How much of the Old Testament is actually historical?


#41

Yes but those are completely subjective when it comes to who believes which is figurative and literal in each case, for example Noah’s Ark and Adam and Eve, the 2 best examples of not meant to be taken literally.


#42

Why do you think those were not meant “to be taken literally”?

Who decided that? The authors probably intended it “to be taken literally”. The audience of the time thought it was meant “to be taken literally”. The audience for nigh 3000 years took it “literally”.


#43

Because Noah’s Ark from a logical scientific view is an impossibility.


#44

Noah’s Ark has nothing to do with logic. And scientifically… It was a miraculous event. You might as well say that Christ rising from the dead was a scientific impossibility. It was! That doesn’t mean anything.


#45

I take both of them as literal events. If there were some grammatical reason NOT to take them literally, I would.


#46

How do you arrive at that conclusion?


#47

What if I told you that God says in the OT that 9 Chapters is false?

And what KIND of Faith did Christ Himself have in the Inspired Word of God? That is the big question in our modern times.

Satan himself quoted to Jesus the Inspired Word Of God.

Satan was quoting the Inspired Word to TEST if Jesus was really the Son.

However, Satan REALLY tried to get Jesus to unwittingly commit suicide by obeying the Inspired Word of God.

This demonstrates that the OT is used by Satan and can be DEADLY to your life. St. Peter says so Himself. The writings of Paul can ALSO be used the same way. So how should we approach these writings?

Actually, there was lecture by an Australian… or British Catholic (if I remember) speaking about Scripture. It was a couple years ago, but I remember him specifically warning that the Bible can be dangerous. I should look that up sometime and post back the lecture. The talk was on how Catholics view the Bible or something like that.

As far as myself claiming errors between the old and new, I dont believe I said that, however, there are MANY direct conflicts. But these are there on purpose. Any Scripture which disagrees, God desires it to be there for a good reason.

What history can NOT verify whatsoever is the Exodus. Everything else has atleast a seed of verification. Notice however, that this is the ONE PART of the Bible that Judaism uses as the CORE BASIS of their religion. That should tell you something. Jesus completely disavows himself from the ancestry of those in the desert Exodus. He also says ‘YOUR Law’ not ‘My Fathers Law’. Why do you think Jesus went BACK TO EGYPT to find SAFETY from those who left it? (hint hint, wink wink).

Negative Theology is learning about God from things which are compltely contrary to God. This is actually MORE accurate than positively learning about who God is because those answers are never complete due to the Mystery involved. But we can know with 100% certainty who God is not. Ie: God is not an apple. Saying ‘God is love’ can mean absolutely anything to any person. The OT spends a great amount of time divinely teaching who God is NOT. Thats why it’s so dangerous in the wrong hands.


#48

But Satan didn’t use “false” Scripture against Jesus. He used Truth, taken out of context. Jesus actually would have been caught by angels, had he thrown himself off a cliff. He actually could have turned stones into bread.

Scripture is dangerous, but that doesn’t mean any of it is untrue.

Their law because they had reinterpreted so heavily against it’s original purpose and spirit that the law of worship had literally become a law of sacrilege. Why was Moses, the main character and author of Exodus with Jesus on the mountain, if Exodus was all a lie?


#49

This is quite a puzzling (and wrong) claim. Saying “God is love” CANNOT mean “absolutely anything” because it points us in a direction from which we can begin to decipher much more precisely the ways in which God is, indeed, love.

See, for example:

The Four Loves by CS Lewis,

or

Paul, waxing eloquent, in 1 Cor 13.

To say, “God is not an apple” is to say virtually nothing about God. Could he be a pear, a strawberry, a tree, an alien, …?

It doesn’t point us anywhere except away from apples. NOT. MUCH. HELP.

Yeah, except that the OT also spends a great deal of time teaching who God IS; and the NT even more.

How do we identify those “wrong hands?” Are we permitted to be self-critical? :thinking:


#50

This is also a pretty bold claim.

There is actually a lot more evidence than most people are aware of.
http://patternsofevidence.com/trailer-videos/


#51

No they wouldn’t have (because that would be a false Jesus who couldn’t discern his Father in heaven and thus void him from being the Messiah). The Anabaptist’s tricked you into believing that Jesus knew his Father through studying scripture. Basically he was like us and had to learn about God in a book.

The Anabaptists deceived me into believing that God could have chosen ANY woman alive at that time on the earth. Sure it makes logical sense when you read the Bible, but wow was I wrong. I don’t know what it is with Anabaptists. They truly place the scriptures above God himself. They just don’t ‘get it’. I don’t know what else to say. The answer I gave follows online these lines:

“we run the RISK of imagining God was a MAGICIAN, with a MAGIC WAND able to do everything. But that is NOT so,” Pope Francis, Oct. 28, 2014

(wow I’m so tempted to answer this in another way but I don’t want to cause others to stumble). I was DECEIVED by the Anabaptists into worshiping the Bible and Law. What I will say is that ANGELS gave the Law to Moses, but this fact is obviously hidden and never talked about in America 2017 when Anabaptists have taken over Christianity. Here’s proof:

Gal 3:19-20 (good paraphrase) In fact, ANGELS GAVE THE LAW TO MOSES, and he gave it to the people. There is only ONE GOD, and the Law did NOT come directly from him.

Acts 7:53-54 You received THE LAW as transmitted by ANGELS…When they heard this, they were INFURIATED, and they GROUND THEIR TEETH at him. (they still do the same till this day!)

Heb 2:2 the message announced through ANGELS [TO MOSES] proved firm, and EVERY VIOLATION of the LAW and every act of disobedience was PUNISHED. (meaning FURTHER punished because all mankind was without salvation anyhow)

“We have learned the noblest of OUR DOCTRINES and the HOLIEST of OUR LAWS from THE ANGELS” -Josephus, Jewish Historian (70 AD)

Logically, does the below sound like the works of Jesus?

Romans 7:13 The LAW makes you SINFUL BEYOND MEASURE

Gal 3:10 ALL who depend on works of THE LAW are UNDER A CURSE …11 NO ONE is justified by THE LAW in the sight of God (meaning God doesn’t recognize it. If it was his, he would recognize it).

Lastly, If Jesus gave the Law to Moses, then explain this:

John 1:17 For the LAW was given through MOSES, but grace and TRUTH came through JESUS CHRIST (basically there was NO TRUTH in the Law)

If you are associating with Sabbath Keepers, Torah followers (other labels of Anabaptists). then GET AWAY FROM THEM ASAP!

EX CATHEDRA: “…the Mosaic Law…were suited to divine worship at THAT TIME, after our Lord’s coming had…CEASED… therefore, [anyone] who… OBSERVE…the SABBATH…it declares ALIEN to the Christian faith and [are] NOT in the LEAST FIT to participate in ETERNAL SALVATION, unless someday they recover from these ERRORS.” - Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence 1441


#52

Mujhref iuhwef iuhwef


#53

Here’s some food. Time to get off the milk :wink:

Job 42:7

“I gave you milk to drink, not food; yet you will not drink it. Here milk is a small amount of understanding. [I Peter 2:2; I Cor. 3:2]” -St. Eucharius

"every interpretation of a text which is able to build up those who cannot receive greater truths might reasonably be called milk” - Origen

I can’t stress this enough. Our religion is NOT based off Scripture WHATSOEVER. The Scripture did NOT give us our salvation. I can see it so clearly now, I just don’t know to convince others of how bad of an idea it is to associate your Faith with scripture.

I could show you things in Genesis 1… heck, Genesis 1:1 that would change your whole perspective on life.


#54

Like I said, I don’t know if I’ve ever disagreed with someone more than you. I actually don’t believe a word you say! I’m not trying to be mean here, but, maybe you just need to spend a little more time explaining yourself.


#55

[quote=“thephilosopher6, post:1, topic:451754, full:true”]
Scholars are pretty much unanimous that the Exodus described in the Pentateuch could not have occurred, there simply is no historical or archaeological evidence for it.

The ruins of Sodom and Gomorrha and other towns which skeptics claimed never existed.
Descriptions of cultures that match historical facts, such as the Hittites.
Evidence for the Flood all over the world.

There’s plenty of evidence. Some scholars simply reject it.

Scholars also tend to dismiss the Patriarchs as non-historical too. I don’t think we should just dismiss them as attempting to “disprove” the Bible. Actually, many of them are Jewish or Christian, and regardless of their beliefs, they do genuinely try their best to reconstruct a history.

Have you ever heard the saying, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Through the centuries, people have said, “There’s no evidence of such a thing so we can’t believe it.” Only to have evidence of such a thing appear years later. Even centuries later.

Scholars might concede a Moses like figure existed sometime in the 13th century BC, he may have been an inhabitant of Midian, and may have had responsibility for spreading Yahweh to Canaan, but not much more can be historically reconstructed than that. Most scholars are also willing to concede that David and Solomon existed since there is some archaeological and historical evidence for their existence, but that they were heavily romanticized in the post-exilic period. So, what as Catholics are we to think of this?

As a Catholic, I believe the Catholic Church. When scholars don’t agree with the Catholic Church, I dismiss the scholars.

How much of the OT is actually historical?

There are parts the Catholic Church teaches are historical. Some are allegorical. I haven’t measured the percentages. Most of Exodus is historical.


#56

I would say all of the OT, EXCEPT for this one part of Scripture. Remember we’re talking about a claim that Moses spoke directly to God face to face which the NT says is NOT true. There is implications everywhere. Yes Exodus is a divine typeshadow, and there was probably a historical Egyptian Pharo named Mosestut and there was an army lead to penetrate the walls of Jerusalem. But even the one of the Church Fathers cites that the Egyptian plague was based off a famous lore fable that even he had lnowledge of. I think Josephus mentions it also.

Jesus goes to Egypt AWAY from Israel to find SAFETY. That should be VERY telling on what happened.

Today the followers of Moses give us the same false history, fake fables, and decieve us just the same. This is the real lesseon in the Exodus. I could really go in depth on this talking about the impossibilities of sacrifice demands. the broken promises of God, and all the satire involved like respecting holy ground by taking off our shoes and dirtying our feet (dust on the feet). Thats false holy ground. So shake the dust off your feet and put your sandals back on and go elswhere! The holy ground people cant recieve the word (as implied).


#57

Please show me where in the New Testament it is refuted that God spoke to Moses.

And show me where in the Old Testament God is speaking to Moses

[then show me all this argument.


#58

Hm? Please provide chapter and verse.


#59

Hi! I’m on the iPad right now, but when I get on the mian PC I’ll cite everything. I believe these truths used to be ‘basic common knowledge’ by clergy UNTIL the printing press got Bibles into lay hands resulting in the Anabaptists, then Freemasonry, then Americanism. A spirit of uncertainty was born regarding what Christians fundamentally believe, and who we follow and sow reverance to. Natural Law began to be replaced with Talmudic Law. Christianity all of a sudden became ‘Abrahamic’. (Yes I know authentic Christians are literally of Abraham, but that was NOT a core identity to describe our Faith).

Much of this smoke and confusion came about the 19th century. I can’t stress enough the effect of Judiasm and their Freemasons/Anabaptists. Protestants are victims like we are in this regard. Orthodox hasn’t been as affected because long ago, the Pope decreed for them to stay ‘frozen in a time past’. (really because they lack a sanctioned teaching office so have never been able to build on the shared foundation. This is why they have confusion with dogmas like the Immaculate Conception; because they are frozen in time. (this DOES come with its benefits though and this topic of the OT might be one of them).


#61

Actually the OT also specifically says that it is NOT true that Moses spoke to God “face to face.”

When Moses experiences the theophany on Mount Sinai, he says to the LORD: "Show me your glory.” The LORD then puts Moses in a cleft of the rock and all the glory of the LORD ‘passes by.’ He does NOT allow Moses to see his face.

…he said, “you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.” And the Lord continued, “See, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.” (Ex 33:17-23)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.