Calling Out TNHarley: Should the 1st Eleven Chapters be Read Literally or Allegorically

[TNHarley]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

 

[ding]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

What does that have to do with anything?

I have more testimony, TN. You are the one who has nothing except your imagination. Where is your proof?

 

[TNHarley]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

What does that have to do with anything?

I have more testimony, TN. You are the one who has nothing except your imagination. Where is your proof?

You act like Christians havent believed these fables for thousands of years and i find that hilarious. You qoute one guy and he just so happened to get shunned because of his beliefs. I find that even more hilarious.
I think your level of dishonesty is as big as your ego.

 

[ding]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

You keep saying that like it is relevant to this debate. It isn't.

What does Origen's teachings on the pre-existence of souls being rejected by the Church have to do with the Church's position that Genesis should be read allegorically?

 

[ding]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

What does that have to do with anything?

I have more testimony, TN. You are the one who has nothing except your imagination. Where is your proof?

You act like Christians havent believed these fables for thousands of years and i find that hilarious. You qoute one guy and he just so happened to get shunned because of his beliefs. I find that even more hilarious.
I think your level of dishonesty is as big as your ego.

I am showing you the position of the early Church, TN, which is that Genesis should be read allegorically. Your position is that Genesis was meant to be read literally and only changed because of science. I have proven that false.

 

[ding]

What does Origen's teachings on the pre-existence of souls being rejected by the Church have to do with the Church's position that Genesis should be read allegorically?

I cant even....

I know you can't. You have zero evidence and you reject the evidence that was presented for no good reason.

 

[ding]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

That's not an argument that the account of Genesis was always intended to be read literally. Where is your proof that Genesis was always intended to be read literally and was only changed because of science, TN?

 

[ding]

What does Origen's teachings on the pre-existence of souls being rejected by the Church have to do with the Church's position that Genesis should be read allegorically?

I cant even....

That's not an argument that the account of Genesis was always intended to be read literally. Where is your proof that Genesis was always intended to be read literally and was only changed because of science, TN?

 

[ding]

TNHarley the account of Genesis wasn't read allegorically because of science. The account of Genesis is read allegorically because that's how it was intended to be read and that's what was always believed by the Church. Here is the proof.

Origen in his Treatise on First Principles, recommends for the Old and New Testaments to be interpreted allegorically at three levels, the "flesh," the "soul," and the "spirit." He states that many of the events recounted in the Scriptures, if they are interpreted in the literal, or fleshly, sense, are impossible or nonsensical. They must be interpreted allegorically to be understood. Some passages have parts that are literally true and parts that are literally impossible. Then, "the reader must endeavor to grasp the entire meaning, connecting by an intellectual process the account of what is literally impossible with the parts that are not impossible but historically true, these being interpreted allegorically in common with the part which, so far as the letter goes, did not happen at all."[7]

Allegorical interpretation of the Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you have any evidence - besides what your imagination made up - that disputes this? You do know what evidence is, right? Something like a statement by a Church Father that says, Genesis should be read literally?

And again, you quote a guy that got shunned because of his beliefs. Jesus Christ

What does that have to do with anything?

I have more testimony, TN. You are the one who has nothing except your imagination. Where is your proof?

You act like Christians havent believed these fables for thousands of years and i find that hilarious. You qoute one guy and he just so happened to get shunned because of his beliefs. I find that even more hilarious.
I think your level of dishonesty is as big as your ego.

Where is your proof that Genesis was always intended to be read literally and was only changed because of science, TN?

 

[TNHarley]

When the second council of constantinople shunned origen, they didnt just shun him for his belief in the pre existence of souls. They condemned origenism in whole. Sorry dingbat.

 

[ding]

When the second council of constantinople shunned origen, they didnt just shun him for his belief in the pre existence of souls. They condemned origenism in whole. Sorry dingbat.

Show me.

Second Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Origen - Biblical Exegesis, Apologetics, Theology

Origen - Biblical Exegesis, Apologetics, Theology: Origen’s experience as a teacher is reflected in his continual emphasis upon a scale of spiritual apprehension. Christianity to him was a ladder of divine ascent, and the beginner must learn to mount it with the saints in a never-ceasing...

www.britannica.com

 

[TNHarley]

When the second council of constantinople shunned origen, they didnt just shun him for his belief in the pre existence of souls. They condemned origenism in whole. Sorry dingbat.

Show me.

Second Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From your link:
It used to be argued that the extant acts are incomplete, since they make no mention of the debate over Origenism. However, the solution generally accepted today is that the bishops signed the canons condemning Origenism before the council formally opened.[18] This condemnation was confirmed by Pope Vigilius and the subsequent ecumenical council
Or is that an allegory, too?

 

[ding]

When the second council of constantinople shunned origen, they didnt just shun him for his belief in the pre existence of souls. They condemned origenism in whole. Sorry dingbat.

Show me.

Second Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From your link:
It used to be argued that the extant acts are incomplete, since they make no mention of the debate over Origenism. However, the solution generally accepted today is that the bishops signed the canons condemning Origenism before the council formally opened.[18] This condemnation was confirmed by Pope Vigilius and the subsequent ecumenical council
Or is that an allegory, too?

It is you grasping at straws, TN, because it has nothing to do with the debate and in no way refutes that the early Church interpreted Genesis allegorically. You have still yet to provide any evidence - other than your imagination - that there was a change in how Genesis should have been interpreted.

If orthodoxy were a matter of intention, no theologian could be more orthodox than Origen, none more devoted to the cause of Christian faith. His natural temper is world denying and even illiberal. The saintliness of his life is reflected in the insight of his commentaries and the sometimes quite passionate devotion of his homilies. The influence of his biblical exegesis and ascetic ideals is hard to overestimate; his commentaries were freely plagiarized by later exegetes, both Eastern and Western, and he is a seminal mind for the beginnings of monasticism. Through the writings of the monk Evagrius Ponticus (346–399), his ideas passed not only into the Greek ascetic tradition but also to John Cassian (360–435), a Semi-Pelagian monk (who emphasized the worth of man’s moral effort), and to the West. Yet he has been charged with many heresies.

In his lifetime he was often attacked, suspected of adulterating the Gospel with pagan philosophy. After his death, opposition steadily mounted, respectful in the Greek Christian Methodius of Olympus’ criticism of his spiritualizing doctrine of the Resurrection (c. 300), offensive in Epiphanius’ (375), a refuter of Christian heresies, violent in Jerome’s anti-Origenist quarrel with Rufinus (c. 393–402). Origen had his defenders, especially in the East (Eusebius of Caesarea; Didymus the Blind, the head of Catechetical School of Alexandria; Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, to some degree; and especially the Cappadocian Fathers—i.e., Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa); but in the West Rufinus’ translation of De principiis (398) caused scandal, and in the East the cause of Origen suffered by the permanent influence of Epiphanius’ attack.

In the 6th century the “New Laura” (monastic community) in Palestine became a centre for an Origenist movement among the monastic intelligentsia, hospitable to speculations about such matters as preexistent souls and universal salvation. The resultant controversy led Justinian I to issue a long edict denouncing Origen (543); the condemnation was extended also to Didymus and Evagrius by the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople (553). Nevertheless, Origen’s influence persisted, such as in the writings of the Byzantine monk Maximus the Confessor (c. 550–662) and the Irish theologian John Scotus Erigena (c. 810–877), and, since Renaissance times, controversy has continued concerning his orthodoxy, Western writers being generally more favourable than Eastern Orthodox.

The chief accusations against Origen’s teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about preexistent souls and world cycles; and dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation. None of these charges is altogether groundless. At the same time there is much reason to justify Jerome’s first judgment that Origen was the greatest teacher of the early church after the Apostles.

Origen - Biblical Exegesis, Apologetics, Theology

Origen - Biblical Exegesis, Apologetics, Theology: Origen’s experience as a teacher is reflected in his continual emphasis upon a scale of spiritual apprehension. Christianity to him was a ladder of divine ascent, and the beginner must learn to mount it with the saints in a never-ceasing...

www.britannica.com

 

[ding]

When the second council of constantinople shunned origen, they didnt just shun him for his belief in the pre existence of souls. They condemned origenism in whole. Sorry dingbat.

Show me.

Second Council of Constantinople - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

From your link:
It used to be argued that the extant acts are incomplete, since they make no mention of the debate over Origenism. However, the solution generally accepted today is that the bishops signed the canons condemning Origenism before the council formally opened.[18] This condemnation was confirmed by Pope Vigilius and the subsequent ecumenical council
Or is that an allegory, too?

The chief accusations against Origen’s teaching are the following: making the Son inferior to the Father and thus being a precursor of Arianism, a 4th-century heresy that denied that the Father and the Son were of the same substance; spiritualizing away the resurrection of the body; denying hell, a morally enervating universalism; speculating about preexistent souls and world cycles; and dissolving redemptive history into timeless myth by using allegorical interpretation. None of these charges is altogether groundless. At the same time there is much reason to justify Jerome’s first judgment that Origen was the greatest teacher of the early church after the Apostles.

Origen - Biblical Exegesis, Apologetics, Theology

Origen - Biblical Exegesis, Apologetics, Theology: Origen’s experience as a teacher is reflected in his continual emphasis upon a scale of spiritual apprehension. Christianity to him was a ladder of divine ascent, and the beginner must learn to mount it with the saints in a never-ceasing...

www.britannica.com

See, TN, nothing to do with his belief that Genesis should be interpreted allegorically.

 

[ding]

And still no evidence from TN showing the Church believed that Genesis should be interpreted literally.

 

[TNHarley]

Poor Origen
in Dick-amp (op. cit., 66-141). (6) The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); an admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125 129);

 

[TNHarley]

And still no evidence from TN showing the Church believed that Genesis should be interpreted literally.

ding -"look TN, this one guy said to use algorithms"
tn- "Ding, he and his beliefs got condemned by the church"
ding -"ima derpy derp derp"
tn - "ay caramba"

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe ding will find someone who spoke of algorithms that didnt get condemned by the church

 

[ding]

Poor Origen
in Dick-amp (op. cit., 66-141). (6) The bishops certainly subscribed to the fifteen anathemas proposed by the emperor (ibid., 90-96); an admitted Origenist, Theodore of Scythopolis, was forced to retract (ibid., 125 129);

Still not about his view - or the Church's view - that Genesis should be interpreted allegorically.

Where is your evidence that the Church believed in a literal interpretation, TN?

 

[ding]

And still no evidence from TN showing the Church believed that Genesis should be interpreted literally.

ding -"look TN, this one guy said to use algorithms"
tn- "Ding, he and his beliefs got condemned by the church"
ding -"ima derpy derp derp"
tn - "ay caramba"

Not evidence the Church believed that Genesis should be interpreted literally as you have claimed. Where is your evidence, TN?