2 Peter 3:8: should the verse be taken as "literal" or "metaphoric"?

[Shiranui117]

That is the reason, the Christians differ about interpretations, as I have shown even within Catholism, Christians differ with regards to interpretation of many verses.

The difference is, many Catholics who disagree with each other often boils down to some Catholics adhering to the teaching of their Church, and other Catholics dissenting.

And as I said before, the cases of Protestant denominations disagreeing is because they don't have the Tradition, and choose to let their own personal opinions trump everything else.

If you read about Augustine, you see, his view gradually changed from literalism, to allegorical interpretation of genesis, until finally when he wrote his book titled 'final confession' he thanked God, that He finally guided Him, and showed Him the Truth.

Some biographical context in order. Augustine's work Confessions was an autobiographical work, chronicling his search for the Truth--from rejecting the Bible and Christianity because of the Old Testament, he went and basically became a Manichaean, ridiculing the Bible and Genesis every chance he got; the Manichaeans considered the Bible too crude, too barbaric to even be considered worth reading when compared to the lofty and profound writings of the classical philosophers. Augustine's philosophical training helped him in tearing the Bible apart.

After spending years as a Manichaean and never finding spiritual fulfillment, never receiving the enlightenment that the Manichaean faith promised, he went and became a spiritual drifter again. He fathered a child with a mistress. One time, he went to Milan and heard St. Ambrose preaching, explaining and defending the literal truth of the Old Testament (and the rest of the Bible) in ways that Augustine had never even conceived of. Being convinced of the truth of the Christian faith through the preaching of St. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine was baptized, and immediately sought to defend the Bible he had once so virulently condemned. More than anything, he had to defend the literal truth of the Bible from his formal Manichaean cohorts. This is the period he spent defending the literal meaning of the Old Testament.

Once he had sufficiently defended the literal meaning of the Old Testament, he was then able to turn his attention to the additional allegorical interpretation of the Bible--this was not a denial of the literal interpretation, but acknowledging that there are additional layers of meaning, without any layer being false.

Augustine's thanking God for showing him the Truth was not Augustine thanking God for showing him the allegorical meaning of the Old Testament. It was Augustine thanking God for showing him the true Faith, Christianity.

Another example is Jesus Himself said in chapter of John such words: "I was speaking Figuratively, the time is coming when I shall speak plainly"
Augustine said that, this verse means when Christ returns, He shall speak plainly about God, and reveal those things He used to speak Figuratively.

Got an exact quote, exact citation (i.e. work title, book/epistle and chapter/verse) and link?

With regards to other traditions than New Testament, those are the writings of Saints, Christian leaders and scholars, it is obvious, these traditions are not guaranteed to be infallible, or scriptures that are inspired by God. As the interpretations of Saints differ from each other and the opinions of scholars differ from each other, and Christians may prefer interpretations of a particular saint over another, or interpretations of a particular scholar over another.

Now do all Catholics or Orthodox agree on the interpretation of this verse with Augustine? I have seen they say differently. Does it mean Augustine was wrong or others are wrong?

They may have different takes on the things that Augustine does, especially when it comes to drawing out allegorical meanings. But these meanings do not necessarily contradict; they compliment each other, and show the depth of the Bible. As long as the Fathers don't differ on major articles of the Faith, such as the Trinity, Jesus being both God and man, the nature of our salvation, the nature of the Church and the Sacraments, etc. there's no problem. Of course each is going to have a slightly different take on certain parts of the Bible, and some will emphasize certain aspects that others don't. In some cases, we might need to separate the wheat from the chaff where one Father makes a small slip-up in this or that area. But overall, taking what the Fathers have a consensus on, and what complimentary views each of the Fathers have, these diverse opinions form a coherent, consistent whole.

My friend, to say Christianity have traditions that we can refer to and see the interpretations of verses of Bible with absolute certainty and infallibility is not true in my opinion. Firstly the Traditions in New Testament are subject to interpretations. The apostles did not write a detail interpretation of Bible, and it is not like Paul or other apostles are alive today so that Christians can go and ask them, what they meant when they said this verse, or that verse. Did they mean literal, did they mean allegorical, symbolic...etc. That is why Christians uses their own judgement and opinions to say which is literal, and which is not, and of course most often they disagree, even within the same denomination, as I will show below some examples.

A Christian cannot claim 'I am right, you are wrong' with proof, because as I said, Apostles did not write a detail interpretations, neither they are alive today so you can ask them what they meant, or what Jesus meant, when He said this or that. Therefore all can be done is continuing arguing and debating, as Christian denominations, and sub-denominations, and sub-sub-denominations have been doing for centuries.

Wrong. The Apostles may not have sat down and written out what they meant when they wrote the Scriptures--but they passed these things on orally to their students and their congregations. You can ask the students of the Apostles what their teachers personally taught them--people like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, etc. The Apostolic Tradition, as I have said, is a succession of teaching, passed from teacher to student, parent to child, over the course of history, tracing its source to the Apostles. We are not in the dark as to what the Faith of the Apostles is. We have but to look at the living Tradition of the Church.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The difference is, many Catholics who disagree with each other often boils down to some Catholics adhering to the teaching of their Church, and other Catholics dissenting.

And as I said before, the cases of Protestant denominations disagreeing is because they don't have the Tradition, and choose to let their own personal opinions trump everything else.


Some biographical context in order. Augustine's work Confessions was an autobiographical work, chronicling his search for the Truth--from rejecting the Bible and Christianity because of the Old Testament, he went and basically became a Manichaean, ridiculing the Bible and Genesis every chance he got; the Manichaeans considered the Bible too crude, too barbaric to even be considered worth reading when compared to the lofty and profound writings of the classical philosophers. Augustine's philosophical training helped him in tearing the Bible apart.

After spending years as a Manichaean and never finding spiritual fulfillment, never receiving the enlightenment that the Manichaean faith promised, he went and became a spiritual drifter again. He fathered a child with a mistress. One time, he went to Milan and heard St. Ambrose preaching, explaining and defending the literal truth of the Old Testament (and the rest of the Bible) in ways that Augustine had never even conceived of. Being convinced of the truth of the Christian faith through the preaching of St. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine was baptized, and immediately sought to defend the Bible he had once so virulently condemned. More than anything, he had to defend the literal truth of the Bible from his formal Manichaean cohorts. This is the period he spent defending the literal meaning of the Old Testament.

Once he had sufficiently defended the literal meaning of the Old Testament, he was then able to turn his attention to the additional allegorical interpretation of the Bible--this was not a denial of the literal interpretation, but acknowledging that there are additional layers of meaning, without any layer being false.

Augustine's thanking God for showing him the Truth was not Augustine thanking God for showing him the allegorical meaning of the Old Testament. It was Augustine thanking God for showing him the true Faith, Christianity.

[/font][/color] Got an exact quote, exact citation (i.e. work title, book/epistle and chapter/verse) and link?

They may have different takes on the things that Augustine does, especially when it comes to drawing out allegorical meanings. But these meanings do not necessarily contradict; they compliment each other, and show the depth of the Bible. As long as the Fathers don't differ on major articles of the Faith, such as the Trinity, Jesus being both God and man, the nature of our salvation, the nature of the Church and the Sacraments, etc. there's no problem. Of course each is going to have a slightly different take on certain parts of the Bible, and some will emphasize certain aspects that others don't. In some cases, we might need to separate the wheat from the chaff where one Father makes a small slip-up in this or that area. But overall, taking what the Fathers have a consensus on, and what complimentary views each of the Fathers have, these diverse opinions form a coherent, consistent whole.

Wrong. The Apostles may not have sat down and written out what they meant when they wrote the Scriptures--but they passed these things on orally to their students and their congregations. You can ask the students of the Apostles what their teachers personally taught them--people like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, etc. The Apostolic Tradition, as I have said, is a succession of teaching, passed from teacher to student, parent to child, over the course of history, tracing its source to the Apostles. We are not in the dark as to what the Faith of the Apostles is. We have but to look at the living Tradition of the Church.

It is important to know, 'how and why' Christian church became divided. This Figure from Wikipedia is a good way to investigate the matter:

In early Christianity a schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of Christendom occurred in the 5th century. The Oriental Orthodox Churches and the rest of the Church split over differences in Christological terminology.

Then we see the great Schism resulting in separation into two major denominations, western and easter in 11th Century. The Filioque("(and (from) the Son") has been an ongoing source of conflict between the East and West, contributing, in part, to the East–West Schism of 1054 and proving to be an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.

So as we see, these schism happend because of differences in interpretation of NT with regards to the nature of Jesus and holy spirit, because each group understood the Bible differently. So if there are clear Traditions that explains all the details and are considered infallible, those early Christians had no problem or difference to make such great seperation from each other. Now, to this day, still these differences exists among Christians.

Christian denomination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




"In his explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, Augustine pointed out that Jesus spoke in similitudes and would later reveal the Father more plainly"

the saying of Augustine is based on John 16:25

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."


Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (St. Augustine)

 

[Shiranui117]

It is important to know, 'how and why' Christian church became divided. This Figure from Wikipedia is a good way to investigate the matter:

In early Christianity a schism between the Oriental Orthodox and the rest of Christendom occurred in the 5th century. The Oriental Orthodox Churches and the rest of the Church split over differences in Christological terminology.

I already covered this issue in post 23. While semantic differences between the EO and the OO (caused primarily by the OO's reliance on Syriac and the EO reliance on Greek, causing confusion regarding terminology and nuance) did contribute to the schism, it's largely agreed today by hierarchs and laity of both Churches that we Eastern and Oriental Orthodox both share the same Faith about Who Christ is, even if there are slight differences in nuance and emphasis--the question was, is Christ IN two natures, or OF two natures? As you can imagine, the two solutions to that answer are different only in semantics.

Rather, a larger cause for division in the split between the two churches had to do with political and cultural differences, rather than actual differences in Faith.

Then we see the great Schism resulting in separation into two major denominations, western and easter in 11th Century. The Filioque("(and (from) the Son") has been an ongoing source of conflict between the East and West, contributing, in part, to the East–West Schism of 1054 and proving to be an obstacle to attempts to reunify the two sides.

The Filioque clause is only a side-issue in the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics. In fact, the two sides issued an agreed statement on the Filioque. See this link: The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement tl;dr, both Catholic and Orthodox concluded that the Filioque is not, ultimately, a Church-dividing issue, and is easily resolved.

Rather, the main problem between East and West is the role of the Papacy within the Church. As a man who's wandered between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for years, I know the ins and outs of the schism, and the apologetics and source texts used by both sides to bolster their claims. I've started from scratch several times over in evaluating the differences between both sides, reading academic books and well-known, respectable authors on the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. And each time, it's been made clear to me that the only real obstacle between East and West is the role of the Papacy. Everything else, even the Filioque, can be easily resolved. At the heart of the Schism between East and West is a political issue, not a difference in the Faith. It's often dressed up as more of a theological issue (especially since the Catholic Church made the role of the Papacy a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870), but even Catholics will tell you that the statements at Vatican 1 and 2 can be nuanced and restated in terms more agreeable to the Orthodox--even Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) said that the Orthodox cannot be expected to accept a more powerful Papacy than that which existed during the First Millennium.

So as we see, these schism happend because of differences in interpretation of NT with regards to the nature of Jesus and holy spirit, because each group understood the Bible differently.

Not at all. You'd know this if you were familiar with the history and theology of the Early Church, and that of the three communions you attempt to describe.

So if there are clear Traditions that explains all the details and are considered infallible, those early Christians had no problem or difference to make such great seperation from each other. Now, to this day, still these differences exists among Christians.

It's not even a difference of Tradition. Even after 1500 years of ecclesial separation, the Oriental Orthodox are almost exactly the same as the Eastern Orthodox in terms of life and faith. Even though we honor different Saints (post-schism), and even though different historical circumstances affected each, we are still so close to one another. If you've been in the Christianity DIR, you'll note that both EO and OO are included under the "Orthodox Christianity DIR", and each have their own subforum within a subforum. This testifies to just how closely linked the two Churches are to one another.

"In his explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, Augustine pointed out that Jesus spoke in similitudes and would later reveal the Father more plainly"

the saying of Augustine is based on John 16:25

"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father."


Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (St. Augustine)

If you would have read that snippet of Augustine's within context, you would have seen that it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

From Wiki:

In Christian tradition the Trinity is a mystery of faith revealed in scripture, historically being deemed unknowable by unaided human reason and not capable of logical demonstration once revealed, being above reason without being incompatible with the principles of rational thought.[60] Many theological explanations thus tend to lack or avoid a logical or philosophical foundation. In his explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, Augustine pointed out that Jesus spoke in similitudes and would later reveal the Father more plainly.[61] Despite his lengthy exposition to explain the Trinity in light of scripture, Augustine states that an explanation is beyond human language, and that the definition of the Trinity as three persons is but a similitude needed in order to express it.[62] Augustine concludes that one must believe before one understands, and that the Trinity must remain unknown.[63] After this conclusion Augustine then attempted to describe analogies of the Trinity in love itself and in the mind of man.
​

And reading the chapter in question from Augustine's On the Trinity, he clearly cites John 16:25 in the context of explaining the Trinity--Jesus conveys the Trinity in hints, because human language cannot allow for the full revelation of God. But when Jesus returns at the end of time, every man shall see God clearly for Who He is.

 

[2ndpillar]

From Wikipedia …

​

Whether any particular verse was intended as metaphor or literal fact is, perhaps, an interesting topic for speculation. But a more fundamental question might be: Why should anything asserted as literal fact by the author of 2 Peter be presumed to be true simply by virtue of that assertion?

The epistle of 2 Peter is generally thought not to be written by Peter:
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] [4] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[5] Second Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for relying on Peter, his track history is not good. He tells Yeshua he will never deny him, yet denies knowing him 3 times. Yeshua tells Peter that Peter is a STUMBLING BLOCK (Ez 14), and Satan.(Mt 16:23) He asks Peter to tend his sheep 3 times, yet according to "church" tradition, Peter left going to the "lost sheep of Israel" (Mt 10:6), and went to the "Gentiles". (Acts 15:7)
As for Peter's supposed heir, the pope, he sets himself up as "Christ on Earth", which is the "anointed one", and gives himself papal infallibility, whereas he speaks for God. Ez 14:3 "stumbling block" Ez 14:8, "I shall cut him off from among My people". This in parallel with Ze 11:17, where Peter parallels the "shepherd" who did not "tend" the sheep, and is referred to as "Woe to the worthless shepherd who leaves the flock". This also parallels Is 22, whereas the holders of the keys of David, which the pope claims to hold, would be cut off. (Is 22:25) No, I don't think relying on Peter or one of his disciples, who may have written 2 Peter, is a good idea.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Psalm 50:10 (NIV)

for every animal of the forest is mine,
and the cattle on a thousand hills.

If this is also taken literally, then the cattle on the thousand and one hill and so forth does not belong to God.

 

[Benoni]

In another thread - How did Jesus break the Sabbath by healing? - Ken Brown and I were sidetracking the topic, so I thought I would start a new topic on the subject.*

As I understand it, some Christians take Peter's verse quite literally:

For the sake of comparison, I have included second translation below, from KJV:

Should the verse be taken "literally" as some Christians do?
Or is the verse meant to be taken as metaphor?
​

To me, it is only meant to be symbolic or metaphoric because the verse uses the word "like" or "as" (depending on the translation you are reading). Both of these words are commonly used in SIMILE.

Here are couple of definitions to "simile":



The verse say "that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.": it doesn't say - "that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years are one day."

If the verse left out "like" after "is" or "are", then I would agree it should be read literally. But it is not. The verse uses "is like" or "are like", therefore they should be treated like similes.

What do you think?

Neither... should be taken spiritually.