Atonement: Literal or Allegorical?

[Justice]

Much has been said in the forums lately about stories in the Bible being literal, or actual history, verses just stories used to teach principles and not actual events.

Many say the creation is just allegorical and not to be taken literal. There really weren't "days," and God really wasn't "speaking," and when He said "us" He only used it for context.

Many say the Fall is just allegorical and not to be taken literally. There really weren't actual trees with fruit, and Adam and Eve really didn't get kicked from a physical location.

The same applies to the global flood, the talking donkey, the virgin birth, and even to many miracles the Bible claims.

OK. Fair enough.

What about the Atonement of Christ?

Here is the most pivotal event that defines Christianity. Here the Son of God born of a mortal mother intercedes and atones for and in behalf of all who are born on earth. If any story in the Bible is outlandish, hard to swallow, and has very little if any evidence, this is it.

Did the Son of God REALLY atone for the sins of mankind? Was Jesus of Nazareth really crucified?

Allegory or real event?

Yes, I am trying to relate what we KNOW happened to some of the lesser important things. For instance, if we know the atonement happened, then we know the fall happened. If we know the fall happened, then we know the creation happened. If we know the creation happened (that God spoke and demonstrated power over the elements) then what else in the Bible may have been real?

I'm giving those who believe the Bible is strictly allegorical to voice their opinion based on this, the most important event in the Bible, and where the line may be drawn between reality and fiction.

[ozzy]

I for one don't believe the Bible to be completely allegorical, but I hope that doesn't remove my being allowed to add my two bits. :)

Personally I think that we must be very careful when we establish something as fiction with a point verses establishing it as history. The reason for this is that if we proceed to dumb down Gods miracles as 'inspirational stories,' we begin to remove our faith in his being capable of all things. If we don't believe him capable of all things then it would be hypocritical to believe that he can perform the most miraculous task... salvation for man.

I believe that the atonement happened literally. I believe that the creation, fall, flood, conception of Christ, and the parting of the red sea were all literal stories. I don't argue to know how God did it. For all I know each event was simply a word. Or he may have created via divinely controlled evolution, had a fruit that literally gave knowledge, flooded with a super tidal wave, conceived Christ in an inconceivable way, and parted the Sea by blowing on it. I have no idea. But I personally feel that to claim that none of these is true is akin to dumbing down Gods divinity, which I doubt he appreciates.

My ideas.

[HappyToBeMe]

yeah, what ozzy said.

[hordak]

This is why i said it must be easier to be into biblical literalism.

That being said i am not. However i don't know anyone who views the bible as complete allegory.

I think you have to look at each story individually. The atonement is diffidently one of the "oddest" (for lack of a better term ) when looking at the bible scientifically, but even for us in the allegorical crowd it isn't all about science.

The atonement is a free gift given by a loving God to his children. The world flood was the destruction of all for the failure to repent and follow the rules for some. Even with today's technology no Prophet can preach to all. Noah wouldn't have had the ability to preach to anyone more then a few miles away. And if everyone lived in the area, (man hadn't spread out yet) then it would only need to be a local flood.

Also one thing leading to another doesn't mean it happen as described. Literal atonement means fall, means creation, mean 6, 24 hour days.etc.

If it was that simple we should stick with the Geocentric model because as the bible states, the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.

[Moksha]

To me the atonement is literal, since it serves as a key element of my beliefs along with the teachings of Jesus.

Peripheral stories in sacred writings need to be taken on their own merit and with their own likelihood. Science has enabled us to see God's creation much clearer than more primitive ancients. Good for us because we are progressing in understanding the hand of God.

The flood story is an example of how a limited past event can be misunderstood in its scope but still remain mostly unaltered in its oral passage between cultures. The Tigress and Euphrates overflow their banks. It later gets retold into Epics such as the one of Gilgamesh. It is later told to and adopted into the proto-Hebrew culture but remains very much unchanged through the faithfulness of the oral telling.

For some these stories mean more if considered in a literal sense. For others, the symbolism of allegory is sufficient.

:)

[ozzy]

In a mild and somewhat mythical support of such biblical stories, there are many other cultures which share these stories in their mythologies. Greek mythology and some African mythology are the ones I have read, though I can't remember where as I was a sophomore in high school. That said, I don't know if these stories rose from alterations to stories the christian missionaries told or if they came before even that.

[Pianoman216]

I personally feel that we might as well just believe everything to be literal. If something is allegorical and we take it literally, no harm done. But, if something is literal and we take it allegorically then, as Ozzy said, we've basically denied the power of God and taken vast amounts of significance away from His miracles and wondrous works. So what if we happen to be right that a certain passage of scripture is figurative? We dont get a prize for being right. We might as well just go with the benefit of the doubt.

[Moksha]

I personally feel that we might as well just believe everything to be literal. If something is allegorical and we take it literally, no harm done. But, if something is literal and we take it allegorically then, as Ozzy said, we've basically denied the power of God and taken vast amounts of significance away from His miracles and wondrous works. So what if we happen to be right that a certain passage of scripture is figurative? We dont get a prize for being right. We might as well just go with the benefit of the doubt.

This idea (also known as Pascal's Wager) is predicated upon God not appreciating an understanding of allegorical symbolism as well as God not appreciating our progress in gaining a better understanding of his handiwork.

In the case of the flood, I have seen posters speculate that God made more water than what the Earth has, magically appear and disappear for the flood story. Yet these same posters elsewhere insist that God serves the laws of the Universe and is bound to them and cannot make matter appear out of nothing. Would God really appreciate the twists and turns necessary to make such stories possible or would he be disappointed that we could not exert enough reasoning to see the impossiblity of this tale?

Edited January 11, 2010 by Moksha

[phatbac]

I believe that all of the bible is real and has real meaning but some of it is in fact allegorical. not just inspirational stories but inspired stories to teach us many things. there are things however after careful study and prayer that i do not find the allegorical and that includes the atonement and the virgin birth. I believe that Jesus is the Christ born to an earthly mother and a heavenly Father and that he did suffer for us all individually. having said that i believe some of the parts of the bible is expalined the best that man can understand but does not necessarily give us as men and women detailed explaination of what or how they happened.

As far as the miracles in the new testement performed by Jesus Christ I was instructed that this was Jesus using the Holy Priesthood to enact a higher law of the universe instead of a lower law of the universe. The example i was given was that the law of gravity as a law of the universe and if you use the law of areodynamics you can deny the law of gravity and fly. (which for man was for a very long time thought of as a miracle.) Jesus being perfect in his knowledge and in his priesthood was able to use higher laws of the universe to deny lower laws of the universe to perform his miracles using the priesthood.

Edited January 11, 2010 by phatbac
poor typing

[hordak]

I personally feel that we might as well just believe everything to be literal. If something is allegorical and we take it literally, no harm done.

Galileo spent the rest of his life under house arrest for taking the unmoving earth to be allegorical, and suggesting the heresy that the earth goes around the sun.

Maybe it would of been better for him to take it literal but not for us. The JWs can boot you from the church if you get a blood transfusion,.

The will refuse it because they take

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

to be literal. So yes taking it literally can cause harm.

[Justice]

In the case of the flood, I have seen posters speculate that God made more water than what the Earth has, magically appear and disappear for the flood story. Yet these same posters elsewhere insist that God serves the laws of the Universe and is bound to them and cannot make matter appear out of nothing. Would God really appreciate the twists and turns necessary to make such stories possible or would he be disappointed that we could not exert enough reasoning to see the impossiblity of this tale?

Well, there's the stories where Christ fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. There is no doubt He demonstrated the ability to multiply elements. In the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi, the second time Christ administered the sacrament to the people, it says they brought Him no bread or wine, yet all the multitude did truly eat and were filled.

However, as far as the flood, the Bible gives us a clue that a great portion of the water may have come from underground, where it existed all along already.

There are so many possibilities without having to reduce the stories to something allegorical to make them believable. It's not about whether or not God CAN perform miracles such as flooding the entire earth, globally covering even the mountains, it's about how much do we believe our "eyes" (or science) when they try to tell us something is impossible.

[hordak]

Well, there's the stories where Christ fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. There is no doubt He demonstrated the ability to multiply elements. In the Book of Mormon, in 3 Nephi, the second time Christ administered the sacrament to the people, it says they brought Him no bread or wine, yet all the multitude did truly eat and were filled.

.

Since we are playing the allegorical game does it say how much each person ate?

I have know many who have bared testimony of paying tithing first who "had enough". Even i myself have been blessed by paying but that doesn't mean my money multiplied, most the time it means the money went further. When we "feast on the body of Christ" (represented by bread that one loaf seems to go a long way.

just saying:smokindevil:

[Prodigal_Son]

Hmmm... I must be missing all the good threads, because I haven't caught any of the claims for allegory. I've heard them before, though.

It's sad.

Unless a prophet of God announces a passage as allegorical, I don't know how anyone could claim such a stance...

[TruthSeekerToo]

I'm gonna vote symbolic. I'm pretty sure the historical Jesus was crucified. However, I don't think he planned to come here to atone for our sins by blood sacrifice.

I don't think God needs blood to forgive people.

[HiJolly]

I'm gonna vote symbolic. I'm pretty sure the historical Jesus was crucified. However, I don't think he planned to come here to atone for our sins by blood sacrifice.

I don't think God needs blood to forgive people.

Well, not anymore, anyways.... :)

HiJolly

ps. I'm split - I think some is allegory, some is literal, and almost everything has a symbolic component. A lot like Jesus' parables.

[Pianoman216]

I'm gonna vote symbolic. I'm pretty sure the historical Jesus was crucified. However, I don't think he planned to come here to atone for our sins by blood sacrifice.

I don't think God needs blood to forgive people.

In the pre-existence Jehovah volunteered himself to be the savior of the world according the Plan of Salvation which God created. The role as the Savior must have specifically included the sacrifice that was to be made as God already knew exactly what was going to happen.

As far as God needing blood to forgive us. You could say He personally has the ability forgive all of us and He does because He loves us. However, dwelling in His presence for eternity (part of Eternal Life and salvation) requires us to be clean and free of sin. God cannot just declare someone clean because that would betray the law of complete free agency. God is merciful, but He absolutely cannot go against the laws of justice or else he would cease to be God. God must always be just, but through Christs LITERAL atonement and payment for our sins He can offer mercy to us. This price MUST be paid. A real and literal sacrifice HAD to be made or there would be no possible chance of our salvation. See Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p. 122-126. Theres to much there to quote here, but he makes some excellent points on the matter and, as a prophet of God, his words carry quite a bit weight. There are also countless other talks and articles from various general authorities on the matter, probably more than any other subject.

Well, not anymore, anyways.... :)

HiJolly

ps. I'm split - I think some is allegory, some is literal, and almost everything has a symbolic component. A lot like Jesus' parables.

I definitely agree with this. I think many sections of scripture may be allegorical, but whether it is or isn't there is almost ALWAYS symbolism involved. Jesus's parables were used specifically because they were applicable to the people at the time and could very well be real events, but were not told to teach what a certain person literally did, but rather about a deeper, more spiritual concept that would only be received by those in tune with the spirit enough to understand. In his book, Jesus the Christ, James E. Talmage says, "There is plainly shown an element of mercy in the parabolic mode of instruction adopted by our Lord under the conditions prevailing at the time. Had He always taught in explicit declaration, such as required no interpretation, many among His hearers would have come under condemnation, inasmuch as they were to weak in faith and unprepared in heart to break the bonds of traditionalism and the prejudice engendered by sin, so as to accept and obey the saving word. Their inability to comprehend the requirements of the gospel would in righteous measure give mercy some claim upon them, while had they rejected the truth with full understanding, stern justice would surely demand their condemnation."

Perhaps the allegories and symbolism contained throughout the rest of the scriptures are similar in effect. I think we can all agree that, whether the stories are factual and literal or strictly symbolic, the meanings remain entirely unchanged. So, though it causes great (and definitely not bad) discussion, it really doesn't matter either way, being literal or allegorical. Saying otherwise would be like saying the meaning of Christs parables would be different if the stories in question were factual as apposed to fictional.

However, we must never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of believing something must be allegorical because it just cant be possible according to the limited science we think we know and understand...THAT is denying the power of God and is very different than just thinking its a story for our learning. Though we may speculate as to whether God did or didn't actually do some miracle we should NEVER question whether or not He COULD actually do it. Just because something cannot be explained by our temporal "laws" (that mortal men have theorized and named) does not mean that its impossible according the vastly superior laws God understands.

[bmy-]

Unless a prophet of God announces a passage as allegorical, I don't know how anyone could claim such a stance...

Really? Have you ever seen a talking donkey? Surely you do not take ever passage (non-parables) literally.. for example..

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."

"Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

So let me ask -- do you own a sword?

Edited January 12, 2010 by bmy-

[Pianoman216]

Really? Have you ever seen a talking donkey? Surely you do not take ever passage (non-parables) literally.. for example..

"If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away."

"Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

So let me ask -- do you own a sword?

I am under the impression that this discussion is more concerning the miraculous stories in the scriptures than the Levitical laws. Even so, we live in a different time then when the Bible was written and we need different laws and covenants to guide us. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law of Moses (that of sacrifice and justice) and replaced it with the higher law (of selflessness and mercy). There have been a few posts referring specifically to certain Levitical laws (such as the one above). These laws were in fact VERY literal in old testament times when the law of Moses was still in effect. If one were to steal something (i.e. their hand causing them to sin), by law they were literally required to cut off their hands. So, though its not applicable in todays time and society it was absolutely intended to be literal.

And concerning the talking donkey: why couldn't it happen? Its one thing to say that you don't believe it did in fact happen, but to say it simply cannot happen (which is the impression I got from your post) is something else entirely. See my previous post for my detailed opinion on the subject.

[hordak]

I am under the impression that this discussion is more concerning the miraculous stories in the scriptures than the Levitical laws. Even so, we live in a different time then when the Bible was written and we need different laws and covenants to guide us. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law of Moses (that of sacrifice and justice) and replaced it with the higher law (of selflessness and mercy). There have been a few posts referring specifically to certain Levitical laws (such as the one above). These laws were in fact VERY literal in old testament times when the law of Moses was still in effect. If one were to steal something (i.e. their hand causing them to sin), by law they were literally required to cut off their hands. So, though its not applicable in todays time and society it was absolutely intended to be literal.

And concerning the talking donkey: why couldn't it happen? Its one thing to say that you don't believe it did in fact happen, but to say it simply cannot happen (which is the impression I got from your post) is something else entirely. See my previous post for my detailed opinion on the subject.

That's not OT. That's from a sermon given by Jesus himself.

[pam]

Hordak are you are referring to the talking donkey when you say it's not in the OT? Just so I understand.

[Justice]

Very good discussion, and very good points made.

My reason for specifically mentioning the atonement is to put it above any other single event that happened in the scriptures.

I'm heading toward "if the atonement was real, then what's so hard to believe about this or that?"

Before I could do that I needed to see if there were any who believed the atonement was allegorical and didn't actually happen. I was very doubtful that any member of the Church would take that stance.

It's hard to tell, but I think we have some? Be specific.

[Prodigal_Son]

Really? Have you ever seen a talking donkey? Surely you do not take ever passage (non-parables) literally.. for example..

Aside from Shrek, no. I've also never seen water turned to wine, a blind man instantly healed, walking on water, etc. I have enough faith to believe that God can do all things - just like He said.

You're apples and oranges here. I am referencing events chronicled. Not spoken word and admonishments from prophets/the Savior.

Who are YOU to limit what God can do and HOW He goes about doing it?

I suppose you think Job is just a neat story, too? A great teaching lesson?

[hordak]

Aside from Shrek, no. I've also never seen water turned to wine, a blind man instantly healed, walking on water, etc. I have enough faith to believe that God can do all things - just like He said.

You're apples and oranges here. I am referencing events chronicled. Not spoken word and admonishments from prophets/the Savior.

Who are YOU to limit what God can do and HOW He goes about doing it?

I suppose you think Job is just a neat story, too? A great teaching lesson?

Job, the story where God give Satan power over jobs life, allows Satan to torturer and destroy his world to win a bet. I think killing Jobs kids is not what a all loving God would do.

So yes it is a "neat" story in my book.

It's not about limiting what God can do but the limits of mans understanding, and the unlimited imagination he has.

It wasn't Prophets, or Preachers who taught us the earth moves around the sun, but scientist. Scientist charged with heresy.

Could God make the world "steadfast and unmoving".? No, not if he follows the laws of physics.Did he? No, but men taking the Bible too literal thought so.

[TruthSeekerToo]

Very good discussion, and very good points made.

My reason for specifically mentioning the atonement is to put it above any other single event that happened in the scriptures.

I'm heading toward "if the atonement was real, then what's so hard to believe about this or that?"

Before I could do that I needed to see if there were any who believed the atonement was allegorical and didn't actually happen. I was very doubtful that any member of the Church would take that stance.

It's hard to tell, but I think we have some? Be specific.

Yes, there are members of the church who do not believe God required a blood atonement or blood sacrifice. I am one and I know of others in the online community.

I think there are many layers to the meaning of Christ and Godhood and all the stories surrounding them. And they mean different things to us at different times in our lives.

I believe God is better than us. He doesn't kill or require killing. Humans do.

Part of the evolution of humanity took us from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to the sacrifice of Jesus which allowed us to evolve beyond blood sacrifice.

Humans evolve. Maybe God does to. Or he is the same yesterday, today and forever which leads me to believe he never did want blood.

I have a much easier time accepting the blood atonement of Christ with him as my Father. It makes more sense to me that way. I can relate that to how a mother goes through the valley of the shadow of death to bring us into this physical world. The symbolism is beautiful, in a way.

I cannot believe that God the Father asked us all to condemn to death our Godly brother in order for us to live with him again. Shouldn't I want to spare my beloved brother from pain and suffering caused by me? No greater love is there than to lay down your life for a friend. Shouldn't I have that kind of love?

Christ redeems us through life not blood. Think about it. He who bathes in Christ's blood will be left with his blood on their hands. How can blood ever make us clean?

Christ teaches us how to conquer death. I love the symbolism of baptism where we die to sin and are spiritually born. We take up the cross and take up the name of Christ.

Anyway, I could go on and on. The symbolism is rich and glorious and where I find meaning.

[Pianoman216]

I think he's referring to the cutting off of the hands thing. And yes, it was a Levitical law in the Old Testament. Jesus quoted or otherwise referred to such laws countless times and was a perfect follower of them. He didn't fulfill the law of Moses until the atonement was made so at the time He spoke those words the law of Moses was still in affect.