Posted on 07/07/2008 10:49:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
Thank you for your replies. It will take me a while to digest them, and thunder is also rumbling so I may have to disconnect my modem. Please be patient.
"Salvation" in the TaNa"KH does not refer to "salvation" as chr*stianity understands it. "Salvation" simply means rescue from a dangerous situation. Chr*stianity later spiritualized this concept as it has so many other things (Israel, Jerusalem, etc.). David praying that G-d restore "the joy of his salvation" is not a Calvinist prayer!
While Judaism does not know "salvation" in the chr*stian sense, it most certainly does not an afterlife. In fact, one of the most dogmatic concepts in Judaism is "resurrection of the dead" which is the subject of the second prayer of the `Amidah. However, an afterlife is not the same thing as "salvation." "Salvation" doesn't just mean that one goes to Heaven. It denotes (or at least connotes) that Heaven is the result of a rescue rather than anything connected with reward and punishment. And no, it is not that G-d owes man Heaven, but He rewards and punishes (in both this life and the next). In Judaism's more mystical teachings the soul actually descends from Heaven into the developing human body, so naturally at death it "reports" back to headquarters where some sort of judgment will be rendered. But the chr*stian concept of "salvation" is far more than simply an afterlife.
So, from a Christian POV, it seems fair enough to suppose that the revelation of an afterlife was very slowly manifested and with a deliberate incompleteness.
This is not the case. Unlike all other religions, Judaism is not based on "progressive revelation," ie, a revelation that begins at a very elementary, spotty, incomplete phase and then reaches a crescendo at some other time. The exact opposite is the case. In Judaism, the highest revelation comes first. The Prophets are not higher, but lower than the Torah, and the Hagiographa is lower still. In fact, the Prophets and Hagiographa will not always be publicly read as Scripture, but only until they are all fulfilled and thus served their purpose. Only the Torah (and Megillat 'Ester) will be read publicly as Scripture eternally because it serves an eternal purpose.
This means that the "absence" of teachings on the afterlife were not delayed in order to be revealed at a later time; instead these teachings are merely elucidated only in the Oral Torah (actually, all truth is alluded to in the Written Torah, but some of the allusions are buried very deep; they are explicated only in the Oral Torah). So the teachings were already there and were doubtless studied by the Israelites during their forty years in the Wilderness.
Well, again, I think part of your problem with Christianity is what you consider Biblical laxity among many of the people with whom you formerly associated. That's unfortunate, to be sure, but it doesn't follow that the Faith itself has similar official positions. Anyway, modern Judaism, if anything, has an even greater range of beliefs on the subjects of inerrancy and literalness, yet that fact doesn't stop you from allying yourself much more to their thought processes than to Christianity's. If you can get almost rabid in your disdain for most Christians, I wonder why you don't feel the same way about the legions of (effectively) apostate Jews in the world today. I guess I'm looking to understand what I see as a glaring inconsistency here.
This is a very good question. Actually, my feelings towards liberal Jews (especially the way they enjoy representing all Jews as decadent, world-weary Weimar intellectuals who divide their time between making dirty movies and organizing labor unions) could not be printed on this forum without being immediately yanked (yes, I'm lousy at mitzvat 'ahavat-Yisra'el!). However, religiously I identify only with Orthodox Jews, and believe it or not, almost all Orthodox Jews are much more literal than mainstream chr*stians are. They all believe (or at least claim to) that G-d literally wrote the Torah Himself before the world was created and then dictated it to Moses one letter at a time. They all believe (or claim to) that the Written Torah, compact as it is, in some mysterious way encompasses all truth and all reality. It's true that there are plenty of Orthodox Jewish evolutionists (mostly in Modern Orthodoxy, but some in the traditional insular world as well), but Orthodox Jewish evolutionists are very distinctive among all other "Theistic evolutionists" (they still believe G-d wrote the Torah, that the Hebrew language and alphabet was created directly by G-d and did not develop from earlier ones, and once Adam and Eve arrive on the scene they accept the historicity of everything recorded in the Torah, completely rejecting the concept of didactic mythology, much less the blasphemous assertion that the Torah was adapted from paganism). In other words, the vast majority of Orthodox Jewish "Theistic evolutionists" are only non-Fundamentalist for the first five days of Genesis One and then switch to literalism. Methuselah, Noah, the Tower of Babel--they are all accepted as literal history. Indeed, my greatest criticism of Orthodox Jewish evolutionists is the blatant inconsistency of listening to the voice of "science" for the first twenty-something verses and then refusing to listen to it any longer (since the same "science" that teaches evolution also teaches the documentary hypothesis, that the Torah contains mythology, and that the Hebrew language is a descendant of an older language). My experience is that, as obnoxious as they are ("We Jews don't believe in creationism!"), Orthodox Jewish evolutionists barely count as non-literalists at all. They are non-literal about so little that they really have no grounds to reject the literalness of any of it!
Go into any Orthodox synagogue and ask any of the men the name of Noach's wife. He'll tell you.
As for how Catholicism views this, I must admit that there is no "infallible" pronouncement on the subject beyond the fact that the Church affirms that the entirety of the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is inerrant in the truths it seeks to convey, though it is not "required" of Catholics to believe that every word is 100% literal. The language employed in both Testaments "handicaps," if you will, the ability of God to transmit his truths in ways that humans can understand; the limits of human language cannot be stretched beyond a certain point, and the limits of man's prior knowledge (with with he makes sense of new information - in this case, revelation) are not boundless. This creates a situation, for example, where the notion that the earth is flat and supported by pillars seems legitimate according to Psalm 75:4. If one is to conclude that absolutely everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, then one is forced to conclude that the earth is sustained on pillars. Yet we know this is not so. So, is the Bible 100% literal or not? If only 99.9999%, can one suppose it's only 99.9998%?
The way to explain this is to understand that the Bible is not a science book, and God was not obliged to give us scientific knowledge of things in His creation. He left it to us to "fill the earth and subdue it" in Genesis, and, I dare say, scientific discovery through our own sweat and effort is part of "subduing" the earth. The exact methodology of how God created the heavens and the earth is way beyond the scientific and linguistic capacities of the Israelites who hear Moses' account; God described it in a way they could understand. As it is, very little of either Testament is even "eligible" to have this non-literal approach applied to it. In Revelation, for example, one can imagine the beast with seven heads and ten horns is very likely to be symbolic of something, and not literal. No one would follow such a grotesque monster if it literally looked like that. But the overwhelming majority of Scripture relates history in a credible way when taken literally, and there's no reason to suppose such history is not literal.
Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter! And thank you for providing me an excuse to discuss my views at a greater length than I usually do.
The idea of a "woodenly literal" or "word-for-word literal" or "one hundred percent literal" interpretation of the Bible is a complete red herring, since no one, including the most literalistic Fundamentalist, does such a thing. My experience is that such things as "the four corners of the earth" (figure of speech), "G-d" having a beard of sheep in Song of Songs (an allegory that doesn't even mention G-d), and anthropomorphisms/anthropopassisms are invoked dishonestly as an excuse to deny the historicity of certain episodes in which either the supernatural comes into play, or else the laws of nature are plainly not the same as they are now.
Please allow me to explain.
A "wooden" or "100% literal" interpretation of the words of the Torah at several points would imply that the penalty for certain sins is to have one's eye plucked out, hand cut off, etc. The commandments of the Torah, though spelled out at a very deep level, are simply not described on the surface of the text, and the Oral Torah is absolutely essential in order to understand them at all. I am not and have not been for a long, long time an advocate of soul competency or Scottish common sense philosophy when it comes to such matters in the Bible.
In fact the true interpretation of "eye for an eye" etc. is that the wounded party is recompensed a monetary amount equal to his eye (or hand, or foot, or wound) which the aggressor has to pay him, and this has always been the interpretation. Nevertheless, the written text, when read carefully enough, plainly alludes to this when it uses the word "give" (why would one give someone an eye which he could never use, or why would one "give" him an additional wound?). It is not merely the narrative, but the very letters themselves (along with their sizes, shapes, and names) and even the spaces between the letters that allude to these deep matters.
So the first thing to be understood is that I do not claim that anyone with "one eye and half sense" can read the Torah and then construct a tabernacle and perform the service (the Torah at various times commands that some offerings be "heaved" and others be "waved," but never says a word about how these rituals are to be carried out). What I am insisting upon, absolutely, is the accurate facticity of all the events and people mentioned. The universe was created in six days. Adam lived 930 years. The Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Exodus, the talking donkey, and the Biblical chronology of history all happened exactly as written. These are historic events, not mitzvot.
Another thing that must be kept in mind, as I said much earlier, is that the TaNa"KH contains three stages of revelation. And while there are four modes of Torah interpretation, the literal sense of the episodes of the Torah are always true and not mere parables. So if the Torah says something happened, no one should dare to say it did not (and this is what makes so many "reverent" chr*stians seem so irreverent).
But what about the rest of the TaNa"KH? And here I am going to say something very, very sensitive. Whether or not any of the other stories in the Bible actually happened is not a matter for "new knowledge" of any kind, much less that "discovered" by atheists and heretics. Only the Ancient Tradition is competent to say that a story or episode in the non-Torah part of the Bible didn't actually happen but is merely a parable. And as it happens, there is one and only one Biblical story on which there is even an opinion (either one out of nine or one out of ten) in the Talmud that it is a parable. Can you guess which one it is? It ain't Jonah (which so many chr*stian eviscerate). It ain't Esther. It ain't Ruth. It ain't Daniel (any part of it). It ain't the sun standing still for Joshua. No, the only Biblical book about which Ancient Tradition entertains such an opinion is the Book of Job (which is in verse, anyway).
And please note this very carefully: this possibility takes place within the context of discussing exactly when the events in the Book of Job actually happened. If I recall correctly, there are eight different opinions as to when the events occurred, spanning from the time of Moses to the return from Babylon. Then there is a ninth opinion that the story did not actually happen, but is a didactic parable. Now note that this is an opinion rather than a dogma, and it is only one of nine. But there is a reason for this. The non-specificity of when the events occurred, and even whether or not they actually did occur is actually part of the lesson of the Book! And that is why the Tradition preserves that opinion along with the other eight. The haziness of when or whether they events took place is itself didactic!
Once again, let me reiterate that this is ancient tradition that makes this comment. "Modern scripture scholars" are utterly incompetent to declare that "we now know" that such-and-such could not have actually happened.
And btw, the tradition is that Moses wrote the Book of Job (under Divine inspiration), and the fact that the events described may have been yet hundreds of years in the future at that time in no way whatsoever mitigates against Mosaic authorship, because that's how Divine inspiration works!
I hope that the matters I have discussed here will not only for all time demolish the "ever word literal" red herring, but maybe even the general belief that I consider myself my own highest authority in these matters.
Thank you again for this dialogue.
Try these:
Greek New Testament
Hebrew Old Testament
Although you will find this close enough to be of benefit:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Due to language limitations I personally refer to the following and compare translations to:
New King James Version
NIV
NASB
KJV
ESV
RSV
Good News
Geneva
Douay-Rheims
***How do you know?
Maybe St. Peter should update the Book of Life to PGP 9.x already.***
Judging by the theologies presented, perhaps 86-DOS version 0.3 might be more appropriate.
***Did this vessel hold a male and female of every species on earth?
Of course not. That’s why we have possums and bunnies running around the back yard, not dinosaurs.***
Are you saying that the Flood killed off the dinosaurs? Mankind existed at the same time as the dinosaurs?
***You want to know who murdered the Messiah?
I did.***
A courageous and fundamentally correct reply.
***Try these:
Greek New Testament
Hebrew Old Testament
Although you will find this close enough to be of benefit:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Due to language limitations I personally refer to the following and compare translations to:
New King James Version
NIV
NASB
KJV
ESV
RSV
Good News
Geneva
Douay-Rheims***
They say different things on occasional verses. Which is the inerrant one that you use? Inerrant means
1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.
according to the freedictionary.com.
If there are different words, then there are different meanings. If you would, please elaborate.
Christ Almighty revealed that particular understanding to me more than a few years ago, while I simultaneously studied the Holocaust and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
If I spoke the truth, believe me, it is not my truth—not at all—but rather The Truth, which I am so blessed through the Catholic Church founded by Christ to understand.
Ever noticed how many dinosaur digs have jumbles of bones that look like they've been washed there by a flood?
***Christ Almighty revealed that particular understanding to me more than a few years ago, while I simultaneously studied the Holocaust and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
If I spoke the truth, believe me, it is not my truth—not at all—but rather The Truth, which I am so blessed through the Catholic Church founded by Christ to understand.***
Christ revealed love and mercy. It is up to us to witness to it and to admit the truth. We as sinful men metaphorically crucify Christ each and every time we sin. Every time we sin, we drive another nail into Him; every time we blaspheme, we crown Him with more thorns; every time we disobey God, we thrust another spear into His side.
And He came for all men to redeem them nonetheless. Regardless of their denials and self righteousness.
Deut 31:
24
When Moses had finished writing out on a scroll the words of the law in their entirety,
25
he gave the Levites who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD this order:
26
“Take this scroll of the law and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD, your God, that there it may be a witness against you.
27
For I already know how rebellious and stiff-necked you will be. Why, even now, while I am alive among you, you have been rebels against the LORD! How much more, then, after I am dead!
28
Therefore, assemble all your tribal elders and your officials before me, that I may speak these words for them to hear, and so may call heaven and earth to witness against them.
29
For I know that after my death you are sure to become corrupt and to turn aside from the way along which I directed you, so that evil will befall you in some future age because you have done evil in the LORD’S sight, and provoked him by your deeds.”
We are the admitted stiff necked, my friend. I cannot believe what I have done in my life, yet when I repented of it, it was done and finished.
We truly do believe in a wondrous and merciful Lord. Mayhap I will be able to emulate the tax collector a little better: Luke 18:
9
He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.
10
“Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.
11
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.
12
I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
13
But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
14
I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
And that is a prayer that resonates throughout Catholic life:
‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’
No elite, no undeserved elect, just repentence and forgiveness.
***Are you saying that the Flood killed off the dinosaurs?
Ever noticed how many dinosaur digs have jumbles of bones that look like they’ve been washed there by a flood?***
Is that an affirmative?
Most dinosaur digs in Alberta or in the Western US don’t. I cannot speak for those in Patagonia or Outer Slobbovia. Do you have objective evidence?
As we would say, "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."
Do you agree or disagree with this statement:
God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." ...[the Church] accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself." God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures ....
***As we would say, “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” ***
Not all of the OT was in Hebrew.
***God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” ...[the Church] accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.” God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures ....***
They wrote as best as their humanity would permit them and no more. God did not dictate the NT (or the OT) to them; yet the inspiration of the Holy Spirit influenced them to write as best they could given their abilities.
Consider this:
Matthew’s Gospel was written for the Jews.
Mark’s Gospel was written under the influence of Peter.
Luke’s Gospel was written under the influence of Paul.
John’s Gospel was written under the influence of the Mother of God.
Each Gospel is different and reads different. But they are all the Gospel. There are significant differences among them. The Sermon on the Mount becomes the Sermon on the Plain and is omitted from the other two. Who went to the tomb of Jesus after He was resurrected?
Each, however, is true and must be considered true.
The interpretation is all; the words by themselves taken out of context has given rise to the thousands or millions of differing Protestant theologies.
So you disagree with the parts of the passage that says: " God is the author of Sacred Scripture...they have God as their author.... "? Do you happen to know the source of the passage that I quoted?
>> (especially the way they enjoy representing all Jews as decadent, world-weary Weimar intellectuals who divide their time between making dirty movies and organizing labor unions) <<
You owe me a new keyboard. If Woody Allen could write lines like that, people would agree that Annie Hall SHOULD have beaten Star Wars for best picture.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping!
***So you disagree with the parts of the passage that says: “ God is the author of Sacred Scripture...they have God as their author.... “? Do you happen to know the source of the passage that I quoted?***
Yes, the Catechism. I went back and read it before I answered last post.
Take the whole chapter and read it:
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”69
“For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.”70
106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”71
107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”72
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”74
God is the author, yet it was written by fallible men. God is a perfect author using imperfect tools. There were many writings; the Church chose the ones that came closest to God’s intent.
“To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
Now we must understand what they wrote.
“Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living.”
And I didn't even mention Die Dreigroschenoper or fluoride in the drinking water!
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.