is revealed in the NT.
{/quote]

You are correct.

1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

The shadows are just one of the ways that God used to speak to the fathers. Now that He has spoken to us by the Son, we can look back at what he said through the prophets and understand the mysteries and riddles.

[Benadam]

Originally Posted by rcjones

If the shadows were invention, consider what you must do to invent them.

.

Suppose you erroneously believe that God could suffer division. You might see the red sea parting as a shadow of of that division and every division may reveal some dynamic associated with a seperation that never occurred. It could still point at Christ but it has Christ and perhaps the Father respondingto a situation that couldn't occur and experiencing in an all too human way.

maybe I'm misunderstanding something but I can see a method like this building it's own structure without a pre-existing structure for it to build within. Then it can perhaps unveil deeper meanings about what we believe. I haven't been shown a satisfactory structure to contain it. That shadows must point to Christ and and continuity of meaning don't weave a tight eneogh barrier to keep out the master weaver of deception.



I know you feel that containment is necessary but that would require that it submit to an authorized body. Otherwise I believe you will not find universal meaning emerge.

[rcjones]

I know you feel that containment is necessary but that would require that it submit to an authorized body. Otherwise I believe you will not find universal meaning emerge.

I have continually said that they must be tested and flushed out by the larger community, and have pointed to the very danger of a lone interpreter falling into allegory.

It is currently premature to submit them anywhere since before they can be "authorized", others must learn to read them and the full canon parsed for the riddles, then the riddles solved with plausible answers, then the answers validated and "authorized".

Until the full tapestry can be seen, conclusions should all be held as tentative. I am hoping others can help expose the riddles and pose plausible solutions for discussion.

Any attempt at authorization before the mechanics are known and understood is premature.

[Benadam]

Originally Posted by rcjones

I have continually said that they must be tested and flushed out by the larger community, and have pointed to the very danger of a lone interpreter falling into allegory.

It is currently premature to submit them anywhere since before they can be "authorized", others must learn to read them and the full canon parsed for the riddles, then the riddles solved with plausible answers, then the answers validated and "authorized".

Until the full tapestry can be seen, conclusions should all be held as tentative. I am hoping others can help expose the riddles and pose plausible solutions for discussion.

Any attempt at authorization before the mechanics are known and understood is premature.

Then I am a fan rcjones. I hope to hear more as it develops.

[rcjones]

Thanks.

Have you checked out my study notes at my lame website?

I just got a private note about the good Samaritan and did a very quick pass at it.

It needs work but here is a quick attempt at it:

Origen further develped it. Others had already proposed a basic structure.

I'm sure you are aware of it.

Robbers .... satanic influences
Good Samaritan .... Christ
Inn ... the Church
Beaten man ... any fallen man
Jerusalem ... Heaven
Jericho .... the World
Priest/Levite ... legalism
Two denarii ..... Father & son [or H.S.]
Return date promised .... second coming of Christ

I went and parsed it out in the shadows. It appears that Origen was not familiar with shadows and did allegory.

Here is a loosely paraphrased interpretation.

Christ descended from the heavenly to the earthly position and was surrounded by thieves (on the cross).
They stripped him of his clothes and his "heavenly clothes" and wounded him and left him dead in the flesh.

Christ as priest saw him and passed over.
Similarly Christ who was married to the flesh passed over.
But the Holy Spirit had compassion on him.

And bound up his wounds pouring in the Holy Spirit and the living water. And set him apart with his own church (earthly testimony) and took care of him.

And on the next day pulled out the full testimony of man and gave them to God

And said take care of them, whatever charges you have against them, I will pay.

This is very rough, but I am continually amazed...

(This took about fifteen minutes to parse out this way, the hermeneutic can be applied mechanically. The interpretation needs to be discussed and validated. But just in the rough form is amazing to me)

[tnystrom]

Originally Posted by abeln

The introduction to the Book of Genesis in the Catholic Study Bible seems to support this view. I also heard a theologian from the Maryhill School of Theology say that the story of creation is a myth.

Near Eastern mythology has played a part in the composition of Genesis, especially, the Creation myth. It is not necessary for the Scriptures to be historically accurate. Much of mythology has a basis in fact.

[rcjones]

Originally Posted by tnystrom

Near Eastern mythology has played a part in the composition of Genesis, especially, the Creation myth. It is not necessary for the Scriptures to be historically accurate. Much of mythology has a basis in fact.

P. J. Wiseman has shown evidence that Genesis was written by eye witnesses upon clay tablets which were rubbed or transcribed onto papyrus.

The evidence consists of ancient Babylonian tablet colophons and the Toledoth (if I remember correctly).