At what point in time did the Catholic Church transition from

At what point in time did the Catholic Church transition from
>the events of the Old Testament are more or less factual
to
>the events of the Old Testament are mostly metaphors

Are there other religions that 180'd in a similar manner because scientific/archaeological advances were a bit embarrassing for traditional theology?

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    They never held either. The events of the Old Testament are symbolic. They express reality in its most profound sense. You can only consider it as a metaphore if to you the most profounds sense is the material one. Which to atheists seems to be an inescapeable conclusion.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it's literal but it isn't stupid atheists am I right
      weird cope

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Isidore of Seville (Latin: Isidorus Hispalensis; c. 560 – 4 April 636) was a Hispano-Roman scholar, theologian, and archbishop of Seville. He is widely regarded, in the words of 19th-century historian Montalembert, as "the last scholar of the ancient world".
        That's strange, why didn't one of the popes give Izzy the memo that it was all just one big allegory?

        It's neither. As long as you maintain the dichotomy, you'll keep missing it.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          I bet you felt smart posting that again
          >Yes these chronicles written by theologians/educated priests that clearly treat the events of the old testament as factual are actually staking out a middle ground between fact and allegory because...it'd be embarrassing to admit otherwise, wouldn't it

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I felt fairly average. Giving up a false dichotomy isn't an extraordinary event in anyone's life.
            No idea what that greentext is trying to express.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Isidore of Seville (Latin: Isidorus Hispalensis; c. 560 – 4 April 636) was a Hispano-Roman scholar, theologian, and archbishop of Seville. He is widely regarded, in the words of 19th-century historian Montalembert, as "the last scholar of the ancient world".
      That's strange, why didn't one of the popes give Izzy the memo that it was all just one big allegory?

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    Oh look, another "I don't understand theology, the history of theology, or how theology changes over time. Why is this religion inconsistent?" thread.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can admit its a pretty big jump from "events as described in the old testament 100% happened" to "...well maybe there's more allegories mixed in there than previous theologians thought", right

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        No allegories. If Catholics ever use the term "allegory" it's to make it more palatable for non-Christians but it seems to have been a futile gesture.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          So all those educated priests, monks, theologians that viewed the events of the old testament as factual were wrong when they were set to the task of compiling a comprehensive history of their country?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            They compiled history of whatever there was. When they found out the Bible doesn't portray the material events exactly, they just shrugged it off and used whatever description was more materially accurate, while still considering the Bible to be true. Because truth to them isn't material.
            Source: literally Galileo's inquisitor admitting he would recognize the Bible as materially inaccurate about the planets, had Galileo presented better evidence. As astronomers later did. And the Church conceded like it claimed it would.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            sounds like cope ngl

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            And which part of "If we're wrong then we'll just admit it. Ah there it is, we were wrong" is cope?

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The point of the Old Testament to a Christian is to look towards the coming of Christ and seeing how He fulfills the prophecies. It is not to believe israeli parables as facts.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      B-but... when people didn't know any better they took stuff as facts! That disproves something somehow!!!

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >didn't know any better
        So cope, basically

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          With what? Please point out the cope in

          And which part of "If we're wrong then we'll just admit it. Ah there it is, we were wrong" is cope?

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why would they believe the prophecies of the old testament but not other parts of the old testament? this sounds like cherry picking lol

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        They believe all the parts.
        >but their belief in historicity isn't strictly factual
        Neither is their belief in the prophecies.

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          Right, so the old testament is mostly just full of metaphors, or? Why don't christians follow the law from the old testament despite it being said to be eternal (psalm 119:160, psalm 119:89-91)?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            I wouldn't call them metaphores, no. But to a secular (presumably materialistic?) mind they will seem like exactly that.
            >Why don't christians follow the law from the old testament despite it being said to be eternal
            It was fulfilled by Christ. We still ritually participate in a good chunk of them in an extremely condensed format, but most of them were simply performed on a cosmic (aka eternal) scale by Christ who is God so there is no need for us to re-perform them.

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I wouldn't call them metaphores
            what then? If not metaphors, are they facts (I assume not)?
            >It was fulfilled by Christ.
            So God can contradict his own word and change his mind about law and morals? If so, couldn't I live however I want to even if I'll be sent to "eternal Hell" as God can simply just change his mind about morals and who gets sent to Hell?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If not metaphors, are they facts (I assume not)?
            They are neither. If you think of world as material reality and everything else sort of ad-hoc slapped on top of that, you'll be bound to fact-metaphore dichotomy. This is not the Biblical worldview. In the Biblical worldview, material reality is the ad-hoc reflection of more profound reality. That more profound reality is what the Bible describes.
            In other words, the Bible is too true to be factual lmao. I don't blame anyone for dismissing this idea at first.

            >So God can contradict his own word and change his mind about law and morals?
            God can do anything, first of all. But he did not contradict his own word in this. The law is indeed eternal. And Christ fulfilled it in eternity because he is God and his actions have eternal ramifications. Think of the Day of Atonement. We would normally have a goat carry away our sins into the desert. But Christ did that. He carried our sins into hell. There is no need to re-do this with goats into eternity, because Christ has done it once with eternal validity. Law wasn't changed, it was finally met.

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    In Catholicism there are the 4 senses of scripture: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical.
    And all the senses are built on the literal.

    People who want to sleaze away from the literal are falling into scientism idolatry. They, like the materialists, have the irrational belief that they came about by random chance in a primordial soup, and so we cant have Adam and Eve.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      And the reason catholic chroniclers from medieval times don't reflect that interpretation is....?

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        The four senses of interpretation literally come from the medieval theologians you're talking about.

        You are uneducated.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    For most medieval thinkers there were four categories of interpretation (or meaning) used in the Middle Ages, which had originated with the Bible commentators of the early Christian era.[6][9]

    The first is simply the literal interpretation of the events of the story for historical purposes with no underlying meaning.

    The second is called typological: it connects the events of the Old Testament with the New Testament; in particular drawing allegorical connections between the events of Christ's life with the stories of the Old Testament.

    The third is moral (or tropological), which is how one should act in the present, the "moral of the story".

    The fourth type of interpretation is anagogical, dealing with the future events of Christian history, heaven, hell, the last judgment; it deals with prophecies.

    Thus the four types of interpretation (or meaning) deal with past events (literal), the connection of past events with the present (typology), present events (moral), and the future (anagogical).[6]

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *