Priest says OT is all "just stories" - Page 4

razredge · #46 Feb 7, '12, 5:19 pm

Well, of course parts of the OT are 'just stories'. However it definitely isn't 'all just stories'.

But yeah, Job and Jonah are probably "just stories"

Gorgias · #47 Feb 8, '12, 6:04 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

What I find interesting is the number of posts I've read that wish to assign allegory to Divine Revelation.

Well, Revelation can find expression allegorically; but Revelation itself isn't allegorical.

Quote:

Adam and Eve were two distinct individuals.

Yes, there were two distinct individuals. And?

Quote:

Adam is not just the Hebrew word for man,

You're right, of course -- it's the word for "red clay".

Quote:

and Genesis is not the only place in the Bible that confirms Adam as being a specific man.

Well, you've gotta admit -- as a means of expression, it'd be kind of clunkier to say "the first guy God created" each time, so the name assigned to him by the inspired writer does a good job.

**edwest2** · #48 Feb 8, '12, 6:59 pm

Please read the following:

http://bible.cc/2_peter/1-21.htm

All Scripture is inspired by God. Jesus tells us Moses wrote concerning Him. And he makes other Old Testament references. In once case, he became transfigured and spoke with Moses and Elijah while a few of His disciples watched.

Peace,
Ed

Birdpreacher · #49 Feb 8, '12, 7:15 pm

Saw this the other day and it made me think:

The Great Flood: How did the fresh water fish survive when the salt waters inundated inland waterways?

razredge · #50 Feb 8, '12, 7:31 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birdpreacher

Saw this the other day and it made me think:

The Great Flood: How did the fresh water fish survive when the salt waters inundated inland waterways?

Simple, there wasn't any such global flood

Gorgias · #51 Feb 8, '12, 9:56 pm

Ed,

I presume you're talking to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Please read the following:

http://bible.cc/2_peter/1-21.htm

All Scripture is inspired by God.

Yes, it is. But that doesn't necessarily imply that the entirety of Scripture is a report of literal history.

Quote:

Jesus tells us Moses wrote concerning Him.

Again, this doesn't mean that everything in Scripture is an historically accurate record.

Ecoclimber · #52 Feb 9, '12, 1:17 am

It reminds me of the Jesus Seminar where so called experts determine whether the sayings of Jesus are true or not. Start attacking the foundation of Christian belief based on teaching them as a series of mere myths or stories, cast doubt upon them, decide which ones are valid, which ones are not etc,and you will eventually destroy the faith of the believer and the Faith of the Church. Because when you attack the OT, you are really attacking Jesus and calling Him a liar.

Jesus affirms the veracity of every major section of the OT from Genesis to Malachi. Matt 5:18 For Amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

Did not Jesus say in Luke 17 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

28“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.

Were Adam and Eve real persons? The Lord Jesus says in Matt 19:4 "Have you not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female."

To state that such events in the OT which were confirmed by Jesus,Himself, were just mere myths or stories, would infer that Jesus is a liar which is blasphemous.

Andre1000 · #53 Feb 9, '12, 4:18 am

Some parts are fictional: for example the stories Jesus told are not stories about real people but were to tell something.

Some parts are historic: for example the dead on the cross.

The author of one part gave hints and signs to show, if it is a fictional stories or a historical documentation.

You may look for exegeses.

Sorry for my English.

**grannymh** · #54 Feb 9, '12, 7:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cormacnl

I think Catholics are committed to the OT being literally true in all aspects.

Otherwise, If the OT is to a lesser or greater extent allegorical and yet acceptable as the foundation for Jesus and the NT, does that not leave the door open for the possibility that the NT and the accounts of the life of Jesus are allegorical too?

Where would this end?

Catholics are committed to the Divine Revelation contained in Scripture and declared by the Catholic Church according to its protocol under the guidance and wisdom of the Holy Spirit.

**grannymh** · #55 Feb 9, '12, 7:49 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1000

Some parts are fictional: for example the stories Jesus told are not stories about real people but were to tell something.

Some parts are historic: for example the dead on the cross.

The author of one part gave hints and signs to show, if it is a fictional stories or a historical documentation.

You may look for exegeses.

Sorry for my English.

Your English is very good. Welcome to CAF.

Gorgias · #56 Feb 9, '12, 8:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cormacnl

I think Catholics are committed to the OT being literally true in all aspects.

I think you have to be careful in your use of the word "literal". Certainly, there is always a literal sense of Scripture -- that is, the words of Scripture always truly mean something (cf CCC 115ff). However, this does not mean that we are fundamentalists -- although we assert a literal meaning, we don't require a literalistic interpretation.

Quote:

Otherwise, If the OT is to a lesser or greater extent allegorical

Yet, "allegorical" doesn't mean untrue; rather, it means that it points to truth in a way that is literal yet not literalistic. "Roses are red" is a literalistic statement -- they actually are red. "I burn with a red-hot hatred" is allegorical -- there's nothing that's actually red here. Yet, both statements are true. We're not saying, then, that allegorical passages in the OT are untrue... just that their truth is contained beyond the literal words in which they're expressed.

Quote:

and yet acceptable as the foundation for Jesus and the NT, does that not leave the door open for the possibility that the NT and the accounts of the life of Jesus are allegorical too?

It certainly forces us to raise the question; however, I think that this concern is adequately addressed by the way that we understand the differences in time, construction/editing, and genre of OT and NT accounts (cf CCC 126ff, where the historicity of the NT is discussed).

DaddyGirl · #57 Feb 9, '12, 9:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecoclimber

It reminds me of the Jesus Seminar where so called experts determine whether the sayings of Jesus are true or not. Start attacking the foundation of Christian belief based on teaching them as a series of mere myths or stories, cast doubt upon them, decide which ones are valid, which ones are not etc,and you will eventually destroy the faith of the believer and the Faith of the Church. Because when you attack the OT, you are really attacking Jesus and calling Him a liar.

To state that such events in the OT which were confirmed by Jesus,Himself, were just mere myths or stories, would infer that Jesus is a liar which is blasphemous.

Just because historians/scholars/experts set out to examine the facts or history or veracity about an event or story, doesn't mean they are attacking Jesus.
For example, from what I've read in several books on the history of the bible, it is fact that the "he who casts the first stone" story in the new testament was added by a scribe 1-200 years after the canon was put together.
It is not in any of the early versions of the text that exist, but only starts appearing a few hundred years later. If that story, for example, was created by a scribe...does that necessarily destroy the entire faith of the believer and make Jesus a liar? No.
But most people do want to know the truth about what happened and what did not...don't you? It doesn't have to affect a person's faith, necessarily.

stevekehl · #58 Feb 9, '12, 10:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by razredge

Well, of course parts of the OT are 'just stories'. However it definitely isn't 'all just stories'.

But yeah, Job and Jonah are probably "just stories"

If Job and Jonah are just hard to believe, what do you think of people rising from the dead?

Gorgias · #59 Feb 9, '12, 10:25 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevekehl

If Job and Jonah are just hard to believe, what do you think of people rising from the dead?

Steve,

I'm not seeing the judgement that they're "just hard to believe". Rather, does a reasoned judgment that certain OT accounts are likely allegorical necessarily imply that doctrine is incorrect? You're asserting a false dichotomy here...

mdisse · #60 Feb 9, '12, 11:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmullins

It's not heresy. The church doesn't teach that it 'has to be a story' or 'has to be truth.' Most hold that Jonah and Job are stories. They could have been literal people and literal events. That may not have been. They could have been stories to highlight important truths. The thing is, whether they were real or not, the stories hold great spiritual truths for us to learn. That's the important part.

My priest has said the same thing in the recent past. That they are most likely stories and that we aren't supposed to read them for 'historical accuracy' but for spiritual truth. The bible is a book of faith, not a history textbook.

Thats the one thing I struggle with, why couldnt God make it a historical textbook? Just wondering.