[jo kus]

However that is different that saying Jonah is a story meant to convey a spiritual truth or it was impossible for the Great Flood to cover the entire world. The Bible clearly states this to be so.

The Bible does NOT make that clear! Jonah does not begin "this is a true story, it is not a parable"...As to the Great Flood, the Scriptures can be interpreted to mean the entire KNOWN world. It is unlikely that men in Israel would have knowledge about people in North America. It is just as acceptable to say that God flooded only the world of Noah.

It has always been held by the early church fathers (and even our pre-Christ Hebrew fathers) that the Bible was the error free writing of God given to man. The early church fathers took great care to distinguish between God's word by setting it aside in the scriptures we have today.

But it is also clear that the Church Fathers did not always take the literalist view of Scripture. There is a whole school from Clement of Alexandria (with Origen as his prime student) that delved into allegory readings of Scriptures. St. Augustine himself wrote a whole book on the Literal interpretation of Genesis, saying it was acceptable to read the Creation account in a spiritual sense - not taken literally. St. Thomas Aquinas ALSO noted, while refering to other Fathers, that it could be seen that animals evolved and changed by noting nature. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the Church looks ONLY to the literal view of Scriptures. Example? There are numerous interpretations of the Song of Songs - and very few of them (none, I'd think) see it as an erotic love story...

Today many want to distance themselves from this position claiming there are all sorts of astronomical, geographical, or zoological errors, so the scripture must be only for "spiritual awareness". This is utter nonsense. Would you want to make the claim the Virgin Birth is biologically impossible so that it must be "spiritual" interpretation? There have been people who have made such claims.

These are two separate things. The Virgin Birth can NEVER be disproved by scientific means. We will NEVER have such empirical evidence. However, modern science CAN tell us that the earth took longer than 6 literal days to form, through EMPIRICAL means. By scientific study, we find evidence of rocks that are greater than 6000 years old. God is the God of nature as well as Scripture. HE does NOT lie. Thus, either our INTERPETATION of Scripture is incorrect, or science is incorrect. I think their is ample evidence to hold that science is correct - BUT - the Church does NOT make an infallible declaration one way or the other. One is able to hold, with clear conscience, either view (FK, another example of that Catholic flexibility!). As a Catholic, we are not held to the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, scientifically speaking. However, it IS inerrant in that what God wanted to say was infallibly said. Apparently, God wasn't telling us that the earth was created in 6 literal days, but something else. God was using a creation story to pass along information about Himself and man, about how HE created the universe out of love, and so forth.

There is nothing "novel" about Christianity nor was there anything novel about it at the time.

Whoa, nelly! Hold on there! If Christianity wasn't novel, how come so many Jews did NOT convert? Where does the Hebrew Bible explicitly spell out that the Messiah must hang from a tree? Or that the Messiah must rise from the dead? Or the idea that God became man? Or that there was three persons in one God? Or that during their communion feast, the followers would eat the body of their savior??? Or that the community no longer had to observe circumcision or dietary laws, or a change in the sabbath day???? A Jewish reading of the Scripture found Christianity to be QUITE novel.

In fact Paul takes great pains to show that our belief system is exactly as Abraham. I believe there is a thread on this showing how we are losing this view

OF COURSE he does! But notice how few Jews actually buy into it! Do you think the original Jews reading the letter of Paul to the Romans understood that letter with the same authority as the Torah??? To the Jews, Paul was crazy and a destroyer of the Law. Of course WE read Paul's writings differently. But Jews at the time didn't make the connection. There was a major cognitive dissonance going on with early Christianity - between what was in Hebrew Scriptures did NOT match up with their experience of the Risen Lord. (for example, Deuteronomy says that "he who hangs from a tree is condemend". A sola Scriptura view of the OT would say that Jesus was NOT the Messiah). Those who hadn't experienced the Risen Lord would consider the Gospel to be foolishness and a stumbling block.

Regards

[HarleyD]

Jonah does not begin "this is a true story, it is not a parable"

Our Lord Jesus refried to many events such as Adam and Eve, Noah, the Queen of Sheba and Jonah as real events.

As to the Great Flood, the Scriptures can be interpreted to mean the entire KNOWN world.

While others would disagree, I don't have a problem with that interpretation and I think it can be supported scripturally assuming one would say that everyone on earth perish except those in the Ark.

But it is also clear that the Church Fathers did not always take the literalist view of Scripture.

Yes, I don't know of any Christian, Protestant or Catholic that takes every single thing in scripture literally.

However, modern science CAN tell us that the earth took longer than 6 literal days to form, through EMPIRICAL means. By scientific study, we find evidence of rocks that are greater than 6000 years old. God is the God of nature as well as Scripture. HE does NOT lie.

If you believe the Virgin Birth as a miracle than why not creation? Science can prove that a virgin can't give birth under EMPIRICAL means. Science HAS NO PROOF that the world was formed over billions of years. God is a God of nature but that God can also make the sun stand still, part the Red Sea and cause an iron ax head to float. People can look at a rock and believe it to be far older but they cannot duplicate it in laboratory conditions. I will say I have my own personal take on this but it is unorthodox to say the least.

"If Christianity wasn't novel, how come so many Jews did NOT convert?" They did. They're called Christians.

"Where does the Hebrew Bible explicitly spell out that the Messiah must hang from a tree?" Isaiah - "bruised for our transgressions"

Or that the Messiah must rise from the dead? Our Lord Jesus stated Jonah was this type but it was concealed from even the apostles.

"Or the idea that God became man?" King David - I said to my Lord

"Or that there was three persons in one God?" Genesis - Let us make man in our image

"Or that during their communion feast, the followers would eat the body of their savior???" Nowhere-that's Catholic doctrine. Thought you throw me a curve, eh? ;O)

A Jewish reading of the Scripture found Christianity to be QUITE novel.

Not to Paul. He understood it very clearly. Not to the Bereans. They searched the scriptures.

"But notice how few Jews actually buy into it!"

This is your synergistic Arminian view rearing its ugly head. Where is the grace of God or God will have mercy on those who He will have mercy? The Lord Jesus specifically stated He didn't come to call the righteous to repentance but the sinners. It doesn't matter how "few" bought into it. The people who God chose to be merciful to were the ones who He established His church with; and they did a pretty good job.

I am reminded of Gideon who God told to attack the Midianites. Gideon had a whole army at his disposal but God wanted the glory and said that He would conquer the entire Midianite army with but 300 of the weakest men and He did just that (Judges 7). The church doesn't rest on our shoulders but God's.