Why did the Trinity ask people to kill their friends and brothers?

[Protoevangel]

I was just reading the Philocalia of Origen today that was put together by Sts Basil and Gregory Nazianzus. I think it relates well to our discussion here.

The Philocalia of Origen (1911) pp. 1-237. English translation

Since school started again on Monday, I don't have the time to read this through now. Do you have a chapter or two that are particularly topical? Or can you provide a summary?

I do have to admit a bit of skepticism over anything of Origen, as I am over any anathematized teacher. but I am interested in what this may say, nonetheless.

 

[Christos Anesti]

These quotes from Origen were compiled by St Gregory the Theologian and St Basil though so I'm sure they didn't consider these specific statements heretical. They compiled them percisly because they found them useful. In fact it seems as bibilcal exeget (as opposed to speculative theologian) Origen was well respected by a very large number of Fathers . I was just reading how large portions of St Amborses Biblical commentaries are actually paraphrases and many times word for word quotes from Origens Biblical commentaries for example.

I have to pick my son up from school though so I will write more latter.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Ok I'm back now. Had to leave the computer for a while ::gasp::.

The Philocalia focuses a lot on the nature of scripture and the various manners of interpreting it. It shows how various stories of the Old Testament are figures and symbols pointing to Christ and the Church. That in general there are three meanings of scripture.

1. The literal (or body) which includes both actual history and fictitious history invented by the Holy Spirit to convey moral and mystical truths which earthly things couldn't properly typify.

2. Moral ( or soul) .

3. Mystical (or spirit) which includes Allegory or the prefigurment of Christ and the Church, and Anagoge which typifies things of a higher world in which everything in this earth has its antitype.

He notes that not all verses have corporal meaning or should be understood according the corporal interpretation however:

"But inasmuch as some Scriptures have not the "corporeal," 52 as we shall presently show, in such cases we must seek only the "soul" and the "spirit." "

 

[Protoevangel]

Ok I'm back now. Had to leave the computer for a while ::gasp::.

The Philocalia focuses a lot on the nature of scripture and the various manners of interpreting it. It shows how various stories of the Old Testament are figures and symbols pointing to Christ and the Church. That in general there are three meanings of scripture.

1. The literal (or body) which includes both actual history and fictitious history invented by the Holy Spirit to convey moral and mystical truths which earthly things couldn't properly typify.

2. Moral ( or soul) .

3. Mystical (or spirit) which includes Allegory or the prefigurment of Christ and the Church, and Anagoge which typifies things of a higher world in which everything in this earth has its antitype.

He notes that not all verses have corporal meaning or should be understood according the corporal interpretation however:

"But inasmuch as some Scriptures have not the "corporeal," 52 as we shall presently show, in such cases we must seek only the "soul" and the "spirit." "

OK, yea, this is a division that I am aware of. I have spoken about it before, and even alluded to it in this thread, if I remember correctly. I usually speak about the historical/literal and the spiritual/allegorical, as these are the meanings that people on one side or the other of the liberal/conservative divide like to oppose; the moral meaning is one that both sides can usually concede to. There is no opposition between the true historical aspect of Holy Scripture, and the true allegorical interpretation of Holy Scripture. It is not either/or, it is both/and.

It is also true, that sometimes, we have no real lessons to learn from the literal. It is indeed wisest to focus on how the passage typifies Christ. But when it comes to a passage like this, it is pure foolishness to simply deny the historical existed. We simply know too much about the history, and of human nature to say that this could have had no basis in history.

Focus and learn from the allegory in this passage. The historical has little for us today. But if you simply deny the historical, you run the risk of alienating those people who take Holy Scripture seriously, but are not versed in allegory.

Throughout most of the book of Joshua, we have Israel wiping whole cities and whole kingdoms off the map, killing man woman and child... At God's direct command. Yes, there is allegory and wisdom and types of Christ throughout the whole of the book, and therein is the true treasure of the book. But are you going to say that it had no basis in history? I really hope you aren't going to go where only the wackiest of the ultra-liberal protestants dare to tread.

We do not have to reject the historicity to focus on the spiritual truth. We do not have to reject the historicity just because it is hard for us to reconcile with our self-conceived image of a loving God... That would be idolatry as much as carving our own god to worship.