The story of Samson

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by GEddie

Haven't men documentedly survived being swallowed by whales? (1800s)

Since they breathe, it's no great wonder they have air in their gut and a small being could survive.

The miracle would be that the creature would be there precisely when needed.

ICXC NIKA

Well we don't know whether it was really a whale for one since the creature is only described as "a big fish." And the Greek word ketos (Latin cetus) only came to definitively mean 'whale' around the medieval period: in the early days, ketos brought to mind these horrible-looking giant sea monsters, the kind Theseus or Hercules would kill. This explains why Jonah is portrayed as being swallowed by this dragon-like thing (with gaping mouth and front paws!) in early Christian art.

[johnnyjones]

I know where the OP is coming from. The current climate forces many to ask "are these OT stories to be taken literally?" This inquisitive mindset emanates from the downplaying or dismissing of other biblical stories such as the Genesis account of creation, Noah's Ark and the flood and Moses parting the Red Sea among others.

As some have already stated there is no problem in accepting the immediate transformation of water into wine by Christ or reanimating dead flesh, but the OT miracles have become some distant fairytale that does not fit into the power of God. We most certainly should believe the story of Samson as we believe the chains fell off the prisoners by the power of an angel working through God in St. Paul's day. Too many Catholics have entered the slippery slope. Be careful what you say can not be attributed to God.

[Mgray82]

Originally Posted by COPLAND 3

After people question the reality of miracles in the Bible, what's next, do we question the reality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and whether it should be taken literally, or is the Good News just a didactic story that is only meant to teach us a lesson? I think it leads to that downhill spiral when people can't believe like God actually preserving a man in a whale for 3 days but the Lord raised people from the dead, healed the sick, walked on water,rose from the dead, acsended into Heaven, and promises a resurrection in the End of the world.

I'm glad you likened it to the story of Jonah. Another great story (I still like the story of Noah and Samson better).

Nowhere did I say that I "can't believe it". Indeed I can, and have my whole life. My point was that, some portions of the Bible are not to be taken literally. Is this not true? That you believe the story of Samson to be 100% true based on the context of the story shows that you have much faith

But, if I'm a non-believer or an atheist picking up the Bible for the first time to read it. I want some answers to these stories. Hard to believe a guy can get swallowed up by a whale and survive..it just is..do I believe it? Absolutely. But I think some scientific explanation can back up our beliefs even better.

So, going back on one of the responses on this thread. The fact that humans have deficient muscles, and that perhaps we don't use are physical bodies to 100% of their capability explains a lot to me. Could be that perhaps God made Samson capable of some if not all of his human strength that Samson himself would not have been capable of using on his own physical will.

Again it's speculation and I know God can do things just because he's God. But I like answers too.

[johnnyjones]

Originally Posted by Mgray82

I'm glad you likened it to the story of Jonah. Another great story (I still like the story of Noah and Samson better).

Nowhere did I say that I "can't believe it". Indeed I can, and have my whole life. My point was that, some portions of the Bible are not to be taken literally. Is this not true? That you believe the story of Samson to be 100% true based on the context of the story shows that you have much faith

But, if I'm a non-believer or an atheist picking up the Bible for the first time to read it. I want some answers to these stories. Hard to believe a guy can get swallowed up by a whale and survive..it just is..do I believe it? Absolutely. But I think some scientific explanation can back up our beliefs even better.

So, going back on one of the responses on this thread. The fact that humans have deficient muscles, and that perhaps we don't use are physical bodies to 100% of their capability explains a lot to me. Could be that perhaps God made Samson capable of some if not all of his human strength that Samson himself would not have been capable of using on his own physical will.

Again it's speculation and I know God can do things just because he's God. But I like answers too.

It seem for some reason the OT miracles need a scientific basis but the NT miracles do not. It is all just the awesome power of God, I think that's why some of those grandiose miracles are in the OT, to demonstrate Gods power. The NT is full of them to but they are much less questioned.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

It seem for some reason the OT miracles need a scientific basis but the NT miracles do not. It is all just the awesome power of God, I think that's why some of those grandiose miracles are in the OT, to demonstrate Gods power. The NT is full of them to but they are much less questioned.

Actually they're also questioned or rationalized, if you knew where to look.

[johnnyjones]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Actually they're also questioned or rationalized, if you knew where to look.

I get you. I'm speaking basically in Christendom. Who really questions St. Paul being taken up to the third heaven or Lazarus being resurrected among multiple other miracles.

[GEddie]

Originally Posted by johnnyjones

I get you. I'm speaking basically in Christendom. Who really questions St. Paul being taken up to the third heaven or Lazarus being resurrected among multiple other miracles.

I don't imagine the SP account ever being seriously questioned. It's less a miracle than an "out of body experience," which modern culture has embraced. In fact, I imagine that his account in 2Co 12 is the source of the modern term.

And in a world where resuscitations from near death now occur en masse, Lazarus is also less hard to believe.

ICXC NIKA

[johnnyjones]

Originally Posted by GEddie

I don't imagine the SP account ever being seriously questioned. It's less a miracle than an "out of body experience," which modern culture has embraced. In fact, I imagine that his account in 2Co 12 is the source of the modern term.

And in a world where resuscitations from near death now occur en masse, Lazarus is also less hard to believe.

ICXC NIKA

Do you really need me to get specific with the miracles of Jesus? Calming storms, resurrecting his own 3 day dead bludgeoned body, instantly turning water into wine. Those miracles are not questioned by the faithful yet OT acts of God are.

[wiggbuggie]

just heard today that archeoligists found a coin depicting samson fighting a lion dating to the 11th centuary BC time of the judges in Israel history:

http://paulinemaria.blogspot.com/201...-found-by.html


I was listening to a contemporary christian radio station on my way to work and they mentioned it I was so excited and looked it up online.

[patg]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Actually they're also questioned or rationalized, if you knew where to look.

And, there is no requirement to accept any but a small handful as literally true. Let legends be legends.

But the church does dogmatically state that scripture contains many literary forms and does not exclude all "miracles" from this statement.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by patg

And, there is no requirement to accept any but a small handful as literally true. Let legends be legends.

But the church does dogmatically state that scripture contains many literary forms and does not exclude all "miracles" from this statement.

Two cents. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is this tendency among us moderns to give the words 'myth' and 'legend' negative connotations. 'Myth', for example, is the word often used to mean 'spurious, undocumented fictional stuff which only gullible cooks would actually waste their time with'.

[patg]

Originally Posted by patrick457

Two cents. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is this tendency among us moderns to give the words 'myth' and 'legend' negative connotations. 'Myth', for example, is the word often used to mean 'spurious, undocumented fictional stuff which only gullible cooks would actually waste their time with'.

Classifying something as a myth or legend defines its literary form, it does not comment on whether the story is true or false. One also has to realize that fiction, legend, myth, poetry, etc all can teach truth without being literalistically true.

[patrick457]

Originally Posted by patg

Classifying something as a myth or legend defines its literary form, it does not comment on whether the story is true or false. One also has to realize that fiction, legend, myth, poetry, etc all can teach truth without being literalistically true.

That I agree with.

[Nelka]

Originally Posted by Mgray82

My question; Are we to take the story of Samson literally?

Yes.