Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
So according to this article, the story of Jonah was not a historical account, but simply an allegory.
And consistent with this, RC scholarship also teaches that that Genesis 2 (Adam and Eve and creation details) and Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel are “folktales,” using allegory to teach a religious lesson.
Also, the story of Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) was a fable, and the “sons of God” in Gn. 6 are really “the celestial beings of mythology.”
Furthermore, the records of Gn. (chapters) 37-50 (Joseph), 12-36 (Abraham, Issaac, Jacob), Exodus, Judges 13-16 (Samson) 1Sam. 17 (David and Goliath) and that of the Exodus are stories which are “historical at their core,” but overall the author simply used mere “traditions” to teach a religious lesson.
What this also means is that the Bible’s attribution of Divine sanction to wars of conquest, “cannot be qualified as revelation from God,” and things like clouds, angels (blasting trumpets), smoke, fire, earthquakes,lighting, thunder, war, calamities, lies and persecution are Biblical figures of speech.”
In addition, the sea Moses parted for Israelites to cross over that was the Reed Sea, which was “probably a body of shallow water somewhat to the north of the present deep Red Sea.” Thus rendered, the miracle would have been Pharaoh’s army drowning in shallow waters,
They also speculate that some of the miracle stories of Jesus in the New Testament (the fulfillment of of the Hebrew Bible) may be “adaptations” of similar ones in the Old Testament, and that the Lord may not have actually been involved in the debates the gospel writers record He was in, and thinks that most of which Jesus is recorded as saying was probably “theological elaboration” by the writers.`
They even cast doubt on much of the Lord’s sayings, teaching that “The Church was so firmly convinced that the risen Lord who is Jesus of history lived in her, and taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus’ sayings. The words are not Jesus but from the Church.”
They ask, “Can we discover at least some words of Jesus that have escaped such elaboration? Bible scholars point to the very short sayings of Jesus, as for example those put together by Matthew in chapter 5, 1-12 - http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#Remarks
Now how many traditional RCs subscribe to this?
All of which impugns the overall literal nature the O.T. historical accounts, and as Scripture interprets Scripture, we see that the Holy Spirit refers to such stories as being literal historical events (Adam and Eve: Mt. 19:4; Abraham, Issac, Exodus and Moses: Acts 7; Rm. 4; Heb. 11; Jonah and the fish: Mt. 12:39-41; Balaam and the donkey: 2Pt. 2:15; Jude. 1:1; Rev. 2:14). Indeed “the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Cor. 11:3; Rev. 12:9), and if Jonah did not spend 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the whale then neither did the Lord, while Israel’s history is always and inclusively treated as literal.
How was that not the purpose of all the prophets?
Peace be to you
yup. true. ends there.
“By definition if this were so we wouldn’t be having this argument. :)”
Okay, perhaps self-evident is not exactly the correct term. Self-revealing is a better representation of what I mean.
The Word reveals itself, to whom God wills to reveal it. It’s a good thing too, that God did not rely on His Word being proved by the evidences of man, otherwise the Bible would have no more claim to authority than any other book written by men but claimed to be divine.
“Unsurprisingly the list of books that you regard as ‘self evidently true’ coincides with the list of books that you regard as authoritative.”
Of course it’s unsurprising. It would be surprising if I put my faith in books that seemed to be quite obviously not the work of God. That would be foolishness.
“How was that not the purpose of all the prophets?”
I suppose you can make that statement in the general sense, but each prophet had particular circumstances they were sent to address in their present times. Since none but John the Baptist were sent in proximity to Christ’s birth, then none of those particular missions were to prepare Israel for Christ’s immanent arrival. Jeremiah, Isaiah, etc, all had more immediate matters happening in their own lifetimes to attend to.
The author of the article and many posters here seem to forget the role of God in communicating His Word to each and every believer in their human spirit.
He is a living God, not a dead God, nor does He leave the sanctification of our souls to those also dead or out of fellowship with Him.
As you have already been shown, the fact is that while the apocrypha was generally accepted, debate and doubts about books continued right into Trent, and until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon for Luther to and some RCs to dissent from.
Meanwhile, the EOs and other Catholics have a different canon than Rome's but that never seems to be much of problem with RCs.
That said, i would say the wisdom of Solomon , if it was indeed written prior to the resurrection, seems to come close to being inspired of God, though apparently falsely attributed to Solomon.
Good post. I’d also like to point out that there is no consistent contextual basis for separating out the “non-historical” from the “historical”, like the author of the article suggests.
The parts which modernists wish to regard as “non-historical” are simply the parts that they find inconvenient to defend in the face of attack by humanists, rationalists, atheists, etc. For example, there is no distinction in the text between the parts of Genesis that are accepted as “historical” and the parts they want to view as “non-historical”. It’s a single narrative written as if the entire work is a history, with no indication in the text that any of it is allegorical. Yet, somehow, all the parts that are most heavily ridiculed by nonbelievers just happen to be the ones that meet the mysterious standards to be deemed “non-historical”. It stretches the bounds of reason to imagine that this is just a coincidence produced by a sound exegetical method.
This written by a Roman Catholic is a joke right ?
I think the bible source text predates copyright laws.
Translations of it; however; are the PROPERTY of the TRANSLATORS.
At least the SDA doesn't have as a foundation the words of FALSE 'prophets'!
Well, if you’re Jesus, they call that the Second Coming. *rimshot*
Huh?
How can a dead woman DO that?
Rom 8:34 -
“Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”
Can’t get any closer to God than the right hand, so asking anyone else for intercession seems to be, at best, taking the scenic route.
The same reason Catholicism stuffs things in?
God made it work....that’s all I need.
People ask many questions....
my favorite is: can God make a stone so heavy He can not lift?
God it God, for me that is all I need to know.
People who worry about the fringe are beginning to bore me.
HE needs help; obviously.
The inspired writings of God were essentially established as being so like unto true men of God were, that being due to their Divine qualities and attestation. And which would also manifest there were no more books like them (though by making nebulous Cath. Tradition equal to Scripture and enjoining obedience to extrabiblical laws, with Rome being supreme, she is essentially adding to Scripture.)
In both cases the powers that be should recognize and affirm such as being of God, but sometimes they are not, yet are what they are regardless.
An infallible magisterium is not necessary to recognize and establish writings as Scripture, and nor does being the steward of Scripture and inheritor of Divine promises and having historical descent make such infallible.
“At least the SDA doesn’t have as a foundation the words of FALSE ‘prophets’!”
No, just a single false “prophetess”.
they sure get all up in arms about it, though.
Jesus is my savior...ends there. don't need the rest of the fluff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.