Talk:Typology (theology)

message: The article says The system was Christianised by Origen, but the Epistle of Barnabas takes a more allegorical approach than Origen and was a hundred years earlier.  The article also points to NT scriptures that indicate an alleogrical approach, so how can Origen be the one who brought it to Christianity?  69.3.11.157 08:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers, fairly clearly I think, to the Jewish Alexandrian system mentioned in the preceding sentence. By all means expand, with references, but be careful to keep it clear what is referencing what. All that bit comes from Male. Johnbod 14:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question: Origen?

message: The intro of the article takes the position that the purpose of typology was the synthesizing of "discontinuities" between the Old and the New Testament. It seems that this is incorrect, at least as far as the origin of typology is concerned. Christain typology has its beginnings in St. Paul, who wrote before the New Testament canon was fixed (or even completed), and therefore could not have noticed any such "discontinuity".  One could even say that Christian typology goes back to the teachings of Jesus himself—Cf. his reference to Jonah (, etc.). MishaPan (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro might be made less emphatic on this point, but "incorrect" is surely overstating matters. Paul's awareness of the issue of "discontinuity" is hardly dependent on a fixed written canon, as the quotation in the article demonstrates. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discontinuities?

message: I'll let you get on with it, but your first two paras, for one thing, seem clearly less accurate & useful than my last version. If they remain so they will not be there long. The passage from St Paul is certainly not the most "succinct" explanation of the fully developed theory; it is only really relevant to the reasons for the development of it. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Paul reference isn't mine -it was already in the article.  I rarely edit out if possible, but the organization is valid and chronological as to the examples (so far as I know).  As for the intro being "clearly less accurate", I must disagree.  The original opening failed to take into account those who view the Old Testament as history as well as allegory / foreshadowing v. those who believe it is merely allegory or foreshadowing and not at all literal.  Both may be typological theologians/scholars but they share far different views about the Bible.  That much clearly needs to be established in the opening of this article and if it can be done in a better way go for it.  That is what this process is all about.  But not all typologists disagree with a literal interpretation of the Bible and clearly some typologists do not believe in a literal reading.  The old intro did not account for this and engaged in far too many generalizations.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

text: St. Paul reference - I substituted an ESV translation.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And "The Old Testament was seen by some, in places, as either a literal account as  well as an allegory or a theological foreshadowing of the events of the New Testament, or merely non-literal, yet still an allegory or foreshadowing of the New Testament.  In particular Christian typology tends to seek answers as to how the events of the Old Testament relates to the events of Christ's life" has fewer generalizations?! Johnbod (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Some theologians: literal+allegorial or foreshadowing; some theologians: non-lieteral +allegorial or foreshadowing.  That is all it says.  Apart from that I am very happy with the changes being made.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: The article makes the following statement:  "The Showbread prepared in the Temple of Jerusalem is also seen as a type for Christ."  I am curious on if the person who wrote this can provide a reference.  Note that I agree with the statement and am not asking for it to be removed, but I have not seen the typology of showbread stated in this way before and would like to understand it.  Cheers, Domichael (talk) 02:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple google books search on the two terms produces a raft of references from various Christian points of view.  It would be nice if someone could select a suitable one to use as a reference in the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in the inanimate types section 

message: Should Atenism be mentioned? -- Error (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atenism