The Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up? His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.
[/quote]
Again, I made no mention of anything of the sort. And there is no departing of Christian theism at all in anything I have said, past or present. I feel it’s a choice of deliberate misunderstanding of either myself or Christianity as a whole.
Who is anyone to judge whom God loves or chooses to save? We are not capable of that observation. There is humility in understanding that. If you people wish to discuss that, I am open to it, but I made no mention what so ever of it here. It seems odd to bring this up randomly from things of the past that seemingly have no link or current bearing on the topics at hand.
Forgive me, but bring up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?

[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking you, Pat. I’m sorry if it came off that way. I just haven’t had time to post much and I’ve honestly been pondering our previous conversations often, especially now that I am continuing my studies in an EXTREMELY liberal context. I’m currently in a systematic theology course where every student simply assumes that every religion is as true as any other. So that discussion of the extension of salvation to unbelievers has been on my mind a lot. Tirib basically got my point - while I agree with you that God is the ultimate judge and that we must demonstrate humility in any of our claims about what particular individuals God is or isn’t saving, I do not think the proper path is this popular leveling of religions. No New Testament author would have ever agreed that Muslims or Hindus simply worshipped “imperfectly” or “ignorantly” the same God as Christians. For Paul, there is only one God, but that doesn’t mean that when his Greek neighbors sacrifice to Zeus, they are really worshipping Yahweh. Rather, he argued that such worship of anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was worship of demons (1 Cor. 10:20). Yes, there is only one God, but that God is not the only being out there nor the only being to whom humans have directed worship.

Consequently, my further point was that Cstratton’s New Agey nonsense is a logical extension of the view that all people worship the same God with varying degrees of knowledge. Once that is allowed in the door (and especially since Vatican II, the view that (if I interpret YOUR statements correct) you espouse has been popular), there’s not much reason to distinguish one faith from another. It becomes a matter of personal preference.[/quote]

I am still trying to figure out why you brought this up in the context of a reply to something I said, which I did not say. I mean, not even remotely close to anything I said or was talking about, at all, in anyway, which at the time could not have been further from my mind.
Not only did you bring it up, but you chose to admonish me for said unspoken intent. Where did it come from? I really don’t understand the pretext for what you wrote, at all.

I dare say there were better way to go about it, like tell me, what you did in the above post, that you have been thinking about it a lot in the course of study you are currently undertaking. That would have been helpful, rather then giving me a tongue lashing over something I didn’t even say, with all the "sigh"s and "dear"s.

I have more to say on the actual topic but I am out of time, I will address later.

163

Nobody on Earth can “give” you a “tongue lashing” pat unless you agree to recieve it.
Just drop the subject because it’s a waste of precious energy not only to address the subject
later, but to even anticipate addressing it so you can defend yourself, or whatever.

Go and fish for men to save out there in the great sea of humanity, rather than deciding
to stay and explain yourself to accusations here in the kiddie pool.

164

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up? His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.
[/quote]
Again, I made no mention of anything of the sort. And there is no departing of Christian theism at all in anything I have said, past or present. I feel it’s a choice of deliberate misunderstanding of either myself or Christianity as a whole.
Who is anyone to judge whom God loves or chooses to save? We are not capable of that observation. There is humility in understanding that. If you people wish to discuss that, I am open to it, but I made no mention what so ever of it here. It seems odd to bring this up randomly from things of the past that seemingly have no link or current bearing on the topics at hand.
Forgive me, but bring up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?

[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking you, Pat. I’m sorry if it came off that way. I just haven’t had time to post much and I’ve honestly been pondering our previous conversations often, especially now that I am continuing my studies in an EXTREMELY liberal context. I’m currently in a systematic theology course where every student simply assumes that every religion is as true as any other. So that discussion of the extension of salvation to unbelievers has been on my mind a lot. Tirib basically got my point - while I agree with you that God is the ultimate judge and that we must demonstrate humility in any of our claims about what particular individuals God is or isn’t saving, I do not think the proper path is this popular leveling of religions. No New Testament author would have ever agreed that Muslims or Hindus simply worshipped “imperfectly” or “ignorantly” the same God as Christians. For Paul, there is only one God, but that doesn’t mean that when his Greek neighbors sacrifice to Zeus, they are really worshipping Yahweh. Rather, he argued that such worship of anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was worship of demons (1 Cor. 10:20). Yes, there is only one God, but that God is not the only being out there nor the only being to whom humans have directed worship.

Consequently, my further point was that Cstratton’s New Agey nonsense is a logical extension of the view that all people worship the same God with varying degrees of knowledge. Once that is allowed in the door (and especially since Vatican II, the view that (if I interpret YOUR statements correct) you espouse has been popular), there’s not much reason to distinguish one faith from another. It becomes a matter of personal preference.[/quote]

I am still trying to figure out why you brought this up in the context of a reply to something I said, which I did not say. I mean, not even remotely close to anything I said or was talking about, at all, in anyway, which at the time could not have been further from my mind.
Not only did you bring it up, but you chose to admonish me for said unspoken intent. Where did it come from? I really don’t understand the pretext for what you wrote, at all.

I dare say there were better way to go about it, like tell me, what you did in the above post, that you have been thinking about it a lot in the course of study you are currently undertaking. That would have been helpful, rather then giving me a tongue lashing over something I didn’t even say, with all the "sigh"s and "dear"s.

I have more to say on the actual topic but I am out of time, I will address later.
[/quote]I am not your enemy Pat. PLEASE will you email me? I’m not looking to beat you up about Catholicism or in any way draw down on you. There’s things I’d rather say only to you. Nobody is tongue lashing you and like I say, there is no collaboration either. No one will know and please don’t view it like you’re giving in to me. This is not a challenge.

165

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up? His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.
[/quote]
Again, I made no mention of anything of the sort. And there is no departing of Christian theism at all in anything I have said, past or present. I feel it’s a choice of deliberate misunderstanding of either myself or Christianity as a whole.
Who is anyone to judge whom God loves or chooses to save? We are not capable of that observation. There is humility in understanding that. If you people wish to discuss that, I am open to it, but I made no mention what so ever of it here. It seems odd to bring this up randomly from things of the past that seemingly have no link or current bearing on the topics at hand.
Forgive me, but bring up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?

[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking you, Pat. I’m sorry if it came off that way. I just haven’t had time to post much and I’ve honestly been pondering our previous conversations often, especially now that I am continuing my studies in an EXTREMELY liberal context. I’m currently in a systematic theology course where every student simply assumes that every religion is as true as any other. So that discussion of the extension of salvation to unbelievers has been on my mind a lot. Tirib basically got my point - while I agree with you that God is the ultimate judge and that we must demonstrate humility in any of our claims about what particular individuals God is or isn’t saving, I do not think the proper path is this popular leveling of religions. No New Testament author would have ever agreed that Muslims or Hindus simply worshipped “imperfectly” or “ignorantly” the same God as Christians. For Paul, there is only one God, but that doesn’t mean that when his Greek neighbors sacrifice to Zeus, they are really worshipping Yahweh. Rather, he argued that such worship of anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was worship of demons (1 Cor. 10:20). Yes, there is only one God, but that God is not the only being out there nor the only being to whom humans have directed worship.

Consequently, my further point was that Cstratton’s New Agey nonsense is a logical extension of the view that all people worship the same God with varying degrees of knowledge. Once that is allowed in the door (and especially since Vatican II, the view that (if I interpret YOUR statements correct) you espouse has been popular), there’s not much reason to distinguish one faith from another. It becomes a matter of personal preference.[/quote]

I am still trying to figure out why you brought this up in the context of a reply to something I said, which I did not say. I mean, not even remotely close to anything I said or was talking about, at all, in anyway, which at the time could not have been further from my mind.
Not only did you bring it up, but you chose to admonish me for said unspoken intent. Where did it come from? I really don’t understand the pretext for what you wrote, at all.

I dare say there were better way to go about it, like tell me, what you did in the above post, that you have been thinking about it a lot in the course of study you are currently undertaking. That would have been helpful, rather then giving me a tongue lashing over something I didn’t even say, with all the "sigh"s and "dear"s.

I have more to say on the actual topic but I am out of time, I will address later.
[/quote]

Pat I’m sorry. I didn’t mean that to sound like an admonition. I thought it was just a discussion; I certainly wasn’t trying to attack you. I apologize for the manner in which I approached the discussion. I hope you can forgive me. I am a little confused by your response, though, as some of it seems to apply to Tirib’s post rather than mine.

166

Let me throw in here that when I said nobody was tongue lasing him, I was including you. I wasn’t trying to make you sound like the bad guy. I totally understand your point.

167

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pat wrote:KingKai25 wrote:Pat my friend, this kind of syncretistic nonsense is exactly why I have argued so vehemently before against the notion of a singular religious consciousness underlying the various religions. As soon as you start saying that any religion that looks remotely like monotheism worships the same God (Islam, Christianity, and in your opinion, Hinduism), you open the door for this kind of ahistorical crap.
I didn’t mention anything of the sort. I am not sure why you brought this up? His most royal majestic graciousness is of course free to correct this simple plebe if I am wrong, but he is saying that his PAST rejection of your sometimes syncretistic tendencies have been motivated, in addition to the declarations of the texts themselves, also as a safeguard against just such wide open Unitarianism as is here being advanced by our new young, progressive and open minded friend cstratton2.

In other words, once one departs from the exclusive and specific specie of CHRISTIAN theism everywhere proclaimed in the bible, cstratton2 is the logical conclusion and ANY tolerance of this kind of syncretism at all logically precludes one from legitimate criticism of some one like this lad because hes’ simply being consistent. I agree with him and I’m just bein honest Pat. I’m not tryin to start a fight, but we both knew we would not see eye to eye on a LOT of doctrine and theology.
[/quote]
Again, I made no mention of anything of the sort. And there is no departing of Christian theism at all in anything I have said, past or present. I feel it’s a choice of deliberate misunderstanding of either myself or Christianity as a whole.
Who is anyone to judge whom God loves or chooses to save? We are not capable of that observation. There is humility in understanding that. If you people wish to discuss that, I am open to it, but I made no mention what so ever of it here. It seems odd to bring this up randomly from things of the past that seemingly have no link or current bearing on the topics at hand.
Forgive me, but bring up things from past threads out of the blue seems a deliberate attempt to pick a fight. Otherwise, why comment on something I did not say?

[/quote]

I wasn’t attacking you, Pat. I’m sorry if it came off that way. I just haven’t had time to post much and I’ve honestly been pondering our previous conversations often, especially now that I am continuing my studies in an EXTREMELY liberal context. I’m currently in a systematic theology course where every student simply assumes that every religion is as true as any other. So that discussion of the extension of salvation to unbelievers has been on my mind a lot. Tirib basically got my point - while I agree with you that God is the ultimate judge and that we must demonstrate humility in any of our claims about what particular individuals God is or isn’t saving, I do not think the proper path is this popular leveling of religions. No New Testament author would have ever agreed that Muslims or Hindus simply worshipped “imperfectly” or “ignorantly” the same God as Christians. For Paul, there is only one God, but that doesn’t mean that when his Greek neighbors sacrifice to Zeus, they are really worshipping Yahweh. Rather, he argued that such worship of anyone other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was worship of demons (1 Cor. 10:20). Yes, there is only one God, but that God is not the only being out there nor the only being to whom humans have directed worship.

Consequently, my further point was that Cstratton’s New Agey nonsense is a logical extension of the view that all people worship the same God with varying degrees of knowledge. Once that is allowed in the door (and especially since Vatican II, the view that (if I interpret YOUR statements correct) you espouse has been popular), there’s not much reason to distinguish one faith from another. It becomes a matter of personal preference.[/quote]

I am still trying to figure out why you brought this up in the context of a reply to something I said, which I did not say. I mean, not even remotely close to anything I said or was talking about, at all, in anyway, which at the time could not have been further from my mind.
Not only did you bring it up, but you chose to admonish me for said unspoken intent. Where did it come from? I really don’t understand the pretext for what you wrote, at all.

I dare say there were better way to go about it, like tell me, what you did in the above post, that you have been thinking about it a lot in the course of study you are currently undertaking. That would have been helpful, rather then giving me a tongue lashing over something I didn’t even say, with all the "sigh"s and "dear"s.

I have more to say on the actual topic but I am out of time, I will address later.
[/quote]

Pat I’m sorry. I didn’t mean that to sound like an admonition. I thought it was just a discussion; I certainly wasn’t trying to attack you. I apologize for the manner in which I approached the discussion. I hope you can forgive me. I am a little confused by your response, though, as some of it seems to apply to Tirib’s post rather than mine.[/quote]

For the record I don’t want to ever come down or criticize anyone either; we are all equals here obviously… It’s just on my personal choice that I don’t believe in fundamentalism, I have a non duality way of looking… That’s all… Nothing wrong with expressing or having you’re faith

168

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

Pat I’m sorry. I didn’t mean that to sound like an admonition. I thought it was just a discussion; I certainly wasn’t trying to attack you. I apologize for the manner in which I approached the discussion. I hope you can forgive me. I am a little confused by your response, though, as some of it seems to apply to Tirib’s post rather than mine.[/quote]

Of course, I accept your apology. I am really sensitive about these sort of thing these days. If somebody said or acted, or referred something about me that isn’t true wasn’t done, or on some other way did not happen, I would let it go, not pay much attention, just let it go. Then I got burned badly by lies that snow balled out of control. Crap based on things that were not true, were never said or done. So now I am probably over sensitive to it. So if somebody “accuses” me, or reacts, or refers to me about things I didn’t actually say, do or am otherwise not guilty of doing, I make a stern defense. So I am sorry if I overreacted a bit. I am in a protective mode.

I will address the actual topic shortly for I do have much to say on the matter.

169

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not your enemy Pat. PLEASE will you email me? I’m not looking to beat you up about Catholicism or in any way draw down on you. There’s things I’d rather say only to you. Nobody is tongue lashing you and like I say, there is no collaboration either. No one will know and please don’t view it like you’re giving in to me. This is not a challenge.[/quote]

No worries trib. We can move on with the conversation. I felt I needed to be clear that I made no utterance about it. I didn’t bring it up, talk about it or even mention it in anyway. But now that has been established, we can talk about it. You will not agree, but that’s fine.

170

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not your enemy Pat. PLEASE will you email me? I’m not looking to beat you up about Catholicism or in any way draw down on you. There’s things I’d rather say only to you. Nobody is tongue lashing you and like I say, there is no collaboration either. No one will know and please don’t view it like you’re giving in to me. This is not a challenge.[/quote]

No worries trib. We can move on with the conversation. I felt I needed to be clear that I made no utterance about it. I didn’t bring it up, talk about it or even mention it in anyway. But now that has been established, we can talk about it. You will not agree, but that’s fine.[/quote]Ok, well I’m glad. We have a rather strained past to say the least. You seem to sense that I really don’t want to pick the clubs back up and I don’t think you do either. That said, we may tread some tender old ground. I will never compromise what I believe, but I will handle things differently than in the past. My offer to contact me offline always stands, for any reason.

171

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I said that all of the Bible has a literal sense [/quote]

You’re using extremely ambiguous language.[/quote]

Not really. Like i said there is the “literal sense” of scripture and then there is being literalistic in interpreting scripture. The literal sense of it is raining cats and dogs is…that it is raining a lot or it is raining hard. If you’re being literalistic then you’re saying that cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

Words, themselves, can’t be true. Only premises and arguments.

Yes, everything in the Bible is true.

It is historically accurate, but you have to look at what it is literally saying, first.

Again: literal and literalistic are two different words. Not really ambiguous at all.

172

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days | Answers in Genesis Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

Where is your proof that it was the view for the majority in the Church for a very long time?

173

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.” [/quote]

Half the problem is discerning what constitutes a “foundational” narrative, however. Is the virgin birth a foundational narrative outside of Catholic theology and those overwrought Protestant systems wherein Jesus’ virgin birth is used to explain his freedom from the influence of original sin? The New Testament authors really don’t DO much with it. Matthew mentions it as proof that Jesus’ rise, life, and death all fell within the prophetic framework of the OT; for Luke it seems to play even less of a significant role except as a historical fact. So, while not denying the truth of the virgin birth narrative, I certainly don’t see it as foundational (unless, of course, you are Roman Catholic).

[quote]
It was noted above that metaphor plays a role in the Bible as evidenced by Jesus’ parables. But Jesus makes it explicitly clear to his disciples that he finds metaphor effective. No such meta-description accompanies Genesis.[/quote]

This is an argument from silence. [/quote]

Seriously? Virgin birth (and her perpetual Virginity) is huge. It is a key fact that defines Jesus as he truly is. If you lose that the holistic picture of Jesus vanishes and your doctrine fails without it. Doesn’t matter if you recognize it or not. Sorry, something that is mentioned in the Nicene Creed isn’t some small historical fact or prophesy. And, the virgin birth isn’t not the primary influence in Jesus’ lack of original sin, it is the Immaculate Conception.

174

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I tend to agree with the content of the link you’ve provided–my understanding of the word yom is of course second-hand, but every reputable account I’ve read has left little doubt that a dusk-to-dawn day is what’s meant in Genesis.

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.”

It was noted above that metaphor plays a role in the Bible as evidenced by Jesus’ parables. But Jesus makes it explicitly clear to his disciples that he finds metaphor effective. No such meta-description accompanies Genesis.[/quote]

Correct.

I’ve said this a hundred times here in the last 10 years: yield on the authenticity of Genesis and you might as well yield on the other 65 books.

It is just a silly game to propagate the “We just need to re-define Genesis as metaphorical in order keep our faith intact and reconcile it with concepts of modern science” intellectual gymnastic exercise.[/quote]

Don’t even have the right amount of books, which Apostle told you there was only 66 books in the Canon of Scripture? Interesting you have higher requirements than the Apostles and their successors. Talk about a heavy burden.

175

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)[/quote]

On what authority do you contend to know which words and meanings are literal and which are metaphorical? The book itself certainly does not make a distinction.[/quote]See what you think of some thing like this: The Necessity for Believing in Six Literal Days | Answers in Genesis Regardless of anybody’s views he does spell out what was the vast majority one in the church for a very long time and for very good biblical reasons. Of course this will have no effect on most even church people nowadays, but just to throw it out there. Still lookin for that answer on probability btw.
[/quote]

If we accept that a 24-hour day is what’s described by the text, it seems to me that the true believer has little choice but acceptance. Obvious problems arise when a foundational narrative is presented as fact and then found not to be–“perhaps the virgin birth was metaphorical, perhaps the resurrection was metaphorical.” [/quote]

Half the problem is discerning what constitutes a “foundational” narrative, however. Is the virgin birth a foundational narrative outside of Catholic theology and those overwrought Protestant systems wherein Jesus’ virgin birth is used to explain his freedom from the influence of original sin? The New Testament authors really don’t DO much with it. Matthew mentions it as proof that Jesus’ rise, life, and death all fell within the prophetic framework of the OT; for Luke it seems to play even less of a significant role except as a historical fact. So, while not denying the truth of the virgin birth narrative, I certainly don’t see it as foundational (unless, of course, you are Roman Catholic).
[/quote]

A Christian has to be believe that God created all. So, yes, I would say that the account of creation is foundational.[/quote]

Evolution doesn’t disprove Genesis nor the above statement of yours.

176

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
King of out of left field, but I love reading psalms from a King James bible. The language in beautiful. [/quote]

Ditto.

But for a more…“muscular”…version, try:

Modern translation is a thing of…interesting mixed with a lot of head scratching. Why I prefer the Latin.[/quote]

Yeah because Latin is so much easier for the lay person to understand, and the Catholic Church to manipulate and control the people. This is why the reformation started. The Lay person had access to the Bible in their common tongue and they could see that the Roman Catholic Church was lying to them.[/quote]

The Catholic Church was translating the Bible into the vernacular way before the Reformation. Though, I’m not sure how the lay person didn’t have access to the Bible before the Catholic Church started translating the Bible into the vernacular and printing them. They had every opportunity to have access to it as anyone else.

177

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I will say it again: Careen off into the nebulous land of “Genesis is just a metaphor” and your whole ball of twine (the Bible) becomes unraveled and nothing more than a chaotic mess.[/quote]

Why can’t Genesis be a parable but jesus’ parables are parables and are not to be read literalistically? Why isn’t John 6 read literalistically?

178

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
LOL Chris it never ceases to amaze me how unreservedly you claim that the early church fathers spoke with unanimity on anything. Do you actually read them, or do you just have a series of proof texts from ECF literature on various topics that you glance at when you make these claims? Do you even have that much to go on?

First of all, the four-fold schema isn’t found until the fourth-fifth centuries in Augustine and John Cassian, and it was really just a summary of the different ways later Christian authors thought previous church fathers had read the Scriptures. So talking about this schema as if its some sort of badge of “orthodoxy” is borderline disingenuous; the apostles knew of NO such distinction, though they applied a variety of different interpretive methods.

Secondly, YOU don’t know the ECF’s - Origen plainly stated, “with regard to divine Scripture as a whole, we are of the view that all of it has a spiritual sense, but not all of it has a bodily (literal) sense. In fact, in many cases, the bodily sense proves to be impossible.” Thats from Book 4 of First Principles, by the way. And before we get into a conversation about Origen’s supposed heretical status, the fact is (1) that status was given posthumously after considerable doctrinal development in Christology, (2) he was representative of an interpretive school of thought (i.e., Alexandrian allegorical exegesis) going back centuries and encompassing figures like Clement of Alexandria, and (3) that interpretive school, along with Origen’s hermeneutical influence, continued in figures like Augustine. In short, Origen wasn’t the only one who thought this way; we see it in Clement before him and other church fathers after him. They were all influenced by the Greek philosophical schools, wherein the works of Homer had been interpreted allegorically for centuries as veiling the teachings of Plato and other philosophers, both to give the philosophies more cultural clout and to keep the Homeric epics relevant at a time when the populace considered them morally bankrupt.

Why won’t you do thorough analysis of your church’s historical claims? THE EVIDENCE IS THERE. It’s not like we have to trust her witness; we can actually see the texts, texts which many of her members (like yourself) continue to reference as authorities! If you did some historical research, you would plainly see that the reason why Augustine, Origen, Clement, and others interpreted certain texts figuratively was because the “literal” senses of the texts did not jibe with the moral frameworks and “scientific understanding” of late antiquity. Simple as that. They had cultural prejudices and these prejudices were reflected in their exegesis, because the early church fathers, like pretty much everyone in antiquity, were not sufficiently sensitive to their rootedness in particular contexts and the influence of those contexts on their thought. A great example is Augustine, who applauds Ambrose for asserting, in the face of Platonists who claimed that Jeremiah stole his wisdom from Plato, that the path of transmission went in the opposite direction! Neither Ambrose nor Augustine questioned the legitimacy of allegorical reading (which Philo had used on the OT); they simply said that Plato’s teachings could be found in Jeremiah!
[/quote]

As much as you seem to know about the Fathers/history it is strange you’re not Catholic. By the way, it seems your first premise is false. The ECFs don’t have to agree unanimously. I’d recommend reading Newman’s essay on Develop of Christian Doctrine.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/

179

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote] Brother Chris wrote:
Literal sense of Genesis: God created the universe.
Allegory: God, in creating the universe (so from the start of creation), ordered everything to himself.
Moral: Trust God/men are supposed to fight and provide/we are created in his image/&c.
Anagogical: God, through the New Eve, would bring in the New Adam to destroy sin (crush the head of the serpent, enmity between Satan and Mary (Woman), her seed (Jesus) and his seed (sin), &c.)
[/quote]

This isn’t right either. I don’t know if you made this up or if someone told it to you, but the four-fold sense is MUCH more ridiculous than this example suggests. The schema does not, as you have depicted it, simply emphasize different aspects that are already apparent in the text itself, and you can’t just apply it across the entire book of Genesis; you have to use it on select passages.

Rather, John Cassian (5th century) gave the classical example with reference to the use of the term “Jerusalem” in the Scriptures…

Literally, Jerusalem refers to the city of the Jews.
Allegorically, Jerusalem refers to the church.
Tropologically/ Ethically, Jerusalem refers to the soul.
Anagogically (i.e., looking to the future), Jerusalem refers to our heavenly home.

Thus, proponents of the four-fold schema would take a passage like Psalm 46:5 (“There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy dwelling-place of the Most High”) and argue that ALL of the following interpretations are LEGITIMATE interpretations of this Old Testament passage (i.e., that all of these interpretations accurately reflect the divine intent)…

“Literally”, this passage states that God functioned for Jerusalem like a life-giving stream in her midst (see Psalm 46:6).
Allegorically, this passage refers to the Spirit’s function in the church, which it nurtures and protects.
Tropologically, this passage refers to Spirit’s function in the individual, as it sanctifies and guards them.
Anagogically, this passage depicts the final situation in our heavenly abode, where the stream of living water flows from the divine throne in the heavenly city (Revelation 22:1-2).[/quote]

Thanks for explaining it better than I did.