Christianity QA

Question:

The biblical story of Jonah is wonderfully textured and nuanced. The fact that it is pure fantasy doesn’t rob itself of its spiritual value. And, for historic Christians, who understand that scripture is but a tool and instrument that is "useful"  to the Church is advancing itself as "the pillar and bulwark of truth," the story of Jonah adumbrates and anticipates the Paschal Triduum (the Death, Descent among the Dead, and Resurrection of Christ). Otherwise, it is entirely too fishy a story to have any other real significance. The story of Jonah, like the parable of Balaam (Num. 22ff.), is just that: They are both "parables." Donkeys don’t speak; whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids. However, in addition to storytelling, the Bible contains injunctions against this and that, and it’s been my experience that most biblicists pick and choose which verses (not even pericopes) they want to latch onto and those they don’t. For example, the Levitical Code of Holiness that makes homosexuality an abomination is no less condemnatory of those who have heterosexual intercourse without first performing animal sacrifices. It prohibits not only two men lying together, but any man from eating anything from the sea except that which has scales and fins (ergo: No scampi, no scallops, mussels, crabs, clams, shrimp, lobster, and the like). And those who think it is homosexuality and not idolatry that Paul is condemning, ought to read more than Romans 1, but also read Romans 2, to which Romans 1 is but the prologue. And let’s not forget the very clear injunction of the epistles to Timothy that require a woman to cover her head and keep her mouth shut in the daily and weekly congregations. Literal and fundamentalist biblicists completely misunderstand the Bible, which is not surprising since they have little idea of how it came into existence, nor how it was intended to be used by those who brought it forth. Christians are not Muslims, and the Bible unlike the Quran did not fall from the sky! Nor is it likely that the author attributed to any one book is the only or sole author; most of the books are a synthesis of believer’s recollections of God’s activity in the lives of his creatures, and most definitely is not a newspaper that reports on paranormal experiences. The fourteenth-century theologian Catherine of Siena rightly claims that scriptures must be read in the same manner in which they were produced: Spiritually, not literally. Those who read only for literal understanding completely miss the point and are so self-absorbed with getting the letter right that this miss the spirit of the letter. Saint Catherine wasn’t coming from out of nowhere when she insisted that scripture be read and prayed spiritually rather than literally. Her Dominican brother and friar Thomas Aquinas lays out very succinctly in his Summa Theologicae I-I, 1, x, that scripture not only has the two means of interpretation, viz., literal and spiritual, but that the spiritual has three modes or hermeneutical senses: The moral, poetic or allegorical, and anagogical hermeneutic senses.       What both Saints wrote about was not new to them, but rather had been the widespread understanding of how to approach the scriptures from the very beginning up to the Protestant Reformation. Then, in the Renaissance, literate, but not spiritually in tuned, people began reading and interpreting the Bible independently from its context and from its four-fold hermeneutic senses. They began reading scripture literally for the very first time, but literally only very selectively. A good case in point is John 6 and the three synoptical accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. In all four contexts, Jesus refers to himself as the "bread from heaven" and the "cup of salvation." He speaks of wine and bread being transformed into the very "Body" and "Blood" of himself, that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. When Jesus refers to himself in these instances, he is not speaking metaphorically or just figuratively, but literally in an ostensive way. He says things like, "I am the Bread from heaven," and "eat my flesh and drink my blood," two things that would have repulsed many Jews of the time. In fact, John 6 tells of the difficulty in accepting these strong identity statements that caused many of his disciples to leave his ministry altogether! To eat meat with the blood still in it (what we today call rare and medium-rare) was strictly prohibited by Jewish dietary laws. Meat that contained the blood juices was considered to be still alive and not fully dead. So that when Jesus says, "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," he meant to convey the very real sense that his real "life" was in the body and blood of the Eucharist. Do biblicists read this most-overtly literal pericope literally? No. Despite the complete absence of metaphorical language, such as similes (e.g., my flesh is LIKE real food and my blood is LIKE real drink), metonymy (e.g., Jesus makes ostensive denotations, not metonymical inferences), and metaphors (e.g., "This is my x" and "This is my y" where x = Body  and y = Blood preclude prefigurement). To this very day, I do not understand how a biblicists can interpret everything other than these  synoptic reports as "literal," but insist that when Jesus speaks ostensively, we are to interpret it as being figurative. But it doesn’t even make sense, much less caused the kind of scandal that John reports that it created, to make metaphorical use of ostensive denotation. Returning only briefly to homosexuality; the Apostle Paul makes a much bigger issue of the subservient role that women are required to play in the Church than his disparaging remark against homosexuality. Women are not only to obey their husbands, but they are to keep silent in Church, they are not allowed to preach, should be separated from men in the great congregation, and are to cover their heads while in the temple. Once again, the biblicists conveniently overlook these passages (why? to avoid stigmatizing its women as handmaids to their husbands"). Even the tacit approval of slavery receives more attention than homosexuality. Historic Christianity recognizes that not all verses of scripture carry the same weight or bear the same value or share equally in the revelation of God to his people. The hierarchy of Christian values comes first and foremost to those precepts and parables proclaimed in the Gospel; the writings of the Apostles are to be viewed as an elaboration and exposition of the Gospel; and, the Prophets are to be viewed as the prophetic voice of God in human history who has promised to set his people free by the commission of the Messiah. In other words, the writings of the prophets and apostles find their meaning only in the context of the Gospel, of which Jesus himself tells his disciples that he is the fulfillment. Biblicists, contrary to the tradition of historic Christianity, do not give higher honor or greater privilege to the Gospel than to any other writer or book. The consequence of this disorder equality is that what a prophet writes in Hebrew antiquity, such as the Levitical Code of Holiness, carries as much weight and authority as to what Jesus says in the Gospel. Historic Christians know that this equality of canonical texts cannot maintain credibility. The deprecatory behavior acceptable under the Law is unacceptable under the dispensation of grace. We are under the Law of Liberty through Christ, not the Law of the Old Testament (see, James 1 & 2). Moreover, Christ is the fullest expression of God’s revelation, and in him all things not only have their being, but, of course, their significance. Only when Christ is the prism through which all revelation passes does the pictures painted by the prophets and apostles begin to hang together. This is why in historic Christian Churches, the congregation stands to hear the Gospel proclaimed. It alone is given this honor. Otherwise, the various books of the Bible are full of contradictions, antitheses, and anathemas. Moreover, the focus of historic Christians is on the Word of God, which isn’t the written text known as the Bible, but the Person of Jesus Christ himself. Of course, the Person of Jesus Christ speaks to us through the words written in Scripture, known as the Bible, but this is a spiritual, not literal, dialogue. Finally, as a witness to the above, the Church of God in Christ has dwelled on this earth for nearly 2,000 years, and in the holy ones of Israel, the precursor to the Church, God has dwelled for millennia. The Book we know as the Bible has had a much shorter life span. Speaking only of the Christian Bible, the canonical books weren’t determined until the fifth century after Christ in what is known as the Galesian Decree. For the first-three centuries, it wasn’t clear to the Christians of those days which books were the inspired word and which books deserved the appellation of apocrypha. Saints Augustine and Chrysostom identify the books of Scripture as those including the deuterocanonicals, that is, the Greek text of the Hebrew Scriptures written during the Great Diaspora, when most Jews spoke Greek. These books include some of the most beautiful words in all literature. The Books of Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, and the Maccabees which historic Christians still revere as inspired, but which Protestants, on the advice of Luther and Calvin, appealing to Saint Jerome, dropped from their canon. In historic Christianity, individuals do not make decisions for other individuals. Neither Jerome, Augustine, nor Chrysostom, much less Luther, Calvin, or Cranmer, had the authority to determine for others what the canon of the Bible should be. No one has this authority on earth, save Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. And, as Scripture attests in Acts 15 at the first ecumenical council of Jerusalem, it is not by individual decree, but by episcopal collegiality that the … read more »

Response:

Can I ask, do you believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth was literally resurrected in bodily form? It follows from the line of reasoning: donkeys don’t speak, whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids, virgins don’t give birth, dead people don’t come back to life. Unless we are to be "of all men most miserable" Christ has to be risen, according to St. Paul, and not (in Paul’s thinking anyway, as is clear from the passage) in some shadowy metaphorical sense, but literally and bodily: Christ is risen, as a child would understand it. Thing is, to be a Christian in the historic tradition (and unless I’m mistaken, that is the pride of the Anglican way) one must receive and confess the bodily resurrection of Christ. The liberal theology that tries to reconcile a living faith with the bones of Christ in a Judean tomb is a recent innovation, and would have been denounced by the historic fathers Anglicans cherish as their forebears. So, to be one with the tradition, one must at least accept one supernatural, inexplicable event: the resurrection. But if one, why not others. If Christ truly rose from the dead, by what power did he accomplish it? If one consents that a power exists that can bring to life again in bodily form one who was well and truly dead, by what rationale does one then deny that power the ability to work other works outside the constraints of the natural order? If the things that are seen came into being through things that do not appear through the will of that God, doesn’t he retain power over them, which power he may exercise in keeping with his own will, a will not constrained by the things he himself made? He who sets to work on a different thread destroys the whole fabric. The fundamentalists are wrong in elevating scripture as an artifact to the position reserved for the Holy Spirit, namely the guide and life of the body of Christ’s Church. But this practice of condescending to scripture seems a more dangerous error, to me. Jay – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The biblical story of Jonah is wonderfully textured and nuanced. The fact that it is pure fantasy doesn’t rob itself of its spiritual value. And, for historic Christians, who understand that scripture is but a tool and instrument that is "useful"  to the Church is advancing itself as "the pillar and bulwark of truth," the story of Jonah adumbrates and anticipates the Paschal Triduum (the Death, Descent among the Dead, and Resurrection of Christ). Otherwise, it is entirely too fishy a story to have any other real significance. The story of Jonah, like the parable of Balaam (Num. 22ff.), is just that: They are both "parables." Donkeys don’t speak; whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids. However, in addition to storytelling, the Bible contains injunctions against this and that, and it’s been my experience that most biblicists pick and choose which verses (not even pericopes) they want to latch onto and those they don’t. For example, the Levitical Code of Holiness that makes homosexuality an abomination is no less condemnatory of those who have heterosexual intercourse without first performing animal sacrifices. It prohibits not only two men lying together, but any man from eating anything from the sea except that which has scales and fins (ergo: No scampi, no scallops, mussels, crabs, clams, shrimp, lobster, and the like). And those who think it is homosexuality and not idolatry that Paul is condemning, ought to read more than Romans 1, but also read Romans 2, to which Romans 1 is but the prologue. And let’s not forget the very clear injunction of the epistles to Timothy that require a woman to cover her head and keep her mouth shut in the daily and weekly congregations. Literal and fundamentalist biblicists completely misunderstand the Bible, which is not surprising since they have little idea of how it came into existence, nor how it was intended to be used by those who brought it forth. Christians are not Muslims, and the Bible unlike the Quran did not fall from the sky! Nor is it likely that the author attributed to any one book is the only or sole author; most of the books are a synthesis of believer’s recollections of God’s activity in the lives of his creatures, and most definitely is not a newspaper that reports on paranormal experiences. The fourteenth-century theologian Catherine of Siena rightly claims that scriptures must be read in the same manner in which they were produced: Spiritually, not literally. Those who read only for literal understanding completely miss the point and are so self-absorbed with getting the letter right that this miss the spirit of the letter. Saint Catherine wasn’t coming from out of nowhere when she insisted that scripture be read and prayed spiritually rather than literally. Her Dominican brother and friar Thomas Aquinas lays out very succinctly in his Summa Theologicae I-I, 1, x, that scripture not only has the two means of interpretation, viz., literal and spiritual, but that the spiritual has three modes or hermeneutical senses: The moral, poetic or allegorical, and anagogical hermeneutic senses.   What both Saints wrote about was not new to them, but rather had been the widespread understanding of how to approach the scriptures from the very beginning up to the Protestant Reformation. Then, in the Renaissance, literate, but not spiritually in tuned, people began reading and interpreting the Bible independently from its context and from its four-fold hermeneutic senses. They began reading scripture literally for the very first time, but literally only very selectively. A good case in point is John 6 and the three synoptical accounts of the institution of the Eucharist. In all four contexts, Jesus refers to himself as the "bread from heaven" and the "cup of salvation." He speaks of wine and bread being transformed into the very "Body" and "Blood" of himself, that early Christians were accused of cannibalism. When Jesus refers to himself in these instances, he is not speaking metaphorically or just figuratively, but literally in an ostensive way. He says things like, "I am the Bread from heaven," and "eat my flesh and drink my blood," two things that would have repulsed many Jews of the time. In fact, John 6 tells of the difficulty in accepting these strong identity statements that caused many of his disciples to leave his ministry altogether! To eat meat with the blood still in it (what we today call rare and medium-rare) was strictly prohibited by Jewish dietary laws. Meat that contained the blood juices was considered to be still alive and not fully dead. So that when Jesus says, "my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink," he meant to convey the very real sense that his real "life" was in the body and blood of the Eucharist. Do biblicists read this most-overtly literal pericope literally? No. Despite the complete absence of metaphorical language, such as similes (e.g., my flesh is LIKE real food and my blood is LIKE real drink), metonymy (e.g., Jesus makes ostensive denotations, not metonymical inferences), and metaphors (e.g., "This is my x" and "This is my y" where x = Body  and y = Blood preclude prefigurement). To this very day, I do not understand how a biblicists can interpret everything other than these  synoptic reports as "literal," but insist that when Jesus speaks ostensively, we are to interpret it as being figurative. But it doesn’t even make sense, much less caused the kind of scandal that John reports that it created, to make metaphorical use of ostensive denotation. Returning only briefly to homosexuality; the Apostle Paul makes a much bigger issue of the subservient role that women are required to play in the Church than his disparaging remark against homosexuality. Women are not only to obey their husbands, but they are to keep silent in Church, they are not allowed to preach, should be separated from men in the great congregation, and are to cover their heads while in the temple. Once again, the biblicists conveniently overlook these passages (why? to avoid stigmatizing its women as handmaids to their husbands"). Even the tacit approval of slavery receives more attention than homosexuality. Historic Christianity recognizes that not all verses of scripture carry the same weight or bear the same value or share equally in the revelation of God to his people. The hierarchy of Christian values comes first and foremost to those precepts and parables proclaimed in the Gospel; the writings of the Apostles are to be viewed as an elaboration and exposition of the Gospel; and, the Prophets are to be viewed as the prophetic voice of God in human history who has promised to set his people free by the commission of the Messiah. In other words, the writings of the prophets and apostles find their meaning only in the context of the Gospel, of which Jesus himself tells his disciples that he is the fulfillment. Biblicists, contrary to the tradition of historic Christianity, do not give higher honor or greater privilege to the Gospel than to any other writer or book. The consequence of this disorder equality is that what a prophet writes in Hebrew antiquity, such as the Levitical Code of Holiness, carries as much weight and authority as to what Jesus says in the Gospel. Historic Christians know that this equality of canonical texts cannot maintain credibility. The deprecatory behavior acceptable under the Law is unacceptable under the dispensation of grace. We are under the Law of Liberty through Christ, not the Law of the Old Testament (see, James 1 & 2). Moreover, Christ is the fullest expression of God’s revelation, and in him all things not only have their being, but, of course, their

… read more »

Response:

Can I ask, do you believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth was literally resurrected in bodily form? It follows from the line of reasoning: donkeys don’t speak, whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids, virgins don’t give birth, dead people don’t come back to life. Unless we are to be "of all men most miserable" Christ has to be risen, according to St. Paul, and not (in Paul’s thinking anyway, as is clear from the passage) in some shadowy metaphorical sense, but literally and bodily: Christ is risen, as a child would understand it.

The Church has never asked me to believe in talking donkeys or the truth conditions of Jonah being eaten and regurgitated by a whale. It does ask of me to believe in the "real" resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; it also asks that I believe Mary conceived the Incarnate one by the Holy Spirit. As an article of faith, I do believe in the resurrection and the virgin birth. Indeed, I cannot make Christianity even the slightest bit coherent without belief in the actual resurrection and the genuine truth of the virginal conception. Christianity "hangs" on these two very important facts of faith. The point in my original post is not that miracles do not happen, for I am quite confident that they do. Belief in God necessitates his ability to intervene in the affairs of his creation, if God so chooses. I believe God chose to. What I find repugnant, however, is that the literal truth of these two very important events is NOT as important as their spiritual truth. In the case of the resurrection and the incarnation, the spiritual truth hangs on the literal truth. On this, Paul was absolutely right. If we believe in the resurrection, but that the resurrection didn’t happen, we’ve been seriously duped. However, whether Paul had his vision and was converted on the road to Damascus or the road to Galilee is not literally important. Whether the person to whom Paul went to was named "Ananias" or not is not materially important. For all intents and purposes, the individual’s name could have Arrias. What IS important is Saul’s conversion, what brought that conversion about, and what effect it has on us (or at least me) today. Mutatis mutandis, most of the other narratives of Scripture. Did Balaam’s donkey really talk? I doubt it. Did Jonah get eaten by a whale and spit out? I doubt it. Are these two events literally important? I doubt it. Did God create earth in 7 — 24hr days? I doubt it? Was David king of Israel? Sure! Did Solomon build a temple? Again, sure. Are these stories important? You bet! But not for their literal detail, but their spiritual edification. Who was around to give an account of creation? Who saw or reported the donkey talking to Balaam? Who witnessed Jonah’s fishy story? The answer is no one. They are stories, or, in the words of one Orthodox theologian, "parables." There’s little difference between the parables Jesus taught and the parables the Jewish rabbis decided to tell. They both point in the same direction to the same thing. They tell of a spiritual truth that is worth knowing, not an incident report to be filed and measured against. Biblicists don’t make these important, indeed critical, distinctions. They not only should, they must, or they undermine the very importance of the stories themselves and beg incredulity from the rest of us. Their insistence on the "letter" rather than the "spirit" is mentioned by Paul as a big, important difference. Yet they ignore the admonition. Paul also tells women to cover the heads and keep quiet in Church! No exceptions! Yet Priscilla, Mary, and Aquila worked side by side with Paul. Should women be prohibited from speaking? Must they wear headdress? Is it shameful for a woman to speak in Church? The Bible says so. What say you? The Bible prohibits the consumption of any sea thing that lacks scales and fins. Do you eat shrimp, scallops, calamari, clams, mussels, etc? Is it important? I cannot answer the last question for anyone else. I can only answer for myself in the words of Paul: "All these regulations refer to things that perish with use; they are simply human commands and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of  wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence" (Col. 2:22-23). For me, the value of all things in the Bible is for my edification, not for the control of my life or the accurate record of history from time’s beginning. Those who would treat the Bible with such excessive reverence and insistence on its literal truth are bibliolatry. Christianity today is filled with too many of these bibliolatry, and we need to stamp them out.

Response:

The biblical story of Jonah is wonderfully textured and nuanced. The fact that it is pure fantasy doesn’t rob itself of its spiritual value. And, for historic Christians, who understand that scripture is but a tool and instrument that is "useful"  to the Church is advancing itself as "the pillar and bulwark of truth," the story of Jonah adumbrates and anticipates the Paschal Triduum (the Death, Descent among the Dead, and Resurrection of Christ). Otherwise, it is entirely too fishy a story to have any other real significance…

Personally, I am an ex-believer, having studied myself "out" of the need to believe in deities.  That doesn’t mean that I have forgotten all the scripture and theology I learned as a young man. Case in point, I found your treatise on biblical interpretation to be very interesting.  I actually read the whole thing and enjoyed it. It was not merely literate, it was "rational", and I appreciated that aspect of it. Thanks for a well thought out, and well-written treatise, truly a "thinking man’s" articulation of ancient scripture. Of course, it does not tempt me back "into the fold" — of believing in invisible friends with magic powers, but that’s not the point. Nelson

Response:

SNIP I have been trying to make the same point about Christianity based solely on the KJV for some time now and without any apparent success.  I realize how difficult it must be for many protestants to realize how wrong they have been, as well as perhaps their parents and grandparents, etc., but to them I would like to point out that their thurst for God can still be quenched in the Catholic Faith.  I used to think like them.  Years ago while making my own faith journey I studied with many of the more popular protestant faiths as well as some of the most unpopular.  they nearly had me thinking that the bible was the end all and be all of christian faith, but then I believe God brought his spirit upon me and I began to see the error of their position.  I will pray for you and for our fallen bretheren that they may be enlightened and retirn to the fold. Semperfinite. Before you buy.

Response:

The story of Jonah, like the parable of Balaam (Num. 22ff.), is just that: They are both "parables." Donkeys don’t speak; whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids. However, in addition to storytelling, the Bible contains injunctions against this and that, and it’s been my experience that most biblicists pick and choose which verses (not even pericopes) they want to latch onto and those they don’t.

This sort of approach contain, I would say, a significant categorization error. One might delineate at least four categories of biblical narrative: parables and other illustration (rare in the OT but the meat of the gospels); flat "historical" narrative (common all over); miracle stories (pops up in places here and there throughout), and what Paul calls "cunningly devised tales" (i.e., mythology). It is interesting that the latter is generally condemned in scripture; it seems important especially in the NT that the miracle stories be *true*, not merely illustrative of some point. This comes to the fore in the first chapters of Genesis. Chapter 1 is not merely a pretty tale about the creation of the world, and it is not merely a means of conveying "fundamental truths". It is really an account of creation as it was, albeit in poetic and dramatic terms. Likewise with the second chapter: if it resembles in form the myths of the Greeks and of other peoples, it must differ in recounting a truth– not just a truth of priniciples, but a narrative truth. Otherwise, it is a just-so story. For example, the Levitical Code of Holiness that makes homosexuality an abomination is no less condemnatory of those who have heterosexual intercourse without first performing animal sacrifices. It prohibits not only two men lying together, but any man from eating anything from the sea except that which has scales and fins (ergo: No scampi, no scallops, mussels, crabs, clams, shrimp, lobster, and the like). And those who think it is homosexuality and not idolatry that Paul is condemning, ought to read more than Romans 1, but also read Romans 2, to which Romans 1 is but the prologue. And let’s not forget the very clear injunction of the epistles to Timothy that require a woman to cover her head and keep her mouth shut in the daily and weekly congregations.

Here we have a much more blatant violation of category. Clearly this isn’t narrative by any stretch– it’s law. And as law it can be placed directly into the corpus of scriptural law without any of the questions that settle on the narrative portions; it can be analyzed utterly abstractly. For instance, it is not true that "any man" is prohibited from eating shellfish. Only Jews are so prohibited; no gentile ever was, and Acts 15 makes it quite clear that no gentile Christian is either. And while the same analysis nominally applies to homosexual acts, the pattern throughout scripture of placeing sexual acts solely within a marriage between man and woman is extensive and consistent. In this wise, the problem as it appears within the Episcopal Church (or for that matter, any church with a significant history of theological inquiry) is far removed from the tiff over literalism. The problem with scripture is by and large to get it to stop saying what it should *not* say. And here everyone has an agenda: the homosexual lobby has to get rid of Leviticus, the fundamentalists need to get rid of many contraditions and apparent errors, the rich have to get rid of the condemnations of Jesus, the wannabes have to get rid of Paul’s rejection of social-climbing. The orthodox and catholic need to set aside Jesus’ complaints about legalism and earthly authority. In the end, true religion requires a picture of scripture and of trurth which is coherent. Instead, one should be suspicious of a scheme in which everything one does or advocates is conveniently endorsed. That is the sure sign of selective reading. C. Wingate

Response:

thought only Jesuits were casuistic!) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The story of Jonah, like the parable of Balaam (Num. 22ff.), is just that: They are both "parables." Donkeys don’t speak; whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids. However, in addition to storytelling, the Bible contains injunctions against this and that, and it’s been my experience that most biblicists pick and choose which verses (not even pericopes) they want to latch onto and those they don’t. This sort of approach contain, I would say, a significant categorization error. One might delineate at least four categories of biblical narrative: parables and other illustration (rare in the OT but the meat of the gospels); flat "historical" narrative (common all over); miracle stories (pops up in places here and there throughout), and what Paul calls "cunningly devised tales" (i.e., mythology). It is interesting that the latter is generally condemned in scripture; it seems important especially in the NT that the miracle stories be *true*, not merely illustrative of some point.

I’ve never heard of this approach before. When cometh this type of hermeneutic: This comes to the fore in the first chapters of Genesis. Chapter 1 is not merely a pretty tale about the creation of the world, and it is not merely a means of conveying "fundamental truths". It is really an account of creation as it was, albeit in poetic and dramatic terms. Likewise with the second chapter: if it resembles in form the myths of the Greeks and of other peoples, it must differ in recounting a truth– not just a truth of priniciples, but a narrative truth. Otherwise, it is a just-so story.

Are you sure?? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For example, the Levitical Code of Holiness that makes homosexuality an abomination is no less condemnatory of those who have heterosexual intercourse without first performing animal sacrifices. It prohibits not only two men lying together, but any man from eating anything from the sea except that which has scales and fins (ergo: No scampi, no scallops, mussels, crabs, clams, shrimp, lobster, and the like). And those who think it is homosexuality and not idolatry that Paul is condemning, ought to read more than Romans 1, but also read Romans 2, to which Romans 1 is but the prologue. And let’s not forget the very clear injunction of the epistles to Timothy that require a woman to cover her head and keep her mouth shut in the daily and weekly congregations. Here we have a much more blatant violation of category. Clearly this isn’t narrative by any stretch– it’s law. And as law it can be placed directly into the corpus of scriptural law without any of the questions that settle on the narrative portions; it can be analyzed utterly abstractly.

What "category" is it? The four kinds you arbitrarily set forth above, or of the four-fold hermeneutic senses? If the former, who cares? And I can assure you, it’s not the latter. (For an Anglican take on the four-fold historical hermeneutic senses, see: R. W. Corney, "What Does ‘Literal Meaning’ Mean?" in Anglican Theological Review, Vol. LXXX, No. 4). For instance, it is not true that "any man" is prohibited from eating shellfish. Only Jews are so prohibited; no gentile ever was, and Acts 15 makes it quite clear that no gentile Christian is either. And while the same analysis nominally applies to homosexual acts, the pattern throughout scripture of placeing sexual acts solely within a marriage between man and woman is extensive and consistent.

Oh, come now. This is casuistry at its worst. Next you’ll claim that because "women" aren’t included in the text, they’re exempt too? In this wise, the problem as it appears within the Episcopal Church (or for that matter, any church with a significant history of theological inquiry) is far removed from the tiff over literalism. The problem with scripture is by and large to get it to stop saying what it should *not* say. And here everyone has an agenda: the homosexual lobby has to get rid of Leviticus, the fundamentalists need to get rid of many contraditions and apparent errors, the rich have to get rid of the condemnations of Jesus, the wannabes have to get rid of Paul’s rejection of social-climbing. The orthodox and catholic need to set aside Jesus’ complaints about legalism and earthly authority.

You speak of the Episcopal Church having a "significant history of theological inquiry." Name just one Episcopalian who fits this description! Perhaps M.S. Burrows’ "Foundations of Erotic Christology?" (op. cit.) In the end, true religion requires a picture of scripture and of trurth which is coherent. Instead, one should be suspicious of a scheme in which everything one does or advocates is conveniently endorsed. That is the sure sign of selective reading.

I have no idea of what you are claiming. What is "true religion" and who has it? What do you mean by "a picture of scripture and of truth?" Whose picture? And, why a picture? Why not listen to what Scripture says, for once? After all, Scripture says that "the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). Of Scripture, Scripture says it’s merely "useful" (2 Tim 3:16). And coherence? What’s coherent about your "category" or is it "categories?" I’m not trying to be mean, but it’s hard to believe that you believe in some "categories" from God knows where, and that the ECUSA is the true religion that enshrines these "categories," and that you or I have any real notion that the ECUSA is a "true religion" or that we need "pictures" rather than gleaning the meaning from the text. If there is a Church that has the "truth" of which Scripture speaks, it is either in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism, which alone has the historic Apostolic Ministry to proclaim the truth. The rest preach from the Bible; EO and RC appeal to the Holy Spirit! I’ll go with God over a book any day! D. Stephen Heersink The Ecumenical Communion http://home.att.net/~dshsfca/EcuComm.html Authentic Ecumenism http://www.delphi.com/AuthEcum/start/

Response:

In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.10008071055080.6318- Can I ask, do you believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth was literally resurrected in bodily form? It follows from the line of reasoning: donkeys don’t speak, whales don’t eat and regurgitate humanoids, virgins don’t give birth, dead people don’t come back to life.

We assume these things are not true, unless the evidence to the contrary appears overwhelming. Unless we are to be "of all men most miserable" Christ has to be risen, according to St. Paul, and not (in Paul’s thinking anyway, as is clear from the passage) in some shadowy metaphorical sense, but literally and bodily: Christ is risen, as a child would understand it.

St Paul’s opinion is that either Christ is risen, or Christians are fools. Is is of course possible that the Early Christians deceived themselves that Jesus was risen, maybe in the same way that Elvis fans claim sightings of the star, however it is also credible that they were in fact telling the truth. However we know that miraculous interventions by God are very rare – if one prays for sausages then, in the general run of things, a string of sausages will not materialise on the table (though you might find sausages on sale at the shop at a price you can afford). If we accept the resurrection we can accept that God had the power to produce the virgin birth and the talking donkey. However some Christians reject both as mythical (whilst accepting the resurrection). Most however accept the Virign Birth but reject the talking donkey. This is because the Virgin Birth adds a great deal to our understanding of how Jesus could be the Incarnate God, whilst the talking donkey is a curiosity of no real theological value. * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping.  Smart is Beautiful

Response:

Let me guess one of those neo-nazi churches?? Pax

Response:

http://stormfront.org For instance, it is not true that "any man" is prohibited from eating shellfish. Only Jews are so prohibited;

       The chosen people are the White people, not the Jews. Jews are mostly Khazars and Edomites. These are races that adopted the religion of Judaism and now they falsely claim to be Israelites.      Jews claim to be God’s chosen people because they have the Jewish religion. This proves nothing. People change their religion. The Edomites and the Khazars became Jewish but they are not Israelites by race. The real Israelites changed their religion and became Christians.     Christ said in Mathew 15:24  "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He came for the chosen race and sheep are a symbol for the chosen race, but this is what He said to the Jews: John 10:26+27  "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me"      This means the real Israelites converted to Christianity. This explains why Europe became known as Christendom.       The Israelites were direct descendants of Adam, who was the first White man. The Hebrew word "adam" describes a White man. We are not the color white like milk. We are a light skinned race and the light skin allows blood, the color red to show in the cheeks. This is the definition of the word "adam" in Strong’s Concordance:       "to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)."       This can only be describing a White man. Look at people today and see which ones have rosy red cheeks. They are light skinned White people. The Israelites were White.      The Bible says David was ruddy. This is the definition of the Hebrew word "ruddy":       "reddish (of the hair or of the complexion):-red, ruddy."        David had rosy cheeks (or red hair) and did not look like a typical Jew.        The Bible says the Israelites would be a blessing to the world. It is the White race that invented all the great things and advanced civilization on the earth.       The Bible tells us that the Jews are imposters. Revelation 2:9  "I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."        Many verses tell us that Jews are our enemies. Here is one example:   John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him."       The Jews have been expelled from every Christian nation in Europe at one time or another. Many people know that they are enemies of White civilization. But not everyone knows the reason. It is because they are not the chosen race and they hate those who really are the chosen race.    

Response:

…        The chosen people are the White people, not the Jews. Jews are mostly Khazars and Edomites. These are races that adopted the religion of Judaism and now they falsely claim to be Israelites. …       The Israelites were direct descendants of Adam, who was the first White man. The Hebrew word "adam" describes a White man.       The Bible tells us that the Jews are imposters.

A charming proof that those white supremacists haven’t the foggiest what they are talking about. And for the nice people (not ironical!) from alt.religion.christian.episcopal: Daniel seems to be a prophet to have posted just hours ago that it’s a prejudice to associate Nazi ideology mainly with present-day Germany. Although we do have some problems with ultra-right wing violent youths, the ideology seems to prosper well on American soil, too. Andreas F’up2 alt.religion.christian.episcopal

Response:

Related Posts