Nowhere does this statement use the word only. That is your own conclusion in reading the text. The whole purpose of the Bible is for our salvation.
The Jews had the Torah for a thousand years before chr*stianity ever existed. Do you think they ever saw it is containing truth related to "salvation?"
As I said it puts this salavation history- Creation, Fall, Prophecy, Coming of Christ and His mission, death and ressurection in the context of actual history. He really was born of a Virgin ( a salvic supernatural event) in Bethlehelm ( an actual place).
What makes you so sure that the supernatural creation of Adam and Eve as related in Genesis wasn't an actual supernatural event, or that Eden wasn't an actual place?
The Bible was not written by men to explain mythically our place in the cosmos.
The Torah wasn't written by men at all. It was written by G-d 974 generations before Creation, in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire. G-d dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter, and Moses wrote it down. How dare you reduce it to teaching general philosophical "truths" of "salvation history???"
It is not just a history of how the Jews and Early Christians lived and worshipped. It is not just a set of laws or parables that explain right living. Plenty of other texts do that.
It is inspired by God to answer the very important question " What then shall I do to be saved?"
Do you honestly think the ancient Jews who first received the Torah and the other Scriptures spent their time asking what they had to do to be "saved?"
That is why the Church says the Scripture's writings are for the sake of salvation. It is always current to our lives and its Truths are never isolated to a certain culture or time.
So you're saying the stories and people of the TaNa"KH are universal Jungian archtypes rather than real persons and events?
I understand it can be confusing. Especially I am very said to say with some Catholic theologians taking a Jesus seminar approach to the Bible. A pox on their house. But please do not add words such as only to Church statements. It does put an entire different reading on the text.
The only thing I can say about the "J*sus Seminar" is that at least they are honest enough to subject the "new testament" to the same blasphemies to which "pious Catholics" such as yourself insist on subject the Torah.
You also write : " So Jonah is both literal and metaphorical, but the creation of the universe is pure metaphor??? " I never wrote that the creation is pure metaphor, I was thinking more along the lines of the use of numbers to express perfection and completion.
In other words, seven days doesn't mean seven days. This isn't a metaphor?
Obviously the creation of the universe happened. And it happened because God willed it out of nothingness.
But Berei'shit Bara' teaches us only abstract spiritual lessons, and every detail is purely symbolical?
I honestly do not understand your statement that " Evidently, Catholics have to doubt the literal truth of the Bible (especially the "old testament") to prove they aren't Protestants." Considering the number of Biblical Scholars from Mainline Prrotestant denominations who have argued against the existence of Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth, the Bodily Resurrection. I doubt believing in the literal truth of the Bible is a necessary requirement to be Protestant. Please note I said Mainline Protestant denominations. I am not saying all Protestants.
I am not arguing with Protestants on this thread. I am arguing with people who claim to represent an "unchaning" church that dates back two thousand years and whose teachings have "never changed." Yet the ancient, unchanging Church is so awed by secular science that it long ago reduced the creation account to parable. So, did your ancient church fathers also believe in evolution, or did they simply "not know then what we know now?"
The orthodox Anglican site Stand Firm in Faith had a excellent post showing how the acceptance by German Biblical Scholars in the late 19th century of Kantian Philosophy as a framework for understanding the Bible has lead to the post modern liberal view of Scripture.
The Anglican church is one of the most liberal denominations in existence. However, the Catholic Church is just as liberal (if not more so), yet has a completely undeserved conservative reputation. At least the Anglican church has the African bishops. Where are the Catholic Church's counterparts???
A view that was soundly rejected by Pope Pius XI ( a hope I got the number right).
You might think that all truth must be a literal truth. I disagree.
You are sliding into the old late medieval/renaissance notion of "double truth"--ie, it is a religious truth that G-d created the universe in six days, but it is not a scientific (or historical) truth. You assume that I do not accept metaphorical or abstract symbolic truth. This is not so. But when the Torah written by G-d says something happened, then it happened. Yes, there are symbols and metaphors and spiritual truths in all these things, but the actual events related must also be held to be true. There are four senses of scripture (peshat, derash, remez, and sod). All four senses are present. This means that the literal sense (peshat) is valid alongside the other, spiritual meanings. You are saying that the scriptural assertions are true only symbolically and not also literally.
And looking at the Bible with rational analytical eye offers no danger to the believer. For reason will only confirm what faith knows. The Bible is true. Just as faith will be increased by what reason reveals. That the Bible is inspired by God given to us for our salvation's sake.
Faith and reason do not oppose one another. Both should be used to declare and reveal the glory of God. Reason without faith can be deadly. Stalin, Lenin, PolPot, and their victims is evidence of this. Faith without reason is also deadly. Islamic terrorism shows where that leads.
You seem to attribute to "faith" all things supernatural and to "reason" all things naturalistic and scientific. That is not what these words mean. For example, all the assertions of naturalistic scientists about the age and expanse of the universe, the size and temperature of stars, etc., are not evident to most people. Even if everything these scientists assert to be true in in fact true, they can be accepted by the vast majority of mankind (who do not have the training or the equipment to see for themselves) on faith. Likewise, when my mind tells me that it is faulty logic to accept at face value all the violations of natural law taught by the "new testament" and chr*stian history (when the "laws of nature" are fully uniform and operational) while insisting that the process that brought these laws into existence in the first place can be explained and understood in a purely naturalistic manner, then I am using reason (however much you might disagree with my conclusions). The constant association of "reason" with the natural and "faith" with the supernatural is simply spurious.
You write " The Bible was not written by men to explain mythically our place in the cosmos.
The Torah wasn't written by men at all. It was written by G-d 974 generations before Creation, in letters of black fire on a scroll of white fire. G-d dictated it to Moses letter-for-letter, and Moses wrote it down. How dare you reduce it to teaching general philosophical "truths" of "salvation history???"
I apologize for giving you that impression. I believe the Torah is inspired by God. I was trying to convey that the Bible is about real people and real events. Events that show how God has always had a plan of salvation for us. That is what I meant by salvation history. And I sure did not mean to reduce this to some kind of philosophical truth. I meant it to show why God would give us His word. Not just as some kind of study text but to reveal
Himself to us. He reveals Himself to us so that we may Know Him, worship Him and love Him. He reveals Himself to us so that we may submit to Him in humility and awe. He reveals Himself so that we can understand the greatest grief is to be separated from Him by our sins and the greatest joy is to be joined with Him through Jesus our Lord. I do not however believe the Bible was dictated word for word. So on that we will remain in disagreement.
" Do you honestly think the ancient Jews who first received the Torah and the other Scriptures spent their time asking what they had to do to be "saved?"
As I wrote before I am writing from a Catholic Christian view. I could not nor should I attempt to give the Jewish view and respect that you have the right of that. But I hope you do not mind some questions. Do Jews believe in the idea of original sin? Do Jews believe that personal sin separates us from God and that we need to atone to God for these sins in order to be reconciled to Him? I would think from reading the Bible the answer to the second question would be yes. If that is the case what happens if we die without being reconciled to God?
You wrote "So you're saying the stories and people of the TaNa"KH are universal Jungian archtypes rather than real persons and events? "
Again no that is not what I meant. I was trying to emphasize that the Bible's teachings are not just for the time and place in which they were written. And since I said it contained real people and real events I sure as heck don't think they are Jungian archtypes. The 10 commandments are True for everyone. Not just for the Jews that received them from Moses after he went up Mt. Sinai.
The prohibitions on homosexual sex found in the OT and NT are not just about misunderstanding loving committed gay relationships. It is for all time and for all people. God said no and it remains no.
You wrote " But Berei'shit Bara' teaches us only abstract spiritual lessons, and every detail is purely symbolical?"
Nope and I never said that.
You wrote " The Anglican church is one of the most liberal denominations in existence."
You are confusing the American branch of Anglicanism ,The Episcopal Church ,with the entire Anglican Communion. There are many orthodox Anglicans in the US who are now waiting to see what happens when the Primates Communique from Tanzania is discussed by the HOB. A rejection of the Communique will mean the Episcopal Church is out of the Anglican Communion. And the Catholic Curch certainly has African Bishops.
You wrote "But when the Torah written by G-d says something happened, then it happened. Yes, there are symbols and metaphors and spiritual truths in all these things, but the actual events related must also be held to be true. There are four senses of scripture (peshat, derash, remez, and sod). All four senses are present. This means that the literal sense (peshat) is valid alongside the other, spiritual meanings. You are saying that the scriptural assertions are true only symbolically and not also literally."
I agree with you. The actual events related must also be held to be true and I never said that scriptural assertions are true only symbolically and not also literally. I have said several times that God created the world out of nothingness. Where we disagree is I do not think 6 days has to mean six time periods of 24 hours. I do believe Eden was an actual place and that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Which is attested to in the Catechism and affirmed by Church teachings. Also I believe that any thing that God does is supernatural. So if the world's creation took longer than 6 days it is still a supernatural event.
You wrote " You seem to attribute to "faith" all things supernatural and to "reason" all things naturalistic and scientific"
No indeed I was saying that these things should not be separated but always combined in reaching our understanding of the world. The examples I gave are of what happens when one separates these two things. To use our knowledge to go against what God has revealed is evil.
We have the knowledge to perform abortions but God has shown us that life is sacred. To claim faith demands we not go to doctors ( some sects teach this) goes against the reasoning that God is the source of man's intellect and talents. So doctor's by healing illness are doing what God wants them to do. Both faith and reason should be put to use to glorify God.
You wrote " Likewise, when my mind tells me that it is faulty logic to accept at face value all the violations of natural law taught by the "new testament" and chr*stian history (when the "laws of nature" are fully uniform and operational)"
As I said before I am writing from a Catholic Christian view so it will at times conflict with the Jewish view. But I do not understand what you mean by violations of natural law taught in the NT? By natural law do you mean as is used in Catholic theology ( law written on man's heart) or physical laws such as gravity?
Thanks for a very civil discussion. If I remember you recently or will presently celebrate the Feast of Purim. I hope your celebration of Purim was or will be a joyful and blessed one.
If you find it offensive of me to write out God in full please let me know and I will follow your example and use G-d.
PS. I have to confess a vast ignorance. Just how does one get italics???