/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>601234

> but i always thought it was suppose to be something that happened, but was something that is a metaphor at the same time, like the Resurrection of Jesus and becoming reborn

It's this. Most things in the Bible are an example of this sort of thing, like the near-sacrifice of Isaac, the parting of the Red Sea being a future reference to baptism, the sacrificial laws, and so on.

>>601234

Its all a metaphor man,an allegory :^)

>>601234

>Genesis as a metaphor

*First chapters of genesis as a metaphore.

And no you cant exegate all the books in the same way. the fact of Genesis creation account is poetic explanation heavily using metaphores, doesnt mean that you can judge Gospels same way. They are different genres, different accounts, with different chapters that need different attitudes. Although

>like Jonah and the big fish.

Yes, this is sometimes thought to be a metaphore of Jonah dying and going to hades associated with whale ("sign of Jonah"? hello?)

>I get that the fall of man is a metaphor for satanism, (and maybe i'm wrong, but i'm trying to clarify!)

It was literal event, first and foremost. And the core of it was disobedience. For lo, head of human race had but one divine percept and he broke it.

:but i always thought it was suppose to be something that happened, but was something that is a metaphor at the same time,

Nothing metaphorical about it. Our forefather just fucked up on cosmic scale but he repented after it though

:ike the Resurrection of Jesus and becoming reborn, or the path to God, or many of the quotes from the bible that can be taken out of context and still provide wisdom.

Resurrection was real. Being reborn (or born again or however you translate it) is, contrary to what some will tell you, also ontologically real. Path to God is more real than reality.

>Really don't say very much, that sort credibility based on suspension of disbelief could be applied to a number of stories, like Jonah and the big fish.

From anno domini 1859:

Many suppose (Haydock) that this fish was a whale, as it does not live on flesh; (Calmet) but its throat being so narrow, as hardly to suffer a man's arm to pass, it is more probable that it was the sea-dog, lamia or canis chariarias, (Bartolin 14.) which may easily contain a man. (Aldrovandus iii. 32.) (Menochius) — This sea-dog, or shark, has five rows of teeth in each jaw. Human bodies have been found entire in the stomach. (Button.)

The honest truth is: It doesn't matter.

The bible conveys deep religious truths. And it can do that/does do that through myths, legends, or literal history. But in all cases, the story itself is not what we should be focusing on. If you read Genesis and all you get is literal history, you are missing the point. Knowing that Genesis is literally true won't tell you how to live as a Christian or the eternal truths of the universe.

The Jonah story, for example, is typically held in Orthodox circles to be a type of Christ's descent into Hades after the Crucifixion.

I have a number of theories about Genesis. Wouldn't be surprised if it was literal, if God directed evolution, if it happened in that order but over a longer period of time, or even if (as some believe) Adam and Eve were just two of many people already on earth at the time who were given the function of priests for His purpose. Whatever. My theological (and Christological) reading remains the same.

And I don't have much problem with anyone believing otherwise on the literalism of it.

I am not a big fan of Young Earth Creationists, but mainly because they place so much stock in a literal reading as an article of faith that they lose sight of what else the book says.